• 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.

Rommel22

What does this mean?!
17 Badges
Nov 8, 2001
931
8
Visit site
  • Iron Cross
  • 500k Club
  • 200k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Darkest Hour
It is now August 1939 and the event still hasn't fired. I did receive the Sudetenland (on the regular date), but I noticed the Munich Meeting/Crisis event did not fire. I just received one event (forget which one exactly), and I got the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia was in an alliance with me right after. I kept playing thinking this was normal, but since it is now August 1939 and the other chain of event has not fired... something is wrong.

Any ideas why it would not fire, the chain of event that decide the rest of Czechoslovakia (Tiso in Slovakia, or split it with Hungary) has not fired at all. I also noticed the events for the Sino-German economic/military aid chain of events did not fire at all either. I checked, and my checksum is the correct one to the newest version.

Should I just start over, or did I just happy to be unlucky?
 
None. It is weird. I have a save before any of the CZE events, I will start from there again and see if they fire properly.

Shouldn't I also get the Sino-German trade events as well? I haven't seen any.
 
If Sudetenland was given in 1938 AND you´re allied with CZE, then indeed you followed a different path of events (that does exist - there is one chain where the czechs give it an propose alliance). Yes, it is possible that the Czechs fold and give you Sudetenland without Munich crisis, too (but it´s rare).

Always pay close atention to the tooltips when events fire.
 
I might have hit accept on an event I did not mean to and did not notice. Only way I see how it may have happened. Thanks for the help.
 
I started a new game, and this time everything went just fine. You may be right, I must have hit the wrong button on an event.
 
It could very well be that some other country made a choice in that chain that gave you an ahistoric result as well... It's quite an intricate chain, with lots of little twists and turns. It will go historical most of the time, but it surely isn't a given. :)

Do you play with other country's messages on or off? Especially prewar you might be missing out on some of the delicate footwork happening around you in those event chains.
 
I play with other countries' events messages turned on, I didn't spot anything out of the ordinary.

I play the game on extremely fast speed setting before war breaks out, and I probably hit enter or clicked on something else while the event fired and didn't notice. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened to me. Thanks for all the helps.
 
It could very well be that some other country made a choice in that chain that gave you an ahistoric result as well... It's quite an intricate chain, with lots of little twists and turns. It will go historical most of the time, but it surely isn't a given. :)

Do you play with other country's messages on or off? Especially prewar you might be missing out on some of the delicate footwork happening around you in those event chains.
The problem with this sort of thing isn't that it can happen, but that there really need to be alternatives - like the sort of stuff SMEP has- ie: if the Poles fold to Hitlers demands or if the UK and France abandon Poland, Germany gets a "Hitler's War" event in 1940 to Demand Alscae Lorraine.

The last version of Total Realism project for DH that I played massively had this problem, though I've found that in CORE the AI usually goes historically.

EDIT: TRP, not WIF
 
Last edited:
Not to bag SMEP - I think it's a remarkably inventive and attentive mod - but occasionally it seems to include events just to 'power up' the game without reference to the level of 'reality' CORE strives to achieve. The 'Hitler's War' event is a case in point as it's next to inconceivable given the politics of the period.

It's been a while since I played CORE, but if you're looking for alternatives to the Czech alliance outcome they're already there in the Munich chain and the Czechoslovakia fights events. It might be that some additional consequences might be added as events affecting other members of the Little Entente, but apart from those, what other outomes would you suggest as being at all realistic?
 
The problem with this sort of thing isn't that it can happen, but that there really need to be alternatives - like the sort of stuff SMEP has- ie: if the Poles fold to Hitlers demands or if the UK and France abandon Poland, Germany gets a "Hitler's War" event in 1940 to Demand Alscae Lorraine.

The last version of World in Flames for DH that I played massively had this problem, though I've found that in CORE the AI usually goes historically.

By that POV you might as well remove choices and only make pure events. Through to be honest, I bet most players don´t like ahistorical outcomes and simply reload. When playing as the allies or Comintern, for example, you want a Germany as strong as possible, not a wimp that didn´t get Austria or the czechs. That´s why I think the whole Munich and Austria chain not quite important for gameplay purposes.

Another problem with events is creating wars neither side can win, there is still one example here - when the soviets decide to make war over the Nomonhan incident. The war goes on forever since no side can get enough VPs for peace.
 
Not to bag SMEP - I think it's a remarkably inventive and attentive mod - but occasionally it seems to include events just to 'power up' the game without reference to the level of 'reality' CORE strives to achieve. The 'Hitler's War' event is a case in point as it's next to inconceivable given the politics of the period.

It's perfectly conceivable, it's just early. Hitler had every intention of taking out France, but he didn't expect to be plunged into a war in 1939. If the British and French had sat on their hands as Poland was dismembered, he'd have continued preparing for a war in ~1942 or so.

It's been a while since I played CORE, but if you're looking for alternatives to the Czech alliance outcome they're already there in the Munich chain and the Czechoslovakia fights events. It might be that some additional consequences might be added as events affecting other members of the Little Entente, but apart from those, what other outomes would you suggest as being at all realistic?

The issue is that when you have something like Poland folding and NO follow up events - the game just stops. There is nothing more frustrating than playing a game as Japan or Italy for instance, and realizing that for some daft reason the German AI has non-0 chances of attacking poland, and has decided that world peace is the better course of action. No shit players will reload, the game's just been ruined - you're playing a WW2 game with no war.

Given the limited diplomatic AI every branch of major event chains must point inexorably toward WW2 - alternate possibilities are great, but only if they actually go somewhere. Having the possibility of Hitler Backing down at Munich (for instance) and NOTHING else happening until 1953 is ludicrous and shouldn't be possible (I don't think that can happen though in CORE, at least not with AI germany)
 
Last edited:
By that POV you might as well remove choices and only make pure events. Through to be honest, I bet most players don´t like ahistorical outcomes and simply reload. When playing as the allies or Comintern, for example, you want a Germany as strong as possible, not a wimp that didn´t get Austria or the czechs. That´s why I think the whole Munich and Austria chain not quite important for gameplay purposes.

Another problem with events is creating wars neither side can win, there is still one example here - when the soviets decide to make war over the Nomonhan incident. The war goes on forever since no side can get enough VPs for peace.
It's not about taking away choices, it's about actually having chains *finish*. As you say - 'peaceful' Germany = reload. It's fair enough if you have a chain such that a peaceful Germany eventually results in Russia rolling over Europe and an Allies-USSR WW2 or something of the sort, as long as you have SOMETHING. The nature of the game is that everything does have to be scripted at least up until the outbreak of a World War (as you mention with the Japan-USSR war).

I do emphasize that I've rarely had problems with Core, usually things go more or less historical when the AI is playing, I do however thing that if you're going to give players choices (eg: back down at Munich) something else actually needs to happen, even if it isn't the most plausible thing.
-and if you're silly enough to leave Czechoslovakia there and invade Poland afterwards there ought to consequences for that.
 
Last edited:
It's perfectly conceivable, it's just early. Hitler had every intention of taking out France, but he didn't expect to be plunged into a war in 1939. If the British and French had sat on their hands as Poland was dismembered, he'd have continued preparing for a war in ~1942 or so.

I guess we read the sources differently. If the British and French had sat on their hands the general view is that Hitler's next target (around 1942 as you say) would have been Russia. Certainly what we actually know of his intentions supports that proposition. Once he had that squared away there's every likeliood that he would have 'settled affairs' with France, and probably in very short order. The CORE chains do provide for the first part of this sequence (war with USSR following conquest of Poland) but not the second, at least as far as I'm aware. That, however, isn't really a problem because the Western allies are almost bound to come in sometime after a DoW on Russia (German belligerence would be astronomical).

Failing that scenario there's the alternative of a Russian DoW on Germany. Without checking the files I can't say whether CORE has scripted for this, but the broader mechanics make that increasingly likely as the game progresses - not everything has to be done via event.

All the action you'd ever want is there - it just unfolds over a slower (and in my view more realistic) time frame. I get that one can become very frustrated by the anti-climax of the big bang not coming on cue, but that's what can happen if you permit 'realistic' variation from historical events.
 
I guess we read the sources differently. If the British and French had sat on their hands the general view is that Hitler's next target (around 1942 as you say) would have been Russia. Certainly what we actually know of his intentions supports that proposition. Once he had that squared away there's every likeliood that he would have 'settled affairs' with France, and probably in very short order. The CORE chains do provide for the first part of this sequence (war with USSR following conquest of Poland) but not the second, at least as far as I'm aware. That, however, isn't really a problem because the Western allies are almost bound to come in sometime after a DoW on Russia (German belligerence would be astronomical).

Failing that scenario there's the alternative of a Russian DoW on Germany. Without checking the files I can't say whether CORE has scripted for this, but the broader mechanics make that increasingly likely as the game progresses - not everything has to be done via event.

All the action you'd ever want is there - it just unfolds over a slower (and in my view more realistic) time frame. I get that one can become very frustrated by the anti-climax of the big bang not coming on cue, but that's what can happen if you permit 'realistic' variation from historical events.
It doesn't really work that well without surrender events and the like, which SMEP does quite well for all kinds of possibilities. I wasn't really having a go at CORE though, more at the way both paradox and some mods tend to leave open 'Paths' that just stop dead. 'Broader mechanics' mainly work based on Belligerence - for the AI USSR to DOW on Germany I have a fairly strong inclination that Germany would need to have been at war to get it's belligerence up(especially with Adolf adding it automatically while at war), so if Germany chickened out at Danzig or war, or prior, then nothing much would happen.

My background is only really a pretty broad undergrad elective and various random reading, but the basis of me saying that is:
-The Moltov Ribbentrop pact changing the game where previously there'd been a reasonable level of Franco-Soviet cooperation. After the dismemberment of Poland IRL Soviet-Anglo/French relations were severely strained, the allies had drawn up plans to bomb the Baku oil refineries and the like. The level of distrust is pretty damn apparent when you consider the Soviets ignoring British warnings of Barbarossa(as well as those from their own people).

-Long run re-armament plans, notably Plan Z, being geared toward at war with the west. That isn't to say they didn't expect to fight the Soviets too.

-The danger that fighting the Soviet Union without dealing with Britain and France would leave Germany heavily exposed, not even so much to invasion, but to a mere embargo or blockade. Romania remained in Frances orbit, so when it came to resources like oil the Allies would have Germany by the proverbial balls. On the other hand, maintaining the facade of neutrality toward the Soviet Union meant Germany could get oil and rares (well, Manganese) as well as food. (mainly thinking of the 1940 German–Soviet Commercial Agreement). Obviously if we're talking about 1942 or so Germany would be able to prepare well, but they'd nevertheless be crazy to rely on the acquiescence Britain and France for critical materials, in which case at the very least they'd need to have Romania into their sphere of influence or occupy it,(remembering that Bulgarian, Hungarian and Soviet annexations wouldn't have happened) which in and of itself could lead to a war with France.

After the fall of France Germany quickly conquered or otherwise gained access to the resources from pretty much the whole of mainland Europe, as well as hundreds of thousands of troops from fellow co-belligerants. It's a bit of an open question IMO whether or not they could have done this peacefully with France still a power to be reckoned with. At the very least there would have been further Munich style brinkmanship over Romania, if not an outright invasion. This is why IMO allowing for alt history choices requires coding alt history results.

(Some aspects have some 20:20 hindsight of course - we know that the Soviet Union was relatively formidable whereas after the Winter War few at the time did, whereas few at the time expected France to go down the way it did.)
 
Last edited:
There is indeed a philosohical problem here. If you are devoted to historical accuracy as you have to be when you work for a mod like CORE, you feel unsure and unprofessional when you enter a-historicity and phantasy-land. So while historical study will let you identify historical points of divergence and the options open to the historical parties at the time, fleshing out an a-historical alternative leads you into uncharted territory.

Let´s take an example:
The Marco-Polo bridge incident could have been settled after a couple of weeks´ fighting like half a dozen incidents in the 5 years before, with a "truce" slightly more favourable to Japan than the previous "truces" and "agreements". Another incident would have happend the year after, and another one the year after. But as you chart out such incidents, you quickly reach the realm of A-H novel writing.

The problem is striking a balance between pure phantasy and opinion on the one hand and playability on the other.
 
'Broader mechanics' mainly work based on Belligerence - for the AI USSR to DOW on Germany I have a fairly strong inclination that Germany would need to have been at war to get it's belligerence up(especially with Adolf adding it automatically while at war), so if Germany chickened out at Danzig or war, or prior, then nothing much would happen.

You make a good point there, Dichro. But I don't think things are quite as dire as you believe. As I remember it, the Danzig or War (Germany chooses war) event doesn't mess with German belligerence since no DoW is required. But by that time German belligerence will typically be at 13 or so anyway (18 if it refuses Molotov-Ribbentrop) and USSR starts 1936 with a DoW belligerence requirement of 46. Given 'normal' slider moves there's every reason to believe that by 1942 that figure will be reduced below the German threshold. Then it's just a matter of letting fortune take it's course.

Should that not pan out, however, I'd have to agree that it could make for a very dull game.

The danger that fighting the Soviet Union without dealing with Britain and France would leave Germany heavily exposed, not even so much to invasion, but to a mere embargo or blockade. Romania remained in Frances orbit, so when it came to resources like oil the Allies would have Germany by the proverbial balls. On the other hand, maintaining the facade of neutrality toward the Soviet Union meant Germany could get oil and rares (well, Manganese) as well as food. (mainly thinking of the 1940 German–Soviet Commercial Agreement). Obviously if we're talking about 1942 or so Germany would be able to prepare well, but they'd nevertheless be crazy to rely on the acquiescence Britain and France for critical materials, in which case at the very least they'd need to have Romania into their sphere of influence or occupy it,(remembering that Bulgarian, Hungarian and Soviet annexations wouldn't have happened) which in and of itself could lead to a war with France.

History being just that, there's not a lot of profit in us trying to sort out who's got the better case here, but I feel I owe you at least a brief reply. The Soviet supply of manganese was a genuine issue alright, but note that the territories captured by Germany in 1940 had little or no 'native' manganese deposits (I might be in error including Norway in that so I'm off to check that now). Germany, then, was no better off in that department in 1941 than it would have been in a 'peaceful' 1942 - worse in fact as the later start would have given it another year of stockpiling. Yet it didn't deter Hitler then. As to oil, Rumania was well and truly within the German economic sphere of influence by late 1938 with oil guarantees firmly in place and unaffected by western opinion. Finally, the West Wall that so discouraged French adventure in 1939 would have been immeasurably stronger by 1942, and if we're to believe Hitler's own commentary and Raeder's notations, the Z Plan fleet was a 'risk' fleet designed to discourage Britain's intervention in German continental policy rather than to take the fight to the UK.
 
Last edited: