The New Order: Last Days of Europe - An Axis Victory Cold War Mod for HoIIV

Honest question:In an argument do both sides deserve advocates regardless of how evil\nasty the positions are or is it better to stay silent and let only one side have a voice?
My position is that both sides do deserve advocates regardless of anything.
I would vehemently disagree, specifically because there are many, many political positions that frankly cannot be argued for in good faith and in logic. A good argument requires both sides to have some level of respect for factual reality.
 
I find Samara morally bankrupt, even it's autdem route is still amoung the worst audem routes you can find on the game.

Why exactly? I think authdem like Thatcher is worse than Zykov.

as he is shown to be on the bad side of the Future Compass that was revealed in February, as the "Chaebol Military-Industrial State". His nation strikes me as a "Diet Omsk", given how seething spite seems to define Sergey's every move. He was originally a commander of the Red Army, and had served since just 16.

Why we should care what devs consider bad? Devs have a clear libleft political bias, so therefore I wouldn't even care about their opinion. And what's so bad about being a diet Omsk? After suffering that Germans brought on Russia the response shouldn't be "WHOLESOME KEANU CHUNGUS 100 SABLIN GERMAN ASSR" but Germans should move right away from Russia and never ever dare to return, so they need to be beaten.

I shudder to imagine the amount of vitriolic hatred that would be held towards Leftist ideas like social liberalization and economic liberty

And that's why Vladimir has Roman Gul, an liberal leftist as one of his possible PMs XDDDDDD.
 
Personally, I dislike them mainly because, realistically speaking, a Russia united by former Nazi Collaborators (regardless of the type of government formed in-game) will not lead to a particularly healthy political environment in my opinion. I shudder to imagine the amount of vitriolic hatred that would be held towards Leftist ideas like social liberalization and economic liberty should Russia be united by a Romanov or Anti-Bolshevik in the flavor of Samara.
Such wouldn't apply to a Vyatka that has the Liberal Democratic Kadets and Roman Gul at the helm. And I would consider that to be better for Russia than any of the AuthSocs (though Zhukov is alright), despite the state's controversial origins.
 
Why exactly? I think authdem like Thatcher is worse than Zykov.



Why we should care what devs consider bad? Devs have a clear libleft political bias, so therefore I wouldn't even care about their opinion. And what's so bad about being a diet Omsk? After suffering that Germans brought on Russia the response shouldn't be "WHOLESOME KEANU CHUNGUS 100 SABLIN GERMAN ASSR" but Germans should move right away from Russia and never ever dare to return, so they need to be beaten.



And that's why Vladimir has Roman Gul, an liberal leftist as one of his possible PMs XDDDDDD.

The fact that liberals can gain power in Vyatka doesn't change the fact that the country as a whole isn't just going to magically change ideology along with the party that gains power. Liberals can be in power for some time, but that doesn't change the fact that the overton window of Vyatka is pushed fairly severly to the right, which is what I hold some concern with. There's also the small fact that Burgundy supports Vyatka and is using it for its own goals.

Also, I don't even want to know what you mean by that Omsk comment.
 
The fact that liberals can gain power in Vyatka doesn't change the fact that the country as a whole isn't just going to magically change ideology along with the party that gains power. Liberals can be in power for some time, but that doesn't change the fact that the overton window of Vyatka is pushed fairly severly to the right, which is what I hold some concern with. There's also the small fact that Burgundy supports Vyatka and is using it for its own goals.

Also, I don't even want to know what you mean by that Omsk comment.
Burgundy also supports the US and anyone else who forwards their goals.
 
The fact that liberals can gain power in Vyatka doesn't change the fact that the country as a whole isn't just going to magically change ideology along with the party that gains power. Liberals can be in power for some time, but that doesn't change the fact that the overton window of Vyatka is pushed fairly severly to the right, which is what I hold some concern with. There's also the small fact that Burgundy supports Vyatka and is using it for its own goals.

Also, I don't even want to know what you mean by that Omsk comment.

Bruh, Solzhenitzyn and his solidarists doesn't even know that Himmler supports them, and he doesn't support them out of ideological similarity (if he cared about this in Russia, than he should support Tabby or someone from Perm's dynamic duo), he just things that they're strongest non-Communists able to go to war with Germany. And in Vyatka we have only LibDem, ConDem and AuthDem parties, is this for you especially rightist overtone window in TNO? Compare that to AB which has only UltraNat and NatSoc path, with Magadan with Fascist and AuthDem path, or even Chita with Despot and AuthDem path.
 
Last edited:
On the specific note of Vyatka; i'm sympathetic to Vladimir's internal turmoil, and the liberal path is one of the happiest i've seen in the game.

