• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Developer Diary | Historical Raj

Namaste, As-Salamu-Alaykum, Subh bakhair and Sat Sri Akal. Today we will look at the historical and shared military branches for the British Raj. I will use India and the Raj interchangeably to denote the subcontinent, and as always everything is under development and might change. Also a special thanks to @AveeBee who has provided invaluable help during the development of the Raj

Historical Context
In 1936 the Indian subcontinent was still under British rule and had been, in some form or other, for almost 2 centuries, either during the times of the East India Company, or directly by the crown.

In World War I the Raj fought as part of the British army against the Central Powers and afterwards the independence movement was rapidly picking up steam, no longer content to be ruled from London.

Demands by leaders such as Nehru, Gandhi and Jinnah were met in part by aloofness and part in indignation, while the population at large remained impoverished. At the outbreak of World War II India was once again called to fight in a country far away from home, amassing the biggest volunteer army in history of 2.5 million soldiers.

However this was not without controversy, as local leaders weren't consulted and even imprisoned. Some went as far as siding with the Axis, notably Subhas Chandra Bose to achieve independence, down the line helping the Japanese invade Burma and India itself, before being stopped at Imphal.

As World War II came to an end the British could no longer keep control over the Raj due to mounting pressure from abroad, as well as from within. In 1947 India and Pakistan gained independence by partitioning the subcontinent, with Bangladesh gaining independence in 1971.

Princely States
Princely States were historically local leaders of India that were a quasi-independent entity separated from direct British rule, but still under British control as a form of subsidiary alliance. As long as they supported the crown they could rule over their states.

In Hearts of Iron IV this is represented as high-compliance, non-core territory at the start of the game. Meaning that the Raj will now start with uncored territories, with ways to core it later.

We toyed with having the princes as puppets right from the start, but it leads to some funky interactions with subjects having subjects, and I don't think that everyone would like to be forced into having puppets as part of the main branch. However the princes can appear on the map at a later date.

The princes represented are: Mysore, Madras States, Kolhapur and Deccan States, Hyderabad, Central States, Rajputana, Western Indian States, Sindh, Balochistan, North-Western Frontier Provinces, Kashmir, Sikkim and Manipur. With Khalistan being releasable as well.
PIC2.png

The Raj also controls a bit of Aden, as they did historically before handing it over to the British.
PIC3.png

In the historical path you will have special ways to deal with the princes via the two special garrison laws
PIC4.png

PIC5.png


Burma
Burma was officially transferred from the Raj to British control in 1937, but effectively it began with the 1935 Burma Act. In game this results in Burma being a colony of the UK instead of being occupied by the Raj.

That 1935 act notwithstanding, Burma is ethnically and culturally a bit different from the rest of India, so we believe that it makes sense to have them as a separate country. It also has mechanical implications which results in a Raj player not being able to, as easily, fortify the Siamese/Japanese front, thus having both countries having to rely more on their natural defenses instead.

Independence Branch
The independence branch is also the historical branch, where you try to build an independence movement to eventually break away from the British.

While there are positive elements of British rule they serve as an antagonistic force, as being attached to their yoke depresses your growth somewhat. A key tenet of the independence branch from the start was that the player unlocks India's latent industrial capabilities as they gain more independence. So as you grow the movement you also gain more industrial capabilities.

This takes another approach compared to the old focus tree where you would use the Increase autonomy focus to break free. I went under the assumption that most players do not like being a subject in general since it reduces player agency, and that you would most of the time default to breaking free, come Hell or high water. In this new tree it becomes more about in which order you build your independence movement and what industrial capabilities you gain with less need for using continuous focuses.
PIC6.png

As you build up your independence movement you will also get the side effect of spillover resistance. It is not easy controlling such a large group of people with different views and interests, and violence can spill over.

PIC7.png

Here are some more concrete examples of how focuses can add to the players road to independence

Two Nation theory or India United
Before becoming independent you will have to choose between keeping India united, which means that you will not have to partition India into Pakistan or Bangladesh. While initially strong, keeping a united India means you will have to appease the religious minorities, leading to a moderate long term suppression of compliance, meaning it will be a bit harder to core states later on.
PIC8.png

The two nation theory, which is the historical outcome, leads to the partition of the Raj into India and Pakistan. Some princely states will also rise up and become independent.
PIC9.jpg

Here you can either pressure them to join you, or attack them directly if you so desire. You can pressure individual states, which means you now can get something like the Kashmir split. If there's no decisive victor between Pakistan and India in regards to pressure versus a princely state they will remain independent.

Should you decide to start hostilities with Pakistan make sure to finish quickly, or your old overlords can step in.

