• 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.
A high school history teacher of mine once reaches the conclusion in the middle of a class that Germany should have allied with Russia instead of Austria-Hungary when the League of Three Emperors proved unmaintainable.
Yeah it seems like a straightforward thing in hindsight, but I've thought about it some time ago and in my humble opinion I just don't think it was really an option for Germany, regardless of where Austria stood on the matter. With Austria or without, the interests of Germany and Russia at the time were too diametrically opposed in order to guarantee Russia's neutrality in the event of a European war, let alone Russian alliance. What really made the league of three emperors unmaintainable in my opinion is that the German power had grown so dramatically that the balance of power in Europe started shifting significantly in Germany's favor. Under these circumstances, a potential second German victory against France (after 1871) would inevitably result in German supremacy on the continent and a mortal threat to Russia as a result, so it's hard to imagine a scenario where Russia would stand by and allow for that to happen. It is therefore natural that Russia and France would form a defensive alliance. Likewise it's hard to imagine Berlin quitely tolerating further expansion of Russian power into the Balkans, again regardless of where Austria stood on the matter. Such expansion would negatively affect the security and economic interests of Germany and even the wider interests of the ethnic Germans. I think one way or another Germany and Russia were destined to clash. *shrugs*

Things like the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Rheinish Republic, the many revolts and attempted coups. You could also have the situation descend into a proper German Civil War, tho to have it be at the scale of what is currently the RCW content it does need quite a bit of creativity

Yep that would definitely require a lot of work around events that i'm even less familiar with. One potential scenario could be i guess the creation of the Bavarian Soviet Republic around April just after the Red revolt in Hungary, and then if both Bavarian and Hungarian revolutions are not toppled quickly enough, or maybe if Russia succeeds at establishing a land bridge to Hungary, then this could result in a massive red revolt and a full scale civil war in Germany. The problem here is that it is likely that the Entente would intervene against the Reds in Germany maybe even more forcefully than against the Reds in Russia, rightfully fearing that the victory of the Reds in Germany would above all mean withdrawal from the Versailles treaty negotiations. This in turn would mean the resumption of an all-out European war, which is a serious can of worms that would be very difficult to realistically implement. I think eventually it would result in some kind of revanschist alliance of the defeated WW1 powers trying to undo the results of WW1 with the help of Soviet Russia.
 
Last edited:
Yeah it seems like a straightforward thing in hindsight, but I've thought about it some time ago and in my humble opinion I just don't think it was really an option for Germany, regardless of where Austria stood on the matter. With Austria or without, the interests of Germany and Russia at the time were too diametrically opposed in order to guarantee Russia's neutrality in the event of a European war, let alone Russian alliance. What really made the league of three emperors unmaintainable in my opinion is that the German power had grown so dramatically that the balance of power in Europe started shifting significantly in Germany's favor. Under these circumstances, a potential second German victory against France (after 1871) would inevitably result in German supremacy on the continent and a mortal threat to Russia as a result, so it's hard to imagine a scenario where Russia would stand by and allow for that to happen. It is therefore natural that Russia and France would form a defensive alliance. Likewise it's hard to imagine Berlin quitely tolerating further expansion of Russian power into the Balkans, again regardless of where Austria stood on the matter. Such expansion would negatively affect the security and economic interests of Germany and even the wider interests of the ethnic Germans. I think one way or another Germany and Russia were destined to clash. *shrugs*
Yes, tho the most apparent example of this is in my opinion not Russia but Britain. The breakdown in British-German relations was inevitable due to the rising power that was Germany, and no scrapping of the naval building program or Wilhelm II being more diplomatic would have changed that. The rising German power was one that could contest the title of "European Hegemon" which is of course the nightmare scenario for Britain, Europe united against it. Britain would either have to permanently contain or destroy Germany to maintain her position. For example, there was already in 1911, or even before the Moroccan Crisis' a agreement between France and Britain about redistribution of navies and who would take duty for patrolling what sea. (Britain taking the Atlantic, Channel and North Sea including French waters and France the Mediterranean with the exception of the British fleet at Malta.) Why would you make such a agreement if you weren't planning on fighting a war together? Belgium of course only comes in as a way to sell the war to the British public, with France withholding troops in the initial days to make sure Germany made the first move on Belgium. Not to forget the loans that flowed from west to east to help build up and modernize Russia, to be a steamroller or a hammer to the French anvil. 1914 was just the point in time where the Entente deemed Russia had modernized enough and Germany deemed it could still beat Russia. (We all know how it ended)
Yep that would definitely require a lot of work around events that i'm even less familiar with. One potential scenario could be i guess the creation of the Bavarian Soviet Republic around April just after the Red revolt in Hungary, and then if both Bavarian and Hungarian revolutions are not toppled quickly enough, or maybe if Russia succeeds at establishing a land bridge to Hungary, then this could result in a massive red revolt and a full scale civil war in Germany. The problem here is that it is likely that the Entente would intervene against the Reds in Germany maybe even more forcefully than against the Reds in Russia, rightfully fearing that the victory of the Reds in Germany would above all mean withdrawal from the Versailles treaty negotiations. This in turn would mean the resumption of an all-out European war, which is a serious can of worms that would be very difficult to realistically implement. I think eventually it would result in some kind of revanschist alliance of the defeated WW1 powers trying to undo the results of WW1 with the help of Soviet Russia.
I was more thinking in the sense of events and circumstances in Germany being just a tad bit different being enough for a home-brewed revolution. The situation is volitile enough, you could even have the socialist revolution be a result of a monarchist putsch establishing a dictatorship in preparation for a return to the monarchy, opposed by a coalition of left-wing republicans, the just ousted SDP, and the KPD and whatever other left-wing forces join in. But what you present, the Red counterpart of the Whites winning resulting in Russia's re-entry into WWI, is maybe the biggest challenge you could present. It's effectively escalating the end of WWI into the feared World Revolution. The Red Army overrunning Poland, opening up the way into Central Europe where it's greeted by the local socialist parties as liberators and their own sign to rise. World Revolution (or at least a Eurasian once where you run the Entente back into the English Channel) could also be a very fun if difficult goal
 
Yes, tho the most apparent example of this is in my opinion not Russia but Britain.

Yeah it seems doubtful that Germany could actually get out of fighting either Russia or UK, history has a way of moving forward regardless of anyone's wishes or small deviations. It's funny that I often have to keep arguing the same point with my dad, whenever he is concerned about some military buildup, he keeps bringing up the possibility of some accident leading to a major war. On my part, I keep trying to impress it upon him that accidents in themselves never cause any wars. An accident can serve as a pretext for a war when at least one of two sides is itching for a fight and looking for just such a pretext. But if it is looking for a pretext, it will always find one. But when neither side actually wants to fight, no amout of military accidents will make them fight. Britain and France are a good case study because they had a whole myriad of disputes and major military accidents prior to WW1, all of which were successfully resolved or hushed because neither side actually wanted to fight the other. Even when something like the Russo-Japanese war happened, where France strongly backed its ally Russia while the UK strongly backed its ally Japan, the risk of an Anglo-French war was not only averted but in the end it actually brought the two sides closer together and they ended up signing the first Entente treaty.

I was more thinking in the sense of events and circumstances in Germany being just a tad bit different being enough for a home-brewed revolution.

