I second lazboy-general. This has been a fantastic AAR, and I really hope you manage to give us some "closure" by 1952.
-
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.
I'm not really sure what they would call the earlier wars. I suspect they would simply bundle them all into WW2, or a single name simply for the sake of convienience.
Sad that there likely won't be any sort of definite conclusion to the wAAR. Oh well. At least we have an epilogue.
What will you do next?
Sad that there likely won't be any sort of definite conclusion to the wAAR. Oh well. At least we have an epilogue.
What will you do next?
Hi, Mett; fantastic as ever, and I'm sorry to hear that the AAR will be ending a year early. Two questions:
1) Perhaps placing the other OTO countries that have troops in Spain under the military control of Britain could help the "I only have 6 divisions" problem?
2) Is there any chance that you could make a 31 December, 1952 savegame available to us? (For that matter, do you have any saves at earlier points in the story?)
3) Out of curiosity, do you have backup saves for this AAR? I'd hate to see it go the way of the British Parliamentary one...
1) Perhaps placing the other OTO countries that have troops in Spain under the military control of Britain could help the "I only have 6 divisions" problem?
2) Is there any chance that you could make a 31 December, 1952 savegame available to us? (For that matter, do you have any saves at earlier points in the story?)
3) Out of curiosity, do you have backup saves for this AAR? I'd hate to see it go the way of the British Parliamentary one...
Goodness gracious! I go for a skiing trip and when I return, WWIII has turned into a nuclear exchange! Well luckily it isn´t the time of the 1000 kiloton bombs yet. Meanwhile, considering the devastation brought over Europe first by the Nazis, then by Russia and now by the Allies, I reckon that it should now be far worse off than RL Europe after WWII, right? My point is: Are there any men of servicable age left? 3 big wars in less than 20 years surely must have worn Europe´s population down to the elderly and sick, right?
lazboy-general: Well, I hate to think I'm dropping it as much as I'm finishing it. The engine (tech and nation-wise) can only go so far past the 1948 deadline, and I feel that the Korean War is a good stopping point in time.
Oh yes, I plan to shift to HOI2, and probably AARs, though I'll likely wait to see how the patching and modding go.
rich-love: No promises on 'closure' except the presidential election.
Vincent Julien: Not sure, take a break of course. I had originally planned a co-AAR with a friend of mine in EU2, but he's been busy. I don't think I'll do another HOI1 AAR...but I do plan on HOI2 in the future.
Mind Elemental: Not a year early....when I said 1953, I mean December 31, 1952, like the game does with 1948. I hate to conclude if the war continues, but I have to recgonize the point where the game can no longer reflect, in a meaningful way, the events occuring in the story. The technologies are shifting in ways that bend the ability of the programming - helicopters, ICBMs. Anyhow, I think once Iberia is overrun those Gibraltar divisions will get to work, aside from head-on collisions with Granada. Yes, I do have some save games. I typically keep about 10 and rotate, so that the oldest is probably 1947 or 1948. I have one that is right on the opening day of WW3. I've had a few requests for saves and events, and I'm willing to offer these when everything is wrapped up. I don't think this AAR will crash, with only a year of gametime left.
Meltdown1986: Oh yes, Europe is hurting for sure. The 1939-1945/6 fighting, which included German and Soviet advances across the entire swath of the continent, and now heavy fighting in France, Spain, Low Countries, and now Germany. Even Scandinavia saw some tough fighting in both conflicts. There would be widespread destruction, of buildings, roads, bridges, to say nothing of the human upheaval. Depending on the 1952 election, a Marshall Plan would be a very important question.
The engine (tech and nation-wise) can only go so far past the 1948 deadline, and I feel that the Korean War is a good stopping point in time.Oh yes, I plan to shift to HOI2, and probably AARs, though I'll likely wait to see how the patching and modding go.
rich-love: No promises on 'closure' except the presidential election.
Vincent Julien: Not sure, take a break of course. I had originally planned a co-AAR with a friend of mine in EU2, but he's been busy. I don't think I'll do another HOI1 AAR...but I do plan on HOI2 in the future.
