On my map, the St. Laurence Seaway connects Ottawa to Sea Zone 21.
Have tried multiple approaches to incent an actual civil war and battles with 2-players. The best solution so far is to let the Japanese control the CCP until: 1) Either side is defeated and the civil war ends or, 2) The Japanese declare war on the CCP or KMT. If the Japanese declare war on either the CCP or KMT then control of the CCP reverts back to Russia.
It worked for a while until now the KMT will attack the Warlords to 1) die 2) turn control over to CCP. KMT buys nothing but just hoards $IPPS and waits for the Japanese to attack. Then build mountain troops, etc.
The CCP wants to deplete as many troops as possible and leave as many spaces open for the Japanese, but not at the expense of 1) becoming a major power (13 IPP) or defeating the KMT entirely.
Perhaps some random “bot” type of attacks. Roll a die and have to attack a region, in a direction or something.
Any suggestions, ideas or has anyone overcome this in a 2-player game?
@sjelso I think that in 2 player, China will always suffer. I don’t think there is a way around that. However, you could force a battle every turn, or something such. I think the best thing is a player who is good at solo games. In a solo game, you want each side to win, and player the best for that side when it is their turn. The Allies/Commie play could do this in China, though it is not ideal. It all comes down to the purity of essence and how well you wish to play.
The Japan control is annoying, as if you look at the current Youtube game, that shows the problems you can get is the CCP is controlled by Japan. It basically gives then no incentive to attack China, and then they can use the CCP to steamroll the USSR or FEC.
@trig Yeah…it probably the most broken part of the game. Unfortunately, anything that comes down to “purity” and spirit of the game feels forced and artificial. Looking at the Chinese Civil War expansion for ideas.
Part of the Chinese Civil War rules that the CCP and KMT can form a truce.
The only downside with 2 players is that the controlling player has no incentive to break the truce with himself and can choose to make strategic attacks against Chinese Warlords to turn their units and territory to the other faction.
However, this is still closer to the rules than having the Japanese play one Chinese faction.
On the broader picture, the same is true for Allies and Comintern if they are played by the same player. You would not give the Axis player control of one faction or the option to force a conflict between them.
It’s not ideal playing a three-player game with only two, but it still makes for a challenging game. The rules are complicated enough has they are.
@noneshallpass With the same player controlling both sides of the civil war, nothing happens and it kind of defeats the purpose. Letting the Japanese control it until China is at war at least provides for some different attempts. Not perfect but more fun than a single player controlling both. There needs be some adjustments for a 2-player scenario or don’t include 2-player set-up in the rules and stress that it is 3-player game. It is still fun, but this remains one frustrating part of the game and is significant as it could be the deciding factor is Japan even invades China. Japan invading China is becoming a “hard pass” in most of our games.
Because of the Chinese problem. I have written off 1936 as a 2 player game. I will not play it 1 v 1. It doesn’t work that way.
@caesar-seriona Yes, some Russia rules present 2-player issues as well. We have adopted the Global 1940 Bloodbath victory points and it works pretty well. Japan controls the C.C.P. until they go to war with China.
Here’s an easy way to incent Chinese Civil War battles in 2-player Global War '36: Allow the Japanese player 3 “forced KMT attacks” per game. The Japanese player plays the CCP. But in addition, they can choose up to 3 attacks through the course of the game which they force the KMT to make. They name a territory controlled by the CCP and every single adjacent KMT unit which is able to attack that territory must move into that territory and attack that turn.
You can do some play testing of the number 3 and decide if you need that to be lower or higher. You could also bid for it. “I’ll take the Axis with 2 forced KMT attacks.” The person with the bid for the fewest forced KMT attacks plays the Axis.
But I would scrap that and take a different approach. Your problem stems from ending Axis control of the CCP with the conditions you listed. Totally switch your thinking. The CCP is a permanent Axis power in a 2-player game. Imagine they approached the Japanese and said, “We’ll join the Axis if you guarantee our sovereignty.” They were embraced and are fascistic-commies. Japan isn’t going to declare war on the CCP in the 2-player version, because that would be like Germany declaring war on Italy. The Japanese want the CCP to become a major power and wipe out the KMT. Then, the CCP forces will invade Russia or the FEC. If the KMT allows the CCP to become a major power, then the Allies/Comintern are going to suffer the consequences. If the KMT goes hard core into defeating the CCP, then Japan may have incentive to declare war on the KMT, “coming to the aid of their allies.”
So on the Axis side you have:
Germany, Italy, Japan, CCP, Nationalist Spain
On the Comintern/Allied side you have:
ANZAC, CW, France, US, USSR, Republican Spain, KMT
Once you understand that the CCP is forever on the Axis side, then KMT wants to wipe them out. You might say that this weakens China and strengthens Japan’s position, but that’s nothing compared to the advantage given to the Comintern/Allies in their ability to work in a united fashion.
@hbg-gw-enthusiast Allowing the Japanese control of CCP until Japan attacks kind of accomplishes what you have described. There is incentive for the CCP to attack and become a Major Power. Then the CCP can attack Britain, France, etc. The Americans playing the KMT want to prevent the CCP from becoming Major. It works pretty well so far. We kept that the CCP cannot attack Russia, but that could be changed. Similar results as you have described. The Japanese player can also use the CCP to set up an eventual invasion of China but as we play, the CCP would then revert to Russian control…a deterrent. So far, it works okay.
This is where I disagree with everyone. The entire point of the Comintern is throw a historical wild card into play. Japan controlling CCP just gives reason for Japan to not go into China, thus creating a scripted play which is a thing I couldn’t stand about Axis and Allies, play any version, you will find the script and see no reason to divert. 1936 so far I’ve been unable to find a script, the closest I’ve seen so far is that majority of the group I play think ignoring China as Japan and go after DEI once US is near full income is the wisest move to do. For this reason, I will not play 36 as 1 v 1.
@caesar-seriona Well said! I completely agree. I will only play 36 as a solo, or 3 player. If I play two player the Allies/Comintern player better be a good soloist.
@trig This is why we have adapted the BBR VP conditions and made other changes. Attacking a neutral in Europe by the Axis only results in one dice before 1939. We found the penalties for attacking Neutrals limits the Axis and causes the same scenario over and over again. Anyway…trying to adapt for 2-player as best we can.