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.
@wittmann:
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.
Like I said, it is unlikely that Russia will take many, or even any, original Japanese territories. But the option should still be there. It might encourage Russia jumping in on a KJF if they get an extra 3 IPCs from Korea.
The Historical basis is this:
North Korea’s history began with occupation of the Korean Peninsula north of the 38th parallel by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II in 1945, a division of Korea with the United States occupying the south. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was established in 1948.
In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.
Kim established the Korean People’s Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft.
We altered Russian NOs like so:
When Soviet Union is at war in Europe: +3 IPCs for each original Axis and pro-Axis Neutral territory within continental Europe and Scandinavia controlled by Soviet Union.
+3 IPCs for each Pro-Allied Neutral and Strict Neutral territory within continental Europe and Scandinavia controlled by Soviet Union but ONLY if said territory was first controlled by an Axis power (This includes Turkey).
When Soviet Union is at war against Japan:
+3 IPCs for Soviet control of Korea.
So you see, this disallows the African territories and the Mediterranean Islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Crete). It also disallows Iraq, but that’s more of a personal taste for me. I just don’t like the idea of Russia traipsing along through the Middle East when Operation Barbarossa is bearing down on Moscow.
Also, Russia can get the bonus from Pro Allied neutrals and even Strict neutrals but only if they are taking them from the Axis. This way, there will be no Russia attacking Turkey, turning the other Strict Neutrals into Pro-Axis and getting rewarded for it to boot.
Finally, we included Korea because like amanntai mentioned, that’s simply historical.
By the way, does anybody remember the good old days when Germany could perform Operation Sealion but Russia still had to wait until round 4 to declare war? Germany was a winner almost every time.
Isn’t Scandinavia in Continental Europe?
