Breaking up the British Empire

[Anichent]

In game, Britain has direct control over a huge amount of the world....which is not at all historically accurate.
Sure, if we look at maps we see the same shade of red around the world, but in reality a large amount of the British Empire were mere 'puppets'.

There are a number of states which were "protectorates" which were dependent territories of Britain. These protectorates had their own governments and internal autonomy (most having their own armies), however Britain controlled their international relations. Essentially they are vassals, or in HOI terms puppets.

I understand that giving Britain direct control is probably "simpler," but its simply not accurate.

The following states had complete, or high degrees of, internal autonomy and should be in game as British puppets, not non-existent:

Spoiler: List of British Puppets

Bahrain
Bechuanaland (Botswana)
British Somaliland
Brunei
Burma (1937)
India
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuwait
Malay States
Maldive Islands
Muscat and Oman (Oman)
North Borneo
Northern Rhodesia
Nyasaland (Malawi)
Perlis
Qatar
Sarawak
Swaziland
Terengganu
Trucial States
Zanzibar

as well as 2 Princely States in Burma and several of the larger princely states of India/Pakistan/Kashmir.

*removed Aden protectorate because in practice governed the same way, and by the same bodies, as the Aden colony

This should also apply to a few other states, but it mostly applies to the British Empire

Spoiler: Other Puppets

Morocco (Spain)
East Hebei (Japan)
Mengjiang (Japan)
Manchukuo (Japan)

*Tunisia and Indochina, while officially protectorates/puppets of France, were ruled as if they were colonies
**Philippines could be, but since this is debated in another thread it doesn't matter for here
*** Bohemia and Moravia, under Germany, while called a "protectorate" would not fall under this list because it did not enjoy internal autonomy beyond very limited areas.

The way I see it, the above puppets should exist in game in 1936, be it an expansion or mod. They should not be under the direct control of their parent country, nor should they be independent. Would it mean adding more countries (puppets) to the game and making it messier? Sure. But without this HOI is pretty inaccurate, and adding it could improve gameplay and make it more fun.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Well, first of all, the devs dont want it to be and certainly isnt an historical simulator. Then again if you look at Egypt for example, they there officially independant by 1922, ending the protectorate over egypt. Sure, they were, just as any ex-colony would be, still heaviely influenced by the UK, but still were independant. The UK only had direct controll over sudan and the suez channel, not over egypt itself. Egypt should be, as declared in the declaration of independance, guaranteed by the UK tho.

It would certainly add to the gameplay, especially diplomacywise to break off some of the nations that are under direct controll, like egypt. The axis could heaviely influence egypt and support an fascist movement which could eventually coup, resulting in an civil war, in what certainly both the axis and allies have interest in their side winning in.

Protectorats on the other hand should remain under their direct controll, since that way they can simulate getting those important strategic resources from them, without having to trade with their own protectorates, which certainly shouldnt be able to trade with fascists or communists for example.

 

[Nelfe]

For Morocco, it should be split in two parts, as Spain control the northern and southern territories and France the central territories (according to this map : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/ProtectoradoMarruecos.png).

 

[Anichent]

Well, first of all, the devs dont want it to be and certainly isnt an hsitorical simulator.

"The most authentic real-time simulation of the war"

"Fight as any nation in the greatest human conflict of all time – Chose from the greatest powers striving for victory, or the small nations trying to weather the storm."

source: https://www.paradoxplaza.com/hearts-of-iron-iv

Beyond that, I think adding more accurate states and borders improves gameplay.

edit: 5 disagreements for directly quoting the HOI4 description on the website? What are you disagreeing with? I assure you that is what is says....like it or not.

 

[LordOfWar16]

@Anichent it doesnt add to the gameplay if you completly break the gameplay by basicly making protectorates independant puppet states, which they werent anyway. They cant sanely simulate it if they are puppets. They recieved tons of resources from their protectorates which, again, certainly werent allowed to trade with the fascists or communists.

Besides, those pr texts are never an relieable source of information for any game. They always exaggerate. The developers always communicated that it is not an hardcore simulation but an sandbox game based around ww2 and that gameplay always comes first.

