Am I the only one who thinks that a game dedicated solely to the Second Sino-Japanese War with unique mechanics and a focus on non-European politics and warfare is the only way to even begin doing just to the whole situation?
- 3
- 3
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.
I think @Porkman 's right when he says that the master-subject relationship between warlords and central government may have application elsewhere in-game. Obviously the relationship between imperial powers and their colonies/dominions/puppets etc. being one. Also, China is not quite the only country in the world at that time that had warlords - Ethiopia with its Rases being one example. I have to admit that I don't know that much about Saudi history, but I understand Saudi Arabia wasn't that different.
- 3
It's not just the master-subject relationship, though. That is a single set of mechanics with application elsewhere.
There's a lot of person-specific, historical moment stuff that makes the theater very complicated. Who owed allegiance to whom? When? Under what conditions? What factions are present? What actions are those factions allowed to take?
Just as an example: Should Japan just be one polity in the game? Or should Kwangtung Army Command have its own limited foreign policy? Should Kwangtung Army Command control resources in Manchukuo? Should it be capable of starting a limited war on its own? Or should it be able to just refuse to cease hostilities despite orders from Tokyo?
What about factional politics between the army and navy at home? Should there be an option to have cabinet ministers and military leaders be victims to assassination when the player makes certain policy choices? (How different would history be if Yamamoto had been assassinated before the war?)
These issues with Japan's politics, while superficially looking like the issues China has, are actually very different. They are also different than the politics faced by the US or other major combatants. And the size and scope of warfare in China is very different from what is happening in Europe.
This isn't a "China and Asian warfare in WWII is not as advanced" kind of argument. Hell, good luck getting Guderian and Rommel to make progress in an invasion of China beyond Japanese advances. But the realities of the conflict, including logistics, size of theater, and the number of combatants on each size, not to mention the railways situation, makes me wonder if the HOI series can ever really get it right since it is designed around an entirely different kind of warfare.
- 2
- 2
The issues with Japan (e.g., Navy v. Army politics) aren't such that you can use territorial control to model them so obviously they are much more difficult to model in a game like HOI even compared to the complexities of KMT warlord politics (since these are at least modellable by saying "Clique X controls territory Y and has powers Z"). I'd love to see a game that models them in a fashion that doesn't swamp the player, though I have no idea how that might be achieved.
- 1
A lot personality politics and internal politics are very hard to cover in a game focused on the overall nation and the macro, rather than the internal aspects of a country. Especially where the Devs are trying to simplify the game in some respects to reach a wider audience. That said what seems to have been done for this usually is use events ie. Abdication of King Edward.
First, I'm proceeding under the thought that there are two game setting you can use; one when the AI follows a more historical path, and one that allows more alternative choices with a slightly more sandbox feel? If so my suggestion makes more sense.
Maybe there can be "rare events" modded in. Events that only fire 1/500 games, or even less often (depends on the event).
ie. Hitler is assassinated! = Himmler becomes Fuhrer, Germany takes some penalties.
x Warlord revolts! = can only fire while China is a peace, that warlord becomes independent and China must now deal with a rebellion.
x Minister assassinated! = under certain conditions.
I've always been under the thought that criticisms should always be accompanied by suggestions where possible. So would extremely rare events be one way of accounting for an individual's impact on history in a game not meant to deal with personality directly?
First, I'm proceeding under the thought that there are two game setting you can use; one when the AI follows a more historical path, and one that allows more alternative choices with a slightly more sandbox feel? If so my suggestion makes more sense.
Maybe there can be "rare events" modded in. Events that only fire 1/500 games, or even less often (depends on the event).
ie. Hitler is assassinated! = Himmler becomes Fuhrer, Germany takes some penalties.
x Warlord revolts! = can only fire while China is a peace, that warlord becomes independent and China must now deal with a rebellion.
x Minister assassinated! = under certain conditions.
I've always been under the thought that criticisms should always be accompanied by suggestions where possible. So would extremely rare events be one way of accounting for an individual's impact on history in a game not meant to deal with personality directly?
- 2
- 1
Alright. . . I have basically been imersing myself in japanese politics from around 1920 to 1940 for about two days now and I think I have a solution to our problem with China.
1. China should be unified; My reason for this is that what many of you didn't know is that Li Zongren was planning to have a fight with Chiang just before 1931, something which was interrupted by the japanese Mukden Incident, and was therefor preparing his forces. From everything else that I have read is that the warlord pretty much kept their mouths shut the whole TIME because they didn't want to be seen as USURPERS and mostly planned to have chiang embarass himself by giving in to Japanese demands. LI Zongren and others could easily be simulated in the game by having the japanese cause a Facist rebellion in China, since it was known that Li was a staunch facist, and there were also many Facist elements in the Japanese government in the time, so it wouldn't have been impossible to imagine them somehow getting together and stomping out Chiang and the Communists together.
In general, this entire conflict is just TOO complicated for any DLC or MOD to properly depict it, but I want to make something perfectly clear.
There was almost and absolutely no chance for Japan to ever defeat the Chinese by sheer brutal force. China just had too much man power but little equipment. Also, both nations agreed the one to profit most out of direct conflict were inevitably the Communists, which lead chiang to launch many assaults on them which lead to the XIAN incident, which implicitly forced Chiang kai chek to atleast try to stand up to the Japanese. This scared the Japanese who felt the WINDOW of getting into china had passed and that is one idea of what caused the Marco polo incident.
I am not going to say anymore, but I will end my statement saying trying to take China in a "Conventional War" is out of the question. UNLESS Nanking never happens because that is the absolute final straw and was a military catastrophe in the highest possible grade. It completely surged Japanese resentment and made any attempt for anyone to talk with the Japanese absolutely absurd at that point.
Japan must never wage a "Normal" war with china, firstly because it would be far too costly, secondly It would severly weaken domestic support for the military. Some say Nanking happened because elements in the japanese Military wanted to speed up the "Inevitable" war with China and completely rejected Matsui Iwane's idea of Pan-asianism cooperation against communists and the west (Basically an ASIAN EU). This was indubatibly the very LAST straw the Chinese people had for the Japanese. If Japan manages to cease China in a peaceful way then they can get both resources, manpower and atleast a passively sympathizing population on their side, which would be a tremendous benefit if they decided to save the rest of Asia from the Western scum. Philipiness could be skipped since USA has promised their independence and should be kept at cordial relations. A war with USA must NEVER happen until atleast 1943 or so when Japan would be strong enough to hold her own. Japan should never have done what they did at Nanking, it was just asking for trouble. Their greatest victories and their arrogance was their downfall. Unless you gain the support of the Chinese people, victories will never be able to be capitalized on.
In outline. Japan would want to have the civil war/wars in china consume and take more land at a slower pace or make sure Nanking never happens. Since war attrocities aren't really supposed to be mentioned or whatever because NYA NYA NYA reasons then I guess the only reasonable way is a mix of Uproars and incursions. Destroying Chiang Kai shek's legitimacy and continuing what Matsui tried to accomplish would probably be the most "Realistic" way of approaching China.
As from a Chinese perspective, Chiang was known for working a lot with intrigue and taking out generals, so having China focus more on developing Intelligence tech to fight off Japanese Cyber attacks could be a way for Chinese players to ward off Japan from trying to cause a civil war long enough for XIAN to happen.
Also, I did consider the possibility that Chiang perhaps died at somepoint just before the war, perhaps assassinated in XIAN or by someone who doesn't like him. That would still probably just weakened the KMT and caused a civil war in china by various factions, so it would still just boil down to a civil war.
