Where did I say anything about timeframe? I was talking about democracy and where it can lead.
*grabs Coca-Cola*
It is not like German elections weren't mentioned in following posts but please, continue....
Game should punish instead of not allowing
- Thread starter SuperZ69
- 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.
*grabs Coca-Cola*
It is not like German elections weren't mentioned in following posts but please, continue....
Well we are in a topic about a game which plays between 1936 and 1948. Besides you were talking about what "Adolf's march over europe" earlier in your post, and then mentioned that germany was also a democratic nation.
Last federal elections were in 1933.
Last edited:
- 1
I am sorry I didn't know that in thread where War Plan Red, among other things, is discussed the rest of human history is prohibited.
I was talking about what you can do as democratic country in Hoi3. Then later, in another paragraph, about Germany being democratic (I was kind of hoping ppl will get what I mean). I could be more precise but I wasn't wrong either. You should read the thread before posting though.
True. Muh bad.
It is not, but you were not discussing that. You said that Germany was a democratic nation.
I still don't understand what you mean, because Germany was NOT a democratic nation at the timeframe of HOI3.
But what you wrote was wrong. If you meant something else, you should have written that instead of nonsense.
- 2
And it was... pre-Hitler. You cannot have a discussion within one post and my first was clearly the only one you read before posting.
The very second post after my original one is...
So please tell me in what year pre-war during the timeframe of HoI3 German Federal Elections happened? Also google from which year War Plan Red and similar is.
Please, learn to read.
So Hitler got to power not through elections but a coup or smth? Gotcha! Great history lesson!
Let's go back for a moment to the point where thread wasn't derailed because gentleman above can't read more than one post.
This is correct, true or not? If you think not please vent your frustration by clicking "Disagree" button. I mean I did it, no mods, no cheats. There was no punishment as far as I could see. And there are people who disagree cuz it would cause generals to rebel, population to rise, congress would send out strongly worded letters...
...and that was EXACTLY what OP suggested. To get punished for making "undemocratic" decision. Instead of not at all. The only thing he wanted was to not be shackled by neutrality level.
So as far as I can see it, half people here argued against themselves.
Now back to "B-b-but REDDQ said Germany was democratic and game starts in 1936" soap opera.
This is correct, true or not? If you think not please vent your frustration by clicking "Disagree" button. I mean I did it, no mods, no cheats. There was no punishment as far as I could see. And there are people who disagree cuz it would cause generals to rebel, population to rise, congress would send out strongly worded letters...
...and that was EXACTLY what OP suggested. To get punished for making "undemocratic" decision. Instead of not at all. The only thing he wanted was to not be shackled by neutrality level.
So as far as I can see it, half people here argued against themselves.
Now back to "B-b-but REDDQ said Germany was democratic and game starts in 1936" soap opera.
- 1
But you didn't write down any of that.
What you wrote down is this:
Germany was a democratic nation.
Germany had federal elections.
In a thread talking about the rules of a game playing between 1936 and 1948. About the rules of DEMOCRATIC nations and NOT ex-democratic nations.
Then when people called on your post rather then telling us that "sorry I didn't mean it that way, I was wrong" you started trying force your points. Even your point that Hitler came to power using democratic means is bullshit since the Nazis used harassment and violence to gather political power. (not to mention their failed coup attemt in 1923)
Last edited:
- 2
Lol, It is like talking to a brickwall.1936! 1936! Like a broken record XD
Three people asked. 3! I hope numbers are easier to you than words. I responded to them and case seemed closed but you had to came by jump the gun after reading only one post. Incredibly arrogant at that if you ask me, what it was? "Now this is a prime example why one should pay more attention in class". You could inquire what I meant... you could just read the thread instead but meh.
Also Hitler's force attempts were failed but thanks to skilful use of propaganda he managed to utilize state's democratic mechanism to gain power. Unless you gonna prove now that he harassed millions of Germans who voted NSDAP into parliament. So back to class with you.
- 1
It's not that there would be severe repercussions for going to war without cause in a democratic country, it's that the political institutions of a democratic country prevent it from happening entirely. There needs to be an actual reason (valid or dubious, real or fabricated) in order to bring the legislature around to declaring war, or the democratic institutions of the country need to be replaced entirely (as Hitler did in Germany). In HoI4 the development of these causes will be modeled as national focuses, political/diplomatic decisions, and world tension.
- 2
Yeah because you can't seem to understand the TOPIC of the thread.
Actually, the only reason I posted, because after an other member called out that you were wrong, you still insisted that germany was democratic because they had elections. Then when someone else pointed out that last elections were outside the timeframe of the game, you said that Hitler came to power using democratic means, which is still not a hundred percent true. But that point doesn't matter since how the nazis came to power was not the topic. It was about the restrictions on Democratic countries IN THE GAME(so from 36-48) And yet you wonder why people misunderstand your statement, that "Germany was democratic". You still try to make it sound like you were right instead of saying "you are right, my post was phrased poorly".
And yes, my post was sarcastic I concur, It was maybe a bit too much, but that doesn't make you right.
Don't forget the violent clashes on the street between Hitler's goons and different political groups(as i said, harassment and violence)
I'm not going to find you proof, because
1 it's not the topic.
2 this is common knowledge.
Read a book if you're interested.
Last edited:
Topic where things PRE-1936 (among others) are discussed? Btw. topic is about whether game should punish you for making ahistoric and/or undemocratic decisions while making them more available. Nothing about dates whatsoever and USA was posted as an example. I posted about Germany just to mention who can be voted into power... thus "democratic countries do that do this... Germany was a democratic country." And from picture posted in this thread it seems like USA will have some freedom in choosing which path to follow.
The member with whom I basically agreed with, the issue I was right about, the timerame which was never the case (and won't be see HoI4's USA in picture)? I am at least grateful that even though I wasn't 100% right I might be somewhere close... like 99,9%.
Did I say Hitler's Germany was democratic? Did I say Germany in 1936-1948 was democratic? No... I just say Germany was democratic and democratic it was... even if whole system was a bit rough around the edges. Imho topic of pre-WW2 Germany is known enough that it was pretty logical which one I was talking about.
I agree that this wasn't the topic of this thread. But when I talked about the topic you weren't very interested in pitching in and my option still stands. And it is:
1. Things can go sideways in democracy (example Germany)
2. OP has good ideas.
2. OP's author advocated pretty much the same thing his opponents advocated.
Almost 18 million Germans couldn't just be scarred into voting. Again violence was mutual, dunno whether it should be treated as major break in democracy at that time.... didn't voting rights of minorities get regulated way after the WW2 in USA as well? (way besides point)
I don't really agree with your point that Germany was a real Democracy from 1930 to 1933, because the presidential system was quite authoritative.
But in HOI4 the switch from democratic US to fascist/communist US seems to be possible in the 1940 elections or through a coup d'etat. So the game doesn't force the US into the allies/democratic alliance.
True, It was a bit on the authoritative side. To be honest it looks this way even today (only this time good chunk of power is held by Chancellor).
Yea, HoI4 seems to be open for quite some interesting paths. And it looks logic enough, Propaganda first, then preparations, plans and proper action. But it is also very strict one. I am obviously exited to see the full game but at the same time I was hoping for system more open and fluid.
Last edited:
The game seems to heavily rely on the national focus tree for interventions from allied side.
The British for example can intervene (requires fascist or communist sentiment) in Scandinavia or Benelux before the Germans start their invasion. This system is pretty strict, but it also offers a more realistic approach than allowing war for everybody against everybody. For example a british invasion of France without major ideological shift is just not realistic in the 1930's.
- 2
wow, almost 5 pages discussing about if USA could have declared war on Canada in the 30's or not, but guys... that issue was just an EXAMPLE, and you all know that USA is not the only democracy in the world, and Canada is not the only possible target for a war in the world, do you?
I mean, what the OP said is that many (if not all) the hard caps in the game could be replaced with severe (in some circumnstances VERY severe) consequences. And I agree with him.
For example, (EXAMPLE!!!) declaring war on ANY target country could give the attacker a penalty in NU, equal to double the diference between the threat of the target and the neutrality of the attacker.
So, back on your favourite case of USA vs Canada, an enormous neutrality (say 80) vs a null threat (say 0) would make a - 160 NU -> many bad things for USA's gov: army rebelling, internal turmoil, whatever.
But in other case, say a very imperialistic UK vs a menacing Netherland that threatens to ally Germany. UK has a neutrality of 40 and Netherland poses a threat of 20. so -40 NU to UK for that preventive war. a big punish, but one that the player (or a desperate AI) may accept.
There could be also other consequences, based also in circumnstances: increment in own threat, penalty to others opinion, increment of revoltrisk, etc.
That would prevent many of the absurd situations we all can read in "what if RL would be driven by Paradox rules" threads
I mean, what the OP said is that many (if not all) the hard caps in the game could be replaced with severe (in some circumnstances VERY severe) consequences. And I agree with him.
For example, (EXAMPLE!!!) declaring war on ANY target country could give the attacker a penalty in NU, equal to double the diference between the threat of the target and the neutrality of the attacker.
So, back on your favourite case of USA vs Canada, an enormous neutrality (say 80) vs a null threat (say 0) would make a - 160 NU -> many bad things for USA's gov: army rebelling, internal turmoil, whatever.
But in other case, say a very imperialistic UK vs a menacing Netherland that threatens to ally Germany. UK has a neutrality of 40 and Netherland poses a threat of 20. so -40 NU to UK for that preventive war. a big punish, but one that the player (or a desperate AI) may accept.
There could be also other consequences, based also in circumnstances: increment in own threat, penalty to others opinion, increment of revoltrisk, etc.
That would prevent many of the absurd situations we all can read in "what if RL would be driven by Paradox rules" threads
- 2
- 1
hence the problem with the argument (from both sides). currently china is 'the people's republic of china' with elections and representatives of groups of people and everything else to make it a republic (often considered a type of democracy) yet generally people don't consider it a democracy. in fact it is labeled a communist country, yet officially communism isn't part of its name. the line of what is a democracy and what isn't is hazy in real life, mainly due to politics (a democracy is considered good, and thus most everyone wants to claim they are one). while i (and most everyone) doesn't consider germany a democratic country in 1936, there isn't a hard and fast rule to declare a country a democracy or a fascist state, as technically they are not opposing systems. a fascism is an ideology for governance, while democracy is mechanisms of governance. if we want to get technical the USSR is a democracy during 1936 (though i'm sure we would all call it a communist state).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election_and_referendum,_1938
as you can see by 1936 the most critical mechanism of a democratic state was still in place (elections), although few of us would call that a true election. the point is that democracy is clumsy label for the western allies in the game, and in fact include a wide variety of government types while excluding a few choice types due to the subject matter of the game.
very interesting article, thanks. i agree with the general sentiment he has, though i'd probably introduce a device for the fan for getting in the CIA, the argument for feature creep is based on a universally useful device, however in the briefing for the mission it could be stated that the contractor used an inferior fan to save a few bucks (very plausible) that lacked grounding insulation (a resistor) allowing a high voltage, low amperage discharge into the frame of the fan (all the metal outside the fan) like one that a stun gun uses can fry the motor of the fan. it is undesirable though due to a subsequent investigation will reveal the loophole in security and make the clean up at higher levels more problematic (or increase the difficulty of future operations). while this wouldn't affect gameplay (wouldn't even have to alter sprites at all) it would provide a mini objective that gamers could strive for out of ego alone (not using the device and playing as intended). any future application of the device for other things is purely optional, and it is actually more realistic than looking at thermal imprints on a keypad.
also this is the simulation game that chess is derived from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturanga
which does change the whole explanation of the bishops and how they are simulated wrong, chess is not a simulation game and bishops aren't bishops. it is definitely worth the read though and does in fact bring up some good points.
- 1
I already posted the british national focus tree and the scenario between the Netherlands and the UK is already a possibility according to the HOI4 wiki.
Yes, it's true that the current representation of different government systems in HOI4 seems quite poor, because PDS mixes ideologies and government types. But there still is a difference between governments that allowed opposition (UK, US, France) and those that didn't (USSR, Germany).
- 1
yeeeeees, that EXAMPLE is already covered by the focus tree, and the dev team has included some neat focuses to allow nice ahistorical DOWs, but as I said, the key is not THAT war, but a general feature to cover any possible action that now is just disabled, and change that "disable" by a "severe punish ahead!!!".
Look, I've had debates with people in this community who think that just because both the Communists and the NSDAP were intimidating voters in elections prior to the Enabling Act, that made it fair and thus, the elections in Germany represented the actual will of the people. (Yes, voter intimidation is apparently something that can be balanced like an equation in chemistry. You didn't know?
)Threads where people discuss national socialism and Germany's politics in the 1930s where equivocation takes place between national socialism and the politics of the USA, UK, or France? You can't go looking for the logic in it, as Conway Stern would point out.
- 1
- 1
- 1
It REALLY is not black and white. Comintern invaded Finland, Baltic nations, Poland and parts of Romania without provocation. Axis on other hand, helped Finland, despite Finland being democracy and axis largely fascists. If RL would actually be "good, evil, middle", axis would certainly have invaded Finland as from their point of view democratic Finland would have been enemy.
But if you want to use good-bad scaling, why is Comintern not in "bad guys" class? Becouse they fought against other "bad guys" and won?
Last edited:
- 3