A-bombs was a part of WWII. How will it ...

[Chris G]

... be simulated in SC2? Will it be a part of tech development? If a nation have one or more a-bombs, will it affect diplomacy? Like forced peaceagreements and/or capitulations for example?

This could add a whole new dimension to the game as well as it could be a reason for a losing nation to keep up the fight in hope for a "secret wepon".

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Unfortunately,

No A-bombs

[Liam]

Hmmm, why not increase the bombing capability of Bombers to some supernatural number when they hit Tech5? Edit it in other words.. Hell, if 1 Bomber kills every unit-resource it bombs it'll be quite a powerful unit!

[JerseyJohn]

Bomber tech would only be part of it, the delivery system. Developing an A-bomb in itself is only another part. The third part is producing the proper uranium or plutonium required, which was extremely time consuming at the time.

Throughout the late forties the United States only made a few bombs a year! After Nagasaki the U. S. had no more bombs -- we'd made three, one was used in the test, the second on Hiroshima and the third on Nagasaki.

So the country producing an A-bomb should be severely limited in it's usage.

[Liam]

JJ: Possibly further simulate this capability, Longe Range 5 most also be achieved for Bombers? Representing a Massive Bomber platform not just a longe range weapon?

That would make it doubly difficult and you can see The American player focusing a large number of their resources on this instead of a massive Suicide army for D-Day? Some historical element?

Then a House Rule on the Cap of A-Bombs that are used?

People might say, HEY! Gamebreaker, but really, no! If the US player isn't also focusing on LendLease and other 'areas' the Germans and Italians will Steamroll through Europe!

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Those are interesting variants and I like them.

What historical bomber level would you say the U. S. was at in 1945? Level 4 or level 5?

If Hubert does include A-bombs, I guess they'd be represented as a bomber unit. The issue of A-bomb production could be simulated by saying an A-bomb unit that is accomplishes it's mission successfully can't carry out another mission for six months. I'd like somethng like that better than a house rule limiting their numbers.

Also, the United States did have a much larger version of the B-29 almost ready for production toward the end of the war. It had a much greater range and bombload capacity than the B-29. The project was completely scrapped after Japan's surrender.

[SeaMonkey]

You guys are definitely on to something here. Logically, if we want to have a continuance of hostilities past 1945 then there needs to be some provision for nuclear weapons. Historical accuracy requires it, as we all know the first a-bombs were slated for use against Germany originally.

[Liam]

Yeah, SeaMonkey you're right. It was a deadly weapon considering that 1 bomb could level a lot. If we do play past '45, most of us will want a Nuclear Bomb effect. It's a super weapon!!

John, I'd guess the B-29 to be closer to Level4 Long Range Bomber. Perhaps another model or a B-52 representing a Level5 Long Range. Then again giving Germany this weapon seems hard they hard a shortcomming from the start to finish<I suppose we could dream up a Super-Gotha flying Wing?> . Operation per so many turns, would seem a good preventive method in unlimited A-Bombs. We also have to consider interception.

Consider that a edited or modified Nuclear bombers hits a target, Ploesti from Italy and torches just 1 resource or 1 corps. Though a German fighter in Hungary intercepts it along the way and scraps half the strength of the unit. That would be extremely costly to that bomber and all the damage the bomber did was quite worthless.<reinforcing the bomber wouldn't be worth the damage inflicted> If you could only kill 1 unit or a resource hex and that's it, a convential bomber will have as much capacity. If you could somehow program the hex not to produce resources for the rest of the game that would be an ACCURATE simulation

as above mentioned the game dynamics in SC doesn't allow to choose from Military and Industrial targets in the same location, thus forcing a bomber to hit the military one first. This'll hurt for the use of A-Bombs in SC2 if no alterations are made.

[Chris G]

I was not only thinking of bombers when I started this topic.

Rockets would most likely have been the choise of Germany. A modified V2 would have been a possible platform, but also remember that they were very close to make an intercontinental missile. The reason it was never build was just a question of priorities, nothing else. If they would have developed an a-bomb it's quite likely that such a three stages missle had been a top priored project.

Some of you will now note that the size and weight of the first a-bombs would have made the rocket platform impossible. That was true to the three first USA built. They where rushed and built to be delivered by bombers, but had not to be so.

A-bombs is not only a question of how much they can destroy, they should have a great impact on diplomacy as mensioned earlier as well as on troop moral. Since Hubert Carter will add moral to SC2 this could make an a-bomb a powerful wepons in more than one way.

[With Clusters]

I think the hard part to model, even with all the editorial tweaks available, would be the psychological effects of a-bomb use.

For example, if Berlin were vaporized, and perhaps Hitler and a good chunk of other senior Nazi leadership along with it, I would assume the effects would be much greater than the mere loss of Berlin's "resources" and the destruction of any military units in residence.

Hard to approximate that without directly incorporating the a-bomb into the game mechanics. Wich doesn't seem to be in the cards this go-around...

[JerseyJohn]

The problem with rockets is the technology to use them as delivery systems for A-bombs didn't exist and wouldn't for a number of years.

Up till the fifties, atomic bombs needed to be loaded on an aircraft without having been armed. The device was armed while in flight!

One of the reason the B-29 was chosen over the B-17 was it provided a more stable platform. You can imagine sitting in the (closed) bomb bay, arming a nuclear device and having the aircraft suddenly buckling on you! Ka-boomski!

When rockets are mentioned in the WWII nuclear sense it's in a different application. They'd have been equipped with a warhead filled with radioactive material. Upon hitting it's target it would have released this upon everyone within a five or ten mile radius, inflicting untold thousands of cases of radiation poisoning in addition to making the blast area a generally unsafe area to pass through for quite a while to follow.

There wouldn't have been a nuclear blast, however. It would be a nuclear device of sorts, but not an atomic bomb.

[Retributar]

The new American Bomber i believe was called or named as the 'DOMINATOR'.

Von Braun was already working on a 2-Stage rocket...basically a large booster rocket that would lift the V-2 to a higher altitude where it would then lose the booster and carry on itself to its target. This was for his version of the 'Amerika Bomber'...that would then land like the Space-Shuttle...but, could also have been used to deliver weapon payloads to New York or Chicago...as an intercontinetal ballistic missile.

[Edwin P.]

Ah, the A-Bomb Topic

Perhaps:

As Liam says building an A-Bomb Requires Bomber Tech Level 5 AND A-Bomb Tech Level 5. Thus reflecting the difficulty and resources involved in developing an A-Bomb.

I would add that advances in A-Bomb Tech for the Axis requires the Axis to control the mining resource (aka Heavy Water) in Norway.

As for the A-bomber attack on a city, I would allow a chance for an interceptor to destroy the A-Bomb Unit. Example: Str 10 attacks city, intercepted for 3 damage = 30% (3/10) A-Bomb Unit destroyed before it reaches its target.

Why? Only one bomber would be carrying the A-Bomb.

[ November 15, 2004, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

Edwin, I imagine if a real A-Bombing mission had been undertaken perhaps a thousand aircraft would've been over Germany. The real question is without Air Supremacy on top of LR and Heavy Bombers 4-5 such an operation would be extremely difficult. What on average did the Germans take out of an Armada 10% at best?

Making it a very very elusive goal, but instead of using the Americans for inbetween goals like added Air support they could be a gamebreaker.

[Leopard_2]

Sorry for barging in, since I know nothing about SC, but I think I can add some historic information detail I haven't seen in this thread yet.

You might want to look into the history of German U-234 (the submarine, not the Uranium isotope), and the source for the Uranium used in the US A-bombs. I won't say any more here, nor will I post links, since I'd prefer you come to your own conclusions given the sources you find. Google will help you there.

[SeaMonkey]

I guess if this will be a consideration of SC2, we'll just have to be more definitive about how many a-bombs the US potential was in 1945 and beyond. I know of two facilities in the US adding(early 45) to the pile of fissional grade material, Oak Ridge(U235) and Hanford(plutonium), the question is how much?

[JerseyJohn]

Leopard_2

No need to feel that way, you're part of our little group so rejoice and offer your opinionions and ideas freely.

In the WA without the USSR we mentioned that the Nagasaki bomb was largely constructed out of the material you mentioned that arrived on the U-boat that surrendered to the U. S. rather than the British -- sailing right to the U. S. east coast from it's position rounding Africa. The two Japanese naval officers who had been on board committed harikare when they learned of the crews intentions and were buried at sea.

SeaMonkey

I'd opt for a setup with very low a-bomb production.

If a country gains the requisite tech, whch would have to include T-4 Bomber but would also require a seperate A-bomb research tech (which I think should be much more expenseve than the others, maybe 600 MPPs for each research point!).

The bombs SHOULD NOT be deliverable by rocket! That technology was truly beyond the capacity of the times -- but it should be available in the sceario creater for a 1950s/60s type conflict.

Annual atomic-bomb production if the two techs needed are achieved:

USA = 3

USSR = 2

Germany = 2 (If it's conquered Europe)

UK = 1

France = 1

Italy = 1

Liam

I mentioned here or in the WA w/o USSR thread the concept you brought up about also using radioactive material to be splattered, contaminating a large enemy area in a non-explosion fallout.

Do have any thoughts on how such an effect can be represented in game terms? My guess is it would mainly effect the recieving nation's morale. In military terms it could give an entire army radiation poisoning. Do you think this would mean the elimination of the army or a drastic reduction in it's effectiveness, say being immediately reduced to one third stregnth to represent the need to replace troops suddenly unable to continue fighting?

