We are playing a game using all the optional terrain rules as well as the German Special Operations expansion and we’ve run into a couple situations where we need to understand how tundra works. There isn’t much in the rules. As far as I can tell the only relevant text is
“1.13 Tundra/Ice [Optional Rule]:
Some northern land zones have tundra and ice.
These land zones are impassable and cannot be
moved into by land units. Air units can fly over this
terrain but cannot end their movement there.”
Is there a difference between ice and tundra? This seems to suggest that, despite a visual difference on the map, there is no functional difference between the two.
Greenland’s coast appears to be non-ice mountain terrain. Am I seeing that wrong? Can ground troops be stationed on Greenland?
Iceland, however, appears to be entirely tundra. Does that mean that an amphibious invasion in impossible? If so, then we are confounded by section 1.4 of the German Special Operations expansion which indicates the possibility of invading Iceland.
“Seelöwe. Operation Sealion was Germany’s code name for the invasion of the United Kingdom. The following supplemental plans were intended to reinforce the main landing. Must conduct a landing in England and at least one of Iceland, Ireland, or Scotland.”
The northern coastal borders of USSR and Canada, as well as the northern and western border of Alaska are tundra. Does that mean that those territories are immune from amphibious invasion across those coastlines?
Are troops prevented from being non-combat moved from those territories to naval transport in the sea (because they’d have to move across the tundra border?).
a. Specifically In the case of Alaska I want to ultimately move US troops into Russian territory. Can I rail deploy them along the river that empties into the sea as I load them into the transport?
Can a facility be built in a tundra zone?
a. The rules state that air units can’t land there. This would eliminate the useful of an airfield there. . . unless an airfield overrides that prohibition.
b. A port could conceivably be useful. Some expansion allow for facilities in Antarctica (base 221, sub base, etc.) but I’m not sure that that is allowed ONLY for those expansion of if a sub base could be built there without the expansion. Also, Antarctica isn’t tundra so it isn’t quite an apple-to-apples comparison.
Thanks for any help guys!
@nathan-greve said in Tundra and Ice question:
We are playing a game using all the optional terrain rules as well as the German Special Operations expansion and we’ve run into a couple situations where we need to understand how tundra works. There isn’t much in the rules. As far as I can tell the only relevant text is
“1.13 Tundra/Ice [Optional Rule]:
Some northern land zones have tundra and ice.
These land zones are impassable and cannot be
moved into by land units. Air units can fly over this
terrain but cannot end their movement there.”
- Is there a difference between ice and tundra? This seems to suggest that, despite a visual difference on the map, there is no functional difference between the two.
Correct- Greenland’s coast appears to be non-ice mountain terrain. Am I seeing that wrong? Can ground troops be stationed on Greenland?
I believe Greenland is Tundra, as its roundel is in Tundra.- Iceland, however, appears to be entirely tundra. Does that mean that an amphibious invasion in impossible? If so, then we are confounded by section 1.4 of the German Special Operations expansion which indicates the possibility of invading Iceland.
“Seelöwe. Operation Sealion was Germany’s code name for the invasion of the United Kingdom. The following supplemental plans were intended to reinforce the main landing. Must conduct a landing in England and at least one of Iceland, Ireland, or Scotland.”
Remember, most expansions are from v2, where Tundra didn’t exist. In this case I would go with the base rules.
4) The northern coastal borders of USSR and Canada, as well as the northern and western border of Alaska are tundra. Does that mean that those territories are immune from amphibious invasion across those coastlines?
Yes
5) Are troops prevented from being non-combat moved from those territories to naval transport in the sea (because they’d have to move across the tundra border?).
Yes
a. Specifically In the case of Alaska I want to ultimately move US troops into Russian territory. Can I rail deploy them along the river that empties into the sea as I load them into the transport?
I don’t think so. If there was a port you might be able to use SNM though.
6) Can a facility be built in a tundra zone?
a. The rules state that air units can’t land there. This would eliminate the useful of an airfield there. . . unless an airfield overrides that prohibition.
It doesn’t override that prohibition. Also I don’t know of any restrictions, but it is useless.
b. A port could conceivably be useful. Some expansion allow for facilities in Antarctica (base 221, sub base, etc.) but I’m not sure that that is allowed ONLY for those expansion of if a sub base could be built there without the expansion. Also, Antarctica isn’t tundra so it isn’t quite an apple-to-apples comparison.
I would say a port might be useful (ie Archangel, Iceland)
Thanks for any help guys!
Note: I really don’t like Tundra rules and personally don’t play with them. They just don’t seems realistic or fun. I am taking suggestions on how to improve them.
That said, all answers above are from the OOB rules.
House rule the game as I always do to make it more fun to play.
For Tundra/Ice make it ‘frozen’ in the winter turns. Meaning no movement in winter (Jan-June) turns, only summer (July-Dec) turns.
@trig Thanks for you input. Yeah, we wanted to go ‘all in’ on the optional rules this time, but it definitely feels like the tundra rules could use more polish.
I did double-check the German Operations Expansion and we are looking at the v.3 rules. I’m guessing that maybe that slipped through the updating.
The Iceland thing isn’t likely to be too important for our game, but I think its important we figure something out for Alaska. I think we’ll have a little chat this evening for figure out acceptable house rules for this.
@delaja I like your idea! But I’m going to propose a slight modification to the players of my current game. It should be impassible during winter turns and treated as marsh during the summer turns. We’ll see how that works.
@nathan-greve
Tundra rules did not work… Well I was asked by Doug to do the V3 revisions of the expansions because the lead designer did not want to do it. He did not want to debate with other designers. So I said I wanted to do it but only if I could do it my way, because I had played almost all expansions in one game already seeing flaws. It would be a lot of work. Of the four Admiral editions I made, HBG only posted 1 (SCW) and made the markers. The projects ran to a halt because Doug was not participating actively in the marker making anymore and all expansions was reduced to those four because quantity over quality was the norm it seemed. And because I wanted quality expansions it took more time I guess than HBG wanted so they rushed most expansions into v3 without sufficiently working on quality in my view. So you may find that a lot of expansions have issues that need to be solved. The project I started abruptly ended when it was taken away from me in 2019. Anyway it is not my business and it is not my business anymore. I can only say that if you wish to use such expansions, prepare to house rule things to make it work better. Currently only one designer is working on v4 and this is a game that can not be improved by one designer alone. But he is also working on Global Europe and Global Pacific, future games and bigger versions of the AA Europe and Pacific map ideas. So where will the focus be with two more of such gigantic projects? I would rather play on a good map and improve the rules myself than buy new maps each x amount of years with more unfinished rules. So I hope Tundra house rules as suggested or adjusted will give more fun.
I wonder if and how HBG will solve the Tundra issue. But not going to wait for it. I will make a mental note to introduce the winter-summer tundra rule into my house rule version that is further developing.
How interesting. We haven’t had this be an issue in games yet, but I hadn’t considered that Iceland, for example, is just totally unusable now if it’s really all Tundra! A shame for Iceland specifically, as I believe for a time it was used as a weigh station for convoys heading to England.
Agreed with @Trig on some of the expansions, I don’t think they were really modified completely (properly?) to integrate seamlessly to V3.
But speaking of expansions, one fun house rule you could use for Tundra might involve elements of the Winter War expansion. Namely, use Ski Troops in your game. Maybe only Ski Troops can access Tundra territories/borders or something to that affect? That way there’s still a restriction, but you can have a work around by having to by specialized units to move/combat within the Tundra zones!
I always understood it as ‘Tundra’ zones were those with the shading of the northern Russian zones, northern Canadian zones and Iceland while the ‘Ice’ zones were those with white shading like Antarctica, Greenland and Iceland but that was just me.
I dont care for the tundra/ice rules either but I like the idea of only ski troops being able to move through them.
