@CWO-Marc Slight correction. KMT has actually quite powerful on a military scale, even more so once the warlords united against Japan. The case to be made was the fact that man power ironically wasn’t the issue, the KMT lacked a standard operations on almost anything military related. The Warlords preferred to work on their own under a united banner and they didn’t fully committed into a single united command until Mao joined while also getting heavy support from UK and US. Mao’s militia for example was organized as the 4th Army under the KMT if I remember correctly. And still even then, Mao agreed to do this under the condition that he operated on his own. Equipment was random and I truly do mean random. The KMT themselves had the best since US didn’t mind Lend-Lease them tanks, artillery, and small arms. The other warlords had to steal or produce their own stuff. For the most part, the Chinese did not wanted to be Japanese citizens so it was easy to maintain such an insane level of man power. I think China alone entered the war with over 300 divisions themselves and that’s not countering the other warlords.
As for the Comintern as a faction. I think it’s important enough to make it a third faction, I agree it’s bias in nature as a military alliance since it’s 99% USSR. For historical board gaming 36, it matter since you have the ability as USSR to dictate the out come of the Spanish and Chinese Civil War. For G40, it almost becomes useless in this because Spanish Civil War is over and the Chinese are about to unite against Japan. HOWEVER. That doesn’t change that at the start of G40, Stalin has no idea where he sits in the world in terms of alliances, all he knows is that he has pissed off Germany, Japan, UK, and France in one move. I think in that context, you can make USSR itself a wild card.
I’ve never played the GW 1936 and 1939 games mentioned by Xlome_00, so I don’t know how they handle the Comintern angle, but in terms of Global 1940 I think that the best option for handling the “Comintern third faction” concept would be as follows (after I’ve covered some necessary background).
As I mentioned previously, the actual course of WWII does indeed support the notion that the three major Allied powers – the US, the UK and the USSR – weren’t a unified block but rather two factions (the Anglo-Americans on one side and the Soviets on the other) who cooperated for reasons of convenience/necessity, but who essentially fought their own respective (and in many ways separate) wars against Germany. The separation wasn’t just in terms of geography (the Anglo-Americans in the west and the Soviets in the east), it also existed in terms of methodology and philosophy. The Anglo-Americans devoted huge resources to naval warfare (since their countries were separated by the Atlantic) and to their strategic bombing offensive against Germany; in both cases, this reflected a “capital-intensive” approach to warfare which emphasized technology and hardware and which was relatively economical in terms of manpower (both in terms of forces deployed and of casualties taken). The Soviets certainly didn’t neglect technology (as evidenced, for example, by the T-34 and the Sturmovik, both of them superb fighting machines produced in vast numbers), but their approach to warfare was basically “labour-intensive”. This approach reflected three things: the primarily land-based nature of the war on the Eastern Front; the Soviet Union’s vast manpower reserves; and the willingness of Stalin and his commanders (including Zhukov, who was brilliant but also quite ruthless) to sustain massive casualties.
Also supporting the “two factions” concept is the fact the the USSR and Japan were at peace for most of WWII, even though the US and the UK and the USSR were all fighting Germany, and the US and the UK were both fighting Japan. This state of affairs led to some odd – but under international law, legitimate – situations such as American B-29 crews being interned by the Soviet Union when they made emergency landings there after bombing Japan. There’s also the fact that the US, the UK and the USSR, even while they were fighting the Axis, were keeping an eye on the eventual post-war world and were trying to “preposition” themselves for this new world order. To give just a few examples: Churchill (among others) wanted the Anglo-Americans to take Berlin out of concerns that the Soviets might end up dominating postwar eastern Europe (which they did); the Russians allegedly alerted Japan about a planned US carrier strike against Formosa because the Russians didn’t want the Americans to win the Pacific War too quickly; and the Americans were determined to occupy Japan before a single Soviet soldier could set foot on Japan’s home islands, in order to put Japan firmly in the orbit of the US after the war. (It should be noted that these “prepositioning for the postwar world while still fighting the Axis” maneuvers between the three great powers were basically the same thing that Mao and Chiang did in China from 1937 to 1945.)
The point of all this is to say that treating the USSR as its own faction in a Global 1940 game is perfectly valid from a historical viewpoint. As far as the “Comintern” angle goes, however, I’ve previously noted that the term refers to a political movement rather than to a country, at least in a WWII context. (The Cold War is another story: the Soviet Union, the other Warsaw Pact nations, Red China, plus North Korea and North Vietnam, add up to a lot of countries, a lot of men and a lot of military hardware.) So in Global 1940, “international Communism” (to use a less problematic term than Comintern) should probably be seen not as a freestanding “player power” (with its own map territory and its own military forces) but rather as a special ability (a bit like a tech build). Moreover, this special ability would be restricted to the Soviet Union, and it would be an ability of a political nature rather than a military nature (like one of G40’s political rules). I’m not sure what its precise nature ought to be, but one idea would be allow the USSR to potentially tip neutral nations into the Soviet camp by encouraging communist agitation within those nations. It should probably work like a tech roll (meaning that the outcome wouldn’t be guaranteed), and it should probably only be allowed once in any given country (because a failed communist uprising would presumably result in a crackdown by the government). The probability-of-success dice tables should vary for different types of countries, with the highest probability of success being for the pro-Allied ones, the lowest for the pro-Axis ones, and intermediate for the strict neutrals. The ability should be restricted to the USSR because in WWII only the USSR was in any kind of position to “export communist revolution” to other countries; this wasn’t the case for Mao, who was arguably trying to import it rather than export it.
@CWO-Marc I like this idea of making Soviet Communism operate like a tech roll.
I wonder if a Soviet–Axis agreement (like done against Poland) could be expanded against neutrals and pro-allied neutrals as well…thereby still keeping the Soviets neutral against the main powers, but becoming a more Axis-friendly power who then would not be able to turn on the Axis late game.
Might be a facinating setup for a post-Axis game where the only remaining powers are the Soviets and the neutrals they have conquered, versus the remaning Allies…
@Xlome_00 said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
@CWO-Marc I like this idea of making Soviet Communism operate like a tech roll.
I wonder if a Soviet–Axis agreement (like done against Poland) could be expanded against neutrals and pro-allied neutrals as well…thereby still keeping the Soviets neutral against the main powers, but becoming a more Axis-friendly power who then would not be able to turn on the Axis late game.
Might be a facinating setup for a post-Axis game where the only remaining powers are the Soviets and the neutrals they have conquered, versus the remaning Allies…
I don’t know if your looking at something like this. I did I think send you my Strict Neutral influence chart.
Anyway I don’t know if this is kinda what you want. Russia can Influence Turkey ( cost 10 icps ), Arabia ( cost 4 icps ) and Afghanistan ( cost 4 icps ) but you need to roll a d20 die and a 4 or less you recieve territory with armies. other wise you got to attack if you want. This works great in my game. Not a huge game changer but another option in game.
Don’t know if CWO was thinking in this area in his suggestion.
Maybe don’t have cost but make a dice roll chart with numbers or make it harder to get like roll 1 d20 and a 2 or less receive ?
@Xlome_00 said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
@CWO-Marc I like this idea of making Soviet Communism operate like a tech roll.
I wonder if a Soviet–Axis agreement (like done against Poland) could be expanded against neutrals and pro-allied neutrals as well…thereby still keeping the Soviets neutral against the main powers, but becoming a more Axis-friendly power who then would not be able to turn on the Axis late game.
Might be a facinating setup for a post-Axis game where the only remaining powers are the Soviets and the neutrals they have conquered, versus the remaning Allies…
The scenario you mention at the end is intriguing, but it deviates so substantially from a standard A&A game that it virtually becomes a new game. A less radical and more historically plausible scenario would be one in which Soviet entry into the war is delayed slightly but not indefinitely. Keep in mind that many of WWII’s “non-aggression pacts” were actually (originally in concept, or eventually in practice, or both) delay-of-aggression pacts which were intended to give Country X a useful amount of breathing time during which it wouldn’t have to worry about Country Y, and potentially giving it time to deal with Country Z in the meantime, after which it could turn around and attack Country Y under more favourable circumstances. That’s not exactly a case of being “friendly”; it’s more a case of cynical opportunism. The Nazi-Soviet Pact and the Japanese-Soviet non-aggression treaty both served their immediate purposes, and they held for as long as it was in interest of both sides to maintain their side of the bargain, but both were ultimately violated when one of the parties decided that it was in their interest to break the deal. I’m reminded of a scene in the original pilot episode 1970s-era Battlestar Galactica series (or in its comic book adaptation) in which the traitor Baltar appears before the Cylon leader with whom he’s been collaborating and accuses him of violating a key provision of their bargain. The leader says, “I am altering the bargain.” Baltar says, “How can one side alter a bargain?” The leader replies, “When there is no other side,” and orders his men to execute Baltar on the spot. (Which they do in the pilot, though the producers altered the scene when the series went into episodic production because Baltar was too good a villain to do without.)
