General MacArthur
Revoke title- 60% chance of rebellion (no tyranny due to Yalu river crossing)
- 3
- 2
What's wrong with the Hearts of Iron version of history
- Thread starter FOARP
- Start date
-
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.
General MacArthur
Revoke title- 60% chance of rebellion (no tyranny due to Yalu river crossing)
Were all the Chinese forces bascially well disciplined and fully responsive to the supreme HQ? If not, the question is how important were those deficiencies and how to represent them using whatever options are available in game in order to achieve the right effect.
The term "warlords" in 1936 China might a bit of a misnomer. There were real warlords in the 1920s, who were "strongmen" who had their own separate armies, governments and territories which were completely or mostly outside the authority of a central government. By 1936 those types of warlords were gone, and all of China was under the formal rule of the KMT under Chiang Kai Shek. However, the level of National Unity was very low and the Dissent Level very high. The problem in terms of the game, is that the factionalism was very complex and highly fluid. China being a very large and populous country had a lot of room for many diverse and interesting leaders, politicians, generals, ideologies, and characters.
All provinces and regions had an appointed KMT governor or official in charge of it. Some of them became "warlords". All of them were either former, current, or future members of the KMT. Some of them temporarily rebelled and resisted the central government. Some of them made separate agreements or secretly collaborated with Communists, Japan, or the Soviets. Some of them switched loyalties back and forth multiple times. Some of them belonged to or sided with different or multiple factions at various times. Even the Communist army, at various times, were allied with or under the command of the KMT.
For example the governor of Sinkiang, Sheng Shicai, was a member of the KMT but collaborated with the Soviet Union, then rebelled against the KMT, then rebelled against the Soviets, then rejoined the KMT, and became a minister in the ROC government.
HOI3 and HOI4 cannot represent all of this in detailed way, IMO. The warlord areas on the HOI3/4 map were not really separate countries, nor "puppets", since they were all under the formal rule of the Nationalist government, and were recognized as such by all countries of the world as well as the various "warlords" themselves. The military units garrisoned in the warlord areas had Nationalist Army identifications and command structures and officers. There were other irregular military units, of course, but they would've have been considered rebels, militia, or irregulars.
It may be possible to model some of this but it would have to be in a highly abstracted way.
All provinces and regions had an appointed KMT governor or official in charge of it. Some of them became "warlords". All of them were either former, current, or future members of the KMT. Some of them temporarily rebelled and resisted the central government. Some of them made separate agreements or secretly collaborated with Communists, Japan, or the Soviets. Some of them switched loyalties back and forth multiple times. Some of them belonged to or sided with different or multiple factions at various times. Even the Communist army, at various times, were allied with or under the command of the KMT.
For example the governor of Sinkiang, Sheng Shicai, was a member of the KMT but collaborated with the Soviet Union, then rebelled against the KMT, then rebelled against the Soviets, then rejoined the KMT, and became a minister in the ROC government.
HOI3 and HOI4 cannot represent all of this in detailed way, IMO. The warlord areas on the HOI3/4 map were not really separate countries, nor "puppets", since they were all under the formal rule of the Nationalist government, and were recognized as such by all countries of the world as well as the various "warlords" themselves. The military units garrisoned in the warlord areas had Nationalist Army identifications and command structures and officers. There were other irregular military units, of course, but they would've have been considered rebels, militia, or irregulars.
It may be possible to model some of this but it would have to be in a highly abstracted way.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
If only there were a name for something like that.
Someone who thinks he is on a crusade. Who wants to power to do it his way. Not a president, but something more... king-like.
It's on the tip of my tongue, damn it!
- 2
Germany might have, especially given the treatment they gave Rommel. I do take your point though, even though one of the warlords I mentioned is part of "Nationalist China" and the other modelled as the leader of his own state in HOI3 (and HOI4?).
Well, UN membership is a curious thing. For example, Soviet Union was represented by 3 members, USSR, Ukrainean SSR and Belorussian SSR, quite literally having 3 votes. There was really nothing administratively special about those republics, seeing how "on paper" SU was a federation of 16 republics, having 3 seats in UN.
So, yes, Philippines could be a colony and be UN member at the same time. Not saying they were, but your argument makes little sense. Like it would make zero sense to divide USSR into USSR, BSSR and UkrSSR simply because these were 3 members of UN.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
If only there were a name for something like that.
Someone who thinks he is on a crusade. Who wants to power to do it his way. Not a president, but something more... king-like.
It's on the tip of my tongue, damn it!
Kingly Crusaders?
This thread makes me confused because there are so many opinions regarding autonomy/independence/control of China and very little referenced when making them.
As such I decided to read a little more and changed my previous position of how China should look at the start of the game to this:
One thing I can find evidence of that no one has mentioned is that by 1933 Japan and Manchukuo occupied Chahar and on May 12 1936 was officially declared a state (puppet of Japan). This is not represented by the game. Technically the name changed but essentially it was Mengjiang. This either should be represented in game as a Japanese puppet from the start, or some event whereby China has control until it "loses" it to Japanese influence 4 months in.
Up until war broke out, North China was largely autonomous and under heavy influence of Japan who wanted to make them into a puppet state of North China. It would be wrong to incorporate all of this territory into Nationalist China. In fact, Shanxi, East Hebei, Mengjiang/Chahar, and Shandong should be puppets (or whatever thing used) with some event or mechanic included in game that if Japan can create a fascist coup in 3/4 puppets those that had the coup get transferred to Japan, along with the Chinese area of Peking/the rest of Hebei) creating the puppet state they always planned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_China_Buffer_State_Strategy
It should of course be rare since in reality only 2/4 happened, 1 of which was already firmly under Japanese influence by 1936 (Chahar).
Beyond that I find that Yunnan, Guangxi, Hunan, the Mas, Shanxi, East Hebei, Chahar, and Shandong (Chahar should be out of China's control completely by May 1936) were the only areas where the warlords maintained enough autonomy to be considered not incorporated into Nationalist China for game purposes. Sure we can debate what "degree" that autonomy took, or what formal or informal effect it had, but in reality these areas were effectively outside of the direct control of Nationalist China to the point they could have rebelled or switched allegiances. Everywhere else, the warlords may have existed by the KMT had enough control to not rightfully call them autonomous.
As such this is the way China should be represented in 1936: (South-West Hebei a slightly different shade of blue just to show what area would transfer per my comments about North China-Japan).
As such I decided to read a little more and changed my previous position of how China should look at the start of the game to this:
One thing I can find evidence of that no one has mentioned is that by 1933 Japan and Manchukuo occupied Chahar and on May 12 1936 was officially declared a state (puppet of Japan). This is not represented by the game. Technically the name changed but essentially it was Mengjiang. This either should be represented in game as a Japanese puppet from the start, or some event whereby China has control until it "loses" it to Japanese influence 4 months in.
Up until war broke out, North China was largely autonomous and under heavy influence of Japan who wanted to make them into a puppet state of North China. It would be wrong to incorporate all of this territory into Nationalist China. In fact, Shanxi, East Hebei, Mengjiang/Chahar, and Shandong should be puppets (or whatever thing used) with some event or mechanic included in game that if Japan can create a fascist coup in 3/4 puppets those that had the coup get transferred to Japan, along with the Chinese area of Peking/the rest of Hebei) creating the puppet state they always planned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_China_Buffer_State_Strategy
It should of course be rare since in reality only 2/4 happened, 1 of which was already firmly under Japanese influence by 1936 (Chahar).
Beyond that I find that Yunnan, Guangxi, Hunan, the Mas, Shanxi, East Hebei, Chahar, and Shandong (Chahar should be out of China's control completely by May 1936) were the only areas where the warlords maintained enough autonomy to be considered not incorporated into Nationalist China for game purposes. Sure we can debate what "degree" that autonomy took, or what formal or informal effect it had, but in reality these areas were effectively outside of the direct control of Nationalist China to the point they could have rebelled or switched allegiances. Everywhere else, the warlords may have existed by the KMT had enough control to not rightfully call them autonomous.
As such this is the way China should be represented in 1936: (South-West Hebei a slightly different shade of blue just to show what area would transfer per my comments about North China-Japan).
- 4
- 1
- 1
Nice work. Nice map.
