AARHE: Phase 2: Adding Italy to the game.

Shouldn’t Italy also receive Algeria? Allthough this isn’t really historically accurate. If not, how will Germany be able to reinforce Africa, now that Southern Europe and it’s fleet (units) are all Italian? Will Germany also have some transports in the Mediterranean?
Look out with upgrading Germany’s IPC value to 20. For the SBR raids (revised rules) Germany and Southern Europe had a total of 16, now Germany will have 20 and so could loose 4 IPC more on raids. Also the AA gun gets less firering options.

Specific rules/ objectives for Italy: Create a New Roman Empire, get controll of the Mediterranean, the Mid-East and persuade Spain into the War and joining there side.

Maybe they could also controll the minor Axis troops of Finland and Romania, but this will need map updates.

12 IPCs lend-lease. 10 free IPCs for lend-lease only.
That its only a cost of 2 IPC to American military.
That might be a bit low.

Historically what did UK and Russia wanted from US?
Were it things US had surplus of anyway?

If not, then maybe lower 12limit-10free to 12limit-6free?

@tekkyy:

Historically what did UK and Russia wanted from US?
Were it things US had surplus of anyway?

I found this;

Historians estimate that payments to the major recipients included about $14 to $20 billion to Britain; $9-10 billion to the Soviet Union; France, $3.5 billion; and China and India, $2.2 billion, for a total of $48 billion.

And this summary for the USSR;

Aircraft……14,795
Tanks…7,056
Jeeps…51,503
Trucks…375,883
Motorcycles…35,170
Tractors…8,071
Guns…8,218
Machine guns…131,633
Explosives…345,735 tons
Building equipment valued…$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars…11,155
Locomotives…1,981
Cargo ships…90
Submarine hunters…105
Torpedo boats…197
Ship engines…7,784
Food supplies…4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment…$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals…802,000 tons
Petroleum products…2,670,000 tons
Chemicals…842,000 tons
Cotton…106,893,000 tons
Leather…49,860 tons
Tires…3,786,000
Army boots…15,417,000 pairs

It seems that the UK got far more $ then then Russia historically. Shouldn’t that be reflected in the game then? UK more then Russia.

Source: wikipedia

For the effect on the US IPC level, well I think that these can indeed be seen as “surplus off”. They had been producing far more, then they could possible get under arms in that period.  So it shouldn’t hurt the US player to much.

So how much freedom are we giving Russia and Italy.

My interpretation of what it is so far…Russia gets to choose what to do with IPCs from US but has to spend time building them? Italy gets to use units from Germany straight away?

Well, in the interest of realism the Lend Lease stuff would have to get to Russia. Problem is, that takes up some of the precious US transports. Even if we gave the US extra transports, they move so slowly in the game that by the time they got to Murmansk or up through Persia, the Russians would be cactus.

Just another reason we need realistic speeds for ships, I reckon.

I like the second but not the first idea. If the uk/ soviets get 10 IPC, the european axis only gets 6 bucks? Is the compensation for the allies the “cost of doing business” with axis interdiction?  if it is i can understand this idea.

Exactly. You put my thoughts in much better words. I will create a set of interdiction rules so that the avg. number of German subs would do about 4-5 IPCs of damage each turn. This would create a balance since the Allies are getting 10-(4 or 5)=(6 or 5) IPCs and Axis are getting 6 IPCs that can only be taken when S. Europe falls.

I really like the idea of a separate Italian player with his own forces and a modified setup with an extra ship or something. I suppose this is an optional rule under the project.

This “Axis Advantage” is not intended to make any of your other work obsolete or anything. This is just a simple way to include Italy for phase 1. If we made rules for Italy any more complicated, I think they’d have to wait to be included in a latter phase. Your Italy rules will be included in a latter phase and go much more in depth.

HMS

Well, in the interest of realism the Lend Lease stuff would have to get to Russia. Problem is, that takes up some of the precious US transports. Even if we gave the US extra transports, they move so slowly in the game that by the time they got to Murmansk or up through Persia, the Russians would be cactus.

Just another reason we need realistic speeds for ships, I reckon.

Imp

AS for how the lend lease is carried i feel it should be secret that some transports will have to be ferried to archangel carrying an undisclosed amount of aid with each transport able to carry the entire 10 IPC cargo. So the trick is the axis will have to try to attack these not knowing what was written down before the tranny left eastern USA.

Based on these comments you guys made it seems like you want the transport units to also transport commerce. I always thought of the transport unit as representing landing ships/crafts (amphibs), not convoy ships. Why do we need the transports to also represent convoys? Wouldn’t that invoke a lot of needless complication?

How about if we keep things as simple as we can get them: For every enemy naval unit in a defined SZ (we can come up with the SZ restrictions later) a certain number of fixed IPCs are surrendered or the enemy ships roll to determine the number of surrendered IPCs so there is some variation. That way, we don’t need to worry about where transports units are, how much they are carrying, the time it takes them to move (we’ll have it so it always takes these invisible convoy ships 1 turn to make it to London or Archangel form E. US). Also, I’m not sure it’s realistic to assume that these amphibs need be grouped in with the convoy ships.

It’s going to be a lot harder to model historic lend-lease outcomes with actual convoy units. With actual convoy units why ever send IPCs to Russia? It’s too dangerous because Germany has a lot more chances to sink it, and it takes 1-2 turns longer to get there, thus making it 1-2 turns longer before you can convert those IPCs to troops.

How many IPCs can a transport unit carry? It’s it’s a small number (like 3 max), then you’ll need a lot of transports and that costs a lot of money and time. If on the other hand it’s a large number (like 8 max), and intuitively that transport is either sunk or not, then the Allies lose either 0 IPCs or 8 IPCs. It looks like we got more of an all or nothing scenario instead of a certain fraction being sunk every turn.

There are probably other reasons, but I think I’ve expressed my concerns over this enough. Just my 2 cents.

@Imperious:

AS for how the lend lease is carried i feel it should be secret that some transports will have to be ferried to archangel carrying an undisclosed amount of aid with each transport able to carry the entire 10 IPC cargo. So the trick is the axis will have to try to attack these not knowing what was written down before the tranny left eastern USA.

That would be beauty. The guessing.

@theduke:

If on the other hand it’s a large number (like 8 max), and intuitively that transport is either sunk or not, then the Allies lose either 0 IPCs or 8 IPCs. It looks like we got more of an all or nothing scenario instead of a certain fraction being sunk every turn.

Yeah all or nothing would be bad.

@Imperious:

HMMM thats correct and i was thinking of the need for one tranny to carry the goodies. I do also see problems with this rule…

Yeah its costly to dedicate transport for lend-lease. We could give them more transports but that could be overly powerful if all used to carry units. And sending subs or destroyers to support the convoy is probably a wrong scale. You don’t need a whole destroyer fleet (1 DD piece).

@Imperious:

OK idea for every axis sub in the atlantic the allies lose one IPC of aid to either the UK or Soviet player. That is simple and wont destroy all the aid. and also allows the germans the ability to do something.

Yeah we’ve probably reinvented the circle and now realise why OOB U-Boat interdiction rule is like what it is. Complexity.

Small improvement: several SZs to represent different convoy paths. So to preserve the proposed guessing game as it really enhances strategy. Decoy. Influencing military movements. US can send to Russia via North Altantic or North Pacific. While US can send to UK via one safe path.

@Imperious:

Also looking at the list the lend lease aid can only be armor or air units… no infantry. WE cant be sending men to Stalin to fight his war.

Actually lend-lease gives supplies and equipment no? Not pre-made divisions or corps.
So I think they can spend the lend-lease IPC anyway they like.

@Imperious:

Also looking at the list the lend lease aid can only be armor or air units… no infantry. WE cant be sending men to Stalin to fight his war.

Actually lend-lease gives supplies and equipment no? Not pre-made divisions or corps.
So I think they can spend the lend-lease IPC anyway they like.

Exactly, I also thought at first that it could only be for armor and air units. But they received material/ equipment, what also could have been rifles, machine guns or and clothing for soldiers. So indeed they should be able to spent it anyway they like. Only I don’t hope they will receive the max. of 12 allot. That is to much I think. It is 50% of Russia’s total starting income, is that accurate?

I think 12 IPC is just a starting point. A number this “other” varient used.

We’ve already got numbers on the equipment and supplies to Russia posted by someone.
Now we just need economic numbers of Russia.