So there are 3 conditions needed for the Soviet Union to obtain this objective.
1. There are no Allied units on original controlled Russian territories.
2. There are no Axis warships in sea zone #125
3. The Allies control Archangel
I don’t understand this national objective and I was hoping a discussion might shed some light on it.
Does this Soviet NO reflect the " Allied Lend Lease Act"? It would seem so if the Allies need to hold Archangel (Port that received supplies?), and the absence of Axis war ships in sea zone 125 also supports this explanation, however, no allied units on original Russian territories doesn’t seem like an ideal condition because wasn’t it Allied units that were being shipped to Russia?… National Prestige might mean “look at us, we don’t need help from them (but please keep sending us supplies)”.
The next issue is the convoy zone in #125, it is adjacent to a German territory and one of the NO conditions is no Axis warships there, so I’m going to assume that the Convoy zone in sea zone 125 has nothing to do with the Russian national prestige NO if in fact we’re talking about the “Allied Lend Lease Act”. I’m also bringing this up because we had a game once with a successful Sealion, and the German player questioned why Russia should get 5 IPCs if London can’t send supplies to Archangel.
I think the first thing to do is to find out the theme of this national objective, is it about one theme with many conditions in order to achieve a singular goal? or does it represent many separate achievements that add up to Soviet “national prestige”, achevments that are not connected to one another?
…and what is the historical relevance behind the conditions if any?
My impression is The NO represents Allied lend lease. It was mostly American but the Brits sent some stuff too. Not sure but I would think The Canadiens did too. I know they, Canadiens, escorted convoys out of Nova Scotia even though Nova Scotia wasn’t part of Canada then. Although in summer time they (Brits) had to shut it down due to their convoys getting their ass kicked by the Germans.
As far as sealion goes, I would think if it was successful the russkies wouldn’t be getting any more free stuff. Then again if Russia was the only one fighting they might have got even more. So I think it’s OK for the Russians to continue to get their bonus with a German held England. I would imagine Germany would just throw a sub in 125 anyways.
"National Prestige might mean “look at us, we don’t need help from them (but please keep sending us supplies)”. You nailed it YG except they didn’t say please.
I imagine CWO would have a good take on this. Didn’t you change the NO in your Halifax setup?
I imagine CWO would have a good take on this. Didn’t you change the NO in your Halifax setup?
Yes, and that’s the cause of my query… I separated the oob national prestige NO into two.
5 IPCs for no Axis ships in 125, and Allies control Archangel
5 IPCs for no Allied units on original controlled Russian territories
However, as much as we want to give Russia a boost when German steam rolls em, we find that the Russians get too rich when ignored for Sealion… I want to understand the NO, so that we can maybe deny the Russians our Lend Lease portion of the National Prestige split when the allies don’t have control of London.
My impression is The NO represents Allied lend lease. It was mostly American but the Brits sent some stuff too. Not sure but I would think The Canadiens did too. I know they, Canadiens, escorted convoys out of Nova Scotia even though Nova Scotia wasn’t part of Canada then. Although in summer time they (Brits) had to shut it down due to their convoys getting their ass kicked by the Germans.
As far as sealion goes, I would think if it was successful the russkies wouldn’t be getting any more free stuff. Then again if Russia was the only one fighting they might have got even more. So I think it’s OK for the Russians to continue to get their bonus with a German held England. I would imagine Germany would just throw a sub in 125 anyways.
"National Prestige might mean “look at us, we don’t need help from them (but please keep sending us supplies)”. You nailed it YG except they didn’t say please.
I imagine CWO would have a good take on this. Didn’t you change the NO in your Halifax setup?
Your were talking about Newfoundland (which was a Dominion in WWII ) and not Nova Scotia:
A former colony and dominion of the United Kingdom, Newfoundland and Labrador became the tenth province to enter the Canadian Confederation on March 31, 1949, as Newfoundland.
Newfoundland remained a colony until acquiring Dominion status in 1907.
A dominion constituted a self-governing state of the British Empire or British Commonwealth and the Dominion of Newfoundland was relatively autonomous from British rule.
Newfoundland’s own regiment, the 1st Newfoundland Regiment, fought in the First World War. On July 1, 1916, the German Army wiped out nearly the entire regiment at Beaumont Hamel on the first day on the Somme. The regiment went on to serve with distinction in several subsequent battles, earning the prefix “Royal”. Despite people’s pride in the accomplishments of the regiment, the Dominion’s war debt due to the regiment and the cost of maintaining a trans-island railway led to increased and ultimately unsustainable government debt in the post-war era.Due to Newfoundland’s high debt load, arising from World War I and construction of the Newfoundland railroad, and decreasing revenue, due to the collapse of fish prices, the Newfoundland legislature voted itself out of existence in 1933, in exchange for loan guarantees by the Crown and a promise it would be re-established. On February 16, 1934, the Commission of Government was sworn in, ending 79 years of responsible government. The Commission consisted of seven persons appointed by the British government. For 15 years no elections took place, and no legislature was convened.
When prosperity returned with World War II, agitation began to end the Commission, and reinstate responsible government. But, the British government created the National Convention in 1946, reflecting efforts in self-determination among European nationalities that followed WWII. The Convention, made of up representatives from throughout the country, was formally tasked to advise on the future of Newfoundland. Chaired by Judge Cyril J. Fox, it consisted of 45 elected members from across the province.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_and_Labrador
While Nova Scotia became part of Canada since the beginning of the Canadian Federation in 1867 on the Confederation Day of July 1st, 1867:
The British North America Act, by which Nova Scotia became part of the Dominion of Canada, went into effect on July 1, 1867. Premier Charles Tupper had worked energetically to bring about the union. But it was controversial because localism, Protestant fears of Catholics and distrust of Canadians generally, and worries about losing free trade with America, were all intensified by the refusal of Tupper to consult Nova Scotia’s voters on the subject. A movement for withdrawal from Canada developed, led by Joseph Howe. Howe’s Anti-Confederation Party swept the next election, on September 18, 1867, winning 18 out of 19 federal seats, and 36 out of 38 seats in the provincial legislature. A motion passed by the Nova Scotia House of Assembly in 1868 refusing to recognise the legitimacy of Confederation has never been rescinded. With the great Hants County bi-election of 1869, Howe was successful in turning the province away from appealing confederation to simply seeking “better terms” within it. Despite its temporary popularity, Howe’s movement failed in its goal to withdraw from Canada because London was determined the union go forward. Howe did succeed in getting better financial terms for the province, and gained a national office for himself.
You are right to query this NO, YG. Is strange and hard to get.
Would be better to have two separate ones, as you suggest; I agree.
@Young:
(…) I separated the oob national prestige NO into two.
5 IPCs for no Axis ships in 125, and Allies control Archangel
5 IPCs for no Allied units on original controlled Russian territoriesHowever, as much as we want to give Russia a boost when German steam rolls em, we find that the Russians get too rich when ignored for Sealion… I want to understand the NO, so that we can maybe deny the Russians our Lend Lease portion of the National Prestige split when the allies don’t have control of London. ������ ������Â
Great idea, YG!
There are so many wonderful options to tweak some of the allied NO’s with great historic themes to be able to slide the balance of the game a little bit more (but very subtle) towards the allies to get their win chances closer to 50/50 in a oob game (no bids).
As far as lend lease goes, I’d say that Russia is entitled to +5 IPCs if the allies control London + either Archangelsk or Persia (or both) and there are no axis warships in either one of the sea areas. Ofc this this NO should not get doubled for control of both P & A ;-).
With this, I feel that “spread of communism” should only count for original German areas/activated minor countries.
National Prestige NO doesn’t look too powerful in combination with this, if Russia simply gets +5 for no allied units in Russian territories (at all, everywhere).
I, too, meant doubling the NO, but also restricting the Spread of Communism to Europe and Iraq.
I’ve just had a look at the original text in the rules…
When the Soviet Union Is at War:
[…]
• 5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
…and here are a few thoughts.
First of all, the twinned concepts of “National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material” each sound reasonable enough (I’ll say more on that in a moment), but it would be more logical to see them as two separate concepts because they deal with quite different things. Second, the defined conditions for achieving this twinned NO are to some extent valid and to some extent questionable, as explained below.
National Prestige: The Soviet government’s revival of the Napolenic-era phrase Great Patriotic War illustrates pretty well the way they saw WWII. Which isn’t to knock them for it, because every country sees war is patriotic terms to at least some degree and because the USSR was indeed facing an enemy very dangerous to its national survival. The Soviets also (with justification) felt that they were bearing the brunt of the land war, which was both a source of pride and of frustration for them. Their demands for Lend-Lease aid and for a second front are not incompatible with the concept of national pride; after all, remember the famous plea to the U.S. made around 1940 or so by Churchill, whose pride was well-known to be enormous: “Give us the tools and we will finish the job.” The concept of pride being reflected in the non-presence of Allied (by which I understand “non-Soviet Allied power”) forces in originally controlled Soviet land territories probably reflects the fact the the Soviets did liberate all of their original territories themselves and that they then managed to push their front across Eastern Europe all the way to Berlin. So I’m fine with that element of the NO. On the other hand, I don’t see Soviet national prestige depending on any way on Lend-Lease, which is a separate issue entirely in my opinion.
Access to Allied Lend-Lease material: L-L was important to the Soviets, so having access to it an a NO makes sense…but I question having the NO hinge entirely on the northern port of entry for L-L, meaning the famous Murmansk convoys. I think the NO should depend on a combination of the Murmansk convoys and on the southern entry route for L-L: the Persian Corridor which (historically) ran through Iran and Azerbaijan. On the Global map, this would correspond to Persia, Northwest Persia and Caucasus.
Great read. Thank you, as always Marc.
Thanks CWO Marc, great info you have provided…
So… No axis warships in convoy zone 125, as well as control of both Archangel and Caucasus.
What about London… I’m hoping for a historical need for London to be Allied controled in order for LL to work, this way Germany can go for sealion and not have to worry about Russia getting ultra rich.
@Young:
as well as control of both Archangel and Caucasus.
Archangel and Caucasus plus a land connection from the Caucasus to the sea. If all of Iran were under Axis control, the Persian Corridor (which is kind of like the Burma Road) would be closed even if the Russians hold the Caucasus.
@CWO:
@Young:
as well as control of both Archangel and Caucasus.
Archangel and Caucasus plus a land connection from the Caucasus to the sea. If all of Iran were under Axis control, the Persian Corridor (which is kind of like the Burma Road) would be closed even if the Russians hold the Caucasus.
Awesome, and what about London?
Having London as a requirement is credible, though arguably not an absolute one because southern England wasn’t the only port of destination for the Atlantic convoys. A lot of them went to Londonderry in Northern Ireland.
By the way, just to clarify my last point about the Persian Corridor: I didn’t mean to imply that Russia needs to keep both the Murmansk and Persian Corridor routes open to get L-L, since the use of one didn’t require the use of the other. Ideally, Russia should have both; in a pinch, one would be enough to ensure that at least some L-L got through.
@CWO:
Having London as a requirement is credible, though arguably not an absolute one because southern England wasn’t the only port of destination for the Atlantic convoys.� � A lot of them went to Londonderry in Northern Ireland.
By the way, just to clarify my last point about the Persian Corridor: I didn’t mean to imply that Russia needs to keep both the Murmansk and Persian Corridor routes open to get L-L, since the use of one didn’t require the use of the other.� � Ideally, Russia should have both; in a pinch, one would be enough to ensure that at least some L-L got through.� �
I think to simplify the NO house rule split of Lend Lease from National Prestige, it should probably have just the 3 conditions (no axis warships in 125, plus control of both Archangel and London) even though the Persian corridor was just as important like you said. Not having the London condition will only take sealion off the table if the Soviets are getting the spit bonuses.
Apologies to all readers as this thread has turned into a bit of a house rule conversation.
I fully endorse the ideas discussed above.
Remember this one? … Which somehow escaped getting moved to the HR section haha.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34568.0
Lets get the band back together :-D
I fully endorse the ideas discussed above.
Remember this one? … Which somehow escaped getting moved to the HR section haha.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34568.0Lets get the band back together :-D
this one might end up there as well :mrgreen:
@wittmann:
I, too, meant doubling the NO, but also restricting the Spread of Communism to Europe and Iraq.
Is there a reason for that?
Historically, the USSR did spread communism to territories controlled by the Japanese, in particular Korea. I think rather than restricting the spread of Communism to just Germany and Pro-axis, it should apply to German, Japanese, and Pro-axis territories.
I think many here think it ridiculous that Russia can convert African nations, like Ethiopia or Libya. It is a silly sideshow, which many Allied players go for, to supplement Russia’s meagre income. If it had a proper, workable, NO, it would not need to send Mechanized forces into Africa to do this.
Thank you for telling me that it did do so in Korea, however.
@wittmann:
I think many here think it ridiculous that Russia can convert African nations, like Ethiopia or Libya. It is a silly sideshow, which many Allied players go for, to supplement Russia’s meagre income. If it had a proper, workable, NO, it would not need to send Mechanized forces into Africa to do this.
Thank you for telling me that it did do so in Korea, however.
Well, maybe just get rid of the Italy portion, and replace it with Japanese original territories. It’s unlikely that Russia will capture many of those, anyway.
Capturing Korea is pointless early on, as Japan ought to have a fleet in SZ6 and Russia gains no income and loses the potential 6 Infantry. If you say it happened, historically, I can agree.
Still, we have to get that Lend Lease to stick. Russia cannot be on 20 income, while Germany is on 60 and hoping that the UK comes up through the Middle East to save them.
