Should the British Raj's "Agrarian Society" and South Africa's "History of Segregation" and Canada's "Conscription Crysis" national spirits be nerfed?

[MobiusTwo]

Canada: Correct!
SAF: I think the situation are reversed (Black be racist angaist white) and today, slowvy, the situation of economy SAF are slowy be bad for this motive. I think, if you take communism, you exchange a debuff for Manpower for a Debuff on Industry. If you go to fascism you focus on a small but stronger army. If communism to a Large but weak army, strong only with numbers!

My plan was for there to be a sort of "Brain Drain" national spirit that communist South Africa gets after ending apartheid, which would mainly consist of penalties to research, industry, and consumer goods. This would represent the unfortunate economic and cultural side-effects of ending apartheid at such an early date. The player would be able to remove these debuffs over time, with Soviet support (especially if Trotsky takes power) or the support of other communist countries that happen to come into existence over the course of the game.

I agree on SAF and Apartheid.
Though I feel like the debuff could be also be lessened by having a focus for creation of a satellite state for the Bantus in an Alt-history democratic and fascist routes, as a nice and "family friendly" way to represent the various ideas of attempting to create a black state in the North, so the Boers and English could try to keep some semblance of stability in Rhodesia and Cape.

Huh, I never thought about the idea of creating puppet "homelands" - that was historical (albeit later) and it's a good way to represent some of the messy problems in-game. For that to happen, South Africa needs several more states added first, starting with Lesotho and Swaziland.
You mentioned Rhodesia too - that's a country that could probably get a focus tree of its own as well, but it's definitely a lower priority than even some other areas that begin the game as annexed by the United Kingdom, namely Egypt and the Transjordan region.

 

[billcorr]

For India I think the manpower limit should be kept low as long as it’s a puppet - that way Britain doesn’t basically have a soldier printer.

Would the same game design rule apply to The Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies? (And France and Portugal and the USA and the USSR and Japan and Belgium and The Raj)

AFAIK, The Netherlands can tap into more than 1 million DEI manpower.

Having consistent design rules provides predictability.

 

[Dlin369]

Would the same game design rule apply to The Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies? (And France and Portugal and the USA and the USSR and Japan and Belgium and The Raj)

AFAIK, The Netherlands can tap into more than 1 million DEI manpower.

Having consistent design rules provides predictability.

They have a similar system right now with Reichkomissariats - where the lower the autonomy, the fewer manpower available to the puppet (and by extension the puppet master). I think that should be the trade off - lower autonomy means fewer sources of manpower but more resources to the master and a greater percentage of colonial units being staffed by puppet troops.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

This is an old DLC, the content and execution needs a rework. You should be able to remove all debuffs, like all current DLCs, but after passing decisions that requires time, PP and even industry thresholds (agrarian society, more industry, less agrarian, for example).

 

[Dlin369]

This is an old DLC, the content and execution needs a rework. You should be able to remove all debuffs, like all current DLCs, but after passing decisions that requires time, PP and even industry thresholds (agrarian society, more industry, less agrarian, for example).

I’d argue it should be the opposite - modern dlcs make it too easy to remove debuffs that would in real life require substantively more time and resources to remove than in Hoi4. I think it should be more about mitigating the consequences than fixing it, at least within Hoi4’s usual timescale

 

[Louella]

I don't know about the Canadian situation. But I'm not sure that the historical situations in South Africa or India can really be turned around in the relatively short timespan that HOI4 covers. (1936-1948 is only 12 yrs, and a lot of people say the game is basically won by 1942)

The situations where you can annex or puppet a country and get a lot more manpower, should probably be addressed though, either with state modifiers or some other mechanism, because if turning around the historical situations in 6 or 12 years is unrealistic, doing it in a couple of months is just silly.

 

[donald dawkins]

I wouldn’t mind a slight slackening of the penalties to India and south africa

i feel the maluses that the dlc brought had the effect of heavily limiting what these nations could do; prior to the dlc you could have Indian players and South Africa players specialise a greater number of ways, potentially heavily investing in special forces, or using their tacit manpower advantage/ research slots to really branch out of their comfort zones, allowing them to be special forces heavy hitters, elite infantry or even highly specialised mechanised/ armor forces.

instead, the dlc maluses made these options very difficult to pursue and ended up railroading these nations down specific paths; instead india is resigned to fighting in asia in a mostly defrnsive infantry slog due to its manpower and industrial maluses, and in most cases South Africa has simply become the heavy tank whipping boy for the allies in mp games, once again due to its high one sided focus tree that gears South Africa towards armor specialisation, and South Africa’s poor manpower.

this is not entirely the dlc’s fault, the soft cap to special forces also has caused this decline to minor nation specialisation, but fundamentally speaking I find these dlc mechanics to have the adverse effect to heavily limiting these nations military choice (albeit not their political options), so regardless of what political focuses you pick, how you wage will normally always be the same, due to the the military focus bias to a certain specialisation, and the strategic constraints the manpower penalties have on your war fighting.

it just feels like a pretty cheap and basic penalty to add to a nation; instead of say industrial penalties, events or decisions ala battle for the bosphorous which allowed a plAyer at least the illusion of choice, the manpower penalty just acts as an insurmountable roadblock to variety.

this is of course an opinion created from hindsight; at the time I found the dlc extremely fun and entertaining, but after seeing how far the developers have come in terms of political decisions and actions in other dlc’s, I think perhaps they can now do better with some of the older features they added To older dlcs. Of course, how they revisit them could be very controversial, imagine paying for 2 commonwealth dlcs!

altogether Though, it’s not game breaking or that much of an issue.

 

[Dlin369]

India I feel should really get reworked, ideally from the ground-up. It had the right idea - simulate the different factions at the time including those who wanted Radical Independence, the moderates in the INC, British loyalists and the influence of the Princes. However, I feel like the political portion of the tree falls short -> there are few post revolution events even if you win as the Fascists/Communists and in order to get Bose as your leader you need to successfully negotiate with either the Germans or Soviets (who, in my opinion, correctly won't support you unless the war starts, but this isn't telegraphed well).

Therefore, I feel that India should get at least their political trees expanded, focusing on the creation of a New Indian state, starting off with non-aligned movements and then branching out (similar to how Turkey is handled right now). The late tree should then allow for either full democracy, full socialism, full fascism, a mixed movement (nonaligned) or I suppose a return to decentralized and princely rule (nonaligned).

 

[Casko]

Huh, I never thought about the idea of creating puppet "homelands" - that was historical (albeit later) and it's a good way to represent some of the messy problems in-game. For that to happen, South Africa needs several more states added first, starting with Lesotho and Swaziland.
You mentioned Rhodesia too - that's a country that could probably get a focus tree of its own as well, but it's definitely a lower priority than even some other areas that begin the game as annexed by the United Kingdom, namely Egypt and the Transjordan region.

Not only its historical, but big part of it not getting pushed through was foreign subversion (of UK US and USSR alike) and USA being hypocrites and forcing SAF to stay unified, rather than allow/force/make homelands for its different populations despite US's by-gunpoint enforced decolonization.
And Hilariously enough was supported by most every faction in SAF save for black supremacists and communists. Which in many, many ways is highly ironic and quite sad in multiple levels.

Rhodesia itself is more Cold War, than WW2 however I feel, even if Rhodesians never die. That said, I do feel that a separated SAF, in both Fascist and Democratic paths should have a decision to core Rhodesia itself as a part of its now more cohesive state.

 

[bitmode]

You should be able to remove all debuffs, like all current DLCs

This is why I think national focus trees were a mistake. Players get the expectation of a box of chocolates were they get to pick and choose which parts of reality about their country they want to acknowledge and how to turn it into a generic power house in the span of four years.
This has nothing to do with grand strategy.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Huh, I never thought about the idea of creating puppet "homelands" - that was historical (albeit later) and it's a good way to represent some of the messy problems in-game. For that to happen, South Africa needs several more states added first, starting with Lesotho and Swaziland.

It's not feasable.
These states would either require extreme bordergore (historical):

or have much more land than they did historically.

The Raj has a national spirit representing the princely states, this seems like the only possible example for SA.

 

[Dlin369]

It's not feasable.
These states would either require extreme bordergore (historical):

or have much more land than they did historically.

The Raj has a national spirit representing the princely states, this seems like the only possible example for SA.

I think it can be represented by state modifiers - with future conquerors getting decisions on what to do with them. Of course, the question would be what bonuses/drawbacks could areas of that scale input on a state?