While you lose land in this path, you can become a Hegemon of the subcontinent, gaining you a big bonus if you gain a large advantage over your Pakistani rival, either via tech or industrial output.
PIC10.png


After Independence
Historically, the AI will not go for independence until after '47, but the player certainly can. Doing so will unlock the last bit of industrial focus. Here you can either decide to continue as a free nation with the allies, or remain neutral, trying to act in your own self interest by sending volunteers across the world.
PIC11.png

Here you will finally be able to core all territories that previously were controlled by the princes via the India Indivisible focus. This part of the focus also is meant to supercharge India's industry, moving from a suppressed nation economically to being able to play catch up with other industrialized nations.
PIC12.png


Army Shared Branches
Let’s look at some of the shared army branches now. These are generally available for all paths.
Beginning here you get to choose how to model your doctrine, either leaning into the UK and their doctrine, or modelling after one of the other big majors, gaining unique themed bonuses.
PIC13.png

The Raj's extensive railway network also has its own sub-branch, where the more focuses you complete the faster you can build things like supply hubs, railways and infrastructure.
PIC14.png

More to the right features the different Ordinance factories for the Raj, which not only adds extra factories, but each Ordinance factory unlocks extra traits for the MIO as well. When you get to the end of the path you'll get an upgraded MIO policy as a reward.
PIC15.png

Additionally there is an assortment of military focuses that deal with improving the general technology of the Raj. Particularly the Raj will have focuses that make their forces more adept in mountainous terrain, both for tanks, artillery and infantry.
PIC16.png

Agrarian society is still here, same as before with some additional maluses. There are a few ways to deal with it now
PIC17.png

When you first complete Local recruitment offices the malus will start to gradually ebb away. This can be shortened eventually by completing additional focuses.
Pic18.png

If you are in a hurry though you can complete additional focuses to instantly reduce the negative effects
PIC19.png

In the end you can unlock a decision to fully remove the Agrarian Society against a large cost of political power.
PIC20.png


The Bengal Famine
PIC21.png


The Bengal Famine was a devastating event where food became unavailable for a large majority of people due to several external shocks to a fragile food system. This now happens under certain conditions. When Burma loses a state and is in a faction with the Raj, when the Raj loses a state that it controls at game start, or after a certain date in history.

It will start in a certain state, after a series of escalating events. They are now both a state modifier and a country modifier. The country modifier scales how bad it is depending on how many state modifiers there are. For example in this scenario the famine started in Bengal and has spread out of control to three adjacent states.
PIC22.png

In addition to causing havoc in the state it also causes chaos on a country level
PIC23.png

As a result I have deployed several emergency measures to try and prevent the spread, such as asking for international aid, shutting down black markets and deploying emergency healthcare.

I should have also prepared better. Some focuses in the trees will also reduce the risk of the famine spreading.
PIc24.png

The preventative measures act as a "shield", both preventing the spread of famine and also reducing the time it takes for the famine to abate.
PIC25.png

I will leave it here, but if you have any questions about a specific focus or feature, feel free to ask!

 
  • 50Like
  • 17Love
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm very confused. The historical consensus is that the Bengal Famine was a man-made event, directly caused by Churchill. Doesn't this violate the "no genocide or atrocity" PDX policy? Has something changed?
The Bengal famine was already in the game pre-Goe, so leaving it out would be an odd choice.

It is also a complicated issue because it is a direct result of the war. On one hand we don't want to have a direct control over a "press to famine" button, on the other leaving it out felt like an omission, especially since it was already in the game.

It doesn't affect the population in the game at all. It is just a state and country negative.

Nothing has changed, and we've had discussions on what to do with the famine. We tackle these issues on a case by case basis
 
  • 12
  • 7Like
  • 2
Reactions:
The Bengal famine was already in the game pre-Goe, so leaving it out would be an odd choice.

It is also a complicated issue because it is a direct result of the war. On one hand we don't want to have a direct control over a "press to famine" button, on the other leaving it out felt like an omission, especially since it was already in the game.

It doesn't affect the population in the game at all. It is just a state and country negative.

Nothing has changed, and we've had discussions on what to do with the famine. We tackle these issues on a case by case basis
Thank you for explaining!
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Why is there a decision for Emergency Healthcare for the Bengal Famine? A famine is about the lack of food, not a disease outbreak. "Emergency Relief Services" should be used instead.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
if the UK break ties with the Raj and Burma for going non-historical, the british generals/admirals are going to return?
also how the UK doing the Imperial Federation going to work in the Raj/Burma region now?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
How will these changes effect the UK historical and non-historical paths?

During the abdication crisis events the dominions all break away, but you can get them back later. I assume the focus "Reclaim the Jewel in the Crown" will give you a war goal on all the princely states including India, Bangladesh and Pakistan and Burma?

