RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Terminus -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/9/2006 4:31:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

32,000? It should be something like 20,000,000!


Our system is 1 per POUND of weapon. Now atom bombs are not that heavy - but their yield is on the order of 40,000,000,000 pounds!



I forgot the extra 3 zeroes (was thinking in kilos)...



Big B -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/9/2006 5:02:05 PM)

I know we aren't talking Hydrogen Bombs here, but I can't imagine that the industrial output (heavy industry - not sushi bars and bagel shops) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more than negligable after they were bombed....

I don't know, maybe the bombs weren't really that destructive after all...

[image]local://upfiles/16855/33BF75723D5A4455A1DB1CBAB8243154.jpg[/image]



Iridium -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/9/2006 5:35:12 PM)

I think the problem is that the photos are showing a primarily wooden structured area of the city (with some exceptions that survived). Most industrial buildings would be larger and made of heftier stuff I would imagine. Though I guess some light industry could be placed in smaller wooden structures. Someone would have to look at what the standard industrial building was made of at the time for Japan.

The main bias attached to nuclear arms is from the 40 Megaton bombs made famous by the Russians in the cold war in my opinion. The US produced some larger warheads in this vein but due to better targeting systems decided that such power wasn't necessary to destroy the intended targets. Especially today, most warheads are much weaker than those of the cold war. The advent of MIRV and more advanced guidance systems have made 'large' nukes rather pointless (and a waste of fissionable material).



mlees -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/9/2006 6:07:14 PM)

I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Park. They have models of the city before and after.

The blast damage appeared localised to a radius smaller than I first imagined. The long term effects (radiation sickness, thousands homeless & without food that need to be cared for...) seems to have as much effect, if not more, on the local infrastructure and production capability than the blast itself.

I think that the "spectre" of Nuclear war and the Cold war may have instilled a preconception (at least it did in me) of an entire nation (or world) looking like that photo above. But a single 16-20kT bomb focuses all that force in a 2 mile radius. (Heavy brick/stone/cement buildings were toppled in that radius.) Then the fires started add to the misery, and spread out.

If I recall correctly, Nagasaki had a bigger bomb used against it, but the damage was even more localised due to the terrain features.

As has been mentioned, other fire bombing campaigns achieved more widespread damage. The only difference being that those campaigns involved a lot more planes, over a longer period of time, than a single plane mission...



Big B -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/9/2006 8:02:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Park. They have models of the city before and after.

The blast damage appeared localised to a radius smaller than I first imagined. The long term effects (radiation sickness, thousands homeless & without food that need to be cared for...) seems to have as much effect, if not more, on the local infrastructure and production capability than the blast itself.

I think that the "spectre" of Nuclear war and the Cold war may have instilled a preconception (at least it did in me) of an entire nation (or world) looking like that photo above. But a single 16-20kT bomb focuses all that force in a 2 mile radius. (Heavy brick/stone/cement buildings were toppled in that radius.) Then the fires started add to the misery, and spread out.

If I recall correctly, Nagasaki had a bigger bomb used against it, but the damage was even more localised due to the terrain features.

As has been mentioned, other fire bombing campaigns achieved more widespread damage. The only difference being that those campaigns involved a lot more planes, over a longer period of time, than a single plane mission...


I know that B-29's did more with firebombing that the A-Bomb actually did (but that has already been nerfed in this game)

I also know, there ain't no way a 20Kton nuke will destroy a 60 mile hex.

But the industrial part of a city isn't evenly spread over a 60 mile hex - it's like any other city, Like Los Angeles where I came from - a flat costal plain surrounded by mountains with heavy industry localized towards the center. By the way - industry wouldn't have to be at Ground Zero to be effectively taken out.

I know we all have preconceptions - but if Nagasaki had 600 Hvy Industry and Hiroshima had 720 Hvy industry (in game terms) what percentage of war material output did those citys keep up the day after they were nuked? I just can't concieve that they only suffered a 15% reduction in output....maybe I'm wrong[&:]

EDIT: From the general report on Damage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki "
The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946" (see here http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/index.shtml )

"In Hiroshima over 60,000 of 90,000 buildings were destroyed or severely damaged by the atomic bomb; this figure represents over 67% of the city's structures.

In Nagasaki 14,000 or 27% of 52,000 residences were completely destroyed and 5,40O, or 10% were half destroyed. Only 12% remained undamaged. This destruction was limited by the layout of the city.

The atomic explosion over Nagasaki affected an over-all area of approximately 42.9 square miles of which about 8.5 square miles were water and only about 9.8 square miles were built up, the remainder being partially settled. Approximately 36% of the built up areas were seriously damaged. The area most severely damaged had an average radius of about 1 mile, and covered about 2.9 square miles of which 2.4 were built up.
The next most seriously damaged area in Nagasaki lies outside the 2.9 square miles just described, and embraces approximately 4.2 square miles of which 29% was built up. The damage from blast and fire was moderate here, but in some sections (portions of main business districts) many secondary fires started and spread rapidly, resulting in about as much over-all destruction as in areas much closer to X.

An area of partial damage by blast and fire lies just outside the one just described and comprises approximately 35.8 square miles. Of this area, roughly 1/6th was built up and 1/4th was water. The extent of damage varied from serious (severe damage to roofs and windows in the main business section of Nagasaki, 2.5 miles from X), to minor (broken or occasionally broken windows at a distance of 7 miles southeast of X).



This is the games 10% to 15% loss of industrial capacity?

I think it's under estimated


[image]local://upfiles/16855/FE825C3EBD584642B8DC66CEF538E7CA.jpg[/image]



Grotius -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 1:52:23 AM)

I'm inclined to agree with you, Big B. But maybe the number should be somewhere between 15% and 67%, to allow for Mogami's point that one WITP hex may represent more than one Japanese city. 40%, maybe.



rtrapasso -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 2:10:39 AM)

Does anyone have a before/after pic of Hiroshima available?


i remember seeing a classified report as a kid (don't ask how) and it looked like it actually sank most of an island (although maybe it was just tidal flats and the pic taken at a different time of the tide.)



Nemo121 -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 2:33:25 AM)

I find it interesting that people continue to point to the % of total buildings destroyed and fairly directly relating that to industrial damage. This is illusory.


Especially given the nature of Japanese construction it is highly likely that if 90,000 buildings were present in a given area and 60,000 were destroyed by blast and fire effects the majority of this damage ( especially of the blast portion of the damage done) would occur to residential ( wooden) buildings. So while 2/3rd of the buildings were destroyed the % of residential buildings destroyed would likely be much higher and the % of industrial facilities destroyed would be much smaller.


One also then needs to take into account the findings of the USSBS and German and Japanese experience during the war which found that in the absence of firestorms the physical destruction of factories rarely entailed the destruction of a significant portion of the means of production ( machine tools, presses etc). This would be even more so given the fact that the Japanese economy still comprised a large number of smaller, less specialised presses and tools than similar economic sectors in the American and even German economies. Interestingly the fact that the Japanese economy was less-developed than other economies actually helped them when it came to withstanding strategic bombing as there were fewer industrial sectors which absolutely depended on the functioning of a small number of highly specialised, large presses/tools capable of producing large amounts of items in a single ( or at most a very small number of processes... most of which were concentrated within the one factory). Instead they had a larger number of smaller and less specialised presses/tools which produced the same or lesser amounts of items via a larger series of consecutive processes often carried out in factories at some distance from eachother.

Sure they had to move machines from one area to another if a bombing raid destroyed much of the machinery at a given factory and therefore they did lose out in terms of opportunity cost BUT, and this is crucial, there was not the possibility to cripple a single strategic sector by destroying a small number of large, highly specialised fabrication tools/presses which simply could not be replaced within a reasonable timeframe as existed in the German and American economies.

So, less efficient but also much more able to withstand the effects of damage without reductions in production in critical sectors than either the American or even German economies. And that's without even taking into account the fact that most important industrial areas within a city are located not at the centre of the city but along rivers, canals and peripheries. From what I know of the aiming points they were pretty much aimed at the middle of the two cities and thus ould be expected to disproportionately effect residential areas.


So, there's 5 additional factors which would argue for the atomic strikes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki being far less effective than most people assume. Nukes are, as individual weapons systems, over-rated in the public's eye... What makes them devastating is not so much that a single nuke is a city-killer ( excepting of course the multi-hundred megaton nukes the Soviets designed in the 70s and early 80s in order to overcome the issues they had with their CEPs) but that they allow a huge amount of destruction to occur within a small time period with a small number of delivery systems.

Firebombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima with massive B29 raids would probably have done more damage than the nukes BUT it would have taken far more sorties over many nights and would have suffered far greater loss. So please don't let perception overrule the facts. Nukes just aren't as devastating as most people think. They just tend to cause more damage in an instant than would otherwise be possible without committing 100s of conventional bombers for several days...

