Some of the Alt-history paths should have been done better

[Secret Master]

-Heavily disputed and inconclusive 1937 election results in President Garner given 2nd term by congress

To be perfectly frank, some of the alt-history paths seem so weird and implausible because of the start date. Rewind the clock, and communist USA seems less farfetched by some time in the game's time frame. A lot of the things you mention could be spread out and make more sense if you initiated them starting in 1930.

I do wonder, though, what the game would be if you could use NF trees to retroactively change the history of the country pre-1936. Like, say, fire off a focus at game start that establishes some different events before January 1936. Like, say, a different outcome to the Bonus Army situation in 1932.

 

[Dlin369]

View attachment 659029



To be perfectly frank, some of the alt-history paths seem so weird and implausible because of the start date. Rewind the clock, and communist USA seems less farfetched by some time in the game's time frame. A lot of the things you mention could be spread out and make more sense if you initiated them starting in 1930.

I do wonder, though, what the game would be if you could use NF trees to retroactively change the history of the country pre-1936. Like, say, fire off a focus at game start that establishes some different events before January 1936. Like, say, a different outcome to the Bonus Army situation in 1932.

that was something I was thinking about, since a lot of the political focuses are available at game start - have the focus text and events suggest that the country is starting in an alternate history where something before the timeframe went very different.

like for Japan say something vague about how the Japanese crackdown on socialists in 1927 went horribly wrong and now a bunch of crypto socialists are operating in the nation getting ready for round two

 

[Vin55]

But France did spend (in hindsight) absurd amounts of time and energy on their navy in the interwar period. Air force, too. They had some actual strat bombers in operation by 1940, for all the good it did them. And their government was a complete dog's breakfast that collapsed shortly* after Paris was captured.

*Just over a week later rather than midnight the day of, but it's reasonably close as such things go.

I know that ^^ and the historic France can stay the same. But for alt history if France in 1940 is still democratic but actually going communist or monarchist or fascist they will still join the allies or the entente, which is just bad pacing because either they all die or germany looses with sudetenland and the game is over in 1940

 

[Ketchup & friends]

There was a plot against Hitler that could have fired if he wouldn't have been considered a hero after taking Sudetenland through peaceful means, his power wasn't as entrenched as you seem to believe.

Personally I would've written the event chain so France and UK AI stand up to Germany automatically for Oppose Hitler and an Oster-Conspiracy-esque assasination throws Germany into chaos.

The game is quite correct in depicting the military couping, because even at the time Hitlers brinkmanship wasn't exactly popular. The immunity came after the Entente handed him the easy victories.

The problem is, currently the coup can happen even if the Entente does’t do anyhing and doesn’t happen if they oppose the Anschluss or the annexation of the Sudetenland.

Better to make excellent detailed World War 2 game instead of mediocre two type game.

But an excellent WW2 game must have a lot of plausible ahistorical options. As

 

[TalyonUngol]

The problem is, currently the coup can happen even if the Entente does’t do anyhing and doesn’t happen if they oppose the Anschluss or the annexation of the Sudetenland.


But an excellent WW2 game must have a lot of plausible ahistorical options. As

But -what- is considered plausible? That is the problem. Do I think Germany could have won WW2? Absolutely not. Do I think Greece could remake the Byzantiums? Absolutely not. Do I think that Mussolini, despite wanting to, could remake the Roman Empire? Absolutely not. Plausability is just arguable because it DIDN'T happen and you can make arguements for both things. What if this and this happened. What if Italy did this and this etc etc.

 

[Dlin369]

The problem is, currently the coup can happen even if the Entente does’t do anyhing and doesn’t happen if they oppose the Anschluss or the annexation of the Sudetenland.


But an excellent WW2 game must have a lot of plausible ahistorical options. As

In fairness there is an event chain for Sudetenland - the Oster Conspiracy will fire if you fail to take out Czechslovakia fast enough. The problem is the rebelling state doesn't have any focuses.

There is also a Valkerie event, but only if you favor the SS too much.

I'd personally have both Kluge's rebellion (Valkerye) and Oster conspiracy start with certain Oppose Hitler focuses bypassed, and give the allies an event to decide to either support them or declare war on them too. Depending on how late in the war it is, the Allies and Comintern should be shooting for total victory over Germany

 

[Xerberous]

Do I think Germany could have won WW2? Absolutely not.

This is absolutely true. Everybody who demands “historical plausibility” should ask himself why he accepts the fact that Germany is able to win the war (Given the historical setup with both the US and the SU as allies which are standing against Germany.)

 

[Vin55]

In over 90 percent of the recent games does Germany lose WW2 by mass naval invasion and cannot even push into the soviet. It is obviously a game and not intended as 100 percent correct simulator. There are many mechanics which are flawed and broken atm, wich need a big fix, that Germany should loose is without question, but endless instant naval invasions are so annoying, that I for once just kill the allies before barbarossa, as your allies dont garission or defend against them.

