Well, if you want to construct a real argument, you have to use facts and examples. A British did a terrible job in defending its Empire. This is just a statement. Tell me why it's so. Giving one example is nothing compared to possible rebute which you have to consider then making a claim. If you for example would give me plenty of colonies where British failed on its obligations then I would consider this statement to be true. For example, Singapore was a good example, but it's just one case weighted against whole world.
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.
They didn't have to defend the whole world, Axis couldn't strike anywhere. The problem is that they put as many troops on the colonial border with Axis enemies as they put in the remote regions where Axis couldn't even reach. The troops and the generals themselves performed very well but they weren't enough, in fact if you use just 4 divisions is quite difficult to have a success against 15 and of course half division for defending Somaliland can't do anything.
You forget Japan and their threat to the region. It's lucky for British that they in proper Japanese tradition, went full suicidal against Americans. Entire theater was at risk and British was helpless to contest it with full might of Japan. I'm not arguing about performance of Britain in defending their colonies. I just want to see proper argument of why they had failed.
Because it would have been daft to have done otherwise given their resources. Somaliland was of minimal value, in an isolated position - defending the territory would have been pointless.
We were told exactly the same thing about HOI3 compared to HOI2, which later turned out to be baloney.
Which to me is more of a bonus than a problem because historically Britain did a terrible job defending the territories in question.
That would be Borneo, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Burma, and Singapore lost - not a wonderful record, but considering the multitude of territories of the British Empire and Commonwealth either attacked or threatened during the war (Egypt, Malta, Sudan, Kenya, Australia, Jordan, Iraq, India etc.) not as bad as it could have been.
Last edited:
- 1
We had this thread before.... See here. "1/4 of the World is missing" (Summer of 2014, arguing about this topic for HOI4 back when development was early enough that changes might be made.)
Or if you want to go way back to 8 years ago when HOI3 was in development, we had this one. "The India Problem... Again" (This was probably the best thread we ever had on the topic. It was for HOI3. On the plus side, India is a puppet in HOI4 so one of the arguments did get implemented 8 years and a game later than was intended.)
The core concept of needing some sort of colonial mechanic that's not cores, but also not puppets is important.
Or if you want to go way back to 8 years ago when HOI3 was in development, we had this one. "The India Problem... Again" (This was probably the best thread we ever had on the topic. It was for HOI3. On the plus side, India is a puppet in HOI4 so one of the arguments did get implemented 8 years and a game later than was intended.)
The core concept of needing some sort of colonial mechanic that's not cores, but also not puppets is important.
- 2
I mean if Egypt had independence than I don't see why its still considered British territory, that will bother me forever now lol
We just have to wait 8 years then!
Btw, how do you keep record of this stuff? I mean, I understand the '15 one, but citing (and linking!) a thread eight years old... Impressive.
Well.. at the end of the day, theres two considerations: Gameplay and how independent those regions actually were.
Australia, for example, only passed the Statute of Westminster in 1942, backdating it to 1939, so that complicates things despite its federation in 1901. Whether this country (and other British territories, dominions and protectorates) should be independent, puppeted or directly controlled could be based on separate government, British lawmaking, foreign affairs, economy and defence. HOI4 will not allow for as much difference as in real life, and so each must be assigned to the most appropriate and perhaps theyve done that. And while there was no "legislative debate" in Australia as to if we were to join the war, there was potentially independence enough to reject the issue. Ingame, Australia should have its own choice of who to follow, as it had its own choice of where to send its troops.
And this can be applied to each territory under any states rule, separately and independantly should be analyzed.
Manchukuo was clearly a puppet nation under Japan but Japan had total rule over the region and its government and natural resources and so perhaps in a gameplay view, it should then be directly controlled and not puppeted, though having some separator even just for naming flavour could be nice (see EU4's "English Normandy")
Australia, for example, only passed the Statute of Westminster in 1942, backdating it to 1939, so that complicates things despite its federation in 1901. Whether this country (and other British territories, dominions and protectorates) should be independent, puppeted or directly controlled could be based on separate government, British lawmaking, foreign affairs, economy and defence. HOI4 will not allow for as much difference as in real life, and so each must be assigned to the most appropriate and perhaps theyve done that. And while there was no "legislative debate" in Australia as to if we were to join the war, there was potentially independence enough to reject the issue. Ingame, Australia should have its own choice of who to follow, as it had its own choice of where to send its troops.
And this can be applied to each territory under any states rule, separately and independantly should be analyzed.
Manchukuo was clearly a puppet nation under Japan but Japan had total rule over the region and its government and natural resources and so perhaps in a gameplay view, it should then be directly controlled and not puppeted, though having some separator even just for naming flavour could be nice (see EU4's "English Normandy")
- 2
- 1
it was that way due to limitation with the older Hearts of Iron games, where the AI had problems with that. Thats why so much technicly independant or puppet territory is under direct controll. Atleast we got the British Raj (India) as an puppet state rather than under direct controll this time around. One of the reasons why dedicated indepentant transportships are gone is to help out the AI in an big way, which had massive problems with naval invasions due to them.
can puppets build their own factories and armies? do they send you manpower and supplies?
puppets build their own factories, yes. In the case of the british commonwealth you, as the UK, can do national focuses that build factories in their countries. I dont see why they wouldnt send you lend lease or expeditionary forces for example. As for manpower i highly doubt that you get much, since from non-core states you only get 10% of your potential manpower.
Let's say you conquer an state that has an population of 1000. You have conscription laws set to volunteer army, which means only 2% of them are recruitable, which means 20 manpower. From that 20 manpower you will only get 2 because of the 90% penalty for non-core states. Same should apply to puppets, since otherwise you could game the system and snowball your way up to an insanely big army.