But on the note about Vyatka being Burgundy's chosen puppet, there's good reason to. Because the other path while democratic continues the same old policies that felled the Russian Empire, and the AuthDem one creates a terrible police state that would be perfect for Burgundy to manipulate to their hearts' content. Furthermore, there's nothing more that appeals to Burgundy than the potential to resurrect a notoriously anti-Semitic state that had work camps and secret police before the Bolsheviks did.

The liberal path is so great because of the potential to create an Empire that's worth living in, that's truly learned from its mistakes. To restore the Tsar like the majority of the Whites wanted, but for the better of all and not just Russians, where Jews and minorities can finally live without another pogrom that razes their homes, murders their loved ones and scars their psyches, or in the case of the Poles, being deported to Siberia to die. And even then, despite him generally being a decent man on the inside (collaboration remains the black mark), Vladimir is notably reluctant to accept the liberal reforms because it goes against the cherished Tsarist tradition and reaction. Only after Gul does good does he realize that the man was absolutely correct and never naive.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, there's nothing more that appeals to Burgundy than the potential to resurrect a notoriously anti-Semitic state that had work camps and secret police before the Bolsheviks did.

If they cared about this they should support Perm (in both flavors) or Tabby (although I think if Vyatka loses he should switch his support to another warlord, like he switches his support from Heydrich to Goring).
 
If they cared about this they should support Perm (in both flavors) or Tabby (although I think if Vyatka loses he should switch his support to another warlord, like he switches his support from Heydrich to Goring).

Realpolitik has always been the preferred way of doing things. Pinochet kept good ties with the PRC, and engaged in arms deals and building an arctic research centre with them despite his image. The US still kept backchannel negotiations with Cuba after the revolution and vice versa. They don't have to be friends or share the same ideology. it's the interests that count.

Tabby is too nuts and frankly he doesn't seem interested in foreign policy at all, from what i remember from my playthrough. He didn't even have focuses for diplomacy. Perm is an embarrassment, and they're still too close to Germany itself even if the Nazis reject them for being crazed stalker fans.

The Tsar can be easily influenced, and the forces around him. Burgundy also loves it if their puppets don't even know they're puppets. Even Burgundy's tree has them go to seamlessly supporting Goring once Heydrich loses, as you noted. And Goring has no idea they're betting on him.
 
If they cared about this they should support Perm (in both flavors) or Tabby (although I think if Vyatka loses he should switch his support to another warlord, like he switches his support from Heydrich to Goring).
It is probably something they care about, in which any of them ruining Russia would probably be a preferred outcome. All the same, neither is especially prominent or likely to reunite Western Russia - the AB is universally hated and quite weak, while Taboritsky's initial influence in Komi (infamously unstable) is minimal at the start of things.

Vyatka has a fairly strong army, a coherent basis as a nation, and some popular appeal. Alternatively, while not ruining Russia proper, it also achieves an important goal that none of those mad factions will reasonably be able to do: apply heavy pressure to Germany.
 
Realpolitik has always been the preferred way of doing things. Pinochet kept good ties with the PRC, and engaged in arms deals and building an arctic research centre with them despite his image. The US still kept backchannel negotiations with Cuba after the revolution and vice versa. They don't have to be friends or share the same ideology. it's the interests that count.

Tabby is too nuts and frankly he doesn't seem interested in foreign policy at all, from what i remember from my playthrough. He didn't even have focuses for diplomacy. Perm is an embarrassment, and they're still too close to Germany itself even if the Nazis reject them for being crazed stalker fans.

The Tsar can be easily influenced, and the forces around him. Burgundy also loves it if their puppets don't even know they're puppets. Even Burgundy's tree has them go to seamlessly supporting Goring once Heydrich loses, as you noted. And Goring has no idea they're betting on him.

The first paragraph is something I quite agree with, but that's why condemning Vyatka for Burgundian support which it receives seems silly, Vyatka doesn't even know that they're receiving it and it's not done out of any shared political outlook.

I think he'd go to the war with Germany if not for the clock, he believes that all land of Russian Empire is Alexei's birtright. Well, one Perm path is trying to suck up to Germany. Hyperborea means war guaranteed, especially after Velimir calls Germans Zionists, IMHO after the infamous letter, Himmler should start supporting Velimir, because it'd fit his agenda about rising tensions.
 
Why exactly? I think authdem like Thatcher is worse than Zykov.
Thatcher is in theory doing everything legally, every single vote she gets gets counted and the people in theory can remove her by voting on the opposition

Zykov cannot be removed, he has a weird distribution of seats of the parliament that garantees that his party will always have the majority, and I pretty sure he builts a police state similar to Thatcher

There's also the small fact that Burgundy supports Vyatka and is using it for its own goals.

Not Vyatka, the Solidarists as the others have said, and not because they think the solidarists will build a state that is pro nazi or even under nazi control, but because they hope the solidarists are the ones garanteed to cause war with Germany and maybe cause WWIII
 
This makes it look like the mandates are just as much of a "road to hell is paved with good intentions" thing than simply the US going MUHAHAHAHAHAHA time to exploit the Africans. Or at least even if the corporate and political leadership has ulterior motives, the generals do genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, but are blinded by their own racist worldviews to genuinely move things in a positive direction(case in point: adhering to bathroom segregation rules).

Sure it's still imperialistic af, there is the underlying desire to control African resources, and acting on what's bascically white savior complex, but I don't think this is gonna be "the mandates are run by saturday morning cartoon villains wanting to rape all of Africa and take it's wealth" moral equivalence with Huttig hellstate.

Guys, just one thing

I find Samara morally bankrupt, even it's autdem route is still amoung the worst audem routes you can find on the game.

Eh, I'd say the Solidarists, Thurmond and Wallace are infinitely worse.

I'm actually hoping that Zykov turns out to be the reverse of Speer, Scorza or Matovsky. Whereas the afomentioned three are an powerhungry opportunists, Zykov takes measures that make it appear he's an opportunist, but he turns out to be a well-intentioned extermist that genuinely tries to improve things, but through underhanded means.

It would open a can of unfortunate implications if Zykov was indeed a manipulative figure doing it all for more and more power, especially given how he's a jew and accused of being manipulative for his own selfish gains.
 
Last edited:
This makes it look like the mandates are just as much of a "road to hell is paved with good intentions" thing than simply the US going MUHAHAHAHAHAHA time to exploit the Africans. Or at least even if the corporate and political leadership has ulterior motives, the generals do genuinely believe they are doing the right thing.

Sure it's still imperialistic af, there is the underlying desire to control African resources, and acting on what's bascically white savior complex, but I don't think this is gonna be "the mandates are run by saturday morning cartoon villains wanting to rape all of Africa and take it's wealth" moral equivalence with Huttig hellstate.

After all, a great sign of hope is how the US is happy to cooperate with many Soviet unifiers (who are in turn happy to have their economic support), and even though they won't back them first thing and naturally favor anti-German fascists too (eg. iberia, Ciano as long as he joins the OFN ), Washington does pragmatically favor working with leftists if they can. Finally, the US can be counted on, despite everything, to have restraint that Germany and Japan absolutely do not. Sure, they don't like getting their hands dirty directly. But they at least bother about looking good, and the American people as always can be reliably counted on to badger their government if they engage in shady imperialism yet again.

The US still ain't 100% morally good, but they're always the lesser evil in TNO. As for the generals, the difference between them and the sociopaths of the complex is that they know the feeling of looking at casualty counts for the month and feeling bad, and staying up late to worry about the men, who are certainly not just numbers.

Chalk the mandates up to institutionalized racism from the US itself, by the way, but undoubtedly there will be many nice Americans whose hearts do sincerely want to help the Africans, unlike the Germans with their open Aryan superiority complex. The American people are like that.

People forget that US-Soviet cooperation despite later tensions was generally warm and enthusiastic.
 
Why exactly? I think authdem like Thatcher is worse than Zykov.
Thatcher for all her faults is genuinely opposed to the idea of collaboration and wants what is best for her people. Zykov uses democracy as a front for his own power, much as he was perfectly willing to collaborate to remove the Soviet Union from power even if it resulted in the near destruction of Russia.
 

chankljp

Donor
An absolutely amazing TNO Polandball comic demonstrating the differences in political discourse between Tomsk's idealistic democracy, and Komi's cynical democracy:








Love the way that Modernist Tomsk-ball wears a lab coat.... Despite having no arms, or that the window for Ultravisionary Komi-ball's rocket was literally made with a toilet sit. :biggrin: Also, with Bukharina-ball, this has to be the first time ever that I have seen a Polandball being shown as feminine but NOT have a hair bow on top.
 
I wouldn't consider Sergey Bunyachenko to be morally "good", as he is shown to be on the bad side of the Future Compass that was revealed in February, as the "Chaebol Military-Industrial State". His nation strikes me as a "Diet Omsk", given how seething spite seems to define Sergey's every move. He was originally a commander of the Red Army, and had served since just 16. During WW2, the he was scapegoated by the Soviet military leadership for some failures and as a result, sought to get back at them by volunteering to the ROA. That, as well as to escape the brutal life as a labourer in a Nazi camp. When he unifies Russia, he undertakes a programme of crash industrialization, at the expense of the common Russians, who toil under the corporations which are linked to Bunyachenko, for the benefit of the military. All for the purpose of waging total war against the Germans, whom he especially despises for his aforementioned hellish life as a POW, as well as for making him their cannon fodder in the WRW.
I think this might be why his path was actually one of the more interesting ones to me. At first he seemed like you standard generic military dictator, but the writing did an excellent job of conveying the seething rage that underlies all of his actions, and eventually the entire Russian recovery as a whole, and that really elevated his path in my eyes (in terms of how interesting it is, not in terms of morality obv).
 
Top