Could you play global 42 with the balance mod or is OOB just right? I didn’t see a BM3 map for the global 1942 and was wondering if anyone has tried it.
Global 1940 2nd Edition Map Analysis
-
That made for a very informative and interesting read, Marc.
Many thanks. -
Excellent work CWO Marc, very well done. Gives food for thought regarding the status of Commonwealth Dominions, China as well as South American and Middle Eastern neutrals. One thing with Saudi Arabia is the map territory includes the British protectorate of Aden, which would then become part of Yemen.
-
Excellent work CWO Marc, very well done. Gives food for thought regarding the status of Commonwealth Dominions, China as well as South American and Middle Eastern neutrals. One thing with Saudi Arabia is the map territory includes the British protectorate of Aden, which would then become part of Yemen.
Thanks. Yes, I aimed to keep it a straight description of the political status of the various territories as they actually existed at the time and of whether they corresponded correctly with what’s shown on the map. In the cases where the correspondence was arguable (or even flat-out wrong), I indicated this in the list so that people could make up their own minds about whether they might want to adjust their map accordingly, and/or perhaps make use of this information to see what credible possibilities might have existed for revised power blocks in the game. I found various clear-cut cases plus quite a few borderline ones too, but in all cases I labeled them as “disputable” to underline the fact that they could be argued one way or the other. The borderline cases in particular potentially have a lot of flexibility for creative use, since they offer room for interpretation.
One amusing thing that emerged when I looked at South America was to see that (with only one or two exceptions) the countries with pro-Axis sentiments acted like true neutrals, while the countries with true neutral sentiments acted like pro-Allied ones. In other words, they all of them pretty much thought in one way and acted in another way. I suspect that they all realized that it would be unwise to have a wartime position which flatly contradicted the position of the major power in their hemisphere, the US – so they all compromised, and the US went along with the compromises. The Americans would have wanted all of them to follow the example of Mexico and Brazil (both of which not only declared war on the Axis but also sent men to fight overseas), but obviously this wasn’t achievable in every case. So in the case of states which could possibly have joined the war on the Axis side, the US considered it acceptable for them to act like neutrals; in the case of states which wanted to be neutral, the US considered it acceptable for them to take this position on paper but to act in ways which supported the American war effort.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, I left out Aden/Yemen because it’s not depicted on the map as a named territory. The game map omits lots of territories, and it would have complicated matters enormously for me to account for places like Goa, East Timor, Saint Pierre & Miquelon, and French Somaliland/Djibouti (though I did make a passing reference to Macao).
-
@CWO:
- Greater Southern Germany
The area labeled “Greater Southern Germany” on the game map corresponds essentially to Austria and Czechoslovakia. Austria was annexed by Germany in March 1938. The Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany in September 1938; most of the rest of the country (except for some territorial adjustments such as the creation of the Slovak Republic and the transfer of South Dobrudja to Bulgaria) was annexed by Germany in March 1939.
Another little fun fact about this was that Poland actually got a small piece of the Czech pie as well, annexing a few majority-Polish-speaking areas at the time of the partition.
Another one was that Burma had a puppet government set up by Japan and had an army, the Burma National Army, that actually assisted the Japanese limitedly for a time, until they realized that Japan had no real intentions of honoring Burma as an independent nation.
Just some extra tidbits :-). Very nice outline of everything, I enjoyed this!
- Greater Southern Germany
-
Another little fun fact about this was that Poland actually got a small piece of the Czech pie as well, annexing a few majority-Polish-speaking areas at the time of the partition.
Another one was that Burma had a puppet government set up by Japan and had an army, the Burma National Army, that actually assisted the Japanese limitedly for a time, until they realized that Japan had no real intentions of honoring Burma as an independent nation.
Thanks for that interesting bit about Poland, which I hadn’t heard of, and about the Burmese puppet regime. There were quite a few odd clients states on the Axis side – some well-known (like Vichy France), some less so (like Manchukuo, which will be familiar to folks who’ve seen the film The Last Emperor), and some downright obscure (like the Government of National Salvation, or the Mengjiang, or the Azad Hind). That last one was particularly bizarre: it was a kind of “government-in-exile-in-reverse,” a Japanese-supported, Singapore-based group which aspired to be the next government of India once the current government of India (which, inconveniently for Azad Hind, was still firmly located in – and in control of – India) had been overthrown. Rather than “Axis Minors” (a term well suited to countries like Romania), I’d categorize those assorted micro-clients as “Axis Weirdos.” But who knows…if you put them all together, they might add up to an interesting third-rate new collective player power under some kind of house rule.
-
No problem, it seemed a bit relevant given the post. :-)
I agree, you could go on and on about all the little “allies” and “governments”. Certainly of note is how many of them were British colonial possessions taking the opportunity for a nationalistic stance.
-
Coming from your link regarding neutral rules (or the lack there-of) in 1942 SE… I see your political arguments, but what are the gameplay ramifications in-game?
I’m seeking reasonable neutral country rules that might be adaptable to the 1942 SE experience… because even A&A Classic had neutral army rules (lame as they were)… I don’t consider the “Neutral countries are to be considered like the Himalayas as far as gameplay is concerned” approach of 1941/1942 to be good solutions.
-
Coming from your link regarding neutral rules (or the lack there-of) in 1942 SE… I see your political arguments, but what are the gameplay ramifications in-game?
I didn’t have any specific ramifications in mind because the map analysis wasn’t designed to propose any house rules. It was merely intended to serve as a general reference source for house rules designers, to be used in whole or in part as they see fit. Originally I designed it just for my own satisfaction, because I was irked by some of the inaccuracies of the G40 map and I wanted to do a detailed inventory of exactly what was right and what was wrong about it. I posted the information here in case it was useful to anyone else.
-
Thanks for this comprehensive review. Some issues that annoy me on the map are:
- the area marked “United Kingdom” actually consists of England and Wales, while in reality, Scotland and Northern Ireland are also part of the UK
- “France” being used for only one part of that country
- “Russia” as the name of the area around Moscow: this may have been correct in medieval times, but Russia is of course much bigger
- “Holland/Belgium”: Holland is not a country, but two of the 12 (during WWII: 11) provinces of the Netherlands, and doesn’t even border Belgium, so a real “Holland/Belgium” area would look quite odd
-
@Herr:
Some issues that annoy me on the map are:
Yes, I find those kinds of things annoying too. I understand that from a practical point of view any game map of this type requires the simplification of a geographically complex world, but on the other hand there’s no reason why these simplifications couldn’t be more consistent. In the 1941 map, for example, China is divided into three regions: Coastal China (fair enough), Northwestern China (also fair enough) and Szechwan (which doesn’t fit the pattern of the other two regions). “Southwestern China” would have fit the pattern and would have made geographic sense, but “Szechwan” does neither of those things. In real life, Szechwan corresponds to about one-twentieth of China’s total land area, not one-third.
-
@Herr:
Thanks for this comprehensive review. Some issues that annoy me on the map are:
- the area marked “United Kingdom” actually consists of England and Wales, while in reality, Scotland and Northern Ireland are also part of the UK
- “France” being used for only one part of that country
- “Russia” as the name of the area around Moscow: this may have been correct in medieval times, but Russia is of course much bigger
- “Holland/Belgium”: Holland is not a country, but two of the 12 (during WWII: 11) provinces of the Netherlands, and doesn’t even border Belgium, so a real “Holland/Belgium” area would look quite odd
Yeah, why not:
Britain, Southern Britain or even England & Wales!
Central France
Central Russia- Never heard this one before! “Low countries” would probably do.
-
One little quirk that bugs me sometimes is the unlabeled island of Corsica that is lumped with Sardinia. The island remained a part of Vichy France until an Italian invasion in late 1942. I know the Tyrrhenian Sea (SZ 95) is crowded enough already but Corsica could have been made its own territory that belongs to France. Since there is no complex Vichy political relationship to deal with the island could actually be a useful landing point for a UK assault in the 1st round (for example the Gibraltar fighter can participate without the need for a carrier). It also forces Italy to deal with another thorn before it can expand further south; I wonder if this played a role in abstracting it as a part of Sardinia.
-
Perhaps they didn’t want the effect on the game that would have.
-
Excellent list! There were also some parallel conflicts at the time that had small effects on the war, but I feel are in the spirit of this thread.
While the Republic of Ireland was neutral during the war, the IRA collaborated with Germany, and conducted bombing campaigns in 1939, and 1942. I personally HR that Erie is a pro-Axis Neutral with 1 Infantry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Campaign_(Irish_Republican_Army)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Kathleen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Green_(Ireland)
Regarding Persia, and Iraq, both countries experienced Kurdish revolts during the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Rashid_revolt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Barzani_revolt
And finally, Ecuador and Peru fought a small border war in 1941-42 that was not a part of WWII, but saw the use of contemporary tactics. I’m currently working on a map for this war that can be used to teach new players the mechanics of A&A.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuadorian–Peruvian_War
Another one was that Burma had a puppet government set up by Japan and had an army, the Burma National Army, that actually assisted the Japanese limitedly for a time, until they realized that Japan had no real intentions of honoring Burma as an independent nation.
Japan set up a few puppet states in Asia (known as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere) including Manchukuo and Burma, as well as the Philippines, Malaya, Inner Mongolia, and “Free India”, which never held any Indian soil.
-
Excellent list! There were also some parallel conflicts at the time that had small effects on the war, but I feel are in the spirit of this thread. […] Japan set up a few puppet states in Asia (known as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere) including Manchukuo and Burma, as well as the Philippines, Malaya, Inner Mongolia, and “Free India”, which never held any Indian soil.
Yes, WWII –- and also the years just before it and just after it – was a period which saw many secondary wars and related conflicts. And during WWII, there were large numbers of “bit players” on each side, including a whole bunch of obscure micro-regimes, opposition movements and puppet entities on the Axis side, some of which essentially existed only on paper; one example would be the “Commission gouvernementale de Sigmaringen”, a short-lived Vichy holdover that most people have never even heard of. I’d be inclined to disregard most or all of these micro-entities for A&A gaming purposes, given that even the Global 1940 OOB rules ignore or oversimplify the roles played by much more well-established powers (such as Canada) who made major military contributions over the whole course of the war.
One tricky category are the countries which were genuinely involved in major fighting during WWII, but only for a brief amount of time. Many of these were on the Allied side, such as Poland and Holland and Belgium and France in the first year of the war, and Greece and Yugoslavia in 1941. Iraq is an example on the Axis side. In all cases, they were knocked out in about a month. With the exception of the odd case of France, which actually is a player nation in the OOB rules and actually was a major military and colonial power when the war broke out, I think that most of these intermediate-to-minor nations are ill-suited to being house-ruled as full-scale player powers in Global 1940. I’d likewise discount Allied nations which were in the war only in a marginal role, or entered very late, or both; as I recall, for example, the only Latin American nations which send forces into actual combat were Mexico and Brazil, and even then their contributions were fairly modest.
By contrast, intermediate nations which made a substantial war effort over many years would be potentially suitable candidates for being given a larger role – possibly by being treated as multi-country collective entities, like ANZAC. An example would be to treat Slovakia-Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria as a European Axis Minors block, perhaps with Finland thrown in as well.
-
I just want to say this is great article for people like me who doesn’t know enough about the WW2 fact besides playing the game for fun…
-
This is an excellent summary that provides the community with a clear overview of how A&A deviates from the political realities of WWII, and it also serves as an inspiration for various house rules. But I’m afraid that I need to address my pet peeve once more:
@CWO:
… such as Poland and Holland and Belgium and France in the first year of the war …
Holland is not a country and it was not a country during World War II, nor was it a country at any point during its long history. It once was a county, later it became a province, and now it’s two provinces of a country the proper (short) name of which has been “the Netherlands” since as far back as the late 16th century. I have to concede though that the Dutch make little effort to propagate this bit of knowledge as they themselves use “Holland” as a pars pro toto all too often, especially abroad.
-
@Herr:
Holland is not a country and it was not a country during World War II, nor was it a country at any point during its long history. It once was a county, later it became a province, and now it’s two provinces of a country the proper (short) name of which has been “the Netherlands” since as far back as the late 16th century. I have to concede though that the Dutch make little effort to propagate this bit of knowledge as they themselves use “Holland” as a pars pro toto all too often, especially abroad.
Yes, this is fair point, but also keep in mind that I was simply quoting the name that’s on the Global 1940 game map, not endorsing its accuracy. The map has all sorts of nomenclature oddities or even downright errors; my favourite eye-roller is the Siberian which is correctly called Tunguska (famous as the site of a meteoroid airburst in 1908) but which on the map is called “Timguska”, which sounds like a Russian franchise of the Tim Hortons coffeeship chain.
-
Risk taught us when we were young that Irkutsk and Yakutsk are like the North and South Dakota of Soviet Russia. Have you not visited the region of Kamchatka before–by traveling on a bold line via Alaska? We all know that bold lines can support gigantic armies.
Suggested Topics
