The Great Nuke Debate
One of the questions that comes up in the podcast is whether the Fusion Weapons tech functions as a direct upgrade to pre-existing nuclear weapons (such as the one that the US starts with, or any subsequent ones they might have purchased, while they only had the Fission Weapons tech.)
Now, to my eyes, the text of the rules supports this interpretation – I just want to say that, right out of the gate. There’s also the fact that the game doesn’t call out the two types of bombs as being different units (they’re all just “atomic bombs”) and neither the physical nor the electronic games include different units for fission weapons vs. fusion weapons.
Does this make sense, “realistically”? Not really; uranium or plutonium (fission) bombs function quite differently than hydrogen (fusion) bombs.
However, as I said in the podcast, (to my recollection) Imp Games did make a clarification that Fission Weapons and Fusion Weapons are considered different types of units. I also recalled having the different abbreviations for them in PBEM format (FiW, and FuW, respectively.) But, as I also said in the podcast, somehow this never made it into either:
a) the E&W 2nd edition rules clarification
b) the E&W “2nd edition merged” electronic-format rulebook
c) the E&W FAQ
As a side note, the FAQ says that:
[Q.] If the Soviet Union captures an Allied bomb before learning Fission technology, can they still use the bomb? Do they gain the technology just from capturing the bomb?
[A.] If the Soviets capture an American bomb, they can load it into a bomber and use against its former owners, but they do not gain the Fission technology.
However, in the original rules, it actually specifies:
The steps for delivering a nuclear device are as follows:
The attacker must have the fission bomb technology.
So, uh, ok then… The rules then go on to say:
The attacker builds a bomb on his “Purchase Units” phase.
Now, I may be grasping at straws but this is probably the only daylight as far as in-writing support for the distinction between the two bombs; if the purchasing of the bomb is considered part of the “steps for delivering a nuclear device”, then the technology which you have at the time of purchase should determine which type of bomb you’re purchasing and which kind you’re delivering… if that make sense – basically, the two ideas are linked together.
This might potentially explain the bizarre exception in the description for Fusion Weapons:
Benefits: Atomic weapons are at double strength (destroying ten enemy units), and reduce a territory’s value by two credits for one round. Note that a player may choose to deploy fission weapons instead.
i.e. Once you gain the Fusion Weapons tech, all nukes that you purchase are Fusion Weapons, but they may be “deployed” as fission weapons.
It is important to make this distinction – “deploy” and “deliver” are terms that are exclusively used to describe the firing off of atomic bombs, not their purchase nor the purchase of any other types of units. The only other instances of the word “deployment” are:
Atomic Bomb Complications:
Protests: Demonstrations at major universities prevent deployment of the bomb this turn. The USSR may ignore this result.
Ballistic Missiles: The German V-2 rocket was the prototype for all missile technology until about 1950. In fact, the dwindling supply of captured V-2s provided American scientists with incentive to begin developing their own missiles capable of delivering payloads hundreds of miles.
Benefits: Atomic weapons may be launched up to three spaces from an AA gun. No bomber is required for deployment. One bomb may be launched per AA gun on any given turn.
Now, that all being said, in practical terms my opinion is this:
If you let the Americans upgrade their starting nuke for free? That’s probably not going to affect gameplay a whole lot.
If you let the Americans stockpile a nuke each turn until they get the Fusion tech, and then upgrade ALL of their nukes for free? That’s gonna be a problem.
For those reasons, I would lean towards not treating the tech as an upgrade; I can’t envision a scenario where the latter assumption creates a desirable game state. I think either of these instances coming up are kind of niche (just based on my own playing experience) but I would chalk this up as one of the screwy/unclear/incomplete rules that need to be ironed out between yourself and your opponent(s) before you start playing a match. In fact, the rulebook even says as much, under their “tips for play and setup”:
If any rule is unclear, remember that the point is to have fun. Invent a replacement rule that is consistent and fair, and realistic if possible.
