Britain and the Commonwealth

[ImperialCoffee]

Historically Britain made use of Commonwealth forces in multiple theatres and I'm guessing this can be reflected in game via the Expeditionary Forces feature. But will the availability of these forces be determined by the relation between the UK and the country in question or can these forces be demanded by the UK? Personally I think the latter makes more sense, since it should be much easier for Britain to call upon for example Australian forces, than Britain to call upon American forces.
Either way I look forward to making use of forces from across the British Empire in single operations.

 

[Brucesim2003]

The bunfight Churchill had with the Australian gov't in 1942 shows that the UK couldn't 'demand' any troops etc from the dominions. Prime Minister Curtin recalled the 6th and 7th divisions back to Australia against Churchill's wish for them to be sent to Rangoon. In the end Churchill had no choice but to acquiesce.

 

[Aries666]

I would like to see some sort of HRE mechanic for the commonwealth in the future. It would keep track of things like opinion, trade relations, defence of the empire. Then depending on how well Britain manages things its is able to get more/less assistance from commonwealth nations in the form of troops, manpower and resources etc. Play it really badly and there should be the possibility of open revolts and independence movements.

 

[Brucesim2003]

The problem with that idea is that the dominions were already independent in all but name. Unlike WW1, a British DOW did not obligate any of the dominions to do the same. It was likely, but not guaranteed. In 1940 Canada made it known that in the event of the UK falling, the royal family were welcome, but the British government was not. Hence the plant for the government to go to (iirc) Bermuda or some similar place. By 1940 (or even earlier) the empire (as a classic monolithic structure) was already gone. It just took a while for people to realise it.

 

[Klausewitz]

The problem with that idea is that the dominions were already independent in all but name. Unlike WW1, a British DOW did not obligate any of the dominions to do the same. It was likely, but not guaranteed. In 1940 Canada made it known that in the event of the UK falling, the royal family were welcome, but the British government was not. Hence the plant for the government to go to (iirc) Bermuda or some similar place. By 1940 (or even earlier) the empire (as a classic monolithic structure) was already gone. It just took a while for people to realise it.

This is important.
The whole story arc in the Lord of the Rings about the Horselords of Rohan deciding to come to the aid of Gondor was that in novel form.
The commonwealth state chose to aid Britain (and i think correctly so since it served there interests quite nicely) but they also could have either outright refused or dragged their feet.
The less ...enthusiastic support for Britain by South Africa is an example of this... which reminds me:
It would be nice if there is something like 40%-59%-1% chance for neutrality - supporting the commonwealth - realligning towards the Axis.

 

[Aries666]

The problem with that idea is that the dominions were already independent in all but name. Unlike WW1, a British DOW did not obligate any of the dominions to do the same. It was likely, but not guaranteed. In 1940 Canada made it known that in the event of the UK falling, the royal family were welcome, but the British government was not. Hence the plant for the government to go to (iirc) Bermuda or some similar place. By 1940 (or even earlier) the empire (as a classic monolithic structure) was already gone. It just took a while for people to realise it.

This is important.
The whole story arc in the Lord of the Rings about the Horselords of Rohan deciding to come to the aid of Gondor was that in novel form.
The commonwealth state chose to aid Britain (and i think correctly so since it served there interests quite nicely) but they also could have either outright refused or dragged their feet.
The less ...enthusiastic support for Britain by South Africa is an example of this... which reminds me:
It would be nice if there is something like 40%-59%-1% chance for neutrality - supporting the commonwealth - realligning towards the Axis.

This is fair enough but doesn't necessarily mean you can't have a commonwealth mechanic just likely requires it to be a little more intricate/delicate. I just feel that something like that could bring a certain uniqueness and depth to managing and overseeing the death of an empire.

 

[Klausewitz]

This is fair enough but doesn't necessarily mean you can't have a commonwealth mechanic just likely requires it to be a little more intricate/delicate. I just feel that something like that could bring a certain uniqueness and depth to managing and overseeing the death of an empire.

My main problem would be that the Empire actually already is dead in 1939.
The white colonies are already independet nations in all but name and all other colonies, especially India, show increasing signs of striving for independence.
Nationalist sentiment was on the rise everywhere and the Great Depression and the 20s before it had exacerbated the situation.
What would be interesting to me though would be a system that would allow the colonies to be independet political entities over which control can be used even sooner than historically if France or England fuck up particularly bad.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Can't wait for the Imperial Federation focus tree mod.

 

[Dessertspoon]

This is important.
The whole story arc in the Lord of the Rings about the Horselords of Rohan deciding to come to the aid of Gondor was that in novel form.
The commonwealth state chose to aid Britain (and i think correctly so since it served there interests quite nicely) but they also could have either outright refused or dragged their feet.
The less ...enthusiastic support for Britain by South Africa is an example of this... which reminds me:
It would be nice if there is something like 40%-59%-1% chance for neutrality - supporting the commonwealth - realligning towards the Axis.