 

[billcorr]

It's not feasable.
These states would either require extreme bordergore (historical):
...

The Raj has a national spirit representing the princely states, this seems like the only possible example for SA.

Oh my!

I have great faith in the group mind to come up with an alternative to idea that the Princely States model is the "...only possible example for SA."

"C'mon people! Think!"

(the South Africa map illustrated the "fractured" nature of South African demographics. Thanks for posting that map. )

 

[MobiusTwo]

It's not feasable.
These states would either require extreme bordergore (historical):

or have much more land than they did historically.

The Raj has a national spirit representing the princely states, this seems like the only possible example for SA.

Would it be possible to practically represent the princely states if India's provinces were redone? All I know for sure is that Hyderabad isn't even the correct shape.

 

[Casko]

It's not feasable.
These states would either require extreme bordergore (historical):

or have much more land than they did historically.

it is feasable, as doing the time, forceful relocation and... other """fun""" stuff wasn't not all that uncommon, and did happen quite often despite the nastiness it implies(Hello Prussia and Silesia for an European example).
Similarly some border adjustments for the sake of gameplay isn't something paradox isn't shy of doing. I mean. if we want to go 100% Historical borders like you show among ethnic lines, we'd have India-Bangladesh or India-Pakistan borders be literal swizz cheese just to reflect how things are there in current times.

So for SAF out of the original 4 states I'd imagine you could carve a new total of 6-8 for the reasons of gameplay and possible alt-history paths / revolts. Something like North, West and East Cape. Natal. Mpumalanga. Limpopo. and Transvaal for 7 States. And either have Lesotho as it is now incorporated between Natal and Transvaal, or as an 8th State.
And this doesn't even need to be all that balance breaking by simply having most of the states be in terms of usability akin to South-West Africa (Namibia) by having them have very limited industrial capacity. that simply leaves them as subpar states, or locked behind focus trees for development.

 

[Caeric]

Either way, no matter how much we disagree how severe the penalties for said countries should be, I think we can all agree that the TFW nations in their current state aren't very fun to play and deserve reworks.

 

[Znail]

Either way, no matter how much we disagree how severe the penalties for said countries should be, I think we can all agree that the TFW nations in their current state aren't very fun to play and deserve reworks.

Do they, why is that? Not all nations have to be as easy to take over the world with as USA, that is the entire point with being able to play less powerfull nations in the game. India for one is among those actually far stronger in the game then they should be as they can design their own tanks, planes and warships somehow.

 

[Spelaren]

Speaking of the commonwealth, Canada should have a wayy way way bigger industry as they did historically.

 

[balmung60]

As mentioned in the second post, India's debuffs should be converted to state modifiers because India's debuffs are so severe that an occupier with high compliance can get more manpower out of India than India can (As a British subject, the Raj can get 30% of its manpower and only goes up to 40% after shedding Bangladesh and Pakistan, while independent India can only get 25% when whole and 35% after Bangladesh and Pakistan are independent, while an occupier can get 40% out of the whole subcontinent).

Realistically, every country or state should have a variably-sized Agrarian Society debuff, but at the very least, India should have some ability to ameliorate the debuff, possibly involving spending large amounts of PP and CIC-time as well as MOT and possibly MECH or even LARM at later stages.

 

[Znail]

As mentioned in the second post, India's debuffs should be converted to state modifiers because India's debuffs are so severe that an occupier with high compliance can get more manpower out of India than India can (As a British subject, the Raj can get 30% of its manpower and only goes up to 40% after shedding Bangladesh and Pakistan, while independent India can only get 25% when whole and 35% after Bangladesh and Pakistan are independent, while an occupier can get 40% out of the whole subcontinent).

Realistically, every country or state should have a variably-sized Agrarian Society debuff, but at the very least, India should have some ability to ameliorate the debuff, possibly involving spending large amounts of PP and CIC-time as well as MOT and possibly MECH or even LARM at later stages.

That is actually rather realistic and doesn't need change. Part of the problem for India is social and an occupier can overrule that and thus bypass the problem to a degree. But the idea that a Free India would somehow realise that it should get rid of it's historical society and copy europe would set a new record for ahistorical. Not that these issues are still present in India TODAY 80 years later, so fixing it during the time frame of WW2 is really far fetched.