Since this feels like it comes up every month, I may as well entertain the idea 
Personally, I don't see why HOI4 should be held to different standards than the rest of PDXs games; why does HOI4 need to be a simulator in some people's eyes but not EU4? If it's the time-span, I'd understand to an extent - but the idea that large political shifts couldn't happen in a short time frame is frankly silly.
I've seen the UK's alt history paths been mentioned alongside things such as a successful Sea Lion in this thread and, to me at least, both are equally a-historical (but not necessarily bad).
Alt-democratic path UK is completely implausible for a number of reasons; up until the Munich conference, Chamberlain held a successful majority of support in both the Commons and the party itself. Why would people listen to Churchill, who hasn't changed his tune for the past couple of years, and attempt a potentially party-breaking VoNC? It's stupid, not to mention then being able to declare war on the Netherlands and other oil states because of what they hold, that alone would cause an international incident.
The other UK path I see mentioned a lot in plausibility is that of Edward's monarchy path. Again, completely unreasonable. Public and government perception at the time was heavily against the King's involvement with a divorcee and politicians in the UK were worried Edward would try to influence politics due to a number of incidents regarding colonial governance, IIRC. If Edward didn't accept the terms put forward by Parliament, the much, much more likely resolution would see Parliament force the king to retire the throne (also unheard of but given the circumstances, likely) to George, and if he didn't do that I imagine the question of the monarchy would be drawn into the forefront.
Now, Sea Lion as a concept can be seen as something plausible. The UK had so many ships but weren't all able to defend their shores! Reality, and post-war war-games paint a disastrous picture for any invasion of the UK. A 1970s war-game saw the Germans successfully land on the shores, but were immediately engaged and forced to hold the beach as close as possible. In the next couple of days the Home Fleet based in Scapa Flow would reach the English Channel, and likely decimate any reinforcements or supply chains, ruining any German ships in the vicinity trying to combat them. This isn't a case where the UK would send a handful of destroyers - this would see as much as the RN could muster to counter the threat of actual invasion, I can't see any punches being pulled. Not to mention after the fall of France, the UK was preparing for an invasion - militarily and politically. If the Germans did land, it wouldn't be against a foe such as France, it would be more equivalent to that of the USSR; civilians cutting telephone lines, planting road mines, ambushing patrols, etc. I can't see the Germans even reaching Dover.
Now, whilst all 3 of these are completely a-historical, people consider them plausible. Why? Because the game manages to either successfully convey a "realistic" story for them, or gives the player the agency to carry it out themselves. Both the UK paths mentioned are based in historical reality, which makes crafting an alternative story seem more realistic or plausible than it actually is - that to me is a trademark of what makes good alt-history. Communist and fascist UK fall flat for other reasons than just that, but the way they approach the topic is a lot less ingrained in history - a simple google search will result in the Battle of Cable Street and Jarrow March, both influential events that, if handled slightly differently, may have led to a shift in the political landscape yet they are unused. The same goes for the USA's alt history branches. Quite obscure, but only 3 years before the start HOI4 a conspiracy was un-earthed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot which called for the overthrow of the government and replacement with a fascist head of state. Sounds silly, but after seeing how most large corporations and businesses - which controlled the newspapers - were implicated, there's still enough there to craft an interesting story.
This is getting a bit long now so I'll wrap it up; alt-history is only as good as it is presented, in my opinion. Tactical changes, like an invasion of the UK or choosing to invade Gibraltar, are controlled by actually playing the game itself thus making it realistically plausible within the game's framework as the player has agency. Political shifts are doable, so long as a good enough story is crafted and presented to take the player through to the end goal of switching ideology - I personally really like the way the Soviet tree handles this, as it puts forward a lot of the ideological challenges returning to the monarchy would pose yet you overcome them by playing the game, not by completing a focus.
Just a quick amendment: This reasoning is also why I don't mind things such as the restoration of Byzantium or Russian Empire; the player is given the agency to do it. If you formed Byzantium without fighting Turkey alone, without having to conquer it all and alienating your allies then yes, IMO it would be bad alt-history. It's not uncommon for fascist parties to harken back to medieval themes and states - Indeed, in our timeline Nazi Germany hijacked the memory and history of the Teutonic Knights (an order which vanished from relevance in the 1500s) to portray themselves as the successors, conquering out east-ward in the name of Christendom (even if the Teutonic Order was massively discriminated against and banned) as a political tool. From my little understanding of the EEE party in Greece, they use a lot of Orthodox imagery and Byzantine symbology - surely if they reconquered Istanbul and Turkey there's potential to proclaim a new Byzantium? As Italy wanted to do OTL with Rome?
Personally, I don't see why HOI4 should be held to different standards than the rest of PDXs games; why does HOI4 need to be a simulator in some people's eyes but not EU4? If it's the time-span, I'd understand to an extent - but the idea that large political shifts couldn't happen in a short time frame is frankly silly.I've seen the UK's alt history paths been mentioned alongside things such as a successful Sea Lion in this thread and, to me at least, both are equally a-historical (but not necessarily bad).
Alt-democratic path UK is completely implausible for a number of reasons; up until the Munich conference, Chamberlain held a successful majority of support in both the Commons and the party itself. Why would people listen to Churchill, who hasn't changed his tune for the past couple of years, and attempt a potentially party-breaking VoNC? It's stupid, not to mention then being able to declare war on the Netherlands and other oil states because of what they hold, that alone would cause an international incident.
The other UK path I see mentioned a lot in plausibility is that of Edward's monarchy path. Again, completely unreasonable. Public and government perception at the time was heavily against the King's involvement with a divorcee and politicians in the UK were worried Edward would try to influence politics due to a number of incidents regarding colonial governance, IIRC. If Edward didn't accept the terms put forward by Parliament, the much, much more likely resolution would see Parliament force the king to retire the throne (also unheard of but given the circumstances, likely) to George, and if he didn't do that I imagine the question of the monarchy would be drawn into the forefront.
Now, Sea Lion as a concept can be seen as something plausible. The UK had so many ships but weren't all able to defend their shores! Reality, and post-war war-games paint a disastrous picture for any invasion of the UK. A 1970s war-game saw the Germans successfully land on the shores, but were immediately engaged and forced to hold the beach as close as possible. In the next couple of days the Home Fleet based in Scapa Flow would reach the English Channel, and likely decimate any reinforcements or supply chains, ruining any German ships in the vicinity trying to combat them. This isn't a case where the UK would send a handful of destroyers - this would see as much as the RN could muster to counter the threat of actual invasion, I can't see any punches being pulled. Not to mention after the fall of France, the UK was preparing for an invasion - militarily and politically. If the Germans did land, it wouldn't be against a foe such as France, it would be more equivalent to that of the USSR; civilians cutting telephone lines, planting road mines, ambushing patrols, etc. I can't see the Germans even reaching Dover.
Now, whilst all 3 of these are completely a-historical, people consider them plausible. Why? Because the game manages to either successfully convey a "realistic" story for them, or gives the player the agency to carry it out themselves. Both the UK paths mentioned are based in historical reality, which makes crafting an alternative story seem more realistic or plausible than it actually is - that to me is a trademark of what makes good alt-history. Communist and fascist UK fall flat for other reasons than just that, but the way they approach the topic is a lot less ingrained in history - a simple google search will result in the Battle of Cable Street and Jarrow March, both influential events that, if handled slightly differently, may have led to a shift in the political landscape yet they are unused. The same goes for the USA's alt history branches. Quite obscure, but only 3 years before the start HOI4 a conspiracy was un-earthed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot which called for the overthrow of the government and replacement with a fascist head of state. Sounds silly, but after seeing how most large corporations and businesses - which controlled the newspapers - were implicated, there's still enough there to craft an interesting story.
This is getting a bit long now so I'll wrap it up; alt-history is only as good as it is presented, in my opinion. Tactical changes, like an invasion of the UK or choosing to invade Gibraltar, are controlled by actually playing the game itself thus making it realistically plausible within the game's framework as the player has agency. Political shifts are doable, so long as a good enough story is crafted and presented to take the player through to the end goal of switching ideology - I personally really like the way the Soviet tree handles this, as it puts forward a lot of the ideological challenges returning to the monarchy would pose yet you overcome them by playing the game, not by completing a focus.
Just a quick amendment: This reasoning is also why I don't mind things such as the restoration of Byzantium or Russian Empire; the player is given the agency to do it. If you formed Byzantium without fighting Turkey alone, without having to conquer it all and alienating your allies then yes, IMO it would be bad alt-history. It's not uncommon for fascist parties to harken back to medieval themes and states - Indeed, in our timeline Nazi Germany hijacked the memory and history of the Teutonic Knights (an order which vanished from relevance in the 1500s) to portray themselves as the successors, conquering out east-ward in the name of Christendom (even if the Teutonic Order was massively discriminated against and banned) as a political tool. From my little understanding of the EEE party in Greece, they use a lot of Orthodox imagery and Byzantine symbology - surely if they reconquered Istanbul and Turkey there's potential to proclaim a new Byzantium? As Italy wanted to do OTL with Rome?
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