I was going off of the same idea basically, the difference is, if I was designing something like that, I wouldn't want it to be just some event for a German player where one of the options artificially triggers a civil war. If such a possibility existed, I'd like to make it as dependent on actual ground developments as possible, for example, the if the Bavarian Soviet Republic managed to score military successes and lasted longer than it did historically, that could be one potential trigger for a wider civil war. Red Russian troops linking up with Hungary could be another such trigger. After all, we know that the chain of events there was actually pretty closely coupled IRL. Based on what I read, the Hungarian revolution was in many ways triggered directly on the back of the enthusiasm of the Red Russian troops rolling through Ukraine and entering Kiev and Odessa. This not only bolstered and encouraged the Hungarian Reds, but it also encouraged some of the Hungarian nationalists, who saw cedeing power to the Reds as one of the possible ways of getting out of fulfilling the Allied demands. The Hungarian revolution, in turn, energized the Bavarian communists who carried out a coup in Bavaria less than three weeks afterwards. So all these events were tightly linked together. The Soviets were then planning to invade Romania or Czechoslovakia in order to try to link up with Hungary, but things got off the wrong foot when the officer in charge of leading that attack instead revolted and threw all of Ukraine into chaos. Incidentally, the name of that officer was Grigoriev. It is a silly idea, but one could make the case that it was Grigoriev who single-handedly killed the world Communist revolution lol.

World Revolution (or at least a Eurasian once where you run the Entente back into the English Channel) could also be a very fun if difficult goal

Yeah it would be a whole different scenario essentially, with its own internal logic very different from the base WW1. But that's why simply implementing the German civil war on its own doesn't seem very meaningful to. The Entente simply could not afford to allow the Reds to triumph in Germany, meaning that as soon as the situation in Germany actually starts getting serious, i imagine that the Allies would intervene with everything at their disposal and this would be the start of the "world revolution" chain. The reason why the Allies could not afford to allow a Red victory in Germany is because:

1. The reds would inevitably try to tear up any peace negotiations and reject allied demands
2. The red victory would very likely result in a close German-Russian alliance which would be a menace to Western Europe
3. Having the Communists conduct some sort of social experiment while contained in far away Russia is one thing, but having them conduct that experiment in the heart of Europe is totally different, that cancer would quickly spread all over the continent and further abroad.

So yeah idk if anyone ever made a mod for something like this but it would be pretty damn neat to play it out. My alt-ww1 scenario is much more modest by comparison, basically the same alliance structure except italy is with germany instead of with france. This is the situation shortly before the outbreak of war. The Hungarian army is brutally putting down the Transylvanian rebellion, Romania enters the war shortly afterwards to save the Transylvanian rebels from total destruction, and then all hell breaks loose.
1647597059510.png
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yeah it seems doubtful that Germany could actually get out of fighting either Russia or UK, history has a way of moving forward regardless of anyone's wishes or small deviations. It's funny that I often have to keep arguing the same point with my dad, whenever he is concerned about some military buildup, he keeps bringing up the possibility of some accident leading to a major war. On my part, I keep trying to impress it upon him that accidents in themselves never cause any wars. An accident can serve as a pretext for a war when at least one of two sides is itching for a fight and looking for just such a pretext. But if it is looking for a pretext, it will always find one. But when neither side actually wants to fight, no amout of military accidents will make them fight. Britain and France are a good case study because they had a whole myriad of disputes and major military accidents prior to WW1, all of which were successfully resolved or hushed because neither side actually wanted to fight the other. Even when something like the Russo-Japanese war happened, where France strongly backed its ally Russia while the UK strongly backed its ally Japan, the risk of an Anglo-French war was not only averted but in the end it actually brought the two sides closer together and they ended up signing the first Entente treaty.
Good points all around. I'll just make the final conclusion that war between France, Germany and Russia is just kind of the status quo on the North European Plain (plus whatever other power may be around at the time).
I was going off of the same idea basically, the difference is, if I was designing something like that, I wouldn't want it to be just some event for a German player where one of the options artificially triggers a civil war. If such a possibility existed, I'd like to make it as dependent on actual ground developments as possible, for example, the if the Bavarian Soviet Republic managed to score military successes and lasted longer than it did historically, that could be one potential trigger for a wider civil war. Red Russian troops linking up with Hungary could be another such trigger. After all, we know that the chain of events there was actually pretty closely coupled IRL. Based on what I read, the Hungarian revolution was in many ways triggered directly on the back of the enthusiasm of the Red Russian troops rolling through Ukraine and entering Kiev and Odessa. This not only bolstered and encouraged the Hungarian Reds, but it also encouraged some of the Hungarian nationalists, who saw cedeing power to the Reds as one of the possible ways of getting out of fulfilling the Allied demands. The Hungarian revolution, in turn, energized the Bavarian communists who carried out a coup in Bavaria less than three weeks afterwards. So all these events were tightly linked together. The Soviets were then planning to invade Romania or Czechoslovakia in order to try to link up with Hungary, but things got off the wrong foot when the officer in charge of leading that attack instead revolted and threw all of Ukraine into chaos. Incidentally, the name of that officer was Grigoriev. It is a silly idea, but one could make the case that it was Grigoriev who single-handedly killed the world Communist revolution lol.
My main idea was that the Spartacists basically don't act like a bunch of spastic autists and wait till they're in a more advantageous position over the (to be named as such) Weimar government. But yeah, if there is a set of conditions for Grigoriev to not defect, that works brilliantly for a Soviet game.
So yeah idk if anyone ever made a mod for something like this but it would be pretty damn neat to play it out. My alt-ww1 scenario is much more modest by comparison, basically the same alliance structure except italy is with germany instead of with france. This is the situation shortly before the outbreak of war. The Hungarian army is brutally putting down the Transylvanian rebellion, Romania enters the war shortly afterwards to save the Transylvanian rebels from total destruction, and then all hell breaks loose.
1647597059510.png
The one thing that's kinda bothering me with this is Serbia, it shouldn't enter the war immediately, since it has no obligations to the Entente in the scenario this proposes. Ofcourse, it's very willing to join, it has just come off from a massive winning streak in the Balkans, but give it perhaps 1 to 3 months. How would Germany be dismantled in this case actually post war? I'd imagine Klagenfurt and Triest going to Yugoslavia post war and Czechoslovakia being established, but surely Austria would be ripped off, perhaps even a rivaling South German state to the Prussian dominated Empire.
 
