Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg

Germany_teaser.png


Germany rework stuff!
 
When does the US civil war end in your headcannon?

Mine:

Federal/AUS victory: Late 1938/early 1939
CSA/MacArthur: Early/mid 1939
PSA/New England: Late 1939/Early 1940
 
Realistically if USA doesn't have a 2ACW how long it would take for USA to become a superpower which can rival Germany in Kaiserreich world?
 
Realistically if USA doesn't have a 2ACW how long it would take for USA to become a superpower which can rival Germany in Kaiserreich world?

Depends of course how long it remain as neutral and would it join to WW2. But even if USA joins and stops being isolationist, I don't think there being rivalry between USA and Germany. Them have not conflicting intrests and not different economic systems. More plausible would be fascist/authotarian block led by Italy and perhaps France and Britain vs. democratic block led by Germany. USA might be closer for Germany on such scenario. But I think that USA probably is neutral on WW2 since there is not reason to join and Japan might not be going to mess with USA.
 
Depends of course how long it remain as neutral and would it join to WW2. But even if USA joins and stops being isolationist, I don't think there being rivalry between USA and Germany. Them have not conflicting intrests and not different economic systems. More plausible would be fascist/authotarian block led by Italy and perhaps France and Britain vs. democratic block led by Germany. USA might be closer for Germany on such scenario. But I think that USA probably is neutral on WW2 since there is not reason to join and Japan might not be going to mess with USA.
FDR, Wall Street and the Wilkie crowd are all anglophiles
 
Depends of course how long it remain as neutral and would it join to WW2. But even if USA joins and stops being isolationist, I don't think there being rivalry between USA and Germany. Them have not conflicting intrests and not different economic systems. More plausible would be fascist/authotarian block led by Italy and perhaps France and Britain vs. democratic block led by Germany. USA might be closer for Germany on such scenario. But I think that USA probably is neutral on WW2 since there is not reason to join and Japan might not be going to mess with USA.
There is even less reason due to the 2ACW not happening, which means that the US would still be afraid of getting involved in another war, and since presumably the Great Depression still happened in a non civil-war America, they'd want to economically recover and probably focus more on Central America and South America interests. Tbh, tho, with the influence Europe's ideologies have had in South America, especially in Kaiserreich, that could be cause for intervention.
 
There is even less reason due to the 2ACW not happening, which means that the US would still be afraid of getting involved in another war, and since presumably the Great Depression still happened in a non civil-war America, they'd want to economically recover and probably focus more on Central America and South America interests. Tbh, tho, with the influence Europe's ideologies have had in South America, especially in Kaiserreich, that could be cause for intervention.

Meanwhile Vargas laughs in American refugees.
 
I had an idea for reworking the SACW: what if instead of the civil war starting as a result of the 1936 election, it starts as a result of the 1940 election?

Giving it an extra 4 years before the United States explodes means you could add a lot more depth and flavor to the disintegration of the US and its institutions. You could have a focus tree covering the presidency of whoever wins 1936, where you have to juggle trying to solve the Depression, furthering your party's agenda, and dealing with the increasingly militant opposition - with no real chance of success, but influencing the starting positions of the factions when war really does break out.

The 1940 election occurs with the backdrop of the Second Weltkrieg, either already underway or close to beginning. Depending on who's in power, the President is trying to use America's resources to support their favored side, prompting opposition and sabotage from his opponents. The election is so fraught with violence there's no way to fairly determine a winner, and things escalate from there. There could be a few different inciting events possible - for instance, if Reed claims reelection under these disputed circumstances, then MacArthur launches his coup with a strong pretext that Reed is not the legitimate president.

However it occurs, the Second Civil War becomes a theatre of the Second Weltkrieg in its own right, with the Internationale and Reichspakt/Entente directly fighting alongside their aligned faction rather than through the volunteer system.

I think this makes a lot more sense both mechanically and lore-wise than the current setup. The SACW should be an earth-shattering cataclysm that puts the final nail in the coffin of the pre-Weltkrieg world order, not just another proxy war alongside the Spanish Civil War and the Fourth Balkan War. As it stands right now, the SACW is fought for a few years with a couple million deaths, the new regime consolidates power for a few months, then jumps into the world war and probably determines the winner. That just feels weird to me, and I think integrating it with the Second Weltkrieg would make both of Kaiserreich's central conflicts into a true world war.

It also adds potential for some interesting post-war content. You could have the Weltkrieg end with North America and Europe ideologically aligned or opposed to each other.

Adding onto this, I think the current 3- to 4-way civil war system should be simplified into a 2-way civil war, syndicalists vs. non-syndicalists, for three reasons:

1, Lore-wise it makes more sense to have Long and MacArthur on the same side rather than having them fight each other, making a syndicalist victory much more likely.
2, It makes merging the SACW with the Weltkrieg much easier per my above idea.
3, You can add a lot more depth to two sides than four + New England. There's plenty of opportunity for factionalism and infighting on each side. For instance, Long and America First could be partners, but also rivals with the liberals in the anti-syndicalist coalition and could end up usurping power from them during the course of the war. Likewise with different socialist factions in the Chicago government.

You'd have to rebalance things to make sure the war isn't a complete rollover for the anti-syndicalist coalition like it is for the current Feds vs. CSA 2-way, but that doesn't seem impossible. Also change the name of the CSA, 'Combined Syndicates of America' is a silly name.


Of course this is just my opinion, and I neither have the time or knowledge to make a submod of my own, but I thought this seemed like a cool idea and wanted to put it out there.
 