Politically and diplomatically that is partly true. I say partly because the fact is that when Britain declared war in 1939, Australia and New Zealand had not ratified the Treaty of Westminster, and they were automatically at war with Germany from 3 September 1939. Even if that wasn't the case, there was never any real question about what would happen

But I think what the OP is getting at here and others have mentioned is that this political stuff isn't the point. The point is that, with Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa all choosing to join (as they did in real life), the question becomes one about how their forces are utilized? The RAN, RAA, and RAAF rarely operated without being part of a larger British or American command, because they simply weren't big enough to sustain themselves in face of the Germans or the Japanese. Same for the Canucks, same for the Kiwis. This should IMO be reflected by the AI most of the time

 

[Scutatus]

From what I can gather from the WWW's the empire is essentially "British" - just like in former HOI games, while the Commonwealth (Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Butan and a few others) are treated simply as "allies" of the UK. They might volunteer Expeditionary forces, but the UK can neither demand what they will be nor when - or if - they will be given. I could have that interpretation wrong, but it's how it looks to me so far.

 

[Axe99]

It is definitely the case that HoI1-3 (other than when you went the direct control route in HoI2) that the Dominions weren't near as involved as they should have been, particularly in historical-alike playthrough. Hopefully we'll be able to tweak (or maybe trigger by events? But I'd prefer an in-game mechanic to events that may or may not suite a particular situation) how much nations are likely to send volunteers* or expeditionary forces depending on various factors. We'll see soon enough.

I agree with Klausewitz that for South Africa, there should be a chance for neutrality and a tiny chance of siding with the Axis as well. Obviously in any situation resembling actual history Canada, Australia and New Zealand weren't going to do anything other than follow the UK into a defensive-style war, but the situation should be more complicated (to put it mildly!) if the UK had a fascist or communist revolution, or started an offensive war.

Hopefully, at some point, we'll get DLC fleshing it out, as (as per Aries666 post) some kind of specific mechanic for the Commonwealth is appropriate (as, while there were arguments over who was deployed where, at the end of the day there was an integrated Imperial chain of command).

* As, say Canada and Australia didn't join a war the UK was in, the chance of them not sending volunteers (unless the war was the UK DOWing Canada and Australia ) would be ridiculously small.

 

[Nicolas I]

The bunfight Churchill had with the Australian gov't in 1942 shows that the UK couldn't 'demand' any troops etc from the dominions...

On 10 September 1939, Canada declared war on Germany, the country's first independent declaration of war. Canada did not declare war immediately, partly to show that Canada was joining out of his own initiative and was not obligated to go to war.

Though UK couldn't 'demand' any troops, 1,6 million Canadian citizens served in uniform (out of a prewar population of 11 million). Sadly 44 000 lost their lives and 54,000 were wounded.

 

[Scutatus]

On 10 September 1939, Canada declared war on Germany, the country's first independent declaration of war. Canada did not declare war immediately, partly to show that Canada was joining out of his own initiative and was not obligated to go to war.

Though UK couldn't 'demand' any troops, 1,6 million Canadian citizens served in uniform (out of a prewar population of 11 million). Sadly 44 000 lost their lives and 54,000 were wounded.

Canada indeed contributed so very very much - so much that in France in 1944 there was actually a Canadian army (Ok, as I understand it, it was really two Corps of Canadians and two Corps of other countries, but still, it's impressive.) D-Day and the advance on Caen would have been very different without them. I am sure many Brits at the time appreciated and respected the Canadian efforts, as I still do now.

However, the point some are trying to make is something along the lines of this: the UK got lucky with Canada's good will and eagerness to contribute so much. Canada could have just as easily contributed little - or nothing - and there really wasn't much the UK could have done about it.

 

[Nicolas I]

Canada indeed contributed so very very much - so much that in France in 1944 there was actually a Canadian army formed (Ok, as I understand it, it was really two Corps of Canadians and two Corps of other countries, but still, it's impressive.) D-Day and the advance on Caen would have been very different without them.

I would like to seize the occasion to dispel a myth about the conscription crisis in Canada, mostly in Québec (French Canada). Some WASP historians like to tell Quebeckers where cowards. In fact there was many volunteers from Québec early in the war, some to help France, some for King and country, some for adventure, some because Québec was poor and the pay was somewhat good (at least you had housing. food and clothing). The debate was about forced conscription, as PM Mackenzie King had promised in 1939 not to introduce overseas conscription. After conscription was enforced, some Quebeckers fled in the woods to hide, so also did many Anglo-Canadians.

However, the point some are trying to make is something along the lines of this: the UK got lucky with Canada's good will and eagerness to contribute so much. Canada could have just as easily contributed little - or nothing - and there really wasn't much the UK could have done about it.

They could have disowned us of the british monarchy and we would be a republic...

 

[Scutatus]

I would like to seize the occasion to dispel a myth about the conscription crisis in Canada, mostly in Québec (French Canada). Some WASP historians like to tell Quebeckers where cowards. In fact there was many volunteers from Québec early in the war, some to help France, some for King and country, some for adventure, some because Québec was poor and the pay was somewhat good (at least you had housing. food and clothing). The debate was about forced conscription, as PM Mackenzie King had promised in 1939 not to introduce overseas conscription. After conscription was enforced, some Quebeckers fled in the woods to hide, so also did many Anglo-Canadians.

There will always be those that try to avoid being conscripted. I doubt there was any country where conscription occurred that such attempts did not happen. And if it was a little worse in Quebec, well, from what you say that seems perfectly understandable; broken promises - being lied to and betrayed - are hard pills to swallow, especially when it might mean your death. Regardless of the numbers that tried to avoid their call up, as I understand it, there were many French Canadians in the 1st Canadian Army (especially in the 5th and 6th Brigades, 2nd Division) - and I don't recall reading any accounts of them compromising operations or holding back. On the contrary, the 2nd Division was repeatedly in the hardest of the fighting, almost continually in action, with little rest, achieved many successes - and suffered very high losses for their efforts. They were gritty hard soldiers that got the job done, no matter how appalling the attrition. Nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the contrary.

 

[Scutatus]

They could have disowned us of the british monarchy and we would be a republic...

While that might appeal to many Canadians, then and now, that wouldn't have actually solved the problem would it? Such measures would surely have only made the (theoretical) lack of support worse. So it's not really a "solution" nor an effective constructive "response".

However, luckily for the UK, and the Allied war effort in general, Canada stepped up.

 

[Aries666]

I would like to seize the occasion to dispel a myth about the conscription crisis in Canada, mostly in Québec (French Canada). Some WASP historians like to tell Quebeckers where cowards. In fact there was many volunteers from Québec early in the war, some to help France, some for King and country, some for adventure, some because Québec was poor and the pay was somewhat good (at least you had housing. food and clothing). The debate was about forced conscription, as PM Mackenzie King had promised in 1939 not to introduce overseas conscription. After conscription was enforced, some Quebeckers fled in the woods to hide, so also did many Anglo-Canadians.



They could have disowned us of the british monarchy and we would be a republic...

I don't believe anyone was disputing the contribution of Canada or any other commonwealth nation.

 

[Nicolas I]

There will always be those that try to avoid being conscripted. I doubt there was any country where conscription occurred that such attempts did not happen. And if it was a little worse in Quebec, well, from what you say that seems perfectly understandable; broken promises - being lied to and betrayed - are hard pills to swallow, especially when it might mean your death. Regardless of the numbers that tried to avoid their call up, as I understand it, there were many French Canadians in the 1st Canadian Army (especially in the 5th and 6th Brigades, 2nd Division) - and I don't recall reading any accounts of them compromising operations or holding back. On the contrary, the 2nd Division was repeatedly in the hardest of the fighting, almost continually in action, with little rest, achieved many successes - and suffered very high losses for their efforts. They were gritty hard soldiers that got the job done, no matter how appalling the attrition. Nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the contrary.

Not to forget the Dieppe Raid involving 5 000 Canadians (and 1000 British + 50 US Rangers). Though a fiasco, it would influence preparation for Torch and D-Day.

 

[Anichent]

Not just common wealth forces, the Nepalese also sent troops to fight for the British in Europe.

My guess is the game mechanic of sending troops will handle this.
If you notice in the first WWW videos Germany's allies were incredibly eager to give Germany troops to use (perhaps too eager). I imagine this will be even more the case with puppets.

The common wealth countries that were effectively puppets (in the sense that the UK going to war automatically caused them to be at war) for the purposes of this game will hopefully be eager to give Britain the command of their troops: British Raj, Australia, New Zealand etc.
Hopefully the AI is smart enough to lend their allies troops where the main fronts are, and I suspect based on the WWW videos it is. ie. Canada, South Africa, and Nepal will hopefully send at least some troops to fight in Europe and will give their allies command of those troops where appropriate, but in these cases it is much less necessary because historically they actually retained a lot of their military independence through the war.

 

[Nicolas I]

I don't believe anyone was disputing the contribution of Canada or any other commonwealth nation.

My point was that some dispute the contribution and courage of French Canadians. That's sensible for me as 3 of my great uncles served in WW2.

They fought in differents units but were reunited when liberating Netherlands. I lived in Ottawa a few years and each spring Netherlands is sending thousands of tulips in appreciation for Canada's sacrifice and for providing safe harbour to the Dutch royal family. That was dear to my heart that they still recognize today what was done in WW2.