Commissars

[nicky_longbranch]

These thoughts have just started developing in my mind so please excuse the half-baked nature of this entire post.

I have been taking a look at the Commissar rules, and think that they don't really fit for the Red Chinese. The Reds (and the KMT) used Commissars and there wasn't the same emphasis on the punishment of those who refused to obey, but I still feel as if they are missing something. With the Soviets. There is at least some disadvantage in selecting a commissar over a normal leader, esp. the 8-0, the 8-0 is almost a given, as there is almost no downside to the substitution to a 9-0 COM. The issue of how Commissars sit now was thoroughly evaluated as the rules stand now, by Bruce Probst (1). Bruce states that there is almost no reason the Red Chinese wouldn't substitute LDR for COM in every case. The only 'disadvantage 'being the possibility of him going BESERK with all accompanying SQDs.

The Soviet rules do project some of the difficulties commanders faced in dealing with commissars but place most of the emphasis on the punishment commissars would inflict on those who disobeyed. This punishment did take the form of summary executions without even the veneer of justice, such a Drumhead Court Martial. Those who weren't executed outright were sent to the Gulag or forced to serve in penal battalions or companies, depending on rank.

The rules fail to capture the biggest detriment that commissars had on units, interference with the commanders' tactics. Up until the commissars were removed from the command structure, all orders had to be countersigned. Is there a way to reflect that in ASL? Does it even make sense to have such a dynamic at squad level?

As far as the Red Chinese commissars, I am still researching their role operationally from 1927- 1949.

Thanks for Reading.

Nicholas V.I.D.







1. Probst, B. (2006). The Commissar Dialectic or It's Our Party and You'll Die If You Have To. Asl Journal, (7), 6–7.

 

[Vinnie]

The interference at squad level in contact with the enemy would have been minimal compared to the operational interference. If you are prevented from withdrawing a unit by tge political commissar and as a resukt havevno reserves, this woukd bevreflected in the scenario design.

 

[JRKrejsa]

Agreed the Soviet ones are harsh, but that reflects the nature of the Soviet army in the early war years. They made a lot of blunders.
That said, I tend to keep my commissars away from broken 4-2-6s and their half squads….

 

[nicky_longbranch]

The interference at squad level in contact with the enemy would have been minimal compared to the operational interference. If you are prevented from withdrawing a unit by tge political commissar and as a resukt havevno reserves, this woukd bevreflected in the scenario design.

would that effect scenario development more than a commissar killing a squad before it withdraws? I don't understand how not allowing a unit to perform an action would be a detriment on scenario design? Thanks for the reply

 

[nicky_longbranch]

Agreed the Soviet ones are harsh, but that reflects the nature of the Soviet army in the early war years. They made a lot of blunders.
That said, I tend to keep my commissars away from broken 4-2-6s and their half squads….

I like the commissar rules now, I just think the one's for the Red Chinese are not well grounded in historical data. Does anyone have any examples of Chinese Commissars at the squad or platoon level from 1937-1949? Thanks in Advance.

 

[Robin Reeve]

ASL just included because they knew the Red Chinese had commissars but didn't want to do any research into their actual effect on Squad-level tactics.

You don't need to insult the designers, Mr I-know-better.
Disagreement about a design feature can be led without accusing the designer of not caring.
FW was very seriously designed, and it took years. Some respect for the job done should be a given.
Even on Gamesquad.

 

[Vinnie]

would that effect scenario development more than a commissar killing a squad before it withdraws? I don't understand how not allowing a unit to perform an action would be a detriment on scenario design? Thanks for the reply

I think you misunderstand what i mean. In the same way as the unreliabikity of early soviet armour is not well reflected in the game since the majority of soviet tanks never make it to the battlefield, do the extremely deleteriousceffecrs of the political commissar are not well reflected by the rules as these are of great consequence prior to the scenario commencement.
Commissar rarely kill squads in my experience as they get to elr first.

 

[bendizoid]

These thoughts have just started developing in my mind so please excuse the half-baked nature of this entire post.

I have been taking a look at the Commissar rules, and think that they don't really fit for the Red Chinese. The Reds (and the KMT) used Commissars and there wasn't the same emphasis on the punishment of those who refused to obey, but I still feel as if they are missing something. With the Soviets. There is at least some disadvantage in selecting a commissar over a normal leader, esp. the 8-0, the 8-0 is almost a given, as there is almost no downside to the substitution to a 9-0 COM. The issue of how Commissars sit now was thoroughly evaluated as the rules stand now, by Bruce Probst (1). Bruce states that there is almost no reason the Red Chinese wouldn't substitute LDR for COM in every case. The only 'disadvantage 'being the possibility of him going BESERK with all accompanying SQDs.

The Soviet rules do project some of the difficulties commanders faced in dealing with commissars but place most of the emphasis on the punishment commissars would inflict on those who disobeyed. This punishment did take the form of summary executions without even the veneer of justice, such a Drumhead Court Martial. Those who weren't executed outright were sent to the Gulag or forced to serve in penal battalions or companies, depending on rank.

The rules fail to capture the biggest detriment that commissars had on units, interference with the commanders' tactics. Up until the commissars were removed from the command structure, all orders had to be countersigned. Is there a way to reflect that in ASL? Does it even make sense to have such a dynamic at squad level?

As far as the Red Chinese commissars, I am still researching their role operationally from 1927- 1949.

Thanks for Reading.

Nicholas V.I.D.







1. Probst, B. (2006). The Commissar Dialectic or It's Our Party and You'll Die If You Have To. Asl Journal, (7), 6–7.

Yes

 

[nicky_longbranch]

You don't need to insult the designers, Mr I-know-better.
Disagreement about a design feature can be led without accusing the designer of not caring.
FW was very seriously designed, and it took years. Some respect for the job done should be a given.
Even on Gamesquad.

Insulting the designers? I have a different opinion on a topic I've spent years researching. I did not insult anyone, if a designer did take offense, it wasn't meant that way. I like ASL because it does model squad level tactics so well. I've spent thousands, as has probably everyone on this forum has, so I think that speak more than a single comment, about a single rule, that I based on academic research. I have nothing but love for any person that plays ASL. There is maybe 10K across the entire universe? I am not trying to upset or bother a single one. I also wanted to ask if you knew some of the sources that the designers might have used to base their conclusion on vis-a-vis the Red Chinese Commissar rules? Not trying to be a wise guy, I really would like to know if there is data that shows how Red Chinese Commissars behaved at the squad, platoon, or even company, level during the Second Sino-Japanese war. All the reading I've done, the Chinese commissar is never a part of the tactical decision-making process the way they did in the Soviet army. I've always read that they are more like HR Officer's that ensure the parties propaganda is being 'digested' properly. I wasn't taking about Forgotten War either, I was talking about the Red Chinese as the appear in Rising Sun.

Again, If I upset someone by what I said apologies. I like ASL and have nothing but respect for the designers. And I never said I knew better than anyone... Did I?

 

[nicky_longbranch]

I think you misunderstand what i mean. In the same way as the unreliabikity of early soviet armour is not well reflected in the game since the majority of soviet tanks never make it to the battlefield, do the extremely deleteriousceffecrs of the political commissar are not well reflected by the rules as these are of great consequence prior to the scenario commencement.
Commissar rarely kill squads in my experience as they get to elr first.

I never realized the majority of Soviet tanks didn't make it to the battlefield in the early days. I always thought it was the air force that got pounded on the ground. I thought the tanks were easily dispatched out of obsolescence but I do know many broke down before ever getting to the front. No matter how much I read about WW2 I still manage to learn something new. And you are right about the commissars having much more effect at higher command levels. I've been searching for anything on Chinese commissars but its slim pickens (at least in English), everything I've read is, as you have said, at the operational level or higher. Thanks Vinnie.

 

[Horrido]

Love you too, brother. Please don't change the rules, though. With legalization the only thing that works with me anymore is my long term memory. There's gotta be more than 10k people who play ASL. How many copies of Manila were made? That sell rate should tell you your base.

