Colonial Forces

[Alexander Seil]

I wonder, how is game going to handle colonial forces? Assuming we go by EU2 system, then Indian provinces of British Empire would be the same as UK ones (well, they will be different, but would be handled by the engine the same), so they would produce troops of exactly same quality as the UK ones. Extending that to other colonies, that would mean that some uneducated, poor, opressed, half-starved Nigerian recruit would be able to fight as well as a professional soldier who was trained in Britain. Or will equipment difference take care of that (I know that Indian forces had very poor armor, so using them outside Burma would be big waste of forces), so that although Indians might be good against Japanese, they wouldn't be so good when thrown against Afrikakorps. On the other hand, I would guess Canadians had equipment no worse than Brits themselves, yet Canadians were some of the toughest troops in the war.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Alexander Seil
I wonder, how is game going to handle colonial forces? Assuming we go by EU2 system, then Indian provinces of British Empire would be the same as UK ones (well, they will be different, but would be handled by the engine the same), so they would produce troops of exactly same quality as the UK ones. Extending that to other colonies, that would mean that some uneducated, poor, opressed, half-starved Nigerian recruit would be able to fight as well as a professional soldier who was trained in Britain.

Wow, you're being pretty tough on the Nigerians. West African soldiers fought successfully against the Japanese. Also, what's to say that the Commonwealth player can't train professional African soldiers? The only meaningful variables between the quality of British troops and other Commonwealth forces were Motivation, Training, and equipment. The KAR and other African troops significantly lagged behind in pretty much all of these categories. If you're given control of the armed forces why can't you raise a professional, well equipped colonial force? It happened in India.

Or will equipment difference take care of that (I know that Indian forces had very poor armor, so using them outside Burma would be big waste of forces), so that although Indians might be good against Japanese, they wouldn't be so good when thrown against Afrikakorps

You are aware that Indian forces had a not unimpressive record against the Afrika Corps? They were fairly well equpped, though as you point out, lacking in armor. You should certainly be able to correct this if you are in charge.


In reality, the British Empire could have trained, equipped, and motivated its colonial troops far better than it did historically. (As well as raised far more of them) A variety of factors figured into this. Some were valid, political/economic considerations but others were much more suspect. There was a (somewhat justified) fear of arming peoples on a large scale who weren't altogether happy with British rule, and even some racial prejudice was used in determining which forces to raise and equip.

To make a long story short, the quality of the colonial forces were dependent on a host of factors, most of which were determined by the British authorities. Your 'Uneducated, oppressed Nigerian' could most likely have made a fine soldier, if given half a chance. Certainly, the time frame of the game should allow you to do so.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Yes, that's true, but I am talking about the game "out of the box". In 1936 I am sure training of troops in Britain WAY surpassed any territorial troops they had in Africa (not South Africa tho). As of January 1, 1936, any troops that existed in Nigeria would be way worse in training than Canadian or British forces. Mind you, those colonials were also led by white officers, and I doubt those officers cared much about their black troops.
I don't see how you could change the situation until after the war began. There would be too much opposition because of racial prejudice, and assumption that British Army alone would be enough for any incoming conflict.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

This would also open up the wider question of troop quality, we know that you'll be able to recruit 'Elite' units so will you be able to recruit poor/weaker units also? This would include some colonial troops as well as units the Home Guard and the Volksg(sp) and some of the French second line divisions.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Alexander Seil
Yes, that's true, but I am talking about the game "out of the box". In 1936 I am sure training of troops in Britain WAY surpassed any territorial troops they had in Africa (not South Africa tho). As of January 1, 1936, any troops that existed in Nigeria would be way worse in training than Canadian or British forces. Mind you, those colonials were also led by white officers, and I doubt those officers cared much about their black troops.
I don't see how you could change the situation until after the war began. There would be too much opposition because of racial prejudice, and assumption that British Army alone would be enough for any incoming conflict.

Fair enough. I assume starting formations will begin with their historical equipment. I.E., the British field army will have its' motorised (Was the British Army motorised by 1936?) divisions, while the KAR are entirely foot rifles. Their experience, morale, and equipment will be at historical levels.

However, now I'm very interested to know if the game will model the more distasteful aspects of colonial administration. While I as the British player just might want to start equipping my Kenyan troops with Matilda IIs and Spitfires for future action against an Italian player (who is free to upgrade his metropolitan forces in Abyssinia), you're quite right that the historical military/political establishment would have been dead against it. (For a variety of more and less valid reasons) Will you face opposition from your cabinet for 'arming the natives'? Or will the game allow you a free hand? This is more important than one would at first think. Is there a possibility for disloyal forces to mutiny? (Similar questions have been raised in threads discussing formations raised from occupied or unwilling allied territories.)

Another point, It's been said that manpower will be limited in the scope of the game. Historically the Allies had many manpower options available that went untapped. Will the game consider populations that were never considered part of the possible manpower pool? (I.E. African population of South Africa, etc.) Will the social consequences of tapping these pools be addressed? The historical administrations had reasons they thought were pretty good for not putting a rifle into the hand of everyone who culd carry it, but I as the player tend to think I should be free to raise a Zulu corps if I so choose. (and equip with Firefly/Comet/Cromwell tanks!)

 

[unmerged(5987)]

Originally posted by Alexander Seil
would produce troops of exactly same quality as the UK ones. Extending that to other colonies, that would mean that some uneducated, poor, opressed, half-starved Nigerian recruit would be able to fight as well as a professional soldier who was trained in Britain.

I actualy think that Nigerian quality should be the same as UK quality troops as long as they have the same equiptment, as I imagine that Nigerian troops would not stop for tea when pursuing the enemy immediately after a breakthrough.

Just kidding, BTW, even if the bit about the British troops stopping for tea when in the middle of a breakthrough is true.


Seriously though, I think you have to have the same quality of troops if you give them the same equiptment/training/etc, because the only way you can justify any other system is through the use of 'racialistic' arguments.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Maybe I should've chosen some poor equipped white troops from, say, South Africa. Apparently Nigerians don't make the point. Why, yes, I agree, if you give them the same training they should be the same. EXCEPT THAT, in 1936 there was no equal training for Brits and Nigerians/insertsomeonewithlameequipmenthere. And if any leader would attempt to mobilize half of the black continent's population, you would get LOTS of resignals from your ministers, because of racial prejudices, concerns about not enough money being spent on the actual British Army, and issue of giving arms to colonials who can defect at an moment.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by Alexander Seil
And if any leader would attempt to mobilize half of the black continent's population, you would get LOTS of resignals from your ministers, because of racial prejudices, concerns about not enough money being spent on the actual British Army, and issue of giving arms to colonials who can defect at an moment.

Plus you've got to get them from point A to B and instils them with the willingness to fight and die. I would have thought that the Africans would have seen the fighting as a European war and nothing to do with them.

I know from personal experience via my Great Grandfather and living in Swaziland (Southern Africa) that a lot of the people he commanded as a construction Engineer in WWII were African. I don't know if this was a political decision to use these men this way or not but it did happen.

 

[unmerged(10761)]

..good issue..

..I agree with stipulating the above problems..
I wonder how HOI will address to this.

By the way: The gurkhas (Nepal) and Moroccans (Monte Cassino) are just two fine examples that with some training they make excellent soldiers.

Moreover, they didnot have a clue about Nazi ideology, or why the opponents were politically incorrect...
So no 'ideology' morale boost for them, yet they fought like hell !!

 

[Pwyll]

Canada at the time was a nation unto itself. It would have provided for the troops it created as best as it could have without British Influence...just as today......the Airforce is mostly American made....the Submarine flotilla is mostly British made. Now countries administered by Britain during the war would have had the troops raised and supplied by the British Army...really though would you ever need to have Matilda II tanks running around Nigera...no...little use for them in India as well...that type of warfare generally was not expected there. Besides if your BEF is taking a pounding in France that Armour Division you deployed to India is looking like a very silly move now. The Gurkhas are though people period. They are almost equivalent to the Mameluks of this period...a tough peoples with a warrior mentatlity in a somewhat economically depressed, environmentally challenging area where their toughness and work ethic will pay out nice rewards...mercenaries if you will.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Alexander Seil
Maybe I should've chosen some poor equipped white troops from, say, South Africa. Apparently Nigerians don't make the point. Why, yes, I agree, if you give them the same training they should be the same. EXCEPT THAT, in 1936 there was no equal training for Brits and Nigerians/insertsomeonewithlameequipmenthere. And if any leader would attempt to mobilize half of the black continent's population, you would get LOTS of resignals from your ministers, because of racial prejudices, concerns about not enough money being spent on the actual British Army, and issue of giving arms to colonials who can defect at an moment.

I'm still not quite sure what you're arguing. Your original post talked about 'producing' troops, (rather than the standing correlation of forces in 1936) seemingly in an ongoing manner. You used the characteristics of the poulations to indicate that you thought the soldiers of these lands would be inferior to their European counterparts. Your comment about Canadians seems to confirm the continuous nature of your statement, as in 1936 the Canadian army probably wasn't any more well equipped than the KAR. (And even worse motivated!)


Then you say that you're talking about 'Out of the Box' in 1936. Haven't we answered that question? Won't starting forces have their historical equipment and quality? It would make just as much sense to wonder whether or not a Danish division in 1936 will be as good quality as a German.

As I've already agreed with you that (Historically) arming the colonial forces with modern equipment at the expense of the regular British forces would have been impossible, but how will the game model this? Once we head down this slope we'll get into a bunch of politically incorrect hurdles. Will the US be prevented from raising African American divisions due to racial prejudice? (Historically, only three combat divisions were formed, and only one saw extensive combat. Its record is far from exemplary as its training, equipment, and (white) command officers were all sub par. ) However French African troops were quite good. Mostly well trained, and on the whole well equipped (as Infantry) Will France get some sort of Colonial soldier bonus for having a more liberal ideology?

As has been shown, Paradox is going to avoid the more unpleasant aspects of the war. I'd tend to think that they won't bother with modeling the racial attitudes of the time. For good or ill, I expect that the game will allow you to raise and equip all your forces as you see fit and logistics allow. The only way I can see them handling the Colonial aspects is to restrict the available manpower to be recruited from Colonies that are 'suspect'. It'd be nice if we could have some clarification on this from Paradox.

 

[Ming]

really though would you ever need to have Matilda II tanks running around Nigera...no...little use for them in India as well...that type of warfare generally was not expected there. Besides if your BEF is taking a pounding in France that Armour Division you deployed to India is looking like a very silly move now. [/B]

In the historical time line you're quite right. However, what if the Italian player has upgraded his armored forces in Abyssinia and looking to invade Kenya or Sudan? Arming colonials to fight the Italians would be a smart way to defend the theater without committing too much of your oh so precious BEF.

 

[unmerged(7078)]

Rhodesian (modern day zimbabwe) troops fought well for the british and rhodesian air squadrans fought in d-day

 

[Pwyll]

Originally posted by Ming


In the historical time line you're quite right. However, what if the Italian player has upgraded his armored forces in Abyssinia and looking to invade Kenya or Sudan? Arming colonials to fight the Italians would be a smart way to defend the theater without committing too much of your oh so precious BEF.

Im not saying one would not arm them...just that first line equipment is generally never going to be sent to places with less value or in little threat. Again the Italians could do this but what would be the call for having medium to heavy tanks here if not only to fight another European power. Were Italy to do this they would have suffered exactly the same fate as they did with the Germans in Egypt...running out of fuel...can you Imagine trying to supply forces in Abyssinia...If you want a greater part of your army fighting in some questionably valuable area far from home...please do so...it will be easier for me when I land in Sicily.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Pwyll


Im not saying one would not arm them...just that first line equipment is generally never going to be sent to places with less value or in little threat. Again the Italians could do this but what would be the call for having medium to heavy tanks here if not only to fight another European power. Were Italy to do this they would have suffered exactly the same fate as they did with the Germans in Egypt...running out of fuel...can you Imagine trying to supply forces in Abyssinia...If you want a greater part of your army fighting in some questionably valuable area far from home...please do so...it will be easier for me when I land in Sicily.

Mussolini is generally not known for his strategic logic, but what if The Axis powers include Spain and the Mediterannean is closed to the Allies? What if the Axis have overrun Egypt, the Canal and the Middle East and have all the Oil they want? What if Britain is occupied and the government fights on from the Colonies?

All I'm saying is that if the Allied player wants to raise a strong force of Colonials he should not be stopped by the game engine. Whether it's appropriate or not is decided by the player, not the designer.

 

[unmerged(8622)]

too many folks are going into tangents that dont matter.
Nuff said.

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Re: ..good issue..

Originally posted by snailtrailer
By the way: the [Gurkas and the] Moroccans (Monte Cassino) are just two fine examples that with some training they make excellent soldiers.
Moreover, they didnot have a clue about Nazi ideology, or why the opponents were politically incorrect...
So no 'ideology' morale boost for them, yet they fought like hell !!

Certainly the Moroccans hadn't an ideological background, but more certainly they had the most vile reason to fight in Monte Cassino. This is the proclaim made by Gen. Alphonse Juin to the goumiers (Moroccan troops) of the IInd and IVth divsions fighting near Cassino on 14th May 1944: "Soldiers! This time I don't offer you only the freedom of your lands if you win this battle. Behind the enemy there are women, houses, there is a wine that is among the best in the world, there is gold. All will be yours if you'll win. You will have to kill the Germans till the last man and break through at all costs. I keep what I've told and promised you. You'll be absolut masters of what you'll find beyond the enemy for 50 hours. Nobody will punish you for what you'll do, nobody will ask you for and explaination."
And in fact they raped 3,500 women and killed or raped (!) 800 men (among them also don Alberto Terrilli, parish priest of Santa Maria di Eperia, who died because of the tortures and carnal violences), and they stole almost everithing in the region of Ciociaria (the area south of Rome and north of Cassino).

 

[unmerged(9362)]

Italian colonial troops

I've seen that many ask why Italy didn't use more Ethiopian soldiers in East Africa. The reason was not only the complete lack of supplies, but expecially the unreliability of Ethiopians. They had been conquered only 4 years before the Italian DoW on France and UK, and many of them didn't like Italians and Eritreans. Only some Ethipian irregular forces under the command of local "ras" (feudal master) that were personal enemies of Ailè Selassiè fought well. The behaviour of Italian colonial troops depended a lot on their land of origin. Somalians, even if under Italian control since the 1890's, were not good soldiers: often hundreds of them deserted during the night. Eritreans were instead very good: they understood that it was Italy that saved them from their hated neighbours: the Ethiopians. The Libyans sometimes fought well, but not always.

 

[unmerged(4260)]

Did Britain have ANZACs in WWII or did the Australians & New Zealanders fight independently? In WWI th ANZACs were some of the best troops the British had.

 

[unmerged(7078)]

no. ANZAC troops were implemented into the British 8th army in North Africa although they fought with the u.s and the british against the japanese (aussies were involved in singapore)