So, why use nukes? Simple, if two nations face off and 1 has the ability to 33% devastate all of the other nation's cities and productive capacity in 1 day with no more than 1 sortie per city ( AND the capability to repeat these strikes for the next 2 or 3 days) and the second has the ability to 100% attrit the other nation's cities over 20 days by means of a thousands of bomber sorties per city guess which one will win? Hint, it isn't the one with the potential to completely destroy the enemy over time as this ability will be attrited more quickly by nuke strikes than it can attrit the nation launching those nukes.



mogami -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 2:42:47 AM)

Hi, 87 points worth was destroyed. 101 points damaged. Bet it scored a slew of points.
even on the map the Hiroshima hex shows more then 1 city (kure) You keep thinking 1 bomb is going to destroy 60 square miles. (The bomb destroyed 5 square miles)

[image]local://upfiles/944/4A15BAC3FAEA4262A1950C9F09EEE7DF.jpg[/image]



Nemo121 -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 3:05:11 AM)

BTW just to clear up what Mogami intended to say... I'm sure he meant to write "3600 square miles or 60 miles squared". This is the area of one hex.

To put that into perspective the bomb at Nagasaki damaged by the most generous estimate 42.9 square miles of that "hex" ( some of which was water and only a small portion of which was actually heavily built up...

So, we are talking about a bit over 1.2% of the total hex area effected by the A-bomb. So I hope it is now clear why a large city would not be as completely devastated by a nuke as many people here seem to think.




mogami -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 3:16:43 AM)

Hi, Thanks Nemo for fixing my math. Here is a close up of the Hiroshima "hex" I had to cut it down because it was too large to fit in the upload.

[image]local://upfiles/944/31F59AB8843B41E5898549A7B0E2A8EA.jpg[/image]



Big B -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 3:47:03 AM)

So does any ome know exactly what was the industrial out put of Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER they were nuked?

I am not beyond reason - but it is obvious that those two cities were taken out of the war after being Atom bombed.

Just two of those bombings were enough to make the Japanese seek peace.

In WitP the damage is not near great enough to force that decision.


B



Nemo121 -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 5:02:38 AM)

quote:

Just two of those bombings were enough to make the Japanese seek peace.


Sorry, I'm not trying to be contrary but I believe this is erroneous. The two bombings can be demonstrated not to have made the Japanese seek peace. The threat of further bombings, along with the not-so-subtle hint that a future bomb might just land on Hirohito's head, made the Japanese seek peace.

The damage caused by the two bombs and the demonstrable inability of the Japanese Army and Naval Air arms to guarantee to stop EVERY SINGLE B-29 which approached the homeland made it virtually certain that, in future, the only limit on American ability to drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities would be their production of these weapons. Since the Japanese didn't have good intel on their production they had to assume a worst case scenario. Armed with the worst case scenario of future bombings against which there was no possibility of defence ( there was at least some ability to attrit firebombing raids) to argue around those who lived in the real world AND the threat this all posed to Hirohito himself to argue around all but the most militaristic of officers this combination gave the groups which wanted a negotiated settlement the ability to push for this.

The damage done by the two A-bomb attacks did not in and of itself make the Japanese seek peace. It was more complicated than that although the damage done and inability to prevent it in the future did certainly strengthen the hand of the groups which wanted a negotiated settlement.



mogami -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 5:27:40 AM)

Hi, The Japanese had been trying to surrender for 2 months before the bombs were dropped. It is true that the bombs finally allowed the gov of Japan to over rule military hardliners who were preventing the surrender.
Japan would have been forced to surrender without the bombs. They made the actual event occur sooner.

However just as important was the Soviet invasion of manchuria.
The USA had been holding out for unconditional surrender. we used the bomb to get Japan to accept this (we had refused to listen to other options)
But when the Soviets entered the war we dropped the unconditional clause and accepted the surrender. (The condition we allowed was Japan kept Hirohito as a figure head of state)



popejoy1 -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 5:39:17 AM)

Hi!

FWIW, I don't think there's any question that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by the nuclear attacks, and were pretty much knocked out of the war. The following quotes are from "The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," by the U.S. Army's "Manhattan Engineering District" (aka Manhattan Project), which you can find at the Yale University 'Avalan Project'.

quote:

In Hiroshima

  • 135,000 people were casualties (dead and injured) out of an estimated population of 225,000 [about 60% of the population], not counting military personnel or slave laborers. [NB: The Hiroshima police estimated about 130,000 total casualties]
  • Over 60,000 of 90,000 buildings were destroyed or severely damaged by the atomic bomb; this figure represents over 67% of the city's structures.
  • All utilities and transportation services were disrupted for varying lengths of time. In general however services were restored about as rapidly as they could be used by the depleted population. Through railroad service was in order in Hiroshima on 8 August, and electric power was available in most of the surviving parts on 7 August, the day after the bombing. [NB: "surviving parts" are in the remaining 33% of the city not severely damaged or destroyed]
  • The reservoir of the city was not damaged, being nearly 2 miles from X. However, 70,000 breaks in water pipes in buildings and dwellings were caused by the blast and fire effects.
  • Almost everything up to about one mile from X was completely destroyed, except for a small number (about 50) of heavily reinforced concrete buildings, most of which were specially designed to withstand earthquake shock, which were not collapsed by the blast; most of these buildings had their interiors completely gutted, and all windows, doors, sashes, and frames ripped out.

In Nagasaki:

  • 14,000 or 27% of 52,000 residences were completely destroyed and 5,40O, or 10% were half destroyed. Only 12% remained undamaged. This destruction was limited by the layout of the city.
  • The atomic explosion ... affected an over-all area of approximately 42.9 square miles of which about 8.5 square miles were water and only about 9.8 square miles were built up, the remainder being partially settled. Approximately 36% of the built up areas were seriously damaged. The area most severely damaged had an average radius of about 1 mile, and covered about 2.9 square miles of which 2.4 were built up.


I think Mogami's point should be well-taken. In a game on the scale of WITP I think the issue isn't so much the industrial capacity of Hiroshima, but the industrial capacity of the entire hex, of which Hiroshima (or any other city) is just a part. It's an important part, but even a cursory examination of Mogami's map (see earlier post) a fair number of smaller towns and cities (such as Kure) within the hex.

For WITP, hexes with 60 miles from center to center have an area of about 2338 sq. miles (the area of a hexagon is (3/2) * sqrt(3) * length of side of hexagon; the length of the side of a hexagon is half the distance to the center, or 30 miles for WITP. The atomic bomb destroyed or severely damaged buildings in a 43 sq. mile area of Nagasaki, including damage from fires that spread after the explosion. That's a big chunk of Nagasaki, but only a few percent of the entire hex.

WRT what persuaded the Japanese to surrender, there is some evidence this decision was made in response to the Soviet Declaration of War and invasion of Manchuria, and that the detonation of the atomic bomb over Nagasaki merely served to confirm the decision. See for example John Toland, The Rising Sun.

My $0.02.

Pablo



FeurerKrieg -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 5:41:10 AM)

I also think the level of points scored from the bomb is a good simulator of the politcal effect of the A-bomb. A couple of those bombs could move the score switftly to the end game, right? (I have no idea what type of scores are seen in the end game).



mogami -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 5:44:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

I also think the level of points scored from the bomb is a good simulator of the politcal effect of the A-bomb. A couple of those bombs could move the score switftly to the end game, right? (I have no idea what type of scores are seen in the end game).


Hi, In my test conventional city bombing had scored 20k points in 5 months. The bomb scored 4k in 1 mission.



Big B -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 4:03:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

I also think the level of points scored from the bomb is a good simulator of the politcal effect of the A-bomb. A couple of those bombs could move the score switftly to the end game, right? (I have no idea what type of scores are seen in the end game).


Hi, In my test conventional city bombing had scored 20k points in 5 months. The bomb scored 4k in 1 mission.



What was your total victory point score when your game ended?



Big B -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 4:11:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

BTW just to clear up what Mogami intended to say... I'm sure he meant to write "3600 square miles or 60 miles squared". This is the area of one hex.

To put that into perspective the bomb at Nagasaki damaged by the most generous estimate 42.9 square miles of that "hex" ( some of which was water and only a small portion of which was actually heavily built up...

So, we are talking about a bit over 1.2% of the total hex area effected by the A-bomb. So I hope it is now clear why a large city would not be as completely devastated by a nuke as many people here seem to think.




The point your missing Nemo is:
quote:

The atomic explosion over Nagasaki affected an over-all area of approximately 42.9 square miles of which about 8.5 square miles were water and only about 9.8 square miles were built up, the remainder being partially settled.


You are not taking into account how relatively small an are of a hex is that is built up city...where the heavy industry is concentrated.

Heavy industry is not spread evenly over an entire hex - it is concentrated in cities, especially the older industrial age cities.

Not to mention, just who is going to be left to go back to work the next day given all the dead, maimed, traumatized, and general disruption?

Unless we assume that factories and industrial production weren't in cities - but I don't believe that was the case in the 1940s, and especially in a country like Japan where suitable land is at a premium.

Maybe I've got it all wrong, but it still seems to me that Atomic weapons are underrated in effect in this game.



B






mlees -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 5:44:15 PM)

Slightly OT:

Results of Operation Ivy, Mike Shot, Eniwetok Atoll, October 1952.

10-MT estimated weapon yield, ground burst. Before and after photos.

Crater is 6000 feet wide (approx 1850 meters?)...


[image]local://upfiles/10157/475991DE435E47D58D860D22805DF630.jpg[/image]



Grotius -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/10/2006 9:10:09 PM)

Very interesting and educational thread.

I haven't been to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but I have been to Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, and other cities in Japan. Admittedly the country is more densely populated now than it was then, but even now there are concentrations of industry in some areas and concentrations of non-industrial things (residences, suburbs, even rural areas) elsewhere in a given "hex". Presumably a Bomb Attack would target those industrial concentrations in a "hex" rather than the suburban or rural areas, would it not? So I'm still inclined to agree with Bib B that destroying a few square miles in the middle of any of the "hexes" I visited would do more than 15% damage to the industrial capacity of that area.



Arkady -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/11/2006 2:31:40 PM)

From US Strategic Bombing Survey:
Hiroshima - 'Approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people were killed, and 50,000 were injured. Of approximately 90,000 buildings in the city, 65,000 were rendered unusable and almost all the remainder received at least light superficial damage. The underground utilities of the city were undamaged except where they crossed bridges over the rivers cutting through the city. All of the small factories in the center of the city were destroyed. However, the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days after the attack.'

Nagasaki
'Approximately 40,000 persons were killed or missing and a like number injured. Of the 52,000 residential buildings in Nagasaki 14,000 were totally destroyed and a further 5,400 badly damaged. Ninety-six percent of the industrial output of Nagasaki was concentrated in the large plants of the Mitsubishi Co. which completely dominated the town. The arms plant and the steel works were located within the area of primary damage. It is estimated that 58 percent of the yen value of the arms plant and 78 percent of the value of the steel works were destroyed. The main plant of the Mitsubishi electric works was on the periphery of the area of greatest destruction. Approximately 25 percent of its value was destroyed. The dockyard, the largest industrial establishment in Nagasaki and one of the three plants previously damaged by high-explosive bombs, was located down the bay from the explosion. It suffered virtually no new damage. The Mitsubishi plants were all operating, prior to the attack, at a fraction of their capacity because of a shortage of raw materials. Had the war continued, and had the raw material situation been such as to warrant their restoration, it is estimated that the dockyard could have been in a position to produce at 80 percent of its full capacity within 3 to 4 months; that the steel works would. have required a year to get into substantial production; that the electric works could have resumed some production within 2 months and been back at capacity within 6 months; and that restoration of the arms plant to 60 to 70 percent of former capacity would have required 15 months.'

To me it seems that A-bomb are portreyed in game well...main value is in gaining strategic points that can lead to end of war. In reality it was the same, effect of A-bombs on japanese war effectivness was neglible.



Arkady -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/11/2006 2:32:31 PM)

I forgot mention the source
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/PTO-Summary.html#teotab



Big B -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/11/2006 5:07:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arkady

To me it seems that A-bomb are portreyed in game well...main value is in gaining strategic points that can lead to end of war. In reality it was the same, effect of A-bombs on japanese war effectivness was neglible.


Interesting, I cannot agree it was negligable. Perhaps it would be better represented with doubling the amount damaged (so it is repairable), and raising the victory point allocation to make it politiclly critical.

quote:

It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued.


But here is the critical phrase above "had the war continued" which it did not. After Nagasaki the war ended immediatly (with a cease fire against the western allies - not the USSR) there is a reason for that and IMO it had nothing to do with Russia taking back Manchuria.
Psycologically the bomb was devestating which is why the Japanese stopped looking for an end to the war on terms and agreed to unconditional surrender.

Therefore I think the victory points awarded are also too low to represent this shock.

B



mogami -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/11/2006 6:47:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

I also think the level of points scored from the bomb is a good simulator of the politcal effect of the A-bomb. A couple of those bombs could move the score switftly to the end game, right? (I have no idea what type of scores are seen in the end game).


