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

[AeroTheZealousOne]

@White Aurora, not sure if you got to the Glenn! path yet but I thought I'd get around to sharing part of his focus tree for you and anyone else interested. Sorry I'm a tad late on doing so but just in case anyone needed evidence for the guy's hype.

Here's the first part before the three branches of the tree. You don't have to do them in any order, but I've heard recommendation to go down the space tree first, handle reforms when you need popularity, and run through the nuclear tree following the other two getting finished: At the bare minimum, mankind will at least have put a man on Mars before a nuclear war, something I feel pessimistic about IOTL but that's neither here nor there.

Spoiler: Opening

Pretty straightforward, mainly some opening moves and deciding whether you want to appease the R-D's or bring in some technocrats.

Spoiler: Domestic Policy

Here's the social reforms tree, which is rather awesome from my point of view. Didn't mean to duplicate some foci in there, that's just how I snipped it.

Here, President Glenn attempts to introduce pension reform into law within the United States. He can seek to expand the scope of it and/or include other measures against poverty in it. This shouldn't be too difficult to pass in Congress. Next up is potentially capping drug prices, the extent of which affects how likely your colleagues in the Senate are willing to pass it. Additionally, you can attempt to end Right to Work legislation, empowering the working class to an extent and mechanically introducing a six-hour work day into law. Following these easier pieces of legislation is something bigger: Social Security.

The second portion of President John Glenn's focus tree centers on garnering support and determining the power of legislation that, if passed in Congress, will sign Social Security into law. (While the game doesn't recognize if you've passed Social Security into law under RFK, it nonetheless strengthens this part of his legacy.) While it's not the end of the world if it doesn't pass in Congress, If it does I think poverty goes down and pensions are in better shape, but I haven't gotten it passed on my one playthrough of the Administration so far. Next up is government accountability and attempting to limit the influence of big money in U.S. politics.

Here, you can attempt to root out corrupting influences on the government, strengthen accountability measures, and the like. The banning of lobbying will end private funding of NASA and making it a tab more difficult to accrue financial capital for the project. If you decide to instead merely restrict lobbying, it provides more money for NASA. However, this will somewhat divide the council The R-D's, and not all of that money you get is clean. This may or may not come to bite you in the ass down the line...

Spoiler: Glenn's Nuclear Tree

Next up is the atomic tree, which doubles as his major foreign policy branch as well as a plan to get America on board with nuclear power. It's not as easy as it looks, and you will end up with quite a few roadbumps. Some of the stuff you can do is obtain quite a bit of uranium for a massive expansion of the American arsenal of thermonuclear weaponry as well as try and explain the benefits of nuclear power to a country which was traumatized twice by the events at Pearl Harbor.

Following the first part, things can get really dangerous if you aren't careful or if your geopolitical enemies get too paranoid.

If your actions haven't inadvertently caused the world to end prematurely, you might be able to pull something off extraordinary...


(relevant Reddit post)

This picture may be worth a thousand words but it doesn't show how wholesome the subsequent event chain can get.

Spoiler: Space Tree

Might be a tad otudated but the devs teased it a few months before TNO was released. The main function is to progress with the program while staying well-funded and keeping the public supportive of your heavenly endeavors. What also helps is doing your best to make sure to avoid as many disasters in the program as possible. If you're not careful, a massive disaster could outright kill the space program and any dreams of getting to the Moon... or even further than that.

However, if you pull it off against all odds...

There you have it, President John Glenn's entire focus tree. If you haven't guess already it will take you, at the bare minimum, two whole terms to get this through. Might not be able to complete everything in it either depending on how you budget your time and resources between international proxy wars, and what makes it an even bigger crunch is the Oil Crisis which takes about five months or so to resolve. What makes it more difficult to handle in eight years? A reaction tree, in case you ended up with George Wallace of all people driving the country straight into the ground during the mid-to-late 1960s.

Fortunately, as no elections are implemented beyond those for 1972, you could continue indefinitely and headcanon that Glenn somehow gets a third term so this can all be finished up (as done so in this fan-written account of a three-term Glenn! Administration), but once the 1970s are released I have high doubts that this will be a thing, even in the face of meteoric popularity ratings over surprisingly progressive legislation, nuclear disarmament, and sending humans to Mars for the first time..

 

[teg]

So I want to play a moderately cursed USA game - which means getting Wallace elected in '64. What is the best way to do this? I've tried previously and it resulted thus far in LBJ winning fairly convincingly...

 

[thanix01]

So I want to play a moderately cursed USA game - which means getting Wallace elected in '64. What is the best way to do this? I've tried previously and it resulted thus far in LBJ winning fairly convincingly...

Lose war with Guyana (by doing nothing for few months) and don’t campaign for RD.

 

[White Aurora]

@White Aurora, not sure if you got to the Glenn! path yet but I thought I'd get around to sharing part of his focus tree for you and anyone else interested. Sorry I'm a tad late on doing so but just in case anyone needed evidence for the guy's hype.

Thanks for you showing me the focus tree!
I didnt played TNO lately as I had lots to do recently.

 

[Yankeewolf]

So I want to play a moderately cursed USA game - which means getting Wallace elected in '64. What is the best way to do this? I've tried previously and it resulted thus far in LBJ winning fairly convincingly...

I got wallace unintentionally but here's how I got it:
1:Always campaign for the NPP(really micro the hell out of the campaigns, easier than it looks)
2: sign the civil rights act
3: lose the SAW in totality

 

[AeroTheZealousOne]

Thanks for you showing me the focus tree!
I didnt played TNO lately as I had lots to do recently.

You're very welcome! I don't want to admit it but I've had more time on my hands than usual thanks to everything going on in the world. I knew you would appreciate it, and looking back on it I just realized how similar my presentation looks to a dev diary.

I got wallace unintentionally but here's how I got it:
1:Always campaign for the NPP(really micro the hell out of the campaigns, easier than it looks)
2: sign the civil rights act
3: lose the SAW in totality

1. It's definitely easier than it looks. A more cheaty way is to choose the party you don't want to get seats and ignore campaigning altogether, but I just don't feel up to that. Similarly with involvement in Guyana, failing that after about five months is a very good way to help get the NPP elected in 1964.
2. For something slightly more cursed you can wait until the last second to sign (or veto if one wants RFK) the Civil Rights Act, but it really depends if one wants to complete more foreign focuses or doesn't want a malus (Black Wednesday) that lowers stability by thirty percent.
3. Not hard at all, the Afrika-Schild seems to steamroll South Africa in most of my games regardless of how much aid I send them. More volunteers does help to stem the tide but not necessarily reverse it, and the best I've gotten is a status quo ante bellum ceasefire/white peace.

Now if you want President Curtis LeMay going down the Civil Rights Repeal branch of the tree is a good way to trigger the crisis that begins Wallace's impeachment and subsequent trial in the Senate. If you want to stick with President Wallace, it's going to cost a lot of political power but it's doable. If you don't, choose the decisions that have senators vote in favor of removing him from office, and Vice-President LeMay will become the 40th President of the United States of America up until his term ends in early January of 1969.

LeMay is actually not as cursed as you would expect - he can take one path to keep the party together and placate the NPP-C, and then there's one where he can actually turn around, spit upon the legacy of Wallace, and sign a Civil Rights Bill into law as one last middle finger to his predecessor and the segregationists, all while chomping on his cigar and not giving a damn about what everyone thinks of him after throwing out any shot at a political future. It also helps to boost the popularities of the extremist wings of the NPP, which if one really wants America to lose the Cold War it might be helpful in that regard.

The latter is a very blursed path, honestly. Regardless of impeachment or not, if one elects an R-D in 1968 the Wallace response path will take up your first sixth months in office, where one can take the opportunity to either better the status of civil rights in the United States... or further drive them into the ground by vetoing such a proposal in Congress, which is totally gonna be popular with the whole country. [Sarcasm self-test complete.]