Let's also remember that Japan had a severe case of Factionalism as displayed in the February incident, and there were a lot of Glory hounds both in the Army and the Navy who wanted to have a GLORIOUS war over the BASTARD chinese and had absolutely no interests in keeping quiet. Japanese commanders were in generally plagued by lacking moral and chain of command which lead to the newly Established Imperial council that was supposed to fix issues between the ARMY who wanted war with Soviets in general 北進論派 and the navy who wanted to take over the pacific islands and wanted a war with the west 何進論派. There were also several secret socities, facists communists etc etc, which all really should affect unity. Japan itself were at several occasions close to civil war and could at any time break down. The war in China was in general supposed to be some kind of unifying conflict which all factions unite and work against a common goal, which obviously never happened, and factionalism continued to plague the goverment to the very end of the war. The only thing they agreed on was conquering China either peacefully or by force. (Though Matsui was the only one who favored a peaceful approach and was in general considered senile by most of his peers, or even naive. So much for EU). Too many Prussian sausages who are just asking to be purged. (Something the february incident tried to accomplish, and they were in general pretty fascist). Wink Wink* Ironically, this and many other things actually made the military stronger and crippled the government's ability to haul them in, but a successful revolution could pave way for an entire new approach on China. If you have haven't read Zipang, please do so. I do realize too that something like a purge would seriously cripple Japan's ability to wage war, but atleast considering a more diplomatic approach might in the long run be more beneficial. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Academy_incident#The_Aizawa_Incident
Things like these are what lead to the february revolution.
More about the Imeperial way faction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Way_Faction
February revolution both in Japanese and English.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/二・二六事件
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_26_Incident
Another notion is that success would lead a more "Japanese mysticism" Government and would enable Japan to push for war before Marco Polo or Xian and thus cause further fraction among the chinese by small time incursions (Maybe taking beinjing by a political decision before chiang kai shek allies with the commies?!?). It would also lead to Japan being able to enact any policies it want right away since THE EMPEROR would have pretty much complete authority to do whatever he felt would be best for Japan's future. Since the loss of many Japanese officers would be ensured, then Hirohito might push for a more diplomatic approach to make up for his lack of officers and actually listen to Matsui for once. Also, who doesn't want THE EMPEROR to have a greater role in the game? Even if the Devs turn it down it wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE to mod since all you would have to do is remove some of the Japanese officer cores, allow them to make political decisions easier and set policies immediately.
All in all this is both fair for the Japanese side and the Chinese because it would remove a substanial block of the Japanese officers and allow chiang kai shek to fight on more equal grounds, but allow the Japanese of the other hand to push for a more "Localized war" where they might cause revolts in china and/or rush for the guanxi or shanxi clique in the south before it is sucked up, this is both fun and relatively easy to make, or even ally with the Facist Li Zongren led Guanxi clique to take the fight to Chiang kai shek, now that you are both facists and share the same goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guangxi_clique#New_Guangxi_clique_takes_power
Li Zongren loved empires and mussolini, so a facist emperial lead Japan who both want to break Chiang and the communists surely could have worked together. Also, Li was a military genius, and it was he who proved that the Japanese could be defeated. If they both work together, then their potential is limitless. What Li lacked most was equipment and money, something Japan would be more than willing to provide for Li's brilliant services. Also executing the perpetrators of the Mukden incident and promises of cooperation with Li after Chiang is gone to rule over Asia together might heal the rifts caused by Mukden.
Honestly, I am not sure if the devs listen or care or have time, but I'd really like to see this be implemented, by DLC or atleast mod if nothing else. This all just has so much historical potential that it can't simply be ignored. Let's remember Asian warfare in general had a lot of politics involved in it. It must also be remembered that the allies like the USA and the UK might get involved earlier in Asia, but if Chiang is beaten quickly then it would inevitably lead to them showing up to protect their interests in the orientals, so we might see a much earlier pacific war too. It really depends on how much the US would want to get involved, but assuming the US is still has a relatively isolationist policy to the Japanese this might never occur, and a conflict between only the UK and Japan might occur. This would give Japan a reasonable chance to gain territories in the Pacific for it's new ASEUN which would support local governments in their fight against imperialism to keep the USA away long enough to build up experience to make up for the loss of officers and gain resources which it will need to build up a better army and navy to take on the US. This would also be an alternative solution which leads to Japan gaining control of Asia without having to worry about the US 24/7. It would of course have to fight the Brittish ausies and maybe even the dutch or frenchies, but it would still be fair because the UK wouldn't be bound in Europe as much and Japan would have lost a lot of good officers but still not have to go up against the US since the UK and allies are acting on their own imperialistic behalf. Japan also has really good subs which it never got a chance to use because they weren't good in open waters and too slow. However while the UK has more ships, they are all pretty much pre world war one and while they might have good officers, they would still have trouble fighting the japs. They would be at serious disadvantages and since they don't have good convoys at this time then Japan could inflict serious damage on the brits merchant convoys. In the end the UK might choose to not attack, but once Japan starts to look south after china then they might have no choice but to act anyways. This is of course a huge assumption since the UK was more interested in Europe, but because a facist asian empire would be on the rise, they might choose to start an early conflict to stop the japs. It's all up to what the player decides, I guess. Thoughts?
Some additional notes. Since the Emperor would be allied with a Chinese warlord, the removal of POW rights and things like Nanking would never be able to occur because that would have to be a precondition for cooperation between the two states. Nanking is also said to have occured to lack of respect for their superiors, who usually were very lenient to the soldiers because they were seen as old. With a new fresh young officer forps, this and and the alliance would have made Japanese incursions a lot easier to defend. While there might still be incidents, these might be severally punished in this alternative history line.
Li Zhongren is really the best candidate to cooperate with. He was basically a mixture of what would happen in you put Hitler's charisma, Rommel's tactical genius and Mussollini's ambitions in one and the same guy. He is indubitably the best candidate to unite China, and having him as an ally will also gain support from other facists like Italy and Hitler, albeit at WT. Since he is fundamental to cause a new Civil war with the "Assistance" of the Japanese, excluding him from the decision making and having some random bucket start a revolution against Chiang is just too unimaginable and absurd. If there is to be a civil war in China, Li must be the one who starts it, with the assistance of the Japanese.
So going back to china being united. Yes, if Japan decided to do the boring "Orthodox" approach, then yes, China will be "United". But if they do change so that the Emperor becomes absolute ruler than it's a whole different scenario.
P.S. I hate likes and dislikes, unless you aren't commenting begone. I don't conduct argument with ghosts.
1. China should be unified; My reason for this is that what many of you didn't know is that Li Zongren was planning to have a fight with Chiang just before 1931, something which was interrupted by the japanese Mukden Incident, and was therefor preparing his forces. From everything else that I have read is that the warlord pretty much kept their mouths shut the whole TIME because they didn't want to be seen as USURPERS and mostly planned to have chiang embarass himself by giving in to Japanese demands. LI Zongren and others could easily be simulated in the game by having the japanese cause a Facist rebellion in China, since it was known that Li was a staunch facist, and there were also many Facist elements in the Japanese government in the time, so it wouldn't have been impossible to imagine them somehow getting together and stomping out Chiang and the Communists together.
In general, this entire conflict is just TOO complicated for any DLC or MOD to properly depict it, but I want to make something perfectly clear.
There was almost and absolutely no chance for Japan to ever defeat the Chinese by sheer brutal force. China just had too much man power but little equipment. Also, both nations agreed the one to profit most out of direct conflict were inevitably the Communists, which lead chiang to launch many assaults on them which lead to the XIAN incident, which implicitly forced Chiang kai chek to atleast try to stand up to the Japanese. This scared the Japanese who felt the WINDOW of getting into china had passed and that is one idea of what caused the Marco polo incident.
I am not going to say anymore, but I will end my statement saying trying to take China in a "Conventional War" is out of the question. UNLESS Nanking never happens because that is the absolute final straw and was a military catastrophe in the highest possible grade. It completely surged Japanese resentment and made any attempt for anyone to talk with the Japanese absolutely absurd at that point.
Japan must never wage a "Normal" war with china, firstly because it would be far too costly, secondly It would severly weaken domestic support for the military. Some say Nanking happened because elements in the japanese Military wanted to speed up the "Inevitable" war with China and completely rejected Matsui Iwane's idea of Pan-asianism cooperation against communists and the west (Basically an ASIAN EU). This was indubatibly the very LAST straw the Chinese people had for the Japanese. If Japan manages to cease China in a peaceful way then they can get both resources, manpower and atleast a passively sympathizing population on their side, which would be a tremendous benefit if they decided to save the rest of Asia from the Western scum. Philipiness could be skipped since USA has promised their independence and should be kept at cordial relations. A war with USA must NEVER happen until atleast 1943 or so when Japan would be strong enough to hold her own. Japan should never have done what they did at Nanking, it was just asking for trouble. Their greatest victories and their arrogance was their downfall. Unless you gain the support of the Chinese people, victories will never be able to be capitalized on.
In outline. Japan would want to have the civil war/wars in china consume and take more land at a slower pace or make sure Nanking never happens. Since war attrocities aren't really supposed to be mentioned or whatever because NYA NYA NYA reasons then I guess the only reasonable way is a mix of Uproars and incursions. Destroying Chiang Kai shek's legitimacy and continuing what Matsui tried to accomplish would probably be the most "Realistic" way of approaching China.
As from a Chinese perspective, Chiang was known for working a lot with intrigue and taking out generals, so having China focus more on developing Intelligence tech to fight off Japanese Cyber attacks could be a way for Chinese players to ward off Japan from trying to cause a civil war long enough for XIAN to happen.
Also, I did consider the possibility that Chiang perhaps died at somepoint just before the war, perhaps assassinated in XIAN or by someone who doesn't like him. That would still probably just weakened the KMT and caused a civil war in china by various factions, so it would still just boil down to a civil war.
Let's also remember that Japan had a severe case of Factionalism as displayed in the February incident, and there were a lot of Glory hounds both in the Army and the Navy who wanted to have a GLORIOUS war over the BASTARD chinese and had absolutely no interests in keeping quiet. Japanese commanders were in generally plagued by lacking moral and chain of command which lead to the newly Established Imperial council that was supposed to fix issues between the ARMY who wanted war with Soviets in general 北進論派 and the navy who wanted to take over the pacific islands and wanted a war with the west 何進論派. There were also several secret socities, facists communists etc etc, which all really should affect unity. Japan itself were at several occasions close to civil war and could at any time break down. The war in China was in general supposed to be some kind of unifying conflict which all factions unite and work against a common goal, which obviously never happened, and factionalism continued to plague the goverment to the very end of the war. The only thing they agreed on was conquering China either peacefully or by force. (Though Matsui was the only one who favored a peaceful approach and was in general considered senile by most of his peers, or even naive. So much for EU). Too many Prussian sausages who are just asking to be purged. (Something the february incident tried to accomplish, and they were in general pretty fascist). Wink Wink* Ironically, this and many other things actually made the military stronger and crippled the government's ability to haul them in, but a successful revolution could pave way for an entire new approach on China. If you have haven't read Zipang, please do so. I do realize too that something like a purge would seriously cripple Japan's ability to wage war, but atleast considering a more diplomatic approach might in the long run be more beneficial. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Academy_incident#The_Aizawa_Incident
Things like these are what lead to the february revolution.
More about the Imeperial way faction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Way_Faction
February revolution both in Japanese and English.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/二・二六事件
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_26_Incident
Another notion is that success would lead a more "Japanese mysticism" Government and would enable Japan to push for war before Marco Polo or Xian and thus cause further fraction among the chinese by small time incursions (Maybe taking beinjing by a political decision before chiang kai shek allies with the commies?!?). It would also lead to Japan being able to enact any policies it want right away since THE EMPEROR would have pretty much complete authority to do whatever he felt would be best for Japan's future. Since the loss of many Japanese officers would be ensured, then Hirohito might push for a more diplomatic approach to make up for his lack of officers and actually listen to Matsui for once. Also, who doesn't want THE EMPEROR to have a greater role in the game? Even if the Devs turn it down it wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE to mod since all you would have to do is remove some of the Japanese officer cores, allow them to make political decisions easier and set policies immediately.
All in all this is both fair for the Japanese side and the Chinese because it would remove a substanial block of the Japanese officers and allow chiang kai shek to fight on more equal grounds, but allow the Japanese of the other hand to push for a more "Localized war" where they might cause revolts in china and/or rush for the guanxi or shanxi clique in the south before it is sucked up, this is both fun and relatively easy to make, or even ally with the Facist Li Zongren led Guanxi clique to take the fight to Chiang kai shek, now that you are both facists and share the same goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guangxi_clique#New_Guangxi_clique_takes_power
Li Zongren loved empires and mussolini, so a facist emperial lead Japan who both want to break Chiang and the communists surely could have worked together. Also, Li was a military genius, and it was he who proved that the Japanese could be defeated. If they both work together, then their potential is limitless. What Li lacked most was equipment and money, something Japan would be more than willing to provide for Li's brilliant services. Also executing the perpetrators of the Mukden incident and promises of cooperation with Li after Chiang is gone to rule over Asia together might heal the rifts caused by Mukden.
Honestly, I am not sure if the devs listen or care or have time, but I'd really like to see this be implemented, by DLC or atleast mod if nothing else. This all just has so much historical potential that it can't simply be ignored. Let's remember Asian warfare in general had a lot of politics involved in it. It must also be remembered that the allies like the USA and the UK might get involved earlier in Asia, but if Chiang is beaten quickly then it would inevitably lead to them showing up to protect their interests in the orientals, so we might see a much earlier pacific war too. It really depends on how much the US would want to get involved, but assuming the US is still has a relatively isolationist policy to the Japanese this might never occur, and a conflict between only the UK and Japan might occur. This would give Japan a reasonable chance to gain territories in the Pacific for it's new ASEUN which would support local governments in their fight against imperialism to keep the USA away long enough to build up experience to make up for the loss of officers and gain resources which it will need to build up a better army and navy to take on the US. This would also be an alternative solution which leads to Japan gaining control of Asia without having to worry about the US 24/7. It would of course have to fight the Brittish ausies and maybe even the dutch or frenchies, but it would still be fair because the UK wouldn't be bound in Europe as much and Japan would have lost a lot of good officers but still not have to go up against the US since the UK and allies are acting on their own imperialistic behalf. Japan also has really good subs which it never got a chance to use because they weren't good in open waters and too slow. However while the UK has more ships, they are all pretty much pre world war one and while they might have good officers, they would still have trouble fighting the japs. They would be at serious disadvantages and since they don't have good convoys at this time then Japan could inflict serious damage on the brits merchant convoys. In the end the UK might choose to not attack, but once Japan starts to look south after china then they might have no choice but to act anyways. This is of course a huge assumption since the UK was more interested in Europe, but because a facist asian empire would be on the rise, they might choose to start an early conflict to stop the japs. It's all up to what the player decides, I guess. Thoughts?
Some additional notes. Since the Emperor would be allied with a Chinese warlord, the removal of POW rights and things like Nanking would never be able to occur because that would have to be a precondition for cooperation between the two states. Nanking is also said to have occured to lack of respect for their superiors, who usually were very lenient to the soldiers because they were seen as old. With a new fresh young officer forps, this and and the alliance would have made Japanese incursions a lot easier to defend. While there might still be incidents, these might be severally punished in this alternative history line.
Li Zhongren is really the best candidate to cooperate with. He was basically a mixture of what would happen in you put Hitler's charisma, Rommel's tactical genius and Mussollini's ambitions in one and the same guy. He is indubitably the best candidate to unite China, and having him as an ally will also gain support from other facists like Italy and Hitler, albeit at WT. Since he is fundamental to cause a new Civil war with the "Assistance" of the Japanese, excluding him from the decision making and having some random bucket start a revolution against Chiang is just too unimaginable and absurd. If there is to be a civil war in China, Li must be the one who starts it, with the assistance of the Japanese.
So going back to china being united. Yes, if Japan decided to do the boring "Orthodox" approach, then yes, China will be "United". But if they do change so that the Emperor becomes absolute ruler than it's a whole different scenario.
P.S. I hate likes and dislikes, unless you aren't commenting begone. I don't conduct argument with ghosts.
Last edited:
- 5
- 2
- 2
I think personality traits would fit the game perfectly, given how much leader personality has to say in WWII lore -- Hitler's madness and his power struggles with his generals, Churchill's famous resolve and speeches, what have you.
Also, if there's one thing HOI4 isn't, it's simplified
.- 2
- 2
I don't mean personality as "personality trait." I mean it as individuals having such a huge impact on history. People. Individuals. Not in respect to what kind of person they are, but as to what they DID that cannot be modeled in HOI4 as it is now....pretty much what people have been complaining about the past few posts before the one I did...
So what you said is all true, but it has nothing to do with what I was trying to say
I agreed with you. My several posts pretty much support your position. Bottom line is that
Nuf said...
- 1
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).
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.
Based on what I know of China during the era, I think you are pretty much nailing it.
- 3
- 2
- 1
Based on what I know of China during the era, I think you are pretty much nailing it.
Based on what I know about China, that map (which, given the use of Wade-Giles romanisation must be pretty old or based on an older map) is inaccurate. Consider the following:
1) Suiyuan is marked "independent from Nanking" and part of a Japanese puppet state from 1934 - when is this supposed to have occurred? In 1936 KMT troops defeated an invasion of Suiyuan from Chahar by Japanese puppet troops. At the time, Suiyuan was governed by Fu Zuoyi - a KMT general who was part of Yan Xishan's Shanxi clique.
2) Shandong ("Shantung" in Wades-Giles) is labelled "Independent from Nanking" - Han Fuju was picked by Chiang Kai-Shek to be the Shandong governor after he took control of the province during the Northern Expedition and threw out Zhang Zongchang. In what sense was it "Independent" from the KMT government based in Nanjing?
3) Northern Shanxi ("Shansi") and Zhili ("Chili") are marked "independent from Nanking" - Shanxi was governed by Yan Xishan, officially a KMT general, who did pay taxes to Nanjing albeit probably under-paying. There was no change in its status in 1936. The line on the map appears to show the Japanese area of occupation (invaded by Japan = "independent from Nanking"!?) during the invasion after the Marco Polo Bridge incident - we're Shanghai and Nanjing also "independent" because they were conquered by the Japanese army in 1937? Same thing goes for Zhili.
4) Guangdong ("Kwantung") is marked "Warlords to 1936. Nanking after". Guandong is home to the Whampoa academy where Chiang and many other KMT gneerals were trained, it was the base from which they launched the Northern Expedition and the original home of the Republic of China after the fall of the Qing Empire. In January 1936 it was ruled by Hu Hanmin and Chen Jitang, both officially KMT members who held posts in the KMT national government. We can argue about how autonomous these people were, but if Chen Jitang and Hu Hanmin (who was head of the Nanjing parliament - the Legislative Yuan - an head the KMT comittee for common affairs) were "Warlords" then so was their replacement Chen Musong, indeed the same can be said of Chiang Kaishek himself.
5) Guangxi ("Kwangsi") is labelled "deal struck with Nanking 1936" - what deal? The real turning-point was the Japanese invasion of 1931, and, as with every area labelled as separate from Nanjing rule on this map, it was governed by KMT members, garrisoned by KMT troops.
2) Shandong ("Shantung" in Wades-Giles) is labelled "Independent from Nanking" - Han Fuju was picked by Chiang Kai-Shek to be the Shandong governor after he took control of the province during the Northern Expedition and threw out Zhang Zongchang. In what sense was it "Independent" from the KMT government based in Nanjing?
3) Northern Shanxi ("Shansi") and Zhili ("Chili") are marked "independent from Nanking" - Shanxi was governed by Yan Xishan, officially a KMT general, who did pay taxes to Nanjing albeit probably under-paying. There was no change in its status in 1936. The line on the map appears to show the Japanese area of occupation (invaded by Japan = "independent from Nanking"!?) during the invasion after the Marco Polo Bridge incident - we're Shanghai and Nanjing also "independent" because they were conquered by the Japanese army in 1937? Same thing goes for Zhili.
4) Guangdong ("Kwantung") is marked "Warlords to 1936. Nanking after". Guandong is home to the Whampoa academy where Chiang and many other KMT gneerals were trained, it was the base from which they launched the Northern Expedition and the original home of the Republic of China after the fall of the Qing Empire. In January 1936 it was ruled by Hu Hanmin and Chen Jitang, both officially KMT members who held posts in the KMT national government. We can argue about how autonomous these people were, but if Chen Jitang and Hu Hanmin (who was head of the Nanjing parliament - the Legislative Yuan - an head the KMT comittee for common affairs) were "Warlords" then so was their replacement Chen Musong, indeed the same can be said of Chiang Kaishek himself.
5) Guangxi ("Kwangsi") is labelled "deal struck with Nanking 1936" - what deal? The real turning-point was the Japanese invasion of 1931, and, as with every area labelled as separate from Nanjing rule on this map, it was governed by KMT members, garrisoned by KMT troops.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
- 3
- 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebei–Chahar_Political_Council was actually a KMT proxy governing the border provinces after Japan demanded the removal of KMT in the region. However the new "autonomous government" didn't bend like Japan had hoped and instead kept allegiance to Nanjing, making the Japanese point moot.Based on what I know of China during the era, I think you are pretty much nailing it.
Chen Jitang, a important KMT figure and pal with the Guangxi Clique, had several intra-party conflicts with Chiang, but none of them necessitated hot lead to resolve, and the one time he tried to fight Chiang with force (in 1936), Cantonese air force and navy "defected" to Nanjing en masse and Chen resigned after figuring it won't work. Li Zongren of Guangxi also pulled the plug and reconciled with Nanjing.
In the mean time Central Army from Nanjing concentrated in Hunan in case force was needed, and He Jian (Ho Chien on the map) made not a noise, instead fully cooperating and was appointed as the Minister of the Interior in 1937.
So to recap, Hebei and Chahar (at least the non-nomad part of it) were definitely not Japanese puppets but a thinly-veiled "totally not KMT" local government set up by Chiang to pretend he gave in to Japanese demands while he didn't. He Jian's warlordship is overrated and he was, at most, unreliable during emergencies. Chen Jitang was likewise a warlord-wannabe who overrated his control in Guangdong and didn't notice "his men" weren't actually his but Chiang's, and basically handed Guangdong to Chiang on a platter by providing him a perfect excuse to demand him to GTFO. Li Zongren is the only one mentioned that could count as a fully-fledged warlord. His troop didn't suffer mass desertion like Chen's during their standoff with Chiang in 1936 and he talked his way out without substantial concession to the Central Government.
- 3
- 1
The map spam is honestly not helping anyone, could we just focus on whether to have a united china or split and then post a bunch of maps? I mean its literately going nowhere if you are just debating on the right map.
BTW could the OP perhaps add the Balkans as they are a little bit messed up in terms of resources,divisions etc?
BTW could the OP perhaps add the Balkans as they are a little bit messed up in terms of resources,divisions etc?
- 1
- 1
I disagree, the right borders are a part of it. YOU don't like seeing it (which is why I've been putting most of mine under spoilers) but debating the right stats and country borders is part of a "whats wrong" thread.
- 1
- 1
But wouldn't it be more useful if you all made a conclusion with or without help from Paradox staff on whether or not China should be united in-game or not?
You are analyzing 1 out of the 2 possible choices Paradox will make, so all this could end up in nothing if they say that China will just remain united as they currently have it.
Why analyze something when you don't even know if it will from the first place?
You don't analyze what kind of pizza (margarita,peperoni) /hamburger (beef or whatever)/hot dog (mustard or ketchup) /salad (ceasars or green) you will eat before deciding which in general.
I mean its just extra work for all of you but you seem to enjoy it so nevermind....
btw love dat Yoda quote.
This was China in the first WWW:
...and this was china in the latest WWW:
... is it by random event or national focus I wonder?
...and this was china in the latest WWW:
... is it by random event or national focus I wonder?
- 1
For the TL;DR people out there, @SchwarzKatze 's excellent post says: "It's complicated".
This is more a point of straight-up not being accurate in terms of detail, rather than modelling a historical situation in a way that leads to people practically expecting things to be in-game ("Chinese minors", an independent Philippines) that didn't exist historically. Yeah, the developers should do a better job of confirming names/parties/OOBs for Balkan countries (and every other country for that matter) but its not like they actually plan to make factual mistakes.
We'll see if the China theatre actually looks like that when the game launches. It would be strange to have warlord states but no Manchukuo.
Last edited:
- 3