- and what allies do instead of puppeting? And what about existing allies puppets?yeah, allies can't puppet.
- because you are basically partition China on pair with Japan, ala "fourth partition of Poland".Why is "Reconcile with Japan" required for "Claim Sinkiang"?
- just load any previous HoI game and look for yourself.What Allied puppets can you think of.
Soviet interest of Xinjiang preceded any reconciliation with Japan (I assume Reconciliation hints at the non-aggression pact with Japan 1941) as Soviet Union invaded 1934 and fought once again in the area 1937.because you are basically partition China on pair with Japan, ala "fourth partition of Poland".
- as far as i understand this could be an peaceful route to take Xinjiang.Soviet interest of Xinjiang preceded any reconciliation with Japan (I assume Reconciliation hints at the non-aggression pact with Japan 1938) as Soviet Union invaded 1934 and fought once again in the area 1937.
So you still don't think an off map OOB would be nice to sort all of these divisions ?
Ah, could be so.- as far as i understand this could be an peaceful route to take Xinjiang.
As you can see on the screenshot below, we have truly dumbed down the game, and made all those hidden values we have in the game visible, with tooltips explaining them in details.
Yeah. Although, if Japan establishes a puppet regime in China then that regime might have claims on all of Greater China (except Manchuria of course), including Soviet territory. I haven't looked it up, but I assume that the Reorganized National Government viewed Tibet, Sinkiang, some bits of Mongolia ect ect as it's rightful territory, just like the real Republic of China.Ah, could be so.
Although, there were really no overlapping claims between Japan and Soviet on the area as far as I know.
Screw the oob, just any kind of hierarchy as a means to not having to handle 138 individual divisions when battleplanning. Selectionboxing would give no sufficient control, and sorting individual units would be a chore.
I recently played a long game of hoi3, and i realized that the hoi4 unit system as shown would be completely superior to the hoi3 type direct control system in hoi3, at least for my type of play. But for hoi4 in battleplanning, And planning with many different units in many different places where live control isnt Essential a hierarchy would surely be immensely helpful. Both for preplanning and followup planning, and deviating from plans without having to probe each stack each time.
Id see it as a way of steamlining, in being able to make larger chunks of divisions within an army and only having to care about those larger chunks when planning.
yea, that is correct. If the focus is a way to a peaceful division I guess it function quite OK. However its placement in the anti-capitalist column is somewhat strange, although I guess there is no better place for it.Yeah. Although, if Japan establishes a puppet regime in China then that regime might have claims on all of Greater China (except Manchuria of course), including Soviet territory. I haven't looked it up, but I assume that the Reorganized National Government viewed Tibet, Sinkiang, some bits of Mongolia ect ect as it's rightful territory, just like the real Republic of China.
- just load any previous HoI game and look for yourself.
I guess the idea is that helping Japan will hurt Britain and America?yea, that is correct. If the focus is a way to a peaceful division I guess it function quite OK. However its placement in the anti-capitalist column is somewhat strange, although I guess there is no better place for it.
It is sort of a restart of the Great Game in that way.I guess the idea is that helping Japan will hurt Britain and America?
Iraq and Iran??That were puppeted during the time frame of the game.