Puppet Question

[unmerged(61852)]

This may have been discussed before (maybe even more than once) but I'm wondering if anyone else thinks that puppets are a little unrealistic? Suppose for example that you ttack the US and liberate Texas as a puppet. Isnt it a bit ridiculous to think that they would suddenly begin producing infantry dicisions for combat againt the US?? I'm sure that in any conquered territory you might be able to round up a handful of malcontents who hate their country. BUt this really seems gamey.

 

[humancalculator]

This may have been discussed before (maybe even more than once) but I'm wondering if anyone else thinks that puppets are a little unrealistic? Suppose for example that you ttack the US and liberate Texas as a puppet. Isnt it a bit ridiculous to think that they would suddenly begin producing infantry dicisions for combat againt the US?? I'm sure that in any conquered territory you might be able to round up a handful of malcontents who hate their country. BUt this really seems gamey.

I think it is mostly for people who decide to play a game as Texas in that manner, it lets them play as that nation with an actual army. Maybe it just represents someone pointing a gun in someone's face and telling them to fight.

 

[unmerged(61852)]

I was just using Tex as an example. BUt realy my question applies to any puppet. What could possibly happen to induce the people of a conquered nation to suddenly become willing pawns of their conquerors?

 

[Ericus1]

Fear, complacency, a politically divided populace. You're right, the puppet system as is is somewhat unrealistic; releasing component pieces of a larger nation would make sense when that piece represents an oppressed minority or separatist faction, a la Ukraine, Azerbijan, or Basques. And releasing a defeated nation as a puppet as a whole makes some sense if the nation is much smaller than you and who's government and people you could dominate, like some of the colonial or European minors. But releasing massive nations or pieces of nations like Texas doesn't make any sense at all. I guess what it comes down to is that modelling the actual complexities would have taken too much work so we got the simplified system we did.

 

[pi149]

Releasing a part or whole of a large nation does make sense. Giving conquered territories pseudo-independent governments gives some legitimacy to your invasion. For example, if Japan were to make the USA a puppet they could say that they had invaded to remove a horrible dictator from power, and now the USA has a better, completely independent government which is naturally grateful to Japan. And of course this new government would make infantry and such because propaganda can make people believe anything.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Releasing a part or whole of a large nation does make sense. Giving conquered territories pseudo-independent governments gives some legitimacy to your invasion. For example, if Japan were to make the USA a puppet they could say that they had invaded to remove a horrible dictator from power, and now the USA has a better, completely independent government which is naturally grateful to Japan. And of course this new government would make infantry and such because propaganda can make people believe anything.

I think the point of contention is that the troops produced by e.g. Texas would be used to fight the USA, a country which she was part of only three months before.

 

[unmerged(47103)]

I think the point of contention is that the troops produced by e.g. Texas would be used to fight the USA, a country which she was part of only three months before.

Well, consider the Civil War: ALL the Confederate States had been part of the USA, yet they showed no shortage of willingness to fight their previous contrymen.......

 

[sbr]

Well, consider the Civil War: ALL the Confederate States had been part of the USA, yet they showed no shortage of willingness to fight their previous contrymen.......

And how does that relate to the actual conversation about in game puppets?

 

[unmerged(47103)]

And how does that relate to the actual conversation about in game puppets?

It relates as a potential rebuttal of the point made by the poster to which I was replying i.e. suggesting it was unrealistic that a region would produce troops to fight against those who were, prior to becoming a puppet, their countrymen.

I'd have thought a straight reading of it would have made that obvious: clearly I was mistaken. I might equally ask how your post relates to the topic of in game puppets.

If you've an issue with something I (or anyone else, for that matter) have posted you might consider raising it in a slightly more constructive, less accusatory manner.

 

[sbr]

It relates as a potential rebuttal of the point made by the poster to which I was replying i.e. suggesting it was unrealistic that a region would produce troops to fight against those who were, prior to becoming a puppet, their countrymen.

I'd have thought a straight reading of it would have made that obvious: clearly I was mistaken. I might equally ask how your post relates to the topic of in game puppets.

If you've an issue with something I (or anyone else, for that matter) have posted you might consider raising it in a slightly more constructive, less accusatory manner.

First off, sorry, I didn't mean for that to come out so confrontational.

I think there is a huge difference between the two. One is a group of people who are forced to raise arms against fellow citizens by a foreign conqueror, while the other is a group of people from a completely separate(in their eyes) country fighting for their independence.

 

[unmerged(47103)]

First off, sorry, I didn't mean for that to come out so confrontational.

I think there is a huge difference between the two. One is a group of people who are forced to raise arms against fellow citizens by a foreign conqueror, while the other is a group of people from a completely separate(in their eyes) country fighting for their independence.

Yeah, fair enough - it probably didn't help that I was a bit grumpy in my reply. No harm done (besides, I usually enjoy your posts).

Cheers

 

[unmerged(82490)]

The Civil War is actually a pretty pertinent example. Largely, the Confederacy was fighting for aims (protection of slavery, economic separation from the north to end disruptive tariffs) that were not of the best interest of the majority of the south - not only the large slave population but also the many poor, non slave-owning whites. Southern armies rallied out of fear of invasion, to protect their families, and out of popular sentiment. Is it that implausible that a foreign power could push young men into the fire to fight fellow countrymen, even just after ending hostilities?

 

[unmerged(110255)]

I think that LordCanada got it right with this one:

Giving conquered territories pseudo-independent governments gives some legitimacy to your invasion.

but I have to disagree with the part about getting puppetized Texans, Californians or whoever to fight against the Union. I don't think that you could mess up people's heads to that extent, at least not in a modern open society.

 

[JRHINDO]

I don't think that you could mess up people's heads to that extent, at least not in a modern open society.

Yes but its a game.

 

[unmerged(110255)]

Yes but its a game.

I don't get your argument at all. Shouldn't developers strive to make games as realistic and internally sound as possible? Of course I'm not opposed to goofing around with bullshit option that won't make sense in reality, but I'd rather that the default settings be realistic, and moddable to make less so.

 

[Ericus1]

The Civil War is actually a pretty pertinent example. Largely, the Confederacy was fighting for aims (protection of slavery, economic separation from the north to end disruptive tariffs) that were not of the best interest of the majority of the south - not only the large slave population but also the many poor, non slave-owning whites. Southern armies rallied out of fear of invasion, to protect their families, and out of popular sentiment. Is it that implausible that a foreign power could push young men into the fire to fight fellow countrymen, even just after ending hostilities?

Only if there was a pre-existing cause to do so among the conquered population, not just because the conquering nation says so. As I said before, oppressed minorities make a reasonable case for a puppet, which may have been a somewhat accurate representation of the political situtation in the US before the civil war. But that was in no way, shape, or form the case during WWII, like many of the puppets that you can create in the game, e.g. Texas, Cali, Scotland, etc. The populace in that case is FAR more likely to turn guerrila than attack people they see as their fellow countrymen, especially if their given weapons and training to fight with.

 

[unmerged(110255)]

The populace in that case is FAR more likely to turn guerrila than attack people they see as their fellow countrymen, especially if their given weapons and training to fight with.

My thoughts exactly. The problem is, how do you implement this in game? It would be complicated to make more than one "type" of puppet states, one with a cooperative, previously oppressed minority, and others like single US states. It was easier to just make them all equal and give the player the responsibility of playing them realistically. Plus, there's also the flexibility this gives you, so nobody can complain that they're losing out option-wise.

I'm all for realism, but I just as much see a need for options that make gameplay less restrictive, when a player is looking for an arcade-like experience. Think of it as enabling or disabling driving aid in a racing simulator.

In games like this, such options can be hard to implement. The way some things have been implemented, like puppet states, give you the option of playing them realistically or not, regardless of any options altered beforehand.

 

[Ruisert]

Well, speaking as a Texan, I can say with no fear of contradiction that it would take little reason, if any, for Texans to fight pretty much anyone else, American or otherwise... :rofl:

But seriously, almost no population is so homogeneous that you couldn't find some willing tools to take whatever side you represent, if not out of ideology then out of greed or the lust for power. Vidkun Quisling ring any bells? All you have to do is spend the time and money and you will generally have some bit of the population sympathetic to your cause. How much depends on a large number of variables that would probably be hard to account for in any game.
But the plain fact remains that most people are more amenable to being governed by their own people as opposed to a foreign power, however much the puppet government is a pretense. And yes, you can always find people who are willing to fight for a cause or just for enough cash. Especially if you excel at propaganda...

 

[unmerged(110255)]

almost no population is so homogeneous that you couldn't find some willing tools

You make a compelling point, so much so that I don't know what to think about puppets anymore.

 

[unmerged(47103)]

Well the Dutch make an interesting study re this question of puppets, too. Without checking my facts, I seem to remember that they had one of the largest volunteer rates for 'non-German SS' in areas occupied by Germany, yet ALSO had one of the most resolute resistance efforts, too.

Makes me think that the 'partisan level' is one way of dealing with this i.e. some areas made puppets would be comparitively 'stable', whilst others would be unstable with high levels of resistnace requiring garrison troops to suppress.