Also the communist and fascist path have the focus "Move to Secure the Dominions" Where you have to place divisions around each dominion to stop them from leaving.
Will the requirements for India be less since Burma is now a separate colony?

Also will the various focuses such as the Imperial Federation now inlcude Burma?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Why is there a decision for Emergency Healthcare for the Bengal Famine? A famine is about the lack of food, not a disease outbreak. "Emergency Relief Services" should be used instead.
Famines in general causes transmittable diseases to skyrocket. Malaria was 43% of excess fatalities alone in 43, and 70% in 44
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
How will these changes effect the UK historical and non-historical paths?

During the abdication crisis events the dominions all break away, but you can get them back later. I assume the focus "Reclaim the Jewel in the Crown" will give you a war goal on all the princely states including India, Bangladesh and Pakistan and Burma?

Also the communist and fascist path have the focus "Move to Secure the Dominions" Where you have to place divisions around each dominion to stop them from leaving.
Will the requirements for India be less since Burma is now a separate colony?

Also will the various focuses such as the Imperial Federation now inlcude Burma?
The Raj will temporarily stay with the UK while they get a spirit called the long farewell, which boosts autonomy by quite a bit.

I'm not a fan of the UK AI interjecting and inserting itself into a player RAJ, it tends to break a lot of things for other trees
 
  • 10
Reactions:
Maybe a question for the alt history focuses. But will the UK focus to promise Indian Independence have any expanded role?

For example to buy time from a raj going an alternate path and breaking free at an inopportune time.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I was initially very happy to see the new states. Overall, I am still happy to see the new states. But on a deeper look, had some feedback on the states. I get the need for some approximations and artificial clustering for gameplay purposes, but some things could have been done a bit differently (apologies in advance for the nitpicking rant):

* Travancore/Cochin has a weird shape. There was no need for that projection into Tamil Nadu - was it an attempt to include Pudukkottai? Pudukkottai still remains outside that state though. Trivandrum (capital of Travancore, 19 gun salute state) would have been a better capital than Cochin (17 gun salute).

* Gwalior (21 gun salute) could have been capital of the central states rather than Indore (19 gun salute).

* The current borders between Bahawalpur and Rajasthan and between East / West Punjab would mean that post-independence, the borders between India and Pakistan would look super odd. Same for the Kashmir border on the Pakistan side.

* Sindh was directly administered by British since 1843 (except for Khairpur, which is relatively a very small part adjacent to the Indian border). Karachi is such an important city for the British Raj and a major port and training facility for the Royal Indian Navy. It was also the capital of Pakistan upon independence and it would be very odd for Pakistan to have to "pressure" Sindh to join it.

* Similarly, the western edge of Baluchistan could have been split for British Raj / Pakistan to keep. Kalat princely state could have been thinner with capital at Kalat instead of Quetta. I can see that there is a separate state already created along the border with Afghanistan - it would be historically accurate for the Raj / Pakistan to still keep that and have a shared border with Iran as well. Karachi, Quetta, and Peshawar being with princely states rather than part of starting Pakistani territory seems a bit unfair to them.

* Having Siliguri corridor (the Chicken's Neck between the mainland and North East India) as a separate state would have opened up a lot of possibilities / dynamics for the Himalayan and North Eastern states, and for Bangladesh as well.

* Manipur is disproportionately massive. Tripura (13 gun salute) would have been a better choice compared to Manipur (11 gun salute) if you had to pick just one state.

* Kolhapur is also disproportionately massive.

Overall, thanks a lot for all the new India content - just thought I'd still share this if there is any chance for a tweak before release.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I went under the assumption that most players do not like being a subject in general since it reduces player agency, and that you would most of the time default to breaking free, come Hell or high water.
I can only speak for myself, but I really wouldn't put more weight on being able to achieve a quick independance versus having a coherent narrative that enhance my immersion. Especially if there's more than one option to gain independance that varies in length of time.

I'll also note that the Hegemony of the Subcontinent focus seems busted as its bonuses seems incoherently strong compared to other nation's modifier.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I can only speak for myself, but I really wouldn't put more weight on being able to achieve a quick independance versus having a coherent narrative that enhance my immersion. Especially if there's more than one option to gain independance that varies in length of time.

I'll also note that the Hegemony of the Subcontinent focus seems busted as its bonuses seems incoherently strong compared to other nation's modifier.
You can go independent about as quickly as before I think, but all values are subject to change. However players in general don't like puppet paths, so the general goal is to not be. How fast or slow you so it depends on what focuses you pick first.

You can't take that focus until you are considerably stronger than Pakistan, or control all of India. It's supposed to be somewhat of a counterweight for loosing Pakistan.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions: