• 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.

HoI 4 - Dev Diary: America Rework

Hello, and welcome back to another dev diary! Today we are going to talk about Freedom. Freedom from Fear. Freedom from Want. Freedom from having to vote for a presidential candidate every four years.


The vanilla US focus tree offered some interesting alternate-history scenarios, but if you wanted to play historical, you pretty much sat around doing very little until the war started. Part of this is the fundamental design problem of the US in a historical grand-strategy game: if we allow the US to freely enter the war when it has even a fraction of its historical economy, the Axis never makes it into Paris and the war ends in 1940. If we restrict the US from entering the war freely until its historical date, the US player sits around until late 1941 doing very little (there is a reason why my usual go-to scenario in HoI2 and HoI3 was “Play France until you lose, then switch to the US”).


usa_focus_devdiary.jpg



So one of the goals we had for this rework was to give the player a bit more stuff to actually do during the lead-up to the war. Making the path out of the depression a little more involved was an obvious place to start. Instead of a single national spirit, it is now three levels that give a smoother curve out of the depression. But instead of just taking three focuses in a row to do what could previously be done in one, we wanted the player to have to work a lot more to get out of the depression.


Enter the script-based Congress Mechanic. The Congress mechanic is - for now - unique to the US and simulates the shifting majorities in both houses of Congress. It ties into a lot of things that we will get into in a bit. But on a fundamental level, taking the focuses that reduce the penalties from the great depression will require you to have a majority in both houses, but will also reduce your support once you have taken it to simulate members of Congress who voted for the proposal being unwilling to support you further without getting something in return.


picture_us_congress.JPG



You can gain and lose support from random events as well as midterm and presidential elections. Generally speaking, going with the incumbent means you are more likely to lose support in Congress in the election, and if the situation is particularly dire, going with the challenger will flip support and opposition. Beyond this, a number of decisions allow you to gain support in congress, from simple lobbying to bribing members of Congress by investing in their constituencies to just regularly bribing them.


picture_us_build_factory.JPG



Besides getting out of the depression, you’ll also need to get Congress to sign off on the Selective Service Act, which is the gatekeeper focus of the army modernization branch, and the Two Ocean Navy Act, which is the gatekeeper focus for the naval branch. The amount of support you need depends on your war support (in general, you can assume that every focus with “Act” somewhere in its title ties into the Congress mechanic).


Another aspect we wanted to add was to give the US player a choice to become more active in the world earlier. As I said above, that comes with host of issues. We want it to be a viable option, but not a no-brainer. This means that there will be a number of restrictions in the “Limited Intervention” branch. First, you’ll have to have enough support in Congress to take the focus (and a lack of war support means that quite a few member of Congress will break ranks over it). Afterwards, you will have to choose between focusing your efforts on preparing to intervene in Europe or in Asia. Taking either of these focuses unlocks a number of decisions to try and build public support for an intervention. Many of these decisions are tied to events around the world - here the US is protesting the Anschluss.


picture_us_anschluss.JPG



However, there is only a small window to utilize these events. Each decision adds something that is internally called an “intervention strike” as in “three strikes and you’re out”, except in this case it’s “three strikes and we start bombing”. A generic decision allows to build support against a target if they do not have specific decisions associated with them. Finally, once a country has two strikes against them, you can petition congress to sanction an intervention, which will again require significant support (it is easier to gain a wargoal against a country that is at war, and easier still if they are in an aggressive war).


This will likely make it harder for you to pursue your other goals - so if you want to intervene in Europe on behalf of the Allies, you will most likely have to forego economic reforms, at least for a while.


The intervention mandates are also used to allow the US to intervene in the Americas if someone violates the Monroe doctrine.


Intervention in general is something you can prepare a lot better now by using war plans. Completing the focuses unlocks a decision to execute the corresponding war plan and gain a temporary bonus against a country, along with some other temporary bonuses.


us_picture_war_plan.jpg



Of course, by this point a statistical majority of you might wonder why you even bother with all this busy-work, bribing senators, cutting deals with representatives, when there is a world to be won. As promised, we also wanted to add proper alternate ideology branches for the US. As we said many months ago in the Dev Diary about South Africa, we also look to try and open up new areas of the map for warfare, to allow you to fight in different areas than trudging across the same old parts of Europe.


So we wanted to have a nice big Civil War in the US. We want tank battles south of Chicago. Naval landings in Florida. A brutal slog across the Rocky Mountains. So we decided to not just put in one civil war but two! That’s a whole 100% MORE CIVIL WAR!


You’ll have to fight a civil war in either of the alternate ideology branches. For the curious: the branches straight down from the WPA and Adjusted Compensation Act are democratic ideology branches and will be part of the free update, the branches starting with Suspend the Prosecution and America First will be part of the DLC.


In the left branch, appropriately enough, you soften up your stance towards the communists. You can do this even if you don’t intend to go fully communist, as it opens up new ways of gaining support in Congress. If you do decide to be more radical, you can desegregate the American society, which will trigger protests from the usual suspects. The protests by themselves don’t do anything, but if you decide to push harder towards communism, the protests will intensify and eventually spill over. The Unions Representation Act is another such trigger that will cause protests.


Picture_us_communists_protests.JPG



Before the civil war breaks out, there is a “Point of No Return” after which it is merely a question of time until hostilities start. In the time between the Point of No Return and the actual start of the war, you’ll get a number of events telling you how the situation develops. These events have actual effects on how your position is like at the start of the war.


For example, if an event tells you that a state has mobilized the national guard, the revolter gets a fully-equipped and quite capable division when the war starts. These events aren’t intended to make the difference between winning and losing but to give the war a bit more flavor.


Once the war starts in the communist branch, it is not quite like a regular civil war. Instead of the country and the military splitting in half, it spawns a new tag (CSA). This allows us to do a few things, like removing CSA territories as cores for the US (which means that they, for example, create resistance when conquered into). Depending on how far down you’ve gone in the communist branch, a part of the country might also declare its neutrality during the war. You can still interact with this part through decisions, but so can the other side.


picture_us_purchase_weapons.JPG



Where in other countries, a civil war is something we must be very careful with to ensure that the country is not completely crippled by the time the real war starts, here, we want ACWII to be “the war” the US gets into and which merges into the greater World War. So there are limited objectives for you after you have won the American Theater of World War II, but you can push decolonization in Asia and intervene in the Chinese Civil War, while also working to reintegrate the breakaway states.


The Civil War in the fascist branch works along similar lines. You also get a branch leading down from America First that you can use even if you don’t want to go full fascist - a sort of flirting with fascism, allowing you, for example, to investigate the opposition through the House Committee of Un-American Activities. The Voter Registration Act ensures a comfortable majority in every election, but triggers a wave of protests.


If you decide to push even further and publicly ally with the Silver Legion, you will trigger additional protests that put the country on the road to civil war. Like in the communist branch, a number of events determine what the starting position is, but the roles are reversed. Where in the communist branch, a part of the country tries to break away, in the fascist branch the country revolts against your leadership and tries to oust you from power, forcing you to fall back into a powerbase you set up in advance (you set up a powerbase in advance, right?). Parts of the country will declare in support or in opposition, leading to different front lines.


With much of the professional military on the other side, you’ll have to rely on hastily-raised militias to hold the line until you can get back on your feet. You might have to cut some deals and appeal to the locals to get them to accept that you are on their side.


picture_us_honor_confederacy.JPG



Once you have won that war, you are left with a US that is now safely fascist, which means that you are ideally poised to conquer the rest of the world. So we decided we might as well give you the focus tree to do just that. The War Powers Act lessens the stability impact of being in a war, and you can take your first steps abroad as you politely ask Canada to give you the territory between you and the Alaskan border (the event may or may not be called “Vancouver Or War!”) and politely ask Cuba to please stop being independent.


You continue in this fashion until at last you demand global hegemony and give all other majors an ultimatum to either become puppets or go to war. Along the way, you will most likely have gobbled up all the small countries that otherwise make conquering the world such a pain.


That is all for today. Next week we will be back with another look into the naval side of things.



Rejected Titles:

You will want fries with this focus tree

Making the world safe for fascism

Josh Lyman Simulator 2018

All focus trees are bigger in Texas

Communism is the right of all sentient beings

While writing this dev diary a bald eagle sat down outside the window and cried. True story.

My favourite state borders are Colorado’s

My google search history now makes me unemployable in most of the US

Fight them over here so we don’t have to fight them over there

This dev diary may contain trace amounts of political commentary

There was supposed to be a monarchist path but the Americans in the office rebelled and threw away all the tea

Team America saves the day

“Three strikes and we start bombing” would dramatically improve Baseball as a sport

https://twitter.com/alflandonlover gets the love he deserves

Actually rejected title: Make America <literally anything> Again

“Five score and two days ago our game director brought forth, upon this world, a new DLC announcement, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all gamers like American Civil Wars.”
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Huh, I did not expect you guys to full on implement the legislative branch here like this when doing the America overhaul. Also, I have to give kudos to you guys for making the Civil Wars a wee bit more realistic for the US here, that you have a slow build rather than one big burn is something I wish the other civil wars got too. I also love that you can flirt with ideologies like this, where you can do small things that make certain ideologies more popular. It makes the part of me that wants a viable third party really happy.

Also you'd best have an Alf Landon picture now; I am tired of the Old Man who replaces him in those times I decide to kick FDR out. And I kind of want you dudes to do a democracy overhaul for all nations where you have to deal with the lawmakers.
 
Wow! That's gonna have to be one heck of an alternate reality to create not just one but two Civil Wars. I'll tell ya my parents grew up and lived thru that time and from them and a long time study of history the one thing that always stuck out was that the dems and the repuplicans may have duked it out in the political arena, there may have been many a heated discussion in a bar about this or that but the population as a whole was 100% for America. Wanna unite America? Bloody it's nose and watch what happens. Still true today - to a lesser extent maybe - but still true - even today.

Nope - no way - no matter how it's setup would the USA have ended up in a civil war during the thrties and forties.

I certainly hope the option to not go down that path is left open.
 
I certainly hope the option to not go down that path is left open.
Of course. There is a civil war if and only if the government tries to turn the US fascist or communist.
 
The problem is that HoI4 models the internal politics in a very a-historic, radically dumbed-down fashion.

What do i mean? It would be a long explanation to attempt in full, so you will have to accept my word for some of it (and references to literature) so i can keep it to reasonable length.

Interbellum period has been shaped by the fairly Marxist class struggle where in countries with weaker economies governments broke down under the pressure in red vs white(the latter quickly turning brown) civil wars or quiet struggles. Russia was the first, before WWI even concluded, seeing a right wing liberal and politically impotent government collapse to a "socialist" coup (Oct 17). In an ensuing civil war, often described as red on white, though effectively it showed most characteristics of the red on brown struggles that flared up in Italy, Germany and Spain.
What is important to note, is that the red vs brown conflict was not driven by ideology, it was the opposite - ideology was driven by conflict that had mostly economic and social roots - that is rapid increase in transportation availability, firepower and population density shifted the power balance away from the government to the disgruntled poor strata of the population, creating very real risks of revolutions driven by leftist "take from the rich" ideologies in countires weakened by economic woes and political failures. Read "Fascist voices" if you want a good illustration of this process as it unfolded in Italy.
As govenments often failed to contain popular movements by worker's unions, the natural response from the right was the formation of opposition from those on the target list of the socialist wealth redistribution - middle class, shopkeepers, officers, aristocratic youth. Being physically stronger(better nutrition), with large numbers of officers and veterans among their ranks, the radicalisation of right wing naturally took shape of paramilitary organisations built on violence.
If tensions were not calmed early on, both sides conitnued to radicalise, drawing foreign support and polarising internal divisions through strikes / violence against strikersn until one of the sides (usually the better organised, politically experienced and benefiting from greater international support from the right-wing ruling classes browns). The winning side would then have to proceed to purge opposition and establish a hegemonic rule (see Beevor's account of the Spanish Civil war for a good illustration, though any other credible book on Spain or Italy will do)
What is important to note, is that European governments of the day were mostly right wing, but they were not fascist. At least in 1918 that is. The popular ideology however was left wing. Fascist shift was a product of right wing radicalisation in response to government's failure to contain left wing protest to economic hardship.
International politics were heavilly intertwined with Internal politics of the red vs brown. France support for Czechoslovakia together with USSR would have been seen as strengthening of the left wing, giving it more political weight in internal politics, it would have resulted in a right wing reaction internally, as well as extensive international response with German and Italian money and materiel pouring it to prevent another country falling to vile communists. Where would Britain stand? Probably same as it did with Spain, Italy or Germany - on the side opposing communists to protect its own internal politics balance.
What does it mean for HoI4?
HoI4 has 2 major vices:
1. National decision trees are not interlinked, so you can sign MR Pact even as Trotsky
2. It treats political landscape as bi-polar while in reality it should be tri-polar with both an ideology driven component, and a stability driven component, with democracy only working so long as you maintain internal stability and avoid radicalisation (i.e. you start of as a democracy, but as internal struggle heats up, voters radicalise, support for fascist and communist rises in parallel until one side wins a civil war or completely outmanoeuvres the opposition like nsdap did in germany, taking over the left wing vote). hoi3 was actually better on that, with both pull and push factors driving alignment of countires with faction proximity and threat playing part.

What should, ideally, happen, is that countries that start out democratic react to strengthening of communist neighbours or red influence by radicalising towards fascism (including support for axis countires already fighting the "red menace" ) but also boosting communist popularity. As to actions of the Axis the reaction would be different - threat from Axis would mostly cause increase in stability/war support, reducing significantly fascist popularity and allowing the country to militarise while maintaining an unaligned regime (i.e. staying as democracy)
In foreign relations again, any action that strengthens communist hand would be met with a right wing reaction. This would be both, historic (Britain would never have allowed Germany to be partitioned by communist France and USSR), and very game-friendly as it would provide something of balancing mechanism for the factions (and again, the war happened precisely because in that historic period social struggle provided the faction balancing mechanism it did. If not for the fear of Socialist empowerment, international support would never have been given to Mussolini, Franko would not have had his blockade of the Republican forces and Germany would never have been handed the tank factories of Czechoslovakia)

Alas, the ahistoric sandbox is what we get, with disjointed scripted events replacing simulation and a kindergarden depth of political simulation that suggests fascism is something you would be putting to a popular vote. Sad times.

P.S. Read Michael Jabara Carley's 1939 The Alliance that never was, about how close yet how incredibly far was the world to halting Hitler's aggressive expansion with the Franco-Soviet guarantee of Czechoslovakia. And how it would have done absolutely nothing to stop the advent of a world war.
A lot of interesting points here but of questionable relevance to HoI4. Seems like your argument is "Obviously what Paradox should be doing is travelling back in time so that they can design a completely different game. Please do this at your earliest convenience, thanks." Too late! HoI4 makes the abstractions it makes, for better or for worse, and one of those is a three-way ideological conflict between Democracy, Fascism, and Communism. It's not a political history lecture, it's a game. It doesn't need to be perfectly accurate politically, and in fact cannot be. But regardless, they can't change it at this point because it's an underlying choice in how the game was built. I'd like to see them expand on it; they've got a mostly unutilised subideology mechanic which could be improved upon to give the political game depth, but I think your proposal is completely infeasible given how many fundamental conceptual elements you want to change.

And besides that, you pretty clearly have a very narrow idea of a specific set of ahistorical events, stemming from one scholar's work, and despite lip service about "disjointed scripted events" are essentially asking Paradox to railroad this specific alternate history, but not any others.
 
A lot of interesting points here but of questionable relevance to HoI4. Seems like your argument is "Obviously what Paradox should be doing is travelling back in time so that they can design a completely different game. Please do this at your earliest convenience, thanks." Too late! HoI4 makes the abstractions it makes, for better or for worse, and one of those is a three-way ideological conflict between Democracy, Fascism, and Communism. It's not a political history lecture, it's a game. It doesn't need to be perfectly accurate politically, and in fact cannot be. But regardless, they can't change it at this point because it's an underlying choice in how the game was built. I'd like to see them expand on it; they've got a mostly unutilised subideology mechanic which could be improved upon to give the political game depth, but I think your proposal is completely infeasible given how many fundamental conceptual elements you want to change.

And besides that, you pretty clearly have a very narrow idea of a specific set of ahistorical events, stemming from one scholar's work, and despite lip service about "disjointed scripted events" are essentially asking Paradox to railroad this specific alternate history, but not any others.

Ah, the internets:) it is amusing, how including an illustration as part of a broad argument totally hijacks the reader's mind:).

The argument is that HoI series has lost plausibility of the political system simulation since HoI2 and instead of restoring it in patches, like they are doing with fuel/supply, they are going further into the inefficient (alt history paths require exponential commitment of coders' time to implement integration of scripted events across factions which Paradix will not do) and ahistoric (for the obvious inversion of the nature of interbellum geopolitics explained earlier) dead end of scripted choices via focuses.
 
Ah, the internets:) it is amusing, how including an illustration as part of a broad argument totally hijacks the reader's mind:).

The argument is that HoI series has lost plausibility of the political system simulation since HoI2 and instead of restoring it in patches, like they are doing with fuel/supply, they are going further into the inefficient (alt history paths require exponential commitment of coders' time to implement integration of scripted events across factions which Paradix will not do) and ahistoric (for the obvious inversion of the nature of interbellum geopolitics explained earlier) dead end of scripted choices via focuses.
They can't "restore it in patches". It's a change at the conceptual level. You don't have to agree with it, but it's a bit bizarre to me that you and others with similar arguments (often to different ends) insist on making them on this forum because you are asking for a totally different game. HoI4 will never be what you are asking for, because at its very foundations the decision was made that it not be. I, too, would like a historical game which perfectly simulated every possibility accurately, but no computer exists which is capable of running such a simulation (to say nothing of the lack of accurate historical records of every relevant variable, and the causal links between them) so simplifications must be made. HoI4 was designed, at the conceptual level, to involve an ideological conflict between three broad political systems each operating on more or less the same level. I'm sure this wouldn't fly in academic discourse about the political system of WWII, but that was never what Paradox was trying to accomplish.
 
Try HoI2/Arsenal of Democracy. It was a decent way of doing it and on a much tighter processing power budget:)

I know there is no point to my complaining, since Paradox policy is rather democratic (due to profit seeking nature of the business) and designed to cater for the philistine arcade player, who believes that something we today call "democracy" was an ideological side in WW2, since the number of copies sold to that crowd far outweighs that i am ever likely to buy. Still, it is hard to resist the temptation to let out a moan or two at times.

:'-(
 
Try HoI2/Arsenal of Democracy. It was a decent way of doing it and on a much tighter processing power budget:)

I know there is no point to my complaining, since Paradox policy is rather democratic (due to profit seeking nature of the business) and designed to cater for the philistine arcade player, who believes that something we today call "democracy" was an ideological side in WW2, since the number of copies sold to that crowd far outweighs that i am ever likely to buy. Still, it is hard to resist the temptation to let out a moan or two at times.

:'-(
My reference to processing power is merely to illustrate that a theoretically perfect simulation is impossible, so any game needs to abstract some concepts. HoI2 abstracted politics in different ways to HoI4 (it didn't perfectly simulate them either, it just abstracted them in a way that was closer to your opinion of how they should work).

I guess the fact that I don't consider France hypothetically taking a hard line on the Sudetenland to be tantamount to a Communist takeover which would have instantaneously prompted a right-ward shift in every other democratic country makes me a philistine arcade player. I thought your alternate history was interesting and I was originally interested in modding HoI4 to make it more likely or fleshed out. But somehow I've lost the inclination after the last few responses.
 
You talk of "Communist takeover" and I see it as a symptom of the problem.

Lets take a historical example - Republican Spain was not Communist. It was a democracy and the civil war started as an anti-democratic coup protesting against a majority government (slightly left-leaning, but nowhere near what Soviet example would imply).

In Hoi4 its modeled as communist, which is, nominally, inaccurate, since ideologically it would have belonged to the "Democracy" grouping if such existed, but it is acceptable within the context of political abstraction used, since it reflects the fact that it was, historically supported by Communist block against Fascist block and hostile neutrality of the "Democratic block".

Unfortunately for Republican Spain, there was no ideological block with values of "Democracy", so it fell down to Mexico and USSR to support the electoral freedoms of the Spaniards.

What is important, is that during the Civil war, Republicn Spain underwent a rapid and brutal leftist shift, which was forced by the external struggle - it started as a liberal democracy, but because liberals were impotent and right wing gravitated to Nationalists, what was left was a collection of rapidly radicalizing leftist collectives.

Such is a nature of any civil struggle - it radicalises.

In the interbellum period unchecked propaganda and political influence, as it always does, fueled democratic process, with oscilations between centre left and centre right, as it happened in France, Spain, Czechoslovakia etc. Neither Bolshevik, nor Fascist shifts could have happened in either of those democratic (but not in the modern sense, the only country with full voting rights for women and minorities was USSR) without a red vs brown conflict. And it didn't.

It is absurd the way HoI4 makes a country Communist just by popular vote of a democracy - such votes were not uncommon - it had happened 3 times in major countries and each time the result was the exact opposite:
1. Italy became fascist as a result of a left electoral win
2. Spain became fascist as a result of a left electoral win
3. France had its foreign policy hijacked by Britain as a result of left electoral win and right wing government restored through external influence shortly thereafter

So yes, France was not anywhere near to a Communist takeover. But it was close to taking a decision that would have resulted in it being forced to communism - kind of like Republican Spain was before its demise.
 
You talk of "Communist takeover" and I see it as a symptom of the problem.

Lets take a historical example - Republican Spain was not Communist. It was a democracy and the civil war started as an anti-democratic coup protesting against a majority government (slightly left-leaning, but nowhere near what Soviet example would imply).

In Hoi4 its modeled as communist, which is, nominally, inaccurate, since ideologically it would have belonged to the "Democracy" grouping if such existed, but it is acceptable within the context of political abstraction used, since it reflects the fact that it was, historically supported by Communist block against Fascist block and hostile neutrality of the "Democratic block".

Unfortunately for Republican Spain, there was no ideological block with values of "Democracy", so it fell down to Mexico and USSR to support the electoral freedoms of the Spaniards.

What is important, is that during the Civil war, Republicn Spain underwent a rapid and brutal leftist shift, which was forced by the external struggle - it started as a liberal democracy, but because liberals were impotent and right wing gravitated to Nationalists, what was left was a collection of rapidly radicalizing leftist collectives.

Such is a nature of any civil struggle - it radicalises.

In the interbellum period unchecked propaganda and political influence, as it always does, fueled democratic process, with oscilations between centre left and centre right, as it happened in France, Spain, Czechoslovakia etc. Neither Bolshevik, nor Fascist shifts could have happened in either of those democratic (but not in the modern sense, the only country with full voting rights for women and minorities was USSR) without a red vs brown conflict. And it didn't.

It is absurd the way HoI4 makes a country Communist just by popular vote of a democracy - such votes were not uncommon - it had happened 3 times in major countries and each time the result was the exact opposite:
1. Italy became fascist as a result of a left electoral win
2. Spain became fascist as a result of a left electoral win
3. France had its foreign policy hijacked by Britain as a result of left electoral win and right wing government restored through external influence shortly thereafter

So yes, France was not anywhere near to a Communist takeover. But it was close to taking a decision that would have resulted in it being forced to communism - kind of like Republican Spain was before its demise.
I'm no longer certain you have any idea what you're arguing for, or against. I certainly don't. Let me try to unpick this post:
1. Republican Spain was not Communist. Obviously. There were dozens of autonomous factions within the "Republican" camp, to say it was anything as a unit is incorrect. But it's a game. It has to be a unit (unless you do the Kaiserreich thing and make it a three or four way civil war, but that has its own problems). Republican Spain is notable for its Communist (both Soviet-sympathising Leninists and Stalinists and Anarcho-Communists) elements and I believe this is the reason for its portrayal. Mechanically, the Soviets can and will give volunteers to non-Communists, and Mexico is still considered Non-Aligned, so I don't think your analysis of the reason bears out. One could also argue that casting the Nationalists as Fascists is technically incorrect, since Franco expressly rejected the label. Would you like to split hairs over that?
2. Specifically what is wrong with the HoI4 political system is the election event which switches government. Have you ever actually gotten this event? It's not easy, especially now that the whole process of drifting goes through decisions instead of random events. In any case, this is a gameplay mechanic and it's pretty bizarre to me that you think it's so important that you need to spend so much time and effort convincing me of how wrong it is.
3. The answer to the question I actually asked is apparently "Because I said so". Why would defending Czechoslovakia make France Communist, in any sense? Let's not forget, you made this claim within your own paradigm, not within HoI4's. Don't blame this on how Paradox chose to represent the Spanish Civil War, if you think this is self-evidently wrong to apply to Spain how can you also think it's self-evidently appropriate to apply to France? Why would Britain disapprove of France keeping her own promises, even if Britain chose not to? Appeasement was to avoid war, if France went to war anyway the appeasers would at most shift to keeping Britain out of the war, not make a hard pro-German turn and start covertly (or openly) opposing France. Perhaps the answers are in your citation, but it's pretty suspicious that you keep just asserting that these are the ways these countries would have to go politically and handwaving exactly why, when you go into so much detail about other topics (e.g. the necessity of a red vs brown conflict everywhere but France, and how much you dislike that one specific election event). I'm not, by the way, going to follow a required reading list for an online argument about a video game. Sorry, but let's keep perspective here.
 
[Edited]

I am arguing against 2 principal flaws of the HoI4 political system:

1. Depiction of "Democracy" as an ideological alternative to fascism and communism and a corresponding lack of distinction between democratically elected left(or right) wing majority and Bolshevism(or Fascism) respectively
2. Lack of interaction between ideologies and the corresponding political drifts that shifted the run-up to the War.

What I am arguing for, is an utopian idea of a political subsystem in HoI series that will be

1. Mostly a simulation, with minimal scripted events
2. Will reflect at least 2 dimensions: Left & Right Popularity and Authoritarian - Liberal organisation of the political parties reflecting radicalisation.
3. Political drift will be affected by actions, external influence and threat, most critically - the fear of communism which was the defining political driver at the time
 
Last edited:
As this is an Allies DLC, when playing historic US, can you have Japan Secure the Philippines closer to Dec 7, 1941. It is a date that will live in Infamy..... Every game I play, I am "surprised" by a Japan declaration of war in July of '41. Also, Can you please have historic Germany secure the North Sea first, before blitzing through Belgium. Germany may last until 1943 or later when playing the US and give them an Enemy to fight when she is fully mobilized.
 
[Edited]

I am arguing against 2 principal flaws of the HoI4 political system:

1. Depiction of "Democracy" as an ideological alternative to fascism and communism and a corresponding lack of distinction between democratically elected left(or right) wing majority and Bolshevism(or Fascism) respectively
2. Lack of interaction between ideologies and the corresponding political drifts that shifted the run-up to the War.

What I am arguing for, is an utopian idea of a political subsystem in HoI series that will be

1. Mostly a simulation, with minimal scripted events
2. Will reflect at least 2 dimensions: Left & Right Popularity and Authoritarian - Liberal organisation of the political parties reflecting radicalisation.
3. Political drift will be affected by actions, external influence and threat, most critically - the fear of communism which was the defining political driver at the time
I don't believe the Nolan Chart is an objectively superior simplification of politics to HoI4's current system, and I suppose in your eyes that makes me a philistine. I also note that you have declined once again to explain why any of your proposed alternate history would have had to have happened as you said.
 
As for alt scenarios, i thought i explained with quite some detail...

Historic assumptions / background:
1. British policy of appeasement was driven by fear of communism, not fascism.
2. Britain worked hard to oppose technological exchange between Czechoslovakia / France / Weimar Germany and USSR
3. Poland's government was strongly anti-Soviet due to fear of communist opposition and memory of soviet-polish war

Support for Czechoslovakia required coordinated action of France and USSR.

Opposition would be Germany, naturally, and Poland, who would be reluctant to allow Soviet army through in the event of it turning hot. Britain would too be working hard to prevent USSR from obtaining access to French tech (from military cooperation) and German assets (in the event of war) as well as influence in Poland (possibility of soviet troop presence triggering communist uprising in Poland).

That is the cui bono scene after the decision is made, but before hostilities start.

What next?

Would Germany attack Czechs knowing France is mobilising? Unlikely, but possible.

If it did - what does Poland do? Allow soviets through to attack Germany? near impossible, mostly for fear of communist coup.
If it didn't, can it stay neutral? At first - yes, to prevent soviet access to Germany, but eventually it would have to pick a side, because both sides will invest heavilly in its internal politics.
What about Britain? would it allow an easy victory for soviets, allowing them to seize German assets? Which side will it pragmatically support? Will it go ahead and bomb Baku?

If Germany didn't attack, what next?

Franco-Soviet trade agreement finally begins to operate
Czech-Soviet trade intensifies,

so USSR is there rapidly militarising

Would Britain allow that? or would it use every trick in the book to restore anti-soviet powers in France?
The MR pact would then likely be a German - British affair while political strugglen intensifies in Paris with left wing inspired by an anti-fascist diplomatic victory and pushing for worker rights and redistribution of wealth.
Republican Spain scenario? What role would Spanish and Italian volunteers play if France was turning communist?

That, in short, is tree of probabilities i see out of the possible Czech guarantee fork and how it would impact internal politics drifts in different countires.
 
Last edited:
@podcat or @Archangel85

Would either of you be so kind as to let us know what the prereqs for the ‘Reestablish the Gold Standard’ focus are, at the moment?
 
As for alt scenarios, i thought i explained with quite some detail...

Historic assumptions / background:
1. British policy of appeasement was driven by fear of communism, not fascism.
2. Britain worked hard to oppose technological exchange between Czechoslovakia / France / Weimar Germany and USSR
3. Poland's government was strongly anti-Soviet due to fear of communist opposition and memory of soviet-polish war

Support for Czechoslovakia required coordinated action of France and USSR.

Opposition would be Germany, naturally, and Poland, who would be reluctant to allow Soviet army through in the event of it turning hot. Britain would too be working hard to prevent USSR from obtaining access to French tech (from military cooperation) and German assets (in the event of war) as well as influence in Poland (possibility of soviet troop presence triggering communist uprising in Poland).

That is the cui bono scene after the decision is made, but before hostilities start.

What next?

Would Germany attack Czechs knowing France is mobilising? Unlikely, but possible.

If it did - what does Poland do? Allow soviets through to attack Germany? near impossible, mostly for fear of communist coup.
If it didn't, can it stay neutral? At first - yes, to prevent soviet access to Germany, but eventually it would have to pick a side, because both sides will invest heavilly in its internal politics.
What about Britain? would it allow an easy victory for soviets, allowing them to seize German assets? Which side will it pragmatically support? Will it go ahead and bomb Baku?

If Germany didn't attack, what next?

Franco-Soviet trade agreement finally begins to operate
Czech-Soviet trade intensifies,

so USSR is there rapidly militarising

Would Britain allow that? or would it use every trick in the book to restore anti-soviet powers in France?
The MR pact would then likely be a German - British affair while political strugglen intensifies in Paris with left wing inspired by an anti-fascist diplomatic victory and pushing for worker rights and redistribution of wealth.
Republican Spain scenario? What role would Spanish and Italian volunteers play if France was turning communist?

That, in short, is tree of probabilities i see out of the possible Czech guarantee fork and how it would impact internal politics drifts in different countires.
Ok, I get it. You've snuck in that "Support for Czechoslovakia required coordinated action of France and USSR." and are using it to assume that France and the USSR would instantly become bosom buddies the second war began (even if it didn't, somehow, because you don't believe it is likely Germany would go to war). For the purposes of this discussion, I consider this an admission that your scenario does require railroading. It can't in any way stem from the use of a Nolan chart for the game's political element. For your entire scenario to work, you need to force France to ally with the USSR as a requirement for honouring her alliance with Czechoslovakia. There is no internal political reason why this should be the case.
 
Support for Czechoslovakia required coordinated action of France and USSR because USSR's Guarantee of Czechoslovakia was conditional on French Guarantee thereof being actioned (and other small things like the common sense of coordinating actions between two parties getting ready to potentially fight the same enemy)

Joint military action would have involved exchange of tech and materiel under provisions of existing economic cooperation agreement, that was hitherto (the exchange, not the agreement) being blocked by British manoevering. Again, obvious stuff, that, expecting that Frnace would finally delivery on its contractual obligations to a party it was relying on to fight its war.

None of it requires an alliance, becoming bosom buddies or anything like it. Only natural actions dictated by existing, signed agreements.

France could have performed its contractual obligations to Czechoslovakia, to do so, it would have had to cooperate with Soviets under existing agreements (unless it had the balls to go it alone against Germany) Arguably, to a contemporary observer, that was a rather unexpected outcome, yet historically France chose to cave in instead.
The way events would unfold from there would be a very different history. Like any other major alt history fork, it could not be realistically processed by HoI4 political system model without modding dozens of scripted events that would, by the time debugged and tested, leave no room for enjoyment of the simulation.

The problem is not HoI4 missing the Soviet Guarantee of Czechoslovakia in the 1936 start or an event chain that would trigger an early war between France+USSR and Germany. Its the fact that HoI4 political model does not respond to alt history forks. Not realistically, not even unrealistically. It just doesn't, alt history choices become meaningless, unless they are the the robustly scripted pathways like Kaiserreich.

But that would be enough pearls cast by me i think.