Simulating (German) internal politics in the game

  • 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.

DocDesastro

Lt. General
65 Badges
Jul 2, 2011
1.256
1.051
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Island Bound
  • Empire of Sin
  • Empire of Sin - Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
The Hearts of Iron series offer the possibility to replay the period of WWII militarically, but also to a certain extent, politically. I would like to have internal politics playing a bigger role than before as this feat could add a deeper immersion and more the feeling of governing a country instead of leading a doomstack of Attila's huns to paint the world map in another color. I would take Germany as example for this discussion as I am more familiar with German history than e.g. Hungaric.
The decisions made by the player could lead to causal chains resulting in other game events and new political decisions.

A good place to start would be analyzing the state. To my information the NSDAP in Germany did not get 50%+ votes in regardless what election before 'Gleichschaltung'. This means, the regime is not really supported and is uphold by force and/or dealing with influential persons. There have been internal struggles inside the NSDAP to remove persons who were too influential or powerful as the Röhm-Coup. As Hitler could not run the country alone he needed others in places of power to do his bidding thus making compromises. Those persons reasonally had their own agendas and it would be interesting, if the game would reflect this.

Currently, we are in control of almost everything, but what if the appointment of a certain person as minister triggers effects and events over time as those persons try to pursue their own agenda?
This would mean, a minister would have a visible stat with boni and mali and a hidden stat where certain conditions are checked and events follow. Ministers could step back from office as kind of protest (lose minister, take unity/dissent hit) if their demands are not met or maybe coup the regme.

I will make some examples here:

Installing Mr. Krupp as Minister for Economics could lead to events, where the Minister makes proposals to the head of state (the player) regarding production. The hidden agenda could be expanding industrial capacity and premium contracts for tanks and guns. Hidden downsides of that could mean corruption, the minister secretly organizing worker strikes or mandatory building of units as the minister excerts his influence to secure governmental contracts thus 'locking' IC.
The hidden agenda would check e.g. has a factory been built the last XX months? Has player ordered a certain number of tanks/guns? If yes, o.k. with a %-Chance of a beneficial event or no with a dilemma popping up to resolve for the player.

Raeder as Head of Navy would have the agenda to propose ship-building plans to strenghten the german navy on cost of the Luftwaffe or Wehrmacht. He would propose Battleships and screens mainly.


Secondly, there might be political events which can be played through with historical hindsight or propose an alternative to history which go deeper than simple yes/no decisions.

There are some mandatory questions concerning internal politics for the german leader he has to answer in time.
E.g.: Regarding the rivalry between Wehrmacht and SS: Will the player allow the formation of the Waffen-SS? If yes, maybe some generals will retire in protest, manpower will be drained, supplies will be drained and WSS Divisions auto-spawn (not buildable anymore by the player, but being upgradeable). If no, some powerful party people will be disgruntled because they won't get their private army meaning dissent or unpleasant events and dilemmas in the future (global hidden agenda), like denouncing Wehrmacht Generals to force their retreat or coup d'Etat if such things happen too often. If yes, then after conquering a new land the player could be asked to raise volunteer units (%-Chance that some units auto-pop, depending on politics in conquered land)

I think we can find many more examples in german internal politics and also for other countries pointed out by forum users with more knowledge.
At least, I would like to see more internal politics and a higher impact on the game.
 
The NSDAP never needed 50%+ of the vote.
It was enough that a majority of the Germans was unwilling to oppose them (read Sebastian Haffner "Germany: Jekyll and Hyde" about that) and that there was enough for most people to identify with while allowing them to overlook things they did not like.
 
This is true. The opposition was not really united and each party died on their own. So 50% were enough. But, not everyone was happy with things being and Hitler could not rule germany alone. He had some powerful political allies and it is quid pro quo. They won't let him to power if they would not profit from it. Same for every leading politician, I reckon.
 
