Need Atom bomb input…

@Imperious:

OK.

you also need an effect that effects Victory directly. Makes it harder to win if the enemy has this weapon. VC is the deciding factor for wining or losing the game, not losing a Major and going to a Minor which means you can place 3 units after paying 6 IPC. The effects of this weapon destroy the resolve to carry on the war. It effects the national morale in that they see the enemy has a great advantage of destroying entire cities and killing 100,000 people in seconds. It is a Sword of Damocles that cannot be overcome. The resolve of the nation sinks as does the entire war effort.

Just have it effect Victory conditions, not freaking rolling for destroying countless armies in a giant area when the effects would be of a small area. You drop a bomb on Germany and it has 12 infantry, 4 tanks, 3 artillery, and countless other units. Even if targeted against an armor division, you might take it out but to assume all these other units are stuck in the same 5 x 5 mile area is silly.

For once, I agree with IL that simple is better here. Just make it permanently add a VC, and maybe do max damage to the IC. Being a able to permanently take control of a VC without even going through the ordeal of invading and holding the tt is a huge advantage, and it accurately depicts what the US was trying to do with their atom bomb.

@Yavid:

@Der:

I think you should not be able to combine a nuclear attack with a conventional, as all combat in AA is considered to be simultaneous, you are not going to be running your infantry into a mushroom cloud. ANY movement into the zone should have be on the next turn after the initial cloud clears.

At the time they had no idea that running there infantry into mushroom clouds was a bad idea. I even read a top ranking American general wanted to Nuke the beaches so to ease the landings.

I looked it up last night it was United States Army Chief of Staff General Marshal that had that idea. And holy crap that’s a long title he earned for himself

@Yavid:

I looked it up last night it was United States Army Chief of Staff General Marshal that had that idea. And holy crap that’s a long title he earned for himself

When the US got into (or was about to get into) WWII and decided that it needed a 5-star rank (so that the top US military officers could relate as equals to Field Marshalls and other 5-star officers in Allied countries), George Marshall allegedly recommended that the term “General of the Army” be used rather than “Field Marshall” because he didn’t want to end up being called “Marshall Marshall”.

@rjpeters70:

When Harry Truman went to Potsdam, he took a buddy from Missouri with him, a Deputy Marshall.  He introduced him to the Bolsheviks as “Marshall” so-and-so, and they treated him like a king, thinking he was the equivalent of one of their Marshalls.  Truman and the Missouri Mafia had a great laugh over that one.

Yeah I’ve heard that story too. Still makes me laugh

Here’s another amusing anecdote about Marshalls.  Not long after he’d been promoted to the rank of Field Marshall, Montgomery was in a military car being driven through the British countryside to an appointment of some sort.  He noticed a little boy walking along the side of the road, told his driver to stop and offered to give the boy a lift.  After the boy got in and the car got underway, Monty asked the boy if he knew who he was.  The boy said no.  Monty (whose ego was rather large) said, “Let me give you a hint… I’m a Field Marshall.”  The little boy said, “My father works in the field too – he’s a farmer.”  The boy then asked the rather deflated Montgomery, “What does a Field Marshall do?” Monty answered, “Well, I kill people.”  The astonished boy said, “Do you really?”  “Yes,” said Montgomery."  “How many people have you killed?”  asked the boy.  “Oh, thousands,” Monty said cheerfully.  The little boy said, “Oh.”  Then after a moment he added, “May I please get out now?”

Lol nice one Marc!

How about this? Just go back to the old MB heavy bomber tech and strategic bombing. 3d6@4 all hits tallied. Nukes cause unlimited IPCs or IC damage on targets. Bombers are subject to all OOB rules otherwise.

This gives the power of a war ending weapon but still gives some potential for a defending nation to resist it at the same time.

What do the posters think?

BTW Der Kuenstler: CONGRATS!!! on receiving your well-deserved “Customizer” badge my friend!

How about this? Just go back to the old MB heavy bomber tech and strategic bombing. 3d6@4 all hits tallied. Nukes cause unlimited IPCs or IC damage on targets. Bombers are subject to all OOB rules otherwise.

That rule broke that game, lets not use it to break another. When somebody got heavies everybody just bought tech in an effort to equalize. The weapon saps the nations resolve to fight so try to make rules that effect it in a similar manner.

@Imperious:

How about this? Just go back to the old MB heavy bomber tech and strategic bombing. 3d6@4 all hits tallied. Nukes cause unlimited IPCs or IC damage on targets. Bombers are subject to all OOB rules otherwise.

That rule broke that game, lets not use it to break another. When somebody got heavies everybody just bought tech in an effort to equalize. The weapon saps the nations resolve to fight so try to make rules that effect it in a similar manner.

What about limiting to one nuclear strike per turn?

Yes in the right direction IMO

DK, you play another game yet with the A bomb.

:? :-D

A smart American player would have invaded Japan and sustained 1 million plus causalities.

Who cares…it’s only americans casualties!!, 8-)

Der Kuenstler,

Please update us as you use this rules. I think this is a FUN IDEA that we all can benefit from.

The United States built an industrial infrastructure equal in size to its entire automobile industry in order to conduct research and more crucially refine enough radioactive isotopes to build just the three atomic bombs. This was while recapturing imperial possessions in Africa and across the pacific, managing the biggest amphibious operation in history, sinking the powerful Japanese Imperial Navy, winning the immensely research-intensive Battle of the Atlantic, running their own highly effective submarine campaign against Japanese supply, and maintaining two strategic bombing campaigns of enormous scale.

Axis and Allies doesn’t have the atom bomb because researching it would have to be so goddamn expensive that only a historically accurate United States could afford it. And, If the United States has 120 IPCs every turn they’re not going to bother spending the necessary 200 IPCs over 5 turns or whatever developing the atomic bomb because Axis and Allies players have no regard for the lives of their little plastic soldiers.

It wasn’t a matter of research so much as production of the needed isotopes, the Germans knew how to build a bomb, but how were they supposed to match the kind of expenditure the United States made, particularly when all of their production areas were subject to strategic bombing?

So as a house rule I’d have to say the atomic bomb only really makes sense as
“If the game reaches round n without victory conditions being met, then the Allies win.”
Which is both a major buzzkill and pretty much already how it shakes out…

@Dybbuk:

The United States built an industrial infrastructure equal in size to its entire automobile industry in order to conduct research and more crucially refine enough radioactive isotopes to build just the three atomic bombs. This was while recapturing imperial possessions in Africa and across the pacific, managing the biggest amphibious operation in history, sinking the powerful Japanese Imperial Navy, winning the immensely research-intensive Battle of the Atlantic, running their own highly effective submarine campaign against Japanese supply, and maintaining two strategic bombing campaigns of enormous scale.

Axis and Allies doesn’t have the atom bomb because researching it would have to be so goddamn expensive that only a historically accurate United States could afford it. And, If the United States has 120 IPCs every turn they’re not going to bother spending the necessary 200 IPCs over 5 turns or whatever developing the atomic bomb because Axis and Allies players have no regard for the lives of their little plastic soldiers.

It wasn’t a matter of research so much as production of the needed isotopes, the Germans knew how to build a bomb, but how were they supposed to match the kind of expenditure the United States made, particularly when all of their production areas were subject to strategic bombing?

So as a house rule I’d have to say the atomic bomb only really makes sense as
“If the game reaches round n without victory conditions being met, then the Allies win.”
Which is both a major buzzkill and pretty much already how it shakes out…

I want to print this and frame it for the wall in my house.

Excellent point of view!

@Gargantua:

Excellent point of view!

Yes indeed.  The British showed an early interest in developing atomic weapons (which they code named “tube alloys”), but they also soon wisely realized that only the U.S. had the industrial and economic resources to carry out such a massive program.  And even with all the resources and talent that the Americans allocated to the Manhattan Project, it didn’t manage to produce a functional bomb until after the war in Europe had already ended.  As for Germany, it operated under additional constraints which, along with the factors already cited by Dybbuk, caused its atomic research program to go nowhere.  One constraint was Germany’s fixation on using heavy water as a moderator in its nuclear reactor designs.  Deuterium oxide is highly effective in this role, but it’s very difficult to produce in large quantities, and Germany’s single source (the output of the Norsk Hydro plant in Norway) was the target of several Allied sabotage operations.  The Americans bypassed the problem by using ultra-pure graphite in their own reactors.  A second constraint was that Germany had driven into exile several talented physicists who ended up working for the other side.  And another problem was that Hitler – never renowned for his ability to judge which weapon development programs served the military interests of Germany rather than his personal fantasies – never gave much priority to atomic research, an area of which he had little conceptual grasp.