Power Groupings - Global Game

As far as China goes, there’s just as much historical politics supporting US/China as USSR/China.  The US has the most political ties with the incumbent government at the time (UK had a good amount of influence as well, what with Hong Kong being considered a British colony and all), hence the usual A&A pairing of US/China; what you’re talking about as far as USSR political ties would be with the insurgent communist forces on the other side of the civil war; these forces ended up winning, bringing about the communist China we have today.

If your only consideration is the political aspects of China during WW2, it could be paired with any of the 3 major Allies.

@The:

@Brain:

I think US/China makes more sense than the others because of the Flying Tigers.

Plus, weren’t the nationalists technically in power, not the communists at the time of WW2? And it also makes more sense b/c Russia wouldn’t have collaborated with china against Japan. but the U.S. would have b/c they had a shared goal.

Hence the typical grouping of US/China in previous versions of A&A.

@Croesus:

originaly it was russia alone, but that just won’t do, so I added another

Yeah, if you want to be completely historically accurate, you should just have Russia alone, but of the “minor powers” to choose from, the one that makes the most sense to pair with Russia from a purely political position would be China.  What fire knight says is true about Russia having a non-aggression pact with Japan, but that wouldn’t necessarily prevent Russia from covertly helping China as the US had a complete non-aggression mindset all around and yet there are still the Flying Tigers and such with the US.

@idk_iam_swiss:

but i would prefer having a small house rule where Russia can attack China. “The War Game” had that, and i think its a great idea!

What would be the point of that?  Russia getting extra IPCs?

@idk_iam_swiss:

realize im only typing a full sentence so this comment isnt deleted.

but if i could i could just post the word

yes

Ok, that’s what I figured, but my point is that it would be counter-productive for Russia to waste IPCs in risking their own units to waste IPCs to kill units of a country that is on the same side to gain some territories worth 1 IPC…

@finnman:

@Dylan:

US And ANZAC
Germany and Italy
Japan
USSR and France
UK and China

Anzac should go with Britain and the US should have China. Plus Italy should be an independent power.

Ok, the point of this thread was to discuss reasons and ideas for how to combine the powers between different numbers of people, because there are reasons why someone might want to combine USSR with ANZAC and US with France or something like that.

With the “China can be controlled by whichever of the Allied players” in Pacific 1940 rather than being designated to the US only (as in Ann. Ed.), LH and Co. are recognizing that it isn’t necessary to have specific powers together as long as the turn order is followed, so the players can choose what they want to do; so let’s discuss what we will do with this and give reasons rather than simply stating our opinions without backing them up.  There are good reasons why ANZAC should be with UK, but other people may not see them unless you say what they are, or agree even if you do; so let’s have some discussion on the topic.

@Brain:

Also the power groupings would depend upon how many players that you have.

Right; with different numbers of people.  Obviously that affects how the countries are split up, which also brings up questions of how to split it with different numbers of people.