Where is Egypt ?

[iNevada]

Sure, Britain had an influence in Egypt, but in 1936 it was not under the Britain.
In 1936, Britain signed an agreement with Egypt, allowing the placement of British troops in Egypt to protect the Suez Canal.
So, where is the hell Egypt on the map?

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Sure, Britain had an influence in Egypt, but in 1936 it was not under the Britain.
In 1936, Britain signed an agreement with Egypt, allowing the placement of British troops in Egypt to protect the Suez Canal.
So, where is the hell Egypt on the map?

What's the point?

The game engine cannot possibly replicate Egypt's situation; nominally independent but essentially a British puppet that:

- was officially neutral throughout the war, but...
- its territory was fought in by other nations' armies, and...
- had no standing army of its own, but...
- was garrisoned by the British, and...
- had a pro-Italian king

And so on.

I've tried having Egypt as a British puppet in my mod, but it only causes problems. All Egypt will do is spam divisions it historically never had, and go to war with the Axis, which historically it never did. All adding Egypt does is tip the balance in North Africa further in favor of the Allies.

So, there's your answer.

 

[frolix42]

Good point. Where the hell is Egypt?
Because I don't see them IRL.

It may be PC by today's standards to add a rainbow of nations to the game but in reality, the focus of HoI4 should be on WW2 not on a post-colonial struggle. Maybe that stuff could be added in future DLC way down the road, now PDS needs to focus on making their game playable.

Perhaps if a player controlled Egypt tried to exercise any independence, they should get an automatic game over
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdeen_Palace_Incident_of_1942
So if PDS did add Egypt to HoI4 that was appropriate to it's historical position in 1936, I guarantee it would not satisfy modern Egyptian nationalists.

 

[excaleranth]

Why is British Raj a country? Why can't it just be part of the UK? It's really odd that it stands out. Also we need Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma/Myanmar as releasable countries.

 

[CHRIS3169]

Same reason Soviet republics like Ukraine aren't in the game. The overlord relationship can't be properly made in game. For example, if Ukraine was just a puppet and went independent, the entire war between Germany and Russia would be screwed up.

Likewise, if the British didn't have access to Egypt(it would be quite easy to sway an independent Egypt towards fascism or communism), the desert war would be screwed up.

I wish they allowed for these situations, but unlike eu4, they try to make you play this mostly historical, and replicate historical conflicts and battles.

If UK only had one little province for Suez in Africa, it'd be hard to build up troops without attrition, and wouldn't properly replicate the desert war.

 

[excaleranth]

For those who respectfully disagree with me, I want to know your opinion on why British Raj should be a puppet or maybe if you're disagreeing with breaking up the Raj into multiple little countries like what happened irl. I mean, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos got added so I don't see why not.

So yeah, Egypt as a puppet isn't ok (or you know, most of the world) but India is? I just want to understand what makes India a good puppet

 

[frolix42]

For those who respectfully disagree with me, I want to know your opinion on why British Raj should be a puppet or maybe if you're disagreeing with breaking up the Raj into multiple little countries like what happened irl. I mean, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos got added so I don't see why not.

So yeah, Egypt as a puppet isn't ok (or you know, most of the world) but India is? I just want to understand what makes India a good puppet

You're right, the Raj does stand out but it's supposed to. Because India had a massive amount of manpower IRL, but that manpower could not effectively be used the same way as British manpower could. You would end up in the sad Victoria situation where the Indians make up the massive majority of shock troops of the British Empire, which is ahistorical.

Adding tags, sure add a bunch of post-colonial releaseable tags like Laos and Egypt But HoI4 is so unfinished, these tags aren't going to have much effect on the game until diplomacy and politics gets improved.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I think there's a moment in "The World at War" where it is explained that Lampson would be driven over to the palace where he would basically dictate government policy to the Egyptian King.

As for India. It was a separate administration*, ruled by the Viceroy, but subject to the UK Government. I would say that it shouldn't be integrated into the UK, but that the UK should have more control over British India than seems currently to be the case. How that would be done is another issue.

