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

[balmung60]

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.

Sure is a good thing I never suggested that then. I suggested being able to ameliorate the debuff, not remove it. We're talking massive investments in mechanizing agriculture over the course of multiple national focuses and/or decisions to bring the debuff down from -69% to somewhere around -40% (with the exact final amount somewhat dependent on balance).

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

"To a degree" is doing a lot of lifting there. Any occupier would have to ship in vast amounts of food to free up the massive population of subsistence farmers to work in factories and serve in the army. You can't just waltz in, tell everyone they're farming wrong and need to do it your way and everything will be great, at least if you don't like causing famines.

 

[Znail]

Sure is a good thing I never suggested that then. I suggested being able to ameliorate the debuff, not remove it. We're talking massive investments in mechanizing agriculture over the course of multiple national focuses and/or decisions to bring the debuff down from -69% to somewhere around -40% (with the exact final amount somewhat dependent on balance).

"To a degree" is doing a lot of lifting there. Any occupier would have to ship in vast amounts of food to free up the massive population of subsistence farmers to work in factories and serve in the army. You can't just waltz in, tell everyone they're farming wrong and need to do it your way and everything will be great, at least if you don't like causing famines.

I agree with the second paragraph wich is why I don't agree with the first one. And occupier are in a better position to do what you talk about in the upper paragraph but even more vitally they would know that its needed and want to do it. But the people of India are proud of their culture and nation, so the idea that they would turn their back on their heritage and suddenly copy western nations is quite frankly absurd. If that was possible then they would have done that by now.

 

[Vlad123]

I agree with the second paragraph wich is why I don't agree with the first one. And occupier are in a better position to do what you talk about in the upper paragraph but even more vitally they would know that its needed and want to do it. But the people of India are proud of their culture and nation, so the idea that they would turn their back on their heritage and suddenly copy western nations is quite frankly absurd. If that was possible then they would have done that by now.

Technically they are doing it in part. mechanizing the peasants is not difficult ... everyone wants to make less effort ... the problem is the high religious spheres ... but they are always human ... historically the British bought them ... in fact theoretically the various Raj were still independent , they lived in their "golden villas." But they were without effective powers.

 

[Casko]

Technically they are doing it in part. mechanizing the peasants is not difficult ... everyone wants to make less effort

Luddite faction of England tends to disagree. As does multitude of historical anti-industrialization movements and reactionary movements that are now forgotten or turned to be insults.
Its REALLY not as simple to go from Agrarian society to more industrialized society. as rather than "everyone wants to make less effort" its more akin to "everyone wants a stable life and a stable job that lets you not make as much effort to survive" first and foremost.

 

[Znail]

Technically they are doing it in part. mechanizing the peasants is not difficult ... everyone wants to make less effort ... the problem is the high religious spheres ... but they are always human ... historically the British bought them ... in fact theoretically the various Raj were still independent , they lived in their "golden villas." But they were without effective powers.

The problem lies in the traditional caste society of India. Farmers are pretty close to the bottom and that means they are not only too poor to own modern agricultural machines, but they don't own enough land that such a machine would be effective anyway nor are they educated in it's use. Anyone who are rich enough that they could own large amounts of land or a machine would never consider soiling themselves with farming. It's not a trivial trick to change that into large scale modern agriculture. The easiest way would be to bring in farmers from the outside and then gradually change the local farmers. It doesn't help that farmers would naturally resist being made obsolete and unemployed as they need to be able to feed their families.

 

[balmung60]

I agree with the second paragraph wich is why I don't agree with the first one. And occupier are in a better position to do what you talk about in the upper paragraph but even more vitally they would know that its needed and want to do it. But the people of India are proud of their culture and nation, so the idea that they would turn their back on their heritage and suddenly copy western nations is quite frankly absurd. If that was possible then they would have done that by now.

A.) Occupiers don't have to do it, or anything for that matter. They can get 40% of the manpower from India solely for occupying the subcontinent for a few years.

B.) All evidence suggests no occupier would want to put in the work to radically improve agricultural infrastructure in occupied lands. Indeed, the British occupation made a point of reducing agricultural infrastructure when they took over because they could turn a quick profit by emptying grain reserves and breaking down inter-community support networks and instead taking any excess production for their own enrichment. Occupiers tend to be more interested in what they can take out than what they can put in, as well as more interested in taking what they can now than having more to take later. If anyone would have the will to industrialize agriculture in India, it would be an Indian government, not an outside military occupation. And if you must insist that they would need outside assistance, well it sure is a good thing India's independence routes involve asking more industrialized nations for help.

C.) You're still framing your responses as if I'm saying the modifier should be completely removable or that any reduction should be done in one shot. I suggested a series of several decisions and/or focuses that would use significant amounts of CIC time, PP, and probably also directly consume certain items from the stockpile like MOT and MECH, and each level would probably require a certain number of factories, each greater than the one before. If you really like, it can also have a stability penalty.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

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!"

When we've discussed @Casko 's proposal to we've first looked up how it would look like. The historical (but cold war era borders) looks impossible to recreate in the game.

Implementing all the minor states of Germany would cause similar problems. But I've proposed to leave them out for brevity because the princely states are more similar (still meaningful in 1936 and later).

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.

There were 565 such states. Perhaps the 5 large states (that had direct relationship with the Raj government)?

 

[billcorr]

There were 565 such states.

Cool map of The British Raj's Princely States ca. 1893.

Wow!

 

[Caeric]

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.

Not so much easy as being disproportionally weak compared even to other minors due to the powercreep. Having everything from 'The Great Depression' and changing conscription laws locked behind WT thresholds & needing to be at war to complete several foci. Not to mention practically all their non-Commonwealth paths are pretty damn shit compared to being Brittain's backup dancers.

I don't really find playing them very much fun at all in SP since you're heavily dependent on whatever the AI does with not a whole lot you can do yourself to heavily impact the game due to the terrible industry and severe lack of manpower for most fo them. Having to try to babysit the AI rather than do the job yourself quickly gets on my nerves.