I'll just make the final conclusion that war between France, Germany and Russia is just kind of the status quo on the North European Plain (plus whatever other power may be around at the time).
Well, I agree that it used to be that way, back when Germany was more powerful than it is today, and the US was far less powerful. Nowadays tho, not only is Germany so much weaker than it used to be, but all of Europe is much weaker in general relative to the rest of the world, and that really changes things, possibly for good. The traditional faultlines have not disappeared entirely, we saw those faultlines reemerge almost immediately in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Bloc over the division of spoils, none of which perhaps more obvious than in Yugoslavia, where at first the European nations effectively took opposing sides. Germany, Austria, and Hungary de facto supported Croatia/Slovenia; while France, UK, and a much weakened Russia de facto supported Serbia/Montenegro. But it was still just a shadow of their past conflicts, and outside nations - primarily the US, ended up enforcing peace on their own terms that the entire continent had to abide by. It's hard to talk about a post-1871 "status quo" under these circumstances, it is gone and may be gone for good. Even if we imagine that the US suddenly disappeared from the map of world powers due to a dramatic event such as civil war - yes it is feasible that some level of antagonism between Europeans would reemerge again, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on a serious conflict. Europeans are so much weaker today than they used to be that they may find reason to stick together in the face of common threats even in the absense of the American daddy watching over them. United they may stand a chance, but divided they will surely fall pray to the rising nations of the East and South. So even then, European unity may prevail.

My main idea was that the Spartacists basically don't act like a bunch of spastic autists and wait till they're in a more advantageous position over the (to be named as such) Weimar government.

Got it XD

The one thing that's kinda bothering me with this is Serbia, it shouldn't enter the war immediately, since it has no obligations to the Entente in the scenario this proposes. Ofcourse, it's very willing to join, it has just come off from a massive winning streak in the Balkans, but give it perhaps 1 to 3 months.

