Make India count as a Europe VC

[variance]

A lot of Global 1940 games end up with Germany defeating Russia but then being denied a victory because of allied strategies to prevent them getting the 8th VC (ie abandoning Moscow and retreating to Caucasus; flying a bazillion fighters to Cairo).  In the real war, Egypt was important because Germany needed access to middle east oil, but Egypt was not the final goal like it is in the game.  The war should be decided in Russia and things should be arranged so that the allies best strategy is to help the Soviet Union stay alive to defeat Nazi Germany.  That might mean opening a second front in Western Europe or Italy, but World War II should not be won by letting Russia die and flying fighters to Egypt.

Now suppose India counted as a VC on the Europe map as well as the Pacific.  An axis victory would be declared if all 3 Russian VCs fall and UK loses its empire status by the fall of either Cairo or Calcutta.  Assuming Japan can probably manage to take India, the onus would be on the allies to support Russia and that’s where the game would be decided.  It would not be an option to just leave Russia to its fate.  UK might redeploy units to India early instead of doing a Taranto or Tobruk raid, or they could focus on holding Cairo, but they probably couldn’t hold both so either way the allies would have to help keep Russia going.

With this rule it might be possible for the axis to just bypass Moscow, take the other 2 Russian VCs and have Japan crush India, then get Cairo as #8 either by land or by sea.  But if they did that gamey strategy they would run up against the equally gamey Egypt stack routine, making it a bad move.  I think this would make the whole game better and more realistic.

[oztea]

Or give Russia a few units per turn in archangel to simulate lend lease and keep them focused on holding their northern areas and stop them from drifting south.

Like a free unit per turn if the US has a transport in 125-127
Roll on a chart, infantry, artillery, mech, tank, AA gun, fighter

[wheatbeer]

@oztea:

Like a free unit per turn if the US has a transport in 125-127
Roll on a chart, infantry, artillery, mech, tank, AA gun, fighter

This is a pretty fun idea (assuming it requires the Soviet control of Archangel).

@variance:

With this rule it might be possible for the axis to just bypass Moscow, take the other 2 Russian VCs and have Japan crush India, then get Cairo as #8 either by land or by sea.  But if they did that gamey strategy they would run up against the equally gamey Egypt stack routine, making it a bad move.  I think this would make the whole game better and more realistic.

.

I think this would make the Axis too easy, though I am curious how you came to your conclusion.

True, if Axis strategy is hard Barbarossa, taking Cairo can be a nightmare against good Allied play.

However, taking Cairo (with German support) before invading the Soviets is a viable strategy. Bypassing Moscow would be cake if you took Cairo early.

[knp7765]

@oztea:

Or give Russia a few units per turn in archangel to simulate lend lease and keep them focused on holding their northern areas and stop them from drifting south.

Like a free unit per turn if the US has a transport in 125-127
Roll on a chart, infantry, artillery, mech, tank, AA gun, fighter

Very interesting idea. Might be kind of an expensive proposition for the US. They wouldn’t have to actually transport over men, tanks, etc., just have a US transport in one of those sea zones. Thing is, they would also have to invest in a fair amount of warships to protect that transport. Probably at least a couple of destroyers (U-boats attack) along with a carrier with fighters. Seems like a big investment on the US part just to get the Russians an extra unit each turn.
If the US has more than one transport in those sea zones, do the Russians get more than one unit per turn? Also, what about British transports?

[variance]

it might get a battle of the Atlantic going with germany buying subs.

[Young Grasshopper]

Lend lease rule is interesting, but all the more reason to Attack Russia G1.

[oztea]

Well if the US is invested in keeping 125 free of subs, then Russia is getting its 5 IPC bonus also.

And how annoying is it going to be when Russia rolls a 6 and gets a free fighter.

If you want to make it REALLY worthwhile, have the rule be this:

Lend-Lease Optional Rule
While both the United States and Soviet Union are at war, and Archangel is controlled by the Soviets, during the place units phase the Soviet player rolls a die and consults the following chart. Place the awarded Soviet units in Archangel.

1. Supplies Delayed
2. Infantry
3. Infantry & AA Gun
4. Mechanized Infantry & Artillery
5. Mechanized Infantry & Tank
6. Artillery & Fighter

When rolling the Lend-Lease die consult the following as well:
+1 to the die roll for each UK or US transport in any of the following sea zones: 125, 126 or 127
-1 to the die roll for each German sub in any of the following sea zones: 125, 126, 127

I guess I should make my own thread for this idea.  :?

[variance]

Sounds fun to me!  Anything that beefs up Russia should make more of the game happen in Russia.

[baron Münchhausen]

@oztea:

Lend-Lease Optional Rule
While both the United States and Soviet Union are at war, and Archangel is controlled by the Soviets, during the place units phase the Soviet player rolls a die and consults the following chart. Place the awarded Soviet units in Archangel.

1. Supplies Delayed
2. Infantry  (3 IPCs)
3. Infantry & AA Gun 3+5= 8 IPCs
4. Mechanized Infantry & Artillery 4+4= 8 IPCs
5. Mechanized Infantry & Tank 4+6 = 10 IPCs
6. Artillery & Fighter 4+10 = 14 IPCs

When rolling the Lend-Lease die consult the following as well:
+1 to the die roll for each UK or US transport in any of the following sea zones: 125, 126 or 127
-1 to the die roll for each German sub in any of the following sea zones: 125, 126, 127

It lacks a little bit of slow progression. Maybe 0, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 IPCs worth of units.

