New Russian NO

You could maybe also add mainland Italy and the Balkans to the list.  Specifically, these would be the map territories of Southern Italy, Northern Italy, Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia (and perhaps Bulgaria, though it’s on the wrong side of the Dardanelles Straight).  The Anglo-American landings in Italy in 1943 were (in part) motivated by the wish to open a second front in continental Europe, at least on a symbolic level.  As for the Balkans, Hitler often fretted over the worry that the Allies would invade there and threaten his Romanian oil supplies.  Part of the Allied deception operation for their invasion of Sicily was a cover plan designed to reinforce Hitler’s worry that the Allies might actually invade Greece rather than Sicily.

That seems like a good objective and I like the historical background behind it.

@Young:

I wonder than if it should be rephrased to say “at least 1 Allied land unit on mainland Europe”.

It would have the advantage of being shorter, but the disadvantage of possible ambiguity.  For example, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland would be included in that definition, despite their strict neutral status. (And that status can change if a player power attacks any strict neutrals.)  Even Russia’s European territories – basically, everything west of the Urals – would be included in the definition.

How about:

5 IPCs for Soviet Union if there is at least 1 Allied land unit (not Russian) in a territory on continental Europe, other than Russian territories or neutral nations.

If “continental Europe” is potentially ambiguous, it could be clarified as:

5 IPCs for Soviet Union if there is at least 1 Allied land unit (not Russian) in a territory on continental Europe (not islands), other than Russian territories or neutral nations.

There should be an offset - 5 IPC to Germany when this Objective not met.  But, cannot collect unless both USA and USSR at war with Germany.

Sorry YG I voted against this NO.

I get that Stalin was pressuring the allies for a second front, I just don’t know why you think the Russians should get paid for it once it happens. It’s not like the allies land and the Russians get an influx of cash (although many of the NO model this lol). Reason for a second front was to pull German forces away from the east, which does happen indirectly. German spending starts to change even in anticipation of the western allies landing somewhere in Europe, and really flips once it happens. In this game there is no rail so you can’t just recall German ground units and re position them across the map, but what does happen is the Germans are limited to what they can add to the eastern front once the allies land.

I also think that the Russians are in need of more income once they are at war in the early stages (say turn 2-6) to help def against the Huns, not once the allies make a landing stick (round 7-8). At that point if Moscow is still in tact the Euro axis are probably on the down slide, if not the Russians won’t have a capital to collect the NO.

I would be more in favor of your rule that splits the Russian NO into two obtainable NOs (as short lived as they could be depending on what each side does). The Russians need more income once they go to war, not after the allies are winning it.

5 IPCs for no allied units on Russian soil because that is not only historical, but is a direct trade off to flying planes to Moscow.

5 IPCs lend lease NO for Soviets holding Arch, and sz125 is clear of axis warships. It only covers one lend lease route but at least it’s something.

I think it would be cool if the US (maybe UK) player could lend lease a unit to Russia once both powers are at war. US purchases a lend lease unit during the purchase units phase on their turn and attempts to directly lend lease it to Russia at the end of that same US turn (mob units phase). The unit would be Russian up to 5 IPCs in cost (could be inf, art, mech, or AA gun). Lend lease is risky, so allow the Germans to roll a dice (during US mob units phase) to see if they can sink it (1-2 it sinks, 4-6  Russia gets the unit). Stipulation that in order for the allies to lend lease a unit to the Russians there can be no allied units on Russian soil. The Russians have to either hold Arch, or Caucasus (plus allies hold NW Persia, and Persia if going southern route), because that is where the lend lease unit shows up during the place units phase of the lending powers turn (so Russia can move it on their turn unless destroyed before hand).

*Optional blockade, besides the Germans being able to attempt to sink the lend lease unit w/dice roll, any axis power at war w/Russia and US that has war ships sz 127, or sz80 would also get to fire at the lend lease unit tracing a path through the same sz at normal attack values (during the US mob units phase). This would give the US player a chance to clear the sz in combat for less risk to the lend lease unit (kinda like convoy).

@WILD:

I get that Stalin was pressuring the allies for a second front, I just don’t know why you think the Russians should get paid for it once it happens. It’s not like the allies land and the Russians get an influx of cash (although many of the NO model this lol). Reason for a second front was to pull German forces away from the east, which does happen indirectly.

Similarly, the British and the Americans sometimes argued to Stalin (without much success) that their strategic bombing campaign against Germany was in effect a “second front”.  Strategic bombing fitted better in 1942 and 1943 with the Anglo-American position at the time (which was weak in terms of ground forces, and which had to contend with being separated from Continental Europe by the English Channel and the Mediterranean).  It also fitted better with the Anglo-American temperament, because it was a capital-intensive and technologically-based approach to warfare that helped to keep down to an acceptable level the number of military casualties it generated.  The Russians, by contrast, were prepared to take more casualties and were fighting what was inherently a land war, so they had a more labour-intensive approach to fighting WWII.  Their military technology wasn’t as high-tech as that of the British and the Americans, but some of their designs were actually very good (the T-34 and the Shturmovik, for example), and they could produce them in large quantities.

Regarding what Wild Bill mentions about the indirect help provided to the Soviet war effort by the Anglo-American landings in southern and (later) western Europe, the same is true for the Anglo-American strategic bombing offensive.  Its obvious effect was to damage German industrial production and civilian morale (though in neither case to a level that came anywhere near to winning the war on its own, despite what officers like Arthur Harris believed), but it also had a less obvious effect: it distorted Germany’s aircraft production priorities.  Instead of building lots of planes that would have been useful on the Eastern Front against the Russians – bombers and ground-attack aircraft – the Germans had to put more and more emphasis on building fighters to defend the Reich against the British and American bombers which were attacking Germany from the opposite direction.

IMHO, one allied unit isn’t enough to trigger this NO.

At least three, non-Russian, allied units (non French) in Normandy, France, S. France or Holland

OR

Non-Russian, Allied control of S. Italy

AND

No allied units in Russian owned (originally painted red) territories including planes.

How bout the Americans can LOAN 5 ipc to russia if SZ 125 is not occupied by axis. That way the game is not imbalanced by ability to just get free money.

I think the ability to give 5 IPC from USA to USSR if 125 is open is a pretty good one. Would this be done during collect income or purchase units phase? I would agree to it being during the purchase units phase.

@Imperious:

How bout the Americans can LOAN 5 ipc to russia if SZ 125 is not occupied by axis. That way the game is not imbalanced by ability to just get free money.

Here’s a thought to build on this idea.  It keeps the concept of lending 5 American IPCs to Russia under the stated SZ condition, but adds a few details.  In the real world, the US would have given the USSR physical goods rather than actual cash because American currency would not have had any use within the Soviet Union.  (The Soviets could presumably have used foreign currency as a way to buy stuff from aboard, but that would still ultimately translate into physical goods being shipped by convoy to the USSR.)  So maybe the transaction should work like this:

• The US player lends 5 IPCs to the USSR

• The Russian player tells the US player what he wants to buy with those 5 IPCs

• The US player gives to the Soviet player (from his equipment supply boxes, not from the forces he controls on the board) the US models of those equipment types

The stuff given to the Russians would be American sculpts, but they’d be considered Soviet units, not American ones.  And on a related point, the only thing that the USSR could obtain in this way would be equipment, not soldiers; ordering a Sherman tank for use in Russia is believable, but ordering an American (or even more ridiculously a Russian) soldier to be “manufactured” in the US and shipped to Russia would be silly.

If the sculpt colour difference is problematic, here would be a variant of the idea: the Russians are allowed to obtain under Lend-Lease 5 IPCs’ worth of the Russian-coloured but British- or American-design equipment sculpts from A&A 1941.  This would allow them to purchase fighters (US P-40 Warhawk), bombers (UK Lancaster), battleships (UK Hood class), destroyers (US Sumner class), submarines (UK S class) or transport ships (UK Fort type),

Ok good. However, for the sake of clarity the lend lease hardware should be a soviet sculpt. Also right to point out that it cant be infantry, only mech units or air.

Procedure: the US player earmarks the 5 ipc on their turn which is placed in SZ 125 ( one red chip) if the axis player brings a sub in, the money is lost ( sunk). On the Russian players turn, its converted into a mech or artillery or saved for a tank or plane unit.

Perhaps once it clears the 125 box and goes to Russia, if its saved you can just put the income off map  on a template labeled “lend lease payments”

Also perhaps UK could perform this alternatively, if the American player is neutral. I think its unfair for both of them to send the 5 ipc.

You may also need to lower the German costs of their first sub purchased by 1 ipc to compensate in order to balance the game.

What this really boils down too is a mechanism to include Lend Lease rather than a NO. If that’s the case, remember 50% of LL came from US shipments to Vladivostok, 25% from Persia, 25% into Archangel.

@Imperious:

How bout the Americans can LOAN 5 ipc to russia if SZ 125 is not occupied by axis. That way the game is not imbalanced by ability to just get free money.

^^==  This.

It isn’t a loan though. America can lend/lease to England (Atlantic side) if there are no Submarines in the North Atlantic (5 IPC max) or Russia (if there are no hostile warships in SZ 125, Leningrad is Russian controlled) (5 IPC Max)  Funds are deducted from the American economy and added to the recipient’s economy.  (America must be at war with Germany/Italy)

For gaming purposes it’s basically a gift rather than a loan.  The US did expect to be repaid eventually for the lend-lease aid it extended to its allies, but it put a very broad interpretation on the meaning of “eventually.”  In Britain’s case, payment of its war debt to the US was completed in 2006, about a month after A&A Battle of the Bulge was published.

Wasn’t aware we even asked to be repaid after the war, figured we forgave the loans.  Live and learn!

I’m not sure to what extent the USSR repaid its war loans to the US, given that the two countries soon ended up on opposite sides of the Cold War.  Britain was on the US side, so it had more reason to repay.

@CWO:

I’m not sure to what extent the USSR repaid its war loans to the US, given that the two countries soon ended up on opposite sides of the Cold War.  Britain was on the US side, so it had more reason to repay.

Part of it was repaid via providing the United States rare materials during the war, and later $2,000,000.

The United States later asked for the remainder, but only received  $120,000,000 until 1972, when the USSR provided $722,000,000, with the United States writing the rest off.

Thanks for the info, Fuhrermeister.

YG Idea, +1

I think the idea of a new NO for Russia would be a great addition! It might result in quicker troop landings anywhere on mainland Europe.

The American leadership really didn’t want to go farther than N. Africa. To appease Churchill, Sicily was invaded, and then Italy. Churchill also wanted to re-enter the Balkans by-way of Greece. The US was not in favor of those plans because it reduced landing craft capabilities elsewhere and their strategic thinking led them to believe the best way to Germany was through France. Regardless, Stalin played a big role in convincing the US to participate and support the opening of those other fronts. The point of all this, is that the concept should be expanded to YG’s terminology of any Allied ground units (-minus Russian) in mainland Europe.

I disagree with the suggestion of more than 1 allied ground unit. The point is mute. Germany goes before Russia and therefore can kill 1 unit to prevent Russia from collecting this additional NO.