This has been severely bugging me since day one. Have the developers given excuses as to why they apparently decided to forget including a venezuelan core on the Esequiba?
-
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.
There are a ton of things similar to this one that make limited sense. But then again, the whole war goal thing is nonsensical. There is no point in having cores in another country, when you have to conquer the entire country just to get your cores. So you might as well take the whole country.
I mean... why does the Monroe doctrine not guarantee Haiti, Dom Rep and Ecuador? Why do the US not guarantee Liberia? Why does the UK not guarantee Ireland? Why does Germany not guarantee Austria?
I mean... why does the Monroe doctrine not guarantee Haiti, Dom Rep and Ecuador? Why do the US not guarantee Liberia? Why does the UK not guarantee Ireland? Why does Germany not guarantee Austria?
The Monroe Doctrine was a jest and will always be remembered as such. America for the Americans ment only North Americans, not all Americans. This was known since day 1.
I do not understand why would the UK guarantee Ireland or Germany Austria if they wanted then back.
From who would the UK protect Liberia if they're surrounded by allies?
I'm really scratching my head here, because I cannot figure out, if your messing with me / trolling me or genuinely didn't understand what I was trying to say.
I'll give it another go:
I don't care how "serious" the US were when issuing the Monroe doctrine, although it appears they were plenty serious regarding the "not interfering in European issues" part of it. All I'm saying is that the Monroe doctrine is taken very seriously by the game and is represented by the guarantees the US are making on all American nations. There is no in-game or historical justification for the US guaranteeing all American nations, except the three I named. They should have fixed this ages ago, as it makes no sense. And it's not a minor oversight. Having the possibility of easy conquests in the Americas makes it a lot easier to attack the USA.
The next one I really don't understand. Isn't it obvious? The UK actually had plans to invade Ireland, should they side with Hitler. If any country had tried to invade / conquer Ireland, the UK would have intervened. The UK has always been extremely paranoid, they would never have allowed anyone more formidable than the feeble Irish Republic to share a land border with them.
The case for Austria is even clearer. Hitler was Austrian (well, at least until he got German citizenship, not sure if he had dual citizenship after that ^^), he believed Germany and Austria to be "one nation". If anyone had attempted to attack Austria or invade, Germany would have defended Austria.
These are both textbook examples for what guarantees are meant to do in this game.
Liberia isn't as strong of a case, as the US weren't as heavily invested their. But it's a nation in Africa, one of only three sovereign nations on the continent after all, that was founded by America(ns). Of course the US wouldn't have officially stated that they are guaranteeing Liberia, because historically there was no need to. Historically there was no-one declaring war on random countries roughly 3000 kilometres apart to increase the range for their transports. But had someone tried to conquer Liberia, the US might have interfered. Depending on who it is, I think they would have.
Probably for the same reason that they forgot to give Germany cores in Alscace-Lorraine or several heavily Germanic (and formerly German) provinces in Poland, or give Hungary cores in the other 2/3 of the territories taken from it after WWI. There are dozens of examples in the game where a country SHOULD have a core, or should be guaranteed. Basically, they didn't spend the time to do a lot of things that might have mattered to a small portion of the players, because they needed that time to finish, and then fix, major issues that would matter to most of the players. A lot of the details simply got put aside until "later", and "later" never happened.
True. Would be interesting to know, what percentage of all HOI3 players ever even tried to play a non-major. And then how many actually played a relevant amount of time as a non-major.
Speaking of missing cores... how justified are the Japanese cores in China (and Korea)? I might be wrong, but aren't those provinces to the south and south west of Manchuko very recent conquests with virtually no legitimacy?
Also... I have been looking at the Mengkuo (or similar) decision for Japan. It makes absolutely no sense to me to create this puppet, as many of the provinces they will get are actually Japanese cores (which Japan doesn't exactly have an abundance of)... why would you trade cores for a puppet?
Yes. Or on the Blitzkrieg. No other start dates. Mengkukuo has like... a single IC and it is dedicated to consumer goods. You can't do anything with it. Besides, it's existance is pretty contradictory. It shouldn't exist at that point.
And I will shamelessly advertise that Stellaris completelly obliterates HOI3 and HOI4. I have not been so engaged to a game since Skyrim and that's my GOAT, so I can't reccomend it enough.
My guess would be that most players start with one of the majors (mainly GER), and then those who continue playing additional campaigns begin to try different things, including minor countries. Also likely that a significant minority will start with a minor country as a tutorial before tackling a major. Basically, they can't short-change the minors too much, but they're not the primary focus of the developers.
The real issue is that a lot of the initial development work and data that was put into the game was scrapped after the disastrous list of problems, and replaced with generic values and scripted actions. The expansions further watered down the effects of cores, so there was little point in going back and re-adding a lot of that data, because it no longer made much difference.
Why? He wasn't criticising people who play minors...You make me feel bad for currently playing Afghanistan
I mostly play minors myself. A lot of people don't want to jump straight into the deep end of the pool, so they pick a minor country to learn the basics, without all the pressure of dealing with a navy, overseas colonies and troops to garrison them, or a major air power investment. Then there are the players who want to play their own country. There's still probably more players who jump in and play Germany, the US, or the Soviet Union for their first game, because the game is balanced around Germany, and besides, who doesn't like to have more of everything?You make me feel bad for currently playing Afghanistan