In the moment I think neither of them will released. On the Reddits not much going on and when, its mostly that the new Mods erradicate the works of the old Mods.
Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg
- Thread starter RiverDelta
- Start date
The reddits aren't where the activity is though. Most of the work is on discord.
I'd bet on KN because KRG keeps rewriting their lore.
This. KRG tried to follow KR canon to the fullest letter despite that constantly being in a flux rather than take broad stokes when needed as KN does
"Syndicalist-Aligned Social Democrats" could be used as a placeholder ideology for such people.
Yeah. DemSocs tend to be indistinguishable from SocDems in practice anyway
Also KR probably doesn't have as clear of a split of communists away from SocDem parties as OTL since the SPD never reached power due to the Germans winning. Nor does it have the comintern having a weird seesaw in its attempt to cooperate with SocDems in between calling them Social Fascists as OTL under Stalin. So 3int aligned SocDems isn't too shocking and could easily represent the states less willing to restructure society entirely and reliant on market mechanics, or the leftists who won power through elections and are still impaired by having to manage a bourgeois state.
Last edited:
I said that the PSA and New England are liker members, New England alone has more people than Norway.
They do not want to replace the obselete ships, just to keep them and build new ones. The Entente have other places to extend their power projection apart from Halifax, Portugal is a country that always joins the entente, they have Porto that is very close.
I already told why they would convince the people, built the arguments and made a modern comparatio on a toned down situation and said how it would be stronger on Kaiserreich.
You already spoke with the man who made Delhi and he answered every single point politely and the same thing happened, at the end you refused to believe people would want to life under such a state even tough they lived on a colonial state much worse under the coompany. Ganga Singh rules a authoritarian regime under democratisar with a better structure than the indian company OTL, aligned with the local elites and slowy opening., including allowing you and the AI to elect socdems.
While I cannot comment much about Australasia, the trouble comes from New Zeland being part of Australia, isn''t? Australia can work 100% well while New Zealand cannot, Australia has enought resources and population.
The whole concept of New England, including of their focuses as canada is to control the area to prevent the syndicalists from seizing it and also using they while they are available to boost their war effort, the people are not rejecting and being occupied because they are afraid of the syndicalists, they are even more afraid of the civil war, the local political and economical elites are cooperating and they are seeing the bloody civil war happening, so it is better to just remain until the war ends and then think about if you are coerced into occupation or not. On my last game I returned New England to the USA when they asked in 1941, the Entente was so large that the damage of losing it wasn't critical like if Australasia dropped out.
Your core problem, and this is the only mildly provocative thing I gonna say, is that you are refusing to learn because it most likely contradicts your ideology, it is not about Canada, it is about the Entente. The Entente can outclass the UoB and they are working from 1936 until the start of the weltkrieg to weld them together as strong as they can. It is their policy, it is how the game portrays then, and it is how they do when they win.
I would add that I checked the game and Canada starts with low war support, you need to spend time and PP and take focuses to increase the war support, there is this whole preparation time, they do not start like "BRITANNIA ÜBER ALLES!".
The final one is the sensible critic I can see, the short answer is that the game allows you to do that. The Longer can be seen by the context of your own personal headcannon narrative, maybe the invasion is coming from Porto in Portugal, maybe they had experience invading the Bharats, maybe the british trained this with the canucs and the 'stralasians, it can serve as a cover from the fact that the game simple allows this, so the mods took this opportunity.
I've been seeing this argument pop up a lot nowadays: "There are no good guys/bad guys in [insert mod], or mods shouldn't follow ideological biases". This line of reasoning is usually used in response to when people criticize the portrayal of certain groups in mods like Kaiserreich. While there is a grain of reason in there (too much blatant bias can ruin the fun for many people), I think it is actually much more dangerous in a game like hoi4/kaiserreich to portray all sides as basically equal in morality. The imperialistic and reactionary Entente, which is canonically employing slave labor to build its industry, should not be portrayed as equally moral as the International, which, for all of its faults, is at least ideologically committed to democracy and human rights. This is also related to a similar issue in which the game will portray nearly all paths for a nation as "workable", no matter how insane or implausible the ideology.
In the end, I actually think it's good for political games to have set political biases and beliefs. Not only does it keep the world internally consistent, it might actually curtail the amount of people who get the impression of the Nazis as "cool". I think a great way to do this is employed in Godspeed, which has a "Misery System". This system essentially tracks how miserable the people of a nation are, thus giving the player a fairly definite sense of morality. Which is important for a game that has such evils as Evola.
In the end, I actually think it's good for political games to have set political biases and beliefs. Not only does it keep the world internally consistent, it might actually curtail the amount of people who get the impression of the Nazis as "cool". I think a great way to do this is employed in Godspeed, which has a "Misery System". This system essentially tracks how miserable the people of a nation are, thus giving the player a fairly definite sense of morality. Which is important for a game that has such evils as Evola.
You know what, I've stated my stance too many times to count, and my stance is that unlike the morally-grey Pakt and Internationale, which are both built on conceptually good ideas that can go bad, the Entente is built from the tagline up as an inherently reactionary and needlessly warmongering force.
There really isn't anything anyone can say to convince me when their literal tagline is "Reclaim the birthright!". I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion.
There really isn't anything anyone can say to convince me when their literal tagline is "Reclaim the birthright!". I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion.
It should be noted that with the exception of the ultranationalist ideology which is basically the evolas and himmlers of the world, it is entirely possible to build low misery societies as every ideology. In addition, the misery system only looks at purely material conditions and the lead dev has stated that some low misery societies might still be kind of terrible, just not in easily quantifiable ways.
Trying to avoid diverting the thread...
Any good strategies for beating the AI easily? Doing well in wars? I'd like to know the steps in how to encircle the enemy and beat it easily.
And, anyone think there should be a collapse path for Austria if it loses its war with Hungary?
Any good strategies for beating the AI easily? Doing well in wars? I'd like to know the steps in how to encircle the enemy and beat it easily.
And, anyone think there should be a collapse path for Austria if it loses its war with Hungary?
Of two minds on this Libya update--on the one hand, looks fun and dynamic. OTOH, I really don't want the Ottomans to have it even easier vs. the Cairo Pact.
Odd. In my games, the Ottomans lose almost as often as they win.
Depends on who is being presented as morally nuanced I'd say.
For something like the German Kaiserreich and Entente, where apologia(just look at the amount of people in ah circles believing that Germany winning WWI means no Hitler style figures anywhere, no tankie ideology, and the world becoming a holocaust free utopia for the former, and the amount of people willing to whitewash Canada and Britain's historical crimes for the latter) is so ingrained into the sociopolitical viewpoints of our own liberal capitalist society, I can see at least a rationale for giving the Entente or Mittleuropa more wholesome routes rather than player traps or wholly villainous routes. It's not something I like, but it's something I see the rationale of wrt Kaiserreich.
For something really toxic and murderous like the actual third reich, imperial japan, a hypothetical fascist that never took power but has really genocidal and cursed ideas(ie: a hypothetical Dugin-who's practically modern day Evola-takeover of Russia in a modern day mod) and even vanilla fascists that are just a tad revanchist(since if you handle nuance very poorly there it opens a lot of worms--just look at the love Scorza got initially) I'm in complete agreement with you
Also a factor about Godspeed drawing moral lines ignores one thing--it only draws a clear moral line with regards to the Evolas and Himmlers and Arcands of that setting, they(the Fraternity of Blood) and their ideology of ultranationalism(or as I would like to call it, ultrasupramacism since ultranationalism is so broad a term,) are the only group presented as irredeemably evil. Every other group--including the vanilla fascist/reactionary Pact of Steel, can build a semi wholesome workable society if they keep misery low. Godspeed is less "good vs. evil" and more "there is only one clear bad guy in the form of the ultra-nazi FoB and their pet ultrasupramacist ideology, everyone else is shades of grey and is capable of driving misery up and down".
I will mention that in Italy, the least evil opponent to Evola is all sorts of lesser evil or morally dubious at best and a fascist himself---he is the founder of fascism in our world no less(yeah, Mussolini is the fucking Speer to Evola's Burgsys to make an analogy). IMO Godspeed is somewhat akin to the Similiarion and LOTR in the sense it is preceived as clear cut good vs clear cut evil because of the existence of a few ultra-evil figures and their forces opposed by the forces of all decency(Sauron and Morgoth for tolkien) to the point of ignoring that the setting is a bit more nuanced than that and contain situations that aren't really good(Feanor and his ilk, the fact that in the hobbit Men, Elves and Dwarves were going to slug it out until Sauron's forces intervened)
And it's not like Kaiserreich dosen't draw moral lines when it's clear either. Pelley and to a less extent the WPC are absolute nightmares. Same goes for Goering.
And it also really depends on the mod that is being created wrt moral messages. It's important to remember Kaiserreich is a map painter, TNO is a story told using a map painter with full emphasis on the former. Godspeed is a story combined with a map painter.
In addition there are times where a narrative mod with a "don't do this" can be fucked up, what if a pure fascist tried to put out a narrative mod where the most hateful views are enshrined as a moral fact? Or what if some really cringeworthy anti-socialist did it(CbTS comes to mind)?
In the end a mod with an ideological bias is just prone to fucking up as a mod where everything except the universally agreed worst of the worst is given nuance
Last edited:
100% of the time the best strategy I to just entrench on a river and drain the enemy manpower, the only difference is that this will taken longer against russia than against a country like Greece.
That being said, of all my playthroughs, the one I believe I had the best strategy was when I tried to unify Italy as two sicilies. I spent all my manpower spawning 15 infantry divisions and then focused on fighters and naval bombers. By January 1939, extremely close to the weltkrieg I put my plan in motion, I used the papal army and some troops to hold the border while 15 divisions rushed thrgou the mediterran and landed on almost every single naval province, thus we rushed their capitals while our army tied up theirs by launching losing attacks on the border.
What's the problem with CBTS? I haven't been following it as it doesn't interest me that much, but what's the controversy?