New thread, why is Nationalist China Pan Asian

Becuz it's in Asia.... Isn't it obvious?? And docterine doesn't mean the side of the player in war... Example: Germany can use pan Asian tech

Comrade genz wrote:

Becuz it's in Asia.... Isn't it obvious?? And docterine doesn't mean the side of the player in war... Example: Germany can use pan Asian tech

Buzzy02 wrote:

Comrade genz wrote:

Becuz it's in Asia.... Isn't it obvious?? And docterine doesn't mean the side of the player in war... Example: Germany can use pan Asian tech

Yes but it used to be Axis. It makes no sense for it to be Pan Asian, particularly when Japan and China are enemies.

Example, country A uses gun with a special powder that can be produced early, country b uses the same thing , but they're at war. Two country can use same tech even though they are at war

You are missing the point. They used to be Axis, now their doctrine is changed to Pan-Asian. Why?

Becuz they're in Asia?

It is based off of the fighting style which occurred in the area that China fought. Even though they were enemies, they fought in a similar manner and this is what makes them the same doctrine.

It should be allied doctrine in my opinion

NO why?

Chinese mainly used American tanks during World War II. Their other equipment came from the British. Although, Germany gave them some equipment at one point. Chinese still fought on the side of the allies.

Pan Asian makes more sense,so it is right.

Chinese barely had any Japanese equipment. Most of their equipment came from British and USA. Also, the Chinese hate the Japanese, in fact they still hate Japan now. Chinese was also on the side of the allies. Besides, we are talking about historic.

vietcong2005 wrote:

Chinese barely had any Japanese equipment. Most of their equipment came from British and USA. Also, the Chinese hate the Japanese, in fact they still hate Japan now. Chinese was also on the side of the allies. Besides, we are talking about historic.

vietcong2005 wrote:

Chinese barely had any Japanese equipment. Most of their equipment came from British and USA. Also, the Chinese hate the Japanese, in fact they still hate Japan now. Chinese was also on the side of the allies. Besides, we are talking about historic.

Comrade genz wrote:

vietcong2005 wrote:

Chinese barely had any Japanese equipment. Most of their equipment came from British and USA. Also, the Chinese hate the Japanese, in fact they still hate Japan now. Chinese was also on the side of the allies. Besides, we are talking about historic.

Ok now I think it should be allies. I get your point

whowh wrote:

vietcong2005 wrote:

Chinese barely had any Japanese equipment. Most of their equipment came from British and USA. Also, the Chinese hate the Japanese, in fact they still hate Japan now. Chinese was also on the side of the allies. Besides, we are talking about historic.

This isn't about equipment though. It is more about fighting style.

@DoctorDR1, @BMfox, @freezy, and @Agent Orange, can y'all explain the Nationalist Chinese doctrinal choice?

whowh wrote:

@DoctorDR1, @BMfox, @freezy, and @Agent Orange, can y'all explain the Nationalist Chinese doctrinal choice?

We're asking you. I will go with allied or pan-asian. In terms of increasing a diversity of doctrines, I would personally prefer pan-asian.

It’s probably for balancing reasons, because there weren’t that many pan-asian countries.

got it