Axis vs. Allied the molehill growing to a mountain

[plloyd1010]

PG Über, as with most Vassal modules, requires the definition of 2 sides and/or a solitaire position. Back in the days of the Elsenborn, Kokoda and Airborne modules the sides Axis and Allied made good sense. The scope of PG Über has grown since those days. That has created a few small aberrations. Peru and Ecuador are not really Axis and Allied powers (regardless of who you may think is which). The Poles are usually Allied, but when they fight the Soviet  invasion in 1939, they are "Axis". Lithuanians usually Axis, but once or twice they are Allied. Imperial Germany, Ethiopia... Start talking about Iron Curtain... Yeah, this keeps growing.

The future of PG Über will bring in the Cold War, the Korean War, the Six-Day War, the Vietnam War, Spanish American War, American Punitive Expedition and at least half-a-dozen others. Axis vs. Allied just doesn't seem to cut it anymore. So the road divides into 3 paths:

1. Leave sides the way they are. This means North Koreans, Arab League and Russians, from Iron Curtain onward, become Axis powers.
   
2. Make 3 base modules. Easy to do, but synchronization error become likely. Then there problem of names the sides. Essentially cutting the mountain into 3 hills.
   
3. Rename the sides to something more generic. Longest term solution, but involves a fair amount of easy but tedious rework. Would likely delay the March update.
   

If I chose generic named sides, I have a strong leaning that way, what would they be? Good Guys vs. Bad Guys seems a bit chauvinistic. Side 1 vs. Side 2 is likely too confusing, scenario books switch sides 1 and 2 with little reason. I am thinking Blue vs. Red. Assignment of sides would (sort of is) based on the American perspective, Allied/NATO perspective, general preponderance of related extensions.