No you didn't but whatever have fun with your mod, judging by the other responses you may be the only one.
- 2
- 2
Breaking up the British Empire
- Thread starter Anichent
- Start date
-
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.
I would only make India, Rhodesia and some arab states puppets. The rest should be the British Empire
I would also make Manchukuo, Mengjiang and East Heibei (although it didn't exist very long) puppets
I would not make Tunesia a Puppet, they are too close to France and it would look strange. Marocco could me a puppet as they gave much of their soldiers to France. Indochina should be a puppet.
Bohemia and Moravia shouldn't be a puppet because they (at least i think so) had no army and the industry was important for Germany
Edit: I don't understan why everyone is so "resistant" towards new ideas from forum members. I didn't read all the threads here but it looks like a battlefield.
I would also make Manchukuo, Mengjiang and East Heibei (although it didn't exist very long) puppets
I would not make Tunesia a Puppet, they are too close to France and it would look strange. Marocco could me a puppet as they gave much of their soldiers to France. Indochina should be a puppet.
Bohemia and Moravia shouldn't be a puppet because they (at least i think so) had no army and the industry was important for Germany
Edit: I don't understan why everyone is so "resistant" towards new ideas from forum members. I didn't read all the threads here but it looks like a battlefield.
- 7
- 1
- 1
hmmm... oh no? Maybe it wasn't easy enough for you to understand. Replace "too many countries" with "too tedious" and reread it:
This criticism that it would be "too many" countries is silly. Does needing to scroll down a list for 2.5 extra seconds really irritate you that much?If so be sure to never play Europa Universalis, that'll really drive you nuts.
Don't worry, I'll enjoy it in the end, who else has to?
- 2
@Aries666 judging by the other responses you may be the only one.
I rather think that nobody who agrees wants to write something. Actually now when I am looking at the responses many people want such a change
@Aries666 This doesn't address the point that there is little point in having tiny puppets that can't have any real effect on the game, regardless of who controls them.
Well gameplay isn't the only aspect. Historical flavor is what most people also want. That's why different countries have are stonger, some weaker, there are different models although that would be bad gameplaywise. The historical aspect is the reason why many people want this game. It is a sandbox game.
I rather think that nobody who agrees wants to write something. Actually now when I am looking at the responses many people want such a change
@Aries666 This doesn't address the point that there is little point in having tiny puppets that can't have any real effect on the game, regardless of who controls them.
Well gameplay isn't the only aspect. Historical flavor is what most people also want. That's why different countries have are stonger, some weaker, there are different models although that would be bad gameplaywise. The historical aspect is the reason why many people want this game. It is a sandbox game.
- 2
- 2
Please go ahead and point out these "most people". I was going off the number of agrees and disagrees attached to the arguements for and against which are empirically against.@Aries666 judging by the other responses you may be the only one.
I rather think that nobody who agrees wants to write something. Actually now when I am looking at the responses many people want such a change
@Aries666 This doesn't address the point that there is little point in having tiny puppets that can't have any real effect on the game, regardless of who controls them.
Well gameplay isn't the only aspect. Historical flavor is what most people also want. That's why different countries have are stonger, some weaker, there are different models although that would be bad gameplaywise. The historical aspect is the reason why many people want this game. It is a sandbox game.
- 1
zivf22, Axe99, General Petrov, CaptainNato1, Jamesd as far as I understood. But that is not the topic. I haven't read all your comments but, by all respect, it sounds like you just want to disagree with everything new.
- 1
I don't disagree with everything new there have been plenty of suggestions that I like such as more detailed tech and fleshed out naval. I just don't agree with a suggestion that creates more work for a player with any additional benefit, short of it being slightly more historically accurate.
- 2
I am sure there are others too, I took issue with using most and speaking for a majority that judging by this thread doesn't exist.
- 1
- 1
I think it is fair to say that the majority of people who will play this game care about historical accuracy.
- 1
Maybe, maybe not, as we are not allowed to take polls who knows. However, if you change the premise and ask if they want historical accuracy at the expense of gameplay maybe you would get a different answer.
- 1
Assuming you allow for a good level of abstraction, you should be able to have both historical accuracy and great gameplay. That said, in the context of this thread, where the level of abstraction of puppets sits in terms of best for gameplay is clearly a question
.- 4
Aye, I would for example totally support the British empire and colonials in general getting fleshed out mechanics where the overlord can decide how much resources/manpower etc to extract from puppets, perhaps even dictate their production but at the expense of liberty desire, to borrow from EU4. In this case there are more options for the player and the choices are meaningful whilst also maintaining a degree of historical accuracy.
- 4
- 1
@Aries666
You keep saying things like "at the expense of gameplay," which is a hugely important discussion to have for this suggestion. Would it detract from gameplay? But the entire scope your claim that it detracts from gameplay is more clicking, more scrolling, and more trading....thats not detracting from gameplay. Besides the fact that these countries existed, some more clearly than others, what if the world actually had and extra 10-20 countries in 1936 that were 100% independent. Would it be a worse game? No of course not.
I would love to hear the specific pros and cons about using these puppets and countries without the complaints (not criticisms) that:
1) They don't matter: assume the people who would play with this think they do, then you can get into which are worth it which is a much more worthwhile discussion.
2) its too tedious.
3) too much trading.
Frankly those are empty criticisms and have nothing to do with gameplay.
I suppose based on this you'd also be opposed to my quite separate mod idea of having (a) more states and changing their borders because it would require "more clicking and tedium" and (b) adding more releasable nations because it would require more trade. Which then puts you in the minority because I would be willing to say a huge number of people played HOI3 with mods that added releaseable nations and they didn't share your complaints.
You keep saying things like "at the expense of gameplay," which is a hugely important discussion to have for this suggestion. Would it detract from gameplay? But the entire scope your claim that it detracts from gameplay is more clicking, more scrolling, and more trading....thats not detracting from gameplay. Besides the fact that these countries existed, some more clearly than others, what if the world actually had and extra 10-20 countries in 1936 that were 100% independent. Would it be a worse game? No of course not.
I would love to hear the specific pros and cons about using these puppets and countries without the complaints (not criticisms) that:
1) They don't matter: assume the people who would play with this think they do, then you can get into which are worth it which is a much more worthwhile discussion.
2) its too tedious.
3) too much trading.
Frankly those are empty criticisms and have nothing to do with gameplay.
I suppose based on this you'd also be opposed to my quite separate mod idea of having (a) more states and changing their borders because it would require "more clicking and tedium" and (b) adding more releasable nations because it would require more trade. Which then puts you in the minority because I would be willing to say a huge number of people played HOI3 with mods that added releaseable nations and they didn't share your complaints.
- 2
- 1
You can't ask someone to argue with you on the basis that they can't bring up points you personally don't agree with. I find those points to be perfectly valid and shouldn't have to keep coming up with more reasons to satisfy you.
I posted what I felt would be a better trade off above as that would give the player more to do but with potentially a better reward for the extra effort.
I wouldn't have any problems with altered state borders, I don't see how this would create extra work for the player only the modder who created it. As for extra releasable nations, my opinion on them would depend upon whether they could have any impact on the game etc etc in the same manner as the previously proposed puppets.
- 4
- 1
Also worth noting that some of those puppet nations are so small, they cant even support a brigade. What would be the point in them? I don't even think it's that historically accurate to represent some of them as puppets either.
- 3
- 1
I dont see the Problem being not representing all governments in the political map mode, but rather that the province of Brunei is treated the exact same way as london with british cores just so rebels wont spawn there right at the start of the game, which is really poor implementation. If britain loses in HOI 3 and colonial borders are redrawn youll get british rebels spwaning all over india and africa which doesnt make any sense at all. Just look at the WW1 mod where they had to give Britain and fance cores on colonies of german empire just so the respective new owner after the war wont get german rebels, and the same with italian core for the italo Ottoman war.
- 2
I can sympathise with this problem, but I don't think simply making everywhere puppets is the solution, or if it'll even solve it.
- 2
I dont as well. Thats why i suggested making a new protectoate Status for states, so the colonial owner wont Need its own cores there.
That sounds like it might be a good idea, but why not just remove their cores on all colonial land altogether? They don't need cores to own the land, right? I haven't played a HOI game in a while so I cant remember, but I know in Vic2 UK doesn't have cores on its colonial empire.
Last edited:
- 2