Great Thank you
Lend Lease
-
How does this sound:
During the Purchase Units phase, the United States may purchase units for the UK and the Soviet Union. These units cost one additional IPC each, and they must be placed in the recipient’s capital or in a sea zone adjacent to it at the end of the United States’ turn. The total amount spent on Lend-Lease units may not exceed 20% of the United States’ total IPC’s.
-
A rule like this could go a long way to helping Russia, but even with the limitations you propose, it seems the US should buy every unit it can, because there is no other way to get the extra units there. Unless the costs/limitations are more restrictive, it is simply too good (transferring assets straight into Moscow) not to do it. Also the +1 IPC idea/1 unit per turn etc. is the same for infantry as for a fighter, so fighters would be ideal and if they are appearing in Moscow, game changing.
May be more limiting to have certain ports (such as SFE, Vladivostok Archangelsk etc.) as the only places that 1 unit can be showing up on those invisible, unkillable American transports…)
The other problem in G40 is that this would have to wait for war to start because it doesn’t make much sense for neutrals to be helping each other as allies.
-
Makes sense. Thanks for the input.
-
It makes sense to allow the US to Lend Lease before war because that’s exact what US was doing in 39 and 40 when they clearly picked a side before they were forced into the war against their will. Lend Lease outside of G40’s rule that already has Lend Lease is a house rule at the end of the day. What I do is I allow the US to sell units to other allied nations but they can only do it if the unit is on a factory.
-
Do you think it unbalanced the game too much? That’s my biggest concern. We tried to make it fair with the additional IPC charge, but if it’s not enough, then we’re open to suggestions.
-
Well the problem is that you’re going to have to set rules into motion in order to legal it. For example: if you take history into account. You could allow Lend Lease by US using transports to carry units to allied territory, the unit can only move one space per turn but it “deactivated”, once it hits their factory, that owner takes control. Now as US is neutral before turn 4, the way you can allows this is the US player must declare any transports as a Lend Lease unit, it is allowed to carry units to the allies. It cannot be escorted by US naval units at peace and it is legal for attack without justification (meaning Germany as example can attack the transport carrying Lend Lease and that is not an action of war). I did experiment with the idea the UK can Lend Lease to USSR only but at the end of the day, it’s a house rule. Of course you could simply it as this (this makes it fairer and adds a little RNG into it) US rolls a dice, if it gets a six, it rolls two dice again, that number equals how much money it may give to the allies but it must be split (so lets say you get a 12, that doesn’t mean US can give 12 dollars to each player, it means it has an option of giving a total of 12 dollars). But work it as you wish. Of course you can do this for the axis powers as Germany and Italy DID supply Japan with some stuff and Germany did sell somethings to Italy but Lend Lease are massive on the allied side.
-
We play it where US can only send lend lease once Russia is at war with Germany and/or Japan.
If Russia attacks Japan or Germany, US gets to start sending lend lease. Now you can test this both ways.Also have it where US rolls 2 D6 die and total goes to Russia. But then have Germany roll a D6 die and if they roll a 6, they block the lend lease from going to Russia. Now you also can tweak these numbers. So if US rolls 6 total that = to 2 inf or 1 tank and so forth that Russia can buy.
-
But where is the risk? So it costs an extra IPC, but there should be risk in the asset being lost in transport. I use a rule that has convoy routes with implied transports to get the material across the Atlantic.
-
This entire concept then seems better addressed by NOs (such as the ones in Balancedmod) that give CASH bonuses TO RUSSIA that mimic lend lease, rather than having the other allies move/buy overcosted/specially treated/deployed units that are then used by Russia.
One of the major problems with giving Russia any units on other allied turns is that the Axis could not predict for their deployment but that Russia would be allowed to attack with them imm. after they get them. A way of getting around this cleanly is to somehow deliver cash to Russia (usually at war with certain SZ clear) which can then be used to buy units that cant attack until the next turn.
-
@Carolina:
But where is the risk? So it costs an extra IPC, but there should be risk in the asset being lost in transport. I use a rule that has convoy routes with implied transports to get the material across the Atlantic.
[/quote
Do have this in another game
Make the D6 die roll for Germany or Japan to block LL be a 4-6 roll blocks it
-
This entire concept then seems better addressed by NOs (such as the ones in Balancedmod) that give CASH bonuses TO RUSSIA that mimic lend lease, rather than having the other allies move/buy overcosted/specially treated/deployed units that are then used by Russia.
One of the major problems with giving Russia any units on other allied turns is that the Axis could not predict for their deployment but that Russia would be allowed to attack with them imm. after they get them. A way of getting around this cleanly is to somehow deliver cash to Russia (usually at war with certain SZ clear) which can then be used to buy units that cant attack until the next turn.
This seems simpler.
But, if playing a game without NOs, such as 1942.2, is there any other way to get some kind of LL?Considering how much IPCs are needed in centre for Allies, and how much cargo was sunk, what about a simple 2 for 1 rate of exchange per game round, up to 12 IPCs max (1 additional 6 IPCs Russian Tank)?
US is giving up 10 IPCs to the bank, Russia receive immediately 5 IPCs to spent on its turn.UK can do the same.
The exchange rate makes for all kind of Allies shipping losses.
No need to roll dice. Simpler and keeps lend lease as part of purchase phase.
So globally there will be less Allies IPCs on the board but put at the most needed place in Russia’s hand.
In addition, some SZ or TTy can be needed to be clear, to make Lend Lease Archangelsk TTy and SZ or Soviet Far East TTy and SZ or Amur SZ, for Vladivostok TTy.
If Archangelsk is taken or SZ have German’s ship presence, UK cannot deliver Lend Lease to Russia.
All coastal TTy must be blocked or taken to forbid US to send IPCs to Russia.
Also, thinking about it, UK should also be able to receive US help.
US should still be limited to up to 12 IPCs Lend Lease per turn, converted to 6 UK’s or Russia’s IPCs.
So basically, 4 US Infantry, become 2 UK’s Infantry or 2 USSR’s Infantry or 1 UK’s and 1 USSR’s Infantry on each US turn. -
The problem is that I don’t like the idea of any allied players giving each other ICP directly even with an inflation rate because as the Axis powers, you cannot stop them from doing that at all. That’s why even if you make it simple or complex, you have to factor in some kind of ability to stop it as the Axis. The reason why I pitched the transport ability as the US because it takes at least two turns for the US to get units to the allied powers. One to build the unit you want to sell and two to deploy it. If you want to make this as complex as possible within the realms of historical context and still obey the laws of the game, it should work like this:
US and Lend Lease to all allied powers.
UK and Lend Lease to USSR, ROC, France, and ANZACI am not a supporter of Pacific and Euro UK being kept from each other under a single power. It’s dumb and hold back UK but under Lend Lease, it should be legal as London was supplying equipment and money to India and they in return supplied London with transports and man power.
UK should also be able to do what history called “reserve Lend Lease” to the US where they lease their bases to US in exchange for free units.
The problem is even if you double the spent for selling money like 12 ICP equals 6 ICP given, the US could in theory sit on their butts and exclusively send money and the allies would have great benefits with that.
The reason why I continue to pitch the units send by transports because it forces the US to be careful about sending ships because the Axis powers can stop that, that was the very reason why the Kreigsmarine was so important in the early years in the Atlantic to stop any American nation from selling supplies to UK, it was also the very reason why UK and US put so much effort into aircraft carriers to stop U-boats from holding a major advantage in the bomber gap. It was also a very reason why Japan went as far south as they did, to stop US boats from supplying Australia, India, UK, and China in Asia. In fact, the Guadalcanal campaign happened for this very reason because Japan was in a position to choke out supply ships to Australia effectively knocking out ANZAC without invading them.
So I agree with we are to tweek Lend Lease, we have to at least make it so the Axis powers can stop it.
-
money like 12 ICP equals 6 ICP given, the US could in theory sit on their butts and exclusively send money and the allies would have great benefits with that.
In my last suggestion, Axis can still either control a given TTy or just put units in SZs (in addition to Convoy Raid) to prevent it somehow.
It can be refined though but it still limited to a cap of 12 IPCs per turn ( converted into 6 IPCs lend-lease). 2 Infantry per whole round, it is not higher than having a minor IC somehow, or even less if you built a single Tank with 6 IPCs.
Some SZs from US and UK can be added as restriction to allow such lend-lease.
India SZ to sent toward Anzac, vice-versa and both SZs near Melbourne or Brisbane, Victoria state.
So, if any given SZ from sender or receiver or specific TTy is not Allies control such lend-lease cannot be done.
I just believe lend-lease should be different than buying units.Once TTys and SZs which can nullify Lend-Lease are identified, you can add another layer if its not enough.
Something like, a single dice roll of 1 out 6, 1-3 loose 1-3, 4-6 nothing happen.
Similar to Convoy rolls.
So, if no enemy’s unit forbid to send lend-lease, you can send up to 6 IPCs for the cost of 12 IPCs. And for 12 IPCs you can be sure that at least 3 IPCs, and up to 6, reach the allies partner. -
The only other solution I can come up with as far as Lend Lease go is to allow sea zones and land territory that factor in history as a NO for the game. So in case of USSR from USA, you would have to have it as the eastern USSR territory and sea zones that link to Alaska must be kept open as an example. I can sit here and write routes based on actual sea trading done during the war. Something like this is the reason why I wish this game had some kind of merchant fleet as you can work my idea of US actually selling units or some kind of NO that could work around it.
-
@Caesar:
The only other solution I can come up with as far as Lend Lease go is to allow sea zones and land territory that factor in history as a NO for the game. So in case of USSR from USA, you would have to have it as the eastern USSR territory and sea zones that link to Alaska must be kept open as an example. I can sit here and write routes based on actual sea trading done during the war. Something like this is the reason why I wish this game had some kind of merchant fleet as you can work my idea of US actually selling units or some kind of NO that could work around it.
Here is a map of ATO convoys.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=35687.0;attach=387627Here is a few ideas done on another project:
@Baron:What do you think of this if Arctic Convoy Route in SZ 3 at 2 IPCs? is:
Seaports of arrival:
Karelia SSR: Murmansk
Archangel: ArchangelskSeaport of departure:
UK: Liverpool (London)Allies must Control Iceland within SZ 3 to be an Active Convoy.
Here is a pictured map which showed Pacific and Arctic Routes for US Convoy toward USSR.
Hope it can provides enough detail to choose an appropriate SZ for such Pacific Convoy for Russia.
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/paperno/index.htmNorth Pacific Convoy Route in SZ 57 : 4 IPCs?
Seaports of arrival:
Soviet Far East: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky,
Buryatia SSR: Vladivostok.Seaport of Departure:
Western USA: Los AngelesAllies must Control Midway Island to be an active Convoy.
Does a 4 IPCs Russian Convoy SZ in Midway SZ 57 could be appropriate for such Pacific Convoy route?
This would provide a good “in game” incentive for Japan to make such an attack on this isolated Island.
Even if it is not the real historical motive to launch an invasion force on Midway.Route Volume, long tons*
North Russian 3,964,000
Persian Gulf 4,160,000
Black Sea** 681,000
Soviet Far East (Pacific) 8,244,000
Soviet Arctic 452,000
-
I don’t like the idea of Midway playing a role in that SZ, the only reason why Japan went after Midway was to put more pressure of US signing an peace treaty on Japanese terms, remember boys and girls, Japan has no intention of invading US.
I still believe history should be kept as real as possible so you would have to keep it from Alaska to Eastern USSR however, I notice the islands of Alaska are in their own SZ from the main land, that would be a better attack value to Japan as that territory has a value of zero.
-
The Iceland requirement is almost dull in the rule anyways because Iceland is already under British control if I remember correctly and rarely does Germany go after it.
I want to sit down and create very detail routes for Lend Lease and coming off the top of my head, this is what I can think of.
USA:
A route between Alaska and USSR.
A route between the East Coast to UK.
A route from LA to ANZAC via Sidney that also goes to India to China.
(this is the longest in the game so I am sure if it should be one continues NO or break it up)UK:
A route from UK to USSR.
A route from UK to France.
A route from UK to India to ANZAC ( I cannot remember if UK directly supplied ANZAC before India or did both with the same fleet)
Some kind of “reserve” Lend Lease to the US from UK, this would be a complex rule to make fair because under history, it involved UK leasing military bases to US.I can’t remember what else out there but I am sure you can find more. Also, I intentionally ignored non combat Allied Nations that allowed their merchant fleet to move stuff but you can include it because Mexico is already part of the US in 1940.
Suggested Topics
