Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Kaiserreich

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
One thing that keeps bugging me, having watched youtube LPs/seen screenshots + read the event files, I don't think the Kaiserbund project (the post WK2 restructuring of the German colonial Empire) events work for me. By the looks of things, the new colonial states are supposed to have a German-style flag, and their head of state is the German Emperor. Yet, when I do it, they have their own native flag and native ministers, with their own kings and whatnot. Some of the African states even have French heads of government!

Is this Working As Intended? Since I am pretty sure I have seen others with German HOS and flags for post-kaiserbund nations.
 
No, that's not working as intended. Did you see that this version? How long do you let the game run after you release these nations? I think flags and leadership are set by event.
 
In this version, and it was also happening to me in the last version. It is the "rise of German XXX" events I will be wanting, right? I get the events that liberate the countries, and they do become puppets, but without the German ministers and flags. In my games with previous versions I have let it run for a couple of months, but I got nothing.

I can see the events I need in the files, but they just don't seem to trigger. Or maybe I am just really unlucky and they take ages to fire?
 
This is about the point I stopped my India game...

TOTS.png
 
skynet464 said:
This is about the point I stopped my India game...

TOTS.png
Click to expand...

Your image isn't showing up. Fortunately right-clicking and opening the image in a new tab helps.

That red is scary and very Bolshevik but I find myself drawn to it....
 
NikephorosSonar said:
Your image isn't showing up. Fortunately right-clicking and opening the image in a new tab helps.

That red is scary and very Bolshevik but I find myself drawn to it....
Click to expand...
And it's allied with Totalist Ukraine and France.
 
Milites said:
First of all thank you all for your patience with Kaiserreich, I promise that there's not going to pass another year before we release a new version!

What do you mean by separate wars? Were the Axis and Persia fighting third part enemies respectively?
Click to expand...
Yes, both the Arabian Block and Persia were at war with Ottoman Empire, but not allied together in this case. Then as soon as the peace treaties were signed after the Ottomans lost, they both went to war. I like the idea, but just wasn't sure if it was meant to happen. (Everyone can start war is disabled so that isn't the reason) Sorry for the late reply but I had stuff to do so my responses may be late.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Livingstone said:
Really though, I love playing the Ottomans sub-optimally. My only goal is to survive, which I only occasionally do, especially if I add my own house rules (e.g. Hardest settings, no industry building, no Carriers, must try to reclaim all lands, do not accept zog as king, etc.)
If you do survive, then the feeling is incredible. If you fail, you end up with Turkey, a nation that has dozens of interesting paths it can take.
Click to expand...
Is it weird that when I play as the Ottomans I already do all of those things, and still win pretty easily?
 
skynet464 said:
Is it weird that when I play as the Ottomans I already do all of those things, and still win pretty easily?
Click to expand...

Nope. Some people are just better than others when playing a video game.
 
Weird situation in the Middle east.

Kurds revolted, Egypt and Arabia attacked OTT, Persia joined in and then Bulgaria attacked followed by Germany.

Ottomans just got destroyed.

Then Arabia and Egypt attacked Persia followed by Turkestan

and also Armenia annexed Transcaucasian Socialist Republic. then Released Georgia as puppet

Weird

ggresize.jpg
 
Kavak said:
A player with foreknowledge of events of the Russian and Spanish civil wars can avoid them without error, why not the US? I don't like leaving things to random chance- a player shouldn't have to reload to choose the path he wants for his own country.
Click to expand...
Fair enough; personally I don't care for the Spanish path away from civil war myself but that's just opinions so whatevs.

One other questions while on the topic of the U.S. though, how do you feel about certain 1-2 extra states in the Union joining the CSA/AUS if either Reed or Long is elected President? If either of them is elected I'd assume that certain swing states would have to vote for them in favor of Curtis/Reed, plus it'd mean a bit more for either faction to be elected 'legitimately' rather then just getting dinky ol' D.C. as a province during the actual civil war.
 
NoMoreSanity said:
One other questions while on the topic of the U.S. though, how do you feel about certain 1-2 extra states in the Union joining the CSA/AUS if either Reed or Long is elected President? If either of them is elected I'd assume that certain swing states would have to vote for them in favor of Curtis/Reed, plus it'd mean a bit more for either faction to be elected 'legitimately' rather then just getting dinky ol' D.C. as a province during the actual civil war.
Click to expand...

I have my own ideas for Reed and Long being elected President- you'd be able to stop MacArthur from couping you and only have to fight the AUS/CSA (Plus maybe the PSA, if you play your cards really carefully- I see that being more likely with the AUS than the CSA). As for swing states, the only way I can see America First winning is if the electoral college is straight up gone. Maybe there can be an event where it's amended out of the constitution at the behest of the many states that voted against Hoover in 1932.
 
Kavak said:
I have my own ideas for Reed and Long being elected President- you'd be able to stop MacArthur from couping you and only have to fight the AUS/CSA (Plus maybe the PSA, if you play your cards really carefully- I see that being more likely with the AUS than the CSA). As for swing states, the only way I can see America First winning is if the electoral college is straight up gone. Maybe there can be an event where it's amended out of the constitution at the behest of the many states that voted against Hoover in 1932.
Click to expand...
The first point of yours of being included would be awesome actually. Not sure on the electoral college point since that would incredibly piss off the larger states such as California and Texas (though in the case of California that might actually lend more credence to idea of the PSA revolting). But the first option raises a lot of interesting questions for possible events. If Reed or Long hold on to the traditional government structures with MacArthur being removed as well, would either continue the USA in its current form and continue future elections or abolish it in favor of their successor state of choice?

Also is the assassination of Long option/preventing civil war option planned to be extended to Garner's presidency as well? It's weird how only the Republican president gets the option to do so after compromising with socialist parties, not to start a debate on U.S. politics or anything but by the 1930s the Democrats would've been more likely to compromise with Reed arguably.
 
States voting against Hoover in 1932 would actually be an argument FOR the EC, unless the canon is that Hoover didn't win the so-called "Popular Vote." Even then an amendment would not be a likely conclusion, the states that did vote for Hoover would never allow one to be ratified and one certainly wouldn't make it out of Congress, needing a 2/3rds majority. Nor could it be proposed via a Constitutional convention as that would require 2/3rds of state legislatures. That alone would create a lot of changes, perhaps even to the point of a different governmental system.

Amendments really need bipartisan support, even FDR only got one through. The term limits amendment required that Harry Truman be given the ability to have two full terms, it was a political compromise that was pushed hard by the GOP.

The CSA and AUS of course do not have to deal with constitutional constraints given their nature, but a Huey Long or Jack Reed presidency will certainly NOT see any constitutonal changes.*

*I suppose that the CSA and the America First parties could do court packing schemes to push through unconstitutional changes, FDR got bit trying to do so because his own party revolted against the idea. I would not see the America First revolting against Long in that case nor do I see the CSA seeing any need to be constrained by the Constitution.
 
NoMoreSanity said:
Also is the assassination of Long option/preventing civil war option planned to be extended to Garner's presidency as well? It's weird how only the Republican president gets the option to do so after compromising with socialist parties, not to start a debate on U.S. politics or anything but by the 1930s the Democrats would've been more likely to compromise with Reed arguably.
Click to expand...

No, the reason that Curtis negotiates with Reed is because he felt that negotiation was a useful tool. Garner on the other hand is supposed to be more of a hardass as historically. This has far more to do with their individual personalities than their party politics. Of course, a Curtis victory has always seen the AUS with more territory than a Garner victory, it's clearly a closer race and thus Curtis doesn't have the relative power that Garner does.

It's just a work-around that was changed around to be a bit more realistic. It's not something that is supposed to fire for the AI or (to use your language) start a political debate.
 
How does France coup Australasia? It seems like the hardest thing to do for them, the Germans and Japanese I understand, but CoF? Also why do the coups always work? There should be events for a failure in the coup, as-well for the Confederation's name to change to either a more Germanic, Japanese or Syndie-sounding one.
 
Kommandante.12 said:
How does France coup Australasia? It seems like the hardest thing to do for them, the Germans and Japanese I understand, but CoF? Also why do the coups always work? There should be events for a failure in the coup, as-well for the Confederation's name to change to either a more Germanic, Japanese or Syndie-sounding one.
Click to expand...

Why on Earth would Germany, smack bang in the middle of a depression, coup Australasia in the first place when it can barely hold on to Indochina? More to the point, who within Australasia would back a German coup? The far left would favour the Commune, the pragmatic left and right may favour Japan purely for pragmatic reasons but the bulk of Australasians would prefer the Entente to either by a wide margin.
 
I think if we're talking about electing Reed/Long still causing a civil war, then putting the Bolsheviks in charge of Russia should cause a civil war, too. I don't see why it wouldn't, too be honest, considering Russia just had a democratic government.
 
Tanzhang (譚張) said:
Why on Earth would Germany, smack bang in the middle of a depression, coup Australasia in the first place when it can barely hold on to Indochina? More to the point, who within Australasia would back a German coup? The far left would favour the Commune, the pragmatic left and right may favour Japan purely for pragmatic reasons but the bulk of Australasians would prefer the Entente to either by a wide margin.
Click to expand...

Yeah the Australasian coup events are just insane. They should be deleted altogether. Maybe just Japanese should keep the ability to coup since it makes most sense but even than it should have less than 50% chance of success

Kavak said:
I have my own ideas for Reed and Long being elected President- you'd be able to stop MacArthur from couping you and only have to fight the AUS/CSA (Plus maybe the PSA, if you play your cards really carefully- I see that being more likely with the AUS than the CSA). As for swing states, the only way I can see America First winning is if the electoral college is straight up gone. Maybe there can be an event where it's amended out of the constitution at the behest of the many states that voted against Hoover in 1932.
Click to expand...

I was thinking something similar. Why should MacArthur always succeed in coupin Reed or Long?

And I think that both Reed and Long would not be able to change the US constitution to make it more dictatorial. You should be able to continue as democtaric USA even after you choose Reed or Long

Zhetone said:
I think if we're talking about electing Reed/Long still causing a civil war, then putting the Bolsheviks in charge of Russia should cause a civil war, too. I don't see why it wouldn't, too be honest, considering Russia just had a democratic government.
Click to expand...

Yeah it even makes more sense to have a CW war in Russia if Bolsheviks come to power than in US if Reed/Long become president.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back