If you read my Suggestion youll see it does exactly that. The protactorate Status gives a revol risk Bonus reduction to the owner so british cores on all colonial land isnt needed anymore to avoid rebel Problems.
- 3
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.
If you read my Suggestion youll see it does exactly that. The protactorate Status gives a revol risk Bonus reduction to the owner so british cores on all colonial land isnt needed anymore to avoid rebel Problems.
Yes there should be a protectorate status for a province. In Darkest hour every country had cores and claims. But cores, claims and protectorates would be perfect.k
- 2
Oh sorry, I must of missed that. Yes I completely agree with you, nice idea.
Of course the entire empire should not be puppeted, that would be silly. Only the protectorates. Even then the question is which? Maybe Somaliland isn't worth it or appropriate, but Bahrain sure is.
@zivf22 I love the idea of a separate status beyond core and claim like colony or protectorate, but that doesn't address the main issue that certain parts of the British Empire were not directly controlled by britain and were in fact vassals or puppets. Some countries should still be puppets but this suggestion could definitely shorten the list I made in the first post. Problem is I'm not quite sure how to mod that in or if it could be done (partly because the game isn't out yet
)So then theoretically, imagine we have (a) British core territory (b) colony/protectorate British controlled territory and (c) puppets/protectorates, which countries/territories go into which? Does all overseas British territory including total colonies go into (b)? Which countries had sufficient autonomy to still warrant going into (c) despite the existence of (b)?
My first impression seems to be what is favoured is (b) and (c) get distinguished by whether they historically had an army in WW2. So countries like Oman, Burma, India, still ought to be puppets while countries like Kuwait and Somaliland ought to have this special protectorate non-core status.
Problem is in between (b) and (c) there is a middle ground: countries under the umbrella of the British Empire who had no army, due to treaty not ability, and yet were essentially sovereign like Bahrain, Maldives. Forget the nonsense about them being to small. Its a game with a map of the world, it should have the world mapped unless they are just too small like Monaco or Andorra. Period. But how do they get represented because they can't field armies which makes people not want them to be puppets, yet they are definitely not the same as British colonies like Newfoundland or Aden or Nigeria.
I like the discussion but I'm still not seeing a clear solution (yet).
- 2
Do not bothered too much. People here obviously are just toxic and openly oppose to any questioning of authority. To change game for a better it would take developers 10 minutes by editing their text files, but of course this cannot be done because of ''reasons''. Mods will do that you want and if you will desire so, I imagine you could do it from day one in digging Paradox's txt files. Their games tend to be quite easy to mod in this respect.
- 3
- 2
The problem with modding is that we can't put the protectorate status into the game. It is hardcoded.
- 2
- 1
I didn't know we knew much at all about modding for HoI4 yet? Am interested in anything you know
.
Were the maldives and Bahrain practically sovereign? Since the game focuses on warfare shoudlnt the political map mode reflect Military control rather then political finess?
- 2
It should reflect the world. They each had their own rulers, their own economies, they own trade, essentially everything about them was independent except they were in Treaties with the British Crown that said Britain would handle their defence.
Should they be included without militarizes? Yes. Thats the discussion thats been happening. 1) not doing so gives Britain more territory, resource, and control than they otherwise had which, at the very least from a strategic standpoint, overpowers Britain because it gives them easier access to resources and lets them construct defences, raise armies, and use manpower, use factories, etc. that they could not actually do in ww2. and 2) they existed, so why the heck not include them. I have never played a single game of HOI where Haiti gets involved in the war, but I would never suggest they be excluded.
You have to think of a few extra things beyond that: 3) Germany, lets say, conquers Britain by 1943. Bahrain, and others, should be puppeted or released by Germany, not released as part of Fascist Britain or annexed. 4) What about people who keep playing beyond the end date, these "minor nations" could become relevant. 5) This is a game where a player is allowed to make their own plans for the world, that should include reasonable plans like liberating British puppets (Japan did this everywhere they could), allying with former British puppets, or anything else that should have been possible and is made impossible by nations before forgotten and left out because other Anglo-focused players prefer to over-represent their favorite country.
In the end, what you decide the game should or is about should have no bearing on other people's expectations in the sense of limiting their options simply because your goals/hopes are satisfied by the current structure.
- 4
@Axe99 Actually we do. HoI4 uses the same engine as HoI3 and the devs aren't really well known for improving the modding capabillities
- 5
Well if thy actually had a Level of autonomy like other british puppets they can just be left as one province puppets with 0 IC and Manpower just so you can Annex/puppet yourself and not have it contested untill britain surrenders. Only Problem might be the AI not being able to defend puppets as good as own land.
Which to me is more of a bonus than a problem because historically Britain did a terrible job defending the territories in question.
- 1
- 1
Which to me is more of a bonus than a problem because historically Britain did a terrible job defending the territories in question.
A terrible job?
In Somaliland they were facing the Italians, which wasn't particularly difficult and won there quite easily.
In North Africa, which was where the heaviest fighting occurred for the British following the fall of France and they defended that region relatively well, especially since they pummeled the initial Italian expeditionary force and only had to retreat once Hitler sent Italy some reinforcements.
In East Asia however, they did flounder, especially since they massively underestimated the capabilities of the Japanese military to wage war and dependence on the Singapore strategy, but that has nothing to do with the British desire to protect these lands. Britain also had to concentrate most of their efforts on Europe as the enemy was on their doorstep for most of the war, so its perfectly understandable if these regions were neglected. Yet despite the onrushing Imperial Army in India and Burma, Britain committed the most men to this theatre than any other, albeit they were mostly Indian/Burmese, and defended that territory as well as the Soviets did in the face of the Wehrmacht.
Bear in mind, Britain also had the most territory than any other power, which was spread out amongst the entire world and they had to defend it all. It is an extremely difficult task to defend it all at once
So on that count, I don't think they did too bad a job?
- 5
In my humble opinion, the only thing I would change is make Egypt a puppet. The other countries Anichent mentioned were either self-governing colonies with ultimate authority resting with the British (even though Bechuanaland was called a protectorate, it was more of a colony - I believe there is a legal distinction between a protectorate and a protected state) or quite small protected states which were internally independent but basically did what the British wanted - thus they can be omitted for the purposes of the game. It's not really realistic to add hundreds of Indian princely states and tens of emirates to the game.
- 4
If the British Empire would be nerfed, wouldn't the Germans win by default every time? It seems to be rather easy to keep the realations with Sovjet Union looking at the national focus tree.
- 1
Podcat is on record as saying that HoI4 will be substantially more mod-friendly than HoI3, so at the very least we know there's a change, and it's a significant, positive one. Given that, I'd say jumping to conclusions about what we can and can't do might be a bit premature.
- 2
@Axe99 Podcat is on record as saying that HoI4 will be substantially more mod-friendly than HoI3, so at the very least we know there's a change, and it's a significant, positive one. Given that, I'd say jumping to conclusions about what we can and can't do might be a bit premature.
I hope that is true. I hate encountering hardcodes stats.
I hope that is true. I hate encountering hardcodes stats.
- 1
Well, realistic amount of support brigades there I come! I will not have to suffer silly reasons of why they must be so limited anymore!
The biggest ones that I see are the mandates from the League of Nations. France held Lebanon and Syria (both of which were notionally independent), Britain controlled Iraq, Yemen, Oman (all of which were "independent" in HoI3); Egypt, Transjordan and Palestine (both of which, like Syria and Lebanon, were notionally independent). The smaller ones (Bahrain or Qatar, for instance) are almost non-existent by the game-terms (Bahrain and Qatar are basically worthless islands or peninsulas; Bahrain is 1/3 the size of Luxembourg, and Qatar is slightly smaller than Connecticut). They were lumped in with the UAE and just cored as British in HoI3. Furthermore, not much in the way of ground combat occurred in the area. Little naval conflict happened in the area.
So, where is the need to reflect small states like this? Don't say, 'but Lux..." yeah. Big battles fought in a historically relevant area. Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Yemen, Oman: these are all important and should be reflected.
So, where is the need to reflect small states like this? Don't say, 'but Lux..." yeah. Big battles fought in a historically relevant area. Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Yemen, Oman: these are all important and should be reflected.
- 2
- 1
They managed to conquer all East Africa at the end but they lost Somaliland at the beginning because they kept a pitiful garrison instead of a real army.