@SS-GEN said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
@Xlome_00 said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
@CWO-Marc I like this idea of making Soviet Communism operate like a tech roll.
I wonder if a Soviet–Axis agreement (like done against Poland) could be expanded against neutrals and pro-allied neutrals as well…thereby still keeping the Soviets neutral against the main powers, but becoming a more Axis-friendly power who then would not be able to turn on the Axis late game.
Might be a facinating setup for a post-Axis game where the only remaining powers are the Soviets and the neutrals they have conquered, versus the remaning Allies…
I don’t know if your looking at something like this. I did I think send you my Strict Neutral influence chart.
Anyway I don’t know if this is kinda what you want. Russia can Influence Turkey ( cost 10 icps ), Arabia ( cost 4 icps ) and Afghanistan ( cost 4 icps ) but you need to roll a d20 die and a 4 or less you recieve territory with armies. other wise you got to attack if you want. This works great in my game. Not a huge game changer but another option in game.
Don’t know if CWO was thinking in this area in his suggestion.
Maybe don’t have cost but make a dice roll chart with numbers or make it harder to get like roll 1 d20 and a 2 or less receive ?
I didn’t know about your chart, but yes it does sound roughly like what I was suggesting. My suggestion though was just a vague concept; your version is much more fully worked out.
@CWO-Marc said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
I didn’t know about your chart, but yes it does sound roughly like what I was suggesting. My suggestion though was just a vague concept; your version is much more fully worked out.
Right. Always great to see your history reports !
@SS-GEN Could you post your neutral chart in this thread? i would enjoy looking it over.
@carsonbparker said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
@SS-GEN Could you post your neutral chart in this thread? i would enjoy looking it over.
Sure. I’ll post it later today.
Strict Neutral influence Chart.pdf
Try this. Some may not agree but what ever. Gives you an idea anyway. Mongolia is Pro-Russia. They just need to move into Mongolia and receive 2 Icps and 2 Inf. In my game. I just have 2 Mongolia territories. But Russia can’t attack Japan with out a penalty. Same for Japan.
I’d make Mongolia in G40 Pro-Russia. Place Mongolians there and move like 8 -10 Russian Inf from 18 there and place in Moscow on setup. You would just need to tweak theses Inf a bit. Throw out the fricken Bid.
Since most of you never played 1936. The Comintern has it’s own victory points that it can achieve as a victor in itself meaning that you very could have a situation where the Soviets join the Allies and the Allies achieve victory in WWII but USSR and Communist China win the game because the Comintern achieved their victory points before the Democratic Powers (this is how they refer to the Western Alliance) can achieve them. There is also situations where the Western Alliance can aid the Axis powers in the sake of giving themselves victory points to stop the Comintern. The Allies in that game have the most unique rules I’ve ever seen, you may be allies, but you’re also enemies at the same time. Never have I seen a game built for both WWII and the Cold War right from the start of 36. Example, France gets points if the game ends with no territories that borders theirs that are Communist. During the Spanish Civil War, Germany and Italy are aiding Franco, they can Lend-Lease to him at their turns. The problem is that the safest route for Germany to aid is through France. Germany can ask France to move their equipment on their rail lines to get to Spain. France can obviously deny this at no penalty with the exception of the victory point. If the Republicans win in Spain, France faces the problem that Spain is now Communist thus if USSR can’t get Spain to join the Comintern or if Spain just stays neutral. If the Allies win, France now got f*** due to them now bordering a Communist territory. Thus the Allies now have less points for victory and on top of that, the Comintern got points for spreading Communism. So as you can see, this is a case where a future allied power can aid an Axis power to achieve long terms goals with a short term objective. Cleaver right? With G40, I’d try to right house rules for the Comintern that benefits USSR but might piss off everyone else.
Ya I got it. Give the territories of Mongolia to Japan with an army but Japan cannot go to war with Russia. Them Mongolia pieces can fight for Japan. Ha
Turkey too maybe
@SS-GEN Talk about an alternate history.
@Caesar-Seriona Waaaaaay too complicated, but sweet!
@taamvan said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
@Caesar-Seriona Waaaaaay too complicated, but sweet!
