Author Topic: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia  (Read 11172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

qxxx

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« on: November 06, 2009, 04:31:20 AM »
In the game, how can the historic lend lease aid to russia be represented. If it hadn't been for US aid the Russians would have probably lost Leningrand, Moscow, and Stalingrad.
In almost all of the games I have played, the US never sends aid to Russia, it's production is almost 80 when attacked and the territories the Germans take are worth at most 10pp the first turn, so the Russians are still higher than the Germans in production after the initial attack.
I propose that if the Germans take novograd, minsk and kiev the Russians must receive US aid. Every turn they do not receive aid their production is still halved.
Comments
Ken

smckenzie

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2009, 04:16:48 PM »
If you look in the notes to various other wargames some, like IIRC Panzerblitz and the various manifestations of 3rd reich actually give quantifications of how much aid was received and when and in what types.

As ageneral proposition, Allied aid amounted to about 10% of Russian production in a large number of categories, and the main categories where Allied aid was more than this were TRUCKS and radios, and there where somewhat important contributions of raw materials at times, esp oil.

Most WWII games I have seen the allies actually typically do not send much aid to Russia, and many designers have felt this is how it should be.

In My current game of SEA the Axis targeted russia and we have maxed aid to russia.  This is very unusual.

Barbarossa to Berlin imposes the restriction that Lend Lease cards must be played before the Soviets can add many of their mechanized units to their force pools.

Based on my less than expert knowledge, BTB is perhaps the most realistic.  While the soviets produced their own tanks in large quantities, the contribution of allied trucks and radios was arguably vital to their effectiveness.

However, our game SEA as we have it does not have OIL rules etc.  Last night when we were playing we got into the discussion of OIL.  The Euroaxis had left the netherlands neutral, and the Japanese player was introducing the discussion of not attacking the DEI and leaving it neutral and the counterargument was that this game has no oil rules, and so that is why there is no option to leave DEI neutral.  The japanese must attack it, or the allies will occupy it and gain the PP.  Which is what happened in my last game where I was the allies.  I built 2 US CV pre-war and sent a buch of british planes etc to asia, and Britain occupied most of the DEI from early in the game.

What the contribution of Allied aid to the soviets was seems to still be hotly debated.  Designers, who presumably did their homework, seem to be consistently coming down on estimating the allied contribution as having been historically lower than many players seem to think.

But in any case, for this game, you are looking for a layer of detail not present, regardless of what side of the issue you are on.

I would add, my WWII era parents Uncles etc were insistent upon the import of allied LL to the soviets.  There is an element of propoganda in the belief that the soviets could not have done something without allied help, although if you hold the contrary position, you would say there is an element of revanchism to say otherwise.

I would like to hear the designers view on this.

qxxx

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2009, 03:19:23 AM »
One of the often overlooked items was food! - Germany had taken 65% of the Russian  pastures. The US food went a long way in inmproving and maintaing morale.

qxxx

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2009, 05:13:17 AM »
maybe a better option is if no aid from US the Russians suffer the same as the Germans first winter in Russia.

comments
ken

smckenzie

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2009, 12:49:19 PM »
I'd say based on my own remarks:

restrict the construction of Med/HVY tanks w/out LL.

Remember Soviet Infantry can not ride light Tanks, and the soviets can only build so many light tanks.  Also, this would reduce the number of soviet ground units on the board except when the soviets have low Production or for some reason are choosing not to build units.  So this would be a fairly big hit for the Soviets in my opinion.

However, I would contend that the game simply does not offer this type of detail.  Why do this when you have no oil rules, no distinction amongst resources/factories etc...why is this particular detail so important?

Yoper

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2009, 04:48:41 AM »
qxxx- I would ask why you think that the problem that you put forward originally - the USSR production level - should be addressed by a Lend-Lease mechanism?

Shouldn't it be looked at from various angles to understand why it is happening that way and maybe fix it with changes to Soviet pp levels while neutral, changes to its build limits while neutral, other changes to the political tension chart, etc.?

There may be other ways to fix this issue, if it is even an issue.  We had many times where we have had problems in different games (this one and others that we have designed) in which a situation arises, but then we figure out that it is either because of gameplay or other problems in the game.

It might be an issue from what is going on in your play group that might be taken care of by getting some new ideas infused in.  I don't know the full story of what is driving your thought process, but it maybe premature to look for some rule change.

I haven't played in a while, but I do think that I remember that the USSR can be up to that level of pps.  But they are only receiving half of that for production prior to being at war and they have certain limitation on builds also.

The main thing that we would see that the Germans would have an equipment superiority that allowed them to roll for multiple turns.  It took good Soviet play to be able to deal with a good German player.  Right Mark? ;)

On the flip side, mediocre Soviet play (like my play) would get crushed by a good German player (read Eric).

As such, this may be more about the play of the participants than any problem with the rules.  Struggle is a very unforgiving game, especially in the early stages.  If you make any mistake as the UK player in the first seven/eight turns the game will get away from the Allies. 

Just my observation of this topic.

   

qxxx

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2009, 05:17:50 AM »
This game is all about production, the players with the most production win 95% of the time.
Starting Production Allies 226 Axis 72 (w/tension level), the Axis has to even this out to even have a chance to win. 
That is why Russian production should be hampered if not receiving US aid.

I think the players should be bidding everytime to play the allies.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 03:03:07 AM by qxxx »

Yoper

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2009, 03:59:28 AM »
But because this is a '39 starting point game, the Axis can accomplish a lot before the US and USSR can even get into the game.

Even playing with optional tension level rules (which we did exclusively after we helped develop them), we had games where the European Axis would be almost to India before the Soviets were in.  So while the production would still be in the Allies favor, board position/VC points would just be too much to overcome.

Again, I don't know what is going on in your games since I am not there, but I know that things can go both ways depending on play.

I don't disagree with your general premise that production is stacked against the Axis.  And with good play by both sides the Allies will probably win. 

But there is room for the Axis to make it happen- be it because of mistakes, poor tension level card draws, or the dice.


qxxx

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2009, 06:20:45 AM »
why then logically would you play the Axis for 13-15 hrs knowing the allies have a very high percentage chance of winning right from the start.
The reason is, you want to try and beat the odds, because if you do, you have bragging rights for ever.
With the optional rules I add / modified / still modifying, I try to make it more balanced and therefore not a given that the Allies will win almost everytime.
I want it more in the percentage range of 65-75% not in the 90-95% the Allies win.
Don't get me wrong, this is the best game on the market.
I run it at every con here in DFW area and have converted a lot of Axis/Allies game players. 

Yoper

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2009, 01:36:30 PM »
I too love a challenge!

And if you look at my post, I said probably.  I don't agree with your 95% statement.

I am saying that the Allies are in a better position, based on a historical playout, to win the game.  So better than 50%, but not much more.

But that is also why I pushed the designers to come up with the tension system to help give the game a better playout, based on what was actually happening in the game.  I hated having the US and the USSR coming into the game when they did historically, even though the game was playing out totally different from what happened in the real war.

They should come in based on what is going on in the game.  So if you choose to do things different than what historically happened, then the game will play out in a way that may either enhance or hinder your chances to win.

In the end, there are still many variables that are out of your control no matter how well you plan. 

I wouldn't still be here talking about the game, promoting it to all who will listen, etc., if I thought that the game was as slanted as you seem to think that it is. 

I think that the core of your problem is the gamplay of the participants, not some bias in the game itself.  And I have gotten my ass kicked enough times by some darn good players to know what is good play and what isn't.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 01:40:13 PM by Yoper »

qxxx

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2009, 02:37:08 AM »
If you play with the printed optional rules, the Allies will win 90% of the time. A good example is Mark and John have lost both grudge matches as the Axis, and they are the designers. With the changes I have made the Allies percentage is about 50-60% and to me that is a much better game.

Yoper

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2009, 04:11:26 AM »
I would suggest that the reason Mark lost those two games for his side is that he came up against a damn good Soviet player.  I will let him explain that to you.

Mark may be the designer of the game, and a good player, but he wasn't up to snuff against Dan in the case.  Now if we flipped the team it may again turn out the same, but then again it may have been different.

Another example of what can happen with good players was the last Origins game that we got in with John.  Eric was doing a masterful job as the Germans all the way to the Urals and it was only the work of Tim coming on board as the Soviet player that turned the tide.


John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2009, 04:29:34 PM »
Ah - memories....

qxxx

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2010, 02:42:52 AM »
I have started using smackenzie's suggestion of the medium tank idea

The Russians must receive 20 pp in LL before they can build medium tanks, however in my games, I also restrict production in all the production centers on the board. In my games they can only produce the amout of units that equal the number in the production box, not unlimited production.

thanks
kenb


John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: Historic US Lend Lease to Russia
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2010, 11:31:35 AM »
That's neat - how does it work out?