How come alt-history mods are more historically accurate than the World War II base game?

[LeanLeaf]

The difference is shocking.

Take Kaiserreich for example, from 1917 the point of divergence begins, but everything that is in the game as a continuation from that 1917 point is perfectly accurate: the leaders you're supposed to have, the correct parties & ideologies, the cores you're supposed to have, etc.

Where as Hearts of Iron 4 is a mess in the history department. On the historical path.

I mean yes, if you look at the broadest picture possible "Nazi Germany fought UK, USA and USSR" that's accurate. But below that level, the game is such a historical mess.

And I wonder, how is that possible? How is it possible to be so wrong on so many levels when it comes to history?

The team's lack of history knowledge? they can always hire just 1 historian specialized in World War II to fact-check their game.

Lack of care? I see posts like "why is this here, this is wrong" on the forums all the time. The community cares about historical accuracy.

Investing in historical accuracy makes no further money? I don't want to sound cynical but it sounds like a possibiity.

Why is Hearts of Iron 4 so historically inaccurate?

And I get the game needs "simplication", but there is a far differece between "simplification" and "plain wrong". You could argue that Romania going fascist instead of non-aligned under Ion Antonescu is a simplification, but you could not argue that Ukraine having core on Southern Bessarabia is a simplification because that's just plain wrong. Or the Transylvanian core on West Banat.

Whether the alt-history paths are "too alt-history" or "not enough alt-history" that's another discussion, but I think we can all agree that the historical path should be.... historical.

I don't expect a doccumentary, but when I see so many historical inaccuracies in a World War II game it just breaks immersion for me, to the point where I'm asking "is this even trying to simulate World War II?", to the point where I should have known less World War II history to enjoy the game better.

 

[LeanLeaf]

 

[Idle America]

Kaiserreich is probably the worst example you could have gone for, mate. FDR dies of a disease he didn't have in real life, Huey Long somehow avoids getting assassinated because... reasons, and no matter what happens, the USA is guaranteed to explode in a memetastic civil war for no other reason than "balance" and the civil war becoming the real focus of the mod.

 

[LeanLeaf]

Kaiserreich is probably the worst example you could have gone for, mate. FDR dies of a disease he didn't have in real life, Huey Long somehow avoids getting assassinated because... reasons, and no matter what happens, the USA is guaranteed to explode in a memetastic civil war for no other reason than "balance" and the civil war becoming the real focus of the mod.

Ok, but assuming that was true, the inaccuracies of Kaiserreich wouldn't make the inaccuracies of Hearts of Iron 4 any less real.

A historical game supposedly have to stay true to history, an alt-history mod supposedly have to stay true to history only up to the point of divergence from real life, in our case 1917. FDR dies of a disease he didn't have in 1917 but could have contracted afterwards (different timeline, different decisions, different locations, etc), Huey Long avoids being assassinated because a lot of things change between 1917 and 1936, and the USA civil war again the point of divergence is 1917.

The purpose of the Kaiserreich comparison was not to judge the quality of Kaiserreich's alt-history, but to show that for the historical pre-1917 parts of the mod, Kaiserreich is more accurate than Hearts of Iron 4.

Kaiserreich touches many aspects of pre-1917 that are historically accurate in this 1936 alt-timeline, events or people or national ideas that are true to their time but don't even exist in Hearts of Iron 4, Hearts of Iron 4 on the other hand, look no further than Yugoslavia.

If someone who died in 1916 would suddenly be alive in Kaiserreich that would be a historical inaccuracy, because it isn't true to its own universe.

 

[Idle America]

Ok, but assuming that was true, the inaccuracies of Kaiserreich wouldn't make the inaccuracies of Hearts of Iron 4 any less real.

A historical game supposedly have to stay true to history, an alt-history mod supposedly have to stay true to history only up to the point of divergence from real life, in our case 1917. FDR dies of a disease he didn't have in 1917 but could have contracted afterwards (different timeline, different decisions, different locations, etc), Huey Long avoids being assassinated because a lot of things change between 1917 and 1936, and the USA civil war again the point of divergence is 1917.

The purpose of the Kaiserreich comparison was not to judge the quality of Kaiserreich's alt-history, but to show that for the historical pre-1917 parts of the mod, Kaiserreich is more accurate than Hearts of Iron 4.

If someone who died in 1916 would suddenly be alive in Kaiserreich that would be a historical inaccuracy, because it isn't true to its own universe.

Which inaccuracies are you referring to, besides the cores mentioned in your post? I agree that Yugoslavia, the USSR, and that one province in France are annoying, but hardly immersion-ruining.

 

[LeanLeaf]

Which inaccuracies are you referring to, besides the cores mentioned in your post? I agree that Yugoslavia, the USSR, and that one province in France are annoying, but hardly immersion-ruining.

- Ethiopia isn't puppeted by Italian AI.
- There is no Ecuador-Peru War.
- Vichy France is no longer a puppet of Germany (this is weird because they started with historical accuracy, and then moved away from it)
- The Little Entente is all wrong.
- The Balkan Pact is all wrong.
- South Africa solves Apartheid.
- Hungary and Romania's Horthy/Antonescu regime being fascist.
- Yugoslavia, pretty much everything there is to it, the remake made it worse.
- The region borders of Transnistria are wrong.

These are the ones I can think of from the back of my head, but when playing there's always an "oh, that's not supposed to be there", I don't have these moments in Kaiserreich.

And the cores, the cores are a big issue:
- Germany should have a core on Sudetenland.
- Hungary should have a core on Southern Slovakia but not on Carpathia Ruthenia.
- Hungary should not have a core on Northern Transylvania, Crisana, Southern Transylvania or Banat.
- Hungary should not have a core on Vojvodina.
- Ukraine should not have a core on Southern Bessarabia. (this is again weird because they started with historical accuracy, and then moved away from it)
- Bulgaria should not have a core on Western Thrace or Macedonia.
- Bulgaria should have a core on North Macedonia.
- Romania should have a core on Moldavian ASSR in Transnistria.
- Transylvania should not have a core on West Banat.
- Yugoslavia should not have a core on Zara.
- Yugoslavia should have a core on Istria.

Cores are a representation of the population, so when the cores are wrong, the population is historically inaccurate.

This is a linguistic map from 1938 for reference:

It doesn't offer the full picture. You won't know whether a region is scarcely or greatly populated to give accurate numbers, for that you have to check the actual censues, but it is a great starting point.

The argument can be made that all of these are needed for "game balance" but you can achieve game balance without sacrificing historical accuracy. For example: one could argue that Vichy France is no longer a puppet of Germany so they won't join the war, this could easily be made by adding a new type of puppet state that can't be forced by the ruler to join the war (if I'm not mistaken, Japan already has such a type) and then modify Vichy France AI's desire to join the war. It's literally a few line of codes. Or Hungary and Romania's Horthy/Antonescu regime being fascist likely so they can join the Axis, again this can be solved with a modifier.

 

[Archangel85]

The argument can be made that all of these are needed for "game balance" but you can achieve game balance without sacrificing historical accuracy. For example: one could argue that Vichy France is no longer a puppet of Germany so they won't join the war, this could easily be made by adding a new type of puppet state that can't be forced by the ruler to join the war (if I'm not mistaken, Japan already has such a type) and then modify Vichy France AI's desire to join the war. It's literally a few line of codes. Or Hungary and Romania's Horthy/Antonescu regime being fascist likely so they can join the Axis, again this can be solved with a modifier.

Modifiers don't cover eventualities like "I am being attacked by a country my overlord is also at war with (Syria, Africa) but I shouldn't join the war my overlord is in or my overlord's faction" unless you make a bespoke puppet solution just for Vichy, at which point you still can't be 100% sure that you have covered all the edge cases. While making Vichy a puppet of Germany would be more historically accurate in some aspects, it would also be less historically accurate in others. So you would be spending a lot of effort on allowing the game to show a tooltip that says "Vichy France is a Puppet of Germany", while Vichy France does not in fact act like any of the other puppets the player is already familiar with (this would also make the game less accessible to new players, because Vichy looks lot like a puppet but does not act like a puppet at all).

It is a fact of making a game set in history that one can quite easily come up with a gameplay system that covers 98% of historical cases (like the puppet mechanic), but which falls apart in the remaining 2% (making Vichy a puppet of Germany leading to Vichy troops taking Stalingrad unless you spend a lot of time making sure Vichy does not act at all like any other puppet).

Ultimately it isn't that we don't care about historical facts (and we do in fact have multiple historians working on HoI4 - I have a masters in History, and there are others with degrees in history working on it as well), its that representing facts in and off themselves is less important than representing the overall context (Vichy being closely aligned with Germany, but not a full member of the Axis or at war with the Allies). Just representing facts without taking overall game mechanics into account will lead to results that are either unhistorical or confusing to players who expect a game with certain set rules (we have far too many exceptions to rules as it is).

 

[Louella]

Off the top of my head, Germany should not start with a core on the Sudetenland, because the fascist AI has a tendency to fabricate war goals on countries that hold their cores. It would not help things at all for Germany to start a war with Czechoslovakia in 1936.

Giving Germany a core on the Sudetenland after it is annexed, maybe. But not before.

 

[Ethereld]

the leaders you're supposed to have, the correct parties & ideologies, the cores you're supposed to have

You ignore that often a single rework can have 5-6 people working on it during a year. Which allows to give much more deep content.

The HOI4 dev team are in contrast full time employees, but they have to work new game mechanics and have the AI understand them which ends with them having less people and time to dedicate to content creation for the country being reworked in the patch/DLC

 

[bitmode]

Modifiers don't cover eventualities like "I am being attacked by a country my overlord is also at war with (Syria, Africa) but I shouldn't join the war my overlord is in or my overlord's faction" unless you make a bespoke puppet solution just for Vichy

How's that bespoke in any way? That should be the default behavior of subjects.

So you would be spending a lot of effort on allowing the game to show a tooltip that says "Vichy France is a Puppet of Germany", while Vichy France does not in fact act like any of the other puppets the player is already familiar with (this would also make the game less accessible to new players, because Vichy looks lot like a puppet but does not act like a puppet at all).

There's already over a dozen autonomy levels (many of them being suspiciously specific to certain situations) covering a gamut of behaviors.

 

[Ringwraith_JP]

The premisse that "an alt history mod is more historically accurate than (anything else, really)" is so self-defeating that there are no arguments that can be made in this discussion.

I had to check if this was posted on April Fool's.

 

[Vityviktor]

I'm not sure if they're more historically accurate, but they're definitely more fun and better focused than vanilla HoI4, and I think that's pretty serious.

Also, most of the vanilla Alt-History paths are either silly-memey in-jokes or just dumb. I'm talking about Ottoman, Austrohungarian, Imperial German, Confederate etc revivals, or the "reclaim whatever crazy historical empire X country had some time ago" focuses or "form this state from EU4 timeframe but in this WW2 game" decisions. Looks like mods like Kaiserreich or The New Order actually treat History more seriously.

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

- Ethiopia isn't puppeted by Italian AI.
- There is no Ecuador-Peru War.
- Vichy France is no longer a puppet of Germany (this is weird because they started with historical accuracy, and then moved away from it)
- The Little Entente is all wrong.
- The Balkan Pact is all wrong.
- South Africa solves Apartheid.
- Hungary and Romania's Horthy/Antonescu regime being fascist.
- Yugoslavia, pretty much everything there is to it, the remake made it worse.
- The region borders of Transnistria are wrong.

These are the ones I can think of from the back of my head, but when playing there's always an "oh, that's not supposed to be there", I don't have these moments in Kaiserreich.

And the cores, the cores are a big issue:
- Germany should have a core on Sudetenland.
- Hungary should have a core on Southern Slovakia but not on Carpathia Ruthenia.
- Hungary should not have a core on Northern Transylvania, Crisana, Southern Transylvania or Banat.
- Hungary should not have a core on Vojvodina.
- Ukraine should not have a core on Southern Bessarabia. (this is again weird because they started with historical accuracy, and then moved away from it)
- Bulgaria should not have a core on Western Thrace or Macedonia.
- Bulgaria should have a core on North Macedonia.
- Romania should have a core on Moldavian ASSR in Transnistria.
- Transylvania should not have a core on West Banat.
- Yugoslavia should not have a core on Zara.
- Yugoslavia should have a core on Istria.

Cores are a representation of the population, so when the cores are wrong, the population is historically inaccurate.

This is a linguistic map from 1938 for reference:

It doesn't offer the full picture. You won't know whether a region is scarcely or greatly populated to give accurate numbers, for that you have to check the actual censues, but it is a great starting point.

The argument can be made that all of these are needed for "game balance" but you can achieve game balance without sacrificing historical accuracy. For example: one could argue that Vichy France is no longer a puppet of Germany so they won't join the war, this could easily be made by adding a new type of puppet state that can't be forced by the ruler to join the war (if I'm not mistaken, Japan already has such a type) and then modify Vichy France AI's desire to join the war. It's literally a few line of codes. Or Hungary and Romania's Horthy/Antonescu regime being fascist likely so they can join the Axis, again this can be solved with a modifier.

Actually, Hungary should have cores on all of that, and more. Europe is actually 125% Hungarian, they just deny it.

 

[Andrew0Red]

Actually, Hungary should have cores on all of that, and more. Europe is actually 125% Hungarian, they just deny it.

With vasconian making up the other -25%?

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

With vasconian making up the other -25%?

Oh man, love the Negative Basques. Such good fellows.

 

[LeanLeaf]

Cores are not representation of population. At least not in middle/eastern Europe. There is some history you know?

Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine - 100% polish core. Also large majority of the population (especially in countryside) is ukrainian. Big cities (like Lvov) were polish while countryside around them were ukrainian.

Transylvania is defienetly romanian. But it was also considered as a part of Hungary for a very long time. It IS hugnarian core land.
Same for hungarians goes for Carpathian Ruthenia.

Why you want to remove Yougoslavian cores? There is no such thing as yougoslavian language. Slovens were part of Yougo, and Istiria was for sure slovenian.

Antonescu? This dude deported many Jews to death camps. He was dictator who supported Axis not only in war but also in crimes.

What are cores a representation of, then?

A territory that a country considers an integral part of their country? If that's the rule, all of Europe would be a German core and half of Poland a Soviet core.

Judging by in-game functionality, a core as opposed to a colony is having a population that is supportive to your rule. This means, having a population that sees itself as part of the mother nation as opposed to part of foreign occupation.

It's with this "rule" in mind I made those statements. The Ukrainians in Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine did not see themselves as under foreign occupation and were not hostile to Polish rule. The vast majority of them at least.

In Transylvania, it may have been part of Hungary for a long time, but it had an absolute Romanian majority who was very hostile to Hungarian rule. The same goes for Carpathian Ruthenia.

Zara was overwhelmingly Italian in World War II. It was after the war that was populated by Yugoslavs. By contrast, Istria already had a Yugoslav majority. This is why I believe the most accurate thing to do is to have a Zara claim and Istria core. You may consider both regions as rightfully Yugoslav land, but the fact is the Italian in Zara are not going to be as happy to live inside the state of Yugoslavia as the Yugoslavs of Istria would be.

And yet, Antonescu was not ideologically fascist. He had a conflict with the Iron Guard in 1941, but that is another historical inaccuracy in the game.

@Archangel85 I did not expect an actual response from the devs, thanks for taking the time!

Couldn't that be fixed so that Vichy France has 0 desire to join war if not at war, but that modified is removed if Vichy France is already at war? That way, is the Allies declare war on Vichy, they will join the war. If they don't, Vichy will stay out.

It will allow you to take resources & manpower from Vichy France like a puppet would.

I see, yes context and overall continuity is more important and I can see how that works for Vichy France & Hungary/Romania being fascist, but I don't think having Italy puppet Ethiopia instead could cause much instability, or having the Little Entente & Balkan Pact guarantees actually be like their real-life counterparts or having borders of Transnistria that can form both the 1941-1944 Romania governorate and 1945-1989 Moldavian SSR.

As well as the proper cores.

A case was made that Germany should not start with a core on the Sudetenland, because the fascist AI has a tendency to fabricate war goals on countries that hold their cores, so I can see how this is another case of context and overall continuity being more important, but the other cases I find very strange.

If we are going for consistency, I think there should be 2 criterias for core:
- It's a starting territory. The country X already starts with territory Y in 1936. Except for clear cases of colonies like Europeans in Africa.
- It's the ethnic majority. The people of ethnicity X are the population majority in territory Z. This makes Z a core of X.

A lot of times, what a lot of people consider rightfully theirs isn't necessary a core. Most of the Greek population at that time thought of the Bosphorus as being rightfully theirs. And they had a compelling case: It was originally Byzantine before being conquered by the Turks. But judging by the game mechanics, that's not how a core works. A core is a region whose population is supportive of your rule, which 9/10 times means a population of the same ethnicity as the mother nation.

I have no doubt that the Greek population at that time thought of the Bosphorus as being rightfully theirs. But if they would get the Bosphorus, I doubt the Turkish population in Bosphorus would share their view that the Bosphorus is rightfully Greek. This is why the cores I talked about don't make sense.

Hungary could go and remake Greater Hungary and Bulgaria could go an make Greater Bulgaria. That doesn't mean the non-Hungarian and non-Bulgarian ethnicities in the conquered regions would share their view that those regions are righftully Hungarian/Bulgarian. It's the same logic as in Greater Germany except on a different scale, regions that don't have a population supportive of you are not supposed to be cores, no matter how strongly you believe it's rightfully yours.

If we look at the way cores function in game, giving you - full industry, full population, no resistance; that can only mean the population living there is supportive of your rule.

On the other hand, if: the population hates you (no manpower), many workers from the factories may be suddenly unwilling to work (no full industry), or willing to sabotage it (ressistance) that is exactly how a colony state works in game.

To give a real life example, in Northern Transylvania, despite being previously part of Hungary, Hungary used the military to keep the Romanian population in check. Acting more like a colony state as it's represented in the game, with military police, than a core state. And there was resistance from the local population which led to atrocities.

With that in mind, this is why I believe those regions should have cores:
Germany should have a core on Sudetenland (Had German majority.).
Hungary should have a core on Southern Slovakia (had Hungarian majority) but not on Carpathia Ruthenia (had Ruthenian/Slavic majority).
Hungary should not have a core on Northern Transylvania, Crisana, Southern Transylvania or Banat (all 4 had Romanian majority).
Hungary should not have a core on Vojvodina (had Yugoslav majority).
Ukraine should not have a core on Southern Bessarabia. (Had Romanian majority, Ukrainians were the 4th largest ethnic group with 18% of the population)
Bulgaria should not have a core on Western Thrace or Macedonia. (Had Greek majority)
Bulgaria should have a core on North Macedonia. (It's a complicated issue)
Romania should have a core on Moldavian ASSR in Transnistria. (Had Romanian majority)
Yugoslavia should not have a core on Zara (Had Italian majority).
Yugoslavia should have a core on Istria (Had Yugoslav majority).

Transylvania should not have a core on West Banat. (This one is weird because I don't know what Transylvania TAG is supposed to represent. The Romanians? No core on West Banat, had Yugoslav majority. The Transylvanians as a whole i.e "Whole Transylvania", then it should also have a core on Hungarian Alford and Czechoslovak Carpathian Ruthenia. As it stands right now, the Transylvania TAG with West Banat is like having a Scandinavia TAG but with Netherlands included, it's close but not the same thing)

@Vityviktor hey, we remade the Roman Empire, anything else is going to look realistic when compared to that. Personally, and I know this is another discussion in itself, I don't care what alt-history there is, because the player always has a choice. You don't like that alt-history path? simply don't take it. And set the AI not to take it either, but the historical path is supposed to be historical. And the 1936 starting date true to its 1936 real life counterpart, that's my issue with the cores, because it's not like in the 1936 real life, and this is without taking even 1 alt-history focus.

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

What are cores a representation of, then?

A territory that a country considers an integral part of their country? If that's the rule, all of Europe would be a German core and half of Poland a Soviet core.

Judging by in-game functionality, a core as opposed to a colony is having a population that is supportive to your rule. This means, having a population that sees itself as part of the mother nation as opposed to part of foreign occupation.

It's with this "rule" in mind I made those statements. The Ukrainians in Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine did not see themselves as under foreign occupation and were not hostile to Polish rule. The vast majority of them at least.

In Transylvania, it may have been part of Hungary for a long time, but it had an absolute Romanian majority who was very hostile to Hungarian rule. The same goes for Carpathian Ruthenia.

Zara was overwhelmingly Italian in World War II. It was after the war that was populated by Yugoslavs. By contrast, Istria already had a Yugoslav majority. This is why I believe the most accurate thing to do is to have a Zara claim and Istria core. You may consider both regions as rightfully Yugoslav land, but the fact is the Italian in Zara are not going to be as happy to live inside the state of Yugoslavia as the Yugoslavs of Istria would be.

And yet, Antonescu was not ideologically fascist. He had a conflict with the Iron Guard in 1941, but that is another historical inaccuracy in the game.

@Archangel85 I did not expect an actual response from the devs, thanks for taking the time!

Couldn't that be fixed so that Vichy France has 0 desire to join war if not at war, but that modified is removed if Vichy France is already at war? That way, is the Allies declare war on Vichy, they will join the war. If they don't, Vichy will stay out.

It will allow you to take resources & manpower from Vichy France like a puppet would.

I see, yes context and overall continuity is more important and I can see how that works for Vichy France & Hungary/Romania being fascist, but I don't think having Italy puppet Ethiopia instead could cause much instability, or having the Little Entente & Balkan Pact guarantees actually be like their real-life counterparts or having borders of Transnistria that can form both the 1941-1944 Romania governorate and 1945-1989 Moldavian SSR.

As well as the proper cores.

A case was made that Germany should not start with a core on the Sudetenland, because the fascist AI has a tendency to fabricate war goals on countries that hold their cores, so I can see how this is another case of context and overall continuity being more important, but the other cases I find very strange.

If we are going for consistency, I think there should be 2 criterias for core:
- It's a starting territory. The country X already starts with territory Y in 1936. Except for clear cases of colonies like Europeans in Africa.
- It's the ethnic majority. The people of ethnicity X are the population majority in territory Z. This makes Z a core of X.

A lot of times, what a lot of people consider rightfully theirs isn't necessary a core. Most of the Greek population at that time thought of the Bosphorus as being rightfully theirs. And they had a compelling case: It was originally Byzantine before being conquered by the Turks. But judging by the game mechanics, that's not how a core works. A core is a region whose population is supportive of your rule, which 9/10 times means a population of the same ethnicity as the mother nation.

I have no doubt that the Greek population at that time thought of the Bosphorus as being rightfully theirs. But if they would get the Bosphorus, I doubt the Turkish population in Bosphorus would share their view that the Bosphorus is rightfully Greek. This is why the cores I talked about don't make sense.

Hungary could go and remake Greater Hungary and Bulgaria could go an make Greater Bulgaria. That doesn't mean the non-Hungarian and non-Bulgarian ethnicities in the conquered regions would share their view that those regions are righftully Hungarian/Bulgarian. It's the same logic as in Greater Germany except on a different scale, regions that don't have a population supportive of you are not supposed to be cores, no matter how strongly you believe it's rightfully yours.

If we look at the way cores function in game, giving you - full industry, full population, no resistance; that can only mean the population living there is supportive of your rule.

On the other hand, if: the population hates you (no manpower), many workers from the factories may be suddenly unwilling to work (no full industry), or willing to sabotage it (ressistance) that is exactly how a colony state works in game.

To give a real life example, in Northern Transylvania, despite being previously part of Hungary, Hungary used the military to keep the Romanian population in check. Acting more like a colony state as it's represented in the game, with military police, than a core state. And there was resistance from the local population which led to atrocities.

With that in mind, this is why I believe those regions should have cores:
Germany should have a core on Sudetenland (Had German majority.).
Hungary should have a core on Southern Slovakia (had Hungarian majority) but not on Carpathia Ruthenia (had Ruthenian/Slavic majority).
Hungary should not have a core on Northern Transylvania, Crisana, Southern Transylvania or Banat (all 4 had Romanian majority).
Hungary should not have a core on Vojvodina (had Yugoslav majority).
Ukraine should not have a core on Southern Bessarabia. (Had Romanian majority, Ukrainians were the 4th largest ethnic group with 18% of the population)
Bulgaria should not have a core on Western Thrace or Macedonia. (Had Greek majority)
Bulgaria should have a core on North Macedonia. (It's a complicated issue)
Romania should have a core on Moldavian ASSR in Transnistria. (Had Romanian majority)
Yugoslavia should not have a core on Zara (Had Italian majority).
Yugoslavia should have a core on Istria (Had Yugoslav majority).

Transylvania should not have a core on West Banat. (This one is weird because I don't know what Transylvania TAG is supposed to represent. The Romanians? No core on West Banat, had Yugoslav majority. The Transylvanians as a whole i.e "Whole Transylvania", then it should also have a core on Hungarian Alford and Czechoslovak Carpathian Ruthenia. As it stands right now, the Transylvania TAG with West Banat is like having a Scandinavia TAG but with Netherlands included, it's close but not the same thing)

@Vityviktor hey, we remade the Roman Empire, anything else is going to look realistic when compared to that. Personally, and I know this is another discussion in itself, I don't care what alt-history there is, because the player always has a choice. You don't like that alt-history path? simply don't take it. And set the AI not to take it either, but the historical path is supposed to be historical. And the 1936 starting date true to its 1936 real life counterpart, that's my issue with the cores, because it's not like in the 1936 real life, and this is without taking even 1 alt-history focus.

Once again: "You will have to pry those cores from my cold, dead hands."

 

[LeanLeaf]

Once again: "You will have to pry those cores from my cold, dead hands."

What is your issue with those cores?

Hungarian irredentism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Hungary, supported by the Axis Powers, was successful temporarily in gaining some regions of the former Kingdom by the First Vienna Award in 1938 (southern Czechoslovakia with 84% Hungarians) and the Second Vienna Award in 1940 (Northern Transylvania with 37% Hungarians), and through military campaign gained regions of Carpathian Ruthenia in 1939 (with 15% Hungarians) and Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje, and Prekmurje in 1941 (Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, 27% Hungarians). Following the close of World War II, the borders of Hungary as defined by the Treaty of Trianon were restored, except for three Hungarian villages that were transferred to Czechoslovakia. These villages are today administratively a part of Bratislava."

And:

"Hungary's government allied itself with Nazi Germany during World War II in exchange for assurances that Greater Hungary's borders would be restored. This goal was partially achieved when Hungary reannexed territories from Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia at the outset of the war. These annexations were affirmed under the Munich Agreement (1938), two Vienna Awards (1938 and 1940), and aggression against Yugoslavia (1941), the latter achieved one week after the German army had already invaded Yugoslavia.

The percentage of Hungarian speakers was 84% in southern Czechoslovakia and 15% in the Sub-Carpathian Rus.

In Northern Transylvania, the Romanian census from 1930 counted 38% Hungarians and 49% Romanians, while the Hungarian census from 1941 counted 53.5% Hungarians and 39.1% Romanians.[17] According to the Romanian estimations in 1940 prior to the Second Vienna Award, about 1,300,000 people or 50% of the population was Romanian and about 962,000 people or 37% of the population was Hungarian, while according to the Hungarian estimations in 1940 shortly following the Second Vienna Award, about 1,150,000 people or 48% of the population was Romanian and about 910,000 people or 38% of the population was Hungarian.[18]

The Yugoslav territory occupied by Hungary (including Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje and Prekmurje) had approximately one million inhabitants, including 543,000 Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), 301,000 Hungarians, 197,000 Germans, 40,000 Slovaks, 15,000 Rusyns, and 15,000 Jews (49% Yugoslavs and 27% Hungarians).[19] In Bačka region only, the 1931 census put the percentage of the speakers of Hungarian at 34.2%, while one of interpretations of later Hungarian census from 1941 states that, 45,4% or 47,2% declared themselves to be Hungarian native speakers or ethnic Hungarians[17] (this interpretation is provided by authors Károly Kocsis and Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi. The 1941 census, however, did not recorded ethnicity of the people, but only mother/native tongue [2]). Population of entire Bačka numbered 789,705 inhabitants in 1941. This means that from the beginning of the occupation, the number of Hungarian speakers in Bačka increased by 48,550, while the number of Serbian speakers decreased by 75,166.[20]

The establishment of Hungarian rule met with insurgency on part of the non-Hungarian population in some places and retaliation of the Hungarian forces was labelled war crimes such as Ip and Treznea massacres in Northern Transylvania (directed against Romanians) or Bačka, where Hungarian military between 1941 and 1944 deported or killed 19,573 civilians,[21] mainly Serbs and Jews, but also Hungarians who did not collaborate with the new authorities. About 56,000 people were also expelled from Bačka.[20]

The Jewish population of Hungary and the areas it occupied were partly diminished as part of the Holocaust.[22] Tens of thousands of Romanians fled from Hungarian-ruled Northern Transylvania, and vice versa. After the war the areas were returned to neighboring countries and Hungary's territory was slightly further reduced by ceding three villages south of Bratislava to Slovakia. The reoccupying states exercised genocide on Hungarian civilians, both in Yugoslavia by Yugoslav partisans (the exact number of ethnic Hungarians killed by Yugoslav partisans is not clearly established and estimates range from 4,000 to 40,000; 20,000 is often regarded as most probable[23]), and in Transylvania by the Maniu Guard towards the end of World War II."

Doesn't look much like core regions, do they?

I'm all in favor of giving Austria-Hungary cores on all regions of former Austria-Hungary, that's alt-history. In fact, it would be boring otherwise. But on the historical path, I think we should keep cores historically accurate.

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

What is your issue with those cores?

Hungarian irredentism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Hungary, supported by the Axis Powers, was successful temporarily in gaining some regions of the former Kingdom by the First Vienna Award in 1938 (southern Czechoslovakia with 84% Hungarians) and the Second Vienna Award in 1940 (Northern Transylvania with 37% Hungarians), and through military campaign gained regions of Carpathian Ruthenia in 1939 (with 15% Hungarians) and Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje, and Prekmurje in 1941 (Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, 27% Hungarians). Following the close of World War II, the borders of Hungary as defined by the Treaty of Trianon were restored, except for three Hungarian villages that were transferred to Czechoslovakia. These villages are today administratively a part of Bratislava."

And:

"Hungary's government allied itself with Nazi Germany during World War II in exchange for assurances that Greater Hungary's borders would be restored. This goal was partially achieved when Hungary reannexed territories from Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia at the outset of the war. These annexations were affirmed under the Munich Agreement (1938), two Vienna Awards (1938 and 1940), and aggression against Yugoslavia (1941), the latter achieved one week after the German army had already invaded Yugoslavia.

The percentage of Hungarian speakers was 84% in southern Czechoslovakia and 15% in the Sub-Carpathian Rus.

In Northern Transylvania, the Romanian census from 1930 counted 38% Hungarians and 49% Romanians, while the Hungarian census from 1941 counted 53.5% Hungarians and 39.1% Romanians.[17] According to the Romanian estimations in 1940 prior to the Second Vienna Award, about 1,300,000 people or 50% of the population was Romanian and about 962,000 people or 37% of the population was Hungarian, while according to the Hungarian estimations in 1940 shortly following the Second Vienna Award, about 1,150,000 people or 48% of the population was Romanian and about 910,000 people or 38% of the population was Hungarian.[18]

The Yugoslav territory occupied by Hungary (including Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje and Prekmurje) had approximately one million inhabitants, including 543,000 Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), 301,000 Hungarians, 197,000 Germans, 40,000 Slovaks, 15,000 Rusyns, and 15,000 Jews (49% Yugoslavs and 27% Hungarians).[19] In Bačka region only, the 1931 census put the percentage of the speakers of Hungarian at 34.2%, while one of interpretations of later Hungarian census from 1941 states that, 45,4% or 47,2% declared themselves to be Hungarian native speakers or ethnic Hungarians[17] (this interpretation is provided by authors Károly Kocsis and Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi. The 1941 census, however, did not recorded ethnicity of the people, but only mother/native tongue [2]). Population of entire Bačka numbered 789,705 inhabitants in 1941. This means that from the beginning of the occupation, the number of Hungarian speakers in Bačka increased by 48,550, while the number of Serbian speakers decreased by 75,166.[20]

The establishment of Hungarian rule met with insurgency on part of the non-Hungarian population in some places and retaliation of the Hungarian forces was labelled war crimes such as Ip and Treznea massacres in Northern Transylvania (directed against Romanians) or Bačka, where Hungarian military between 1941 and 1944 deported or killed 19,573 civilians,[21] mainly Serbs and Jews, but also Hungarians who did not collaborate with the new authorities. About 56,000 people were also expelled from Bačka.[20]

The Jewish population of Hungary and the areas it occupied were partly diminished as part of the Holocaust.[22] Tens of thousands of Romanians fled from Hungarian-ruled Northern Transylvania, and vice versa. After the war the areas were returned to neighboring countries and Hungary's territory was slightly further reduced by ceding three villages south of Bratislava to Slovakia. The reoccupying states exercised genocide on Hungarian civilians, both in Yugoslavia by Yugoslav partisans (the exact number of ethnic Hungarians killed by Yugoslav partisans is not clearly established and estimates range from 4,000 to 40,000; 20,000 is often regarded as most probable[23]), and in Transylvania by the Maniu Guard towards the end of World War II."

Doesn't look much like core regions, do they?

I'm all in favor of giving Austria-Hungary cores on all regions of former Austria-Hungary, that's alt-history. In fact, it would be boring otherwise. But on the historical path, I think we should keep cores historically accurate.

Hungary is Hungarian.

 

[LeanLeaf]

Hungary is Hungarian.

Food is food.

If manpower is the issue, that could be easily fixed with a national focus that adds +1.00%/+2.00% recruitable population without sacrificing historical accuracy.