Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg

@CalBear something weird is happening, if you check in the conversation above and in the last pages you can see that all the links I post don't get a preview... What is happening?
 
@CalBear something weird is happening, if you check in the conversation above and in the last pages you can see that all the links I post don't get a preview... What is happening?

There has indeed been problems with Reddit links recently but that has already commented on Help Forum. And it would be ratherly problem of Ian (if problem is on this head not on Reddit's head).
 
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.
While it might be slightly more annoying for gameplay purposes, I pretty much entirely agree. As it stands, the civil war doesn't feel very fleshed out in terms of the breakdown of civil society and the increasing polarization that leads towards a military coup. I've also found it a little odd that we get the Black Monday event which parallels the OTL Depression than within like six months you get a full scale American collapse. Historically, the Depression was so bad not because of the crash itself or even the first year and a half of economic devastation, but the fact that it lingered for years and years with signs of it not just not getting better but openly getting worse. I understand that in KRTL, America is starting out much weaker already and faced several serious downturns prior to 1936, but you just don't get that sense of desperation and longterm Depression from the flavor events and focuses ingame. The pre-war focus tree reads like it is 1929 or 1930 OTL, where they are only just beginning to address the economic crisis rather than having tried and openly failed many times like OTLs Hoover Administration. Having the spiral into civil war last four years would make it so much more interesting and leave a lot of room for player agency in the events leading up to the war. You could really see the splintering of the two parties in the 1938 midterm elections and watch as radical third parties gain influence in states across the country. Something sort of like the 1854-1855 House of Reps election, with both major parties just splintering across economic and social lines. The player could have choices on where to focus efforts in a similar system to what we have now, but without it feeling super rushed. There could be mini-games about controlling discontent in the army, ending labor battles through violence or negotiations (with bloody strikes raising discontent), trying to control rampant inflation and the pauperization of the middle class, and negotiating with different blocs within the Democrat and Republican parties to prevent them bolting to emergent powers like the Farmer Labor Party, Long's southern populists, or the Socialist Party. The "Up With the Stars" mod has some excellent events showcasing the 'Weimarization' of the United States, and I think a 1940 start date could give a lot of time to create an atmosphere like this while creating a much more plausible scenario rather than having like a freak flood, a heatwave, assassinations, a market crash, and a deadlocked election all happen in a single year or something like we have now.

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.
100% with you on this as well, it has always felt really odd that the SACW is sort of a side event to the 'gameplay arc'... a buildup to the real story. It would be much more interesting and dramatic if it happened alongside the main event, and would prevent the silly thing where the apocalyptic hellscape America after the war just immediately turns around and becomes the arsenal of democracy/reaction/socialism. A later start date also makes the player feel like they don't have to rush to get the thing over, and in fact it might even make sense to play for time if you are counting on your aligned factions triumphing in Europe and then providing aid with the resources of the continent after the Weltkrieg ends. It would also be really neat since the cooler in-game techs could get a chance to be used in the war. Even if American factions wouldn't have the resources under the stress of the war to develop fighter jets, a war dragging into 1946 or 1947 could feature European jets being sent over to dominate the skies and early assault rifles being used to clear out the last strongholds of the losing combatants. I'm just really attracted to the idea of starting the war with cavalry and light tanks and ending it with columns of heavy battle tanks and small nuclear weapons if need be. It would really cement it as one of the centerpieces of gameplay I think.

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.
I think this is probably the only place I seriously disagree with you, but its down to personal taste. I personally think there *aren't enough* factions, and I'm a big fan of what Home of the Brave does by splintering the three or four factions into regional forces and then adding a system of truces and alliances in to balance it out. Long's progressive populism, for instance, would do much better in the upper plains region than it would in the deep south and I could see his forces trying to play for time by making truces with the socialists and the Federals. The Deep South, like in HotB, might easily go for someone much more reactionary and have their main focus be on destroying syndicalist strongholds in states like Indiana and Illinois while also suppressing left sentiment among African Americans. Some states could go neutral, like a Farmer-Labor Minnesota and Wisconsin declaring themselves non-aligned but with sympathies for Chicago. Some states could tear apart, like the logging regions of the Pacific Northwest being carried by IWW militants while the state governments stay loyal to the Federals or East Tennessee remaining staunchly Republican while the Democratic west defects to the bloc of reactionary southern state governments. Things like that. It feels a lot more like the Russian Civil War, where even if you have a loose allegiance against the radical left, you leave room for different regional interests and powers to dictate their own policy and coalesce or fall apart depending on what focuses are taken and what decisions are made. Plus the idea of a very chaotic first year with a kaleidoscope of factions as federal power recedes and collapses is a lot more interesting to me, even if the kaleidoscope eventually does coalesce later into a binary, than a straightforward two sides fight.

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.
Honestly you could fix this pretty easily. Just as US content is pushed back and given more time to develop with player control, you could do the same with Latin American nations. We can actually have Argentina's implosion and the rise of the Patagonian anarchists be part of the gameplay, with the United States having a mini-game about dealing with the crisis and debating intervention, and if it sends troops then the socialists and launch strikes to disrupt the dispersal of arms and troops. Different nations in South America can have events about keeping a lid on discontent and their own polarizing politics, and the level of chaos after the 1940 collapse can be directly correlated to how good or bad of a job they do prior to 1940. It would also be interesting to have the wars in South America be concurrent with the chaos in Europe rather than just being little proxies in the buildup to the Weltkrieg and would prevent weird shit like Germany being at war with Mexico and Nicaragua or something. With a player in control of 4 years until the war breaks out, I think it also allows some interesting power plays to be done, like a Mexican player biding their time until they can really start intervening and establishing a power bloc around them while also being active in the war in North America.
 
Last edited:
While it might be slightly more annoying for gameplay purposes, I pretty much entirely agree. As it stands, the civil war doesn't feel very fleshed out in terms of the breakdown of civil society and the increasing polarization that leads towards a military coup. I've also found it a little odd that we get the Black Monday event which parallels the OTL Depression than within like six months you get a full scale American collapse. Historically, the Depression was so bad not because of the crash itself or even the first year and a half of economic devastation, but the fact that it lingered for years and years with signs of it not just getting better but openly getting worse. I understand that in KRTL, America is starting out much weaker already and faced several serious downturns prior to 1936, but you just don't get that sense of desperation and longterm Depression from the flavor events and focuses ingame. The pre-war focus tree reads like it is 1929 or 1930 OTL, where they are only just beginning to address the economic crisis rather than having tried and openly failed many times like OTLs Hoover Administration. Having the spiral into civil war last four years would make it so much more interesting and leave a lot of room for player agency in the events leading up to the war. You could really see the splintering of the two parties in the 1938 midterm elections and watch as radical third parties gain influence in states across the country. Something sort of like the 1854-1855 House of Reps election, with both major parties just splintering across economic and social lines. The player could have choices on where to focus efforts in a similar system to what we have now, but without it feeling super rushed. There could be mini-games about controlling discontent in the army, ending labor battles through violence or negotiations (with bloody strikes raising discontent), trying to control rampant inflation and the pauperization of the middle class, and negotiating with different blocs within the Democrat and Republican parties to prevent them bolting to emergent powers like the Farmer Labor Party, Long's southern populists, or the Socialist Party. The "Up With the Stars" mod has some excellent events showcasing the 'Weimarization' of the United States, and I think a 1940 start date could give a lot of time to create an atmosphere like this while creating a much more plausible scenario rather than having like a freak flood, a heatwave, assassinations, a market crash, and a deadlocked election all happen in a single year or something like we have now.
Absolutely. A big reason for things getting so bad following the 1936 election could be the opposition deadlocking whatever efforts to resolve the Depression the 1936 winner makes. I think the key to the pre-war minigames would be to make some a winnable for your chosen side, but not all of them, so you have to prioritize the interests groups and factions you want on your side when things inevitably blow up. It'd be a good way of demonstrating that everyone's resigned to civil war happening eventually, without rushing it narratively.

100% with you on this as well, it has always felt really odd that the SACW is sort of a side event to the 'gameplay arc'... a buildup to the real story. It would be much more interesting and dramatic if it happened alongside the main event, and would prevent the silly thing where the apocalyptic hellscape America after the war just immediately turns around and becomes the arsenal of democracy/reaction/socialism. A later start date also makes the player feel like they don't have to rush to get the thing over, and in fact it might even make sense to play for time if you are counting on your aligned factions triumphing in Europe and then providing aid with the resources of the continent after the Weltkrieg ends. It would also be really neat since the cooler in-game techs could get a chance to be used in the war. Even if American factions wouldn't have the resources under the stress of the war to develop fighter jets, a war dragging into 1946 or 1947 could feature European jets being sent over to dominate the skies and early assault rifles being used to clear out the last strongholds of the losing combatants. I'm just really attracted to the idea of starting the war with cavalry and light tanks and ending it with columns of heavy battle tanks and small nuclear weapons if need be. It would really cement it as one of the centerpieces of gameplay I think.
Exactly. The SACW just feels like such wasted potential for gameplay right now, just being a infantry/cavalry/interwar aircraft grindfest.

Edit: Also this means that the US Navy and how it divides actually matters during the war.

I think this is probably the only place I seriously disagree with you, but its down to personal taste. I personally think there *aren't enough* factions, and I'm a big fan of what Home of the Brave does by splintering the three or four factions into regional forces and then adding a system of truces and alliances in to balance it out. Long's progressive populism, for instance, would do much better in the upper plains region than it would in the deep south and I could see his forces trying to play for time by making truces with the socialists and the Federals. The Deep South, like in HotB, might easily go for someone much more reactionary and have their main focus be on destroying syndicalist strongholds in states like Indiana and Illinois while also suppressing left sentiment among African Americans. Some states could go neutral, like a Farmer-Labor Minnesota and Wisconsin declaring themselves non-aligned but with sympathies for Chicago. Some states could tear apart, like the logging regions of the Pacific Northwest being carried by IWW militants while the state governments stay loyal to the Federals or East Tennessee remaining staunchly Republican while the Democratic east defects to the bloc of reactionary southern state governments. Things like that. It feels a lot more like the Russian Civil War, where even if you have a loose allegiance against the radical left, you leave room for different regional interests and powers to dictate their own policy and coalesce or fall apart depending on what focuses are taken and what decisions are made. Plus the idea of a very chaotic first year with a kaleidoscope of factions as federal power recedes and collapses is a lot more interesting to me, even if the kaleidoscope eventually does coalesce later into a binary, than a straightforward two sides fight.
I do see your point here. I've not tried Home of the Brave myself but I get wanting more variety in factions rather than less.

