Lend-Lease rules in four sentences…

@Der:

Maybe the Axis should only get to use lend-lease if their capitals can connect by land, since the seas are allied dominated.  Â

Yes, and such a financial bonus would actually provide an interesting motivation for the Axis players to try to reach India from their respective directions, since that was the most practicable location for a link-up between Japan and the European Axis nations.  Perhaps this “Axis Linkup” concept could even be boosted to the status of an National Objective, with benefits that include or go beyond the basis Lend-Lease idea in your proposal.

Nice work once again Der Kuenstler!

As far as axis giving aid I would think the large number of German forces in Italy in the actual war would be basis enough for German Italian aid. Regardless if Italy really wanted them there or not.
There were also Italian troops on the eastern front.

Towards the end of the war Germany sent jet engines to Japan via sub or tried to. Although German Japan cooperation was minimal for the most part.

I guess it depends on what type of game you want to play. If you want a historic “what if” type of scenario where different leadership may have been more cooperative with one another or not.

The only down side I see would be how it effects actual game balance which would depend on the setup. The US and UK can now essential get ground forces to Russia early albeit at a cost. Will that slow the Germans down too much?

Personally I like it and am going to give it a try!

After thinking about it some more I agree Japan should be on their own. If the axis want to help they’ll just have to send their own forces the way it currently is.
A NO might be nice. It would probably be best to keep the wording simple to keep with the whole theme.

@Der:

I think the trick is that the Allies get no extra IPCs from this - total production is just moved around some, plus operational cost is subtracted. If the UK and USA choose to help Russia like this, they have to do it by weakening themselves, so if Germany gets bogged down on the East Front due to lend-lease, then there should be weakened Allied fronts elsewhere to attack.

Yes! That’s the beauty of the whole concept:)

I think it is in the good direction.
However, splitting IPCs lend-lease is costlier than just giving a whole amounts of IPCs to 1 Power and to the other on the next game round.

USA have 11 IPCs to lend-lease, it will cost 17 IPCs to split 5 IPCs to UK and 6 IPCs to USSR.
In two consecutive rounds: R1- 11 IPCs to UK + 3 IPCs = 14 IPCs R2- 11 IPCs to USSR + 3 IPCs, sum: 22 IPCs + 6 IPCs= 28 IPCs
Have you split both round, it would have cost 17 IPCs twice, sum: 34 IPCs

You shouldn’t penalize for splitting the lend-lease, it introduces an additional unnecessary and annoying penalty.
Around 20-33% transfer fee should work.
Minimum 1 IPC, up to a maximum of 5 IPCs.
For example: USA want to lend lease 9 IPCs to other Allies: it will cost 2 IPCs, but 11 IPCs will cost 3 IPCs.

Lend-lease / Transfer fee
1-5 IPCs cost 1 IPCs.
6-10 IPCs cost 2 IPCs.
11-15 IPCs cost 3 IPCs.
16-20 IPCs cost 4 IPCs.
21 IPCs and more cost 5 IPCs.

If you find this too cheap, add simply a basic 1 IPC fee to the above cost. So minimum will be 2 IPCs and maximum will be 6 IPCs.
So a 10 IPCs lend-lease will cost 3 IPCs while a 15 IPCs, will cost 4 IPCs.

@Der:

@Baron:

However, splitting IPCs lend-lease is costlier than just giving a whole amounts of IPCs to 1 Power and to the other on the next game round.

Wouldn’t it naturally cost more, though, as you would have to supply staff and task forces to deliver the goods to two separate locations at the same time?

I’m liking your variable IPC cost chart, though…hmmmm

You may add other variables based on physical reality but what is the gain in game experience?
Example:
UK shipping toward Russia and USA toward UK is about the same distance, so it is the same basic fee: 1 IPC.
But USA toward Russia is farther, so this basic fee is 2 IPCs and it includes any transit cost via UK.

Shipping cost formula: basic fee + % based on the amount of lend-lease.
Lend-lease / Transfer fee
1-5 IPCs cost 1 IPCs.
6-10 IPCs cost 2 IPCs.
11-15 IPCs cost 3 IPCs.
16-20 IPCs cost 4 IPCs.
21 IPCs and more cost 5 IPCs.

Example:
USA is shipping 10 IPCs, 5 in UK and 5 in Russia.
Basic fee is 2 IPCs + shipping 10 cost 2 IPCs, sum: 4 IPCs.

US shipping 10 in Russia only? Same cost: 4 IPCs.

But US shipping 10 in UK only? Cost 3 IPCs.
1 IPC basic fee + 2 IPCs for the 10 IPCs lend-lease.

Lend-lease could be done during the Collect Income phase of the receiving power instead.

Then you can increase the maximum allowed to convoy raid damage in Atlantic accordingly to the amount of lend-lease.
Example 1: USA is shipping 10 IPCs. In a convoy zone the maximum was 8. But now Germany can do damage up to 18 IPCs.

If there is two convoy zones disrupted, you cannot go higher than the maximums from the 2 Convoy zones + lend-lease shipped.
Example 2: as the last example 1, plus 1 Convoy Zone maxed at 4 IPCs, the total of convoy damage will be 8+4+10= 22 IPCs.
Since Russia has no convoy zone, you can say that all northern Atlantic Convoy Zones have a 2 IPCs maximum against the lend-lease only maximum.

That way Axis would have a way of affecting this exchange of IPCs. And it depends on both strategy and luck in the Convoy Raiding rolls.

I realized that if lend-lease is in Collect Income phase then US player will pay twice the basic fee if he sends money on Russia’s turn and on UK’s turn, as you originally wished.

It is also possible to say that there is no basic fee to help UK while there is a 1 IPC or 2 IPCs basic fee for sending lend-lease to Russia.
This last one is simpler.

Then just round it out to 2 icp fee wether you send 5 icps or 10 icps if you think 3 is to high. I agree with ya Der, keep it KISS.

It sound good. Some of you had info about real '‘lend lease’'between germany and italy?