Africa is the only balanced continent.
Asia should get some axis and south america some allies, and north america axis and comintern ETC
This is a huge problem as it gets rid of doctrine bonuses
Please log in to post a reply.
Prolly why Africa barely has any VPs in HWW, to reflect what you just stated.Carking the 6th wrote:
I mean they had no real heavy industry either lol. At least not enough to build a real army and doctrine. It was only in the 50โs that North African states like Egypt gained that an Italy and even now most African countryโs donโt have much of a military industry, preferring to import from outside countries.
That's part of it. I'm not saying it was right, but they didn't have a domestic arms industry or any sovereign countries based on the continent with a unique doctrine to speak of. You can't have a unique doctrine based there if #1. there's no countries to assign the doctrine to(ones that existed during WW2). and 2. there wasn't and still really isn't any significant scale defense industry on the continent. There aren't any powers, and the continent was mainly just a part of the allied sphere of influence at this time. EDIT: Didn't see the other persons post that covered basically the same things until after I sent this. Sorry about that._Pyth0n_ wrote:
You should prolly specify that "anything" stands for "political freedom". Ik that you don't mean to disrespect Africa or anything, but people who don't know you might think otherwise lolDonk2.0 wrote:
Africa didn't really have anything... thats the problem.Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:
Maybe some sort of pan-African doctrine would be good._Pyth0n_ wrote:
Time for new doctrine perhaps-Carking the 6th wrote:
Well the next closest thing other than allied would be axis obviously, considering thatโs what it used to be.Spoiler
/j
In fact the entire continent only had 166 million people in 1930, almost equal to the USSR at the time with 160 million! The baby boom hit them harder than anyone else. Their population is now 1.4 billion. Crazy.
It's still happening. Look at Nigeria. It's just delayed.Carking the 6th wrote:
In fact the entire continent only had 166 million people in 1930, almost equal to the USSR at the time with 160 million! The baby boom hit them harder than anyone else. Their population is now 1.4 billion. Crazy.
The baby boom? Well yeah, their population will add another billion by 2050. Of course thatโs if they donโt develop (which they probably will) and reduce birth rates.
I don't think this would be historically accurate. In the 1930s and 1940s, pan-African sentiment as an ideology wasn't a significant driving force in the way that liberal democracy, communism, fascism (yes, Bytro, "German Empire"), or Asian nationalism or Pan-Asianism were*.Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:
Maybe some sort of pan-African doctrine would be good.
All four ideologies played significant role in a conflict dominated generally by the struggles between them, and developed fighting techniques and technologies that were necessarily influenced by their ideologies.
African nationalism played no significant part in the war because no African countries were truly independent. Liberia was essentially a US puppet or client state, Egypt and South Africa members of the Commonwealth and the British Empire. Morocco was essentially a French dependency. The rest were de jure colonies.
Therefore, since the entirety of Africa was controlled by European powers, Africa could not have established a military nor could they develop military equipment, doctrine, or units. I don't see this doctrine being workable.
*Pan-Asianism and Asian nationalism were pushed by Japan but were present throughout the region in the 1930s. As an ideology it can be traced to the Revive China Society in the 1890s. That's another good reason why Nationalist China uses the pan-Asian doctrine.
Does CON have doctrines? I could see some real fun stuff there.
It does, but not to the effect that CoW uses. There's Western, Eastern and European. Some units get minor boosts (Ex: Mobile Artillery has a small HP boost in European, Naval Infantry and ASFs are better for Western, and Eastern has some buffs for MBT and other units I don't remember). The main factor of doctrine is when you can research units: If Eastern, you can research MBT on Day 1, but AFVs are delayed. If Western, AFVs on Day 1, TDs delayed, and European, TDs are day 1, with MBTs delayed.Carking the 6th wrote:
Does CON have doctrines? I could see some real fun stuff there.
Thatโs it? Damn Africa, Latin America, South/West/South East Asia all got done dirty.
This is lazier than expected
Do you have a better suggestion for a fifth doctrine then?Lord Crayfish wrote:
I don't think this would be historically accurate...Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:
Maybe some sort of pan-African doctrine would be good.
And I dont think Bytro is caring much about being historically accurate atp...
I think a good 5th doctrine would be a Middle Eastern doctrine.
Us Arabs didnโt really have much of a doctrine or military industry. Our population was very small in comparison to Europe and we were mostly colonies. Even up to today, most of our weapons are foreign. The only countries with unique military doctrines were the 7 majors, with everyone else having a type of their own doctrine. This is why splitting those in various types would work better.
I think 4 doctrines is plenty. If they had to add a doctrine, prolly a split of Allies into American and Commonwealth/British/European (Fr*nch units existed, credit given where due).
wow
Why do we need one?Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:
Do you have a better suggestion for a fifth doctrine then?Lord Crayfish wrote:
I don't think this would be historically accurate...And I dont think Bytro is caring much about being historically accurate atp...
If we did, British/Commonwealth would be an idea.
As for historical accuracy, ready to copypasta
HERESY! THE FR*NCH SUCK!!!!Carking the 6th wrote:
EVEN POLAND LASTED LONGER!
It lasted shorter, though?
It's just my suggestion.Lord Crayfish wrote:
Why do we need one?If we did, British/Commonwealth would be an idea.Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:
Do you have a better suggestion for a fifth doctrine then?And I dont think Bytro is caring much about being historically accurate atp...Lord Crayfish wrote:
I don't think this would be historically accurate...As for historical accuracy, ready to copypasta
Please log in to post a reply.