Just for the fun of it, here’s a jump to the opposite end of the scale (meaning to something very simple). If you look at this section of my custom Global 1940 table, which uses as its default value the original status of China’s territories…
https://www.axisandallies.org/uploads/_imported_attachments/migrated/289190_8 Pacific Left Panel.jpg
…and expand the picture by clicking on it, you’ll notice that Shensi has Communist Chinese marker on it rather than a Nationalist one. That’s roughly the area (today’s Shaanxi) controlled by Mao after he ended up there in 1935 at the end of the Long March. If you want to set up a simple “communist block” in Global 1940 which would be historically credible and which wouldn’t be a major game-changer, make that area (and its sculpts) a ChiCom “micro-player” force controlled by the player who runs the Soviet Union. This would be a little bit like the way in which that the Soviet player already runs France (though on a much smaller scale), and it would also be a little bit like the oddball Flying Tiger unit in Global (a distinct unit with its own rules, and with the strange status of being an American unit that’s technically part of the Chinese Air Force, with the strangeness compounded by the fact that it’s the American player who runs China). I think that, from the point of view of historical accuracy, it should simply be an infantry force, and a fairly small one too; at most, I’d give it an artillery piece as extra firepower.
@CWO-Marc Yes, this is a very interesting idea–I’ve referred to turtling the upper leftmost China square as a “Long March Communist Redoubt”, even without using different pieces or any special rules.
And I didn’t mean to sound dismissive of it–i think its a good way to tweak the diplomacy of G40 and make 3 unique new teams. I think the problem (as you mentioned) is what happens when the players decide on their own Molotov Pact and Germany focuses on the allies while Russia builds up. It’d bust the diplomatic playout of G40.
So you dont need to reinvent the wheel, because as always, HBG has created a most comprehensive set of rules from which you can pick and choose. I like the general idea of GW36 it just sounds hopelessly impractical and complex to play. I think some of the ideas could be ported back into G40 much more simply (Winter war, Spanish CW, lend lease), but so do the HBG guys–you can play with as many or as few of their mods as you wish.
GW36’s complexity is precisely why I brought this question up as it pertains to G40 because it is too complex to get enough people to approach it. Perhaps incorporating Communist-Friendly neutrals, or create a '36 setup for the G40 board which pulls in some of the diplomatic elements from GW36?
@Xlome_00 said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
GW36’s complexity is precisely why I brought this question up as it pertains to G40 because it is too complex to get enough people to approach it. Perhaps incorporating Communist-Friendly neutrals, or create a '36 setup for the G40 board which pulls in some of the diplomatic elements from GW36?
Yes only a few play 36. I thought I saw here on site somebody doing that.
I know a few guys doing 39 for AA50. But would 36 work there. Definitely a lot to play around with. Could have a china word Lord battle and Spain civil war before game. Then just add outcome to 40 ? Maybe
@Xlome_00 said in [Global 1940] Third Faction Idea for Russia/Communist China:
GW36’s complexity is precisely why I brought this question up as it pertains to G40 because it is too complex to get enough people to approach it. Perhaps incorporating Communist-Friendly neutrals, or create a '36 setup for the G40 board which pulls in some of the diplomatic elements from GW36?
The answer would depend on two things: who the house rule is intended for, and what its basic objective is.
In terms of who the house rule is for, the simple case would be if it’s only intended for your own use and/or the use of your gaming group. In such a case, you have unlimited maneuvering room, plus the added advantage that you don’t need to worry about any dissenting viewpoints from anyone. The complicated case would be if it’s intended for use by the wider A&A gaming community. Those are the rocks on which countless house rule proposals have ended up wrecking themselves over the years because – as this discussion thread illustrates – A&A players have diverse opinions on such proposals. Diversity of opinion is a great and desirable thing, since it encourages creativity and individuality, but it tends to make it hard for most house rule proposals to gain broad acceptance; some of them do get widely adopted, but they’re the exceptions.
In terms of what your basic objective is, you’re in the best position to answer that question. If, for example, your basic objective is to play an A&A-type board game in which the Communist Block is a major military power in its own right and controls large areas of the map board right from the start, then you really have only two options: you either have to set the game in the Cold War era rather than WWII, or you have to throw out the history book and create a scenario in which “Communist China” during WWII consisted of the entire country rather than just the small area which Mao actually did control during WWII. If your objective is to borrow concepts from GW36 and import them in simplified form to Global 1940, I can’t offer any useful advice because I’m not familiar with GW36 (or any of its othr incarnations); the board members here who do know that game would be your best sources.