I had an idea for reworking the SACW: what if instead of the civil war starting as a result of the 1936 election, it starts as a result of the 1940 election?

I am against this.

The main reason is because all the SA lore is based in the US being at war, since the Monroe doctrine thankfully dies without the US having a knife at everybody throats. If you delay that by four years you gonna have to rework everything.

The second reason is because anything that doesn't happen at the very start of the campaign tend to not be played by players. Totalist Chile for example can you be played if you go until 1941, so you have to do five years of a path you don't want to reach it, so nobody plays totalist Chile. Kaiserreich already is a slow game, so I don't want to wait four years to reach the civil war.
 
I am against this.

The main reason is because all the SA lore is based in the US being at war, since the Monroe doctrine thankfully dies without the US having a knife at everybody throats. If you delay that by four years you gonna have to rework everything.

The second reason is because anything that doesn't happen at the very start of the campaign tend to not be played by players. Totalist Chile for example can you be played if you go until 1941, so you have to do five years of a path you don't want to reach it, so nobody plays totalist Chile. Kaiserreich already is a slow game, so I don't want to wait four years to reach the civil war.
I'm not so sure you do need to rework all of SA to make this idea work. I think you're overestimating the importance of the Monroe Doctrine in South American stability. The US doesn't have much history of directly projecting power into South America, especially in the 30's, so most of the content could be kept the same. You might have to rework the Caribbean a bit but that has potential as well. You could have Nicaragua's gameplay focused on subverting American influence and backing revolutionaries around the region.

The US could get involved in South American conflicts with volunteers, which could escalate tensions at home if Reed sends support to the Patagonians or Garner sends support to Carles, for instance.

I think people don't play Totalist Chile because it's boring and generic content, not because it takes a few years. If you fleshed out four years of pre-civil war content with the level of depth of the recent Eastern Europe and Left KMT reworks, I think it would be very popular.
 
I'm not so sure you do need to rework all of SA to make this idea work. I think you're overestimating the importance of the Monroe Doctrine in South American stability. The US doesn't have much history of directly projecting power into South America, especially in the 30's, so most of the content could be kept the same. You might have to rework the Caribbean a bit but that has potential as well. You could have Nicaragua's gameplay focused on subverting American influence and backing revolutionaries around the region.

The US could get involved in South American conflicts with volunteers, which could escalate tensions at home if Reed sends support to the Patagonians or Garner sends support to Carles, for instance.

I think people don't play Totalist Chile because it's boring and generic content, not because it takes a few years. If you fleshed out four years of pre-civil war content with the level of depth of the recent Eastern Europe and Left KMT reworks, I think it would be very popular.
There is also the great south american war, Argentina only is able to fight all their neighbours and Paraguay can only make great paraguay since the US is not looking, so goodbye Patagonian worker's front, goodbye second Chaco war. All of that would have to be reworked to be delayed at the very least to 1940. Plus Brazil joining the reichspak or the entente happens in many ways since the US is not looking to the SA anymore.
 
There is also the great south american war, Argentina only is able to fight all their neighbours and Paraguay can only make great paraguay since the US is not looking, so goodbye Patagonian worker's front, goodbye second Chaco war. All of that would have to be reworked to be delayed at the very least to 1940. Plus Brazil joining the reichspak or the entente happens in many ways since the US is not looking to the SA anymore.
I mean those really don't need to be changed. It would be pretty easy to have the US be distracted with internal issues after the '36 election even if it's not a full-blown civil war.

Even besides that, I think you're overestimating the amount of sway the US has over southern SA. The Monroe Doctrine isn't going to stop Argentina and Chile from going at it.
 
The second reason is because anything that doesn't happen at the very start of the campaign tend to not be played by players. Totalist Chile for example can you be played if you go until 1941, so you have to do five years of a path you don't want to reach it, so nobody plays totalist Chile. Kaiserreich already is a slow game, so I don't want to wait four years to reach the civil war.
This is actually an issue I have with the SACW - you have to spend a year as the USA before you can switch to your preferred faction. I've occasionally wondered if things might go better if the SACW was ongoing at the start of the game. Another approach could be picking your preferred faction at the start of the game, similar to the Spanish Civil War in vanilla or the English Civil War in TNO, with a focus tree initially based around strengthening your faction's influence, maybe securing control of disputed states, then building up your forces in the weeks before the outbreak of hostilities.
 
I mean those really don't need to be changed. It would be pretty easy to have the US be distracted with internal issues after the '36 election even if it's not a full-blown civil war.

Even besides that, I think you're overestimating the amount of sway the US has over southern SA. The Monroe Doctrine isn't going to stop Argentina and Chile from going at it.
It wont, like, during the Chaco war the bolivian army was obliterated and still FDR managed to ban Paraguay from making greater paraguay without even having to threaten war, same for the Peruvian and Equator war where the US pressed Peru to stop. You cannot have Argentina to go annex Uruguay or Paraguay in a timeline where the Monroe Doctrine still stands. You simply can't do stuff in SA while the doctrine still is alive.


This is actually an issue I have with the SACW - you have to spend a year as the USA before you can switch to your preferred faction. I've occasionally wondered if things might go better if the SACW was ongoing at the start of the game. Another approach could be picking your preferred faction at the start of the game, similar to the Spanish Civil War in vanilla or the English Civil War in TNO, with a focus tree initially based around strengthening your faction's influence, maybe securing control of disputed states, then building up your forces in the weeks before the outbreak of hostilities.

Feel the same, it is bad when things get delayed.
 
Top