Russian Lend Lease



  • Was wondering, in the world rules if a allied unit occupies eastern Soviet Union the Pacific part would the Soviet Union lose their lend lease bonus since part of this Soviet union is in the Pacific theater that is effected?


  • 2017 2016 2015

    Can’t have any allied units in any Original soviet territories. So no you don’t get the bonus



  • So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.



  • @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Depends if you can take out more then that amount of enemy units and something is left over not a big deal either.

    Then again how long do you think SZ125 will be without german sub. That unit is worth its investment by taking out 5 ipcs a turn from russia.



  • I thought that seazone 125 just had to be free of axis warships. Does a sub count as a warship?


  • 2017 2016 2015

    yes a sub counts as a warship. Anything except a transport will negate the Russian objective



  • I think the part of no Allied units on any original Russian territories should be either taken out of the NO and/or should be a NO by itself. I don’t know why Allied units in Russian territories should affect a Lend Lease type objective(or at least seazone 125 free of warships and Russia owning Archangel seems like a Lend Lease type bonus). The Lend Lease is fine as a NO however it would be interesting as a special rule(it could be something similar to the Lend Lease rule in the 1936 game from HBG) since it was an important part of the war.


  • 2017 2016 2015

    yea making it separate for 5 bucks seems to work pretty good.



  • @Frederick:

    I think the part of no Allied units on any original Russian territories should be either taken out of the NO and/or should be a NO by itself. I don’t know why Allied units in Russian territories should affect a Lend Lease type objective(or at least seazone 125 free of warships and Russia owning Archangel seems like a Lend Lease type bonus). The Lend Lease is fine as a NO however it would be interesting as a special rule(it could be something similar to the Lend Lease rule in the 1936 game from HBG) since it was an important part of the war.

    It kinda does make sence from a historic point of view. And well most NO’s are inspired by targets in history.
    Russia wasnt really allied with UK and the US. They where just being pragmatic and wanted aid, russia didnt care about what the US wanted. It wasnt there to liberate other countries from the germans it was there to capture those countries themself for russia. So allied units in russia would be against the whole idea of how russia fought the war.

    Giving russia a flat 5 NO bonus can go a long way of making russia able to stop germany itself.


  • 2018 2017

    The old 2000 era AxA Europe Lend Lease rule let you adsorb allied units into the USSR instead, replacing them with Russian troops.  Maybe add that back in…



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @Frederick:

    I think the part of no Allied units on any original Russian territories should be either taken out of the NO and/or should be a NO by itself. I don’t know why Allied units in Russian territories should affect a Lend Lease type objective(or at least seazone 125 free of warships and Russia owning Archangel seems like a Lend Lease type bonus). The Lend Lease is fine as a NO however it would be interesting as a special rule(it could be something similar to the Lend Lease rule in the 1936 game from HBG) since it was an important part of the war.

    It kinda does make sence from a historic point of view. And well most NO’s are inspired by targets in history.
    Russia wasnt really allied with UK and the US. They where just being pragmatic and wanted aid, russia didnt care about what the US wanted. It wasnt there to liberate other countries from the germans it was there to capture those countries themself for russia. So allied units in russia would be against the whole idea of how russia fought the war.

    Giving russia a flat 5 NO bonus can go a long way of making russia able to stop germany itself.

    Some of the NO’s are questionable in the game. That while USSR didn’t really rely on direct manpower from the other allies, they heavily depend on Lend-Lease from UK and US for survival. Soviet Union never denied this, there generals of WWII admit this. When it comes to Lend-Lease NO for USSR, I think it needs to be fixed. Since USSR had three points of Lend Lease, Far East had non combat equipment only, Persia, and “north pole” had military equipment. I don’t like the idea of no other allied units of USSR also breaks that NO.


  • 2017

    @barney:

    yea making it separate for 5 bucks seems to work pretty good.

    I agree.


  • 2017

    @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Good point.



  • @BusaRider29:

    @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Good point.

    And even then, I wouldn’t allow it. I have closed USSR door before due to allies trying to move in pointless stuff.



  • @BusaRider29:

    @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Good point.

    Questionalble, would you allow a bomber to station there 1 round if it can take out 1-2 japan transports for free?

    Sure the 5 NO is annoying but slowing japan down again is also good as more US stuff goes towards germany afterwards.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @BusaRider29:

    @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Good point.

    Questionalble, would you allow a bomber to station there 1 round if it can take out 1-2 japan transports for free?

    Sure the 5 NO is annoying but slowing japan down again is also good as more US stuff goes towards germany afterwards.

    The issue here is that the USSR has to be at war in both theaters.
    The Russians are allowed to be at war with German and Italy, but not Japan.
    So if the Japanesse and Russians aren’t at war, the pacific USSR terriroties are neutral.
    And you can’t land or fly over a neutral. So the bigger question you are purposing is do the Russians want to create a second front so, assumingly, the US can harass the Japanesse?


  • 2018 2017

    Declaring war on Japan, alone, doesn’t have any consequences.  Most games begin with that DoW on R1, even if Russians don’t move into China.  Its attacking the Russians that implicates the Mongolilan Rule.  Then, when the US enters the war, they can land, there is never a situation where you cannot do this for practical reasons, just losing the NO.

    Back to the original discussion, its a great rule as it is.  If you can keep Russia standing on its own, do that.  if you need it as a base, do that.

    SZ 125 is well contested, so is archangel, both make this bonus moot, by G3 you’re usually burned and then the allies can come in either way and nothing is lost.



  • In 1940 the Lend Lease to Russia is a generic 5 IPC.

    It would be interesting to explore the effect if you allow the UK/Europe and USA to add more Lend Lease. UK/USA can each spend 5 extra IPC in the lend lease program bump it up to 15 IPC a turn.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    @barney:

    yea making it separate for 5 bucks seems to work pretty good.

    That is in Balanced Mod. Have to agree with that one.



  • @Wildcat6305:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @BusaRider29:

    @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Good point.

    Questionalble, would you allow a bomber to station there 1 round if it can take out 1-2 japan transports for free?

    Sure the 5 NO is annoying but slowing japan down again is also good as more US stuff goes towards germany afterwards.

    The issue here is that the USSR has to be at war in both theaters.
    The Russians are allowed to be at war with German and Italy, but not Japan.
    So if the Japanesse and Russians aren’t at war, the pacific USSR terriroties are neutral.
    And you can’t land or fly over a neutral. So the bigger question you are purposing is do the Russians want to create a second front so, assumingly, the US can harass the Japanesse?

    there is no reason not to declare war round 1 with russia against japan.
    It helps your cause and does no harm at all. the DOW does not change mongolia it does not change any NO’s but it does allow allied air to land on russia terretories when it is convenient.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @BusaRider29:

    @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Good point.

    Questionalble, would you allow a bomber to station there 1 round if it can take out 1-2 japan transports for free?

    Sure the 5 NO is annoying but slowing japan down again is also good as more US stuff goes towards germany afterwards.

    Not unless USSR has the advantage against western Axis and my reason for this is that USSR cannot defend the east and the NO for Lend-Lease will almost be used against Germany so I am not letting US have it easier because I can’t.



  • @Caesar:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @BusaRider29:

    @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Good point.

    Questionalble, would you allow a bomber to station there 1 round if it can take out 1-2 japan transports for free?

    Sure the 5 NO is annoying but slowing japan down again is also good as more US stuff goes towards germany afterwards.

    Not unless USSR has the advantage against western Axis and my reason for this is that USSR cannot defend the east and the NO for Lend-Lease will almost be used against Germany so I am not letting US have it easier because I can’t.

    Its a team game for the allies remember.

    If your actively helping japan as russia by protecing their transports then US will need to spend more against japan which means less against italy and germany.
    Which will result in more germans hitting russia.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @Caesar:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @BusaRider29:

    @Caesar:

    So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

    Good point.

    Questionalble, would you allow a bomber to station there 1 round if it can take out 1-2 japan transports for free?

    Sure the 5 NO is annoying but slowing japan down again is also good as more US stuff goes towards germany afterwards.

    Not unless USSR has the advantage against western Axis and my reason for this is that USSR cannot defend the east and the NO for Lend-Lease will almost be used against Germany so I am not letting US have it easier because I can’t.

    Its a team game for the allies remember.

    If your actively helping japan as russia by protecing their transports then US will need to spend more against japan which means less against italy and germany.
    Which will result in more germans hitting russia.

    Yes however if Germany and USSR play a “perfect game”, Germany regardless will beat USSR in G40 which is why USSR not only has to rely on Lend Lease but also need physically help from the allies. So in this sense, it cripples USSR to allow US to move into its country if those same units are not going to stop western Axis who already have a win over USSR. And taking into account that US with all of there NO can already outspend Japan from J1 even helps my case in this situation.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 12
  • 16
  • 15
  • 13
  • 7
  • 19
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

53
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts