@SuperbattleshipYamato
nice, lol
Idea for US
-
@The:
It’s an interesting idea, but I think that if it was used, the U.S. should only be able to use it when there not at war, for the obvious reasons as it’s unfair to mobilize 100 ipcs worth of units in like Anzac or india, and also b/c they really didn’t lend-lease as much once they were at war, did they?
His original suggestion had limits of 3 infantry, or 1 infantry and 1 artillery, or 1 tank per turn. If you put further restrictions on that when at war, you might as well just say that they can no longer lend/lease.
-
I think that the us could build the units and lend them to britian for instance. The us would then build the British tan units in eastern us and then the units must be shipped to their destination. The us would build it then britian would be responsible for transporting them. This would be pretty similar to what we did in ww2. Then if we really wanted to make lend lease in this game interesting we could have britian build us units whrn they have high enough number if ipcs or once Germany is captured.
-
I think that the us could build the units and lend them to britian for instance. The us would then build the British tan units in eastern us and then the units must be shipped to their destination. The us would build it then britian would be responsible for transporting them. This would be pretty similar to what we did in ww2. Then if we really wanted to make lend lease in this game interesting we could have britian build us units whrn they have high enough number if ipcs or once Germany is captured.
I think this is a good idea, as the US had a cash-and-carry policy. The units should be built in the US and have to be transported to the Nation. The could be transported by US ships ONCE USA is at war. This would be more realistic than giving the powers IPCs directly.
This gives the AXIS a chance to intercept or at least delay the convoys.
This makes the Russian convoys a joint UK / USA problem as it was historically and makes Scandinavia more important to both AXIS and ALLIES. Assistance to CHINA would have to go the long route as it did historically …USA - India - Burma road - CHINA.
-
I think this is a good idea as it may force the Axis to declare war on US sooner than they would like to.
-
@Brain:
I think this is a good idea as it may force the Axis to declare war on US sooner than they would like to.
GOOD POINT!
-
but before the US declare war they only have like 20 ipcs. Why would they want to there little ipcs on the UK when they have to get ready for war
-
20 ipc? No, probably around 30
Remember, they have 17 in the Pacific. If CUS and EUS, I would expect at least 10 more ipc.
-
but before the US declare war they only have like 20 ipcs. Why would they want to there little ipcs on the UK when they have to get ready for war
USA and UK are on the same team, so if you can get pieces into the action sooner by lending them to those already at war, why wouldn’t you?
-
@Brain:
but before the US declare war they only have like 20 ipcs. Why would they want to there little ipcs on the UK when they have to get ready for war
USA and UK are on the same team, so if you can get pieces into the action sooner by lending them to those already at war, why wouldn’t you?
Exactly. Good point, BD.
-
20 ipc? No, probably around 30
Remember, they have 17 in the Pacific. If CUS and EUS, I would expect at least 10 more ipc.
And Including Brazil, panama, the west indies? change that 10 to like 22-25 bringing the U.S. to about 40 plus national objectives. That’s pretty hefty for a neutral power.
-
The Americans building British (or Soviet units) and placing them in the US is a great idea. It could easily be a House Rule. Remember the US “traded” 50 WWI DDs to the UK for naval bases. Lots of equipment got funneled through Canada even before Lend Lease was official. The US congress adopted a cash and carry policy in September, 1939, in which war material was sold to the Allies. It required the buying nation to pick up the war material in an American port so that the belligerent nation assumed the risk of German U-boats. This was replaced by Lend-Lease in March of 1941, in particular because China didn’t have ready cash. Lend-lease continued throughout the war. The UK also provided lend-lease on a lessor scale and Canada provided lend-lease to the UK, on a much lessor scale. Lend-lease could be a general rule, not just one that just applied to the US. (Canada also provided lend-lease to the Soviets.)
-
If only I could give +rep
-
Yes definitely this is not only a good idea for US, but for any country with a strong economy.
Suggested Topics
