I hate how much reactionaryism is in this game

[Vlad123]

In a role-playing game. I used Nazi Germany. But I was a "good Nazi". In the occupied territories I have helped the citizens, I have extended the German legislative advantages in the occupied territories (improvements in work and family), I have rebuilt the damages of the war and I am surrounded by a general consensus, even in the occupied countries, so much so that there is a lots of volunteers from occupied countries fighting for me against the soviets and allies. Even French people fighting against free France ... because I have improved their situations compared to how they were before (in Yugoslavia it was even easier, ditto Poland and Ukraine). The only thing I did against the Jews (because I needed money more than anything else) was to lock them up to produce uniforms and their seized goods I sold at local auction. In my opinion, in alternative history it would be nice to play the "good communist", "the good Nazi" and the "evil democrat". Churcchill for example was so cynical that he "convinced" the Germans to bomb his civilians because he went to bomb German civilians. When the Germans initially bombed only industrial plants / airports and little else. If the British then threw him out in the next elections it was for this reason. (And many English historians say that if he had not been so stubborn in wanting to beat adolf but had agreed, the UK would have preserved the empire)

 

[BlueAndGrey]

But I was a "good Nazi".

 

[Viktor Hark]

I don't have the slightest problem with it, I like it when all sorts of crazy stuff is happening in my game(and it gets better with every patch/DLC). However I wish they added more control over rules when starting the game. While I am all for it, I don't think every person playing ahistorical game will be fine with such wacky stuff like communist Japan, Byzantine empire or Soviet Union dying by the end of 1942... ugh nevermind, you know what I mean. There is a difference between Czechoslovakia drawing closer to the Axis and the communist takover of USA. Another, more down to earth ahistorical setting would be welcome.

 

[Fulmen]

Am I the only one to appreciate the fact the OP's name is Kaiser Bismarck II, in a thread like this?

 

[coffeelingfine]

As a German citizen - who by the way doesn’t care much about PC - with a decent amount of knowledge about the history of the 20th century, playing as Nazi-Germany always creates some sort of bad taste in my mouth - yet playing Germany is fun an playing Germany offensively is even more fun (sorry Chancellor Adenauer) and when you combine these arguments, the result is "Long live the Kaiser!"

I do like the whole German Empire aesthetic tbh, and the idea of them with WWII era tech is cool

I guess there's always Kaiserreich for that though

 

[Grand Historian]

but the idea of "nothing by the people, everything for the people" is years away from being wiped out completely, led alone the idea of a country being one man's personal property

I'm sorry, but this reads more like a strawman than how most monarchies operated historically. Monarchies might have become a close minority of the world in 1936, but Monarchism as an ideology was far from dead then, let alone dead as a political force. I don't think every country should have a path, and honestly I think most monarchist paths would make more sense if the game started in 34 instead of 36, but meme-y restoration paths are just a symptom of the general flanderization most focus trees suffer from.

 

[KaiserBismarckll]

But in many countries in the west you had some royalist conservative movements. Like in Britain the Kings party would have been a very imperialistic Victorian era dictatorship. Not that far off especially with churhill and many other brits feeling that way.

I appreciate the insight you put into you post. And don't take this as an insult, but could you maybe get me some sources for this claim? I was never able to find a British political group or even person who was 100% "Ruthless Imperialist", led alone in the 20th century, led alone Winston Churchill. I would simply love to read a work on the British 'super imperialists' from any era.

 

[KaiserBismarckll]

As a German citizen - who by the way doesn’t care much about PC - with a decent amount of knowledge about the history of the 20th century, playing as Nazi-Germany always creates some sort of bad taste in my mouth - yet playing Germany is fun an playing Germany offensively is even more fun (sorry Chancellor Adenauer) and when you combine these arguments, the result is "Long live the Kaiser!"

Yes, in your case I can certainly understand. Thanks.
If you don't mind me asking, how much do average Germans know about their country before the Nazis? Do they know who Otto Von Bismarck is and what he accomplished? Do they know about the Kingdom of Prussia and Frederick the Great?

 

[Searry]

TBH, I think the alt history stuff are just memes made for the alt-history audience. Alt history is memery.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

First off, non-aligned represents an awful lot in game. It doesn’t necessarily mean Louis XIV style absolutism. Many of the countries represented as non-aligned in game are at least quasi-democratic and just because the monarch might be on top doesn’t mean they are running everything in the government. In game, non-aligned is more related to where a country sits with regards to allies/alignment (see Finland being non-aligned for instance) with only a bit of domestic politics thrown into the mix.


As for pro-monarchist sentiments, they were a very real thing in many countries. Many fascist/quasi fascist governments had significant support from right wing groups contingent on them paying at least lip service to the old monarchy (Germany, Hungary, Spain, Portugal. In fact, Horthy and Franco were technically “regents”). Others like France had right wing groups, including in the military that supported some form of monarchical restoration, and indeed the early third Republic came close to appointing a monarch. A bungled succession crisis isn’t going to end democracy in the UK, but could still end up with a more activist/interventionist king on the throne taking the country towards new foreign policy misadventures.

Also, importantly, it was very much in living memory that every European country besides France and Switzerland had been a monarchy. In such times of great upheaval, many different groups could come to the fore.

Adding actually feasible ideology switching to HOI IV has actually added a ton of content and replayability compared to say HOI III.

Some people complain about things like paths for communist USA or Japan being created, but those trees actually made it harder/more costly to do so (requiring civil wars and more time than the previous hire advisor and hold referendum). While monarchism/non-alignedism isn’t quite in the same boat, it easily could be. Few countries didn’t have some possibility to end up as some form of monarchy or presidential dictatorship.

As for some of the individual comments, historical France did ban communism and it didn’t cause a civil war (now if Comintern had ordered them to, they might have tried, but reagardles). And Churchill lost the 1945 election for a number of reasons, but none of them were for bombing Germany.

 

[Cobannos]

I don't get why people always bash the alt-history paths. Just don't play them, but stop ruining other peoples fun. Why should Paradox stop making monarchy paths for me - a costumer willing to buy and play this sort of stuff - just because you don't like it? Just don't buy the DLCs/ play alt-history. It's pretty simple. Just because there is a monarchy path you are not hindered to enjoy your "historical" game. SMH...

Also most countries with a monarchist path have had a movement to restore monarchy and in the case of Portugal for example the monarchy was only gone for 26 years or so. Many countries like the UK, Netherlands, Denmark even still had a constitutional monarchy. Considering the sandbox aspect of this game it's within plausible alt-history frames to empower a constitutional monarch for example. Also monarchy doesn't euqate absolutism wtf... The German Kaiserreich for example was a federal constitutional monarchy, it had nothing to do with absolutism.

Yes, in your case I can certainly understand. Thanks.
If you don't mind me asking, how much do average Germans know about their country before the Nazis? Do they know who Otto Von Bismarck is and what he accomplished? Do they know about the Kingdom of Prussia and Frederick the Great?

As far as I know every state in Germany (at least Thuringia and Lower Saxony) has it in its curriculum so (almost) everyone at least has had in in history class.

 

[sparta105]

Simple: it's fun.
If I want to bring back the Kaiser to Germany, I can do that. If I want to restore the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I can do that. If I want to bring down the military dictatorship in Japan, I can do that. That's it. That's all there is to it.

Horthy (...) [was] technically “regent”

He wasn't "technically" a regent. Since the populace blamed the republican and communist ideals for Trianon, the ruling elite decided to "bring back the monarchy". Trianon, however, forbid the restoration of the Habsburgs and the elite didn't want a new dynasty so they declared Horthy regent.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Yes, in your case I can certainly understand. Thanks.
If you don't mind me asking, how much do average Germans know about their country before the Nazis? Do they know who Otto Von Bismarck is and what he accomplished? Do they know about the Kingdom of Prussia and Frederick the Great?

Hard to tell, but I'd hazard a guess that this is history buff territory. Bismarck and prussia get touched on in years 10-13 of school education, but there is more emphasis on the 20th century. Granted, prussia from 1600 to 1866 is probably too specialized a topic for the average Person.
Things I recall from my school days were Bismarck's diplomacy, the unification wars (or is it named differently im english and I am referring to pre Horus Heresy here?) And the social struggles of the era. Frederick was mentioned in the context of enlightenment, the Wilhelm II era got spotlight for the war and the forming of the social democratic and communist movements, then a lot of Führerreich and Weimar, and then History ended. I took the highest Curriculum in history, mind you.
So, for the youth of today, most probably don't know who either of those men was and why He is considered significant.

 

[George Parr]

I don't get why people always bash the alt-history paths. Just don't play them, but stop ruining other peoples fun. Why should Paradox stop making monarchy paths for me - a costumer willing to buy and play this sort of stuff - just because you don't like it? Just don't buy the DLCs/ play alt-history. It's pretty simple. Just because there is a monarchy path you are not hindered to enjoy your "historical" game. SMH...

Um, maybe because development of non WW2-related material comes at the price of not developing WW2-related material?

This is a WW2-game, and even many years after its release it has not only NOT managed to properly deal with many nations actually involved in the war, but generally has a tough time coming remotely close to resembling something that with a very generous judgement could be considered WW2-like. Why spend time on stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with what the game is about, when important nations of the era are severely lacking and required a ton of polish years ago?

Nothing wrong with the odd unhistorical stuff. Heck, I play it quite often as well, though that has more to do with the game just being almost incapable of offering a somewhat decent WW2 experience. Simply put, HOI 1, 2 and 3 were WW2-games. HOI 4, however, is a sandbox game with a WW2-theme to it. The game is fun to play when you ignore what it was supposed to be and what its predecessors were, and I guess you can't blame Paradox for going with something that seems to be succeeding, they aren't making games just for the fun of it after all. But in the end, it doesn't really fit to what HOI stood for.

It's not like there aren't plenty of alternative paths that could have been added that actually would have been somewhat plausible. But for some reason that kind of stuff is missing almost entirely, while completely bogus stuff like recreating the Byzantine Empire is in it.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Um, maybe because development of non WW2-related material comes at the price of not developing WW2-related material?

This is a WW2-game, and even many years after its release it has not only NOT managed to properly deal with many nations actually involved in the war, but generally has a tough time coming remotely close to resembling something that with a very generous judgement could be considered WW2-like. Why spend time on stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with what the game is about, when important nations of the era are severely lacking and required a ton of polish years ago?

Nothing wrong with the odd unhistorical stuff. Heck, I play it quite often as well, though that has more to do with the game just being almost incapable of offering a somewhat decent WW2 experience. Simply put, HOI 1, 2 and 3 were WW2-games. HOI 4, however, is a sandbox game with a WW2-theme to it. The game is fun to play when you ignore what it was supposed to be and what its predecessors were, and I guess you can't blame Paradox for going with something that seems to be succeeding, they aren't making games just for the fun of it after all. But in the end, it doesn't really fit to what HOI stood for.

It's not like there aren't plenty of alternative paths that could have been added that actually would have been somewhat plausible. But for some reason that kind of stuff is missing almost entirely, while completely bogus stuff like recreating the Byzentine Empire is in it.

Old point, equally old is the refutation that content design and Game mechanics are not connected as hard wired as people think. Last DLC came with tons of alt history, while taking no one Off mechanics and soviet union.

And in other DLC, the alt history stuff interacted with mechanics that were free or in the DLC anyway, so no, alt history pays for a game whose Player base would be top small to keep stuff going.

 

[Zeprion]

I've felt this way for a while and I think it's essentially a given that the game will forever have 'reactionary' paths open to countries. So here goes:

When I mean reactionary, I do not mean fascist/nazi (from now on, I will consider Fascism to an umbrella term, like in the game). To me, those ideologies are a combination of progressivism and reactionaryism. More importantly, fascism, like communism and sort of democracy, is young and full of energy. None of those ideologies will be extinguished permanently in the 20th century. Reactionaryism, that is, the ideology of old-school absolutism is on its last legs by 1936. The Kaiser has been dethroned, the King of the UK is just a figurehead, the Tsar is gone, the Emperor of China is gone, the other Kaiser is gone, the king of Spain is gone. There are "kingdoms" in the Balkans, but the idea of "nothing by the people, everything for the people" is years away from being wiped out completely, led alone the idea of a country being one man's personal property. Yet time and again, the devs have created paths for most countries to turn back the clock to the 19th century and re-crown an absolute monarch. It often isn't especially realistic, but considering hoi4 is a sandbox game that's a pretty minor qualm.
My main issue is that it is out of place in a game post-ww1. The world has moved on and there are really cool ideologies to fill the gap. This is the ONLY game we get to experience Fascism in, apart from the last fifth of vicky 2. And now it has to share the spotlight with an ideology that you most of EU4 trying to reach. While Democracy and Communism have bigger impacts in Vicky, this era is their golden age - the era of trying to create either a world revolution or a free planet. These ideologies are all more modern, more relatable, and I think more advanced considering they're younger. And yet France just HAS to have the option of going bonarpartist. God forbid they live in THIS CENTURY!
Don't get me wrong though, I enjoy absolutism and the politics of the 18th and 19th century. My username and pic were not mistakes. It's just that they are out of place in a ww2 game, just as making conversion early to Christianity something easily done would be impropriate in Imperator.
Clearly though, few players share my thoughts on this matter. Every DD which allows yet another country to go back in time is applauded, and the immense popularity of Kaiserreich and the Great War mod only further proves my point. I expect many to disagree with the sentiment expressed here.
So tell me, old dogs, reactionaries, those from a more civilized age, with your pickhaulbes and finely combed facial hair, as you long for the way things were and for the rabble to learn their place, why? Why are you so enamored with turning hoi4 into militarized Vicky 3?

As long as the absolutist/monarchist paths are optional alternative history, I don't see what the problem is.

Apologies if this sounds like talking down, but since they are optional, you can have a perfectly realistic WW2 game by going historical.

I agree that most alt-history paths are highly unrealistic. But that is not the point. Japan can become communist. The point is to have fun on alt-history paths. As long as the alternative history has a bit of plausibility behind it, it's not immersion breaking.

I'm okay with the 2nd US civil war but not with Turkey forming Byzantium that comes out of nowhere.

There are 2 kinds of players: those who want a WW2 experience as accurate as possible, and those who want as many alt-history sandbox chocies as possible like Kaiserreich. Personally, I'm both. I want a WW2 experience as close to reality as possible and a lot of alt-history choices to pick from. They don't have to be realistic, they only have to make sense and not come out of nowhere.

I dislike the addition of formable nations because most of them are impossible immersion breaking scenarios. I think they should have been left to modders. But the monarchist restorations, while not very realistic, it's not impossible, just a stretch.

 

[MobiusTwo]

I greatly enjoy monarchist paths myself, but totally admit that most of them are very historically implausible. Crafting more plausible alt-history should be a priority for the developers.

Of the countries that already have focus trees, I would say that only some monarchist alt-history paths that are somewhat realistic, namely Spain and the United Kingdom. In Spain, Franco did end up restoring its monarchy, albeit beyond the game's timeline, and contemplated offering the throne to both the Carlists and Hapsburgs. The game could do a better job portraying this reality but I think you can restore the Bourbons in the Francoist path. For the United Kingdom, we have no way of knowing what might have happened had Edward VIII refused to abdicate.

I love the Kaiser path, but I think Wilhelm's return should be more of an Easter Egg that should be very difficult for the player to pull off.

 

[kettyo]

Okay, that has not been my experience. The few times I have tried alternate history the US goes fascist, so I stopped enjoying that.

It must be a mod or you've incidentally set USA to go fascist and have left so.

Default unmodded USA will never go fascist or communist.

 

[bitmode]

It must be a mod or you've incidentally set USA to go fascist and have left so.

Default unmodded USA will never go fascist or communist.

It happens without MtG; not fixed since 1.6.2: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/hoi-4-usa-go-fascist-on-historical-1-62-6f7d.1166311/

 

[balmung60]

Some people complain about things like paths for communist USA or Japan being created,

I, for one, am not complaining that such paths are created. My complaint, especially about those two in particular but also many other routes (eg. India communist and fascist routes), is that they're poorly implemented. Even plausibility aside, many of the alternate history routes, and again, especially those two, have the ideology flip being most of the goal, while other examples like France have a lot to do after the ideology flip. There's not much about the agenda for the USA after becoming communist or Japan after becoming democratic or communist.

Basically, there's a lot of sub-par alternate history focuses branches that end with a big "and then what?"