* Only about 50% of India was under direct British rule. Half of India was made up of 'independent kingdoms'. The various nawabs, rajahs, etc. who ruled these recognised the King or Queen of England as Emperor of India and would have a resident British minister present at their court as an adviser. Treaties between these and the British Indian Government limited their armed forces, usually to forces that were only viable for ceremonial and internal policing duties, to limit the potential for any sort of rejection of that status quo.

 

[kviiri]

Why is British Raj a country? Why can't it just be part of the UK? It's really odd that it stands out. Also we need Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma/Myanmar as releasable countries.

The Raj has considerable gameplay value because it's powerful enough to pursue armed independence from Britain by joining the Axis or Comintern.

 

[Xaelyn]

Because India had a massive amount of manpower IRL, but that manpower could not effectively be used the same way as British manpower could. You would end up in the sad Victoria situation where the Indians make up the massive majority of shock troops of the British Empire, which is ahistorical.

The massive penalty to non-core manpower (-98%) more than takes care of that. If anything the Raj being a puppet makes the UK stronger.

 

[Miaow]

The massive penalty to non-core manpower (-98%) more than takes care of that. If anything the Raj being a puppet makes the UK stronger.

That's the idea—the Raj did contribute large ammounts of manpower, but it shouldn't be as easy for the UK to use as England's own manpower. The Raj being a puppet is an ugly solution, IMO, but it largely achieves its purpose.

 

[Xaelyn]

That's the idea—the Raj did contribute large ammounts of manpower, but it shouldn't be as easy for the UK to use as England's own manpower. The Raj being a puppet is an ugly solution, IMO, but it largely achieves its purpose.

They contributed nothing approaching what they can in game as a puppet. I have yet to do the math, but I suspect having the Raj owned (as none core states) rather than puppeted would be a lot closer to their actual IRL manpower contribution.

 

[Random Savage]

You're right, the Raj does stand out but it's supposed to. Because India had a massive amount of manpower IRL, but that manpower could not effectively be used the same way as British manpower could. You would end up in the sad Victoria situation where the Indians make up the massive majority of shock troops of the British Empire, which is ahistorical.

Adding tags, sure add a bunch of post-colonial releaseable tags like Laos and Egypt But HoI4 is so unfinished, these tags aren't going to have much effect on the game until diplomacy and politics gets improved.

Then again its just a pain when you wipe out the allies and they don't surrender until the Raj is defeated- pointlessly forces you to make naval invasions over thousands if miles of sea or you have to fight through Iran, Iraq, and a bunch of other useless countries.

 

[Miaow]

They contributed nothing approaching what they can in game as a puppet. I have yet to do the math, but I suspect having the Raj owned (as none core states) rather than puppeted would be a lot closer to their actual IRL manpower contribution.

If they stick to historical conditions (Volunteer Only Indian Army) then it's pretty much correct. The Indian Army in WWII was the world's largest ever volunteer army, surpassing both the British Army in 1916 and the current US Army.

If you divide their pool by 50 (non-core penalty) the UK would have to go to a very ahistorical Scraping the Barrel to extract slightly less than India's historical contribution.

Then again its just a pain when you wipe out the allies and they don't surrender until the Raj is defeated- pointlessly forces you to make naval invasions over thousands if miles of sea or you have to fight through Iran, Iraq, and a bunch of other useless countries.

If the UK capitulates the Raj should become independent and if the USA (or another major) is not in the war and uncapitulated, the AI Raj should usually offer peace terms.

 

[Gamer_1745]

- had no standing army of its own, but...

Yes, it did. It was mostly equipped with WW I weaponry and was about 100,000 strong during WWII. I think it fought one minor defensive engagement at Siwa.

 

[Xaelyn]

If they stick to historical conditions (Volunteer Only Indian Army) then it's pretty much correct. The Indian Army in WWII was the world's largest ever volunteer army, surpassing both the British Army in 1916 and the current US Army.