One issue is that is that the Nationalist Army occupies all of the warlord areas. Historically the generals in command of those units were usually members of the local clique but not in every case. So the local Nat Army units could not always be counted on to side with the warlord. An example is the 36th Division in Sinkiang. It actually fought against the renegade governor of Sinkiang.
So some divisions located in warlord areas would be Nat Army and others loyal to the warlord. I don't know anything about modding, so I don't if this can done or not. It would have to decided on a division by division basis.
In case of all out war with Japan all the warlords and CC should ally with Nat China, as an event. Historically speaking all their divisions would be under the command of Generalissimo Chiang at that point. Would Expeditionary forces or Volunteers simulate that?
Then there would have to be another option or decision that allows CC and KMT to break their alliance with each other.
Good luck with this.
- 1
Chahar had already been seized by the Japanese, and there was some fighting in Suiyuan province in 1936, but I'm not sure on what crtieria you're deciding that large part of China which Chiang effectively controlled and which obeyed his orders were autonomous.
There was no official autonomy for these regions, so in judging their level of autonomy you have to look at their actions, and in every situation where Chiang gave them orders, they basically followed them. Chiang also freely based his troops in all of these regions, constructed factories and infrastructure in them (particularly in Yunnan).
Two warlords: Liu Xiang and Long Yun. Please tell me why Liu Xiang should be under the KMT control whilst Long Yun is not?
Another two: Li Zongren and Liu Wenhui. Again, why should Li Zongren be a warlord but not Liu Wenhui?
Finally, if the ability to switch sides and rebel is the mark of an autonomous warlord, then many of the ministers of the KMT government were warlords, not least of which is Wang Jingwei.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Surely the best way of representing that situation is to make the settings for China such that they are not over-powered when all those pseudo-states are combined into one Nationalist China. There has to be a way of representing the factors that were preventing that entity from being able to comprehensively rebuff the IJA in the '30s without just chopping it into chunks that don't/can't cooperate. First those factors have to be identified, then enshrined in the structure of China itself to stop a player entirely sidestepping the problem in a '36 start. IV provides, it would seem, more ways of doing this than III, with national focus trees, and if China were "made whole" in IV, it'd definitely be worth a tree of its own.- 2
my "criteria" and my reasoning is gameplay reasons. These regions could very well have fallen under Japenese control before war broke out, which is impossible to represent if they were directly under KMT control in HOI4. Suiyuan and Shantung (and heck even Shanxi) based on everything I read had a great deal of autonomy and were courted by the Japanese on multiple occasions. Party membership in China is only one of many factors.
also:
http://web.mit.edu/course/21/21h.580/www/timesatlas/p122_3.jpg
"official" autonomy is irrelevant. what matters is in practice. "de facto"
Obeying orders is not autonomy. Degree of top down control determines autonomy. Basing troops in a region is not an argument against autonomy. In HOI4, a puppet country can have the mother country station troops there. Remember this is not some academic or philosophical debate, this is how to represent history within the mechanics of HOI4.
You are right, technically Sechuan could be 'autonomous' for game purposes in 1936. Not sure why I took it off my list.
As for Li Zongren and Liu Wenhui...how about throwing out some justifications or explanations instead of just stating there names in some pedantic show of intelligence? I'm trying to make this game better, not show off my knowledge. So I appreciate only that criticism that helps.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
If you step back and look at the 1911 to 1936 period in the context of 4000 thousand years of history in China, it's another iteration of the civil wars that raged between the end of a dynasty and the beginning of the next one. Eventually one faction gains the upper hand and tries to subdue everyone else and consolidate its power.
By 1936 the KMT had conquered all of China, but was in the predicament of losing some of its conquests to Japan and the CPC, and trying to keep its own faction together. The eventual winner of the contest to be the next dynasty is still undecided. So, here are some ideas I have to model this.
Nat China would have only a few core areas such as Shanghai, Nanjing, and Wuhan. The rest of China is occupied territories, excluding CC and Japanese puppets. The warlord areas have the highest revolt risk because they were formerly independent until recently subdued by the KMT.
If a warlord area revolts, the generals would be the historical leaders of the local clique. It's the KMT's task to lower the revolt risk in the warlord areas by whatever means it has available for that in the game. A warlord area regains independence if it can recapture its capital and remove all occupying forces. It can also be liberated or released or puppeted.
This leaves Japan, CC, and Nat China plenty of room to influence, attempt coups, disrupt unity, support ruling party, etc.
A mechanism like that might work for warlords in other parts of the world too.
Just some ideas...
By 1936 the KMT had conquered all of China, but was in the predicament of losing some of its conquests to Japan and the CPC, and trying to keep its own faction together. The eventual winner of the contest to be the next dynasty is still undecided. So, here are some ideas I have to model this.
Nat China would have only a few core areas such as Shanghai, Nanjing, and Wuhan. The rest of China is occupied territories, excluding CC and Japanese puppets. The warlord areas have the highest revolt risk because they were formerly independent until recently subdued by the KMT.
If a warlord area revolts, the generals would be the historical leaders of the local clique. It's the KMT's task to lower the revolt risk in the warlord areas by whatever means it has available for that in the game. A warlord area regains independence if it can recapture its capital and remove all occupying forces. It can also be liberated or released or puppeted.
This leaves Japan, CC, and Nat China plenty of room to influence, attempt coups, disrupt unity, support ruling party, etc.
A mechanism like that might work for warlords in other parts of the world too.
Just some ideas...
- 3
- 1
- 1
When Peng Dehuai was charged at his trial in 1959, one of the charges was that he launched the 100 regiments offensive and fought Japan when the Communists were specifically trying to avoid it. One of the aftereffects of the Hundred Regiments Offensive was the "Three Alls" policy. The Japanese counterattack wiped out about 1/4 of the Communist's strength.
The Communists, by virtue of their countryside location, were not occupying areas that the Japanese wanted. They could thus avoid combat, which they did.
The Nationalists controlled rails and cities which the Japanese wanted. They had to fight. Battle of Wuhan, 1st, 2nd, 3rd Changsha. the Battle of Hengyang, Battle of Shanghai, Tai''er Zhuang, Operation Carbonado... The Nationalists fought the Japanese.
This was also apparent in the Japanese troop dispositions where the vast majority of troops were deployed to face Nationalist formations not Communist ones.
I've read some stuff that says that Japanese intelligence cooperated with the Communists on the ground in North China, but nothing that makes me believe it was a general policy.
I do know for a fact that the Communists grew opium from 1942-1945 and then sold it to Nationalist areas.
As for assigning fault on the New Fourth Army incident... That goes both ways. The Communists were absolutely correct in believing that CKS wanted to kill them. CKS was absolutely correct in believing that the Communists were dedicated to overthrowing the government violently. The New Fourth Army Incident wasn't the first time in the war that they fought, it was just the largest one to date and it couldn't be swept under the rug. Communist and Nationalist troops had been fighting eachother for a few months prior though it was smaller formations and very opportunistic.
- 1
- 1
To be fair, consider that the CC had no cities and rails to defend because both the KMT and IJA were actively denying them control of any of those assets.
Peng Dehuai was criticized for launching the offensive because of the disastrous results:
1. Main CC regular Army almost destroyed by the KMT
2. End of the alliance and coordination with the KMT
He later became the commander of PLA in the Korean War and Minister of Defense. His trial in 1959 was part of those periodic purges in the PRC.
The CC was completed isolated and not receiving aid from anyone including the Soviets until 1945. So they had no choice but to turn to guerilla warfare.
During the last years of WW2 US General Wedemeyer actually had more respect for the CC army than the Nationalists. He could see that KMT generals were preserving their troops for the continuation of the civil war after Japan was defeated, and lobbied for more support for and coordination with the CC.
The basic situation in China after the Xi'an incident was that no more large-scale incursions could occur without war: there weren't going to be any more provinces lopped off China. The entire reason that Chiang pushed the Japanese in Shanghai after the Marco Polo bridge incident was to make this clear to the Japanese. Is suppose Chiang could have made more concessions in the North, but he wouldn't have be leader for much longer if he had, and these concessions are perfectly model-able through events.
I have no idea where that map comes from, but it is both old (judging by the Wade-Giles Romanisation system used) and inaccurate/uses weasel terms like "largely autonomous", "virtually independent". Suiyuan wasn't "Independent of Nanjing", it was governed by Yan Xishan who was ultimately a KMT member who followed Chiang's orders, and defended by KMT troops, and eventually seized by the Japanese after the Marco Polo bridge incident and integrated (along with Chahar) into Mengjiang. It shows a "Japan sponsored puppet state 1935" embracing Hebei, Shandong, Suiyuan, and Shanxi, but this is actually the state the Japanese wished to establish in 1935, not one they did establish in 1935, though of course once these areas (largely, the Japanese never took all of Shanxi) fell into their hand they nominally came within the area governed by their puppet governments.
Obviously it does matter, as if an area is at least nominally autonomous, then the working assumption is that it is autonomous unless there's evidence to the contrary. If, on the other hand, no de jure autonomy exists, then you assume that it wasn't autonomous unless there's evidence to the contrary. I the case of the warlords, they had all sworn allegiance to the KMT and were de jure under Chiang's leadership.
Very obviously someone who directly follows another's orders (like the warlords followed Chiang's orders) then that's a strong indicator that they weren't really all that autonomous.
Like the way the Guangxi warlords followed Chiang's orders in the Battle of Shanghai? Or the way the Qinghai warlords followed his orders in the fighting against the Communists in the 1930's?
If the supreme government can move troops at will through a territory, that's a good indicator that that territory is not really independent.
Yes, and history tells us that the warlords ultimately had none of the characteristics of independent states, not even nominally.
Their biographies are online - so rather than flying off the handle, why not give them a read? You can see that they were warlords, but followed Chiang's orders. You can see that there were people who could fairly be described as warlords throughout China at that time, and that making the warlords into independent states would result in China basically not existing. You can see that it really doesn't make that much sense to have some warlord-run areas run directly by the KMT but others not since they were just as likely to scheme against Chiang (and each other).
My main issue here is that modelling the Chinese warlords as independent states (or even as puppets) resulted in HOI3 in:
1) An inability to ever unify China as the KMT without going to war. In reality, if Chiang wanted to get rid of the warlords he could, though he would often rely on assassination to achieve this.
2) A lack of the historical level of control over warlord troops.
3) Warlords carrying out diplomatic relations.
4) Foreign countries attacking warlords without finding themselves at war with the KMT (and vice-versa).
I'd prefer just to do away with them and simulate the disunity and inefficiency/low morale they caused with maluses.
- 1
- 1
- 1
The map comes from MIT. Even though it is very general, the borders are off, and the terms are not specific....you're missing the point. You're more interest in the academic exercise of "how autonomous" and "whats the right word to use" than adapting history into the game.
No point in even discussing Suiyuan because its under Shanxi control in HOI4 and I don't propose to change that. So if you have a problem with Suiyuan, complain about the devs not me.
The map shows an area of Japanese influence NOT a proposed puppet state. Those are the regions of China who were being influenced to try to create a proposed puppet state. My idea for the game is to have it so that Japan can mock the same thing by "influencing" nations to change factions, and if they do the puppet state gets created. This is an avenue of alt-history I am suggesting, not anything that happened. You do realize HOI4 is intended to also make possible reasonable althistory? Telling me it didn't happen is again, just showing off your knowledge. I know it didn't happen but I think it would be good for the game if the alt-history possibility existed from Jan 1, 1936 until Japan starts a war. So good for you knowing that, but you're missing the point entirely.
Its a game. Not a political science PHD paper. I think you're forgetting the scope and intention here. In this case the pertinent question is: for gameplay, is it more accurate to have them as puppets or using some mechanic, or non-existent. Its obvious how I answer that question. If you disagree, give me a gameplay reason not an academic argument about technicality. Technically Bohemia and Moravia were a protectorate, but in game they are just annexed into Germany. There's historical fact, and then there's what works and is needed in a game.
Agree to disagree. Slovakia obeyed Hitler mostly, doesn't make them part of Germany. Hitler also moved his troops through puppet states and allies....So agree to disagree but I won't be changing my mod ideas based on "obedience" or troop movement. I'm not suggesting these be independent states, just not 100% missing from the game.