That seems fair, I haven't actually thought of that but it makes sense. Grr, that may sort of fuck up my Russian strategy a little bit. My main strategy for winning the war on "hard" as Russia in this scenario is that I would concentrate the main forces against Hungary in the north and send another group on strategic redeployment to Serbia in the south and then would try to use both of these armies to pincer and encircle the main Hungarian army that is deployed in the east. If Serbia doesn't join the war immediately, that makes things more difficult for sure. The strategy may still be feasible as Germany is simply too distracted by its French campaign to be able to offer much support to Hungary in this area, but it may not work quite as well.
Untitled-1.jpg



How would Germany be dismantled in this case actually post war?

Right now, if the war ends historically and Russia loses first then Germany loses - the outcome is historical with the exception of Italy and Libya of course. Since in this scenario the roles are reversed - Italy is on the losing side but Senussia is on the winning side, Senussis take over Libya as a French protectorate, Italy also loses its colonies in East Africa to Britain, and gives up all of its gains from the partition of Austria. That means independent Austria with all of Trentino and SouthTyrol, and Serbia/Yugoslavia takes all the gains that it would normally get from Italy in WW2 around Fiume etc. It can be assumed that Italy also loses some border territories to France like they did in 1947 but those territories are too small to be shown in game.
 
Last edited:
Right now, if the war ends historically and Russia loses first then Germany loses - the outcome is historical with the exception of Italy and Libya of course. Since in this scenario the roles are reversed - Italy is on the losing side but Senussia is on the winning side, Senussis take over Libya as a French protectorate, Italy also loses its colonies in East Africa to Britain, and gives up all of its gains from the partition of Austria. That means independent Austria with all of Trentino and SouthTyrol, and Serbia/Yugoslavia takes all the gains that it would normally get from Italy in WW2 around Fiume etc. It can be assumed that Italy also loses some border territories to France like they did in 1947 but those territories are too small to be shown in game.
The Africa stuff sounds very reasonable, even split for France and Britain even. In case of Russia remaining in the fight (or rejoining if the Whites win fast enough) Eritrea might be a very interesting prize for them. If I recall correctly it was partially through the efforts of Russia that Ethiopia was able to resist Italian encroachment. As for restored Austria, it may just be that in this case of a pre-WWI Anschluss Austria and perhaps Southern Germany in general may have a stronger feeling of dissolution towards Germany itself, seeing as the generally Prussian German Empire dragged them along in defeat, and the Entente would do anything to break the singular German power in the heart of the continent. A second German power, also to split Italy from her partner in Berlin, and to break the chances for Austrian-Hungarian reconnection could very well serve the interests of the Entente.
1647983479084.png

General idea of such a peace assuming normal circumstances in Eastern Europe regarding the RCW.
That seems fair, I haven't actually thought of that but it makes sense. Grr, that may sort of fuck up my Russian strategy a little bit. My main strategy for winning the war on "hard" as Russia in this scenario is that I would concentrate the main forces against Hungary in the north and send another group on strategic redeployment to Serbia in the south and then would try to use both of these armies to pincer and encircle the main Hungarian army that is deployed in the east. If Serbia doesn't join the war immediately, that makes things more difficult for sure. The strategy may still be feasible as Germany is simply too distracted by its French campaign to be able to offer much support to Hungary in this area, but it may not work quite as well.
Untitled-1.jpg
First, a small note, in this scenario Eisenstadt should be Hungarian like in KR, it only became a part of Austria itself following Trianon. Secondly, you could perhaps make use of German redeployment towards Transylvania by smashing into East Prussia, then bring Serbia into the war for your drive through the Carpathians (may also prevent Bulgarian entry, or on your side if the Ottomans join with the Central powers in exchange for Thrace outside of Constantinople.) Thirdly, with now that you mention the German westward thrust, a bit of a request. One of my favorite ways to play the WWI scenario doesn't really work, staying on the defensive in the west whilst taking Russia out first, because after that first decision on how to fight the war, I can't declare war anymore on any of the Benelux for my grand offensive west. Maybe include a decision that if you control/allied/puppet the owner of Riga, Minsk and Kiev and are at peace with the Russian government you can more or less do that one event from August 1914 again. Ofcourse also opens up the entire can of worms that is British entry. If they stay out (cause you only declare war on France) maybe have a event that has a increased likelyhood of happening the better the war goes for Germany, some kind of incident that Britain uses as a casus belli to enter the war on the side of the Franco-Russian alliance.
 
