May 23, 2013, 02:26:55 am
 News: Help support TripleA software development.
 Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »
 Author Topic: Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!  (Read 5328 times)
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter

Posts: 1245

"The state reigns and tells us what is true"

 « Reply #105 on: July 11, 2009, 07:19:51 am » 0

At most its 10-18 miles circle, so one bomb will take out at least half the city and kill about 85% with radiation within 4 months.

Not so,

Moscow had a rough radius of about 10-12 miles, which is 286 square miles, each atomic bomb completely devistates everything in a 2 mile radius, which takes out 12.56 sqaure miles. This means that in order to completely destroy moscow you need just under 31 bombs.

And this is only one of the cities in the Russia territory, thats why i believe each bomb piece should represent 4-6 bombs and that the factories and AA guns should not be destoryed.
 Logged
A&A.org Heavy Bomber

Posts: 13559

Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company

 « Reply #106 on: July 11, 2009, 08:33:10 am » +1

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/moscow_1893.jpg

using this map it shows that the size of Moscow was 24,500 feet roughly equal to both axis, which is about 4.6 miles from side to side

The effects of Hiroshima bomb had pronounced effects of killing if a radius of 1.6-3.1 miles, so at most two bombs would take out the city. I cannot find any map from 1940's, but we are talking about 50 years latter, but the main part of the city would be destroyed and fires out of control could conceivably do more damage.

http://www.neilstravels.com/online/templatemedia/all_lang/resources/Moscow+Map.jpg

This map shows on bottm right that the scale is 1.65 miles= the line on lower left. I take the 'actual city' as also roughly 4-5 miles as indicated in this MODERN map.

Therefore the previous estimate is incorrect. One to two bombs would easily take out Moscow and destroy the factory and any AA defenses located to protect it.
 Logged
Huffzilla
A&A.org Infantry

Posts: 11

 « Reply #107 on: July 12, 2009, 12:31:54 pm » 0

Quote
since the A-bomb takes out 2 miles in all directions and moscow is 386 miles they would still have 378 miles of Moscow to fight the war.

what does this mean? Moscow is NOT 386 miles either wide or square in 1941-45. At most its 10-18 miles circle, so one bomb will take out at least half the city and kill about 85% with radiation within 4 months. Besides without Stalin who would most likely be in this city the Soviets would not last much longer w/o a political head because of the centralization of its politics. This is the case with Germany as well.

The whole point of the A bomb is to make something that can potentially end a game because AA needs to end because it can extend into too many hours of play.
I just took his word for how big Moscow was, I didnt look it up. I just thought it was kinda funny how he said it would take 31 A-bombs to take out Moscow. I totally agree with you. Your correct, the only way to have an A-bomb in the game realistically is it would have to be an end gamer. You cant allow someone to get it on turn 3 or something. It is a fun way to end a game though, dropping A-bombs on each other.
 Logged
A&A.org Heavy Bomber

Posts: 13559

Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company

 « Reply #108 on: July 12, 2009, 02:47:23 pm » +1

just click the links and measure the size of Moscow yourself. If Atomic bomb takes out the Kremlin thats all you really need because you cut off the head of the snake. If Hitler and his primary administrators were for the most part in Berlin and taken out at one time, the resistance of the General staff would have overcome the survivors as they would not let Atomic Bombs destroy the cradle of western Civilization and the German people. Just like when Hitler dies the Reich falls barely a week latter.  NO nation is going to take A-bomb after A-bomb and just say "hey its nothing and has no effect on us"
 Logged
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter

Posts: 1245

"The state reigns and tells us what is true"

 « Reply #109 on: July 13, 2009, 07:48:22 am » 0

IL, your first map is from 1893, when moscow was a glorified fiefdom and not much of an industrial city. In the coming years it grew a great deal espeacaly since it was the new capital.

Your next map only shows a portion of modern moscow, you probably should have realised this after your estimates showed that one of the worlds major cities had not grown in over one hundred years.
Today, Moscow is accaully over 417 sqare miles

Even if we were bombing 1893 Moscow, which is over 25 square miles, you would need more that two bombs to comepletely destroy the city, seeing as the bombs blast effects are in the shape of circles that dont conform to the borders of the city and that they would most likly miss their targets and have overkill where the blast radius's of the bombs overlap.

I am sorry to say i do not have a source, but i remember reading that 1948 Moscow was 386 square miles.
And due to overlapping blast radius, circular areas of damage, missing targets, and innacruate maps of Russia during the soveit era, completely destorying moscow would take well over 31 bombs.

If you are aruging that destorying the kremilin (which would take one bomb that hit its target) would have the effect of destroying commnication and political control which then should be simulated by all the factories being destroyed as well as the AA guns in the Russia territory , that a different argument  ...

But my math is correct.
 Logged
Huffzilla
A&A.org Infantry

Posts: 11

 « Reply #110 on: July 13, 2009, 08:51:38 am » 0

IL, your first map is from 1893, when moscow was a glorified fiefdom and not much of an industrial city. In the coming years it grew a great deal espeacaly since it was the new capital.

Your next map only shows a portion of modern moscow, you probably should have realised this after your estimates showed that one of the worlds major cities had not grown in over one hundred years.
Today, Moscow is accaully over 417 sqare miles

Even if we were bombing 1893 Moscow, which is over 25 square miles, you would need more that two bombs to comepletely destroy the city, seeing as the bombs blast effects are in the shape of circles that dont conform to the borders of the city and that they would most likly miss their targets and have overkill where the blast radius's of the bombs overlap.

I am sorry to say i do not have a source, but i remember reading that 1948 Moscow was 386 square miles.
And due to overlapping blast radius, circular areas of damage, missing targets, and innacruate maps of Russia during the soveit era, completely destorying moscow would take well over 31 bombs.

If you are aruging that destorying the kremilin (which would take one bomb that hit its target) would have the effect of destroying commnication and political control which then should be simulated by all the factories being destroyed as well as the AA guns in the Russia territory , that a different argument  ...

But my math is correct.
Ok, I dont even want to get into what a bomb would do to Moscow right now, but why do you keep insisting they would miss Moscow? Hitler had bad maps and awful intelligence. The bombers in 1945 were so much more sophisticated compared to 1941. Even if you are correct about the size of Moscow you only make my point. There is no godam way they are going to miss a city the size of Moscow with the bombers of 1945, no dam way. Sure it is possible with one bomber maybe missing its target with cloud cover I guess, but the chances are so small. They would hit it no question.
 Logged
A&A.org Heavy Bomber

Posts: 13559

Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company

 « Reply #111 on: July 13, 2009, 09:37:39 am » +1

Quote
Your next map only shows a portion of modern moscow, you probably should have realised this after your estimates showed that one of the worlds major cities had not grown in over one hundred years.
Today, Moscow is accaully over 417 sqare miles

The second map is today's Moscow and not the Moscow of 1941-45. Just google and look at Moscow under google maps. Its not as large as you claim. Just look at the second picture. When we say Moscow we are saying the city of Moscow not outlaying suburbs.

http://www.friends-partners.org/oldfriends/mes/russia/moscow/description.html

Quote
Moscow covers an area of about 386 square miles (878,7 square kilometres), its outer limit being roughly delineated by the Moscow Ring Road.

The boundary of Moscow (since 1960) corresponds to the Moscow Ring Road distanced from 17 to 21 kilometres from a city centre.

now just measure the size of this ring road and subtract a bit because this is not Moscow of today, but 1941-45 Moscow.

1.6-3.1 miles was quoted as the most substantial damage and i place the Moscow diameter at 15 kilometers in 1941-45
I think this is very generous considering the population is over 8 million now and in 1941 it could not be more than 1-2 million.

so...2 bombs dropped would create two rings of 10 kilometers, which is most of the city gone. I guess that 3 bombs would have done the job very well enough.

conversion

Miles     Kilometers
1    1.6
2    3.2
3    4.8
4    6.4
5    8.0
6    9.6
 Logged
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter

Posts: 1245

"The state reigns and tells us what is true"

 « Reply #112 on: July 14, 2009, 08:06:38 pm » 0

according to wikipedia the modern city of Moscow is 417 square miles in area, i guess that includes suburbs, i didn't know why you are not including those(i assume many people live in the suburbs)
The map you gave only showed a portion of the city so i was objecting to its lack of relevenace

Using your definition of the city WW2 Moscow, i guess it would  only take a few bombs.
I thought the suburbs would be important targets as many people live there as well as there being some important industries

Remember we are also only takling about one important city in a territroy that has many other important cities, so just hitting every important city in a terriotry would require many bombs

And when i say the bombers  might miss their target, i am not saying that they would lilkly miss the whole city, but tha they might drop a bomb where one was already dropped and cause overkill which would waste the effectiveness of the bombing.

And  IL, even  if you are right and the area of Moscow That Is Worth Bombing being only 15 kilometers in diamiter that converts to a 5 mile radius or a 78.5 square mile area, and with each bomb destroying 12.56 square miles that means that
If every bomb was dead on target and the areas of effect somehow were not circles and never overlapped and conformed to each others borders and the borders of the city, then it would still take 8 bombs to completely destroy the city.

My main question then is, why should 1-6 bombs( one atmoic bomb unit) destroy all the factories( and AA guns of all things) in a whole territory, when a four to sixth month bombing campagin by a 1000+ bombers( 1 bomber unit) does not accomplsih anything  any where near that?

 Logged
A&A.org Heavy Bomber

Posts: 13559

Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company

 « Reply #113 on: July 14, 2009, 09:52:23 pm » +1

The actual city of Moscow is delineated by that ring. You cant count the various farms and suburbs because it contains the balance of the 8 Million population. 1945 Moscow cant be more than that ring at the most and 4,137,000 million living as of 1941. I consider the size to be 1/2 of what it is today.

Also each turn is 4-6 months, and each bomber is 1,000 planes, so each Atomic Bomb can easily be the total built bombs in 6 months ( say 3+) . AS far as destroying the city, the cost of the bomb is 10 IPC due to the cost of obtaining heavy water and various materials and you must justify the cost of killing a few hundred thousand workers and various factories representing the various localities that got destroyed by this weapon. Whoever drops it will drop it with some degree of precision considering the costs of development. I discount the claim that they will just hope and prey that they drop it in the correct place. BY WW2 late war intelligence was very good and bombardiers had good practice. The Germans or whoever are not just going to spend huge investment and 'miss' London or Moscow or something ridiculous like that.

The removal of the factory is a great rule because it make the weapon into game changer as it should be. The loss of production is the loss of national morale and people moving and 'disappearing' from factory jobs thinking that they may be the next to get an Atomic attack.

After dropping 3-10 atomic bombs the people don't want to fight a war. No hope exist. And Hitler and Stalin Dead means a regime in shambles. Production declines and people just try to go to the country side. Just think what you would do if all our cities started to vanish in mushroom clouds... production declines and exodus to the hills and open land. The bomb would undoubtedly get dropped in the heart of the industrial center. Nobody is going to work again in this place. forget it.

The only thing in game terms this can mean is factory gone. Losing 3D6 is a joke way because you can get as little as 3 IPC lost. The factory is 15 lost, plus the IPC permanent roll loss.  so the net is 18 on average vs 10 spent. That makes sence to me.
 Logged
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter

Posts: 1245

"The state reigns and tells us what is true"

 « Reply #114 on: July 15, 2009, 07:20:54 pm » 0

After dropping 3-10 atomic bombs the people don't want to fight a war.

says you.

I am just kidding, but remember i am not that interested in the moral of political effects of the bomb, as i dont think it fits into the game of A&A which does not have  morale or political limitations expressed to a large degree.

Just like how in A&A nations can experience absurd amounts of bloodshed, i would like the introduction of atomic weapons to include the possibility of all out atomic conflict and maybe even armagedon. i would not like them to have to be a game ender.

After all, and as i explained before, some Japanese leaders wanted to continue fighting and i am sure they could have convinced a substantial part of the population to do the same, all it takes is propaganda.
Trumman had the emperor on the radio simply to make sure all the Japanese new that the war was over and they should stop fighting, and even after that we were still picking up ��� soldiers on remote inlands as late as the 1970s, or so i am told.

And just to clarify, in addition to the 3d6 of damgae that is done by a stratigic attack, I also believe there should be one D6 that does permenent damage, so it is still a very powerful weapon, I just dont think you should lose the ability to produce in whole regions for a turn just becasue a few Abombs were dropped, it should be harder but not impossible.

We just have two different aproaches, I want atomic warfare and you want a game ender

I also enjoy having artillery, rockets, and subs being able to deliver the weapon
 Logged
Bardoly
A&A.org Heavy Bomber

Posts: 9273

USS Battleship Texas

 « Reply #115 on: July 15, 2009, 07:39:40 pm » 0

IL, I have to go with Emperor Taki on this one.  IMHO, I think that most people who want to add Atomic Bombs to the game would want them to ADD to the gameplay, not END the gameplay.
 Logged
A&A.org Heavy Bomber

Posts: 13559

Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company

 « Reply #116 on: July 15, 2009, 09:15:52 pm » +1

well thats fine, but nobody can use any historical example to say "hey they would continue to fight" The record shows the opposite. Only 2 bombs forces that decision and the Allies correctly determined that it would. Japan was more determined of the three axis nations and they are the ones that folded. I see no argument that can allow the Germans to continue to war if Berlin, The Ruhr, Hamburg, Munich and various other cities all were wiped out by Atomic Bombs.

I also don't like the idea that a bomb gets dropped and right away you continue to produce just as before. The other aspect is you can have a three result and the guy who spent all his money on this tech has wasted a turn and has to keep trying again and drop another 3-10 bombs ( which is what 1 bomb represents). This becomes a sad way to model how the weapon actually effects a nation in various aspects which are more complicated than just "roll 3D6, plus one permanent"

But i guess the idea of dropping 50 A- bombs every turn and nobody surrenders now becomes just another extension of SBR except more harsh. This too me totally misses the reality of Atomic Bombs.

So if you want just to keep the thing going, whats the point of having them? You might as well leave them out
because your just adding stuff and really has no effect on the outcome.

Its one thing to add new units because you can pursue new strategies, but You may even be better off just buying more heavy bombers at 12, than one disposable A bomb for 10 IPC
 Logged
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter

Posts: 1245

"The state reigns and tells us what is true"

 « Reply #117 on: July 16, 2009, 04:53:34 pm » 0

well thats fine, but nobody can use any historical example to say "hey they would continue to fight" The record shows the opposite. Only 2 bombs forces that decision and the Allies correctly determined that it would. Japan was more determined of the three axis nations and they are the ones that folded. I see no argument that can allow the Germans to continue to war if Berlin, The Ruhr, Hamburg, Munich and various other cities all were wiped out by Atomic Bombs.

A&A gives the player control over whether his nation is willing to fight, so that should not change with the bomb.

And my a-bomb does add to the game play and is a very powerful peice. The permenent damage adds alot to the game and denenetly makes it better than a bomber for SB. The fun in atomic war is in destroying the whole world, not just one city and calling the game. If one purson gets the bomb before everyone else however, they have a big advantage and will likly quickly win the game for  there side which is historical. All my rules give is anothere possible alternative, and i think people like choice in a game
 Logged
A&A.org Heavy Bomber

Posts: 13559

Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company

 « Reply #118 on: July 16, 2009, 06:52:27 pm » +1

Thats fine but nobody can make any argument that is supported by historical evidence. That rule being my former rule regarding 3 D6 plus one d6 permanent is not as realistic as the symbolism included by removing the factory. And if both choices lead the game to a conclusion which ends the game, why then do you choose the one that helps end the game only not as harsh as the second proposal?

If you make the cost of getting such a weapon hard , then the payoff should be equally rewarding to that player.

If a bomb in each case is 10 IPC and you can only build one of these its better to even not go after it and instead just buy more bombers.

I think some analysis should demonstrate the validity of going after both to get a better picture of the ultimate costs and reward of each bomb. If you take the first option i feel the risk /reward is about the same.
 Logged
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter

Posts: 1245

"The state reigns and tells us what is true"

 « Reply #119 on: July 17, 2009, 03:46:13 pm » 0

Well, if they cost 10, perhaps you should be able to buy 2 a turn
 Logged
 Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

2013 Support Drive
 Support Level Gold Patron 2013 \$50.00 USD Silver Patron 2013 \$25.00 USD Bronze Patron 2013 \$10.00 USD Forum Username