An other idea is to allow a real gift of IPCs from USA to Russia within limits and without giving bonus units, while Archangel is controlled by the Soviets.
And still subject to :

+1 to the die roll for each UK or US transport in any of the following sea zones: 125, 126 or 127
-1 to the die roll for each German sub in any of the following sea zones: 125, 126, 127

I’m thinking about a 2D6 IPCs gift from USA to Russia.
If Russia ask for money… USA must accept the dice result.
You can view u-boat as -1 IPC lost/subs in 125, 126, 127.
Lend-lease can be risky…

In this manner, Allies will get the same amounts of IPCs or fewer.

[toblerone77]

You could have HBG supply tokens shipped via transport between allied nations.

Example: Britain buys a supply token for 5 IPCs it’s loaded on a transport and shipped to Russia. Russia on it’s build turn redeems the supply token for 5 IPCs from the bank and purchases whatever it wants or saves the money for a rainy day.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

You could have HBG supply tokens shipped via transport between allied nations.

Example: Britain buys a supply token for 5 IPCs it’s loaded on a transport and shipped to Russia. Russia on it’s build turn redeems the supply token for 5 IPCs from the bank and purchases whatever it wants or saves the money for a rainy day.

Transports are for ground units and are not suppose to simulate merchant navy.
You must use somehow the convoy system and develop some rules about it.

[toblerone77]

Well if you want to call it money it could simply be wired by cables under the Atlantic.

Like most A&A OOB units I don’t think there’s a direct correlation between hard facts and representation on the board. Since we don’t have a strictly merchant vessel, using a transport would be close. Plus using tokens there has to be a way to move them overland like between Germany and Italy.

Depending on how far you’d want to go with a shared economics between allied nations, there are all kinds of resource tokens that HBG sells.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

Well if you want to call it money it could simply be wired by cables under the Atlantic.

Like most A&A OOB units I don’t think there’s a direct correlation between hard facts and representation on the board. Since we don’t have a strictly merchant vessel, using a transport would be close. Plus using tokens there has to be a way to move them overland like between Germany and Italy.

Depending on how far you’d want to go with a shared economics between allied nations, there are all kinds of resource tokens that HBG sells.

Just simply put the " 5 IPCs supply token brought by Britain" in the SZ near Archangel.
Then, for each U-boat/warship on the path, roll 1D6, on a roll of 1 or 2 (Sub A2) subtracts 1 IPCs.

It is the same for USA.
The Lend-Lease arrives on Russia turn (suppose USA played last. Then it is Russia’s turn.)

[oztea]

You could use National Control Markers.

Honestly the only way it would be economical would be if the US or UK can buy Lend Lease tokens for 5 IPCs, transport them (counts as a Non-Infantry land unit)
And the Soviets can cash them in for 10 IPCs when they get them.

I know this sounds strange, but you are getting a benefit for the IPCs sitting in transports over the few turns.
This is the incentive to actually do this, rather than spend the money yourself.

Perhaps limit it to 1 token per turn or something.

So the US can buy up to 1 token per turn (for 5 IPCs), and get it to Russia however it sees fit, and it can move 2 spaces per turn (by imaginary truck or rail)
And if it gets to a Soviet factory then they can convert it to 10 IPCs worth of units of their choice.

2 Infantry and an artillery
Artillery and a tank
Mech and a tank
Fighter….
Etc

[baron Münchhausen]

@oztea:

You could use National Control Markers.

Honestly the only way it would be economical would be if the US or UK can buy Lend Lease tokens for 5 IPCs, transport them (counts as a Non-Infantry land unit)
And the Soviets can cash them in for 10 IPCs when they get them.

I know this sounds strange, but you are getting a benefit for the IPCs sitting in transports over the few turns.
This is the incentive to actually do this, rather than spend the money yourself.

Perhaps limit it to 1 token per turn or something.

So the US can buy up to 1 token per turn (for 5 IPCs), and get it to Russia however it sees fit, and it can move 2 spaces per turn (by imaginary truck or rail)
And if it gets to a Soviet factory then they can convert it to 10 IPCs worth of units of their choice.

2 Infantry and an artillery
Artillery and a tank
Mech and a tank
Fighter….
Etc

Why bothering moving those IPCs by transport to convert them to an IC instead of simply bringing on a transport 1 Inf and 1 Art to help as soon as it gets in Archangel?

I prefer Lend-lease “said and done” within a whole turn. Axis will get their chance to move some ships or subs to reduce the IPCs given, then Russia can use them and build some units.

Let the token in the SZ until it is Russia turn. That’s all nothing more complicated. It must serve as an incentive to keep both Archangel and stay in Russia (instead of retreating in Cairo).
Let all this be a part of the merchant navy and some kind of convoy rule.

[oztea]

Because when the US buys the token for 5….
When it gets to soviet territory it can be cashed in for 10.

Thats to make it worthwhile for the allies to do.

[baron Münchhausen]

@oztea:

Because when the US buys the token for 5….
When it gets to soviet territory it can be cashed in for 10.

Thats to make it worthwhile for the allies to do.

Now I see better.

It is worthwhile for Allies to give IPCs to Russia, to get some troops in Europe it requires a long logistic line.
Simply giving (up to 12 IPCs) to Russia will allow a moving of 4 Inf from USA to Russia almost instantly.
When Russia and Archangel are part of a decisive ETO, it is in itself an incentive… unless playing with a greedy and selfish USA player.

That’s why it required some limits and the possibility to destroy some of this IPCs for Axis.