[SeaMonkey]

Sounds like you guys have got a handle on the various requirements for a-bomb allocation and obviously the effects are up to HC to design, with some real good ones already suggested. I believe there were some real models available from USA test records if they can be accessed. Now as far as nuclear capabilty technology, I believe Liam mentioned attaining level 4 or 5 or something to that effect. I'm thinking that it should be a two tier advancement from an intial allocation of some quantity of MPPs. One such value as JJ suggested, 600 MPPs gets the first advancement based on some percentage of chance. At that point you will be prompted for an additional investment to actually be given a weapon for use, again based on some degree of randomization. After accumulating one weapon, perhaps there should be a time period before the availability of an additional one, depending on national characteristics or maybe more MPP investment. I'm not particularly in love with these ideas but I know we could hash this out. The idea is an accurate historical model for the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons. Now shall we consider a third tier for nuclear technology depending on the time frame of the scenario...thermonuclear devices, or is this going the way of the missile delivery system?

[SeaMonkey]

I might add that the investment approximation level for the acquisition of the a-bomb in WW2 US dollars was 2 billion.

[SeaMonkey]

You know reading through this thread again, I'm impressed with the effects suggested by With Clusters, psychological and the possibility of the government officials being take out. It would really prompt a nice little interceptor umbrella be maintained around ones capital eh! Besides that the moral question and command and control consequences could be far reaching as he enumerated...food for thought. Besides I'm not so convinced that Chris G's delivery idea should be fully discounted. I mean if we are going to incorporate a larger time spectrum for a scenario, wasn't rockets level 5 a possible delivery platform? Convince me otherwise JJ. What are our time limitations for development, given a world war motivational aspect?

[SeaMonkey]

Come to think of it, your right JJ, Sputnik, was around 1958, correct? But that's intercontinental range, what about intracontinental?

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Part of it has to be that only one country at the time was even thinking in terms of rockets, and that was Germany!

Mounting a nuclear device on a rocket wouldn't be such a big deal in itself, it's only a matter of building an inrementally larger V-2 to accomplish the task.

The hard part is how do you arm it? Using the methods employed by the United States for Fat Man and Little Boy, the divices would probably have detonated while the rocket was either gaining altitude or coming down again, or perhaps it would have detonated while the rocket was lifting off the launch pad.

Delivery system techniques were in their earliest infancy, barely viable even for the technique used of arming the bomb while in flight.

The only nuclear option for a rocket should be the spreading of radiation, no explosion. I have no idea what effect that would have had -- Pzgndr ought to have a better idea. I once posted a photo of an atomic mushroom cloud and he became whimsical and melancholy while naming which device it had sprung from!

[SeaMonkey]

No doubt you are probably right, it seems simple enough, using a U235 bullet to create critical mass or in the case of plutonium a conventional shaped explosive to compress it into critical mass. The US could produce the proximity fuse, why not an initiated explosion above ground with the shaped charge/plutonium model. Obviously its not as simple as it sounds....where's those nuclear scientists when you need them.

[Leopard_2]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

[QB] Leopard_2

No need to feel that way, you're part of our little group so rejoice and offer your opinionions and ideas freely.

Thanks.

Annual atomic-bomb production if the two techs needed are achieved:

USA = 3

USSR = 2

Germany = 2 (If it's conquered Europe)

AFAIK, pitchblende was mined in the Wismut area, i.e. German mainland. The other good European source for Uranium was in Czechia, so I'm not sure if it has to be a "conquered Europe".

[Liam]

I think that a radiological bomb would have mixed results. Even discussed to this day<a dirty bomb> it is seen as something that wouldn't immediately impact civilians or Military. now a Massive Radiological bomb not some dust sprinkled around a Subway could do damage...

You would have to think on these terms, short term you'd get sick from exposure

longterm you'd die... How long does the average man operate after exposure? I think it depends on the individual and the type and amount of exposure. SO it would depend on how many of these nasty little devices went off.. They'd be highly inaccurate and much more devastating on civilians. You'd wipe out a portion of a city if it got a direct hit from a rocket. IF that was possible.

We'd make a percentage chance for a RadioBomb. Like 10% on Military targets. 25% on Civilian. Higher with Tech and experience. The effects on the resource-city-military unit could be accumulative then. Then also a Political Hit.. I think that Morale would lower Greatly, not at first, they'd rise, but as in the Constant Bombardments Germany and Japan recieved eventually you ruin a Nations effectiveness... MPPs is accurate to simulate Morale on Civilians but with Military units you wipe 10% per successful strike and strength hits.

Just some tentative figures.. Thinking basic

A-Bomb Research is a big option, why not? IF we did go into the 50s we would come up with Tacticals at least fairly soon.. Bomber technology may be the only thing that the West has over the East