This is true. The opposition was not really united and each party died on their own. So 50% were enough. But, not everyone was happy with things being and Hitler could not rule germany alone. He had some powerful political allies and it is quid pro quo. They won't let him to power if they would not profit from it. Same for every leading politician, I reckon.
Again i disagree.
By the time we enter the picture most is done.
SPD as well as KPD have ceased to exist as political forces and the catholic church has made a Burgfrieden with Hitler (the konkordat).
What remains is the military (the whole blomberg/fritsch mess) but those would only act if the primacy of the military was threatened by say, an SA Army.
The other group is the Bekennende Kirche but they are doomed to be ineffective since they only ever get around to contemplating resistance other than letting themselves imprisoned by 43/44.
While there is certainly a quid-pro-quo going on i don't think the Nazis position is so weak that they actually have to play those games.
If Krupp does not perform his assets can be seized, or he can be shot, or his family might be taken into 'protective custody' to ensure his good behavior.
By 1936 the Nazis are strong enough that they do not need to play ball if they don't want to and after Dunkirk Hitler has more or less savior status for everybody not a communist or strict pacifist.
 
What remains is the military (the whole blomberg/fritsch mess) but those would only act if the primacy of the military was threatened by say, an SA Army.

But isn't this the precise area where internal politics in Germany might come into play and be interesting? Especially pre-1939.

In fact, I'd argue that, politically, the only significant counterweight to NSDAP was the army itself by the time 1936 rolls around. By the time France falls, I think Hitler and the NSDAP is more or less hegemonic even with regards to the army (assassination plots dried up after Munich, but after France fell, no one seriously contemplated such a thing until later in the war).

But it didn't have to be that way. I would argue that if there had been key failures by Hitler personally (war breaks out in 36 over the Rhineland) or with the party in general (Anschluss fails in 38 because NSDAP screws up rallying support in Austria resulting in war or national humiliation), he might have faced an army backed coup. It's not something I suggest was a sure bet, but the army was the one part of Germany that hadn't really been cowed into submission by 1936.

I could see the value of having Germany face political obstacles, not from the electorate, but from army factions prior to key German diplomatic and military successes. In fact, engineering these successes might be made crucial for a German playing trying to keep the country under control.

It's the same with Japan; infighting between the IJA, IJN, and even subfactions in them, was a never-ending source of difficulty for forging a cohesive national policy. Hell, we're talking about death threats and assassinations when it comes to key Japanese figures (including threats made against big important guys like Yamamoto).

While it's probably not something that will be in the game, I would love it if each form of government, or each major power, had it's own internal politics that required some player attention. French politics is a mess in the period. The British government, even when cabinet ministers wanted to oppose Hitler, couldn't get Commons to authorize increased defense expenditures without arm twisting Labor. FDR was playing a very dangerous game at home, where he was presenting himself as "keeping America out of the war" while at the same time helping the Allies. Italy had already seen a number of failures on the part of Mussolini's government, and the people weren't keen on a war.
 
the point is that when game starts (1936), all internal opposition is already gone. with the death of Hindenburg and (appr the same time) the so called "Rhöm-Putsch" the NS dictatorship was done. The only potential opposition could have come from the Heer (not Navy and definately not Luftwaffe). But Blomberg was a strong supporter of the NS state. That is basically it.

Most academic literature subdivides the 12 years of NS rule in GER in (surprise!) three phases: Machtergreifung/Gleichschalung (33-34/35), consolidated phase (35-38), radicalisation (38-35). since the game starts in the consolidated phase already, significant internal opposition cannot be modeled, IMVHO.

Secret Master said:
but the army was the one part of Germany that hadn't really been cowed into submission by 1936.
well, that is only true if you do not count Blomberg and Reichenau, plus many others. Interest of the officers was the enlargement of the army and Hitler did that.
 
well, that is only true if you do not count Blomberg and Reichenau, plus many others. Interest of the officers was the enlargement of the army and Hitler did that.

Yes, but unlike conservative politicians, communists, or center right Catholics, the army could actually get what it wanted. Of all the groups of people in Germany in 1936, I'd argue that the army was probably the only one that could, by itself, demand that Hitler accommodate its needs. Since Hitler wanted to build up military strength in 1936, this wasn't a problem for him.

Keep in mind that even as late as 1935, Hitler rehabilitated Schleicher at the insistence of the army. And you have guys like Beck being vocal in their opposition to war in 1938. Hell, Halder was asking Oster to draw up plans for a coup in 1938. And when Brauchitsch found out about it, he didn't bother to tell Hitler.

While I would never say that "If the Allies went to war for the Czechs in 1938 instead of signing Munich, there was a 100% chance of Hitler being removed from power", I submit that of all the political apparatus in Germany, the Army was the one that still had the independence needed to even consider such actions institutionally. Key failures in German foreign policy prior to Danzig or War might have given the old school Prussian officer corps the incentive they needed to take control of the country for themselves.
 
Yes, but unlike conservative politicians, communists, or center right Catholics, the army could actually get what it wanted. Of all the groups of people in Germany in 1936, I'd argue that the army was probably the only one that could, by itself, demand that Hitler accommodate its needs. Since Hitler wanted to build up military strength in 1936, this wasn't a problem for him.

Keep in mind that even as late as 1935, Hitler rehabilitated Schleicher at the insistence of the army. And you have guys like Beck being vocal in their opposition to war in 1938. Hell, Halder was asking Oster to draw up plans for a coup in 1938. And when Brauchitsch found out about it, he didn't bother to tell Hitler.

While I would never say that "If the Allies went to war for the Czechs in 1938 instead of signing Munich, there was a 100% chance of Hitler being removed from power", I submit that of all the political apparatus in Germany, the Army was the one that still had the independence needed to even consider such actions institutionally. Key failures in German foreign policy prior to Danzig or War might have given the old school Prussian officer corps the incentive they needed to take control of the country for themselves.
I agree, but that is one event, maybe two, and does not need a micro-simulation of Germany's politcal landscape.
 
I agree, but that is one event, maybe two, and does not need a micro-simulation of Germany's politcal landscape.

Well, it doesn't need a simulation just for Germany, but I can find instances of each major power having internal political differences that affected national policy.

Having a slightly less monolithic political set up would reap real dividends with all of the majors. Japan would have to deal with army and navy infighting. The USA would have to balance help to the Allies with isolationist sentiment. Britain would have to deal with the pitfalls of coalition government. Italy might have a meaningful transition from being an Axis power to joining the Allies. The Soviets could have a more meaningful purge. And Germany could face political consequences for either her successes or failures.
 
Military was definitely a limit on the nazi power, especially up to 38, but with a failed invasion of France it would remain so throughout the war.
 
well, yes you are right re: the role of the army until the removal of Blomberg and Fritsch, but those people did not do that. and Blomberg himself was a strong supporter of the NS, Reichenau as well and Beck retired. so there has to happen a lot before the army would coup. i'm not sure if they would do that during a crisis in foreign policy (i.e.: war), since usually an enemy from outside means that societies stick to their leadership, at least i would expect this for the germany of the mid-30s of the last century.
 
Why would the army go against Hitler?

It shared his view that they didn't lose WWI, they were betrayed. The behaviour of the army subsequently didn't show significantly different values to the Nazis, and why would they oppose a leader who was investing so heavily in them?

In game terms, I agree with Klausewitz.
 
Why would the army go against Hitler?

It shared his view that they didn't lose WWI, they were betrayed. The behaviour of the army subsequently didn't show significantly different values to the Nazis, and why would they oppose a leader who was investing so heavily in them?
If said leader were likely to lose them all he had given by going to war to early or messing it up too badly.
To the army the main raison d'etre for resistance was a desire to ensure the propserity and in a worst case the survival of the army.
If Hitler had threatened either of these, either by taking steps for abolishing the Reichswehr and making the SA the 'Army of the Movement and the Reich' or by maneuvering Germany into an obviously unwinnable war he would lose the support of the army.
That is also the reason why there was increasing resistance from and within the Army in the later years of the Reich:
A defeat came closer and provisions had to be taken to ensure a survival of the German Army.
Which worked with the help of the Russians and the Americans who both wanted their own German mercenaries.
 
they would oppose because he was a gambler. the army wanted the restauration of germany as a major power, not necessarily ruling of the world. the NS and the national conservatives (ie most of the officers had common interests in parts, but only in parts). the points where they started to talk about coups were the points where things went completely wrong, or pre war seemed to be too risky.
 
I just refuse to believe that even in a 'gleichgeschaltetes' Germany there are no groups that would demand something from the ruler of the state. And the best thing to start there are the ministers that represent the powers in question.

And depending on what guy you choose you get the visible benefits but the game throws dilemmas at you because those guys will come and make demands. That was about the secret agenda I mentioned. No matter how radical Germany was, Hitler could not reign alone even if some people tend to put all responsability for what has happened on his back. I could imagine several ministries rivalling for resources and influence and to placate one force in your state might offend another.

Lemme see, you have 3 heads of military branches, a minister of internal security, one for economics and one head of army besides the head of state and his deputy. Throw in a ruling party head, a minister of education, one external affairs one for transport and one for propaganda.
Those are resorts that may rival for resources.

Let's try to imagine the following:
You appoint a (hypothetical) ruling party head (or he is elected) with the hidden agenda 'raise national unity' over 80%. Your NU is below the threshold for that, say 65% so this guy is likely to fire one of his events. The clock ticks and at a certain point the game rolls the correct number for the event to fire. Now the game checks if that guy is content with what you did before (internal benchmarking - heck, CK2 uses a system for persons liking you or not!) and presents you with a dilemma, say:

"Hold a military parade at capital"
This dilemma would do the following:
If you agree, NU would raise by 1% and the guy will like you more because you did what he wanted. This costs a certain amount of resources, supplies (representing consumer goods) and money and will dispend production in capital for 3 days shutting off factories and resources for 3 days or even a week.
Propaganda guy will also like you because you helped his cause.
Army guy will like you a bit (while at peace) because you helped raise army's reputation. At war he will not like you for that because the men are needed elsewhere
Luftwaffe guy will be neutral as will marine guy
Economics guy will not like it because it costs money and production
Internal sec will not like it because it binds police forces for unecessary work
External relations guy will not like it, if his goal is showing Germany as peacefully. He would like it, when bullying other nations
and so on...

Declining the offer would offend party guy resulting in party org hit and make him think bad of you.
Army guy would like you or not depending on state of war
Propaganda guy will be sad.
Economy guy will be happy.

If a mnister would be unhappy, he might fire off events which give you no choice but propagate his agenda (this might come in good for you or bad - according what you plan)

This is NOT intended to introduce RP into HOI - that is CK2 terrain (we do not marry Eva Braun off to Churchill to forge an alliance with the UK nor raise a runestone at Berlin nor do we hold a great blot at the Fuhrerbunker), but this mechanic could flesh out internal bickerings between the ministries and may make the player feel more like a head of state and not as 'supreme generalissimo' or 'click and watch AI mess up guy' (depending how the battle plans work out XD.
 
It's the same with Japan; infighting between the IJA, IJN, and even subfactions in them, was a never-ending source of difficulty for forging a cohesive national policy. Hell, we're talking about death threats and assassinations when it comes to key Japanese figures (including threats made against big important guys like Yamamoto).

My experience with HOI3 is very limited, and I never got around to playing Japan, so if it was in HOI3 then my apologies, but having something like this would be brilliant. Quite a few Japanese politicians and officials were assassinated during the pre-war period, and simulating the struggle between the IJA, IJN, the bureaucracy/court officials and the parliamentary parties would make playing Japan really interesting. Does Japanese corporatism fail and the parties maintain their independence? Do the junior officers actually carry out/succeed in their coup attempts? Does army/navy obstinacy force civilian government to resign on a semi-regular basis (as happened historically, though may be not in the immediate pre-war period)?
 
I just refuse to believe that even in a 'gleichgeschaltetes' Germany there are no groups that would demand something from the ruler of the state. And the best thing to start there are the ministers that represent the powers in question.
it was part of the system that there were conflicts below the Führer-level: let us take internal "security": there you have Göring in the beginning (Prime Minister of Prussia), Röhm, later Himmler, Gürtner (Justice) and Frick (internal affairs in the Reich and at the same time in Prussia. These people will have conflicts with each other (eg Frick vs. Himmler or Gürtner vs Himmler). And they need Hitler himself to decide these conflicts. This was where his power came from.
So you are right if you question the homogeneity of the 3rd Reich in general and point out conflicts within the system. It is only that Hitler exploited this situation.
 
And there might be many easy ways to modify the way those ministers like you. E.g. a penalty for a guy from the wrong party, A bonus for the same. You would find many interesting possibilities.
 
I would like to say that if this is really done, it should be something that is more generic and not something that has to be specifically written so that it can be usable for all countries (including minors). A lot of what has been discussed is applicable to more then just Germany.

The events/consequences should also be more easily seen, as in you shouldn't have to look up all of the events and consequences in the wiki or in the code itself to understand.

It could be things as simple as:
If ruling party is facist:
50% chance every 6 months that 1 Tank or Industrial research loses 1 month of research or gains 1 month of research.

Trying to simulate all the infighting and issues for Germany only is better left to mods if it cannot be applied directly to other countries.