 

[GeorgeBates]

Agreed the Soviet ones are harsh, but that reflects the nature of the Soviet army in the early war years. They made a lot of blunders.
That said, I tend to keep my commissars away from broken 4-2-6s and their half squads….

Many of these inbred tendencies remain visible today.

 

[GeorgeBates]

I never realized the majority of Soviet tanks didn't make it to the battlefield in the early days. I always thought it was the air force that got pounded on the ground. I thought the tanks were easily dispatched out of obsolescence but I do know many broke down before ever getting to the front.

Source you may appreciate:

​

 

[GeorgeBates]

I've been searching for anything on Chinese commissars but its slim pickens (at least in English)...

You rang?

​

 

[Martin Mayers]

Agreed the Soviet ones are harsh, but that reflects the nature of the Soviet army in the early war years. They made a lot of blunders.
That said, I tend to keep my commissars away from broken 4-2-6s and their half squads….

Huh...you'd turn down rallying a Conscript, DM status or not, on an 8??

 

[JRKrejsa]

Huh...you'd turn down rallying a Conscript, DM status or not, on an 8??

Mine always roll 11s, and end up on the casualty pile..

 

[Vic Provost]

For me and my ASL playing partners, the rules are fine as is, you just need better play with a little luck is all that is usually needed.

 

[Jazz]

And I never said I knew better than anyone... Did I?

Well, actually, you sort of did by claiming you have done a lot a research.....but that's OK...if you do the time, you earned it.

I suppose this whole thread begs the question: what do you expect to happen as a result?

Are you looking to change the rulz? Good luck if you are.

Or is this a mere philosophical discussion about how many dead conscripts can a commissar fit in his musette bag?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Huh...you'd turn down rallying a Conscript, DM status or not, on an 8??

Think it is on a "7" (assuming rally terrain) - a broken ML of a 4-2-6 is only 5. Unless I am missing something.

 

[Wayne]

I never realized the majority of Soviet tanks didn't make it to the battlefield in the early days...

RUSSIAN VEHICLE NOTES

By 1941 the Soviet Union had a vast armored force of almost 30,000 AFV—more than the rest of the world combined. An obsession with annual production figures, however, upstaged the more mundane concern for the manufacture of spare parts. Consequently, when the Germans invaded, only about 7,000 of the 24,000 existing Soviet tanks could be considered completely battle-worthy. This in turn caused a large part of Soviet tank losses in the first months of Operation Barbarossa to be caused by mechanical breakdown. Several other important factors contributing to the poor showing of early Soviet armor were a general scarcity of radios, the inexperience of crews and commanders, and obsolete two-man turrets—all of which made Soviet tanks difficult to control as formations, and individually unwieldy in action. They were relatively “blind” and “dumb” in combat—often blundering about oblivious to beneficial terrain and enemy positions; a situation which the Germans (and Finns) were quick to exploit. The result of all this was that by December 1941 the Soviets had lost all but about 4,500 tanks (of which some 2,100 were keeping watch on the Japanese) and their armored force was at its nadir.

Re ASL focus on Soviet Commissars on the front line, ASL scale is too zoomed-in to show the (maybe more significant) Barrage Battalions which trailed Soviet attack formations. These were NKVD on motorized(?) MG platforms whose missions were to turn back by fire "friendlies" seen fleeing/retreating toward them from battles. IOW, not only leading but also herding troops toward/into battle was a Soviet battle management practice.

Re Chinese Commissars, theirs is a warlord culture. Spoils of battle include conscription of the enemy -- kill defeated officers and NCOs, fold the captured lower ranks into your own ranks, growing your numbers. Captured troops generally accepted this fate as normal. ASL Chinese commissars are maybe there to remind some who their current employer is.

Our principles of operation are:
:
9. Replenish our strength with all the arms and most of the personnel
captured from the enemy. Our army's main source of manpower and
materiel are at the front.
:
These are the main methods the Peoples' Liberation Army employed in
defeating Chiang Kai-shek.

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung, Peking, 1972, pp. 95--98