I'm not quite sure what the intention was to make the DNVP-party neutral but back in the time the DNVP was everything but not neutral. The DNVP was national conservative, almost facist. It also doesn't make any sense to make them neutral because they were expansionists and in the game you need 50% tension as a neutral party to create casus bellis....I would like to have that changed because it makes parts of the new focus tree quite useless....
DNVP=Neutral??!?
- Thread starter dbenthien
- Start date
-
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.
Well, the whole Non-Aligned ideology is a bit of a weird case. It encompasses a lot of ideologies: multi-party republics, absolute monarchies, fascists-who-hate-other-fascists, single-party republics, military juntas, colonial rule etc.
It was fine when it was just a sideshow, but now with Germany's and Japan's NF trees allow Non-Aligned majors, I think it's silly to have it as just "other" and something really needs to be done about it.
It was fine when it was just a sideshow, but now with Germany's and Japan's NF trees allow Non-Aligned majors, I think it's silly to have it as just "other" and something really needs to be done about it.
Non-aligned regimes are typically (with some notable exceptions) right-wing nationalist authoritarian non-totalitarian regimes. While I'm no expert in the political landscape of the Weimar Republic, the DNVP does seem to fit that bill.
The Finnish Non-Aligned party is "Keskusta" (The Centre Party) which didn't even exist under the that name at the time. Rather, they were the Maalaisliitto, meaning "Agrarian Alliance". In the early 20th century they were anti-monarchist, progressive, opposed both Right and Left extremism and co-operated with the Social Democrats (the Democratic party for Finland in HoI 4). A really poor fit for Non-Aligned, too.
They were selected because they were the largest party in Weimar that supported a return to the monarchy.
The issue is that "Non-Aligned" was created for countries that didn't joined up the Axis or Allies because the faction system is closely tied to ideology. If Finland used a democratic ideology instead of Non-Aligned they would never join the Axis and always join the allies.
The whole system is a huge abstraction, you have Fascist parties as "Non-Aligned" (Like Portugal and with some arguments Brazil) because they were more Allies-leaning and "Non-Totalitarian Authoritarian" parties as fascist like Japan and some latin american minors (Venezuela first to come in mind).
Paradox sometimes looks like those leftists that call everything slightly authoritarian that they don't like Fascist, although it's because how the political system was designed.
No, I think the issue is that the ideology system is too rigid and ignores realpolitik. A better system would have no problem with Finland being democratic and fighting the USSR. We don't have the USA starting as Non-Aligned just because they were non-interventionist, or Switzerland and Sweden either because they stayed neutral for the whole war.
The other issue, of course, is that Non-Aligned was just fine as a catch all when only minors had it, but now it really should be split. Makes no sense for all those different "miscellaneous" to like each other particularly much.
I essentially interpreted your message as essentially meaning "that's fine, it's just an abstraction", which I guess was erroneous in my part then. Good that we are in agreement then!
Mexico/Brazil/Portugul are non aligned in '36 while the Imperial Way faction who were too extreme for the rest of the Japanese fascists are nonaligned because... ??? Centrism is encoded as nonaligned while liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, and socialism are democratic (unless you are Mexico). Add more ideologies, or make sub ideologies do something, several of the big overhaul mods create a lot of sub-ideologies because of this.
Or nonaligned Authoritarian regimes are a kludge to prevent certain nations from joining certain factions
Or nonaligned Authoritarian regimes are a kludge to prevent certain nations from joining certain factions
Nonaligned has to go. It worked fine when the game was just the historical paths so even if thing developed slightly differently it still came down to Axis, Comintern, Allies. But now that major countries have alternative monarchist paths, and large minors like China are featured they really need to update the alignment system to have more then three poles.
They don't need to go as crazy with it as Kaiserriech, but at the very least they need to add Monarchism and Authoritarian (to describe dictatorships that don't fit with fascism)
They don't need to go as crazy with it as Kaiserriech, but at the very least they need to add Monarchism and Authoritarian (to describe dictatorships that don't fit with fascism)
I've seen authoritarianism replace non-aligned in several mods and I use it in my own. I don't think monarchism needs its own ideology. Monarchies that are more democratic, like the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. can have the democratic ideology, while non-democratic monarchies can have the authoritarian ideology. While authoritarianism replacing non-aligned has its own faults, I think it makes more sense than non-aligned, especially with the new alt-history paths.
I think several democratic countries that are non-aligned right now can be set as democratic and have a national spirit that keeps them in check, like they do with Sweden or Switzerland, or find another way to prevent them from joining factions. And the devs should make it possible to edit the rules for sub-ideologies so centrist countries and the like can have their own mechanics.
They need to gradually split chunks off the Non-Aligned ideology as the game goes on and more national focuses are added. For example, now that two majors have a way to go monarchist, that could be added into the game, along with changing nations that were monarchist non-aligned into this new ideology. That would happen in stages as more alt. history paths are coded and we'd eventually have neither underdeveloped ideologies nor any nondescript 'non-aligned' left, because ideologies would only be added when they have interesting content (Unlike, say, Kaiserreich, where out of all those ideologies added, only four have real interesting content, and out of those four only Paternal Autocrat is really 'new' (the other three basically being a rename of the vanilla Communist, Fascist and Democratic ideologies)
I'll agree with you, we already have "Non-Aligned democracies" that have "Democracy" as their ideology but doesn't get involved in the war. But no Monarchism because there are many nations in gamespan that never had a monarchist tradition and wouldn'tmake much sense.
For more than %80 of this game's timeframe, there weren't more than five nations that were communist. Yet that's a unique ideology, most likely because the Soviets are a major nation (Plus World War game and stuff). Monarchism may have been a weakened ideology in the game's timeframe, but it was one, and as of now we already have multiple nations, including two majors, that can turn into a monarchy, and some that start as a monarchy. As DLC's progress, there will be more alternate history monarchy paths and unique focus trees for nations that start out as monarchies. I feel like Monarchism is the most sensible candidate for an ideology to add to the game.
It would have been IMO better if they stuck to the system that they used in other HOI games of : Stalinist, Leninist, Left-Wing Radical, Social democrat, social liberal, market liberal, social conservative, paternal autocrat, fascist, and national socialist.
a few tweaks here and there but that system was IMO better then the current one that vanilla HOI4 has.
a few tweaks here and there but that system was IMO better then the current one that vanilla HOI4 has.
HoI 3 had detailed parliaments with many parties which had different ideological positions. Paradox have research done, why they removed it? Neutral ideology don't do justice for many political parties of that time.