The alt-history scenarios in this game are fantasy scenarios, where is the actual alt-history

[KDEstroy]

I know that HOI4 is just a game but a lot of people in this thread don't seem to realize this. There are a surprising amount of people in this thread seriously arguing that the Axis could've won WWII in real life. It complete ignores the character and motivations of the political leaders and military commanders, as well as industrial and logistical capacities of the countries in the war. Hypothetically speaking, if the entire German, Japanese, and Italian government plus military command was replaced by military historians with decades of knowledge, and full benefit of hindsight, could they have won the war? Perhaps, but not only is that completely impossible and unrealistic, the same historians and generals probably wouldn't want war in the first place.

TL;DR Nazi Germany could have won the war if it was ruled by an omniscient hive mind instead of regular Nazis.

 

[DicRoNero]

In the meantime, the actual alt-history the things that could have happened in ww2 is so underutilized and represented, the actual what-ifs. Like what if western allies went through operation pike? what if...

What if the Bismarck wasn't sunk in May 1941 and Churchill didn't manage to cling to power any longer?

Oh, wait: Germany doesn't build any Bismarcks anyway...

 

[KDEstroy]

Europe today would be speaking German if the leader of Nazi Germany did not have a self-centered mentality. Hitler was too much involved in the strategies drawn up by his generals. A corporal thinking he's a general couldn't result in a good thing.

Nazi generals weren't perfect, they made plenty of mistakes on their own, such as failing to take Moscow. And thinking that Stalingrad pocket could be resupplied by air. And losing the North African campaign. And insisting on continuing the Kursk offensive even when there was little chance of breakthrough and they were threatened with encirclement.

 

[valentin4]

1. Chamberlain did not support Halifax's proposal for peace, and eventually supported Churchill instead. Anyway, both Churchill and Cabinet wanted to fight on so there was no chance of negotiating peace.
2. The 200k troops had to literally abandon all of their guns, weapons, and heavy equipment at Dunkirk. And yet the Axis was not able to exploit their advantage. It was logistically impossible for the Nazis to annihilate the British at Dunkirk, troops were totally exhausted and low on supplies. It was a miracle they managed to encircle the Allies in the first place.
3. Mussolini wasn't super popular in the government, in hindsight it was a terrible mistake to appoint loyal yet incompetent generals. But at the time, it was the only politically feasible option, from Mussolini's point of view. In any case, Mussolini wanted to demonstrate that Italy was not reliant on Germany, so greater Italo-German cooperation simply is not possible. It is exactly what Mussolini didn't want.
4. Vichy France held North Africa, which was strategically irrelevant in 1941. The Axis couldn't have won the North African campaign due to British naval superiority. They wouldn't have been able to protect their supply transports from Allied naval and air attacks.
5. "What if there was no coup" is such a ridiculous premise, joining the Axis was deeply unpopular among Yugoslavian military. Prince Paul signed the Tripartite pact anyway, of course there was going to be a coup.
6. Japan actually committing to a major invasion of the Soviet Union is completely nonsensical. It totally goes against the "Southern Plan", Japan's entire strategy for the war. Anyway, Japan was under a fuel embargo by the Allies at the time, any invasion of Siberia would have failed due to logistical difficulties and lack of fuel.
7. US would've lend-leased more fuel to the USSR. Also, the Germans planned to take the Baku oil fields intact. If they destroyed the oil fields, but won Stalingrad, it wouldn't have mattered in the long run because Germany would still run out of fuel.

1. There could be a political crisis if Halifax accepts to be prime minister to replace Chamberlain the 10th of may (like Chamberlain asked him). Or, if Halifax resigns with most of the conservative MP supporting him at the time of the War Cabinet Crisis.

2-3. Not really convinced other outcomes were impossible

4. North Africa is not irrelevant, because it leads to the Middle East, give access to the Indian ocean. It also opens up another potential path to the Soviet Union, and possibility to link up with Japan, making the British lose India etc.. The Axis did came close to the Suez Canal in 1942. Pretty sure that if they had put more force on it earlier they could take it.

Not going south was considered a big mistake of Hitler by Winston Churchill.

5. If there is no political chaos in Yugoslavia if you want. Invading Yugoslavia was not even a necessity.

6. It's false ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen

7. At the expense of other critical resources. Also, if Germany can't take the oil fields, it's simply obvious that the second best possiblity is to deny them to the enemy. That's why they actually bombed Grozny, putting the oil fiedls/refineries out of action for months. https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_August_1942_to_Damage_Soviet_Oil_Production

 

[Simon Marques]

Nazi generals weren't perfect, they made plenty of mistakes on their own, such as failing to take Moscow. And thinking that Stalingrad pocket could be resupplied by air. And losing the North African campaign. And insisting on continuing the Kursk offensive even when there was little chance of breakthrough and they were threatened with encirclement.

There was a series of interferences from Hitler that simply delayed the takeover of Moscow, the great Achilles' heel of Germany was Hitler.

In North Africa Romel didn't receive enough divisions, Hitler didn't give him the necessary divisions, so I don't know what the result would be if Romel had all the resources he needed. Even with few resources he was brilliant in saving the Italians from a certain defeat in the first half of that battle.

 

[safe-keeper]

Germany winning the war is pure fantasy by itself.

Fantasy that's neccessary for the game to work. Unlike things like the US going communist overnight.

 

[MobiusTwo]

I think the reason this game turns to more "fantasy" alt-history scenarios is because they provide options for players who want to play as their preferred ideology, and also to give minor nations a fighting chance to succeed. If the game were strictly historical, it would be very boring to play as a country like Austria or Czechoslovakia, since your fate would be inevitable, and even Germany's days of success would be numbered since the United States and Soviet Union would use their industry and manpower to overwhelm the Axis. That said, I understand OP's frustration with the fact that this game tends to neglect "plausible" alt-history in favor of crazier outcomes. I think there is a balance somewhere. In my opinion, I think it would be best if each country only had one or two alt-history options that were well-fleshed out so that they come off as both immersive and relatively plausible.

Here is a list of some countries, and my commentaries on their alt-history focus tree paths:

• Canada: The alt-history paths are absurd here. If there's any alt-history here at all, it should be focused around how to approach the Quebec situation. If the United Kingdom should somehow fall, there should be options for Canada to host the British government in exile and retake the British Isles.
• France: This is actually one of the better countries. The political situation was chaotic enough that different democratic options, and even authoritarian left or right paths are a possibility. I think the monarchist paths are cool, but they are contrived and not very immersive.
• Germany: One of the better trees for sure, but the fascist alt-history could stand to have more options. I love the Kaiser path but it is definitely contrived. If the Kaiser is to return at all, I think it should only be after WWII has already started. The government could restore the Kaiser to a ceremonial position after conquering the Netherlands, and from there he could slowly work to taking a more active role in the government, especially if Hitler starts to become unpopular due to military mistakes etc.
• India: This one is so bad it just needs a complete and total overhaul.
• Japan: I think the Kodoha path is cool, but the return to shogunate thing has no place here. Rather than having ridiculously unlikely communist and democratic paths, the fascist and non-aligned paths should have been expanded. I think a postwar, puppeted democratic Japan having a democratic path open up would be fine though.
• Manchukuo: The alt-history here is very, very implausible, but I honestly think the Qing restoration path is one of the best-designed and most fun political branches of any focus tree.
• South Africa: One of the worst focus trees in the game by far. I think a fascist path is definitely within the realm of historical possibility, but not in the way it is currently in the game.
• Spain: Here is one of the best focus trees in my opinion. A lot of the options are drawing on things we can never be sure of, such as democratic forces winning the Civil War or the anarchists somehow emerging on top, so I would say we can't really fault the designers if the options seem crazy. If Hungary's Austro-Hungarian restoration tree is absurd, here is a country that Otto von Hapsburg could have actually ruled if he wanted to. Franco actually invited him to become the King of Spain (albeit after the game's time period), and that could open up some very interesting alt-history options.
• United Kingdom: The democratic alt-history is actually pretty good here. The communist and straight fascist paths have no place here, but the non-aligned path is good because we have no idea what would have really happened if Edward VIII had refused to abdicate.
• United States: Another country with really bad alt-history options. It would take too long to list every gripe I have, but you can read those here.

Most of the other alt-history paths range from "fun options, albeit unrealistic" like Mexico, the Netherlands, and Romania, to "extremely contrived fascist and communist paths" like Australia, Czechoslovakia, and New Zealand.

 

[Voigt]

It is not overnight and it starts a civil war. The bigger question is, if such civil war should be ever winnable by the social reformers.

But on the topic of alt-history paths, we do have gloval dominance churchill england, right-wing-democratic France, Germany setting their production foci different (Plan Z, or doubling down on Subs), Japan Kodoha faction, American Limited Intervention.

There are already plenty alt-history focus paths which don't change your idealogy, and you always can do althistory yourself for troop movment, production and research completly seperate from the focus tree.