 

[TalyonUngol]

In over 90 percent of the recent games does Germany lose WW2 by mass naval invasion and cannot even push into the soviet. It is obviously a game and not intended as 100 percent correct simulator. There are many mechanics which are flawed and broken atm, wich need a big fix, that Germany should loose is without question, but endless instant naval invasions are so annoying, that I for once just kill the allies before barbarossa, as your allies dont garission or defend against them.

Oh yeah. The new naval invasion AI they gave to America and the allies def skewered the favor into the allies which im fin wiht. Makes things alot more challenging in a historical game if you play it like one as Germany or Italy or whatever country in europe you play as. Im happy to see that! It just sucks that German AI falters now.

 

[Vlad123]

The idea that when you start the game in 36 you get an event (or chain of events) to get you to Alt-story (simulating what happened before). Maybe with a focus three like that of Nazi Germany for Oak, where it is "always false" which is only used to keep track of your progress.
Could Germany win WWII? For some historians No, for other historians the hopes end on 7 December 1941, for others if some operations to the allies had not succeeded (or vice versa the axis would have been fine). Because in a war, EVERYONE makes mistakes. But whoever commits less wins! Now the other scenarios (Greece Byzantium, Italy Roman Empire ...) are memes in 99% of cases. Could Germany defeat the USSR? Yes, it came close and if you get close to something, you can do it. Of course they also have to change the mechanics. Like if I capitulate the UK, the US makes a white peace (already the D-day has almost failed and there was no uboat and they were a stone's throw from Normandy, what do you think if they had to make a landing from the USA in France? The kriegsmarine and the lutwaffe would have plenty of time to call the Uboat / bombers and destroy everything, and eventually those who land would be mowed down by the defenders, the supply difficulties ...).
If things have gone one way, it doesn't mean it's the only way they could have gone. To give other examples: could Rome have failed to create the empire? Yes. Could the US lose the war of independence? Of course, on paper they were hopeless. I can go on giving examples for hours.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

But -what- is considered plausible? That is the problem. Do I think Germany could have won WW2? Absolutely not.

Everybody who demands “historical plausibility” should ask himself why he accepts the fact that Germany is able to win the war (Given the historical setup with both the US and the SU as allies which are standing against Germany.)

Winning a war agains UK, SU and US at the same time should be impossible unless their players make some enormous blunders.
But defeating UK after getting Spain, Yugolsavia, Greece and Turkey into the Axis, Then defeat the Soviets while Japan invades them form the east and then ally Mexico and invade America in 1947?
This is an example of plausible ahistorical german victory.

If you consider anything except repeating actual history implausible, what's the point of playing a grand strategy game?

 

[TalyonUngol]

The idea that when you start the game in 36 you get an event (or chain of events) to get you to Alt-story (simulating what happened before). Maybe with a focus three like that of Nazi Germany for Oak, where it is "always false" which is only used to keep track of your progress.
Could Germany win WWII? For some historians No, for other historians the hopes end on 7 December 1941, for others if some operations to the allies had not succeeded (or vice versa the axis would have been fine). Because in a war, EVERYONE makes mistakes. But whoever commits less wins! Now the other scenarios (Greece Byzantium, Italy Roman Empire ...) are memes in 99% of cases. Could Germany defeat the USSR? Yes, it came close and if you get close to something, you can do it. Of course they also have to change the mechanics. Like if I capitulate the UK, the US makes a white peace (already the D-day has almost failed and there was no uboat and they were a stone's throw from Normandy, what do you think if they had to make a landing from the USA in France? The kriegsmarine and the lutwaffe would have plenty of time to call the Uboat / bombers and destroy everything, and eventually those who land would be mowed down by the defenders, the supply difficulties ...).
If things have gone one way, it doesn't mean it's the only way they could have gone. To give other examples: could Rome have failed to create the empire? Yes. Could the US lose the war of independence? Of course, on paper they were hopeless. I can go on giving examples for hours.

The USSR being close to losing is argueable. Some historians believe that the USSR would have never surrendered no matter what and would have kept fighting eventually whittling down the Germans through numbers. Thats why I said alt-history is argueable in all cases. Alt-history in any stage could be argued for either side of what ifs. Thats why I wanted to point out earlier that no matter what the devs do, alt history will never be accepted in the community as a whole. Like 100% acceptable. As it is, most people seem to be doing wonderfully with the current state of alt-history. Most people play alt-history.

 

[TalyonUngol]

Winning a war agains UK, SU and US at the same time should be impossible unless their players make some enormous blunders.
But defeating UK after getting Spain, Yugolsavia, Greece and Turkey into the Axis, Then defeat the Soviets while Japan invades them form the east and then ally Mexico and invade America in 1947?
This is an example of plausible ahistorical german victory.

If you consider anything except repeating actual history implausible, what's the point of playing a grand strategy game?

Japan never went to war with the Soviets. They were too busy in China and getting resources from the Indochinas and South Pacific Islands. They would have never done it unless SU attacked first. So this is the first thing we could argue about being implausible alt-history. Unless Japan took everything from the Pacific Islands and got what they wanted, they would have never went to war with the SU. But also conquering China and the Pacific Islands is alt-history to begin with and argueable.

As for defeating the UK? They couldn't have. The airpower and the navy of the British were too strong. The navy especially. The Air Force -was- losing to the Germans but they changed to bombing London instead of keeping up their attack on the RAF. Alt-history thats plausible would be defeating the RAF but never the navy. Could have never entered the islands because of the navy. UK would have never surrendered either. Not to mention, Germany attacked Russia for their oil and because Hitler didn't like communists. The OIl alone would have prevented a mass invasion anyway.

Mexico was part of the Allies so they would have never been allied. Again, this is alt-history and one that could be argued about. Alt-history is always implausible because there are arguements for why it could and couldn't have happened. I just made the arguement why it couldn't and plenty of historians have said this too and vice versa there are plenty of historians who argued that it -could- happen.

There is also this idea that germany could have defeated Russia if Hitler listened to the Generals. Maybe. Maybe not. No one knows what could actually happen since it didn't and didn't get close to doing so. Russia had all their factories in the east and would have slammed into the Germans who held the line and would have eventually broken through with superior numbers.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Japan never went to war with the Soviets. They were too busy in China and getting resources from the Indochinas and South Pacific Islands. They would have never done it unless SU attacked first. So this is the first thing we could argue about being implausible alt-history. Unless Japan took everything from the Pacific Islands and got what they wanted, they would have never went to war with the SU. But also conquering China and the Pacific Islands is alt-history to begin with and argueable.

What if Japan is run by Kodoha faction and NOT at war with China?
Or if the conflict they had with the Soviets escalated in 1938-39?

Alt-history thats plausible would be defeating the RAF but never the navy. Could have never entered the islands because of the navy.

one the RAF is destroyed, land-based aviatipon can sink the RN. And the Germans don't need to wipe the navy out completely, just secure in the English Channel for the invasion force.

As you see, a 1936 start leaves many possible ways (for everyone. Would you call France beating back the invasion, Barbarossa failing or D-Day in 1943 implausible?).

 

[TalyonUngol]

What if Japan is run by Kodoha faction and NOT at war with China?
Or if the conflict they had with the Soviets escalated in 1938-39?


one the RAF is destroyed, land-based aviatipon can sink the RN. And the Germans don't need to wipe the navy out completely, just secure in the English Channel for the invasion force.

As you see, a 1936 start leaves many possible ways (for everyone. Would you call France beating back the invasion, Barbarossa failing or D-Day in 1943 implausible?).

I mean, the what if scenarios are massive. What if Italy was actually ready for war? What if this and what if that. Plausability is an arguementive point as there are always historians and people on both sides of the arguement for what could or couldn't have happened.

As for the RAF being destroyed and being able to sink a bunch of the ships from the english? Maybe. Maybe not. Could they have done it in time before America got there? Could they have done it between the time frame of sep 1st 1939 and December 11th 1941? That's two years and and 3 months. I don't think that the Germans with their limited fuel could have realistically taken control over the English Channel or get a proper foot hold and take Britain before America got there and before they went to war with the Soviets. I don't think they could have.

ACTUAL alt-history would be instead of going for the soviets. Hitler deciding to aim for a full Africa and Middle East Campaign and taking over Iraq and Iran for their fuel instead. I think THAT would be an actual PLAUSIBLE alt-history scenario. Unless theres a reason why it wasn't a good idea for them to do so that I can't think of right now.


As for the Japan, maybe? Maybe not. Who knows how the Kodaha faction could have realistically taken power over Hirohito. No one knows.

As for the conflict escalating? Absolutely. Right there, you have an actual plausible history scenario that could have happened.




Edit: As for France being back the invasion? Nope. I think France could have done alot better than they did in WW2. So thats plausible.
Barbarossa did fail? Im confused I guess.
D-Day in 1943? I guess so? I mean, didn't they wait that long cause the allies wanted to go for Italy in the soft underbelly?

 

[Ketchup & friends]

OK, it seems we all agree that there are some plausible alternate paths. The discussion is now about what is plausible.
Anyway, a game needs such paths. Otherwise it would be too repetitive and become boring after a couple of playthroughs.

Barbarossa did fail? Im confused I guess.

Fail as in the Soviets having much fewer losses and the Wehrmacht being stopped further west and failing to reach Moscow etc.

 

[TalyonUngol]

OK, it seems we all agree that there are some plausible alternate paths. The discussion is now about what is plausible.
Anyway, a game needs such paths. Otherwise it would be too repetitive and become boring after a couple of playthroughs.


Fail as in the Soviets having much fewer losses and the Wehrmacht being stopped further west and failing to reach Moscow etc.

Ah. Maybe? I guess I don't see why not.

As for the discussion about what is plausible... yea... that's not going to go well.

 

[balmung60]

I'd argue that a bigger issue is that many alternate history paths are boring and half-baked. On one hand, you have things like bringing back the German Empire, which has a lot of content, and on the other you have things like Communist Japan and America and Swaraj India. Communist Japan's endgame is getting back to 1/1/1936 and deciding if they want to be Mao's bitch or Stalin's (to say nothing of how Manchukuou is entirely unaffected by the Imperial Japanese government setting up shop there beyond being locked into their assertiveness tree - the fleeing Japanese government should basically sideline Puyi and unlock a new focus tree dedicated to building up to reclaim the Home Islands instead of just waiting for Communist Japan to feel they're ready to finish what they started). Communist America basically has the same decision plus some meme wargoals. Swaraj India has no goals after independence.

Picking an ideology (plus token faction membership) should not be the endgoal of a focus tree.

To take the example I've played the most of those, Communist Japan could easily have an agenda to either topple colonial rule in South and Southeast Asia (and set up communist puppet states in their place) or to turn the Pacific into a red pond. Hell, make some amusing parallelism with the Fascist and Non-Aligned focus trees choosing either Northern or Southern Expansion and call them Eastern and Western Revolution. You could even arrange something similar for Democratic Japan, either focusing on supporting democracy in China or once again getting involved in the European war (perhaps again making a parallel by calling them Eastern and Western Defense). And as pointed out elsewhere in this thread and others, the February 26th Incident (the Kodoha Purge) should be a major flashpoint for the political tree, with possibilities for it to succeed (Historical Route), be pre-empted (Kodoha Route), or turn into a disaster that takes out the Kodoha but does enough damage to the government that they have to either recall exiled left-leaning officers to fill posts or delegate more power to the civilian government (Communist and Democratic Paths). Also, you know, have some focuses or decisions for implementing your new ideology at home.

Basically, even choices that are broadly implausible should have something interesting to do.

Edit: end of post got cut off

 

[TalyonUngol]

I'd argue that a bigger issue is that many alternate history paths are boring and half-baked. On one hand, you have things like bringing back the German Empire, which has a lot of content, and on the other you have things like Communist Japan and America and Swaraj India. Communist Japan's endgame is getting back to 1/1/1936 and deciding if they want to be Mao's bitch or Stalin's (to say nothing of how Manchukuou is entirely unaffected by the Imperial Japanese government setting up shop there beyond being locked into their assertiveness tree - the fleeing Japanese government should basically sideline Puyi and unlock a new focus tree dedicated to building up to reclaim the Home Islands instead of just waiting for Communist Japan to feel they're ready to finish what they started). Communist America basically has the same decision plus some meme wargoals. Swaraj India has no goals after independence.

Picking an ideology (plus token faction membership) should not be the endgoal of a focus tree.

To take the example I've played the most of those, Communist Japan could easily have an agenda to either topple colonial rule in South and Southeast Asia (and set up communist puppet states in their place) or to turn the Pacific into a red pond. Hell, make some amusing parallelism with the Fascist and Non-Aligned focus trees choosing either Northern or Southern Expansion and call them Eastern and Western Revolution. You could even arrange something similar for Democratic Japan, either focusing on supporting democracy in China or once again getting involved in the European war (perhaps again making a parallel by calling them Eastern and Western Defense). And as pointed out elsewhere in this thread and others, the February 26th Incident (the Kodoha Purge) should be a major flashpoint for the political tree, with possibilities for it to succeed (Historical Route), be pre-empted (Kodoha Route), or turn into a disaster that takes out the Kodoha but does enough damage to the government that they have to either recall exiled left-leaning officers to fill posts or delegate more power to the civilian government (Communist and Democratic Paths). Also, you know, have some focuses or decisions for implementing your new ideology at home.

Basically, even choices that are broadly implausible

Yea... I don't care for Japans political side of the tree. Like the four ideologys things are very lazily done imo. America just can't be made fun to play really because they are railraoded into a 1940ish start which makes sense. Maybe if they let you start going facist immediatly and have to deal with a ton of events? That'd be fun.

But alot of the vocal part of these forums rail on the 'meme' paths like Byzantium and Roman Empire and Ottoamans. So its also that for them.

 

[Secret Master]

Fail as in the Soviets having much fewer losses and the Wehrmacht being stopped further west and failing to reach Moscow etc.

That's actually what happened in the original timeline before I invented time travel next year.

But I'm oversharing again....