If I recall correctly in HoI2 we had Trotsky assassination event in Soviet campaign. Do we get it back in HoI4 or it is too edgy by today standards?
Trotsky assassination
- Thread starter Suor
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
I think this topic is dealt with a national focus. In the first WWW we had Trotsky take over the USSR because the AI didn't do the purges so it had a coup.
There is a national focus for the Soviet Union which is called the "Great Purge" and it should remove Trotsky.
If the soviets don't take the Great Purge focus, there is a chance of Trotzky taking over and becoming new head of state, but with a modifier that cripples the soviet industry. The Purge itself of course cripples the soviet military. I think there is no way to work this out without anything bad happening.
As others have said, there is still an option to kill him during the purge. But I don't think that him taking over Soviet Union is possible in a way represented - just a simple change of government.
On the off chance of him returning and the elements of the Army backing him up, there would be another civil war because Stalin and his lackeys would not simply roll over. Even if they get to assassinate Stalin, Trotsky would still not control the majority of the Red Army so it sure as hell would be a peaceful transition of power.
And I don't see the point of industrial penalty for Trotsky. There should be a boost to industrial construction on the expense of resources and manpower growth for Stalin to represent his plans, but I really don't see a reason why would you get a penalty to it once the Trotsky takes power. It should be normal for him and a boost to Stalin. One might say that the absolute difference is the same, but not in the respect to other nations. That is why I think that Stalin should get a boost and Trotsky gets nothing in that manner.
It bothered me a lot to see Soviet Union with Trotsky steamrolled by infantry in WWW. Under him, Tukhachevsky would continue his Deep Battle doctrine and Soviet Union still had a lot of tanks (at least light ones) - it should not have been so easy a task to do. But it happened within a year, with infantry. I think that the whole Soviet Union thingy needs some rebalance. Not to mention supplying hundreds of division in the Himalayas and Kamchatka from Berlin. That was just... wow.
- 4
Da9L did say the main reasons he won that campaign was because the SU's industry was crippled by Trotsky being in power so Da9L was outproducing the SU in men and equipment which he also had better equipment (like Infantry AT) and ate a lot of divisions with encirclement's, he also stated the old exploit with Arty not reducing a units ORG played a factor but that was since fixed. He also might of said that if he tried it again now with all the changes since last time he would probably lose (or at least take even longer to win)
No, I know the explanation that was given, but thank you for reminding me in detail mate.
What am I arguing is I cannot understand the reasoning behind giving Soviet Union the penalty to industrial production for Trotsky in the first place. I mean, here, take a look:
Trotsky's position formed while he led a special commission on the Soviet transportation system, Tsektran. He was appointed there to rebuild the rail system ruined by the Civil War. Being the Commissar of War and a revolutionary military leader, he saw a need to create a militarized "production atmosphere" by incorporating trade unions directly into the State apparatus. His unyielding stance was that in a worker's state the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, and the State should fully control the unions. In the Ninth Party Congress he argued for "such a regime under which each worker feels himself to be a soldier of labor who cannot freely dispose of himself; if he is ordered transferred, he must execute that order; if he does not do so, he will be a deserter who should be punished. Who will execute this? The trade union. It will create a new regime. That is the militarization of the working class."
If anything, Trotsky would work for a militarization of industry, strict discipline and organization, increasing the efficiency of the industrial production - not decreasing its efficiency. Let me remind folks that the same thing happened in Germany with Deutsche Arbeitsfront - and if Germany does not get a penalty for it, I really see no reason for Soviet Union to get it.
By my reasoning, Trotsky revolution should have a small chance to fire, lead to a civil war most likely and later produce a much more organized and efficiency oriented Soviet Union should the revolution succeed - not give it a penalty to industrial output.
And, as far as the invasion of the Soviet Union is concerned - I fail to understand how could he do massive encirclement with infantry. With fast armor and motorized units, yes, but infantry against infantry and you create an encirclement? That is a huge AI problem right there. Even with armor formations after 1941 it was hard for Germans to encircle any troops as the Red Army retreated from the salients. To encircle the Red Army with infantry, to the point of destruction - I don't think that would work. Especially with the Tukhachevsky's Deep Battle doctrine that would be implemented during the Trotsky rule.
I think that just fixing the penalty problems should do just fine about the production of units and give the Soviets reasonable scenario.
Here, a proposition - Stalin gives a boost to production of new industries due to his large industrialization efforts, Trotsky gives larger industrial efficiency (faster growing efficiency for example) and no modifiers for construction of new industries (will remain the same as every other nation). I simply see no excuse for giving a penalty to industry when Trotsky is in power.
Can anyone provide the historical context here, am I missing something?
- 4
- 4
- 1
- 1
No, I know the explanation that was given, but thank you for reminding me in detail mate.
What am I arguing is I cannot understand the reasoning behind giving Soviet Union the penalty to industrial production for Trotsky in the first place. I mean, here, take a look:
Trotsky's position formed while he led a special commission on the Soviet transportation system, Tsektran. He was appointed there to rebuild the rail system ruined by the Civil War. Being the Commissar of War and a revolutionary military leader, he saw a need to create a militarized "production atmosphere" by incorporating trade unions directly into the State apparatus. His unyielding stance was that in a worker's state the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, and the State should fully control the unions. In the Ninth Party Congress he argued for "such a regime under which each worker feels himself to be a soldier of labor who cannot freely dispose of himself; if he is ordered transferred, he must execute that order; if he does not do so, he will be a deserter who should be punished. Who will execute this? The trade union. It will create a new regime. That is the militarization of the working class."
If anything, Trotsky would work for a militarization of industry, strict discipline and organization, increasing the efficiency of the industrial production - not decreasing its efficiency. Let me remind folks that the same thing happened in Germany with Deutsche Arbeitsfront - and if Germany does not get a penalty for it, I really see no reason for Soviet Union to get it.
By my reasoning, Trotsky revolution should have a small chance to fire, lead to a civil war most likely and later produce a much more organized and efficiency oriented Soviet Union should the revolution succeed - not give it a penalty to industrial output.
And, as far as the invasion of the Soviet Union is concerned - I fail to understand how could he do massive encirclement with infantry. With fast armor and motorized units, yes, but infantry against infantry and you create an encirclement? That is a huge AI problem right there. Even with armor formations after 1941 it was hard for Germans to encircle any troops as the Red Army retreated from the salients. To encircle the Red Army with infantry, to the point of destruction - I don't think that would work. Especially with the Tukhachevsky's Deep Battle doctrine that would be implemented during the Trotsky rule.
I think that just fixing the penalty problems should do just fine about the production of units and give the Soviets reasonable scenario.
Here, a proposition - Stalin gives a boost to production of new industries due to his large industrialization efforts, Trotsky gives larger industrial efficiency (faster growing efficiency for example) and no modifiers for construction of new industries (will remain the same as every other nation). I simply see no excuse for giving a penalty to industry when Trotsky is in power.
Can anyone provide the historical context here, am I missing something?
I agree with that.
So, your morale will improve if I give your boss a gun and permission to shoot you for desertion if he feels that your performance isn't high enough? I certainly hope you have a competent boss who wont, you know, push his failings onto his underlings and then neatly shoot the "traitors" to erase any evidence.
Remember that some theoretical parts of the Soviet system seem like they'd make sense, but the USSR (and Russia in general) has always had a problem rooting out corruption in general. A lot of Soviet failures weren't because their concepts were inherently unworkable - yes many were, but not all - but because overwhelmingly pervasive corruption underminned any system to the point that it was almost part of the culture.
Also keep in mind also that military hierarchies and methodologies are not a good fit for everyone, just an excellent fit for soldiers. Not every worker is fit to be a soldier, and as soon as you start purging excellent workers who don't perform like excellent soldiers... expect production ramifications.
- 3
I am not sure that you understood the concept mate. Militarization of the working class does not mean a worker will get shot if he does not deliver on his work. The line "if he is ordered transferred, he must execute that order; if he does not do so, he will be a deserter who should be punished" is not to be taken literally but more of a concept. In general it means bringing military discipline and organization onto the factory floor, not translating the military system 1:1 onto the every day jobs.
As a matter of fact, you are talking about something that Lenin did in the factories to prevent strikes and Trotsky was against that. He was in conflict with Lenin about the organization of the working class the whole time. So even if taken literally, you are talking about a system under Lenin, not Trotsky.
And even if we do take it literally (shooting the deserters... like that is the only or prevailing punishment), we are not talking about morale improvement but efficiency improvement here. If we take a look in another part of society where that principle was used, we'll see that the efficiency indeed improved. I am talking of course about the Blocking detachments - I do not know if they raised morale at all but that is not important. Overall, they improved efficiency, the army performance.
Plus, we have the same concept being used in Germany that was in no way more or less corrupt than the Soviet Union of the time, yet we do not get the industrial penalty there. On the contrary, you have a highly corrupt and inhumane system with militarized working class, unified in a single union controlled by the party, therefore the state - and industrial efficiency boost. So we have something in real life (or in game) to compare it to.
I have explicitly compared the system that Trotsky talked about to the system that Germany used so I do not know why you imagine a system where a political commissar stands on the factory floor and shoots the workers who do not obey orders. All you have to do is look at Germany and DAF to understand what was he talking about.
And we are talking about a game modifier here. Stalin had the habit of, as you say, purging the factory management that did not fulfill the quotas set by the party - yet we do not have the industrial penalty with him. But we do get that modifier when we have Trotsky do the same thing? Where is the logic in that? As I said, just take a look at DAF and German industry and you'll get the general idea of what Trotsky was talking about. Or you think that German economy should also get a penalty because of the DAF and their system?
In the end, whenever the military principle and discipline is extrapolated and used in the aspect of life and society, it always gave positive results. That is why, for instance, Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' can be used and is used to the great extent for every sphere of human activity. Sure, it talks about military strategy, organization and so on. Yet its principles once extrapolated to the desired situation results in much greater efficiency and the book is still considered a good and an important read for everyone 2500 years after it was 'published'. You do not see the advocate shooting his subordinate under the Sun's principle of command and order, yet 'The Art of War' is used to the great extent in their profession. So when Trotsky says that he wants the militarization of the working class you need to understand what does it mean and not take it in way that worker becomes literally a soldier.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Military discipline is quite clear, regardless of what military you look at: failure to comply with a direct order from a commanding officer in times of war is punishable by summary execution, so no that's not an exaggeration or misconception. Desertion is also punishable by execution, as is dereliction of duty (specifically, falling asleep while on watch). An integral part of military discipline is that the military doesn't screw around - when you mess up, there are serious and far-reaching consequences. It creates a pressure to perform in an environment where performance literally means the difference between life and death for you and possibly many others. If you eschew that, you aren't talking about military discipline at all.
So, not military discipline then, alright.
First, even a dishonorable discharge, such that you can never again expect to find work suitable to sustain yourself, is as damaging to morale as an execution. Second, morale is worker efficiency. Happy workers have been demonstrated in all fields to be more efficient and productive. In general, not being terrified that a mistake will get you killed or your life ruined makes people more willing to, among other things, 1) apply on-the-spot judgement as opposed to following orders by the letter (If you've ever known or been someone who's done a job for twenty years and reports to a recent college grad, you'll see a lot of that), 2) experiment with potential optimization methods, 3) concern themselves with completing the task rather than concerning themselves with not getting shot and/or not having their ability to support themselves permanently destroyed...
...you're talking about the guys who were ordered to shoot deserters. That is not helping your case at all when above you try to say don't shoot "deserters." And yes, threatening to shoot a guy for running away will make him more willing to face getting shot by the enemy (because running away stops being a more beneficial alternative), but no, holding a gun to a factory worker's head would not suddenly improve productivity.
The German economy is not an example of a healthy, productive system. Most economists would argue that the Nazi's were more poisonous than beneficial and only appeared to be productive because, coming from the tail end of the depression, it's easy to go from one to ten than it is to go from one hundred to a thousand.
I don't know that it's correct to say that German productivity was a consequence of this system. The ingame bonus Germany has, as described, may well be inaccurate. Economics and productivity is murky. What you have is a correlation/causation argument, and even that correlation isn't convincing (see above).
You're confusing realism with game design. The reason Totsky has the penalty has nothing to do with history or realism and everything to do with National Focuses that are mutually exclusive must present the player with interesting choices. Strong military or Strong factories? You decide.
Way too much conflation of definitions and ideas to even start to break this down. I don't think you have a steadfast definition of "military discipline" or "military principles." I would also love to see conclusive evidence that whenever such principles or discipline is applied it is necessarily positive. That's a fun, ridiculously unprovable claim right there.
- 3
i think the bonus of Trotzky should be better military - after all, he was known as the most important guy in the buildup of the red army -
and in the spread of the ideology and supporting of civil wars, because trotskyism holds on the concept of international revolution while Stalinism introduced Socialism in one country
@zyphial
most of The benificial effects of the third reich politics for the economy/the owners of the company would have been after the "planned" victory but there also were some benefits before the war, like the destruction of the trade unions and the following decrease of the real wages
and in the spread of the ideology and supporting of civil wars, because trotskyism holds on the concept of international revolution while Stalinism introduced Socialism in one country
@zyphial
most of The benificial effects of the third reich politics for the economy/the owners of the company would have been after the "planned" victory but there also were some benefits before the war, like the destruction of the trade unions and the following decrease of the real wages
- 2
I agree that a Trotsky soviet union shouldn't be neutered. It should either be stronger, like an anti purge, or have bonuses in different areas like the army and diplomacy considering he was a successful general and foreign minister/international revolutionary. It should also strengthen parties in the rest of Europe and change the Soviet AI. I think he would have been less inclined to sign the Molotov pact. A Jewish old guard general who wrote the first treatises against fascism wouldn't have made the same decisions.
You do understand we are talking about a game modifier and for it, we make a comparison between a system that Trotsky advocated and the system that was in place in Germany? If Germany has no industrial penalty using it, Soviet Union should not have it as well.
How the hell you got to a system where workers have gun pointed in their head and then even associate it with the Trotsky's idea is simply beyond me. You imagined a system, tied it to a wrong person, in order to justify something and make an argument.
It is very simple actually, I don't know why you try to make it complicated.
The system Trotsky advocated was more or less the same one employed in Germany. Was it healthy in the economic terms? Does not matter, because in game Germany has no penalty for it - therefore Soviet Union should not have a penalty as well.
I am sorry for not being on the team that is ready to throw realism out of the window down into a rabbit hole when designing a history based game. It might be OK to you that tanks are supplied with other tanks and that two countries using the same system have different modifiers - I am not. And I voiced my opinion.
I am actually surprised that you went and overcomplicated the topic with some imagined story not applicable in any way to the story and in the end went and said that it does not matter any way, that it is only a design choice. To me it looks like you have a lot of free time if you are wasting it on writing two huge comments... just to say in the end that it all does not matter. But I guess that is your right.
I have a family history of more than 100 years of military service (and it would most likely continue) so I think I have a pretty good idea what military discipline and principles are, and how applying them can benefit the job. You on the other hand think that military discipline means shooting someone if they do something wrong. And that just shows how little you know about both military and history itself because even in the most despotic and inhumane systems, like Soviet Union under Stalin and Germany under Hitler, shooting of a soldier was conducted only the extreme of situations - if his dereliction of duty lead to a massive loss of life. Otherwise they would loose a rank, get some jail time, sent to penal battalions.
You imagined it like if the worker drops a screw, a commissar would come and blow his brains out. You simply do not know what are you tanking about and you obviously love Warhammer 40K way too much.
And let me add just one more thing here - soldiers who showed iniciative in the field got promoted. In every army. So your claims that "apply on-the-spot judgement as opposed to following orders by the letter" and "experiment with potential optimization methods" are out of the window as well.
Once again, your lack of understand of both the topic and factual history comes into play, but I have already explained why your notion of a gun-to-the-head managers on the factory floor is ridiculous. But more to the point - if the worker damages the machine to the extent that it hurts someone, blows up, damages the factory - you are damn right he is gonna get his "ability to support themselves permanently destroyed". Let me tell you one more thing about military discipline, as for some reason you think that it means shooting people for not doing things right - have you ever seen how a simple military school works? That is also a military discipline. In your twisted world of gun-to-the-head management it would mean that if a cadet failed in any task he would get shot.
When I come to that, I seriously wonder have you even given a slight thought about the things you talk about? Mate, everyone cam make up something and them argue that as a point off topic. But this is the last time I waste my time on comments like that. Cheers!
- 1
Justification for consctruction time penalty aside, Da9l mentioned that Trotsky gets more political power than Stalin. More political power allows you to appoint more advisors boosting your research and enact more efficient laws early on as well as swing other countries towards Comintern. AI probably just isn't too good at utilising this advantage.
I wonder how dynamic National Focus system is though. Will Trotsky need to choose either political or army supremacy in the Great Purge? What about research cities that come right after the Purge or Stalinist Constitution? Most majors seem to have flexible focus trees but half the Soviet one doesn't make sense under anyone but Stalin.
I wonder how dynamic National Focus system is though. Will Trotsky need to choose either political or army supremacy in the Great Purge? What about research cities that come right after the Purge or Stalinist Constitution? Most majors seem to have flexible focus trees but half the Soviet one doesn't make sense under anyone but Stalin.
You keep vacillating between "realism" with real-world examples and game design. You can't have it both ways. If we're talking game design, then all your points about realism and quotes from Trotsky are moot, it's purely a question of interesting choices. If we're talking about realism, then every time you cross reference a game modifier, all your points are moot.
You used blocking brigades as an example of what you meant by systems which implemented similar ideas. And the gun is just an example. I notice you skimmed over the equivalent for dishonorable discharge - what, you think the armed forces want to keep around a known deserter? And if we're instituting that same principle in the workforce, all my points stand.
I don't necessarily like the bonus and/or lack of penalty Germany has in game from a realism standpoint, but it's a game not a historical simulator. Realism will be sacrificed, will be sacrificed, for gameplay. Only WW2 footage offers "realism."
You don't acknowledge the inherent limits to the medium. It's a game made by a for profit company, not a perfect simulator designed to run on a supercomputer and developed with an infinite budget.
Oh my, you've won 2 internetz with this one. I don't think I've ever heard the "haha nerd long comment" sentiment before. I'm sure it wins all the arguments. /sarcasm
Not that this matters, but buddy, you're being quite clownish by one bringing up family as if it matters in a debate and two assuming your history is longer than my own. I have three grandfathers (my Grandmother remarried) who served in the Air Corps during WW2, my father is a Vietnam war vet, and our military history goes back to before the civil war.
While US standards are not Soviet standards, all militaries employ just about the same charges and penalties. The USMJ is quite clear on this:
You're skimming too much. I outlined only one scenario: an incompetent senior/manager attempts to hide his own failings by labeling a competent worker as a "deserter" and executing him to cover up evidence. Exactly what happened with other systems that employed such systems including the Soviet military.
Ever heard of the Great Purge? What about that old time chinese classic, "The blade of grass that stands too tall must be chopped off at the head." You apparently don't understand how warped corruption makes a system. You want to promote a guy who is better than you? Hell no, he'll have your job sooner or later. It's only in systems that are far less infused with corruption that merit = reward.
This has nothing to do with military discipline. Gross negligence like that is always responded to harshly.
You know, that strawman only wanted a brain. Didn't have to tear his stuffing out like that.
Yeah, there's no chance of a productive conversation with you, so this is my last post directed your way. You've resorted to ad hominems, ad hoc redefinitions, arguments from authority ("100 years" rofl)... let's, ah, agree to disagree.
- 1
- 1
I guess no one told you that the service in the army does not count as a military history. Only the officer tradition counts as countries usually had/have mandatory service for all males aged 18. Never mind that, the point was you were making an accusation that someone does not know what military discipline means. Now you stand corrected. Now all that remains is for you to understand what extrapolation of military principle is so you could begin to understand the system the people have been talking about.
We do not have anything to disagree about, you were talking about some made up thing, completely off topic. If it was in any way connected to the story here, then yes, I would agree.
- Status