We are making a game, not a historical simulation or teaching tool about the horrors of war.

 

[semaphore]

This is first and foremost a game before it is any simulation. Gameplay considerations have to come first.

However, I see you put India on that list. You do realise that India was the one example we have seen the devs made into a puppet instead of direct British control?

 

[Anichent]

@Anichent it doesnt add to the gameplay if you completly break the gameplay by basicly making protectorates independant puppet states, which they werent anyway. They cant sanely simulate it if they are puppets. They recieved tons of resources from their protectorates which, again, certainly werent allowed to trade with the fascists or communists.

Besides, those pr texts are never an relieable source of information for any game.

protectorates were independent puppet states. Own governments, own armies, own flags, own elections, own ministers, own kings who were subserviant to the British Crown....requiring some rebalance does not break gameplay. They were "vassals" by definition, calling them puppets or "independent puppet states" is just using different words for the same thing. You'll also note the list does not include every British possession. Only those which had sufficient internal autonomy to count as puppets/vassals.

Heck, the Philippines gets included in the game and it probably had less autonomy than the countries I listed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but puppets in HOI3 couldn't trade with anyone either? The whole point of a puppet is the parent country controlled all of their foreign relations....which is the exact circumstance of every country I listed.

This is first and foremost a game before it is any simulation. Gameplay considerations have to come first.

However, I see you put India on that list. You do realise that India was the one example we have seen the devs made into a puppet instead of direct British control?

Yes, I included India on my list because the devs were right to do it.
Gameplay before simulation implies that somehow what I suggest takes away from gameplay. Its nice to say that, but how is it true?

 

[semaphore]

Gameplay before simulation implies that somehow what I suggest takes away from gameplay. Its nice to say that, but how is it true?

For example, IIRC Egypt was originally made directly British because the AI had problems dealing with it. I don't know how this will change in HoI4, but in the past, not all parts of all colonial empires will work well under the game's puppet model. In some cases making them a puppet improves gameplay; f.e., the dominions and now India. In other cases, they may not. It would take away from gameplay to divert development time and effort to fix the latter, if there is no clear gameplay benefit to do so. Given that the devs are not unaware of the situation, at this stage I personally would trust their judgement on which parts to puppet-fy and which part to not.

Note that making Egypt a puppet is not a particularly accurate representation of history either. Egypt was invaded by Italy in 1940 and Germany in 1941, and yet was "technically at peace" until it declared war on Germany in 1945.

 

[Anichent]

@rmdsc fair points, however based on the assumption that it cannot be done due to AI or the game cannot do it. An assumption I won't make just yet.

Most of these don't need the game to handle anything. Puppetting them would be enough and just requires the right balance. You'd only run into problems with the Princely states of India and Burma since those would probably require special mechanics and then maybe they are not worth it.

You're point about Egypt is about technical/formal accuracy. I care more about practical accuracy, and practically speaking the states I listed were puppets. ie. Technically formally Tunisia was a puppet, practically it was not, therefore it should not be in game.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Doing what you suggest would simply increase the development time for a few more months.

Due to all the bug testing and making sure these new puppets are compatible with gameplay, it is probable to say that would push HOI4 to 2017.

No thanks, i'm quite happy with the game at its current state. I've waited since 2014 and i'm tired of waiting. I'd rather they cancel the game than push it to 2017.

so you are really not able to let them simply do their job and deliver an game that everyone can enjoy, without it crashing all the time or having massive balancing issues? Thats the reason why we cant have nice things. All the wait would be for nothing if they decided because of people like you to rush out the game in an unfinished state. Sure, they have to release the game at some point, since otherwise alot of interest in it might get lost, but it would be just as bad if it was broken on launch.

 

[BPM]

Doing what you suggest would simply increase the development time for a few more months.

Due to all the bug testing and making sure these new puppets are compatible with gameplay, it is probable to say that would push HOI4 to 2017.

No thanks, i'm quite happy with the game at its current state. I've waited since 2014 and i'm tired of waiting. I'd rather they cancel the game than push it to 2017.

wow that is a bit of a knee jerk over reaction! 'If I cant have it now then no one can have it ever!' Your comment is pure supposition, how do you even know that it would add 'a few more months'?

 

[LordOfWar16]

@AlexNightingale
that still doesnt mean that they should cancle the game only because you lost interest. Anyway, they know that they cant delay the game again and thats why they didnt even give us an estimate this time around. I doubt that it will take until 2017, since as you said people will lose interest eventually.

 

[Axe99]

Good post @Anichent . I'd definitely be in favour of the British Empire being more accurately modelled, particularly given that HoI4 is a more sandbox-style game than HoI3, but given it still has a primarily WW2 focus I can see how they might be overlooked as well. I'm personally hoping for a 'British Empire' DLC to flesh out the Empire (and give the UK a few more interesting political national focus choices as well), and if this happens, maybe it will be addressed then.

Some reasons why it might be easier to leave the empire as british territory rather than puppets are:

- If they were puppets and had their own army, the puppet code would need to change or there'd be 20 different nationalities fighting in the Western Desert/at Normandy;

- At the moment, as far as we know, there's nothing like liberty desire, or things that can provide meaningful internal management gameplay (either for individual nations, or within a large colonial empire), so while adding in the nations might look more accurate, the gameplay could potentially end up less that way. If it's like HoI3, we'll still be able to release a lot of the independent territories (although not all of them - I played a game as the UK in HoI3 for larks where I let as much of the empire go as I could in 1936 to see what it was like.....).

I particularly hope we get a semi-independent Egypt at some stage, but again I think it will depend on having fairly subtle and refined diplomatic mechanics, and that likely hasn't been the focus of development for at least the first release.

At the moment, without mechanics being improved, I don't think I'd want 20-odd puppets cluttering up the diplomatic screen for no real benefit (or, worse, giving the UK a buff in terms of military capacity beyond what it had historically), but were there deeper mechanics for it, I'd deffo be in favour .

 

[Anichent]

@Axe99 yeah it really depends on how the game comes out. I don't think its so critical as to delay the game (I hate when people criticize you for something you never suggested) but I do thinks its worth talking about for mods or expansions. Or just talked about period.

Personally I'm considering doing a standalone mod to include some British Empire division. Things like British Somaliland, Oman, and Northern Rhodesia did actually have their own armies so it makes even more sense. And Northern Rhodesian Copper, along with Canadian Copper, were hugely important for the war effort and my understanding is Britain had to trade for it, they didn't just "get it." But including countries like Bahrain or Kuwait would only really be possible if there was a way to prevent them from having a military since they did not have any under their treaties with Britain. Even worse, the Princely States of India did not have militaries or military factories so it would require even more limits on them. Personally, I think all this is possible to mod or add later with minimal re-balancing and within the current puppet mechanic, but it all depends on what the game looks like.

Honestly I'm more interested in discussing the worth of having the countries I listed (and which of them) in a mod or expansion rather than complaints that adding them would take too long or be 'too hard'

 

[shri]

@Anicent and @Axe99

Good ideas in theory but in practice not possible to implement (some of the flaws already stated by Axe99 himself)-
1. Too many puppets will mean a hodge-podge mix of troops, giving too much of penalty in combat.
2. But give too much of a boost in terms of economics (due to puppet decisions- la HOI3, not sure if they will be repeated)
3. Too difficult to code for the DEVS as except British India, most of the African Puppets to say it bluntly - "NOT WORTH IT". British India is already a separate entity as seen in WWW as are the 3 white dominions and South Africa, that covers 90% of the British Empire's Economic aspects and population aspects.
Princely states of India, fought under the British Army banners.
4. Too easy for Italy (or any AXIS) to grab a puppet or two and get a boost in resources albeit temporarily (if "Weapons stocks" are allowed to be captured in HOI4).

 

[Anichent]

@shri

I disagree. Most of these puppets, if added in a mod, would have no military so on that front it wouldn't change much. (if those that needed it couldn't have their military limited, then yes they couldn't be added sadly - but I don't see why that wouldn't be possible). The vast bulk of the British Empire army would still be India, Canada, UK, Australia, etc.
Economic boost is true, but thats potentially a minor re balancing issue. Nothing that makes it impossible especially since most of these areas would have the smallest amount of industrial capacity. Only major change would be strategic resources, but they're puppets.
Too difficult to code? How so? It could surely be modded in or expanded. This too difficult argument without any explanation keeps coming up and makes no sense. I added many countries in mods in HOI3 without running into difficulty.
Not worth it? That depends on you're perspective. If you were someone who wanted to play as one of these puppets you'd probably think it worth it.
And the ability for the axis to grab a puppet? Well they could do that either way? They would only be puppets after all so assuming the AI works, the British will still defend them as weakly as they did in reality (British Somaliland was defended by 500 native troops and with 900 reinforcements from the British). They would still be part of the allied faction so they couldn't be "owned" in terms of a peace deal before the end of the war, and the Axis could control the territory whether it was a colony or not.

Forgive me but I don't think I understand most of your reasons.
Difficulty or complication is not impossibility. Just means not worth the devs doing for release.

 

[jamesd]

In game, Britain has direct control over a huge amount of the world....which is not at all historically accurate.
Sure, if we look at maps we see the same shade of red around the world, but in reality a large amount of the British Empire were mere 'puppets'.

There are a number of states which were "protectorates" which were dependent territories of Britain. These protectorates had their own governments and internal autonomy (most having their own armies, save for the Princely States as required by treaty with Britain), however Britain controlled their international relations. Essentially they are vassals, or in HOI terms puppets.

I understand that giving Britain direct control is probably "simpler," but its simply not accurate.

The following states had complete internal autonomy and should be in game as British puppets, not non-existent:

Spoiler: List of British Puppets

Aden
Bahrain
Bechuanaland (Botswana)
British Somaliland
Brunei
India
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuwait
Malay States
Maldive Islands
Muscat and Oman (Oman)
North Borneo
Northern Rhodesia
Nyasaland (Malawi)
Perlis
Qatar
Sarawak
Swaziland
Terengganu
Trucial States
Zanzibar

as well as 2 Princely States in Burma and several of the larger princely states of India/Pakistan/Kashmir.

This should also apply to a few other states, but it mostly applies to the British Empire

Spoiler: Other Puppets

Morocco (Spain)
East Hebei (Japan)
Mengjiang (Japan)
Manchukuo (Japan)

*Tunisia and Indochina, while officially protectorates/puppets of France, were ruled as if they were colonies
**Philippines could be, but since this is debated in another thread it doesn't matter for here
*** Bohemia and Moravia, under Germany, while called a "protectorate" would not fall under this list because it did not enjoy internal autonomy beyond very limited areas.

The way I see it, the above puppets should exist in game in 1936, be it an expansion or mod. They should not be under the direct control of their parent country, nor should they be independent. Would it mean adding more countries (puppets) to the game and making it messier? Sure. But without this HOI is completely historically inaccurate.

If you want to include all those nations as puppets rather than British territory, I think you need to add Burma. It had its own administration and government separate from India. It also raised 8 infantry battalions, 4 territorial infantry battalions and about 12 garrison battalions before the Japanese occupied it, which is a lot more than many of the other states you've listed - some of which didn't even raise a battalion.

That point raises another problem - many of the states you've listed didn't raise HOI scale units, meaning that in order to use them in game the manpower really needs to be added with other micro states or the British.

 

[Anichent]

If you want to include all those nations as puppets rather than British territory, I think you need to add Burma. It had its own administration and government separate from India. It also raised 8 infantry battalions, 4 territorial infantry battalions and about 12 garrison battalions before the Japanese occupied it, which is a lot more than many of the other states you've listed - some of which didn't even raise a battalion.

That point raises another problem - many of the states you've listed didn't raise HOI scale units, meaning that in order to use them in game the manpower really needs to be added with other micro states or the British.