However I think it's more realistic for civil wars to be fought by coalitions of aligned factions, rather than every political movement trying to go it alone immediately. Though I'd definitely add options for further fragmenting the sides if their political infighting is mishandled, a la the Spanish Republicans IRL.

Also, from a gameplay perspective, it seems like it'd be more interesting trying to fight a single enemy all over the country than one or two independent tags in every cardinal direction. I feel like a two way with pockets of each side all over the country opens the door for interesting more maneuvers and strategies than if there's faction blobs in every region.

Maybe a compromise would be having two sides made up of various tags representing different internal groups , starting in the same faction but with a chance for revolt later? For instance, a tag representing the southern states controlled by America First and their paramilitaries, in the same faction with MacArthur's junta and the Republican/Democratic states who don't care for either but hate the syndicalists more. If MacArthur goes too far too fast in trying to consolidate his power and purge the other factions, America First and the liberals rebel.

Or for the syndicalists, you could have the Chicago revolutionary government represented by one tag, more moderate Farmer-Labor revolutionaries centered on Minnesota and Iowa, and the areas overtaken by ultra-leftist militants as a third tag. If Chicago tries to clamp down on revisionists without curbing their military power beforehand, the syndicalist coalition shatters.
 
Last edited:
Friend, this would take like two years of development to change all Latin America to delay that and to design new mechanics for all those countries.
"Pretty easily" in the sense that its an easy solution to your objection that Latin America would be boring, there would be nothing to do, and it would prevent many of the conflicts there. Obviously this entire discussion is moot because this devs would never overhaul the game like this and if they did it would take a decade, but still.
 
I should probably state that there will never be a later start date for KR, as that would require having a "canon" for the mod, which we strictly do not have.
 
I should probably state that there will never be a later start date for KR, as that would require having a "canon" for the mod, which we strictly do not have.
I’m not sure if you’re addressing the discussion about the SACW being had, but I don’t think anyone was proposing a later start date or anything of the kind. Just delaying the Civil War and associated events in-game for a number of years.
 
I’m not sure if you’re addressing the discussion about the SACW being had, but I don’t think anyone was proposing a later start date or anything of the kind. Just delaying the Civil War and associated events in-game for a number of years.
I swear I read that someone was advocating for one. I dunno, I might be suffering from brainfade.

Anyway, delaying the Civil War is untenable, because it prevents the USA from doing literally anything all game. If we assume that most people will take a couple of years to win the civil war, then its not until 1943 that America has decided on its political path (and hasn't even begun reconstruction), by which a time the Second Weltkrieg is often approaching an end. Also, while being pretty dull for many players, delaying the war by 4 years also makes balancing it far more difficult, as you'll have four years to stack the deck in your favour.
 
Let me see... a thing I would change in KR if I could...

I would change the Brazilian totalists, either make them generic chummy ML under Prestes to be a more positive take on the ideology from the Argentinians one, or go full mad by making them follow Abílio de Nequete Technocrat views adding some form of Technate of SA as a Brazilian version of Andesia.

Like, Brazil in KR is so perfect that there is little to nothing to change. I just wish more people would play more parts like Vargas, since every great YouTuber like ISP only go for the monarchy.
 
Let me see... a thing I would change in KR if I could...

I would change the Brazilian totalists, either make them generic chummy ML under Prestes to be a more positive take on the ideology from the Argentinians one, or go full mad by making them follow Abílio de Nequete Technocrat views adding some form of Technate of SA as a Brazilian version of Andesia.

Like, Brazil in KR is so perfect that there is little to nothing to change. I just wish more people would play more parts like Vargas, since every great YouTuber like ISP only go for the monarchy.
It's because PatAut dictators are usually boring.
 
I swear I read that someone was advocating for one. I dunno, I might be suffering from brainfade.

Anyway, delaying the Civil War is untenable, because it prevents the USA from doing literally anything all game. If we assume that most people will take a couple of years to win the civil war, then its not until 1943 that America has decided on its political path (and hasn't even begun reconstruction), by which a time the Second Weltkrieg is often approaching an end. Also, while being pretty dull for many players, delaying the war by 4 years also makes balancing it far more difficult, as you'll have four years to stack the deck in your favour.

Yeah NGL Id rather get to playing the game and picking a side in the world, rather than trying to flesh out the nuances of US disintegration. US civil war is not that interesting that I spend 4 years faffing around just to start it.
 
Top