 

[Workable Goblin]

3. Not hard at all, the Afrika-Schild seems to steamroll South Africa in most of my games regardless of how much aid I send them. More volunteers does help to stem the tide but not necessarily reverse it, and the best I've gotten is a status quo ante bellum ceasefire/white peace.

You need to send the XVIII Airborne Corps and micro the hell out of encircling and destroying Afrika-Schild divisions. Once they're unable to put up a resistance, the 82nd and 101st Airborne can just run for VPs. On my first U.S. play through I was able to win the South African War by the end of October 1964 (yes, before the election!). It's ridiculously easy to make the Nazis look like incompetent idiots (which, well, they were, so...)

 

[Ceslas]

You need to send the XVIII Airborne Corps and micro the hell out of encircling and destroying Afrika-Schild divisions. Once they're unable to put up a resistance, the 82nd and 101st Airborne can just run for VPs. On my first U.S. play through I was able to win the South African War by the end of October 1964 (yes, before the election!). It's ridiculously easy to make the Nazis look like incompetent idiots (which, well, they were, so...)

President McCormack, in office for less than a year, conquered most of Africa. In my second America game I was begging for the ceasefire to trigger before the South Africans (who were facing practically no opposition) conquered the RKs despite me withdrawing my forces to Cape Town.

 

[Yülia]

You need to send the XVIII Airborne Corps and micro the hell out of encircling and destroying Afrika-Schild divisions. Once they're unable to put up a resistance, the 82nd and 101st Airborne can just run for VPs. On my first U.S. play through I was able to win the South African War by the end of October 1964 (yes, before the election!). It's ridiculously easy to make the Nazis look like incompetent idiots (which, well, they were, so...)

This is gonna be kinda sad, but I just had my first "steam roll" win in a hoi4 game (against an opponent that is "equal" and not like, The USSR against Bulgaria) last night.

Usually I don't use optimal templates (more opting for flavour) and I usually opt for letting the AI manage the war (once again, for flavour/RP) It felt great and really disappointing at the same time. I both love and hate the impact that a few divisions can have on a war.

Unrelated: I also love observing the various other conflicts and "commentating" them etc. Like trying to make predictions and such.

 

[Ariosto]

Having played around with the Mod a little bit, I've come to a number of conclusions.​

• Divisions Need to be Turned Into Battalions: This is an issue I have had with a lot of games that move beyond the massive armies of the Second World War, where a lot of countries are not able to effectively properly field an army capable of maintaining a proper front line. The end result is that you end up with unopposed encirclements or divisions running past each other which, honestly, shouldn't be happening. I had proposed doing this in other Mods, notably the Modern Day Mod, where a "Battalion" would be equivalent to a (~0.34) of a full strength Division, effectively multiplying the size of most armies by three. I can't remember how this worked in practice though, as the only time I remember it being implemented was in HOI2 or Darkest Hour.
• There Should be a Way to Curtail or Better Influence the German Civil War: Having played my hand at each of the factions in the Civil War, I have to honestly say that I've been rather disappointed in how it plays out, least in the early set-up stages from '62 to the end of '63. The way the focus tree is set up and worded for each choice implies that you should be potentially injuring the chances of the other factions opposing you or strengthening your own, but in practice this doesn't seem to have any practical effect. Conversely, you don't really get many more influence points either when compared to what the other factions get naturally at no cost, and in some cases I think you actually get less. Now if the influence system had a lot more... value beyond minor bonuses, where focuses or influence could also be used to significantly weaken if not neuter factions in gambles which could backfire on you, where the end solution is far more fluid depending on the final setup, that would be significantly more satisfying.
• The South African War: Simply talking about the combat situation, one of the first things that should happen is the United States deploying a significant fleet to Cape Town through the focus tree, with the SAF AI using that fleet to ensure Naval Supremacy over its coasts; I honestly have never seen a time where the Schild has not taken advantage of the situation and managed to land divisions at Cape Town or around it, and then proceed to do it again if they are thrown back the first couple times. The ability for the United States or its Allies to instigate revolts or an insurgency in Afrika, maybe potentially causing a "reverse Boer" situation which then forces the Schild to pull back forces from the Front would be much appreciated, though that should also have major drawbacks even in the case of a total OAFN victory; in other cases it would amount to the Risings during the Gulf War. There is also the issue where, as Germany, it isn't advisable to commit any forces to the conflict as it is seemingly inevitable that Huttig comes to power, which in turn leads to the collapse of Afrika; I mean the argument could be made that it is giving German players something to do whilst repairing their economy, but the experience is essentially very hollow once you know that at best your are achieving a pyrrhic victory.

 

[pelecanimimus]

effectively multiplying the size of most armies by three.

That would be a horrible idea,just for the mere fact that HoI4 is horribly optimized and the game can be pretty slow even with the current number of divisions, so increasing it would make the game unplayable for many

 

[Yülia]

Having played around with the Mod a little bit, I've come to a number of conclusions.​

• Divisions Need to be Turned Into Battalions: This is an issue I have had with a lot of games that move beyond the massive armies of the Second World War, where a lot of countries are not able to effectively properly field an army capable of maintaining a proper front line. The end result is that you end up with unopposed encirclements or divisions running past each other which, honestly, shouldn't be happening. I had proposed doing this in other Mods, notably the Modern Day Mod, where a "Battalion" would be equivalent to a (~0.34) of a full strength Division, effectively multiplying the size of most armies by three. I can't remember how this worked in practice though, as the only time I remember it being implemented was in HOI2 or Darkest Hour.
• There Should be a Way to Curtail or Better Influence the German Civil War: Having played my hand at each of the factions in the Civil War, I have to honestly say that I've been rather disappointed in how it plays out, least in the early set-up stages from '62 to the end of '63. The way the focus tree is set up and worded for each choice implies that you should be potentially injuring the chances of the other factions opposing you or strengthening your own, but in practice this doesn't seem to have any practical effect. Conversely, you don't really get many more influence points either when compared to what the other factions get naturally at no cost, and in some cases I think you actually get less. Now if the influence system had a lot more... value beyond minor bonuses, where focuses or influence could also be used to significantly weaken if not neuter factions in gambles which could backfire on you, where the end solution is far more fluid depending on the final setup, that would be significantly more satisfying.
• The South African War: Simply talking about the combat situation, one of the first things that should happen is the United States deploying a significant fleet to Cape Town through the focus tree, with the SAF AI using that fleet to ensure Naval Supremacy over its coasts; I honestly have never seen a time where the Schild has not taken advantage of the situation and managed to land divisions at Cape Town or around it, and then proceed to do it again if they are thrown back the first couple times. The ability for the United States or its Allies to instigate revolts or an insurgency in Afrika, maybe potentially causing a "reverse Boer" situation which then forces the Schild to pull back forces from the Front would be much appreciated, though that should also have major drawbacks even in the case of a total OAFN victory; in other cases it would amount to the Risings during the Gulf War. There is also the issue where, as Germany, it isn't advisable to commit any forces to the conflict as it is seemingly inevitable that Huttig comes to power, which in turn leads to the collapse of Afrika; I mean the argument could be made that it is giving German players something to do whilst repairing their economy, but the experience is essentially very hollow once you know that at best your are achieving a pyrrhic victory.

I haven't really had that first problem, although I do get the point. I think performance would become an issue though for the much larger countries if they start having triple the troops they have.

The German Civil War I kinda wish there was more variety to it. It seems like to me that Bormann always wins handily. I've heard that Goering is supposed to be the second best, but he never comes close (except the time I played as him and pushed into Bavaria before making a blunder). Speer might be able to win as an AI but every game I've done it just doesn't committ enough to any one of it's fronts.

SA War I think suffers a bit from trying to be a parallel to the Korean War, and the fact that the US doesn't seem to actually commit (as an AI) to helping. (My past few games they don't even send volunteers)

 

[Ariosto]

That would be a horrible idea,just for the mere fact that HoI4 is horribly optimized and the game can be pretty slow even with the current number of divisions, so increasing it would make the game unplayable for many

I haven't really had that first problem, although I do get the point. I think performance would become an issue though for the much larger countries if they start having triple the troops they have.

Playing on a gaming laptop I might have a somewhat skewed experience, but the game hasn't been remotely slow for me other than perhaps the pacing, which varies from nation to nation. However I think it is more or less necessary for nations that have extensive fronts but small armies. The only work around I can think of is to have certain nations just field smaller divisions (i.e. limit the number of slots filled per division), but I don't know if the AI would cooperate under that kind of setting; as it is, a lot of the AI's are not fielding new units.​

The German Civil War I kinda wish there was more variety to it. It seems like to me that Bormann always wins handily. I've heard that Goering is supposed to be the second best, but he never comes close (except the time I played as him and pushed into Bavaria before making a blunder). Speer might be able to win as an AI but every game I've done it just doesn't committ enough to any one of it's fronts.

Borman definitely starts with the largest advantage, and if he is chosen as successor it is a virtual certainty that he will win the conflict. It doesn't help that most of his border is secure next to neutral territory whereas the rest need to worry keeping troops just about everywhere. Czechia should probably at some point be a Belgium analogue where either Goring or Borman could blitz through, though I'm not sure it would be in advantage of either of them to lengthen the front like that.​

SA War I think suffers a bit from trying to be a parallel to the Korean War, and the fact that the US doesn't seem to actually commit (as an AI) to helping. (My past few games they don't even send volunteers)

Part of the problem is definitely the AI, but I can't completely fault them for that given programming an AI is..... difficult at the best of times. The Canadians and Aussies should be more involved though, actively so.​

 

[Yülia]

Playing on a gaming laptop I might have a somewhat skewed experience, but the game hasn't been remotely slow for me other than perhaps the pacing, which varies from nation to nation. However I think it is more or less necessary for nations that have extensive fronts but small armies. The only work around I can think of is to have certain nations just field smaller divisions (i.e. limit the number of slots filled per division), but I don't know if the AI would cooperate under that kind of setting; as it is, a lot of the AI's are not fielding new units.​

Borman definitely starts with the largest advantage, and if he is chosen as successor it is a virtual certainty that he will win the conflict. It doesn't help that most of his border is secure next to neutral territory whereas the rest need to worry keeping troops just about everywhere. Czechia should probably at some point be a Belgium analogue where either Goring or Borman could blitz through, though I'm not sure it would be in advantage of either of them to lengthen the front like that.​

Part of the problem is definitely the AI, but I can't completely fault them for that given programming an AI is..... difficult at the best of times. The Canadians and Aussies should be more involved though, actively so.​

1) Playing on a gaming PC I don't have any issue, but sometimes certain events, such as the civil wars in various mods, especially multi-faction, cause the game to heistate briefly. (Although I think that's more to do with the units stuff in some mods). Overall it's really like you say and issue for the countries with large borders and small armies. The units issue to me seems like a manpower thing. Most of the Warlords seem to be basically out of manpower and don't gain it fast enough, and certain ones (komi) like to pile drive themselves into the tundra violently.

I think that'd be an awesome idea. Especially because in my Goering attempt It would have won me the war most likely. (Depending on if Czech forces (do they have any?) pulled enough of a Belgium. My issue is the Leipzig front is very difficult to push through when AI Borman decided to put his entire army there while I was trying to deal with Speer. (But this is also me being flavourful and delegating the task to the AI a bit). I think Borman has the same situation as the WRRF in that he is well positioned, like you said, even if things go bad. My game I managed to push him into Bavaria/Southern Germany, but he barely kept me from linking my frontline for long enough. (And then Heydrich died and fucked my frontline apparently cause the AI didn't extend to the dutch border, so he had some troops just waltz around me causing the Hannoverian Front to collapse briefly (and it went down hill from there). It was fun though.

I do love the events for taking and losing the cities and such, I really wish there were way more of them for normal Hoi4. (The Warlords and the factories is awesome imo)

It's crazy to me how the AI works sometimes. I've had it do ingenius things in some games, and others it just durps a bit. My last game my last two opponents didn't attack, granted I did have numbers and defensive advantage, but what killed it was they just stood there while I slowly encircled them. It's weird.