Mind Elemental: Not a year early....when I said 1953, I mean December 31, 1952, like the game does with 1948. I hate to conclude if the war continues, but I have to recgonize the point where the game can no longer reflect, in a meaningful way, the events occuring in the story. The technologies are shifting in ways that bend the ability of the programming - helicopters, ICBMs. Anyhow, I think once Iberia is overrun those Gibraltar divisions will get to work, aside from head-on collisions with Granada.
Yes, I do have some save games. I typically keep about 10 and rotate, so that the oldest is probably 1947 or 1948. I have one that is right on the opening day of WW3. I've had a few requests for saves and events, and I'm willing to offer these when everything is wrapped up. I don't think this AAR will crash, with only a year of gametime left. Meltdown1986: Oh yes, Europe is hurting for sure. The 1939-1945/6 fighting, which included German and Soviet advances across the entire swath of the continent, and now heavy fighting in France, Spain, Low Countries, and now Germany. Even Scandinavia saw some tough fighting in both conflicts. There would be widespread destruction, of buildings, roads, bridges, to say nothing of the human upheaval. Depending on the 1952 election, a Marshall Plan would be a very important question.
January – February 1952: The Presidential Election of 1952 – Part I
On January 6th, 1952, the Concordat Articles were formally signed between representatives of Premier Togliatti of the Italian Socialist Republic (RSI), and those of OTO, including envoys from France, Great Britain, and the United States. It brought to end what many derided as Italy’s ”fictional war” with the western powers. Only in recent months, when American advances brought the fighting to Italy’s doorstep, did actual combat truly broke out. Giving little besides access to the Soviet war effort, under suspicion by Moscow after Pope Pius’ ‘house arrest’, the RSI had held back from the war, and to no one’s surprise, leapt at the first opportunity to leave it behind. At the insistence of the United States, with milder support from Britain, the House of Savoy was to be restored to Italy, which became a kingdom once more in name, though Togliatti’s government would remain intact.
Palmiro Tagliatti, Prime Minister of the restored Kingdom of Italy
The Italian mainland would retain its territorial integrity, though Italy formally recognized Britain’s control of Sardinia. To give weight to the illusion of royal restoration, the Italian Communist Party (PCI), became the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), and Togliatti became Prime Minister. Many in Washington especially, would grumble that the agreement left a virtual communist government in control of a major European country. Though the next few years would see the rise of the Social Nationalists (PSN), the Concordat Articles represented the of many compromises that the Lindbergh Administration would have to contend with, as the concerns and interests of allies clashed with the ideological forces behind the Great Crusade. Similar negotiations with Spain appeared to be reaching a similar conclusion, namely the avoidance of a protracted war of occupation and the face-saving changes in the governing regime.
In the United States, Senator McCarthy was fuming. The Concordat Articles, in his view, bent if not broke with the fundamental tenets of anti-Communism, namely ”never to compromise the integrity of our mission.” Though much of his opposition was kept private, some of it did leak through into his speeches in the Senate and his public comments. For example, in mid-January, McCarthy described the administration’s recent policies in Europe as ”tepid” and ”lacking quite enough will.” Behind the scenes, the rift was very real. No one in the press knew of the January 13th incident where McCarthy refused to meet with National Chairman Ralph Brewster. Although the two would meet a few days later, it was indicative of McCarthy's distaste for ”international politics”.
Senator McCarthy represented the faction of the National Party which favored the harsh application of anti-Communism
The issue brought home a very real question in the National Party – what was it going to be after Lindbergh stepped down, and the President seemed to be sending signals that he would not run again in 1952. Many, of course, were calling on him to do so, yet by February, scrutiny was falling on Senators McCarthy and Johnson, and a certain distance between them began to grow. With the primaries approaching, the first hints of opposing views and disagreements began to subtly creep into the public consciousness. McCarthy, for his part, labeled Johnson as a ”part-time crusader”, suspecting Johnson of left-wing leanings on social issues and the Just and Proper Deal, though anti-Communist in foreign policy. Johnson was just as sharp, once dubbing McCarthy ”that political hack with the one-man band – Communists! Communists! Communists!” Many in the party ranks wanted Lindbergh to run for a fourth term precisely to avoid the kind of party split that Johnson and McCarthy seemed to be creating.
National leaders wanted Lindbergh to preserve party unity
There was also the question of peace terms and the resolution of the war in Europe. McCarthyite Nationals, or ‘McCarthyites’ as they were dubbed, demanded the restoration of all Europe, the elimination of all Communist regimes, and the destruction of the Soviet Union itself. There was very little left to the imagination. Johnsonian Nationals favored what they called a ”Quarantine Doctrine”. To them, the Soviet regime was a virus, too daunting in breadth and depth to cure, yet needing isolation, lest its poison continue to seep into the world. To this end, this faction had a wider international view, favoring strengthening especially those countries on the immediate Soviet border – Finland, a strong Poland and Romania, Turkey, a great Arabian state, a free India, and a united China. Some of these views, of course, would have to take into consideration the will of the Axis powers, though the doctrine included the Axis as part of the strong border policy. Johnson first voiced a hint of this policy in a January 28th speech, where he intimated that the Soviet Union ”should be made cast off all its imperial trappings, be reduced to its base state, and be made to languish in a self-imposed prison of bolshevism.” It did not help his cause, however, that the leading American generals in the war, MacArthur and Patton, were both fervent advocates of the McCarthyite position, and favored peace ”to be dictated by our tanks in Moscow”, as MacArthur mentioned. Patton’s tanks – which were approaching the outskirts of Berlin – were as much an argument in the election as the candidates’ rhetoric.
Generals MacArthur and Patton were strong proponents of complete victory
The Democrats and Republicans were smelling blood, and were gearing up their own election campaigns on these issues. It could seen that the Democrats favored a mild peace, ranging from Harriman’s ‘Europe-Only’ policy – expulsion of the Soviet influence from Europe, leave Asia to its own devices – to Stevenson’s clarion call of ”How Much Sacrifice Is Enough?”. Despite the overall support for the war, there was a certain feeling of neglect amongst the Nationals’ traditional base of support – the business sector, and both the Democrats and Republicans hoped to pick up votes by appealing to a ‘friendlier business’ policy, less so for the Democrats, but a very real possibility otherwise. Cabot Lodge’s call for tax cuts were quite appealing to many businessmen, though the President’s own subsequent call would mitigate this effect. John D. Rockefeller, Jr’s camp was advancing the bold course of the ‘American Custom’, what he called a trade barrier around North, Central, and South America, while reducing if not eliminating tariff barriers within the hemisphere. Those who dealt with Caribbean cash crops – the fruit companies, the sugar plantation owners, were delighted at the proposal, though there was a lukewarm response from Big Oil – who nervously pondered taxed imports from the Middle East, and fear from farmers who foresaw cheap imports of Argentinian grain. An astute William Buckley, Jr. called it ”Chamberlain’s Imperial Preference rehashed”, though few knew if it was a compliment or not.
Rockefeller Jr.’s ‘American Custom’ proposal represented a controversial Republican position
The 1952 election was about more than simply the end of the war, Lindbergh’s Great Crusade. It was, in one newspaper editorial’s words, ”a referendum on the National Party”. Many felt that the end of the war against the Soviet Union would reduce the frequency of future wars after that. The United States, satiated and victorious, would have no more need for an anti-Communist, militarist party – or so the Democrats and Republicans hoped.
Last edited:
*Drools*
My, I do so hope Patton will be in Moscow before the end of the year... it's a horrible but hugely enjoyable ride. Great tension-building, Mett!
My, I do so hope Patton will be in Moscow before the end of the year... it's a horrible but hugely enjoyable ride. Great tension-building, Mett!
Mett, you do an exceptional job in bringing alive the political issues and tension on the home front. It seems so plausible. Are you by any chance a political scientist?
Yes! Another election, I hope the National Party self-destructs because of in-fighting between McCarthy and Johnson and the Democrats come away with a close victory. While I am dreaming, I'd also like McCarthy to die in a plane crash.
Could we have a screenie of the war's progression in Europe? I don't really see the reasoning behind getting in a shooting war with the USSR and then signing a peace treaty once you reach their borders. Great updates Met.
Could we have a screenie of the war's progression in Europe? I don't really see the reasoning behind getting in a shooting war with the USSR and then signing a peace treaty once you reach their borders. Great updates Met.
Not a surprise. The National Party is simply a platform for Lindbergh, and I never really expected it to live beyond his Presidency. *shrug.*
The Nationals still have next to no support in Congress, don't they? I know Johnson and McCarthy were their only Senators.
The Nationals still have next to no support in Congress, don't they? I know Johnson and McCarthy were their only Senators.
Mettermrck said:Mind Elemental: Not a year early....when I said 1953, I mean December 31, 1952, like the game does with 1948. I hate to conclude if the war continues, but I have to recgonize the point where the game can no longer reflect, in a meaningful way, the events occuring in the story. The technologies are shifting in ways that bend the ability of the programming - helicopters, ICBMs. Anyhow, I think once Iberia is overrun those Gibraltar divisions will get to work, aside from head-on collisions with Granada.
Gotcha re: the date and Gibraltar.
Regarding technology, I'm not so sure, actually. I know the CORE tech tree goes right up until at least the early sixties, what with the F-100 and the first CVN... you already have ICBMs, and I think you could represent helicopters in-game, with a bit of "creative visualisation". Attack helicopters could be represented by greatly improved dive bombers (just name the Super-Duper-Advanced-Post-War Dive Bomber the "AH-1" or the "Mi-24"), utility and transport helos by transport aircraft with their stats changed and some offensive punch. I do agree that you couldn't represent airmobile units, though.
Personally, I'd vote for breaking up the USSR, but then guaranteeing the territorial integrity of each chunk -- that might get the Ukrainian nationalists, etc., on Lindbergh's side, while distinguishing him from the Historical Occupation Nazis.
My second choice would be rolling back the USSR to the pre-Molotov-Ribbentrop borders.
EDIT: Regarding save games, is there any chance you could keep a few more (and not delete them) until the end of the AAR?
And if the war isn't over by the end of 1952, is there any chance that you'd allow us to post 'alternative endings'?
Last edited:
Sorry Mind, I have to agree with Metternck here....the HoI engine is quickly running out of time and plausibility. The 1950s see a lot of technical gains - even the Korean War was fought differently than World War II .... and Metternck's world has been continually at war - hence greater technological innovation.
Not to mention Metternck's US and USSR is in a bonafide nuclear arms race. The AI simply can't handle it, the 'Soviet' dirty bomb on Korea as opposed to a more strategic area is proof.
No...12/31/1952 is a good place to pause, and wonder "what if." (And let Metternck break the seal on his HOI2 game!) Sometimes the best stories don't have a clear resolution, it's up to the readers to figure out what happened.
Not to mention Metternck's US and USSR is in a bonafide nuclear arms race. The AI simply can't handle it, the 'Soviet' dirty bomb on Korea as opposed to a more strategic area is proof.
No...12/31/1952 is a good place to pause, and wonder "what if." (And let Metternck break the seal on his HOI2 game!) Sometimes the best stories don't have a clear resolution, it's up to the readers to figure out what happened.
Met, you´ve given us the thoughts of the presidential candidates. But what are Mr Dolman´s thoughts?
And that is the main reason IMO why this is such a different, and unpleasant, America. Here the conpiracy theories are true - the oil-business has bought and won the elections since 1936. The unions are destroyed by force, the armed forces remain segregated etc.
A Brave New World...
And the best AAR of all!!!
Cheers,
Vandelay
And that is the main reason IMO why this is such a different, and unpleasant, America. Here the conpiracy theories are true - the oil-business has bought and won the elections since 1936. The unions are destroyed by force, the armed forces remain segregated etc.
A Brave New World...
And the best AAR of all!!!
Cheers,
Vandelay
Last edited:
Vandelay said:
I fully agree to that! Im looking foreward to what AAR you can create with HOI2 met..
I predict that Lindbergh will run one more time. He will choose his successor as VP candidate and then step down after two or three years depending on the war. That way, he appoints the crown prince and the party as a fighting chance to survive.
We can only hope that Lindbergh's retirement brings an end to the National Party, or at least the McCarthyite wing of it. After 12+ years of divisive politics and bloody wars it's long past time for a warmer and gentler American political scene. I wonder what America's post-war situation will be though as far as international relations are concerned. If the USSR is defeated there won't be any "evil empire" to act as an excuse for US involvement everywhere. And the oil companies have already started nosing around other parts of the world which is bound to make the US unpopular sooner or later.
