Murmansk Convoy being rerouted to Persia

[Harrybanana]

YueJin has reported in our game that even though the Murmansk rail line has been cut by the Axis he is still able to send PPs to Russia during the Winter via Persia. I thought he was mistaken, but I tested it and he is not. I tested it by starting the 1942 scenario and moving Axis and Russian units so that the Axis cut the Murmansk rail line (not shown). I also moved British and Russian units to ensure that the rail line in Persia could not be cut by partisans. Finally I increased the US to Russia trade of PPs to 99 (the maximum). I then just ended turns until I got to the Winter. Below is the screenshot on the turn prior to the Port of Arkhangelsk being frozen showing the Arctic Convoy as usual. The actual PPs arriving in Russia is less than the maximum as some MS are being used to transport US resources to the US.

[Harrybanana]

On the next turn, with Arkhangelsk frozen, I was surprised to see that the PPs were being shipped via Persia. Note that Russian production would not be this high unless it was still receiving the American PPs.

[Harrybanana]

And here is a screenshot of the full route to Siberia.

I assume this is a Bug.

[ncc1701e]

Is it not what every Allies commander would do? Reroute the convoys to Persia?

[Nirosi]

Well, that would make losing Murmansk of no importance. It would actually even be good for the Allies with one less route to put escorts in.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Is it not what every Allies commander would do? Reroute the convoys to Persia?

It is not that simple. For one thing it would have significantly increased the distance since the ships would have had to go around the whole of Africa. For another the rail lines in Persia were already strained carrying the PPs that are built into the game. In any event, as Nirosi says it makes the cutting of the Murmansk rail line an advantage to the Soviets when historically it would have been a disaster.

I am all for helping the Russians, but this is not the way to do it.

[ncc1701e]

Yes I agree with your arguments.

[AlvaroSousa]

That's a tough one to fix unless I remove the rail line event down south.

[Nirosi]

My humble opinion is that if it is what it take, it is worth it to remove the rail then.

If not, we will start to see Soviet players trying to lose Murmansk on purpose (And German players refusing to take it!) [:'(]

[ncc1701e]

Well I have lost Murmansk but not on purpose. [:(]

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

My humble opinion is that if it is what it take, it is worth it to remove the rail then.

If not, we will start to see Soviet players trying to lose Murmansk on purpose (And German players refusing to take it!) [:'(]

This is a good point.

[Harrybanana]

I suppose one answer could be another House Rule, where the Allies player agrees to stop trading with Russia during the Winter Months if the Murmansk rail line is cut. The strange thing is that as the Axis I have always cut the Murmansk rail line, but this is the first time this has been pointed put to me.

[AlvaroSousa]

I just removed the rail.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I just removed the rail.

Will this prevent the automatic 5 PPs per turn? If so, not a big deal I suppose; but Russia is already hurting. Perhaps an increase to Russian production is justified.