Thats a valid point. Many colonies either didn't raise armies (Somaliland) or were restricted by treaty from doing so (Bahrain). But I think there's a way to represent that without imbalance or leaving them out - although no way to know for sure until release. Burma, to my understanding, was a colony not a vassal so thats why I hadn't put it on the list, since they didn't have their own ministers, their own trade, their own laws, etc.

although that reminds me of another issue: Japan created the State of Burma and the country of Azad Hind (Free India) as puppets as it invaded British territories. Those definitely, without question, need to be added as Japanese releasable puppets by event (or something) similar to China-Nanjing.
HOI has always been bad for representing how Axis powers actually created puppets rather than just pursuing absolute world conquest. Although the mods I've played for HOI3 usually add this in to an extent.

 

[jamesd]

Thats a valid point. Many colonies either didn't raise armies (Somaliland) or were restricted by treaty from doing so (Bahrain). But I think there's a way to represent that without imbalance or leaving them out - although no way to know for sure until release. Burma, to my understanding, was a colony not a vassal so thats why I hadn't put it on the list, since they didn't have their own ministers, their own trade, their own laws, etc.

although that reminds me of another issue: Japan created the State of Burma and the country of Azad Hind (Free India) as puppets as it invaded British territories. Those definitely, without question, need to be added as Japanese releasable puppets by event (or something) similar to China-Nanjing.
HOI has always been bad for representing how Axis powers actually created puppets rather than just pursuing absolute world conquest. Although the mods I've played for HOI3 usually add this in to an extent.

Burma was separated from India in 1937, given its own constitution and had its own elected assembly with many powers. It had its own Prime Minister who was arrested in January 1942 for communicating with the Japanese.

 

[FOARP]

In game, Britain has direct control over a huge amount of the world....which is not at all historically accurate.
Sure, if we look at maps we see the same shade of red around the world, but in reality a large amount of the British Empire were mere 'puppets'.

There are a number of states which were "protectorates" which were dependent territories of Britain. These protectorates had their own governments and internal autonomy (most having their own armies, save for the Princely States as required by treaty with Britain), however Britain controlled their international relations. Essentially they are vassals, or in HOI terms puppets.

I understand that giving Britain direct control is probably "simpler," but its simply not accurate.

The following states had complete internal autonomy and should be in game as British puppets, not non-existent:

Spoiler: List of British Puppets

Aden
Bahrain
Bechuanaland (Botswana)
British Somaliland
Brunei
India
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuwait
Malay States
Maldive Islands
Muscat and Oman (Oman)
North Borneo
Northern Rhodesia
Nyasaland (Malawi)
Perlis
Qatar
Sarawak
Swaziland
Terengganu
Trucial States
Zanzibar

as well as 2 Princely States in Burma and several of the larger princely states of India/Pakistan/Kashmir.

This should also apply to a few other states, but it mostly applies to the British Empire

Spoiler: Other Puppets

Morocco (Spain)
East Hebei (Japan)
Mengjiang (Japan)
Manchukuo (Japan)

*Tunisia and Indochina, while officially protectorates/puppets of France, were ruled as if they were colonies
**Philippines could be, but since this is debated in another thread it doesn't matter for here
*** Bohemia and Moravia, under Germany, while called a "protectorate" would not fall under this list because it did not enjoy internal autonomy beyond very limited areas.

The way I see it, the above puppets should exist in game in 1936, be it an expansion or mod. They should not be under the direct control of their parent country, nor should they be independent. Would it mean adding more countries (puppets) to the game and making it messier? Sure. But without this HOI is completely historically inaccurate.

I don't get all the disagrees the OP's getting here. All he's doing is applying the same standard already applied to a few territories (e.g., the Philippines) to all the historically similar territories.

Now, his suggestion may result in a somewhat messy map, and it's quite possible that many of the above territories might not warrant autonomy for gameplay reasons or otherwise, but it should certainly be covered at some level. Ultimately you have to ask yourself whether having British partisans rise up in Aden, Somaliland etc. to resist invaders really makes that much sense or whether there might be a better way of modelling things and distinguishing between colonial territory and national territory.