Lend-Lease rules in four sentences…


  • I’ve been reading over lend-lease rules and various posts here and other sites for the past few days. To me lend-lease is a historic name for a way to give your allies some of your production. After this reading and some thought, I believe good lend-lease rules for Axis and Allies should have the following characteristics:

    1. UNIVERSAL - meaning all nations with an income should be able to lend-lease. Some lend-lease rule sets forbid most nations to give to others. Why? Couldn’t they have done it if they had wanted to? To me Axis and Allies is a game to explore “what ifs” and as much freedom as is possible should be allowed. Rules that only allow the USA to lend-lease limit the possibilities in the game. The Germans didn’t use aircraft carriers either, but we all have them in our trays.

    2. COSTLY - There should be some built-in cost involved to lend-lease. Transports, crews and escorts had to be put together, organized and maintained - this was all a costly endeavor.

    3. LIMITED - I discovered that the USA dedicated 17% of her total war production to lend-lease. Allowing some freedom for a little more, I’m would say 20% of a nation’s IPCs is all that should be sent per turn. This is more a game balance issue than a restriction issue.

    4. SIMPLE - to keep lend-lease really simple, the system needs to be a bit abstracted, with no extra on-map units. Many house rules for lend-lease have extra convoy boxes, supply tokens, dedicated transports and specific capacities, enemy intervention, changing unit colors on delivery, etc. Realistic perhaps - but too complicated IMO.

    Some house rule sets have a die roll for enemy intervention. For example, in Global War it goes like this:

    “Roll of a 1: All IPCs are captured by the Axis
    Roll of a 2-4: All IPCs are lost and returned to the bank
    Roll of a 5-7 Half of the IPCs are lost
    Roll of a 8-12: All IPCs are transferred safely”

    This is a complete Vegas luck roll - no strategy involved at all - I don’t see how any Global War players can be satisfied with it. There should be a built-in cost of doing it upfront, plus the added enemy ability to convoy raid as usual.

    Some house rules say you can only supply vehicles, ships, and planes - no infantry - but I see no reason to make another rule for that. The British sent Russia 15 million pairs of boots and the USA sent them 1.75 million tons of food - would that not help Russa raise up infantry divisions?

    1. FAST - This is a game where entire factory complexes, battleships and carriers can be built instantly by laying down some IPCs, yet many lend-lease rules have the USA slowly trucking units across the wide Atlantic two zones at a time. Ineffective, tedious and boring! I say just get the goods over there and let’s get to fighting. The game is long enough!

    2. ANCILLARY - Lend-lease should only support the main event of this game, which is fighting battles. Too many rules, along with more on-map units, can divert the game into a shipping game. Its a fighting game. Good Lend-lease rules should support the fighting without getting in the way of it.

    All this being said, here are my distilled lend-lease rules. These are a variation of Black Elk’s good ideas from his post in 8-2014. Notice they are only four sentences long:

    “During the purchase units phase of his turn, a player may send up to 20% of his IPCs to his allies. Each transfer involves the loss of 3 IPCs due to the logistical issues of transferring goods from one country to another. EXAMPLE: During its purchase units phase the USA, with 55 IPCs on hand, can transfer up to 11 IPC’s to its Allies. USA sends 5 IPCs to the UK, 6 IPCs to the USSR, and pays the bank 6 IPCs in transfer fees.”

    Here is an index card I made to easily find what the 20% lend-lease amount would be during a game:

    No long rules. No extra dice rolling. No extra game pieces. No math or compound interest to do - just one table to consult. A country may choose to do lend-lease, but every time it is done, it will basically cost them an infantry somewhere else in the world.

    I also favor using this rule with Imperious Leader’s “Stalinist Xenophobia” rules, which forbid the other Allies from being on Russian soil. Now instead of piling up British and American units unhistorically on Russian soil to help defend, you can just send Russia some IPCs and let them build their own units.

    Thoughts?

  • Customizer

    I like your idea. It’s simple and realistic. Easy to apply to any of the global games.
    Also, I like your point about some games only allowing lend-lease from the US and how that wasn’t really historical. You are right. The UK also sent supplies to Russia. Before they were attacked by Germany and fighting for their life, Russia sent some weapons to China to help them counter Japanese aggression.


  • I like your idea too. I always thought there should be a set amount.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I like it a lot, especially because it’s simple and universal, and has a cool chart. :) I find this sort of rule definitely preferable to the current situation where players send units to aid their ally directly. Here I can imagine the W. Allies sending less units to stack in Moscow, focusing instead on the cash. Also intrigued by how Axis might use it. the advantage of can openers will always persist, it’s just the nature of the turn order, but perhaps we’d see less fighter transfers, in favor of cash. A rule like this might help Italy from getting just raided out of existence every time, which could be cool too. Nice work dude

  • Customizer

    You know, I didn’t even think about Germany doing a lend-lease to Italy, but that would work too.


  • Wow….I’m surprised I’ve got nothing negative so far. Thanks guys - maybe I’m on to something. On my hybrid map it seems like the USA has always had a hard time getting involved in the outcome of the game before Russia falls - I’m hoping this will be the answer for that.


  • Nice chart with a nice graphic.  I have a question, just to make sure I’m understanding something correctly: when you say “all nations with an income should be able to lend-lease”, do you mean “all Allied nations”?  I assume you do, since this is what’s implied by the flags in your chart, and since it does fit with what actually happened in WWII, given that the US eventually made Lend-Lease (which was originally an arrangement with the UK) or similar aid available to all countries who were fighting aggressor nations.  The Axis had no real equivalent to it, though there did exist some degree of pooling of resources (Romanian oil use by Germany being one example) amongst the European Axis partners.  There was a tiny bit of mutual aid between Germany and Japan, but it didn’t amount to much because a) the two countries were essentially fighting independent wars, and b) there was no practical way for them to deliver stuff to each other (except in minuscule quantities by long-range submarine) on opposite sides of the planet, since the land and sea areas between them were controlled by their enemies.


  • @CWO:

    Nice chart with a nice graphic.  I have a question, just to make sure I’m understanding something correctly: when you say “all nations with an income should be able to lend-lease”, do you mean “all Allied nations”?  I assume you do, since this is what’s implied by the flags in your chart, and since it does fit with what actually happened in WWII, given that the US eventually made Lend-Lease (which was originally an arrangement with the UK) or similar aid available to all countries who were fighting aggressor nations.  The Axis had no real equivalent to it, though there did exist some degree of pooling of resources (Romanian oil use by Germany being one example) amongst the European Axis partners.  There was a tiny bit of mutual aid between Germany and Japan, but it didn’t amount to much because a) the two countries were essentially fighting independent wars, and b) there was no practical way for them to deliver stuff to each other (except in minuscule quantities by long-range submarine) on opposite sides of the planet, since the land and sea areas between them were controlled by their enemies.

    Well the graphic is from an actual WWII poster, so it has no Axis on it. But you are right, it would have been really tough or impossible for Germany/Italy and Japan to help each other. Maybe the Axis should only get to use lend-lease if their capitals can connect by land, since the seas are allied dominated.


  • @Der:

    Maybe the Axis should only get to use lend-lease if their capitals can connect by land, since the seas are allied dominated.  Â

    Yes, and such a financial bonus would actually provide an interesting motivation for the Axis players to try to reach India from their respective directions, since that was the most practicable location for a link-up between Japan and the European Axis nations.  Perhaps this “Axis Linkup” concept could even be boosted to the status of an National Objective, with benefits that include or go beyond the basis Lend-Lease idea in your proposal.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Nice work once again Der Kuenstler!

    As far as axis giving aid I would think the large number of German forces in Italy in the actual war would be basis enough for German Italian aid. Regardless if Italy really wanted them there or not.
    There were also Italian troops on the eastern front.

    Towards the end of the war Germany sent jet engines to Japan via sub or tried to. Although German Japan cooperation was minimal for the most part.

    I guess it depends on what type of game you want to play. If you want a historic “what if” type of scenario where different leadership may have been more cooperative with one another or not.

    The only down side I see would be how it effects actual game balance which would depend on the setup. The US and UK can now essential get ground forces to Russia early albeit at a cost. Will that slow the Germans down too much?

    Personally I like it and am going to give it a try!

    After thinking about it some more I agree Japan should be on their own. If the axis want to help they’ll just have to send their own forces the way it currently is.
    A NO might be nice. It would probably be best to keep the wording simple to keep with the whole theme.


  • @barney:

    The only down side I see would be how it effects actual game balance which would depend on the setup. The US and UK can now essential get ground forces to Russia early albeit at a cost. Will that slow the Germans down too much?

    I think the trick is that the Allies get no extra IPCs from this - total production is just moved around some, plus operational cost is subtracted. If the UK and USA choose to help Russia like this, they have to do it by weakening themselves, so if Germany gets bogged down on the East Front due to lend-lease, then there should be weakened Allied fronts elsewhere to attack.

  • '17 '16 '15

    @Der:

    I think the trick is that the Allies get no extra IPCs from this - total production is just moved around some, plus operational cost is subtracted. If the UK and USA choose to help Russia like this, they have to do it by weakening themselves, so if Germany gets bogged down on the East Front due to lend-lease, then there should be weakened Allied fronts elsewhere to attack.

    Yes! That’s the beauty of the whole concept:)

  • '17 '16

    I think it is in the good direction.
    However, splitting IPCs lend-lease is costlier than just giving a whole amounts of IPCs to 1 Power and to the other on the next game round.

    USA have 11 IPCs to lend-lease, it will cost 17 IPCs to split 5 IPCs to UK and 6 IPCs to USSR.
    In two consecutive rounds: R1- 11 IPCs to UK + 3 IPCs = 14 IPCs R2- 11 IPCs to USSR + 3 IPCs, sum: 22 IPCs + 6 IPCs= 28 IPCs
    Have you split both round, it would have cost 17 IPCs twice, sum: 34 IPCs

    You shouldn’t penalize for splitting the lend-lease, it introduces an additional unnecessary and annoying penalty.
    Around 20-33% transfer fee should work.
    Minimum 1 IPC, up to a maximum of 5 IPCs.
    For example: USA want to lend lease 9 IPCs to other Allies: it will cost 2 IPCs, but 11 IPCs will cost 3 IPCs.

    Lend-lease / Transfer fee
    1-5 IPCs cost 1 IPCs.
    6-10 IPCs cost 2 IPCs.
    11-15 IPCs cost 3 IPCs.
    16-20 IPCs cost 4 IPCs.
    21 IPCs and more cost 5 IPCs.


    If you find this too cheap, add simply a basic 1 IPC fee to the above cost. So minimum will be 2 IPCs and maximum will be 6 IPCs.
    So a 10 IPCs lend-lease will cost 3 IPCs while a 15 IPCs, will cost 4 IPCs.


  • @Baron:

    However, splitting IPCs lend-lease is costlier than just giving a whole amounts of IPCs to 1 Power and to the other on the next game round.

    Wouldn’t it naturally cost more, though, as you would have to supply staff and task forces to deliver the goods to two separate locations at the same time?

    I’m liking your variable IPC cost chart, though…hmmmm

  • '17 '16

    @Der:

    @Baron:

    However, splitting IPCs lend-lease is costlier than just giving a whole amounts of IPCs to 1 Power and to the other on the next game round.

    Wouldn’t it naturally cost more, though, as you would have to supply staff and task forces to deliver the goods to two separate locations at the same time?

    I’m liking your variable IPC cost chart, though…hmmmm

    You may add other variables based on physical reality but what is the gain in game experience?
    Example:
    UK shipping toward Russia and USA toward UK is about the same distance, so it is the same basic fee: 1 IPC.
    But USA toward Russia is farther, so this basic fee is 2 IPCs and it includes any transit cost via UK.

    Shipping cost formula: basic fee + % based on the amount of lend-lease.
    Lend-lease / Transfer fee
    1-5 IPCs cost 1 IPCs.
    6-10 IPCs cost 2 IPCs.
    11-15 IPCs cost 3 IPCs.
    16-20 IPCs cost 4 IPCs.
    21 IPCs and more cost 5 IPCs.

    Example:
    USA is shipping 10 IPCs, 5 in UK and 5 in Russia.
    Basic fee is 2 IPCs + shipping 10 cost 2 IPCs, sum: 4 IPCs.

    US shipping 10 in Russia only? Same cost: 4 IPCs.

    But US shipping 10 in UK only? Cost 3 IPCs.
    1 IPC basic fee + 2 IPCs for the 10 IPCs lend-lease.

    Lend-lease could be done during the Collect Income phase of the receiving power instead.

    Then you can increase the maximum allowed to convoy raid damage in Atlantic accordingly to the amount of lend-lease.
    Example 1: USA is shipping 10 IPCs. In a convoy zone the maximum was 8. But now Germany can do damage up to 18 IPCs.

    If there is two convoy zones disrupted, you cannot go higher than the maximums from the 2 Convoy zones + lend-lease shipped.
    Example 2: as the last example 1, plus 1 Convoy Zone maxed at 4 IPCs, the total of convoy damage will be 8+4+10= 22 IPCs.
    Since Russia has no convoy zone, you can say that all northern Atlantic Convoy Zones have a 2 IPCs maximum against the lend-lease only maximum.

    That way Axis would have a way of affecting this exchange of IPCs. And it depends on both strategy and luck in the Convoy Raiding rolls.

    I realized that if lend-lease is in Collect Income phase then US player will pay twice the basic fee if he sends money on Russia’s turn and on UK’s turn, as you originally wished.

    It is also possible to say that there is no basic fee to help UK while there is a 1 IPC or 2 IPCs basic fee for sending lend-lease to Russia.
    This last one is simpler.


  • I think the greatest simplicity is just to set an “average” fee of 3 IPCs. So basically if you do this, it will cost you an infantry defending somewhere else.

    I tried making a cost chart like the one you suggested, and it seemed to overcomplicate and invite exploitation. For example, using your chart, I would never send someone 6 IPCs. I would always send 5. Same for all the other price change cutoffs. An average fee of 3 for everything is way simpler, and people know that sending in bulk is more economic than sending smaller amounts.


  • Then just round it out to 2 icp fee wether you send 5 icps or 10 icps if you think 3 is to high. I agree with ya Der, keep it KISS.


  • It sound good. Some of you had info about real '‘lend lease’'between germany and italy?

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 5
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

45

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts