Plausible Alt-History is missing in this game

[TalyonUngol]

While I don't strictly disagree (I don't see Germany actually conquering the USSR, UK, or US), Germany didn't really capitulate Russia in WWI either; Russia collapsed from its internal problems. That's how you take down earth-spanning hegemons, by wearing out their will to fight. Its not as if Stalin hadn't made a ton of enemies both politically and nationally. Of course, Nazi ideology and tactics rather precluded any effective use of these enemies (the Osttruppen are a far cry from nationalist armies like the WWI Polish or Czechs, and none of the defectors had any political influence in the USSR).

Its less of a case for how they could have won, and more for how they should have tried to win (since it wasn't really evident in 1939 that the USSR or USA were quite so dangerous or resilient).



Naval expansion ultimately would take over a decade to start matching British numbers (ignoring the very high production-capacity of Britain for new ships), and even with all of Russia the Germans really don't have a chance in their lifetime of matching US naval production capacity. Even focusing on submarines alone, subs proved incredibly-vulnerable to dedicated opposition from ASW escorts and aircraft (whether land- or carrier-based). Naval power is more of an industrial game than any other form of warfare.

I don't think WW1 Russia is the same as WW2 Soviet Union. Two different political beasts. Stalin, if he was never asssinated, would have kept sending men and equipment at the Germans to buy his country time to fight back, which he did. Russia would have never been conquered and Hitler HATED the Communist ways of Russia. He would have went after Russia eventually and there wouldn't be any peace. he wanted nothing more than to exterminate them. Which is why I don't think Soviet Union would fall in the conquer sense. Germany's only hope would be to take the resources, especially the oil, solidify his front lines and keep them steady, and focus back on the west while defending the east. Eventually though, Soviet Union would be able to push back as their industry would have been moved further East and their industry would just overwhelm the Germans.

 

[ThaHoward]

This isn't really true. Chamberlain declared war on Germany, not Churchill, and the British people were fairly-happy with Churchill's "never surrender" speech despite German offers for peace. Roosevelt's fighting was largely with the Senate, not the American people (compare House votes versus Senate votes, and compare the votes needed to filibuster versus the votes needed for new bills, and you'll see that even 40 senators can dictate policy so long as they don't need to propose new legislation). And in Stalin's case, he actively didn't want war (hence his work to avoid antagonizing Germany and his paralysis at the start of Barbarossa).

I am quoting the user who said it. Neither UK, USA, USSR wanted war according to him. I sense a pattern that is nonsensical and methods to justify how Germany could win. I.e making up arguments to serve his point of view.

 

[.Raptor.]

I am quoting the user who said it. Neither UK, USA, USSR wanted war according to him. I sense a pattern that is nonsensical and methods to justify how Germany could win. I.e making up arguments to serve his point of view.

The war to end wars, anyone who's familiar with the time period know virtually no one wanted war back then.

As for Germany's ability to win, seems like another argument from another thread is bleeding into this one, I put it simply, if somebody's "nonsensical", it is who that cannot even process a historical possibilty, I repeat a "possibility".

Besides making arguments to serve one's point of view is something everyone does on a forum, if one is bothered by a point of view merely existing, they either require some kind of psychological help or they are the very thing they claim to be opposed to, ie a fascist, some one who cannot tolerate other points of view.

 

[TalyonUngol]

The war to end wars, anyone who's familiar with the time period know virtually no one wanted war back then.

As for Germany's ability to win, seems like another argument from another thread is bleeding into this one, I put it simply, if somebody's "nonsensical", it is who that cannot even process a historical possibilty, I repeat a "possibility".

Besides making arguments to serve one's point of view is something everyone does on a forum, if one is bothered by a point of view merely existing, they either require some kind of psychological help or they are the very thing they claim to be opposed to, ie a fascist, some one who cannot tolerate other points of view.

Except germanys ability to win WW2 is nonexistent. They could have lasted longer than they did but the loss was certain with America being a part of the war. America alone would have beaten the Germans. There wasnt any possibility of a victory. The nuclear bomb threat alone would have won it. Once America developed bombs it was over. And they got them after Germany fell.

With America focusing on Germany and Italy first they could have very well been wiped out by a few nukes.

Germany could not have invaded the British which is where America got its best foot hold.

We don't acknowledge the possibility because there was none. Germany could have done many things different but the final outcome was still the same.

Germany did not have the men nor industrial capacity to compete with America. Nor could they with the Soviets either

 

[Crispin]

Usa would probably enter the war regardless, but maybe the war support would have been lower - if not for the Germany declaration first. And maybe they would focus more on the pacific, than Europe. Interesting to ponder about. What if Italy stayed Neutral? Not such an outlandish idea is it? Well maybe, but at least it's not creating a fantasy country and or idea out of thin air. I can't believe someone suggest every alt history is the same, and there are no alt history that is more plausible than others.

 

[TalyonUngol]

Usa would probably enter the war regardless, but maybe the war support would have been lower - if not for the Germany declaration first. And maybe they would focus more on the pacific, than Europe. Interesting to ponder about. What if Italy stayed Neutral? Not such an outlandish idea is it? Well maybe, but at least it's not creating a fantasy country and or idea out of thin air. I can't believe someone suggest every alt history is the same, and there are no alt history that is more plausible than others.

I don't think anyone has suggested that. Its just some people have different views on what is a plausible alt-history and whats not.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

I don't think WW1 Russia is the same as WW2 Soviet Union. Two different political beasts. Stalin, if he was never assassinated, would have kept sending men and equipment at the Germans to buy his country time to fight back, which he did. Russia would have never been conquered and Hitler HATED the Communist ways of Russia. He would have went after Russia eventually and there wouldn't be any peace. he wanted nothing more than to exterminate them. Which is why I don't think Soviet Union would fall in the conquer sense. Germany's only hope would be to take the resources, especially the oil, solidify his front lines and keep them steady, and focus back on the west while defending the east. Eventually though, Soviet Union would be able to push back as their industry would have been moved further East and their industry would just overwhelm the Germans.

Just to clarify, this is the most likely outcome. The reason I brought up WWI is less because it was similar and more because it worked. Stalin had done a better job terrifying people into supporting himself than the Tsar could have hoped to do (let alone Kerensky), and whatever possibility existed to form a resistance movement or fifth column was destroyed by Nazi ideology.

The comparison is more based on the fact that the circumstances internally in WWI Russia still existed in 1941 for the Soviets to theoretically see fracturing of a fear-based unity. If they are dying to the government during peace and now are being asked to die in its defense in war, then so long as the Germans don't make themselves more of a threat to Soviet citizens than the government (as opposed to reality), then it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for an anti-Stalin coup to see him removed for a more conditional peace if the war stayed stalemated too long (and this doesn't take the US or UK into account at all). As stated previously, I don't see Hitler or the Nazis considering a negotiated peace with a battered and subdued Russia; this is a what-if that is based solely on geopolitics, not ideology.

I'd also argue that German industry was actually fairly-strong compared to the Soviets, lacking more in manpower and resources than factories (the former being particularly crippling, while the latter was at least manageable). Ukrainian support could have added a few hundred thousand troops to the front lines at least (30-40 million people, so that at least is plausible), and theoretically could have helped Germany to maintain its own industrial manpower without drawing too deeply on its reserves (the appalling lack of reserves for the German army should have been a bit more of a red flag).

 

[TalyonUngol]

Just to clarify, this is the most likely outcome. The reason I brought up WWI is less because it was similar and more because it worked. Stalin had done a better job terrifying people into supporting himself than the Tsar could have hoped to do (let alone Kerensky), and whatever possibility existed to form a resistance movement or fifth column was destroyed by Nazi ideology.

The comparison is more based on the fact that the circumstances internally in WWI Russia still existed in 1941 for the Soviets to theoretically see fracturing of a fear-based unity. If they are dying to the government during peace and now are being asked to die in its defense in war, then so long as the Germans don't make themselves more of a threat to Soviet citizens than the government (as opposed to reality), then it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for an anti-Stalin coup to see him removed for a more conditional peace if the war stayed stalemated too long (and this doesn't take the US or UK into account at all). As stated previously, I don't see Hitler or the Nazis considering a negotiated peace with a battered and subdued Russia; this is a what-if that is based solely on geopolitics, not ideology.

I'd also argue that German industry was actually fairly-strong compared to the Soviets, lacking more in manpower and resources than factories (the former being particularly crippling, while the latter was at least manageable). Ukrainian support could have added a few hundred thousand troops to the front lines at least (30-40 million people, so that at least is plausible), and theoretically could have helped Germany to maintain its own industrial manpower without drawing too deeply on its reserves (the appalling lack of reserves for the German army should have been a bit more of a red flag).

Except the Germans were nasty to the soviets and the citzens would have seen that and wouldn't have rebelled until after the war. The Germans did very bad things to the soviet prisoners and the likelyhood of a pro-axis rebellion would have been suicidal for them. Not to mention it would force the soviets to be completely overtaken and put into camps etc. They would be stupid to do that.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Except the Germans were nasty to the soviets and the citzens would have seen that and wouldn't have rebelled until after the war. The Germans did very bad things to the soviet prisoners and the likelyhood of a pro-axis rebellion would have been suicidal for them. Not to mention it would force the soviets to be completely overtaken and put into camps etc. They would be stupid to do that.

...which is why I stated as much, albeit more vaguely. Due to forum rules its a bad idea to get into details, so its hard to really comment, but I haven't at any point stated the opposite of this.

...whatever possibility existed to form a resistance movement or fifth column was destroyed by Nazi ideology.

As stated previously, I don't see Hitler or the Nazis considering a negotiated peace with a battered and subdued Russia; this is a what-if that is based solely on geopolitics, not ideology.

 

[safe-keeper]

It's a bit frustrating how these threads always go off-topic by devolving into debates on the finer points of some event in history, rather than the thread topic, but either way:

I believe they will change the diplomacy system in a big way in the DLC after Barbarossa. To me, it is quite clear they will be improving combat and logistics in Barbarossa. And with diplomacy + warscore system being broken as they are, it might be the next in priority, along with a possible research overhaul.

I think the biggest mistake they made was deciding every focus tree had to have a democratic, facist, communist, and monarchist path, as it forced the devs to make some really far-fetched scenarios, and also probably increased their workload quite a bit. I'd much rather have each tree have a historical path, and one or more plausible alt-history paths, and a handful of ways for each to not go as planned. That's another issue with the focus trees, most of the paths are pretty easy to implement when they should, in many cases, be real challenges to pull off. You just take a series of focuses and decisions, and voila, now the US has gone from a democratic to a communist nation overnight!

 

[TalyonUngol]

It's a bit frustrating how these threads always go off-topic by devolving into debates on the finer points of some event in history, rather than the thread topic, but either way:

The reason why it goes off is because someone decides to mention a certain alt-history path and you have to argue against it if its actually BS because its opinionated.

I think the biggest mistake they made was deciding every focus tree had to have a democratic, facist, communist, and monarchist path, as it forced the devs to make some really far-fetched scenarios, and also probably increased their workload quite a bit. I'd much rather have each tree have a historical path, and one or more plausible alt-history paths, and a handful of ways for each to not go as planned. That's another issue with the focus trees, most of the paths are pretty easy to implement when they should, in many cases, be real challenges to pull off. You just take a series of focuses and decisions, and voila, now the US has gone from a democratic to a communist nation overnight!

And who decides what is plausible and deserving over whats not? Thats the question. is it up to a poll on the forums? An arm-chair historian? Or PDX?

 

[TalyonUngol]

...which is why I stated as much, albeit more vaguely. Due to forum rules its a bad idea to get into details, so its hard to really comment, but I haven't at any point stated the opposite of this.

Ah my apologies. I misunderstood what you were talking about.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

I personally think that there should be two different settings for how to control out-of-control alt history:

1.) Similar to the rulesets allowing players to determine a path, they should be able to block off paths (i.e. blocking the democratic and communist paths for Japan, but leaving Kodoha and historic open).
2.) Four levels of historical feasibility:

a) Realistic (i.e. strategic decisions: British interventions in Scandinavia, Allied Romania, Italy demanding the Baleares)​

b) Political shifts that were plausible within the first 4 years (mostly things like Republican USA or democratic left-wing France, as well as more likely alt-history like Kodoha Japan)​

c) Possible political shifts that needed more time to be plausible but weren't strictly unrealistic (German civil war, democratic Japan, communist France, Stresa Front, etc). This category is going to be a bit more debatable with things like monarchist France or Western support for the Megali Idea not strictly being impossible, but very unlikely.​

d) Unrealistic focuses (communist Japan, non-democratic USA or UK, Ottomans, Byzantines, Manchu independence war, etc).​

Offering four different settings for ahistorical gameplay offers a wider range of options for those of us who don't want the game's outcomes to be scripted, but also don't want monarchist Britain breaking the war in the East, or major powers destroying themselves in civil wars (particularly Japan).

 

[Rashie]

Except the Germans were nasty to the soviets and the citzens would have seen that and wouldn't have rebelled until after the war. The Germans did very bad things to the soviet prisoners and the likelyhood of a pro-axis rebellion would have been suicidal for them. Not to mention it would force the soviets to be completely overtaken and put into camps etc. They would be stupid to do that.

There's a lot of that to the situation here, but it falls outside the scope of what the powers that be on this forum allows, and some of us have gotten explicit warnings for going there in the past, which makes it diffcult to truly talk about soviet unlikeliness to surrender.

 

[TalyonUngol]

I personally think that there should be two different settings for how to control out-of-control alt history:

1.) Similar to the rulesets allowing players to determine a path, they should be able to block off paths (i.e. blocking the democratic and communist paths for Japan, but leaving Kodoha and historic open).
2.) Four levels of historical feasibility:

a) Realistic (i.e. strategic decisions: British interventions in Scandinavia, Allied Romania, Italy demanding the Baleares)​

b) Political shifts that were plausible within the first 4 years (mostly things like Republican USA or democratic left-wing France, as well as more likely alt-history like Kodoha Japan)​

If you look at the election results, Republican USA was EXTREMELY implausible. I would say probably the most implausible thing in the game.

c) Possible political shifts that needed more time to be plausible but weren't strictly unrealistic (German civil war, democratic Japan, communist France, Stresa Front, etc). This category is going to be a bit more debatable with things like monarchist France or Western support for the Megali Idea not strictly being impossible, but very unlikely.​

d) Unrealistic focuses (communist Japan, non-democratic USA or UK, Ottomans, Byzantines, Manchu independence war, etc).​

Offering four different settings for ahistorical gameplay offers a wider range of options for those of us who don't want the game's outcomes to be scripted, but also don't want monarchist Britain breaking the war in the East, or major powers destroying themselves in civil wars (particularly Japan).

 

[Question]

Anyone talking about realism of scenarios needs to consider that in 1918, the idea that a bohemian corporal would beome Fuhrer because of the treaty and start an even more destructive world war would have been considered extremely unrealistic. Certaintly, none of the world leaders would have believed you then, and even in 1936 most people would not have considered it realistic.

 

[.Raptor.]

Except germanys ability to win WW2 is nonexistent. They could have lasted longer than they did but the loss was certain with America being a part of the war. America alone would have beaten the Germans. There wasnt any possibility of a victory. The nuclear bomb threat alone would have won it. Once America developed bombs it was over. And they got them after Germany fell.

With America focusing on Germany and Italy first they could have very well been wiped out by a few nukes.

Germany could not have invaded the British which is where America got its best foot hold.

We don't acknowledge the possibility because there was none. Germany could have done many things different but the final outcome was still the same.

Germany did not have the men nor industrial capacity to compete with America. Nor could they with the Soviets either

I disagree...the real question is, can you tolerate that?

 

[Rashie]

I disagree...the real question is, can you tolerate that?

I can tolerate that, just as I tolerate that there are people who believe the earth is flat.

This game's industrial balance is not a reflection of the real world. In the real world, the US outproduced the entirety of the axis, alone, alongside axis fuel issues being much more severe than depicted in HoI4.

Logistics and assorted industrial output win wars in the 20th century once both sides have their shit together operationally, and that's a game Germany & Co were vastly outclassed in.

I am not opposed to content designed for potential axis victories in this game but when talking about the actual war, germany had no chance.

 

[.Raptor.]

I can tolerate that, just as I tolerate that there are people who believe the earth is flat.

This game's industrial balance is not a reflection of the real world. In the real world, the US outproduced the entirety of the axis, alone, alongside axis fuel issues being much more severe than depicted in HoI4.

Logistics and assorted industrial output win wars in the 20th century once both sides have their shit together operationally, and that's a game Germany & Co were vastly outclassed in.

I am not opposed to content designed for potential axis victories in this game but when talking about the actual war, germany had no chance.

I disagree but I don't find putting down your opinion by comparing it something like "Flat Earth" in any way rewarding to myself.

You do however seem to think otherwise, it appears to make you "feel better" with yourself or "less irritated" by the fact that your beliefs aren't universally agreed with.

Which is sad honestly.

 

[kettyo]

But the thing is... who determines what is in these four categories?

PDX obviously so they can decide which achievements are allowed for which modes.