Even at volunteer only they have more than twice the manpower than they fielded historically, and AFAIK there is nothing stopping the Raj from instituting a significant draft in game even though that probably wouldn't have worked out too well for the british IRL.

If you divide their pool by 50 (non-core penalty) the UK would have to go to a very ahistorical Scraping the Barrel to extract slightly less than India's historical contribution.

If they take one of the manpower increasing doctrine branches they could probably hit the 2.5M mark
What would you say is the highest historically accurate draft law for the UK?

 

[Gamer_1745]

Even at volunteer only they have more than twice the manpower than they fielded historically,

Which Army? India was not one political organization at the time. I don't know them all & their military forces but there were various independent, semi-independent & puppet states that had one level or another of military force.

This is part of the problem with India & a game like HoI. If you raised all the historical units of all types from all states and then moved them out of India or just to the Front you would have chaos in India. I know I would want/think should be that if I was playing as the UK I should get major contributions from India under my control. India did have major arms production at Ishapore (sp?) and raised a lot of troops. I think the best thing would be for the Raj to be coded to give X% of units raised to Britain. This would keep players & AI from abusing India and keep enough troops at home to protect it if attacked.

 

[Tacticus101]

Even at volunteer only they have more than twice the manpower than they fielded historically, and AFAIK there is nothing stopping the Raj from instituting a significant draft in game even though that probably wouldn't have worked out too well for the british IRL.

The issue for the Raj is equipping their army rather than manpower, that is their main weakness. You have get 200 million manpower as the Raj if you want, it wont help when you can equip guns for more than 30 divisions.

If the British directly control the Indian territories then all that Indian manpower they gain gets turned into well equipped regiments recruited in the British Isles, which is just weird. With the Raj as a Puppet, they have very few troops at the start of the war, slowly building them up as they get more factories. Generally I think it results in a fairly historical army growth and a very historical lack of things like Tanks. They will also fight the Japanese in Indonesia, which is what happened historically, rather than sending everything to Europe.

 

[frolix42]

The massive penalty to non-core manpower (-98%) more than takes care of that. If anything the Raj being a puppet makes the UK stronger.

So the devs have a trinary situation:

1. You have Raj as non-core (-98%), which would unpower the Raj.
2. You have Raj as British core, which would flood Britain with manpower and overpower Britain similar to the way it's overpowered in Victoria.
3. Independant Raj as a "puppet" of Britain. This is not perfect, but it at least the developer has the freedom to customize the Raj's strength.

Option three is not perfect but better than option one or two until the developers can focus attention and make the Raj unique.

Then again its just a pain when you wipe out the allies and they don't surrender until the Raj is defeated- pointlessly forces you to make naval invasions over thousands if miles of sea or you have to fight through Iran, Iraq, and a bunch of other useless countries.

There is a lot about HoI4's victory conditions that leave much to be desired. Genuine partisans and colonial independence movements are very much needed eventually.

 

[Xaelyn]

The issue for the Raj is equipping their army rather than manpower, that is their main weakness. You have get 200 million manpower as the Raj if you want, it wont help when you can equip guns for more than 30 divisions.

If the British directly control the Indian territories then all that Indian manpower they gain gets turned into well equipped regiments recruited in the British Isles, which is just weird. With the Raj as a Puppet, they have very few troops at the start of the war, slowly building them up as they get more factories. Generally I think it results in a fairly historical army growth and a very historical lack of things like Tanks. They will also fight the Japanese in Indonesia, which is what happened historically, rather than sending everything to Europe.

The factories don't change much, in either case the raj is contributing a large chunk of manpower and f**k all factories. If the UK has a surplus of equipment it can lease it to the Raj or use it to build more divisions than otherwise (in the non-core india case), if it doesn't the point is moot.

The point about the troops being deployed to the UK is a good one though, and having the Raj as a puppet probably does result in a better defense their than the alternative. OTH British India could become the new Sahara, with thousands of divisions from across the globe fighting over it...