Need Atom bomb input…

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.

Another problem that the Germans had was they had several different teams working on atomic research, like 4 or 5, and each was kept separate from the others and not allowed to compare notes.
As a result, they all were basically competing against each other and whatever breakthroughs they did have usually ended up being redundant.

@Der:

We are all fans of a “historical” game that has no supply system, no weather, no fog of war, no measurable scale, no leadership influence, no retreating (I could go on) and now you guys want to all “realistic” on the use of the A-bomb? C’mon man!

My system allows the bomb only after round 12, which is a way of saying, “if you haven’t won by then and you opponent gets lucky and gets the bomb, you deserve to lose.”

Axis and Allies is only a game with WWII flavor. It is by no means an accurate WWII simulation, and never will be. So why not throw the bomb in there, too? It WAS in WWII, after all.  Â

A lot of good points here from a lot of good posters. However I have to go along with DK on POV and the spirit of HRs. As much as I love A&A it really is not in any way an “exact” simulation of WWII. I concur with the historical observations. I must say though I see the need for the “fun” factor, and I think this is a fun idea. Call me a martyr to nostalgia, but I find sometimes that the fun of A&A gets lost in trying to make it too historical compared to the original intent of Classic. In other words, I agree A&A featuring “WWII Space Marines” is laughable. However I think we need to suspend our disbelief with this game at times to keep it “FUN”.

Der Kuenstler and toblerone77 are right. I think a lot of us (myself included) keep forgetting that while this game has the flavor of WW2 with the nations involved and types of weaponry used, it really doesn’t represent the actual conflict. I keep getting reminded of that watching WW2 documentaries. Take the Battle for Italy for example: just getting from the “toe” of Italy to Rome took the Allies a really long time with numerous set backs and a lot of casualties. In our games, it’s one battle and done and you have just conquered the entire southern half of Italy and captured the Italian capital.
As for A bombs, I keep thinking it wouldn’t be practical in this game since we would use it on whole territories (Japan) and the actual A bomb could only wipe out 1 city. But to keep the fun in the game and since we are really suspending disbelief just by playing this game anyway, perhaps an atom bomb should be able to wipe out all the units in a given territory. Or max out the facilities. Or you could choose any amount of damage in between. It is going to be a house rule after all.
I have seen some suggestions that using an A bomb would kill just one or two enemy units. If that is the limit of impact, then perhaps you can make it fairly easy to get, like any of the other techs. If you can wipe out a whole territory, then it should definitely be a lot harder to get.

@knp7765:

Der Kuenstler and toblerone77 are right. I think a lot of us (myself included) keep forgetting that while this game has the flavor of WW2 with the nations involved and types of weaponry used, it really doesn’t represent the actual conflict. I keep getting reminded of that watching WW2 documentaries.

Yes, these posts have made good points.  In order for A&A to be a true simulation of WWII (as opposed to being a WWII-themed board game), it would have to be much more complex and probably also quite different in some of its fundamental mechanics – notably as regards to the fact that, under the OOB rules, players take turns rather than acting simultaneously, and all the players can always see where the opponent’s forces are and what their composition is.  I like rules (both OOB and house) which reflect history accurately, but I also like alternate-history scenarios which allow us to break out of the strict straightjacket of what actually happened in WWII.  After all, if the only acceptable direction for an A&A game to take would be to replicate the actual events of the war, there would be no point in playing it because every game would always follow a predictable course.  To me, the important criterion is whether a particular rule or scenario is reasonably plausible, given the assumption of somewhat different decisions or events happening in the alternate timeline as compared with the historical one.  And I’m also fine with the idea of stretching to some countries (within reasonable limits) some capabilities that they didn’t actually have, in order to make the game more interesting and to provide some balance.  The Global 1940 OOB game itself reflects this principle by providing a full range of sculpt unit types to every country (except China), even though – to pick carriers as an example – only Japan, the US and the UK had any credible fleet carrier components in their navies at the time.