Discussion in 'Alternate History Books and Media' started by RiverDelta, Dec 30, 2017.
This is really the HoI modding thread to be honest
So any thoughts on characters I mentioned for my AAR?
Not really. More of an Indian Juan Peron, although your comparison is still valid.
India desperately needs a rework.
Unfortunately, at least as far as I know, it's not even in the pipeline for now.
There was a suggestion for an Indian rework made on the KR subreddit some time ago. It was pretty good, check it out: https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/btowd8/suggestion_for_a_rework_to_india/
I completely disagree with them. The Princely Federation’s independence is justified and Balochistan’s isn’t.
But didn’t the Princes greatly benefit from British rule? Why would they suddenly abandon their main benefactor after the British Revolution occurs?
Not all the princes abandoned them first. It is established that Osman Ali Khan of Hyderabad wanted to be the governor-general and was backed by the southern princes, while Ganga Singh of Bikaner was backed by the northern princes and the British. Due to this dispute, Osman seceded along with the other princes of the south.
But why would all the southern princes just agree to abandon the British just like that because of this dispute? I'm pretty sure their loyalty to the British would outweigh their support for Osman, since they'd been pretty loyal to them throughout British colonial rule from what I've heard on the British Raj.
If someone can correct me on this, please do so because I'm not an expert on British colonial rule in India.
But this was also a matter of safety. Who would they rather listen to, the faraway government in Delhi whose owners did not even have any control over their own native land, or a fellow Indian prince much closer to them who promised federalism.
Okay, I see what you mean. I don't know a whole lot on British rule over India (aside from the fact that it sucked), so I'll concede to you on this point.
What are your thoughts on the parts of the reddit post? Specifically on the Dominion of India being a military dictatorship that can barely stand on its own feet and can collapse Mittelafrika-style at any moment?
Well I like (I mean love) it but Savarkar in-game is syndicalist, MS Golwalkar would be a better choice in my opinion, the Dravidians would never ever side with the Hindu nationalists as atheism and opposition to Hinduism is a big part of the Dravidian movement, plus I quite like the idea of Nehru as a leader for the Commune. I think the main problem with the dominion is that many of the in-game SocDem figures were members of the Indian National Congress that rules the Commune, so they might not be there.
Vallabhai Patel would be a better leader for the right-wing INC in my opinion. I personally think that the Bharatiya Commune gets very few events until 1937 and that Dange’s anarcho-syndicalists should be one of the options to elect at the beginning.
Madras really shouldn’t exist. It just doesn’t make sense. Rather, there should be a radical Dravidian group in the Princely Federation demanding independence for Madras. Chandrasekhar Azad was an anarchist, not a totalist like in the game.
I think I like this version of it-https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/cmvs3s/thoughts_on_an_india_rework/, although I disagree with the fact that the Commune should not be a member of the Internationale.
This is my idea for the collapses of BHC and PRF.
Hyderabad (Paternal Autocrats)- Osman loyalists, Syndicalist conflicts in rural areas (modelled after the OTL Communist uprisings against the Nizam). Somewhat reformed, but the rural areas are practically feudal, as in the other states.
Mysore (Authoritarian Democrats)- A lighter version of Hyderabad, just a little more democratic. If its king, Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV, conquers the other States, he can reform the Princely Federation.
Travancore (Authoritarian Dem.) Similar to Mysore in terms of government, although caste and women’s issues are slightly better here
Madras (Social Democrats) Ruled by the radical Periyar Ramasamy, seen by some as a reformer and by others a dictator, it hates the other Princely states and hopes to unite the Dravidian peoples of the south. Controls Madras, Madurai, and Andhra.
Ceylon (Radical Socialists)- If Germany does not control it, Ceylon can be a syndicalist-type state run by the LSSP. I chose to use this idea because I am currently reading a book about the history of labour movements, feminism, and ethnic tensions in Sri Lanka and thought Syndicalism fit Sri Lanka pretty well.
Kolhapur (Social Conservatives)- Ruled by the fairly progressive Rajaram III, it is the most liberal of the states
Bharat (National Populists)- Based in the Nagpur area, Bharat is run by Sarsanghchalak (supreme dictator) MS Golwalkar. It is based on the idea of a Hindu rashtra (Hindu State) and is quite impressed by Codreanu’s rule over Romania (yikes). Gets into quite a bit of conflict with the commune, for Golwalkar views Muslims, Christians, and Socialists to be a threat to the Hindu state.
The People’s Republic Of Nagalim (Totalists)- Led by the renegade Angami Zapu Phizo, an avowed Naga nationalist, Nagalim aims to achieve a home for the Nagas by any means necessary, even genocide.
Manipur (Paternal Autocrats)- After the Bharatiya Commune falls, the people of Manipur can invite the king of Manipur, currently in exile in Delhi, back to Manipur to rule. Constantly in conflict with the Nagas.
Bengal- the remnants of the Commune
Assamese Commune (Radical Socialists)- an anarchist state run by the poet Bishnu Prasad Rabha
Can they have a SocLib or MarLib path under C. Rajagopalachi?
Makes a lot of sense. Also Madras focus tree when?
How do we get Smedley Butler to coup the CSA’s totalist government?
Non sequitur, but I've been kicking this idea around for the while.
The 30s and 40s gave rise to a new type of warfare (though it wouldn't would be until the mid cold war that it really began to take place on a large scale) in that of guerrilla warfare and Hoi4 doesn't do the best job of portraying that in game, partly because it wasn't designed to. Between that and the fact that many Civil Wars in Kaiserreich are simply entire states throwing in behind an ideology despite it not making much sense for that to be the case. Therefore I propose Hoi4 needs some variety in the types of Civil Wars they face.
Really what Hearts of Iron 4 needs is an uprising system where instead of states just leaving during rebellions units rise up, and all they would need to keep fighting would be the supply they obtain from victory points. This would make many of the civil wars more dynamic and more realistic in my opinion. There is the possibility for these types of wars to be drawn out and frustrating, but come on. That's kind of the point. The Red Army wouldn't have stood down had they lost Moscow. So why do the Syndies when Chicago falls? I exaggerate, but you get my point.
the progress report for this week is out. On the Left KMT.
(Funny how I was playing as them for testing purposes exactly when this PR came out)
Nice! this should be a fun if challenging faction.
Separate names with a comma.