No clue why you have such a perception. In my games the Japanese go quite consistently for Pearl Harbor in 1940 even... Thats in 1.5.2 [77a6]
Frustrations with US tree
- Thread starter geckoman1011
- 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.
No clue why you have such a perception. In my games the Japanese go quite consistently for Pearl Harbor in 1940 even... Thats in 1.5.2 [77a6]
The trouble mainly comes with transparency. You'd need to make sure Axis players know the danger of demanding American territory in any peace conference, and if the Axis defeats the Allies totally and desire to full-annex or puppet the UK, but they don't want to aggro the western hemisphere, what should become of territories like Belize, and how would that be implemented? As I said, it's doable, but without quite a lot of effort by the devs, it might end up a confusing mess.
This is completely wrong for several reasons.
1. Congress usually goes the opposite way the Presidency does in American politics. A GOP presidency is hardly a guarantee of a GOP congress.
2. By 1941 barely any GOP members were isolationist or uninterested in Europe, so even total GOP control doesn't translate into non-interventionism.
3. Landon himself was staunchly anti-isolationist.
Also the US doesn't have a parliament.
Even if I take this premise as correct, you're still missing an intermediate premise. Even if the GOP is more non-interventionist than Roosevelt, by the time 1941 rolls around and the US is attacked, and has already been attacked by German subs in the Atlantic, why would the US refrain from getting involved in Europe? You have yet to give a reason why less interest in war generally translates to not getting involved while already at war.
I don't get what's so hard to understand about less intervention does not translating into non-interventionism, while you completely ignored the point of me even mentioning a less internationalist US which was to provide the US with more variety being less interested in the European conflict. The entire Landon presidency wasn't even close to a plausible situation. Maybe I should've been more clear:
Premises C: The purpose of proposing this idea is to make US do something different in the game than just going "The Fascist Menace" every single game and provide it with other possible options such as making its own faction with the Pacific nations under a Landon presidency, and the possibility of an "American First" policy having a stronger voice.
That doesn't work as a logical matter but whatever.
Again, 2 problems:
1. You keep saying less intervention, but what that translates to in game terms and in terms of what you're saying is no intervention. There's absolutely no reason for the US to pull its punches if it's at war with Germany. If it's not at war with Germany, then there's no intervention. Pick one.
2. The historical problem is that Landon was vehemently anti America First, opposed the Neutrality Act, etc. He was not a non-interventionist, and nowhere does he support the sort of minimal intervention that you seem to ascribe to him. There is no historical basis to think that by the time the US is attacked, its politicians would not want to get involved in both the European and Pacific conflicts, whether Republican or Democratic.
There are ways to stimulate this in the game such as giving the UK -3% consumer goods (numbers debatable), some extra civilian factories or improved infrastructure as the result of foreign aid from the US.
Pretty sure I linked a guy who was more non-interventionist and was Republican called Robert A Taft in one of my previous posts. Sure he was a minority with an FDR presidency but there still is a premises that exists, and my scenario is that this guy gets a stronger voice under a Landon presidency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Taft
If this is about making a semi-plausible alternate history for a US focus tree, how likely a scenario is doesn't really matter. HoI4 lives happily with the Kaiser back in 1936, communist Japan and fascist Australia.
By this standard, few people would blink at an isolationist Landon presidency. Before I read this thread, Landon was just a name I vaguely remembered seeing in the game at some point.
By this standard, few people would blink at an isolationist Landon presidency. Before I read this thread, Landon was just a name I vaguely remembered seeing in the game at some point.
"Taft fully supported the American war effort after Pearl Harbor." It seems that even if he had a greater voice, he wouldn't be saying things that support your position. Further, he's one Senator out of 100. Even assuming he stays non-interventionist after Pearl Harbor (which he didn't), you need more than one guy to make your argument work, particularly since the Republican Presidential candidate in 1940 was actually more inclined to get involved in Europe to aid the UK than in Asia.
That's a standard that should be avoided if at all possible. If the standard is "screw plausibility let's do it for the lulz" then sure, Alf Landon changing all his beliefs and doing implausible things, Republicans all shifting to non-interventionists even though many weren't (and most weren't by 1940-ish), and the US totally ignoring the rest of the world (except giving the UK a 3% consumer goods bonus apparently, wow what a bonus!) is well and good. If you want any semblance of realism, you need to find a different group of people to come to power than the Republicans to get an isolationist or non-interventionist USA.
Of course he did. After Pearl Harbor the vote was 82-0 in the Senate and 388-1 in the House. It's one thing to be against joining a foreign war, and an other entirely to have 2,300 dead in a surprise attack.
Remember that in our history Germany declared war on the US but this never happens in the game. Looking his policies of being concerned with mainly American soil and less of Europe he would be swaying away from intervention in Europe.
There is also the option in the game to go Mr.Dudley Pelly or the Communist guy which I forgot what his name was when they weren't even senators and were supported by even less people. You can even have a fascist alliance with Japan as Australia or make your own Pacific faction as democratic Japan so we aren't really arguing about "how much chance did he have historically" as its for expanding more options in the game.
We're talking about a game where Japan suddenly can decide to become Communist abandoning the emperor and the Showa system, Mussolini being able to get assassinated in broad daylight and the Italian populace simply accepting it without any civil unrest and Koudouha of Japan being able to seize control suddenly despite Hirohito condemning them historically. Its a sandbox game where the players have many options to take their countries from the 1936 start, if USA can become either communist or fascist from their current trees I don't see the harm in having a more Isolationist/Pacific focused paths instead. Even Canada can form its own faction with the USA leaving the Allies, but somehow the US doing something similar with Canada or the Pacific nations seems problematic?
The "America First" movement and Isolationism was more supported by Republicans and Democrats than other groups. The fascist are going to ally the Nazis, the Communist the Soviet Union and it is even more implausible for an FDR USA to become isolationists.
"The America First Committee had its share of prominent businessmen as well as the sympathies of political figures including Democratic Senators Burton K. Wheeler of Montana and David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, Republican Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, with its most prominent spokesman being aviator Charles A. Lindbergh. Other celebrities supporting America First were actress Lillian Gish and architect Frank Lloyd Wright."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
Last edited:
Why? Why would he not be concerned with Europe when the US was already at war with a member of the Axis, and allied with the UK and France (at least)?
Communists are Communist and Fascists are Fascist. Landon is not a non-interventionist and neither is Taft after Pearl Harbor.
You've got the right movie, but the wrong cast.
Congratulations you've arrived at the answer! It's not Alf Landon, it's not Robert Taft, it's America First! That wasn't so hard, now was it?
Don't try to force historical figures into ahistorical beliefs, use the right tools to get the right result. Plausibility is another issue entirely, but changing what someone actually did and believed isn't a good way to go.
@hkrommel and @ Misaka_Complex (and others if appropriate) please take your history debate elsewhere. You are completely off topic to the OP.
To be fair you already have your answer. The US is designed to take notice and intervene if you generate enough world tension. The only way to make them not do this is to make them go Fascist.
You can play as Democratic Australia and go "Woo USA" and you just need 70 days to convince Roosevelt to join your democratic Pacific faction and ditch the Allies and the European front by using the NF tree. You can do the same thing as Canada seeking immediate patriation and form your own North American faction ditching the Allies and the European front before WW2. What's funny is that both can be done while FDR is still in power and he would be totally cool with Isolationism despite that the exact opposite of what he thought in history, so technically an Isolationist USA already exists in the game except that the US can't do it alone without the help of Australia or Canada. Given that such a world scenario of a Isolationist USA already exists, its not so far fetched to propose for the US to be able to take this path themselves instead of needing John Curtin or Mackenzie King to convince him.
Basically in this game John Cutin can say "Never Another Galipoli!!" and after 70 days of "Woo USA" FDR goes like "OH HELL YEAH! Let's go Isolationist and become buddy buddy with Australia and concentrate on the Pacific! Who cares about Europe and Britain?" all while remaining democratic.
Last edited:
Sure but not all games are historical and scenarios like that happens, and that's the direction where the game is going with the sandbox setting so Isolationist America under Landon is quite likely in a future expansion though its historically implausible. At least it makes more sense than FDR going Isolationist though. After all this very thread is about the US tree being stale since it does the same thing every single game and Isolationist Landon offers more variety to the American NF tree just as Communist or Fascist America.
The thing is the crazy Australian stuff happens the way it does since there's no other real option, and the focus trees are an imprecise instrument. If you want an isolationist UN you could just as easily make a branch where America First comes to power, and that presents a far more plausible scenario for isolationism than Alf Landon. Paradox still tends to pick the most plausible option available, even if it's in pursuit of an implausible result.
True. Still, I'm not sure of where an isolationist US playthrough would go. If it's just never going to war, no player will ever take it. Maybe you could focus on Japan, but the Tri-Partite Pact is probably going to draw Germany in. If you just wait until the Axis powers attack you, well, that doesn't change much compared to a historical playthrough. Not only do you have to disable the focuses like "The Prussian Menace", but you also have to neuter those who make Japan or Germany strike first. In a sense the historical path is "mildly isolationist" already.
Well, you *could* make the US create their own faction and tweak the focuses so they never fight Germany, but if it's just US vs Japan, that won't be a very interesting fight for the US player.
Well, you *could* make the US create their own faction and tweak the focuses so they never fight Germany, but if it's just US vs Japan, that won't be a very interesting fight for the US player.
Last edited:
That would work too for the US focus part, but then the question would be "what happens in the case when Australia/Canada convinces the US to become Isolationist through their own tree while FDR is still in power?". Unless this involves a sudden coup within the 70 days of "Woo America" its still gonna be an Isolationist USA lead by FDR, and this sudden coup doesn't really sound plausible as well given FDR's overwhelming support.