Changing Playable Nations

    • Changing Playable Nations

      While the 25 player historical map is a very realistic simulation, there is one aspect that I think can be improved on. Yes, I am talking about the Big Four i.e. Xinjiang, Tibet, Manchukuo and Mongolia.

      I get that having more non-European playable choices is great from a diversity point of view, but surely, we already have enough balance on that point in all the other maps, like the 100 player game, where you can have Sumatra conquer the world. The historical game should be...well, historical. And historically, the world in 1939 was unabashedly Euro-centric, with four of the seven Great Powers being European (and all four still EU members now - Britain, France, Germany and Italy). So I think it would be more historical to shift the playables from these four Asian countries which did not really play any major part in the war because they were too weak or too poor, to the smaller European countries which did play a part, or could potentially have done so.

      Here are my suggestions for their replacements.

      1. Holland
      Holland actually had the third-largest colonial empire, after Britain and France, in 1939. Yes, historically the Dutch did get overrun quickly in 1940, but even after the homeland was conquered, Holland did still make a valuable contribution to the Allied cause, especially during the early stages of the Pacific War. Having Holland as a playable would also help game balance against Germany, which tends to be over-powered in the historical map. Unless Britain and France both take action against Germany right at the start, it gets too easy for Germany to conquer Poland first, and then all the AI countries in Europe one-by-one. With Holland, once Holland itself is conquered, the German player can just make peace with the AI to keep his morale up. At least with Holland as a playable, Germany would have to stay at war with Holland, which would still have a large colonial empire from which to continue the struggle, which would be more historical.

      2. Portugal

      Again, this was a country with a small European homeland, but a reasonably large colonial empire. Right now, Spain always conquers Portugal, because the game mechanics mean that you can do so with impunity, and then get peace with the AI, which will happily continue playing with its capital in Angola and make no attempt to liberate its homeland. Having Portugal as playable will mean that Spain will have to think twice about a quick blitz to conquer Portugal, because nobody wants to take that 5% morale hit for days on end while you try to conquer all those far-flung colonies.


      3. South Africa

      I remember reading a post about how South Africa did not really participate in WW2 somewhere. This is inaccurate. South African participation was not as notable as in the first war, because there were no German or Italian colonies in southern Africa (unlike the Great War, when South African forces invaded and conquered Namibia) but South Africa did declare war against Germany very early (like Canada and Australia) and South Africans did fight (notably being of help in the Battle of Britain). I think it would be nice to have South Africa functioning as a playable Dominion like Canada and Australia. Also, it would help game balance to have an African playable nation as a bonus.


      4. Finland

      Finland was a valuable German ally against the USSR in the war, and having Finland as a playable would also keep some balance in Scandinavia, which almost always tends to get conquered by Sweden in the historical.


      In addition to improving historicity, I think changing the playables would help in two other aspects.


      One, it would help balance the map. At present, there is little point to conquering all of Soviet Central Asia, because there are so few resources there. But then, Xinjiang is full of resources. This seems highly unrealistic, that Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kirgizia should all be so worthless, compared to Xinjiang. I get that if you have a playable nation, you HAVE to make it viable, but really, Xinjiang and Tibet are so much more worth conquering than Soviet Central Asia or India, that it seems highly unrealistic. Making these countries non-playable means their current massive resource base can be toned down to compare less favourably against their neighbouring regions.


      Two, is the question of playability. I am all for Tibetan and Uighur self-determination, but lets face it, there are not that many internet users from these places, at least not at present. In practice, what this boils down to is that we wait for days to get the slots for these countries filled, until someone who does not intend to play the game comes along and joins as one of them. Holland and Finland (both wealthy and highly-developed nations) as well as Portugal and South Africa, are going to have a lot higher internet penetration. Everyone wants to play as their own country, even if it means you are weak, so having the four that I suggested will mean more players who would WANT to play as these countries.


      :whistling:
    • You want to keep an eye out for the next time the "All In " event comes around with all countries playable.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<