The Map Modification Question

Germany no longer has S europe, Balkans, Lybia AND stays at 40 IPC

Southern Europe + Balkans + Libya = 10 IPC

So among the rest
Norway, Western Europe, Germany, Eastern Europe, Belorussia, Western Russia, Ukraine SSR, ALgeria…need + 20 IPCs

They have to go up on average 2-3 IPCs each.

Also the Lend Lease to Soviets are carried by special chips under a tranny ( use coins) it can be attacked or intercepted.

should lend lease distribution among transports be visible to all players?
or should US write it down on a piece of paper?

So among the rest
Norway, Western Europe, Germany, Eastern Europe, Belorussia, Western Russia, Ukraine SSR, ALgeria…need + 20 IPCs

They have to go up on average 2-3 IPCs each.

++++ why? to balance this perfectly germany only goes up 10 IPC

+++ so now germany stays at 40, Italy at 10, western allies get 10 to loan to UK / Soviets… everything balanced right?

Quote
Also the Lend Lease to Soviets are carried by special chips under a tranny ( use coins) it can be attacked or intercepted.

should lend lease distribution among transports be visible to all players?
or should US write it down on a piece of paper?

++++ good points… was thinking to keep it simple and its obvious that every turn somebody is getting up to 10 IPC each turn.

example: USA loans 4 to UK and 6 to Soviets… the load is based on that can be carried under normal conditions thus you will need 2 trannys to do this each turn. The money should be visible. The idea of empty transports is too much accounting. Germany knows an empty tranny =money UK is not gonna waste its trannies using an empty decoy tranny.

so basically to loan =the load

you can loan either 4,5 or 6 to each nation because if you loan 3, then 7 must become 6 ( losing one) because we do not allow carry back ( saving up) that would be the simple plan. If you want to allow saving account method, then it must be written down, plus the tranny can only carry a max of 6 IPC so you will have to allocate extra tranny when you splurge. what you think?

@Imperious:

you can loan either 4,5 or 6 to each nation because if you loan 3, then 7 must become 6 ( losing one) because we do not allow carry back ( saving up) that would be the simple plan. If you want to allow saving account method, then it must be written down, plus the tranny can only carry a max of 6 IPC so you will have to allocate extra tranny when you splurge. what you think?

Ok, I understood the above paragraphs but not the last one. You kinda babbled a little bit

Each turn 10 IPC is loaned out. If the money is not spent its lost. Secondly, the lend lease is transported exactly as if you were landing a unit in Russia thus you have to look at the carrying capacity of the transport and send the money AS IF it was actual pieces. Thus the allies are really landing infantry, art, and tanks and thats what russia will get. Under this system you just dont use the pieces. Under a NA for somebody they have this idea… we just did away with the piece to avoid clutter. If you want no restriction on what a tranny can transport and allow the soviets the ability to use the money any way they want that could be easy as well.
comments?

+++ so now germany stays at 40, Italy at 10, western allies get 10 to loan to UK / Soviets… everything balanced right?

you’re right…I got confused earlier

@Imperious:

If you want no restriction on what a tranny can transport and allow the soviets the ability to use the money any way they want that could be easy as well.

Yeah I think better to transport IPC (war material) than “artillery/tank divisions”.
Just decide on how much a transport can carry. 6 IPC is ok too.
To have less writting down I am fine with just making lend-lease distribution among transports visible to all players.

ok add that to the draft please.

ok

now, how are we putting the 10 IPCs on Germany terrtories?

Would Germany have to be 12 or 14? (Like even more than Eastern United States.)

And are we splitting up Norway into Norway and Finland?
Australia into two territories?

But no need to add a dessert to Australia, or South Africa.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0778851.html
Nothing comes close to Sahara and Arabian’s size. 3.5mil and 1mil sq miles.

now, how are we putting the 10 IPCs on Germany terrtories?

++++ germany is now just 10 IPC more than before. This only applies under optional Italy rule. It is not the basic rule. Under the new alternate map i suppose ill edit and make germany worth 20 IPC.

