Atomic bomb rule

Well, this is an interesting idea, but do you think it would make a difference in the game’s outcome?  By turn 10 are you still in the game?  At that point you may only need the nuke to stave off defeat.

The topic of A-Bomb house rules was extensively discussed in this earlier thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25939.0

I don’t think A Bombs are practical for this game. The scale is too big, the territories are just too big. In some cases, a single territory is a whole country (Japan for example). An Atomic Bomb destroys a city, not a whole country.
Now, if you could scale down the A Bomb’s effects to include 1 facility or 1 military unit, then maybe it would be feasable. I like the idea of an atomic hit removing an air base, naval base or Minor IC and reducing a Major IC to a Minor IC. It could also be used tactically against military units, but you would have to limit it to just 1 unit per hit. Because of the scale of this game, each unit we use represents a vast number of actual troops (1 inf = 1 inf division, 1 tank = 1 armor division, 1 fighter = 1 air wing, etc) An atomic bomb could destroy a division of infantry or an air wing of fighters, but not several divisions or air wings.
I think atomic bombs need to be like a tech development that you have to buy research dice for. In fact, I don’t think they should be available in the first round, or even the first few rounds. 10 rounds is a bit much, I think a lot of games don’t even last that long. I think atomic research should be a sort of tree, broken up into levels that you have to attain to move on to the next level. Perhaps 3-4 levels, the final level is where you would have an actual atomic bomb that you could use. So the earliest possible round using an A bomb would be round 3 or 4, depending on how many levels of atomic research you put in this particular tech. Odds are, your research may fail some rounds and other rounds you may simply not be able to roll for tech, so it would probably still be later in the game before anyone would be able to use an Atomic Bomb.
As for cost, that would depend on how easy you make it to be a successful Atomic strike. If it’s somewhat easy, then purchasing an A-bomb should be expensive. If it’s pretty hard, perhaps the bombs could be cheaper.
For Example:  An Atomic Bomb strike is successful if you roll 5 or less. A roll of 6 is a dud bomb. So, A-bombs should cost at LEAST 20 IPCs or more.
Another Example: An Atomic Bomb strike is successful if you roll 3 or less. So, A-Bombs should cost 10-15 IPCs each.
Another Example: An Atomic Bomb strike is successful if you roll 2 or less. So, A-Bombs should cost less than 10 IPCs each.

Another idea would be that a player wanting to use Atomic Bombs would not only have to develop the Atomic Bomb tech (perhaps only 2 levels or even just 1) then you also have to get Long Range Aircraft and Heavy Bomber techs to go with it.  This would represent the B-29 Superfortresses that were used to deliver the real Atomic Bombs. Since they flew at such a higher altitude when delivery the Atomic Bombs, I would say Atomic Bombers are immune to interceptors and AA Guns.

@knp7765:

An Atomic Bomb destroys a city, not a whole country.

This is a good point.  One kind of house rule for A-bombs which would substantially affect the game would be to modify the victory conditions, which at the moment only deal with capturing and holding victory cities, to allow for the nuclear destruction of a victory city.  I don’t know how this could be translated into victory conditions or player objectives – players who are interested in using A-bombs would have to decide that for themselves – but it’s an idea that might be worth exploring.

Here’s a suggestion…

If you complete A-Bomb tech.  You automatically get 1 free atomic bomb per turn.  You place it in your capital.  It can be moved by land (1)  or as cargo attached to a strategic bomber.

The A-Bomb can destroy any one type of facility, any one unit, or any two infantry.

As the bomber piece represents a squadron of bombers, You can attack a territory with bomber + bomb attached,  kill one unit/facility instantly,  as well as roll as normal @4.

I really think that introducing A bombs defeats the purpose of this game.

Plus, when the first A bomb was used, it automatically won the war.

So if you really want to have an A bomb rule, whoever gets it first should just grab the automatic win.

@Gargantua:

You automatically get 1 free atomic bomb per turn.  You place it in your capital.

Preferably safety-fused, to keep it from accidentally detonating before it’s moved out of the capital.

@CWO:

@Gargantua:

You automatically get 1 free atomic bomb per turn.  You place it in your capital.

Preferably safety-fused, to keep it from accidentally detonating before it’s moved out of the capital.

Hey, there’s another idea…unstable A-Bombs. This could be something for the other side to take advantage of. When one country gets the A-bomb tech, a country on the other side can roll once per turn for instability in the A-bomb, having it explode accidentally and damaging the owner rather than the target. As for who can roll for this, I guess you have to decide among yourselves, but this would only be ONE ROLL PER SIDE, not per country. So, if any country on the Allies side gets the A-bomb tech, then the Axis can roll once per turn for ALL THREE together, not individually, to see if the A-bomb is unstable.
For Example: Say USA develops the A-Bomb. Most likely they plan to use it on Japan, but they could just as easily use it against Germany or Italy too. So, Let’s say on Germany’s next turn since they are the first Axis country to go per round. If the Axis develop the A-Bomb, then the Allies would roll on Russia’s turn, since they are the first Allied country to go each round.
The way it works is the opposing side rolls 1 dice per round. A roll of 1-5 does nothing. A roll of 6 means that A-bomb was unstable and detonated by accident, blowing up the Allied country’s capital with their own A bomb. The Allied country then must skip 1 full round of play,  from Weapons Development to Collect Income. All pieces currently on the map are frozen in place. They can defend like normal if attacked but can’t move or attack themselves. After the skipped round, lets call it the “Round of Recovery”, that player can play like normal, beginning with the money they had on hand before the A bomb exploded.

Get commando’s or spy’s to destroy your enemys A-bomb. Or you use them to destroy any Tech that a country has. You have the opportunity to kill the Spy and if he lives then the Spy rolls a dice to see if he destroys the Tech. Either way.

@knp7765:

Hey, there’s another idea…unstable A-Bombs.

There could also be the reverse concept: dud A-bombs.  When an A-bomb is dropped on its intended target, there could be (for example, based on rolling single dice) one chance out of six that it will fail to explode properly.

You could even combine the dud idea with the spy idea which was just proposed: a spy might get a chance to detonate an enemy A-bomb prematurely, but the player whose bomb is targeted could then do a “saving throw” dice roll representing a 20% (or whatever) chance that the spy-detonated bomb will be a dud.

The U.S. didn’t bother testing their single uranium-based Little Boy bomb because they knew that it would work, but they did test a prototype plutonium bomb about a month before the Fat Man bomb was dropped on Nagasaki because its implosion-based mechanism was much more tricky than the Little Boy gun-type mechanism – so they weren’t absolutely sure it would work.  (The little-known Thin Man bomb design – which was an attempt to use a gun-type mechanism for a plutonium bomb – was abandoned when it was determined that, unless certain problems could be overcome, it would fizzle rather than produce a nuclear explosion…and that even if it did work, it would yield a less efficient nuclear blast than an implosion-based plutonium bomb.)

I like all these ideas. What about the effects of a successful Atom Bomb attack on an enemy territory? What damage will it do? I can think of no other result than ‘destroy all enemy units and facilities in that territory’ and that means everything! Probably too much though… what do you reckon?

I agree that it’s too much because a territory represents a space the size of a state or province or country.  Military units in such a space are spread out, not bunched together in a city-sized area, which is the most that a fission bomb could destroy.

@SS:

Get commando’s or spy’s to destroy your enemys A-bomb. Or you use them to destroy any Tech that a country has. You have the opportunity to kill the Spy and if he lives then the Spy rolls a dice to see if he destroys the Tech. Either way.

Or, use your spy to steal the tech. Say the US develops Jet Fighters, perhaps Germany could send in a spy to steal that technology for themselves. Not sure how you would employ spies in this game. Should they cost less or more than research dice? It seems to me like it would probably be less. A country would spend millions in researching a certain technology. I don’t think it would cost as much in training a spy and maintaining the network you would need to be able to contact the spy and pull him out once his mission is accomplished or his cover is blown. You would also have to allow for counter-intelligence operations of the nation that developed the technology. They should be able to possibly catch the spy and imprison/execute him. Better yet, they could feed him mis-information which would further stymie the enemy nation’s attempt at getting that technology.

@knp7765:

Or, use your spy to steal the tech. Say the US develops Jet Fighters, perhaps Germany could send in a spy to steal that technology for themselves.

The Soviet atomic espionnage activities connected with the Manhattan Project (see the Wikipedia article on Arthur Aleksandrovich Adams, for instance) are an example of this sort of thing.

@knp7765:

You would also have to allow for counter-intelligence operations of the nation that developed the technology. They should be able to possibly catch the spy and imprison/execute him. Better yet, they could feed him mis-information which would further stymie the enemy nation’s attempt at getting that technology.

They might even feed him designs for unstable (or dud) A-bombs of the type that have just been discussed.

All of these ideas are opening up all kinds of possibilities for complication and unpredictability – which is a good thing because it provides a solution to the problem which some people have raised: the argument that as soon as you develop the A-bomb tech, the game is as good as over.  With the introduction of these additional factors and counter-factors, the A-bomb tech would no longer be a surefire way to victory.