I really agree that I think the OFN others shoul also send volunteers. I noticed new Zealand has the advisors idea that gives them an extra volunteer, but they don't send any.

 

[Ariosto]

So having closely observed a slew of events and there outcomes by save scumming, it appears that the outcomes for just about every event are truly "locked" upon the start of the game, and are guaranteed to provide the same outcome no matter how far back you go. I'm not sure why this is the case, but any attempt I've made to change the outcome of an event or decision has not been successful. The most notorious example I have so far that comes to mind where as Speer you send the telegram to Warsaw, where the Poles rejected the talks (9) times in a row; didn't matter if I went back months or hadn't yet triggered the Polish Thorn decision, same outcome.​

​

Another example is the Great Game between Italy and Germany, where each decision will seemingly arrive at a pre-determined number; by save scumming, I was able to guarantee myself a perfect (10) or at least (9) each round as I "discovered" how many points each decision gave. This was repeated both in Hungary and Romania, and I can't imagine it would be different with Serbia or France.​

​

Honestly I'm just at a loss as to why this is.​

 

[Wolttaire]

So having closely observed a slew of events and there outcomes by save scumming, it appears that the outcomes for just about every event are truly "locked" upon the start of the game, and are guaranteed to provide the same outcome no matter how far back you go. I'm not sure why this is the case, but any attempt I've made to change the outcome of an event or decision has not been successful. The most notorious example I have so far that comes to mind where as Speer you send the telegram to Warsaw, where the Poles rejected the talks (9) times in a row; didn't matter if I went back months or hadn't yet triggered the Polish Thorn decision, same outcome.​

​

Another example is the Great Game between Italy and Germany, where each decision will seemingly arrive at a pre-determined number; by save scumming, I was able to guarantee myself a perfect (10) or at least (9) each round as I "discovered" how many points each decision gave. This was repeated both in Hungary and Romania, and I can't imagine it would be different with Serbia or France.​

​

Honestly I'm just at a loss as to why this is.​

yah hope the devs see this and investigate you sure probaly report this to be honest, this is one reason why i have stayed away from majors cause all the bug reports

 

[Wendell08]

SA War I think suffers a bit from trying to be a parallel to the Korean War, and the fact that the US doesn't seem to actually commit (as an AI) to helping. (My past few games they don't even send volunteers)

AI can't send volunteers since they're broke, in that case they'll load units to SAF

 

[Wendell08]

So having closely observed a slew of events and there outcomes by save scumming, it appears that the outcomes for just about every event are truly "locked" upon the start of the game, and are guaranteed to provide the same outcome no matter how far back you go. I'm not sure why this is the case, but any attempt I've made to change the outcome of an event or decision has not been successful. The most notorious example I have so far that comes to mind where as Speer you send the telegram to Warsaw, where the Poles rejected the talks (9) times in a row; didn't matter if I went back months or hadn't yet triggered the Polish Thorn decision, same outcome.​

​

Another example is the Great Game between Italy and Germany, where each decision will seemingly arrive at a pre-determined number; by save scumming, I was able to guarantee myself a perfect (10) or at least (9) each round as I "discovered" how many points each decision gave. This was repeated both in Hungary and Romania, and I can't imagine it would be different with Serbia or France.​

​

Honestly I'm just at a loss as to why this is.​

RNG are generated at game start, It's hardcoded and there's nothing that we can change
You can only change the result by starting a new game

 

[Yülia]

AI can't send volunteers since they're broke, in that case they'll load units to SAF

New Zealand and Australia send troops to South Africa?

Interesting to know that they're broken, but I also meant some form of assisting in general?

 

[Ariosto]

Is there a way I can access the Mod files in Steam? Or is there a separate download location? I want to try a couple of "controlled" scenarios where I force a number of outcomes, but I need to be able to see the events and decisions to properly plan them out.​

RNG are generated at game start, It's hardcoded and there's nothing that we can change
You can only change the result by starting a new game

That's what I figured from the start.... shame really, though I suppose it keeps the players honest.​

​