In case of Russia remaining in the fight (or rejoining if the Whites win fast enough) Eritrea might be a very interesting prize for them.
Honestly overall I'm still not entirely sure what should happen in case of Russia's victory. It feels like it's not just a question of minor territory adjustments here and there, the whole framework of postwar order would be vastly different. Germany (and Turkey) would have probably had it far worse than they did IRL as a result of the war, and with little hope of future recovery, while Russia would emerge waay too strong. It seems inevitable that the immediate outcome of the war would be the emergance of some kind of anti-Russian coalition akin to NATO or the Crimean War alliance, so one idea I have is to essentially jump from WW1 straight to Cold War of sorts. In other words, my theory is that Russian Revolution and Russia's exit from the war in many ways enabled WW2 to happen. If it hadn't happened, I think one war may have been more than enough to resolve the German question for the foreseeable future. Obviously that's just a theory tho. *shrugs*

First, a small note, in this scenario Eisenstadt should be Hungarian like in KR, it only became a part of Austria itself following Trianon.

I actually had it that way at first but then changed it cause it looked kind of ugly on the DH map (historical Eisenstadt area wasn't quite as big as the area on the DH map) and it's at least feasible that Hungary's borders could be renegotiated as part of the partition agreement, as a kind of price of independence. But overall, you're probably right, it should stay with Hungary.

Secondly, you could perhaps make use of German redeployment towards Transylvania by smashing into East Prussia
Germany mostly focuses on France for the first couple of months and yes this time can be used to smash into East Prussia, the problem is that there is not too much encirclement potential in East Prussia, and i'm specifically looking to encirle and destroy as many troops as possible within the first few months of the war while Germany is preoccupied elsewhere. Failure to destroy them early on makes subsequent campaigns quite a bit more difficult. My strategy was thus to destroy the Hungarian army first and knock Hungary out of the war, then deploy a massive army just north of Bulgaria and advance along the Black Sea shoreline south towards Constantinople and take the city, ultimately knocking both Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire out of the war as well. After all that is successfully accomplished, finishing Germany within a reasonable timeframe becomes pretty trivial.

One of my favorite ways to play the WWI scenario doesn't really work, staying on the defensive in the west whilst taking Russia out first, because after that first decision on how to fight the war, I can't declare war anymore on any of the Benelux for my grand offensive west.
Oh yeah, sure, I think the ability to declare war on the benelux should always exist with the german player so if you're playing with "no manual declarations of war" policy, i think it makes sense to have a decision there that allows you to DoW the Benelus at any time.

However, what I would really LIKE to focus on is making your "favorite strategy" no longer your favorite by making sure that the Allies AI act smart and try to turn it into a nightmare for you. :p
Both England and France should flood Russia with free supplies and trucks (TC), and France should probably send actual troops to Russia as well. Yes, England is a non-combatant in this case, but nothing is stopping it from sending aid to Russia anyway (as the US helped UK in 1940-1941 despite officially being "neutral"). If Germany makes progress and takes too much Russian territory, England should join the war under some excuse and start sending its own troops to Russia as well. In the end, the German player should be left thinking "heh, maybe Schlieffen wasn't that far off after all". ;)
 
Honestly overall I'm still not entirely sure what should happen in case of Russia's victory. It feels like it's not just a question of minor territory adjustments here and there, the whole framework of postwar order would be vastly different. Germany (and Turkey) would have probably had it far worse than they did IRL as a result of the war, and with little hope of future recovery, while Russia would emerge waay too strong. It seems inevitable that the immediate outcome of the war would be the emergance of some kind of anti-Russian coalition akin to NATO or the Crimean War alliance, so one idea I have is to essentially jump from WW1 straight to Cold War of sorts. In other words, my theory is that Russian Revolution and Russia's exit from the war in many ways enabled WW2 to happen. If it hadn't happened, I think one war may have been more than enough to resolve the German question for the foreseeable future. Obviously that's just a theory tho. *shrugs*
Oh yeah the idea of Russia being so utterly dominant in Eurasia and Eastern Europe, especially coming off of a proper victory in WWI is basically a geostrategic nightmare for the whole Anglophone world (not just the British Empire). Going by earlier French plans to deal with Germany in WWI, you could have Germany divided much earlier. There were thinkers concerned with this exact issue already, though because of WWI and the rise of Nazi Germany the sentiment turned into a anti-German one rather than a anti-Russian one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History From what I get the Heartland Thesis was more or less constructed backwards, from the last statement to the first over the course of the early 20th century. "Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland" is where this anti-German pivot becomes obvious, it's very blatantly anti-Nazi in its understanding and phrasing. (Why not (North)Western Asia for example?) But, in this scenario Russia commands the Heartland, and with for example the Turkish Straits under its control it secures its rule over Ukraine as the Black Sea is cut off from any maritime power. And with the 20th century progressing, the Heartland will industrialize and military aviation will make navies not as unscathable anymore for upstart land powers looking for a fight. Anyways, Britain would probably quickly seek accommodation with the USA and try to keep the alliance with Japan alive. Maybe the Chinese powers may also look more kindly upon Japan and be willing to accept some Japanese influence as Russian influence in China doesn't wane and it remains very much a threat to Chinese territorial integrity. The one problem with it being a "cold war" is that the cost of war won't high enough yet for war to not break out, i.e. there is no nuke and M.A.D. yet.
I actually had it that way at first but then changed it cause it looked kind of ugly on the DH map (historical Eisenstadt area wasn't quite as big as the area on the DH map) and it's at least feasible that Hungary's borders could be renegotiated as part of the partition agreement, as a kind of price of independence. But overall, you're probably right, it should stay with Hungary.
Eisenstadt being that ugly is a result of the bit of the Kingdom of Hungary that went to Yugoslavia-Slovenia in Trianon being missing. It's simply too small to be a province on the DH base map.
Germany mostly focuses on France for the first couple of months and yes this time can be used to smash into East Prussia, the problem is that there is not too much encirclement potential in East Prussia, and i'm specifically looking to encirle and destroy as many troops as possible within the first few months of the war while Germany is preoccupied elsewhere. Failure to destroy them early on makes subsequent campaigns quite a bit more difficult. My strategy was thus to destroy the Hungarian army first and knock Hungary out of the war, then deploy a massive army just north of Bulgaria and advance along the Black Sea shoreline south towards Constantinople and take the city, ultimately knocking both Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire out of the war as well. After all that is successfully accomplished, finishing Germany within a reasonable timeframe becomes pretty trivial.
Oh yeah, sure, I think the ability to declare war on the benelux should always exist with the german player so if you're playing with "no manual declarations of war" policy, i think it makes sense to have a decision there that allows you to DoW the Benelus at any time.

However, what I would really LIKE to focus on is making your "favorite strategy" no longer your favorite by making sure that the Allies AI act smart and try to turn it into a nightmare for you. :p
Both England and France should flood Russia with free supplies and trucks (TC), and France should probably send actual troops to Russia as well. Yes, England is a non-combatant in this case, but nothing is stopping it from sending aid to Russia anyway (as the US helped UK in 1940-1941 despite officially being "neutral"). If Germany makes progress and takes too much Russian territory, England should join the war under some excuse and start sending its own troops to Russia as well. In the end, the German player should be left thinking "heh, maybe Schlieffen wasn't that far off after all". ;)
Very nice combined point I can come to here. For Russia, in a economic perspective, yes, the "Hungary First" approach would solidify hold over the Balkans and thus open up the Turkish Straits (if successful at least). With economic aid flowing in from the west, France being a nuisance in whatever way it can be and modern, foreign corps widely active in Russia, Russia would have much more of a fighting chance than it had IRL, as it is able to prevent its own slow economic strangulation. But, the advantage of the "Prussia First" strategy is not only the destruction of German armies in the field, but that two mayor industrial centers of the enlarged German Empire lie just across the border: Silesia and Bohemia. If you want to make the economic blow to Germany instead of preventing the blow to yourself, you would anchor the front on the Carpathians, take out the threat on the flank that is Prussia and then march into Silesia, over the Sudeten and into Bohemia, where a friendly population would welcome you. This, ofcourse, ties back to the general German strategy for the war, and the great advantage that it gained by invading Belgium in 1914. Northern France was where the vast majority of French steel was produce. In one fell swoop, Germany took out very impressive chunk of the French war industry and just their economic base in general. The area around Rijssel/Lille is a major population and industrial center. France tried to take back the lost income with the reparations and the seizure of the Rhine, but it just never could recuperate the costs. Fighting the war on French soil may have lost Germany the war on the one side, but it may just also have given them the best shot at victory.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The one problem with it being a "cold war" is that the cost of war won't high enough yet for war to not break out, i.e. there is no nuke and M.A.D. yet.
Indeed, that's one of the reasons i'm not exactly sure what that scenario would actually look like. Another thing I'm not sure about is whether the US would be so eager to retreat back into isolationism as it was irl. *shrugs*

Eisenstadt being that ugly is a result of the bit of the Kingdom of Hungary that went to Yugoslavia-Slovenia in Trianon being missing. It's simply too small to be a province on the DH base map.

That's definitely a big part of it.

two mayor industrial centers of the enlarged German Empire lie just across the border: Silesia and Bohemia

You may be surprised but although taking East Prussia is usually not all that difficult, moving to Silesia and Bohemia tends to be pretty challenging on hard difficulty even with the bulk of my forces arrayed in that direction. There are rivers in the way, forts, mountains, etc. Also - i kept the Czech-populated central Bohemian provinces as simply "claims" of Germany rather than national provinces, so they don't actually contribute as much to German power as you might expect. Maybe in real life it would have been different, i'm not sure, but in game terms at least - taking out Hungary first and then removing Bulgaria and Ottomans from the war entirely tends to produce a much better outcome rather than focusing on Germany right away.

Also, something else that is worth mentioning - in my version the German army actually has an inherent advantage, or, well, hidden bonuses basically, which are meant to reflect its Prussian military tradition, discipline, and other areas that are not very well represented in the game but which might explain how historically Germany was consistently able punch substantially above its apparent weight. This is something that in RPG games might be referred to as "racial passives" lol.

I didn't WANT to introduce this change, but i've found that if we go raw IC numbers alone, there is just no way that Germany can survive all the way until late 1918. The combined IC of the Entente is well above that of the Central Powers, so in a long war scenario Germany gets very quickly overwhelmed by superior numbers and in the absence of some kind of hidden bonuses it starts to lose ground already by mid 1916 if not earlier. And it seems true that for most of the actual war Germany was fighting against superior numbers, yet somehow it still lasted until 1918 and even knocked Russia out of the war. I've thought about this and tried to address the problem in various ways, but ultimately found no real way to produce the same outcome in game other than just giving Germany some hidden bonuses in terms of both IC and army battle perks. So essentially, the German army just fights tougher than its opponents, but also tougher than its allies as well - either Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, or the Ottoman armies, which is yet another reason why going after Germany first tends to be difficult - it's easier to take out the "soft targets" before moving on to the main prize.