 

[KDEstroy]

1. There could be a political crisis if Halifax accepts to be prime minister to replace Chamberlain the 10th of may (like Chamberlain asked him). Or, if Halifax resigns with most of the conservative MP supporting him at the time of the War Cabinet Crisis.

2-3. Not really convinced other outcomes were impossible

4. North Africa is not irrelevant, because it leads to the Middle East, give access to the Indian ocean. It also opens up another potential path to the Soviet Union, and possibility to link up with Japan, making the British lose India etc.. The Axis did came close to the Suez Canal in 1942. Pretty sure that if they had put more force on it earlier they could take it.

Not going south was considered a big mistake of Hitler by Winston Churchill.

5. If there is no political chaos in Yugoslavia if you want. Invading Yugoslavia was not even a necessity.

6. It's false ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen

7. At the expense of other critical resources. Also, if Germany can't take the oil fields, it's simply obvious that the second best possiblity is to deny them to the enemy. That's why they actually bombed Grozny, putting the oil fiedls/refineries out of action for months. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259776060_Too_Little_Too_Late_An_Analysis_of_Hitler's_Failure_in_August_1942_to_Damage_Soviet_Oil_Production

4. The Axis invading India and Caucasus through the Middle East is just total fantasy. Transporting men and equipment across thousands of kilometres of desert and mountains would put enormous strain on the already limited logistical capabilities of Germany. That's not even considering British naval and air forces controlling the Mediterranean, as well as the Allied forces on the ground. The Axis did come close to taking Egypt, but that's because most of the Allied troops were in other theatres, when the Suez was actually threatened, they deployed more troops and successfully counter attacked. If the Axis had devoted significantly more forces to North Africa, they might have made limited gains, but they would've been defeated even sooner by the USSR.

5. Great, if Germany never invaded Yugoslavia and Greece, they would have been able to invade the USSR a month earlier, with maybe one extra corps. Meanwhile, Italy would've failed miserably in their invasion of Greece, and likely lose Albania as well. Operation Barbarossa might have been a little more successful, but the same factors which lead to German defeat (logistics, outrunning supply lines, lack of fuel, Russian winter, unexpectedly fast Russian mobilization) would still be present.

6. Reading the introduction of the Wikipedia article, "After growing conflict with simultaneous preparations for an offensive in Southeast Asia, together with the demands of the Second Sino-Japanese War and dimming prospects for a swift German victory in Europe, Kantokuen began to fall out of favor at Imperial General Headquarters and was eventually abandoned following increased sanctions by the United States and its allies in late July and early August 1941. "

At least the Japanese weren't delusional and recognized their own limitations. Even if the Japanese didn't plan for an offensive in southeast Asia, they were still having problems with the Chinese in the Sino Japanese war. Plus, fuel imports were extremely limited due to Allied sanctions. Two out of three reasons for Japanese rejection of Kantokuen would still be present in your hypothetical. There's no reason why a full-scale invasion of USSR would not end up like Khalkhin Gol. It's not like Siberia was entirely unguarded, there were significant Soviet troops in the region.

7. If Germany cannot take the oil fields, it was only a matter of time before they lost the war anyway. If you would read the article you cited,
"EVEN before Operation Barbarossa petered out in December 1941,
Germany's oil reserves were severely depleted. Adolf Hitler worried
that his armed forces would soon grind to a halt for want of petroleum
products."

The article only states that if the full force of the Luftwaffe had bombed oil fields at Grozny, Soviet industry would take several months to recover, not that Germany would be able to somehow win the war. Sure USSR would have suffered a serious blow, but it would not be absolutely crippling.

 

[fuser312]

And not just alt-history during ww2. If paradox wants to sell more content, the same game can be used to generate content like a possible ww3. Think operation Unthinkable, once again these things will be far more plausible, give something to keep playing after ww2 and is within the realm of possibility and provides immersion for the time frame, unlike the crazy fad that now exists where everyone is getting their monarchy back from the dead.

 

[valentin4]

4. The Axis invading India and Caucasus through the Middle East is just total fantasy. Transporting men and equipment across thousands of kilometres of desert and mountains would put enormous strain on the already limited logistical capabilities of Germany. That's not even considering British naval and air forces controlling the Mediterranean, as well as the Allied forces on the ground. The Axis did come close to taking Egypt, but that's because most of the Allied troops were in other theatres, when the Suez was actually threatened, they deployed more troops and successfully counter attacked. If the Axis had devoted significantly more forces to North Africa, they might have made limited gains, but they would've been defeated even sooner by the USSR.

5. Great, if Germany never invaded Yugoslavia and Greece, they would have been able to invade the USSR a month earlier, with maybe one extra corps. Meanwhile, Italy would've failed miserably in their invasion of Greece, and likely lose Albania as well. Operation Barbarossa might have been a little more successful, but the same factors which lead to German defeat (logistics, outrunning supply lines, lack of fuel, Russian winter, unexpectedly fast Russian mobilization) would still be present.

6. Reading the introduction of the Wikipedia article, "After growing conflict with simultaneous preparations for an offensive in Southeast Asia, together with the demands of the Second Sino-Japanese War and dimming prospects for a swift German victory in Europe, Kantokuen began to fall out of favor at Imperial General Headquarters and was eventually abandoned following increased sanctions by the United States and its allies in late July and early August 1941. "

At least the Japanese weren't delusional and recognized their own limitations. Even if the Japanese didn't plan for an offensive in southeast Asia, they were still having problems with the Chinese in the Sino Japanese war. Plus, fuel imports were extremely limited due to Allied sanctions. Two out of three reasons for Japanese rejection of Kantokuen would still be present in your hypothetical. There's no reason why a full-scale invasion of USSR would not end up like Khalkhin Gol. It's not like Siberia was entirely unguarded, there were significant Soviet troops in the region.

7. If Germany cannot take the oil fields, it was only a matter of time before they lost the war anyway. If you would read the article you cited,
"EVEN before Operation Barbarossa petered out in December 1941,
Germany's oil reserves were severely depleted. Adolf Hitler worried
that his armed forces would soon grind to a halt for want of petroleum
products."

The article only states that if the full force of the Luftwaffe had bombed oil fields at Grozny, Soviet industry would take several months to recover, not that Germany would be able to somehow win the war. Sure USSR would have suffered a serious blow, but it would not be absolutely crippling.

4. I'm not saying Germany would invade India. What I'm saying is that invading the Middle East would have likely make Britain lose India. And I don't really see how the axis controlling the middle east is that far fetched, after all Axis troops did go deep in the Caucasus up until the Terek river, that is 3000 km from Germany. I think, if Germany had put focus on north africa as soon as 1940, they could have reach suez by 1942 and then there is not much stopping them from Iraq-Iran (where they had supporters). They could also take Malta and Gibraltar to make the waters more difficult to operate for the RN. Again, implying a delayed Barbarossa.

5. With no operation in the balkans, and without the divisions of Dietl who were wasted in the Arctic,they could have placed an army including a panzer group in Romania, taking Kiev earlier and thus no August dilemma (source : Jean Lopez, Barbarossa 1941 la guerre absolue, published last year)

6. No, if the Japanase are aware of the invasion (that's before the US embargo) the "northen strike" crowd is in a better position, contrary to what happened. They can start the build up earlier and attack in the summer, Vladivostock is of strategic importance to the Soviets like I said earlier

7.
"With the benefit of hindsight, it is now reasonable to argue that
Richthofen's air fleet could have dealt the Soviet economy a major blow,
from which it would have taken at least several months to recover, if it
had unloaded as many bombs on Baku as it did on Stalingrad."

I don't say more than that, I don't claim that it would mean that the soviet lose, just that it could been a very serious problem for the soviets at a time of greatest hardships.

 

[kettyo]

Basically, Britain recognizes Germany 's overlorship on central Europe. Germany get elssas lothringen back and maybe some of her ex African colonies, and some war reparations from France

But that's just impossible from Britain's standpoint (would be nice for Germany though).

 

[valentin4]

But that's just impossible from Britain's standpoint (would be nice for Germany though).

That was impossible for Churchill but not for Halifax who was an influent conservative leader. If he could sway Chamberlain, another conservative leader, he could have possibly opened peace talks on such grounds. Remember that things go very quickly at this time

 

[valentin4]

I just realized that the wiki article is missing some important bits that were there before. The article has probably been edited by Churchill apologists who fait to mention important facts about Churchill's position :


On 27 May, Churchill once more agreed it was worth exploring a possible negotiated settlement, provided Britain maintained its sovereignty, even if the cost was German “overlordship of central Europe” and the surrender of some British territories such as Malta, Gibraltar and some African states. In typical Churchill fashion, he followed this major concession to history and to Halifax with a caveat: “that it was quite unlikely that he [Hitler] would make such an offer.”

Halifax, determined to stop Churchill from wriggling out of these commitments, played his trump card: a threat to resign if Churchill didn’t follow through with talks. He inferred it in a speech he made, and then made it explicit in a private meeting in the garden of 10 Downing Street. If Churchill refused to even consider peace talks with Hitler, then their ways would separate.

The May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis: Churchill’s Darkest Hour? | HistoryExtra

In May 1940, as the evacuations at Dunkirk were taking place and the outlook of Operation Dynamo looked grim, wartime prime minister Winston Churchill met with his War Cabinet to discuss a possible peace deal with Adolf Hitler. Writing for History Extra, Anthony McCarten, screenwriter of...

www.historyextra.com

 

[kettyo]

That was impossible for Churchill but not for Halifax who was an influent conservative leader. If he could sway Chamberlain, another conservative leader, he could have possibly opened peace talks on such grounds. Remember that things go very quickly at this time

No, not on such grounds for sure.

As it's just complete defeat, basically.

Maybe you sign such a treaty when the Royal Navy is hammered to particles and London is surrounded by invaders

 

[valentin4]

No, not on such grounds for sure.

As it's just complete defeat, basically.

Maybe you sign such a treaty when the Royal Navy is hammered to particles and London is surrounded by invaders

actually, it was discussed. you're simply wrong.

 

[kettyo]

actually, it was discussed. you're simply wrong.

Of course many options are discussed always. That's their job after all. I talk about the reality of a successful actual negotiation. That's where i see slim chances.

 

[valentin4]

Of course many options are discussed always. That's their job after all. I talk about the reality of a successful actual negotiation. That's where i see slim chances.

if they open the possibility of negociation (like Halifax, Chamberlain and even Churchill at some point suggested) what shoud britain ask ? Independence of czechoslovakia and Poland ? After a defeat ?

 

[Jays298]

Napoleon in France and Byzantine Empire is simply not within the purview of any historical possibility at the time when this game exists, they all are nothing but just fantasy and can be easily replaced with Jon Snow teleporting himself to this world and becoming king of France, it won't change anything.

In the meantime, the actual alt-history the things that could have happened in ww2 is so underutilized and represented, the actual what-ifs. Like what if western allies went through operation pike? what if July 20 plot succeded. What if khalkin gol resulted in full-scale war? what if western allies and USSR formed an alliance against Germany? And so many other actually interesting ww2 what-ifs that are lacking in the game. Surely for a ww2 based games, these should be a focus on plausible alt-history scenarios than frankly fantasy scenarios like the Austria-Hungary empire.

I think a lot of the alt history makes sense but is more plausible in a scenario from 1919 or 1927, etc. By 1936 A lot of those ideas, like restore the kaiser, restore Austro-Hungary, etc, are just too far past the expiration date, so to speak. Having France become a communist commune in the middle of the war via election seemed weird too.

If the game had a 1927, 1919 or even 1914 start, a lot of those options would make much more sense and be more plausible (and exist in mods) but I could understand that Paradox basically only wants one start date. So thats why there's so much ahistorical fantasy going on.

But at the same time I think players wanted options to play differently. The downside is if an AI picks any non-historical direction it detracts from the rest of the game usually.

But if Historical Focus is on, then the game is on auto-pilot and those nations crash head first into situations they arent able to handle (UK declaring on Iraq while Italy controls all of Africa / Middle east, USSR declaring on UK when Germany is still a threat, Japan declaring on a victorious axis because they own the Indies, etc.).

I feel like they have more opportunities to add historical strategic elements.

Like a joint USSR - UK invasion of Iran (Operation Countenance).

The whole lend lease thing isn't really developed. It's a mechanic in the game.

 

[kettyo]

if they open the possibility of negociation (like Halifax, Chamberlain and even Churchill at some point suggested) what shoud britain ask ? Independence of czechoslovakia and Poland ? After a defeat ?

Yes, some kind of Czech and Polish autonomy would be a must but Germany would not accept after an unexpected triumph of Fall Gelb.

Much different situation though if Fall Gelb fails and the Western front turns into a stalemate. I see much better chances for a negotiation in that case.

Look at this point Britain has already failed Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway and to some degree France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. If they quit at this point they lose so much international prestige that they cease to be a major player anymore and the empire itself might be shaken. Don't forget Britain has owned a huge empire at this time and any show of weakness or defeat might compromise the whole thing. And Germany was in too good a position to consider any proposal which would have been acceptable for Britain like reinstalling Czechoslovakia and Poland to some degree and abandoning Denmark and Norway.