@WILD:
Rival AA cities I like it :evil:
We’ll show them what to do with those Canadian roundels.
Greetings,
A small historical issue I’d like to address. Many people have been saying that China should not be grouped in with the Soviets, based on the fact that the Soviet Union was a communist state and was backing their communist Chinese comrades. In fact, when the war between Japan and China broke out in 1937, the Soviets were the first ones to offer direct aid the the Nationlists. It was called operation Zet, and provided material aid in the form of guns, tanks, rifles, machine guns, and other general infantry equipment. This led to the creation of the first ever Chinese mechanized unit, the 200th division in 1938. Also, the Soviet Union sent a number of fighter aircraft, and Soviet pilots to fly them, to aid the Nationalists.
Stalin saw Chiang Kai-Sheks Nationalist regime as his best bet to tie down the Japanese and keep them from attacking him in siberia. Stalin didnt trust the Chinese communists, who had turned away from his form of communism. He once called Mao and his followers “cream of wheat” marxists. Stalin put more importance on the Soviet Unions relationship with Nationalist Chinese then he did on supporting his fellow communists, sacraficing their needs time and again, to better his relations with Chiang. Earlier in the 30’s, Stalin had the Chinese communist party banned from the comintern (international communist orginazation of the day) for adopting Maoist ideals.
Stalin also sent a number of officers to advise the Nationalists in field operations and set up training schools for officers and for new recruits. Most notable was the man who later became the famed defender of Stalingrad general Vasily Chuikov, who was still in China when the Germans invaded.
Interesting article, but you are trying to make a point that China and Russia should be grouped together? Or is it the other way around?
I was giving evidence to support the idea of the Soviets being grouped in with the Chinese. I realised after the fact I hadnt made that clear. :-P oops :-D
I see……makes sense to me.
Soviets should focus their attention on the European theatre.
@Brain:
Soviets should focus their attention on the European theatre.
I couldnt agree more, I have always felt that sending any Soviet units to China was a waste. However for simplfying turn order, having one player as both China and the Soviets would make sense. I personally like the idea of grouping the Soviets with the French, just to give that player something to do as they wait for their showdown with Germany.
Score 1 for the outspoken USSR+China team!
Join the squad, Clyde85
Russia wasn’t really a team player and should be played by a separate player.
@Brain:
Soviets should focus their attention on the European theatre.
I couldnt agree more, I have always felt that sending any Soviet units to China was a waste. However for simplfying turn order, having one player as both China and the Soviets would make sense. I personally like the idea of grouping the Soviets with the French, just to give that player something to do as they wait for their showdown with Germany.
Obviously Russia’s main focus will be Germany. She will have to keep an eye on the back door though. If China has a good size stack on your red boarder, and Japan is bearing down on them, it would be in your best interest to help out. Tossing in a couple more inf, a tank (and maybe a ftr to join the flying tiger) on that stack may knock Japan down if they attack, or delay them all together.
Agreed Russia should only place a deterrent force in it’s eastern territories, while focusing it’s main effort Europe.
@Brain:
Russia wasn’t really a team player and should be played by a separate player.
Your 100% right, but Russia did make moves that would ultimately benefit them. If they would have thought Japan was gunning for them through China, Soviets would have been there. They invaded northern Persia as UK took the rest, to keep the rail lines flowing with aid, as well as protect their own southern boarders and oil. If Germany would have invaded Turkey, I think you would have seen both Russia and England go in. It probably wouldn’t have been a joint venture, but they both had interest to protect in the region.
It would be kinda cool that if Russia liberates an allied tt, that it just keeps it and collects its income until it leaves though.
@WILD:
[It would be kinda cool that if Russia liberates an allied tt, that it just keeps it and collects its income until it leaves though.
[/quote]Then we could call the game Axis & Allies & Russia.
Sorry to resurrect a thread that had it’s last post nearly two months ago but…
What if we put Italy and Japan together. It would allow Japan to have a hand in everything
2 Player: Axis v. Allies
3 Player: 1. axis 2. Russia/China 3. All others
4 Player: Japan/Italy 2Germany 3. Russia/China 4. Normal Allies
5 Player: Japan/Italy 2. Germany 3. Russia/China 4. UK/ANZAC 5.USA/ France
6 Player: 1-3 axis powers 4-6Allied powers as above
7 Player: 1-3. Axis 4-6 Major Allies 7. Minor Allies
8 Player: Seperate anzac
9 Player: Each for himself
This way for a game of 2-6 everybody sees both theatres while the game stays mostly historically correct (Italy Japan is a small matter as opposed to Russia+Democracy
