Fun Axis and Allies weekend

[Martin Blank]

Early on, Russia relied on the Allies for planes (P-39s), tanks (some Shermans even, as I recall), and trucks (a lot of Ford and Dodge 2.5 ton trucks ended up there). Russia had manpower, but manufacturing was slower than the other Allies to ramp up to demand. (That's not to say they made nothing, just that what they did make didn't meet the volumes needed, kind of like the British warship industry in the opening years.) However, once Russia's factories found their groove, they pushed metal out the door as fast as anyone.

[bagheadinc]

Never player Axis and Allies, may have to give it a try. Two strategy games I've enjoyed in the past are Diplomacy (set pre-WWI corrected by Jamie Bond) and Politika (after Boris Yeltsin's death, there is a power struggle between 8 different factions of Russia, it's available as a PC game but I found as a board game in the clearace section of a Toys R Us)

[Jamie Bond]

I own diplomacy, but I can never find someone to play it with me

I think to make it fun you need at LEAST 4 players. Better with more, though.

If it's 3 players, it will just end up being 2v1 very quickly, and 2 players... well theres no point to it.

[Skorpion]

I tried Diplomacy the other week. It was, frankly, boring. If I wanted to be backstabbed, I'd play Civ.
I want to get Axis and Allies, though. I have my eye on the big boxed set, but it's reeeally pricey.

[Jamie Bond]

Point to note: Diplomacy is actually set PRE WW1.

It's a strategy board game that involves absolutely no dice rolls. All moves in the game are done simultanously via writing the orders on a peice of paper (Army in spain move to france)

The game has a set of rules telling you how each situation is dealt with. If two armies go head to head, nothing happens. If one army moves into a territory occupied by another player's army, that army is forced to an empty territory. If there are no empty territories, that army is destroyed (I think, it's been a while)

The fun part of the game is before each round of moves, theres a "Diplomacy stage". When the game starts, there are no teams at all. You are allowed to communicate in public or in privet. You are allowed to pass secret notes, double cross, eavesdrop, anything you want.

Posted Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:59 am:

But it's only really fun if you play in real life. Online wouldn't be as cool.

[Skorpion]

Yes, and that is precisely what I found boring. I don't know where half the places ARE, the borders are all wrong, and my social skills suck anyway.
And I can't even blame my suck on the dice.

[kaiju01]

But it's so much fun to tell someone you will support them into Budapest and then crush them in Trieste with the support of the guy you'll backstab three turns later. I agree that online or snail mail play isn't that fun. You need to fuel those emotions in person.

Skorpion, why does it matter that you don't know where half the places are? You can't look at the board in front of you, like the real world locations actually matter? The borders are dated for the era 1900 and mainly keep the map manageable with the significant regions of the time.

Do you hate Candyland because you can't physically place Lollipop Woods? I don't know where Park Place is in Atlantic City! I'm leaving!!

[Makh]

bagheadinc, Politika looks interesting, I never heard of it. Crazy Tom Clancy. I wish he had a better view of Russia.

[quote="Jamie Bond";p="674802"]Course in that game, all the allies was played by 1 person again. He sent EVERYTHING he could to russia, and switched it with the Russian unit every round. Russia developped nothing but infantry, and basically took over a SHITLOAD of US and UK fighters, mostly. Infantry and fighters are both very high defence reletive to their cost level. The attack is low compared to the cost level, but eventually Russia had so many units, they just rolled into Europe and nothing could stop them.[/quote]
Did you capture all Western European countries, while you were at it?

[quote="Martin Blank";p="674891"]Early on, Russia relied on the Allies for planes (P-39s), tanks (some Shermans even, as I recall), and trucks (a lot of Ford and Dodge 2.5 ton trucks ended up there).[/quote]
I do not want to give impression that the Russian people are ungrateful, but American weapon importation is vastly overestimated. I would not say Soviet Union depended on Shermans to fight the Reich. I am not even sure the weapons and tanks sent by USA represent more than 0.01% of our own military. In the largest tank battle of history against the most deadly tanks of WWII, a Sherman does not last long. Our soldiers were forced to drive them. You understand they favored T-34 (obliged by their proudness mostly) I guess driving a Sherman M1 is not worse than seeing your family sent in jail.

I am not well informed about the planes importation. I do not have a clear idea of the numbers. But our lack of planes was more crucial than our lack of tanks, I am sure they played a more significant role, proportionally speaking, of course.

[quote="Martin Blank";p="674891"]Russia had manpower, but manufacturing was slower than the other Allies to ramp up to demand.[/quote]
You said a key word here, friend. The demand. I say you are right then. The Soviet production could not suffice to demand, especially in late 1941 and early 1942. But if we speak in terms of raw numbers, our production was second behind USA despite the fact we lost 40% of our industries in the first 6 months of the war. LQDMTL and Bigity, almost all our factories were converted into military factories after 1941. It was a real monster! We had the biggest factories in the world. Never heard of city-factories of the Ural. Some factories had 30,000 workers, they had a system of truck transportation between warehouses. Everything was built for military usage.

And Deacon, thank you for the tip. Your examples are easy, clear and helpful, you should teach English, you know.

[Bigity]

[quote="Makh";p="675016"]bagheadinc, Politika looks interesting, I never heard of it. Crazy Tom Clancy. I wish he had a better view of Russia.

[quote="Jamie Bond";p="674802"]Course in that game, all the allies was played by 1 person again. He sent EVERYTHING he could to russia, and switched it with the Russian unit every round. Russia developped nothing but infantry, and basically took over a SHITLOAD of US and UK fighters, mostly. Infantry and fighters are both very high defence reletive to their cost level. The attack is low compared to the cost level, but eventually Russia had so many units, they just rolled into Europe and nothing could stop them.[/quote]
Did you capture all Western European countries, while you were at it?

[quote="Martin Blank";p="674891"]Early on, Russia relied on the Allies for planes (P-39s), tanks (some Shermans even, as I recall), and trucks (a lot of Ford and Dodge 2.5 ton trucks ended up there).[/quote]
I do not want to give impression that the Russian people are ungrateful, but American weapon importation is vastly overestimated. I would not say Soviet Union depended on Shermans to fight the Reich. I am not even sure the weapons and tanks sent by USA represent more than 0.01% of our own military. In the largest tank battle of history against the most deadly tanks of WWII, a Sherman does not last long. Our soldiers were forced to drive them. You understand they favored T-34 (obliged by their proudness mostly) I guess driving a Sherman M1 is not worse than seeing your family sent in jail.

I am not well informed about the planes importation. I do not have a clear idea of the numbers. But our lack of planes was more crucial than our lack of tanks, I am sure they played a more significant role, proportionally speaking, of course.

[quote="Martin Blank";p="674891"]Russia had manpower, but manufacturing was slower than the other Allies to ramp up to demand.[/quote]
You said a key word here, friend. The demand. I say you are right then. The Soviet production could not suffice to demand, especially in late 1941 and early 1942. But if we speak in terms of raw numbers, our production was second behind USA despite the fact we lost 40% of our industries in the first 6 months of the war. LQDMTL and Bigity, almost all our factories were converted into military factories after 1941. It was a real monster! We had the biggest factories in the world. Never heard of city-factories of the Ural. Some factories had 30,000 workers, they had a system of truck transportation between warehouses. Everything was built for military usage.

And Deacon, thank you for the tip. Your examples are easy, clear and helpful, you should teach English, you know.[/quote]

Actually, I do know, which is why I talked only about the early part of the war

Here is some quick data about the aircraft lend-leased throughout the war.

Details on Aircraft Sent Throughout the War Number
P-39 5,707
P-40 2,397
P-47 195
P-63 2,397
Hurricane 2,952
Spitfire 1,331
A-20 2,908
B-25 862
B-24 1
Hampden 23
Albemarle 14
Mosquito 1

Posted Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:37 pm:

Some other equipment numbers:

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals..................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

Posted Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:37 pm:

I have some numbers on other stuff, like field phones and telephone wire, but that would be kind of beyond this topic

Posted Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:39 pm:

Give that the USSR produced around 60000 T-34s, I figure the percentages are much closer to 10 percent then .01 percent.

[Makh]

This should represent lend lease program for ALL the allied nations, like United Kingdom, Free France forces of North Afrika, Chinese Kuomintang and other allies, otherwise, I would have serious doubts about it. There is a question you need to ask to yourself Bigity: Would Roosevelt (and later Truman) take the chance to give all that armament to... communists, so they could conquer rest of Europe more easily and be a bigger threat to their neighbors? Do you think USA government of 1940s would spend all those hundred of millions (if not billions) of US dollar, worthing significantly more than today, without asking discount or repayment only to help STALIN win a decisive victory on the Germans and spread communist influence on a good part of Europe?

The Lend lease program had a positive impact on the Russian front. It saves many Soviet lives, and just for that, USA deserve our gratitude. But it did not have the impact that some people, non neutral WWII theorists mostly, like to pretend. Or is it simply another machination of the Cold War poisoning my brain once more? I can not tell.

Back on original topic. Jamie Bond, I think you should let Soviet Union money 24 on the first turn, then gradually increase that amount.

[Blaze]

Back on original topic. Jamie Bond, I think you should let Soviet Union money 24 on the first turn, then gradually increase that amount.

I would imagine that's how it plays out anyway. He says they make more as they acquire territory. Well as Russia in WWII, you can't help but acquire territory. It's just sort of... What happens.

[Arc Orion]

In Axis and Allies, each territory has a certain number of production points. When an enemy captures it, the production points go towards the country that captured it. When it is recaptured, the points automatically go back to whoever originally owned it.

[Bigity]

[quote="Makh";p="675174"]This should represent lend lease program for ALL the allied nations, like United Kingdom, Free France forces of North Afrika, Chinese Kuomintang and other allies, otherwise, I would have serious doubts about it. There is a question you need to ask to yourself Bigity: Would Roosevelt (and later Truman) take the chance to give all that armament to... communists, so they could conquer rest of Europe more easily and be a bigger threat to their neighbors? Do you think USA government of 1940s would spend all those hundred of millions (if not billions) of US dollar, worthing significantly more than today, without asking discount or repayment only to help STALIN win a decisive victory on the Germans and spread communist influence on a good part of Europe?

The Lend lease program had a positive impact on the Russian front. It saves many Soviet lives, and just for that, USA deserve our gratitude. But it did not have the impact that some people, non neutral WWII theorists mostly, like to pretend. Or is it simply another machination of the Cold War poisoning my brain once more? I can not tell.

Back on original topic. Jamie Bond, I think you should let Soviet Union money 24 on the first turn, then gradually increase that amount.[/quote]

It's all gear lend-leased to the USSR by the allies. Why would you doubt the numbers? Massive amounts of equipment were sent to the USSR, especially before 1943.

Truman and the like sent all that, because the fall of the USSR gave the Axis access to huge amounts of oil and resources. The surviving equipment was returned in some cases, and not in others. There were no serious attempts to collect repayment as the whole program was really a way to support the Allies despite the lack of declaration of war on the Axis powers. Just like the fact that American warships sometimes escorted Commonwealth convoys in the Atlantic.

Also, the strain between the USA and USSR really grew after the war, not before. For example, Patton, who wanted to invade the USSR right after WWII was over, was laughed right out of his career.

I never said that lend-lease saved WWII from the facists, but it damn sure gave the USSR time to recovery from the horrible mistakes she made regarding the border and Germany's ability to keep to the non-agression pact, and Stalin's purges of the miliary.

[Skorpion]

Bickering about the lend-lease stuff aside, Germany would have been a lot better off concentrating on wiping out Britain instead of trying to kick Russia one.

Frankly, that also goes hand in hand with a lot of other stupid mistakes made by Hitler. He was a friggen' idiot.

[Bigity]

And it's a good thing.

If it wasn't for the syphilius destroying his brain, the world might be a very different place.