Would Germany have to be 12 or 14? (Like even more than Eastern United States.)
+++ no more… 10 additional IPC more.

And are we splitting up Norway into Norway and Finland?
Australia into two territories?

+++++ that would be correct. An entire continent with one space… thats rediculous!

But no need to add a dessert to Australia, or South Africa.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0778851.html
Nothing comes close to Sahara and Arabian’s size. 3.5mil and 1mil sq miles.

Yes correct… austrailia is just east and west nothing special.

if 10 IPC to Italy and 10 IPC lend-lease is a balance

then basic rule is not balanced?

is lend-lease also for optional rule only?

if 10 IPC to Italy and 10 IPC lend-lease is a balance

then basic rule is not balanced?

is lend-lease also for optional rule only?

++++ italy is an optional rule and it goes hand in hand with the lend lease. Allies get lend lease, Axis get Italy

Germany itself goes up by 10 IPC  ( start at 40-10 for italy+10 for germanys increased value= 40)
Italy now takes out what was formerly southern europe, lybia and balkans ( 10 IPC+ for axis net)
Allies can now loan 10 IPC to Soviets/uk ( also net 10 IPC gain for allies)

its balanced out.

so Italy 10 IPC, Germany up 10 IPC, and lend-lease are all under optional rule only

Yes… but im not sure you SEE the fact that the german player is not really UP 10 IPC  he lost s europe, balkans, and lybia and gave them up to Italy… he remains at 40 IPC… the compensation is he gains the lost 10 back because now germany is worth 10 more points.

Not to mention losing control of those southern forces to a pontential new player…

oh yes
I should say “Italy 10 IPC, and lend-lease are all under optional rule only” instead

but then I think lend-lease is neccessary because US/UK can’t land in red (USSR) territories anymore
so I think lend-lease still goes but the 10 IPC is not free in basic rule…and the 10 IPC is free in optional Italy rule

anyone know anything about Gibraltar in WWII?

should there be restriction to amount of forces occupying Gibraltar?
should there be a supply cost for forces occupying Gibraltar?

Occupying cost supply? Why?

Gibraltar was a naval and air base, and provided A defensive position to the Mediteraenean access from the Atlantic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar

I think that if you make restrictions to the amount of units there you will just be filling “space”, but in actuality there should be only 2 planes there…

GG

Duno, was thinking the place can’t support itself.

Anyway the place is tiny at 6.5km^2 so build up of forces there would be weird.

It was supplied by sea. Of course it had stores and could endure long periods of isolation. Axis ships should not in any event be allowed to leave the medd ( speaking about italy)… but i understand that this is an important element of creative axis strategy so we should probably leave it alone in terms of any imposing of restrictions.

As a factual note Italy did not posess enough fuel to leave the medd, while the fortress would have shot to pieces any passing ships. The straights also had sub nets and was mined so that any ships that moved had to go very slow in like a zig zag patten. This would have made it even easier for the brits to shoot at axis ships.

Hitler under operation Isabella and operation Felix had proposed even attacking and conquering his friend Spain in order to get a crack at spain.

If italy was to have any chance they would have needed to take the suez and the oil of the middle east along with Gibrater to gain the freedom to leave the medd.

So in the end, do you propose any restrictions to amount of forces occupying Gibraltar or Gibraltar preventing movement out of Med Sea?

Maybe no more than 5 units can occupy Gibraltar?

And for the Med Sea case, we could expand “Air Interdiction” to adjacent sea zones to model this.

o in the end, do you propose any restrictions to amount of forces occupying Gibraltar or Gibraltar preventing movement out of Med Sea?

Maybe no more than 5 units can occupy Gibraltar?

And for the Med Sea case, we could expand “Air Interdiction” to adjacent sea zones to model this.

+++++ what value would this restriction serve?  are you looking at the size of the territory and want some “stacking limitations”  stacking introduces a whole new can of worms and i dont think many would like it or would they?

I feel generally people don’t like stacking

let see what others feel about build up of forces at Gibraltar