New Russian NO

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.

Lend Lease Idea: � This is a separate idea to YG’s NO suggestion and therefore deserves a separate post.

I agree on adding it as well. It makes sense and doesn’t really add extra IPCs to the Allies and could mitigate some of the “bids” people need to have a chance for the Allies.

At the US’s Mobilize and Spend Phase, they can then choose to “lend” 5 IPCs to Russia or the UK. Double the amount of lend lease money went to the UK. So don’t limit it to just Russia. Also, by-the time lend lease really got into effect, the equipment wasn’t there when Russia was close to falling and or losing during the opening campaign. I would stipulate, 3rd US Turn to provide Lend Lease to the UK, and 4th US Turn to provide lend lease to Russia.

For Russia, SZ 125 should be free of German subs in order to give aid to Russia. For UK, I think the rule of no German subs north or west of Great Britain within the range of two Sea Zones. Russia or the UK then get to spend the 5 IPC lend lease money however they see fit. Don’t limit it to specifics. That’s ridiculous. For instance, what if they received a lend lease donation of small arms equipment…(hint, that goes to infantry). Remember, the sculpts don’t represent actual units…or people. A good example of this is how almost every Infantry Corp (or Armor Division) has it’s own Anti-Air Battalion, but do we don’t let Infantry sculpts throw dice at aircraft like the AAA sculpt. Also the armor sculpt isn’t just equipment, it represent an unknown sized unit that in theory includes tank operators, mech infantry, staff officers, AAA, internal logistics…ect, all part of an “armor unit.” The same as the mech sculpt., which in real life is really the same as infantry, they just have self-mobilization, more mobile firepower, more mobile AAA.

(A small amount of lend lease money went to China throughout the war as well. So I suggest that the US could also opt to “lend” 3 IPCs to China starting on Turn 2, China was one of the first nation’s to receive lend lease supplies).

Like I said before although Russia needs help, I’m not in favor of Russia getting an NO bonus if the western allies make landings stick in Europe. The Russians are already getting the benefit of Germany fighting two fronts, therefore axis will have less to spend on the eastern front (that is the real bonus).

The US/UK already benefit for taking Normandy or S France because of the ICs, I don’t feel the allies need more of a reason to do so. Plus the US is also able to get a 5 IPC NO if they choose to take France (Paris). I realize they rarely do that in G40 because of the loss of production from the coastal ICs (I also see this as a flaw in the game). Just to point out that in the Global 42 version this isn’t a problem because there are no ICs in Normandy or S France for the US/UK to exploit.

I would like a better way to reflect lend lease though (that would be pretty cool). I agree that it should have its own thread as well. There are a lot of good thoughts on the subject here.

You could modify it to provide only 1 IPC, but for every non-Soviet Allied-controlled territory in mainland Europe with an IPC value (The Condition does not require the USA to be at war with the European Axis) this could encourage the Allies to be more risky to provide the USSR more time and perhaps turn the tide. So if you have Normandy and Norway, that’s 2 Bonus IPCs for the USSR.

Wild Bill wrote,

“Like I said before although Russia needs help, I’m not in favor of Russia getting an NO bonus if the western allies make landings stick in Europe. The Russians are already getting the benefit of Germany fighting two fronts, therefore axis will have less to spend on the eastern front (that is the real bonus).”

Would you be willing to test the Russian NO before simply scrapping the idea? I think both ideas, the Russian NO and the Lend Lease idea might be a way to end the Allies “bidding.” By the time an Allied landing can stick, its usually too late for the Axis to really dislodge them anyways. This might help to end a game that really takes too long. However, it might result in quicker landings that actually fail, (resulting in no NO for Russia), and then actually make Germany stronger, because they secured “fortress” Europe.

In another thread by YG, he asked about changing the turn order to let the US go last. That might also be a good way to end the bidding process. Also, it sounds historical since the US was the last major country to enter the war.