make new zealand playable in hww

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • It’s too small to earn itself five cities, and I don’t see HWW suddenly allowing countries with less than five cities to be playable. The Soviet army (1941 onward) and the tragically high amount of Polish people who died in World War Two is bigger than MODERN DAY New Zealand’s population. New York City, London, Tokyo, Paris and more cities had a larger population in 1940 than than MODERN DAY New Zealand’s population. It’s pretty unfair to give Siam, Iraq, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, Argentina, Peru, Syria, Texas, California, New York and many many many other places that are much more populated the same amount or less cities than tiny New Zealand, right?

      CarKing the 6th

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      It’s too small to earn itself five cities, and I don’t see HWW suddenly allowing countries with less than five cities to be playable. The Soviet army (1941 onward) and the tragically high amount of Polish people who died in World War Two is bigger than MODERN DAY New Zealand’s population. New York City, London, Tokyo, Paris and more cities had a larger population in 1940 than than MODERN DAY New Zealand’s population. It’s pretty unfair to give Siam, Iraq, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, Argentina, Peru, Syria, Texas, California, New York and many many many other places that are much more populated the same amount or less cities than tiny New Zealand, right?
      Then please explain to me why Sweden has 6 cities when their CURRENT population is less than most of your mentioned countries population in 1940.

    • Rachellreist wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      It’s too small to earn itself five cities, and I don’t see HWW suddenly allowing countries with less than five cities to be playable. The Soviet army (1941 onward) and the tragically high amount of Polish people who died in World War Two is bigger than MODERN DAY New Zealand’s population. New York City, London, Tokyo, Paris and more cities had a larger population in 1940 than than MODERN DAY New Zealand’s population. It’s pretty unfair to give Siam, Iraq, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, Argentina, Peru, Syria, Texas, California, New York and many many many other places that are much more populated the same amount or less cities than tiny New Zealand, right?
      Then please explain to me why Sweden has 6 cities when their CURRENT population is less than most of your mentioned countries population in 1940.
      Sweden was at least a developed country with an industrial capacity capable of making the units in the game. New Zealand couldn’t even make médium tanks. That’s where the Bob Semple comes from, a tractor with machine guns, that’s the best New Zealand could do.

      Rachellreist wrote:

      Same goes for Mongolia
      At least Mongolia is justified for balance purposes, as you need someone to put pressure on Xinjiang, Manchuko, China and Japan there. New Zealand wouldn’t have much place to expand and would most likely get clapped by Australia or go inactive. If they remain active and ally Australia they wouldn’t be able to do much and always be weaker late game since they can’t easily expand.

      CarKing the 6th