Please help with rule clarification.

[liquidvet]

I just want to make sure that we have been playing right, the rule book is rather vague.  If a country gets completely wiped out like Russia, does the capturing army assume control of the entire Russian territory and make money off all of it, or just the lands that each country has captured, or do the lands not produce any money at all anymore? I was assuming that each country makes money for the lands within the region that they have occupied, but then this kind of screws the british and americans since they can only liberate, not take control of Russian lands.  Make sense?

[BlackWatch]

You must physically control each territory to earn that territory's income.

BW

[liquidvet]

You must physically control each territory to earn that territory's income.

BW

Thanks, that is how we have been playing, but then I was beating the crap out of my friend 2 nights ago and he all of a sudden questioned it because I just brought down Russia, when I looked it up it didn't have an answer although it seemed logical that you would just each have to control a territory, thanks.

[JamesG]

I was assuming that each country makes money for the lands within the region that they have occupied, but then this kind of screws the british and americans since they can only liberate, not take control of Russian lands.  Make sense?

Note that if the Russian capital is in axis hands, then if the US or UK liberates a "Russian" land, they gain control of it and can earn money for it.  If the Russian capital is ever liberated, at that point the lands revert back to Russian control.

Some examples.  Say the Russian capital is captured, with Archangel in Russian hands and Caucus in German hands.

Archangel will generate no money for anyone as long as the Russian capital is conquered, unless an axis power takes it over.  But if the US or UK liberate the Caucus from German control, the liberator earns the IPCs for the territory AND can use the IC there to produce units.  If the Russian capital is later liberated, the Caucus (and its IC) will revert back to Russia and the US/UK will no longer earn IPCs or be able to build there.

[Axel Allie]

And what if Archangel was Russian territory the moment Moscow fell, but NO Russian units were present and only UK units for example?

would this territory be reverted to UK hands and give IPC's for UK until the Russian capital is liberated?
so, to make things clear: UK didn't actually liberate Archangel, but they have control of a former allied territory...
does that count as well?

I can't remember anything mentioned in the rulebook on this specific topic, so I guess it's not possible?

Imagine next situation:
Every Russian territory, except Caucasus and Moscow, have ONLY units of UK...
Caucasus is G territory...
Moscow fell to Germany, so the capital can no longer give commands to all of its territories.
In my imagination, it would be possible that UK gets all of these territories to command and gain their IPC's for doing that (sort of payment).

what would be the difference in moral explanation if they actually liberate the territory (first in G hands and then in UK hands)?
why would they be rewarded only in this specific situation?

[ncscswitch]

Axel..

For an ally to get paid for a captured allies land, they must liberate it from the enemy.

So, in your example, NO ONE would get paid for Archangel until either:
A)  Moscow is liberated
or
B} Germany or Japan takes Archangel (at which point they get paid for it, then if UK or Britain takes it back, THEY can get paid)

[Axel Allie]

Like I said in my post:

I can't remember anything mentioned in the rulebook on this specific topic, so I guess it's not possible?

playing by the book, I know an ally can only get paid for a LIBERATED friendly allied territory.
but why wasn't this mentioned in the rulebook?
I mean, wouldn't it be logical to give the IPC's to the ally that occupies the friendly allied territory with only his units on it, after the capital of the original owner of the allied territory fell?

[liquidvet]

Like I said in my post:

I can't remember anything mentioned in the rulebook on this specific topic, so I guess it's not possible?

playing by the book, I know an ally can only get paid for a LIBERATED friendly allied territory.
but why wasn't this mentioned in the rulebook?
I mean, wouldn't it be logical to give the IPC's to the ally that occupies the friendly allied territory with only his units on it, after the capital of the original owner of the allied territory fell?

according to what I have read here that is how it should be.  If Russia has fallen and Germany/Japan controls moscow any territory an ally picks up in russia will give the IPCs to that ally.  If Moscow is liberated, the Russian player is back in the game, now making money, and all allied russian land will now be back under his control.  Now if Moscow fell while Uk troops were positioned in 2 territories, they would immediately begin making money for it since they are already bringing order to a hostile territory with no rule.

[JamesG]

Now if Moscow fell while Uk troops were positioned in 2 territories, they would immediately begin making money for it since they are already bringing order to a hostile territory with no rule.

I do not think this is correct.  If UK has troops in a Russian territory and the Russian capital falls, the UK does not earn money for that territory.  Nobody does, until either an axis power takes over the territory or the Russian capital is liberated.  In order for the UK to earn money for an original Russian territory, they must liberate it from axis control.

I grant you it does not "make sense" from a real world perspective, but a fair number of rules don't make sense in that way.  They are probably the way they are for game balance reasons, etc.

[Bean]

You have to liberate an allied territory from hostile control in order to collect money from it.

You can't just randomly take protective custody of whatever land is left over of your ally; you actually have to seize control back from enemy occupation. This creates territories which are not producing IPCs for anyone, until the capital is regained or the enemy seizes control of them first.

[ncscswitch]

Thanks for the back-up Tri

[Axel Allie]

I grant you it does not "make sense" from a real world perspective, but a fair number of rules don't make sense in that way.  They are probably the way they are for game balance reasons, etc.

Thx for your back-up, James G.

trihero and ncscswitch:
I know the rules and I always play by those rules, but I don't see how this specific rule makes sense in a real world perspective.
anyway, NOT THAT IT MATTERS 
 

[ncscswitch]

BAasically it is to prevent taking a capital from being DETRIMENTAL to the side that takes it.

Also, doing away with that rule would create some really fracked Allied strategies...
Things like the Allies LETTING USSR fall so that UK and US could have the rest of Russia's income and become incredibly strong immediately.

[Axel Allie]

Also, doing away with that rule would create some really fracked Allied strategies...
Things like the Allies LETTING USSR fall so that UK and US could have the rest of Russia's income and become incredibly strong immediately.

yeah,

I know 
I would never imply the system in one of my games!