Hi, In my test conventional city bombing had scored 20k points in 5 months. The bomb scored 4k in 1 mission.



What was your total victory point score when your game ended?


Hi, In the first test the starting score was Japan 31k Allies 18k I had no landcombat or naval combat or air combat only bombing using city attacks (no port or airfield attacks)

Bombing scored 24k in 5 months

In test 2 (currently underway) I let the AI control Japan so there is air comabt et al. Current date is Mar 19 1945 Score is Japan 33k Allies 28k I have only flown 2 city attacks against home Islands because I wanted to wait to secure Iwo Jima (done) and knock Japans airforces about first before starting bombing missions. (Japan began scenario with 6k aircraft she has lost 6953 to date)(The 2 city attacks scored 1k)

So to force surrender on historic date I need to score around 38k points in 5 months (7.6k per month)
Part of this will be a reduction in Japanese score as bases run out of supply. Part of it will be combat (air/land/sea) but the bulk of it will be through city attacks on Home Islands.

I can either post bombing results to this thread or start a new one. Would you like a new test PBEM you handling Japan?



Big B -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/11/2006 10:08:09 PM)

Posting the results would be interesting, ... I'm not up for a new PBEM right now (but thanks for the offer[;)])

One last note - and it's very minor...
I was a little surprised and disapointed that dropping the bomb (and ushering in the age of nuclear warfare) was so anti-climatic, just a quick combat report - blink and you would miss it.

I don't usually go for this kind of thing, but in this case I thought some sort of graphic, or quick animation would have been appropraite..

Oh well, just another day in the world of mass carnage.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

I also think the level of points scored from the bomb is a good simulator of the politcal effect of the A-bomb. A couple of those bombs could move the score switftly to the end game, right? (I have no idea what type of scores are seen in the end game).


Hi, In my test conventional city bombing had scored 20k points in 5 months. The bomb scored 4k in 1 mission.



What was your total victory point score when your game ended?


Hi, In the first test the starting score was Japan 31k Allies 18k I had no landcombat or naval combat or air combat only bombing using city attacks (no port or airfield attacks)

Bombing scored 24k in 5 months

In test 2 (currently underway) I let the AI control Japan so there is air comabt et al. Current date is Mar 19 1945 Score is Japan 33k Allies 28k I have only flown 2 city attacks against home Islands because I wanted to wait to secure Iwo Jima (done) and knock Japans airforces about first before starting bombing missions. (Japan began scenario with 6k aircraft she has lost 6953 to date)(The 2 city attacks scored 1k)

So to force surrender on historic date I need to score around 38k points in 5 months (7.6k per month)
Part of this will be a reduction in Japanese score as bases run out of supply. Part of it will be combat (air/land/sea) but the bulk of it will be through city attacks on Home Islands.

I can either post bombing results to this thread or start a new one. Would you like a new test PBEM you handling Japan?





mogami -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/12/2006 7:56:29 AM)

Hi, It's now 24 March and I've flwon 3 city attacks. All agaisnt the oil production in Aikita. It's now 2 undamaged remaining out of 100. Next target oil in Niigata. (100 undamaged)
since I have cut off Japan from oil imports from SRA I'm going to reduce the production in Home Islands (no oil will prevent resource being converted to supply no matter how many resource points are stockpiled or produced. )



Damien Thorn -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/12/2006 8:21:18 PM)

Another thing to consider is that every bomb dropped( or every bomb after the first two) shifts the victory conditions one in the Japanese favor. So, after 4 bombs it is impossible for the allies to win, no matter what the score.

Damien Thorn



Big B -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/12/2006 9:17:24 PM)

And the logic behind that is?.....
quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

Another thing to consider is that every bomb dropped( or every bomb after the first two) shifts the victory conditions one in the Japanese favor. So, after 4 bombs it is impossible for the allies to win, no matter what the score.

Damien Thorn




mlees -> RE: How Many of you have dropped "The Bomb?" (5/12/2006 9:24:49 PM)

quote:

And the logic behind that is?.....


Idle Speculation: The designer's didn't want to be seen as pro-nuke?

Japan takes the Nuke question rather seriously, and even though WiTP is just a game, there might be some politician or peacenik that might try and raise a stink about a game that appears to promote the use of WMD's. A bit of a stretch, IMO, but sometimes people make leaps of logic that leave me blinking in confusion...



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.625