Your concerns again are for the devs. I am not suggesting they be independent. The devs appear to have come up with a game mechanic so that Guangxi, Shanxi, the Mas, and Yunnan, unify with China when the war starts. I am only suggesting more warlords be included in this mechanic. So all of these problems have nothing to do with my suggestions. As far as I can tell, from the WWW the devs have a mechanic and we'll have to wait til the game comes out or there's a China DD to have this discussion without running in circles.
My main issue with your comments is you are focusing on the independence of the person leading a warlord region, the "Warlord," and not focusing enough on the autonomy of the area they control. So biographies of an individuals political leanings and his obedience do not help me make a map.
Let me put my previous post's comments in another way. When it comes to Li Zongren and Liu Wenhui, please tell me what you think the map should look like and why. Don't just say there is a problem. I can't do anything with empty complaints. I do want to make this map as accurate as possible, and I'd rather not waste time defending my choices especially if you might be right and just haven't even been clear what criticisms are.
Last edited:
It would be more accurate to say it shows an area which they were trying to influence. Japanese agents were active throughout China - the only place they were said not to be active was Xinjiang, which was, of course, under Soviet influence.
I'd prefer to wrap the creation of puppet states through agitation into a general mechanism for agitating separatists on another's soil. You don't need independent states on map to simulate attempted Japanese intrigue.
The entire reason we're having this discussion is about how best to model the actual historical situation, in which case determining what the historical situation is important, however I also believe that a game without the problems implicit in having warlord states on-map described previously would be a better one.
Sure, in reality most of China was warlord territory (depending on how you want to define the term "warlord")
Given that a warlord "state" is by definition a "state" under the rule of a single man, knowing how autonomous that man is tells you how autonomous the "state" is.
The issue here is that Li Zongren, as governor of Guangxi, was part of the Guangxi clique. If the Guangxi clique is an independent state, then why shouldn't the Sichuan clique (which Liu Wenhui was part of, as governor of Xikang province) also be an independent state? Both obeyed the orders of the central government to about the same degree.
- 1
- 1
So then by making Sichuan also a puppet (not independent state) on my map I've addressed your concerns? I agree with that completely.
Not to change the subject, but India came to mind today. The way I see it, if Chinese warlords are a concern for how they are modeled, wouldn't the Princely states also be a concern to talk about? Albeit not the same, but similar in the sense that aren't represented in HOI. They did have about 1/4 of the Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi population under their rule after all.
The way I see it, the larger Princely states could be represented in game as puppets of the UK, especially since they were completely independent by 1947 which is within the scope of the game. The way to make them work, in my mind, would be to have modifiers like a 90% manpower reduction and an inability to build military factories so long as they are puppets of the UK. That way the lack of direct British control over them is represented, while also representing the military cost of British protection. Maybe even give British Raj a manpower bonus for every princely state puppet since during the war they ended up contributing money and manpower to the war.
Does anyone know why the Princely States were never included? Or why no one talks about them?
This is just a quick idea I had for how British Raj (excluding Pakistan and Bangladesh for now) and the larger Princely states could be represented in game, though I'm not sure one way or the other whether they ought to or not.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Sichuan is just an example. Guangdong was arguably also a warlord state under Chen Jitang (or was his Guangdong Clique part of the Guangxi Clique? It's not like there was any official or semi-official membership for these groupings). Guizhou was also arguably a warlord state as it was ruled by Wu Zhongxin, a member of the CC clique - a member of this clique also governed Jiangsu and hey had influence in Xinjiang.
Basically, if you make each part of China that was governed by a warlord into a warlord-state, China barely exists anymore. Better just to make China a unitary country (excepting the Communists, Tibet) and simulate the disunity caused by warlords with maluses and events.
Moreover, these warlords biggest enemies were normally the members of their own clique. The Ma's regularly fought for territory, as did the warlords of Sichuan.
As I said in the OP, you're going to have an independent (or even puppet) Philippines, then making the princely states separate on-map nations makes about as much sense. Really it would be great if the game had better mechnisms for handling the relations between subordinate entities (be they warlords, colonies, protectorates, puppets or what have you) and their dominating power.
Last edited: