Cutting the Soviet Union in half

[Bobsalt]

We ran into something in our last game that I think ought to be addressed, at least as an optional rule.

We were able to cut the Soviet Union in half. In the Allied half of the turn the SU was able to build in Moscow with his full income, which makes sense since the income he’s building with had been collected at the end of the previous turn. However, if he was unable to “reconnect” the two halves of the SU (and he couldn’t), would he be allowed to use his full income the next turn to build again in Moscow? The way the rules read it would seem that he would be able to. The rules say that any territory that is put out of supply doesn’t produce income – but since there were far more than two flagged territories in the eastern half of the SU, they weren’t out of supply. My thought is that in this situation the SU would have to keep straight what points came from where, and could only build in each half what that half produced.

Another question that came up in that game is whether or not the Axis can count a victory point controlled by a pro-neutral toward their VP total - in this case, the one point in Sweden when Sweden is pro-Axis.

Speaking of victory points, has anyone created or thought to create, a listing of all the VP’s on the map and who controls them at the start? This would be handy when you’re deep into the game and it seems that units are covering up every VP site.

Another rules question, or perhaps a suggestion for an optional rule that was brought up by a friend of mine who happens to also be an active duty army officer. Why don’t AT guns get the same +1 modifier for defending in rough or forested terrain that infantry gets? This is precisely the sort of terrain in which they would be so dangerous to armor. Perhaps a rule could be added that AT guns in that terrain gain the +1 to their defense if the attacking force contains any armor. This would force an attacker to decide if he really wanted to commit armor to attacking in terrain for which it is not suited.

[Bobsalt]

In the same game as above, the Russians attacked Vyborg, and only hit 1 infantry. Could the Fins have elected to retreat the remaining 3 INF nto Finland proper and then be additional units for the Germans once Finland enters the war?

[John D.]

Another question that came up in that game is whether or not the Axis can count a victory point controlled by a pro-neutral toward their VP total - in this case, the one point in Sweden when Sweden is pro-Axis.

So if Sweden joined the Axis - the Axis count the VP.

I will let Mark answer all other questions.

John

[Yoper]

In the same game as above, the Russians attacked Vyborg, and only hit 1 infantry. Could the Fins have elected to retreat the remaining 3 INF nto Finland proper and then be additional units for the Germans once Finland enters the war?

I would think that they would be forced to stay put since Vyborg is treated like a small neutral country in this scenario.

Then again it has been six months since we last played the game.  Fond memories of Origins are a warm memory at this time of year.

Craig

[Mark]

Hi guys,

Pro-Axis neutrals do not get their victory points counted toward Axis victory - the Axis don't get the Sweden VP unless Sweden joins the Axis or they take Stockholm.  Same thing with Madrid and Istanbul (if playing with the optional rule that forces them to become pro-Axis neutrals before joining the Axis outright).

Yoper is right, treat Vyborg as an independent neutral territory for the winter war

Mark

[David]

For the AT question I would think since Tanks are reduced in value when attacking such a territory that it has the basic same result as increasing the value of AT guns.  Doing both would mess with the game balance I think.

Anyway just my Opinion.

David

[Bobsalt]

Ok, no problem with not counting the Swedish VP - I kind of thought that would be the answer but I wanted clarification. As to my original question about how income is treated if the SU is cut in half...any coinsensus?

[Bobsalt]

Another point I forgot to raise - when I was going back the other day and reading some older posts it was mentioned that the SU could not continue to build early fighters after they are able to build regular fighters. This is not on the SU build card - it just says that the SU can begin to build regular fighters after they build two more (I read the card again last night to verify this). We have been assuming that the SU can continue to build the early ones because there were 7 early fighters in my set, and if you couldn't continue to build them you wouldn't need more than 5 (the three you start with plus the 2 more you have to build). Is the restriction on continuing to build early fighters correct? If so, you might want to consider updating the SU card if you do another update (as well as limit the number of early fighter miniatures to 5 per set).

[Mark]

The restriction is correct - the Soviet Union swtiches over from ealy war to mid war fighters.  Seven fighters are included just so you have a couple of spares in case a model breaks.

[Bobsalt]

The restriction is correct - the Soviet Union swtiches over from ealy war to mid war fighters.  Seven fighters are included just so you have a couple of spares in case a model breaks.

...which is exactly what happened. Those upper wings on the biplanes can be rather delicate.

Thanks for the clarification on the fighters. What about my original question about cutting the SU in half? Is there an official ruling on that, or does anyone care to weigh in?

Sorry for all of the questions as of late. But look at the bright side - all these rule questions come up because we're getting so many games in by playing every week.

[John D.]

Ok,
    So they way the Soviet Union works - and all countries for that matter is:

As long as you are in supply, you can build any amount of product in your home production center. The county being split has no bearing on supply or build capacities.

You can always implement house rules but I am not sure what that would add to the game.

Later- John

[Bobsalt]

Ok,
    So they way the Soviet Union works - and all countries for that matter is:

As long as you are in supply, you can build any amount of product in your home production center. The county being split has no bearing on supply or build capacities.

You can always implement house rules but I am not sure what that would add to the game.

Later- John

OK, thanks John. I think we will make a house rule for that. It was something that all three of us playing immediately questioned when it happened. There would be no way to get the income from the eastern half of the SU to the production centers cut off by the Germans, and given the fairly high level of realism you've achieved in the game this just seemed to us to be a bit of a hole.

[Bobsalt]

OK, we started another game last night, and in our discussions we came up with another question. If Italy doesn’t get into the war before the US comes in, the rules state that it goes neutral. If it should subsequently be attacked, do we use the set-up given for the start of the war? Our thought is that we would just leave whatever had been built by Italy previously on the board, though I guess an argument could be made that without Italy getting into the war (because of the fall of the Mussolini government?) there would be a draw-down of the military. I’m also assuming the general prohibition of the Western Allies to declare war on a neutral would apply to Italy as well, and thus Italy could only be attacked by Germany?

Another issue came up in our discussions as well - namely, the economic values given to certain territories relative to one another. For example, Madagascar has the same value (1) as each of the presumably more industrialized territories that make up Spain. Was there a conscious reason for this, or was this for game balance purposes?

We wondered also about why the territory of Slovakia is not a production territory for Germany, given the presence of the Skoda Works, which was used by Germany to produce tanks, assault guns, artillery, and AT guns through the course of the war (perhaps these last two questions more properly belong in the Game Design thread?).

Stay tuned for the results of our session next week, where we will continue to try to present you with more of the improbable, imponderable, impossible, inconsequential, and/or idiotic.

Bob

[John D.]

You are correct- Allies can not attack neutral Italy.

Madagascar's point was for game balance.

I will let Mark answer the Slovakia question wen he gets back next week.

Thanks-John

[Bobsalt]

You are correct- Allies can not attack neutral Italy.

Madagascar's point was for game balance.

I will let Mark answer the Slovakia question wen he gets back next week.

Thanks-John

OK, no problem. I was considering playing the next game with it as a build center, but I'll wait to hear what Mark says.