• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

HoI 4 Dev Diary - Border Wars: The Last Warlord

Hello from the frozen wasteland wrapped in eternal darkness that is Sweden in December!


In the base game, the Chinese Warlords lead a rather silly existence. They exist at game start, work was clearly done to make them playable (at least as playable as any country with a generic focus tree), and when the war with Japan starts and things could get interesting - they are swallowed up by Nationalist China.


That means there is little use for the Nationalist player to really interact with them, since they are going to be absorbed anyway when the war starts. This made the Nationalists' situation quite a bit easier than it was historically. So in order to really represent the problems the Nationalists faced, we had to make the Warlords a bit more dynamic - and while doing that, we also made them a bit more interesting to play.


It’ll still be possible for the Nationalist player to unite the country and take over the warlords - it will just take effort and resources that the Nationalist player may or may not be able to spare.

warlords_tree.JPG


We still knew that the Warlords tree would be a bit of a sideshow, so we decided that all 5 warlords (Shanxi, Xibei San Ma, Sinkiang, Yunnan, Guanxi Clique) would get the same focus tree, and that it would be somewhat smaller than what we would do for a normal country (instead of a splinter region).

However, we also wanted the player to be able to make a difference and not be stuck with the rather small and restricted warlords focus tree forever. The core idea behind the focus tree is therefore to give the warlords a way to win the struggle for supremacy in China, take over national leadership, and ultimately gain access to the full Nationalist or Communist Focus Trees. This turns them into more fully-fledged contenders in the Chinese Civil War.

Capture_warlord_leader.JPG


To do this, you have three basic options: you cooperate with the Nationalists, side with the Communists, or you strike out on your own (with an option to approach Japan later).

If you decide to ally with the Nationalists (as most warlords are scripted to do in historical mode), you get to build up your realm a little and fix some of the problems in the administration. Once your powerbase is secure, you can decide to join the political struggle and make a play for the leadership of China in the political sphere.

Capture_warlords_political_struggle.JPG


This uses the same mechanics we have outlined in the Dev Diary about Communist China, and if a political power struggle between Nationalists and Communists is already ongoing, a warlord will simply join into the struggle. If you win the struggle, and claim national leadership, your focus tree will then switch to the Nationalist Chinese focus tree.

Capture_warlords_takeover.JPG


Siding with the Communists starts out very similar, but the end game is different: instead of joining the political struggle directly, you appeal to the bigger Communist: Stalin. Getting the support of the Soviet Union won’t come cheap, though, and there is no guarantee that whoever leads the Communist party of China is willing to just accept you taking over. Should you succeed, you will be able to annex Communist China, giving you their troops as well as their focus tree. But beware: Stalin will come to collect his due.

Capture_warlord_stalin.JPG


Lastly, the option to strike out on your own is clearly the most difficult of all, making an enemy out of both sides - but it offers you the chance to claim China as your own, without having to make compromises. While you can try to make a deal with the Japanese, there is no guarantee that they will accept, and in any event you would only be trading one overlord for another. This approach also blocks off any chance of joining the political struggle inside China, meaning that you will have to fight for it.


However, since facing the nationalist armies in the field may be a bit too much despite all their many weaknesses, we have decided to expand on Border Wars a bit, giving independent-minded warlords a way to expand some territory while keeping the risk manageable.


Border conflicts start with someone staging an incident between two states (yes... they have to border each other). This costs some PP and fires an event notifying them that they need to position troops or risk losing control of the state.

hoi4_2.png


After a bit of time has passed, whoever staged the incident gets a decision to escalate the situation further. If this decision is left alone for too long the incident is forgotten and nothing more happens.

hoi4_4.png


To escalate the incident to a border conflict the instigator needs to place troops on the border and select the decision. Divisions from the two states start fighting in a limited form of combat with special rules such as terrain giving less bonus, lower combat width and so on. The country that first initiated the incident is considered the attacker.

hoi4_2 (1).png


The fighting will continue for a good amount of time, and if no one has emerged victorious by the time it runs out the conflict is considered to be a stalemate. This awards both sides with a bit of army experience and the defender with some PP for having successfully defended the territory. This is sort of a soft loss for the attacker, but does not come at a major cost other than the PP wasted on initiating the entire incident.


If the attacker wins the conflict, they seize control of the state and are awarded PP for their success. If the defender wins they gain a lot of PP, army experience and research bonus to land doctrine. All of the outcome effects are scriptable and there is a good chance we will add, tweak, or change them after more play testing.

hoi4_8.png


Both attacker and defender can choose to escalate the conflict further at the cost of addition PP. Doing so gives a combat bonus, allow more troops to join the fighting and pushes the conflict to the brink of all out war. Both sides can back down at this point, but this results in losing the border conflict. It might however be worth taking a loss over an all-out war you cannot hope to win.

If any of the sides chooses to escalate the conflict further, the other side will be notified and not long after, war breaks out.

Next week is going to be a Christmas special with some cool stuff for modders.

Due to an important company-wide conference that is not in any way connected to the release of a new movie from a well-known sci-fi franchise, the stream will be at 14:00 CET today. Tune in at https://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive and watch the Kaiser restore order in Germany!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are keeping it asia only for now. I can see us maybe using it elsewhere in the future though.

Might be a good mechanic for kicking off the Korean conflict (or other suitable extended time-line/Cold War Gone Hot experiences)!
 
@Archangel85, or @podcat. just to clarify.. whereas it makes perfect sense for the Yan'an-based Mao-commies to try to set up covert party cells in e.g Beijing or Shanghai ("Build support in Beijing"), you cannot seriously mean that the warlord of Yunnan will be able to send a delegation of minions to Beijing and be able to actually build enough support to flip Beijing? Communists should be able to go everywhere and do that due to communism as a populist ideology with an enormous popular appeal among the poor and downtrodden in the 20th century. A warlord's personality cult should IMO be restricted to states neighboring his realm. Sending you best men 2000 kilometer away to brag to urbanites about your skillz as a rural strongman should not be something that can pay off, not even once in a thousand tries. (In the honest opinion of yours truly).
You made a good point, but all those warlords were officially KMT party authorities. So just think this way: Chiang is the strongest warlord and the warlords shared the same ideology with him, which is——authoritarian democracy, or whatever you may call it :)
Oh I forgot to mention that, Li Zongren of the Guangxi Clique served as acting president when Chiang screwed up in CCW, Yan Xishan served as the Premier after KMT retreated to Taiwan, hope that would help.
 
Question:

If you go the third option, proclaim independence, and take on both Nationalists and Communists, which tree do you end up with?
Depends on ideology. you get either nationalist or communist depending on support.
 
If you decide to ally with the Nationalists (as most warlords are scripted to do in historical mode), you get to build up your realm a little and fix some of the problems in the administration. Once your powerbase is secure, you can decide to join the political struggle and make a play for the leadership of China in the political sphere.
If they succeed in taking power, will the capital change or remain?

Siding with the Communists starts out very similar, but the end game is different: instead of joining the political struggle directly, you appeal to the bigger Communist: Stalin. Getting the support of the Soviet Union won’t come cheap, though, and there is no guarantee that whoever leads the Communist party of China is willing to just accept you taking over. Should you succeed, you will be able to annex Communist China, giving you their troops as well as their focus tree. But beware: Stalin will come to collect his due
If a warlord trigger the focus to ask help from Stalin, what's CPC's countermeasure?

I'd appreciate for answering them. And nice works!:)
 
Last edited:
So next week volunteer air corps (check the steam page its announced there it will be in the DLC) with the flying tigers of course being the most prominent.
 
If one was to, as a war-lord, usurp all territory held at game start by the Kuomintang, as well as proclaim national leadership, would there be the possibility to change the name of one's nation to "China" as well as to move one's capital to a more prestigious city, like Beijing or Nanjing. It would be awefully strange if the entirety of China would have the name "Yunnan" with it's capital set in Kunming.
 
Last edited:
I'm very excited to play China. . . I've never played an Asia country, but this entire update and DLC is making the idea incredibly attractive!!!

Keep up the GREAT work Paradox. . . May the Force Be With You!!!
 
So, the next Dev Diary will be about the Japan? I really want to see an option, that allows player to purge the military, and go back to the democratic monarchy (Like during Meiji reign). This would allow player to side with the allies. For help in war against the axis, the allies would turn a blind eye at Asia, and allow the Japanese to conquer China? Or maybe give them some of their East Asian colonies? Anyway, i can't wait for the release of Waking the Tiger and 1.5. (I wish that the 1.5 had better naval warfare, but you can't have everything, right?)
 
Love the border wars! Definitely something that needs to be implemented outside China as well! I would like to see this implemented for civil wars, so that they start out small-scale before blowing up into a larger conflict.

EDIT: This is also something that Milennium Dawn has desperately been needing. Low-scale border conflicts simulate present-day conflicts considerably better than the Total War of WW 2.
 
Last edited:
Note that Beijing is locked. You need to get more support elsewhere before you can do anything there
@podcat, thank you for your reply.

I do indeed notice that Beijing is grayed out. I am wondering about the criteria for this. Are you saying that non-communist warlords cannot "jump" the states they border when influencing? The states available for influence in the screenshot does not make sense as neighboring states unless it is Guangxi Clique, but too lazy to google for a map.

Will there be an option for warlords to go proper fascist? Fascists have a coherent, populist ideology and should be allowed to teleport-flip all over China the same way as commies. (If fascist, a warlord can rally support for fascism rather than his own persona. Proclaiming that "Fascism/Socialism is great and Yun Long is its prophet in China" should have a national appeal whereas just proclaiming the greatness of Yun Long should not).
 
Of the leaders of each warlord states, which do you guys feel is the most realistic for the various national focus trees? I think it goes without saying that if Sheng Shicai (Sinkiang) had continued on his pro-soviet path and had not expelled them in the 1940s to try to get closer to the nationalist government then the communist path would make sense for him. For siding with the nationalists, I think Yan Xishan (Shanxi) makes sense as he was at some points a serious contender for the presidency (Central plains war) but although he had been at war with Chiang Kai-Shek, he was also happy to collaborate with his political enemies to achieve his goals so I can see him being more political in taking over the government. Plus a lot of the focuses in that tree seem relevant to how he governed Shanxi throughout the period. The opposition path is a little harder to choose a warlord for, as it is a completely ahistorical focus tree. We are left with Li Zongren (Guangxi Clique), Long Yun (Yunnan) and Ma Bufang (Xibei San Ma.) I dont think Long Yun would have been ambitious enough to make a stand against Chiang and compete for the presidency, I think he was more focused on internal development of Yunnan. Ma Bufang by all accounts appears to have been very loyal to Chiang's government so I dont think he would take this path. This leaves us with Li Zongren, who I guess the tree does make quite a bit of sense for. He was very military minded and from the Northern Expedition onwards was opposed to Chiang Kai-Shek and obviously there were multiple occasions where he took military action against him and there would have been another war if not for the Mukden incident. Likewise, Guangzhou was used several times throughout the warlord era as a center for opposition governments in the KMT. This leaves Long Yun and Ma Bufang out, but I feel neither of these warlords would have taken any of the focus tree paths.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited: