Newfoundland Post-WTT

[Sourlol]

If I had my way, when you play the UK on SP...you also get control of all the Colonies. Direct Control.--IE i get to choose their production, research, nfs, troop training/placement.

Sure the AI would crumble vs. a coherent player led commonwealth...but I can one day hope for a challenging AI and the resulting necessity of controlling all my colonies decisions.

That said, we are playing a game. Egypt, Newfoundland, Ireland...all the other micro British possessions...they just arent important enough in this time frame--in of themselves--to warrant them having their own tag and especially not worth having custom NF trees. All that is assuming you would like to see some level of parity in State power in HOI4 as compared to RL. If you don't care about that, then shit just go WC and Tannu Tuva.

 

[NVI]

Sorry for the off-topic.

King George VI was head of state and King of Ireland until 1949, when the Republic of Ireland act of 1948 came into effect and the country left the British Commonwealth of Nations. So you could argue that Ireland was, at least on paper, a dominion until 1949. Btw Ireland wasn't removed from the titles of the monarch of England until 1953, though this bit is trivial.

De jure status of Ireland can be argued, but I think that is besides the point here; de facto they didn't really act like a Commonwealth member during the war. I think the "natural" (roughly consistent with other TfV treatments) way to construct Irish national focus tree would have been to give them four political options (Commonwealth democratic, independent democratic, independent communist, independent fascist) like Australia, New Zealand and Canada have. However their historical option would have been independent democratic instead of Commonwealth democratic.

Anyhow real life is of course different to in-game. Modelling Ireland's status while stopping them from being called into the war would require new mechanics.

With the kind of setup outlined above, Ireland would become independent and neutral before the usual start of the war.

Australia and New Zealand didn't adopt the Statute of Westminster until 1942 and 1947 respectively, so they shouldn't even be on the same autonomy level as Canada and South Africa. And so on.

Australia and New Zealand actually start with 200 autonomy points while Canada and South Africa start with 400. Not that drastic, but a fair design choice for practical purposes I think.

What however is not acceptable is the fact that many Commonwealth countries have the wrong PM. It doesn't even require a lot of work to get them right.

I've also been slightly annoyed by this, but I suppose making additional leader change events and portraits wasn't deemed worth it. (And I think having one democratic leader with unique portrait is preferable to having one with unique one and others without.) Maybe they'll be added eventually.

Oh and there's also a bunch of UK puppets missing that were in previous HoIs but are mysteriously free in HoI4.

I'm all for having at least Egypt as a puppet. EDIT: Right, "free". Original sentiment still stands though.

 

[Derek E-L]

Because Wikipedia is always right and supersedes the experience of those of us that live here.

Naming procedures of international organisations are not Canadian law.

No, But the Canada Act/ Constitution Act are.
Canada is no longer a Dominion of the British Empire. We are a member of the British Commonwealth. to say otherwise is ignorance of our political situation.

So in game Canada's and Newfoundland & Labrador's political situation is reasonably represented in 1936.
I'm surprised Nepal is not part of the Allies and Egypt is not a colony or protectorate.

 

[xsmilingbanditx]

@Fulmen My parade is an all-weather event.

I agree that Newfoundland is not on par with the Raj in terms of importance to the game, but I think it's strange it was not given more character in an update based mainly on the dominions.

Because it's goddamn Newfoundland...it's like saying Gibraltar and Suez need to seperate playable Nations because they were so important (and they actually were pretty important) :-D :-D

 

[Fulmen]

With the kind of setup outlined above, Ireland would become independent and neutral before the usual start of the war

Ireland is quite often a player in MP. The norm is to force them to stay democratic and join the Allies.

They weren't 100% independent in 1939 and if anything joining the war would've decreased their autonomy. And I think realistically at least their overseas forces would've been placed mainly under British command like other dominion forces.

Obviously in MP dominion players tend to be more autonomous than IRL but as a simple fix I added an event in my MP mod that turns Ireland into a dominion of the UK upon joining the war. I've also got a focus tree for them in the mod but it's somewhat simplistic. Not sure you can really do a very fleshed out Irish focus tree without going into fantasy la-la land, which I vehemently oppose.

I've also been slightly annoyed by this, but I suppose making additional leader change events and portraits wasn't deemed worth it. (And I think having one democratic leader with unique portrait is preferable to having one with unique one and others without.) Maybe they'll be added eventually.

Adding a few portraits and leader change events is at least 10x less laborious than the fantasy formable nation crap they're adding with Waking the Tiger.

I'm all for having at least Egypt as a puppet.

Egypt actually wasn't in the older vanilla version HoIs (other than as a releasable), which makes sense when you look at what they did in WW2.

They had next to no military and would cause problems for the UK player because of the way building in subject territory is handled in the game. They'd need a massive MP nerf and PDX would have to allow building e.g. RADAR within subjects regardless of subject tech level for it to work.

Even then the country just wouldn't be fun to play unless you'd go full arcade mode and allow Egypt to field armies.

The RADAR problem btw is already in the game with Malaya, which PDX added so Australia could do their singleplayer "master of Asia" memes with it.

HoI1-3 had Nepal, Bhutan, Iraq, Oman and Yemen as UK puppets.

Nepal joined the war in September 1939 and provided thousands of men to the Allied cause. Best handled as a puppet in-game.

Bhutan was treated as an Indian Princely State. They had basically no army and didn't contribute to the war. Britain controlled their foreign affairs. Best handled as a puppet with a massive manpower debuff or no manpower at all.

Iraq had British bases on its soil to maintain the supply of petroleum and was arguably still a British puppet. They cut off relations with Germany in September 1939 but didn't declare war. There was a pro-Axis coup in 1941 that was crushed in the Anglo-Iraqi War. They then joined the war against Germany in January 1942. Best represented as a puppet with a focus tree, events and a considerable manpower debuff.

Oman joined the war in September 1939. Didn't contribute in the way of troops. The British built airfields there due to its strategic location. Best represented as a puppet and should probably have a big manpower debuff.

Yemen was hostile to the British after WW1 but was subdued by 1934. Neutral in WW2. Best represented as British military access, a guarantee of independence and probably a manpower debuff.

 

[Fulmen]

Because Wikipedia is always right and supersedes the experience of those of us that live here.

Ah yes, the "it's from Wikipedia so it must be wrong!" argument. Let's see.

The first source is an article written by:

-Eugene A. Forsley, Canadian senator, intellectual, student of philosophy, politics and economics. He was considered to be one of Canada's foremost constitutional experts.

-James H. Marsh, Canadian editor, writer and encyclopist, founding editor of the Canadian Encyclopedia for 33 years.

The second source is from a book, "Naming Canada: Stories about Canadian Place Names", by:

-Alan Rayburn, former writer for Canadian Geographic, specialized in research about place names.

The third source is an article by:

-The Department of Canadian Heritage, a department of the Government of Canada.

Tell me, is Mr. Forsley, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Rayburn and your government wrong? After all, you claim apparently superior expertise in Canadian legal matters solely based on the location of your residence.

 

[Sourlol]

I might not be a Canadian constitutional scholar, but I did stay in a holiday inn express last night.

 

[FOARP]

Not a bug, it's literally in the focus description, give Destroyers for some UK holdings, like Jamaica and Newfoundland.

Which is totally ahistorical and kind of annoying if you’re in the process of taking the UK’s Caribbean possessions when it triggers, as it means you have to go to war with the US to take those territories.

There was a destroyers for bases deal, but a closer approximation would be the US getting military access.

 

[Meglok]

Yes, indeed, but why make the British Raj playable then?

Oh please. The entire population of Newfoundland could fit in a Bombay slum. NF was a backwater whose only importance was it's location on the Atlantic convoy routes. It is no more justified in being a separate nation than Bermuda or the British Virgin Isles wolud be.

I realize you seem to have some bias about this issue but comparing NF to India is ridiculous.

 

[Temudhun Khan]

The only thing bothering me with Canada not being able to claim Newfoundland is that the Australian and South African focus tree allow them to claim respectively British Malaysia and all the British African colonies from Botswana to Kenya. In comparison, giving Newfoundland to Canada wouldn't be so aberrant.
By the way, if you go fascist and UK refuse to give you Newfoundland, you don't even get a claim on it. Coupled with the inhability to get entirely rid of both your Great Depression and Conscription Crisis nation spirits, I feel like Canada has the weakest of all TfV's focus trees.

They had next to no military and would cause problems for the UK player because of the way building in subject territory is handled in the game. They'd need a massive MP nerf and PDX would have to allow building e.g. RADAR within subjects regardless of subject tech level for it to work.

The RADAR problem could be easily bypassed by adding a focus to the British tree.

 

[Fulmen]

The RADAR problem could be easily bypassed by adding a focus to the British tree.

No it couldn't, unless you're suggesting giving free level 6 RADAR to multiple provinces in Egypt.

The only viable solution is to make buildings on subject soil dependent on the overlord's tech level, instead of on the tech level of the subject. This is hardcoded though so we can't even mod it.

 

[Secret Master]

There was a destroyers for bases deal, but a closer approximation would be the US getting military access.

While I understand the problem of Germany getting robbed of the option to take that stuff if the NF fires while they are on the way, military access really doesn't do justice to the arrangement. The US built (and was in some cases obligated to build) airfields and RADAR in the territories in question.

And with their transfer to the US, they were now owned by the US. A German attack on them would constitute and act of war on the United States.

Military access doesn't really cover this, and it robs the US of the ability to build stuff or secure those bases from German attack. Hell, one reason the US liekd the deal was taht even if Britain fell to Germany or surrendered, those bases wouldn't immediately become German controlled or occupied.

 

[Fulmen]

Hell, one reason the US liekd the deal was taht even if Britain fell to Germany or surrendered, those bases wouldn't immediately become German controlled or occupied.

If that happened the US would've probably moved in to occupy those territories anyway, like they did with Iceland and Greenland. Or well, England did it first and then handed them over, but the point still applies.

 

[FOARP]

While I understand the problem of Germany getting robbed of the option to take that stuff if the NF fires while they are on the way, military access really doesn't do justice to the arrangement. The US built (and was in some cases obligated to build) airfields and RADAR in the territories in question.

And with their transfer to the US, they were now owned by the US. A German attack on them would constitute and act of war on the United States.

Military access doesn't really cover this, and it robs the US of the ability to build stuff or secure those bases from German attack. Hell, one reason the US liekd the deal was taht even if Britain fell to Germany or surrendered, those bases wouldn't immediately become German controlled or occupied.

Thing is, this is still less than outright colonial ownership, which is why I find the present set-up just weirdly ahistorical. The US could use bases in these territories - not simply occupy the territories themselves.

 

[Secret Master]

Thing is, this is still less than outright colonial ownership, which is why I find the present set-up just weirdly ahistorical. The US could use bases in these territories - not simply occupy the territories themselves.

Do any of those provinces have IC or resources? I admit, I rarely use Destroyers for Bases, so I don't remember off the top of my head. While it might look odd, I'm okay with the US just owning the territory as long as they aren't getting resources or IC.

You have to own something or have it in a puppet to build on it, so that's the best we can do.

 

[FOARP]

Do any of those provinces have IC or resources? I admit, I rarely use Destroyers for Bases, so I don't remember off the top of my head. While it might look odd, I'm okay with the US just owning the territory as long as they aren't getting resources or IC.

You have to own something or have it in a puppet to build on it, so that's the best we can do.

Newfoundland has IC, and together with Labrador is an incredibly large territory to suddenly switch hands. Jamaica adds a fair bit of manpower at the same time. Seems a bit odd that these guys:

Should all be in the US army for some reason.

Additionally, in terms of resources Trinidad & Tobago comes with oil, and I'm not sure if British Guiana is switched by the event but that has aluminium as well.

 

[SaydaNeen]

Ah yes, the "it's from Wikipedia so it must be wrong!" argument. Let's see.

The first source is an article written by:

-Eugene A. Forsley, Canadian senator, intellectual, student of philosophy, politics and economics. He was considered to be one of Canada's foremost constitutional experts.

-James H. Marsh, Canadian editor, writer and encyclopist, founding editor of the Canadian Encyclopedia for 33 years.

The second source is from a book, "Naming Canada: Stories about Canadian Place Names", by:

-Alan Rayburn, former writer for Canadian Geographic, specialized in research about place names.

The third source is an article by:

-The Department of Canadian Heritage, a department of the Government of Canada.

Tell me, is Mr. Forsley, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Rayburn and your government wrong? After all, you claim apparently superior expertise in Canadian legal matters solely based on the location of your residence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing that was mentioned on Wikipedia was that Canada has done legally using the name "Dominion of Canada" was register the Maple Leaf Tartan with Ireland... Now obviously the name hasn't been put into the history books but I wouldn't say it is Canada's OFFICIAL name. All legal documents, all trading, is under "Canada". The Canada Act was passed in 1982 and made no mention of "Dominion" but simply Canada. Canada is its official name, its legal name and only way people address the nation. If Anything the "Dominion of Canada" i guess would be a nickname at the most if not just a past long forgotten name.

 

[FOARP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing that was mentioned on Wikipedia was that Canada has done legally using the name "Dominion of Canada" was register the Maple Leaf Tartan with Ireland... Now obviously the name hasn't been put into the history books but I wouldn't say it is Canada's OFFICIAL name. All legal documents, all trading, is under "Canada". The Canada Act was passed in 1982 and made no mention of "Dominion" but simply Canada. Canada is its official name, its legal name and only way people address the nation. If Anything the "Dominion of Canada" i guess would be a nickname at the most if not just a past long forgotten name.

"Dominion of Canada" was never explicitly made an official name, even if it was used as a phrase in some statute, the only thing that was ever said on the matter is that "one Dominion under the name of Canada". It's is clear that it is not possible to make a definitive call either way as to what Canada's formal name is, but consistent usage for decades has been that the name of the country is, in all circumstances, "Canada", and that seems pretty persuasive in the absence of other evidence.

 

[Fulmen]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing that was mentioned on Wikipedia was that Canada has done legally using the name "Dominion of Canada" was register the Maple Leaf Tartan with Ireland... Now obviously the name hasn't been put into the history books but I wouldn't say it is Canada's OFFICIAL name. All legal documents, all trading, is under "Canada". The Canada Act was passed in 1982 and made no mention of "Dominion" but simply Canada. Canada is its official name, its legal name and only way people address the nation. If Anything the "Dominion of Canada" i guess would be a nickname at the most if not just a past long forgotten name.

The name was never rescinded as the country's legal name. The Canada Act and others make no mention of "Dominion", but do not specifically state it is no longer the name. It is therefore still the legal name. The fact it's rarely if ever used anymore in practice is another matter.

Check the sources for more information if you want.

"Dominion of Canada" was never explicitly made an official name, even if it was used as a phrase in some statute, the only thing that was ever said on the matter is that "one Dominion under the name of Canada".

From Naming Canada: Stories About Canadian Place Names, page 21:

"As we enter the twenty-first century, Dominion remains in the title of our country because section 3 of the British North America Act - to 'form and be one Dominion' - is still in Canada's constitution."

It's strange that many Canadians feel so negatively about this (and I'm not even talking about just the Quebecois). It's their heritage. If the problem is that the term reminds them of servitude to the mother country, England, then shouldn't they also want to be a republic? Canadians are still subjects of the Queen of England, after all.

 

[Sanny]

I just want to add as a side note that you should look up the coastal guns Newfoundland had during the war, pretty amazing. Same standard as Scotland had protecting its lengthy coastline.