Just a suggestion - I noticed from the maps that Egypt is simply part of the UK. It really should be a puppet state under King Farouk. Are they annexed to UK for gameplay reasons? If not, why not just have them separate?
Egypt as Puppet
- Thread starter 7ED
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
No doubt you will be able to release puppet as in all previous versions then you can have an independent India and Egypt if you wish.
I guess it will have been for supply reasons more than likely as Egypt would have had to supply the units fighting on their land.
I guess it will have been for supply reasons more than likely as Egypt would have had to supply the units fighting on their land.
There is also the hard-to-simulate aspect of Egypt's role in WW2. Egypt was an axis-sympathising neutral state that also happened to be the UK's main military base in the region, its armed forces never became involve in combat, but had they done so it would probably have been against the British in support of an axis invasion.
Plus quite a few of their military officers were chaffing under British puppeteering and very much in favour of attempting a coup.
Nasser was already around at that time as were a lot of the free officers who would later topple Farouk.
I think the fact that Egypt was a hotbed of Axis sympathy (and in general the less than dim view that the Arabs had of Germany) and potential resistance against the British should be modelled.
And a puppet status is much better for that then a British province with higher revolt risk.
I hated this in HOI, and I think i's the worst idea ever. If I send an army in allied territory they usually don't have enough supply or oil to keep them running for me, but I can't setup an supply line for my unit, nor can I sell supplies for nothing to my ally. If we take the Afgan war, there are huge convoys run by NATO to supply NATO troops, I don't think that the Afgan government has to supply anything. This is the single most frustrating thing about HOI III I have encountered. I truly hope they won't do this again in HOI IV, or it would negate all the great things about it...
It could easily be solved by adding the option to 'gift' resources, including supplies, which the AI will always accept if you have troops in their territory.
There are a number of areas that are poorly simulated through direct control - India, Pakistan (UK), Syria, Lebanon, Indochina (FR), just to name five. I'm not entirely sure about the Dutch East Indies, although I would guess that they would also be better simulated through a puppet.
In HoI3, UK presence in Asia is almost entirely made up of their navy, making them a paper tiger that even the Chinese can push over, simply because they can't use the massive resources they historically had in India and other areas. A puppet India would recruit local troops, build local arms and supply local resources, and could then resist Japanese incursions into Burma. In vanilla HoI3, you can conquer India with ease, the only problem to arise would be to keep it afterwards.
Puppets would also make it easier to swap them back and forth - Indochina, Dutch East Indies, Burma, Egypt, Iraq, all either swapped side during the war, tried to do so, prepared to do so, or something in between. A lot of countries became independent shortly after, and puppets could do that.
I don't think all of Africa should be their historical states, but it could be made the larger regions (So France would maybe have Algiers, Morocco, Nigeria and Sahara, 4 African colonies that incase of independence can be split into the various required nations, where Tunis, Mali, Gambia, Ghana ....... would be created out of the 4 original. UK could have similar 3-5 African regions, Portugal 2, Spain and Belgium 1), that would still recruit their own troops and although they can share some technological developments, they'd not immediately gain tech as UK does. This, incase the timeline goes into the 50'ies, would also make sure that there could be actual, sensible independence movements in Africa and Asia.
All in all, it would simulate the historical developments better, it would simulate the actual level of control better, and it would make the game more balanced. It would also enable the player to delegate if so desired, so a UK player doesn't have to micromanage SE Asia. Lastly, it would open up for an exciting time of de-colonisation in the period after HoI3 ends.
What's not to like?
In HoI3, UK presence in Asia is almost entirely made up of their navy, making them a paper tiger that even the Chinese can push over, simply because they can't use the massive resources they historically had in India and other areas. A puppet India would recruit local troops, build local arms and supply local resources, and could then resist Japanese incursions into Burma. In vanilla HoI3, you can conquer India with ease, the only problem to arise would be to keep it afterwards.
Puppets would also make it easier to swap them back and forth - Indochina, Dutch East Indies, Burma, Egypt, Iraq, all either swapped side during the war, tried to do so, prepared to do so, or something in between. A lot of countries became independent shortly after, and puppets could do that.
I don't think all of Africa should be their historical states, but it could be made the larger regions (So France would maybe have Algiers, Morocco, Nigeria and Sahara, 4 African colonies that incase of independence can be split into the various required nations, where Tunis, Mali, Gambia, Ghana ....... would be created out of the 4 original. UK could have similar 3-5 African regions, Portugal 2, Spain and Belgium 1), that would still recruit their own troops and although they can share some technological developments, they'd not immediately gain tech as UK does. This, incase the timeline goes into the 50'ies, would also make sure that there could be actual, sensible independence movements in Africa and Asia.
All in all, it would simulate the historical developments better, it would simulate the actual level of control better, and it would make the game more balanced. It would also enable the player to delegate if so desired, so a UK player doesn't have to micromanage SE Asia. Lastly, it would open up for an exciting time of de-colonisation in the period after HoI3 ends.
What's not to like?
I was just playing a game as US. I took Vichy North Africa then Libya. Then I invade Egypt as the Italians had taken Alexandria and were advancing on Suez. Supply was no problem until I crossed into Egypt. The territory immediately reverted to ENG, and ENG having no way to get supplies to that territory left that area totally without supplies. Tobruk was overflowing with American bountiful supplies, but no one could figure out how to get any of it across the Egyptian border.
Egypt's a funny one - while under the thumb of the British, they didn't actually declare war on Germany until 1945, despite technically being invaded by them! It doesn't really fit into the mechanics of a puppet in a HoI3 sense, or as occupation - as the British didn't have the kind of economic control that occupation would entail, or the political control of a puppet in HoI terms (although they had more control than a non-puppet, by some margin), as the British weren't confident enough in the loyalty of the Egyptian troops to involve them in combat - a 'traditional' HoI puppet mechanic for Egypt would give the Allies another division or two to fight with in the Western Desert, which wouldn't be particularly historical.
I'm not sure the best way to get around this, but what about a two-tier puppet system (maybe 'puppet', 'sphere', 'independent'), so Egypt would be in the UK sphere, allowing the UK to station troops and have a strong influence, but not committing them to engage in combat along with the UK? I don't think the colonies should be treated like this, as Egypt's situation was substantially different from a traditional colony.
As for Egypt joining the Axis, it's highly unlikely this would happen with significant Commonwealth forces in Egypt, even if the Germans had the upper hand - Germany and Italy pushed the Allies in disarray nearly all the way to Alexandria, and even that didn't get the Egyptians to come out in support of the Axis. Given this, it's unlikely they would switch to the Axis until after the Germans had captured Alexandria/Cairo and the Suez Canal, at which point they could put their own puppet in anyway. That said, as was the case historically, it's unlikely they would offer a great deal of resistance to the Germans and Italians either, and it's very much plausible that if the Axis had taken Alexandria/Cairo and the Suez, that the Egyptians could have taken up arms against the Allies.
I'm not that much of a political history buff but yeah, Egypt was a funny one.
I actually think that, in HoI terms, Egypt would be better represented as Occupied with Collaboration Government.
Many of the other parts of the British Empire (& others) would, IMHO, be better represented as puppets. The ability for India to raise troops (infantry with crappy equipment) that could then be re-equipped with Brit' equipment under HoI IV Equipment Pool rules when they get sent to support the empire in Africa, for example, reflects the historic events much more accurately.
In case of revolt/independence/invasion by Japan, these countries would then continue any unit production at their own tech levels.
I actually think that, in HoI terms, Egypt would be better represented as Occupied with Collaboration Government.
Many of the other parts of the British Empire (& others) would, IMHO, be better represented as puppets. The ability for India to raise troops (infantry with crappy equipment) that could then be re-equipped with Brit' equipment under HoI IV Equipment Pool rules when they get sent to support the empire in Africa, for example, reflects the historic events much more accurately.
In case of revolt/independence/invasion by Japan, these countries would then continue any unit production at their own tech levels.
Farouk himself was pro-Axis, it was the British who imposed a (nationalist, but also pro-British) Wafd-party government in 1942 out of distrust of Farouk. The result was a back-lash from anti-British nationalists against both the king and the Wafd, with the 1952 coup being the final genesis of this.
Aye. In terms of the colonies (and Egypt, whose army received a lot of British training), would there be some way for them to get a doctrinal research 'leg-up' from their masters (and would this be appropriate)? Will depend a bit on how easy it is for a minor to keep its doctrine up-to-speed, but if it's anything like HoI3, making the colonies puppets would be a bit rough on a lot of (but not all which makes it even more complicated) the colonial troops.
One thing: if colonies are going to be simulated as anything other than national territory, then there ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE manual control of their armed forces. No ifs. No buts. And no more of this nonsense about not being able to control puppet troops because it's OP. The HOI2 system of total control always made way more sense in this regard.
Oh aye - it would be completely ridiculous if the UK didn't have control over its colonial units, and would derail the war in Africa and South-East Asia, amongst other places. Same for the French/Vichy and its colonial units.
I agree completely. I'd like to see some sort of penalty beyond tech/etc for puppet troops though, maybe a morale malus. Some way to represent the tension involved in the relationship. It could be tied to the political situation in the puppet country, or some kind of replacement for 'national unity' that focuses on relationship with their overlord rather than their internal political situation.
The main problem with this is that colonial troops, in the main, weren't any worse than those of the metropolis. I'm really struggling to think of any circumstances in which they failed where metropolitan troops succeeded - probably the very poor performance of the Philippine Scouts during the Japanese invasion is an exception, but this was a hastily armed militia. Instead -
- The Ghurkas are an acknowledged elite of the British armed forces.
- The Moroccan mountain troops did Stirling service for the French army in Italy.
- Similarly, Moroccan troops in Franco's army outperformed regular Spanish nationalist troops.
- At division-level most Indian army units actually had significant numbers of metropolitan British battalions anyway.
- The equipment that Indian army divisions had was identical to that of metropolitan divisions.
- Koreans and Taiwanese fighting for the Japanese fought with distinction.
I'd say the biggest difference between colonial forces and those of the metropolis was much more about the fact that conscription was never (and probably could never) be implemented in any of the main colonies. Colonies should be able to build relatively few units compared to their population, but giving them maluses against performance doesn't seem to be supported by the facts.
Puppets, though, are a different thing, being countries that had their independence taken away from them in recent memory.
I agree with you. Because the colonial troops were volunteers not conscripts they fought well and didn't have grounds to resent fighting for the colonial power.
i think the EU4 approach to the various colonies would work best in HOI: puppet with their own military and a color palette nearly identical to the parent country. like if France is 0 0 255, Indochina should be 0 0 245.