I did say pre-TT terms, but yeah. Anyways, Velasco might be a Socialist.
The New Order: Last Days of Europe Thread II
- Thread starter SirHalifax
- Start date
Apologies. I'm not very fond of the pre-TT terms, so I avert from using them whenever possible, unless I have to make a distinction.
TBH, I like the ideology changes coming in TT. The ideologies aren't strictly lined up on a scale of authoritarianism (the Burgundian System being the exception), like the FR-NPP, AuthDem even though it's the USA, especially under MCS, or Ian Paisley, who doesn't hold a candle to other ultranationalist states like Omsk – half-assed goons waving guns around vs. highly effective secret police, mass indoctrination, etc.
The ideology pie chart, as its name suggests, orders ideology, not authoritarianism. That's why I like the change from AuthSoc and LibSoc to Communism and Socialism.. It will cut down on "wholsomem LibSoc 100 yaaaay" (looking at you Bukharina), as well as being more accurate with each respective characters actual OTL views. Sablin is now a communist, like he always was IOTL; it ties in well with his upcoming rework, where there's less of a well defined line between "wholesome keanu libsoc 100" and "big bad uglyy COMMIE."
If you think about it some more, you may come to like it more.
Heavily depends on implementation.
Most USSR now including Sablin from what we know should still be pretty terrible like they currently are.
Good points, although I believe you misinterpreted me - I do greatly enjoy and like the terms Communism and Socialism replacing AuthSoc and LibSoc for me. They're broader, easier to work with regarding subideologies, allow accurate reclassification of left-wing leaders, and they solve a lot of other assorted problems for me.
chankljp
Donor
Just wanted to share with everyone that as the US, one of the CIA operations that you can pull on Thatcher's England was to help fund the infamous tabloid newspaper "The Sun", by providing with the paper with their inital start-up capital:
Meaning that in the TNO universe, the tradition started by the Sun of putting a topless model on Page 3 was literally part of a CIA PSYOPS in influencing the English public's opinion via the power of exposed breasts!
Meaning that in the TNO universe, the tradition started by the Sun of putting a topless model on Page 3 was literally part of a CIA PSYOPS in influencing the English public's opinion via the power of exposed breasts!
For those of you wonderingGamer Werbell in that 2WRW submode.
"Vnyeshnye Nyebesa" can be approximately translated to "Outer Heaven"
jparker77
Banned
Couple questions for thread
I’ve already played a lot of the smaller/less powerful countries, and so I was thinking about going back to playing another game as a major.
1. For Italy, should I do a democratic/reformist Italy game or a Scorza Protect Fascism game?
2. For the US, which candidate/political party should I do? I recently did a LBJ game(which saw total US victory in both South Africa and Indonesia) but I kind of want to see what the other candidates are like
3. For Germany, how do you win the civil war as Speer? I want to try him but, just based on the Bormann game I played, it kinda seems like he’s in an impossible spot
4. Or should I just do another Iberia game because Iberia is eternal, down to the secessionists()
I’ve already played a lot of the smaller/less powerful countries, and so I was thinking about going back to playing another game as a major.
1. For Italy, should I do a democratic/reformist Italy game or a Scorza Protect Fascism game?
2. For the US, which candidate/political party should I do? I recently did a LBJ game(which saw total US victory in both South Africa and Indonesia) but I kind of want to see what the other candidates are like
3. For Germany, how do you win the civil war as Speer? I want to try him but, just based on the Bormann game I played, it kinda seems like he’s in an impossible spot
4. Or should I just do another Iberia game because Iberia is eternal, down to the secessionists(
)1 If you play Italy do Scorza before he is cut out1. For Italy, should I do a democratic/reformist Italy game or a Scorza Protect Fascism game?
2. For the US, which candidate/political party should I do? I recently did a LBJ game(which saw total US victory in both South Africa and Indonesia) but I kind of want to see what the other candidates are like
3. For Germany, how do you win the civil war as Speer? I want to try him but, just based on the Bormann game I played, it kinda seems like he’s in an impossible spot
4. Or should I just do another Iberia game because Iberia is eternal, down to the secessionists(
2 Wallace,Goldwater and MCS are underappreciated i fell.
3 I leave to someone better at HOI4 to answer.
For Speer you want to make sure you get at least 25 HEER divisions on your side before the Civil War begins.Couple questions for thread
I’ve already played a lot of the smaller/less powerful countries, and so I was thinking about going back to playing another game as a major.
1. For Italy, should I do a democratic/reformist Italy game or a Scorza Protect Fascism game?
2. For the US, which candidate/political party should I do? I recently did a LBJ game(which saw total US victory in both South Africa and Indonesia) but I kind of want to see what the other candidates are like
3. For Germany, how do you win the civil war as Speer? I want to try him but, just based on the Bormann game I played, it kinda seems like he’s in an impossible spot
4. Or should I just do another Iberia game because Iberia is eternal, down to the secessionists(
brooklyn99
Banned
The (now former, unless I'm mistaken) leading German developer gives their take on Heydrich's path and it's flaws. Also touches on the inconsistency of Remer's characterization that I had pointed out months earlier.
My issue with Heydrich is this: Yes, it isn't intended to be a redemption arc. But when your writing Heydrich's storyline which consists of the following-
1. A struggle against someone who is close alarmingly close to unleashing global nuclear genocide.
2. Options to form alliances with groups who are vehemently regarded as "subhuman", though a character like Heydrich wouldn't be inclined to actually consider due to pressingly inflammatory reasons. like the Poles who tore down German supremacy over their country and intend to reassert their independence or the foreign slaves who seized over a piece of fundamentally integral German territory (East Prussia) and are bearing flags with the Star of David on them, to add insult to injury (despite that their leader is a Pole and the slaves are largely Eastern Europeans with the Jews still being targeted for death, but I digress).
3. At the end gets an epiphany that the Nazi ideology, which his fanatical devotion towards was never less than absolute, was a farcical falsehood all along that he descends into guilt ridden, pitiful depression which leads to the "tragic" (and unimpressive) ending of suicide (giving off Joel from TLOU2 vibes here).
You then inevitably set yourself up trying to endure the challenging hurdles on how exactly not to make it look like Heydrich's storyline is a redemption arc. It's why the whole debate on whether or not the storyline qualifies as such exists. Because it's showing some pretty confusing and mixed signals for the fandom.
As Moyme said. Heydrich was more gung-ho than even Himmler when it came to Nazi race doctrine. For all that TNO requires a measure of suspension of belief, it's too radically OOC for Heydrich even having the option to bury the hatchet with the Children of Spartakus when the most "lenient" approach that he'd go with would be just giving tacit consent for the Freistaat Prussen to conquer them, even if only to keep Eichmann too preoccupied for him to cooperate with Himmler. That Heydrich merely aligns with the Poles and rebel slaves purely as a desperate measure kinda falls flat meaningfully when after Heydrich ganks Himmler, he just turns Doomer then offs himself rather than instantly turning his guns on them in the very next second.
My issue with Heydrich is this: Yes, it isn't intended to be a redemption arc. But when your writing Heydrich's storyline which consists of the following-
1. A struggle against someone who is close alarmingly close to unleashing global nuclear genocide.
2. Options to form alliances with groups who are vehemently regarded as "subhuman", though a character like Heydrich wouldn't be inclined to actually consider due to pressingly inflammatory reasons. like the Poles who tore down German supremacy over their country and intend to reassert their independence or the foreign slaves who seized over a piece of fundamentally integral German territory (East Prussia) and are bearing flags with the Star of David on them, to add insult to injury (despite that their leader is a Pole and the slaves are largely Eastern Europeans with the Jews still being targeted for death, but I digress).
3. At the end gets an epiphany that the Nazi ideology, which his fanatical devotion towards was never less than absolute, was a farcical falsehood all along that he descends into guilt ridden, pitiful depression which leads to the "tragic" (and unimpressive) ending of suicide (giving off Joel from TLOU2 vibes here).
You then inevitably set yourself up trying to endure the challenging hurdles on how exactly not to make it look like Heydrich's storyline is a redemption arc. It's why the whole debate on whether or not the storyline qualifies as such exists. Because it's showing some pretty confusing and mixed signals for the fandom.
As Moyme said. Heydrich was more gung-ho than even Himmler when it came to Nazi race doctrine. For all that TNO requires a measure of suspension of belief, it's too radically OOC for Heydrich even having the option to bury the hatchet with the Children of Spartakus when the most "lenient" approach that he'd go with would be just giving tacit consent for the Freistaat Prussen to conquer them, even if only to keep Eichmann too preoccupied for him to cooperate with Himmler. That Heydrich merely aligns with the Poles and rebel slaves purely as a desperate measure kinda falls flat meaningfully when after Heydrich ganks Himmler, he just turns Doomer then offs himself rather than instantly turning his guns on them in the very next second.
Last edited:
Will confirm that as one of the early devs Heydrich was never meant to be "redeemable" and Panzer did kinda tell me that himself that he's not "redeemable" in the sense that we'd associate with redemption and his suicide was more guilt and regret driven from Heydrich's eyes and not the author writing a redemption arc. Perhaps the redemption that Moyme complained about is Speidel going full denazification and destroying nazism forever in Germany after Heydrich bites it, which does genuinely come off as a unearned happy ending for Germany.
Also will state that Moyme statement isn't one everyone agrees upon outside Heydrich being extremely murderous.
There are, looking at past discussions in the history and ah related communities, two interpretations of Heydrich's behavior among historians and alternate history writers. You have the "fanatical ideologue" interpretation which Moyme agrees with, and you also have the "extremely evil social climber with some pragmatism" interpretation, which I have seen Panzer state as his justification why Heydrich didn't pounce on Himmler as immediately as possible. The former interpretation, which sees Heydrich as a extreme fanatic, is the more common one, and is the one most alternate history draws on, but the latter interpretation, which sees Heydrich as a extremely twisted social climber willing to plan mass genocide to get to the top, but is more focused on self-advancement overall and is a bit more pragmatic than the rest of the Nazis, does have some advocates in the historian and ah community(the original MITHC draws on the latter for whatever characterization we have of him, the series draws on the former). And I know one person did complain that a now dead axis victory TL used the former interpretation when he gave evidence to support the latter.
If we go by the latter interpretation, Heydrich flipping out could be a sense of "I climbed the fucking wrong ladder" over "Darth Vader" and has some plausibility(a comparison could be with Walter White vs. the Neo-Nazis in the end of Breaking bad: except here Walt is a Nazi too and the neo-nazis are even crazier nazis), and we could buy him holding his nose long enough to ally with the slaves. Through this still opens the can of worms as I know a couple of people that went "even if Heydrich didn't like these goals, he wouldn't have the ephiany and kill himself but will try to govern on". Through to be fair its' vague enough you can even argue that he regrets climbing up the wrong ladder over the damage he has done.
That said, I am willing to let this storyline slide because it is extremely well written. It's a problematic fave for me.
Is it extremely problematic and somewhat contrived? Yes, and there are arguably ethics related problems related to creating a arc that pants such a murderous IRL figure with a small level of humanity. But it has enough distance from what I would associate with a redemption arc to make sense unless you are that sort of person that goes "any depth for a villain=redemption", it is genuinely well written and fun to at least play one game with, the context(tragic portrayal of Heydrich) is out there enough that it is very much going to be a genuinely really one off idea as a premise rather than setting a extremely problematic trend of people humanizing extremely horrific individuals(even in the various alt-TNOs*, I tend to use genuine historical nobodies or people that weren't as bad as Heydrich filling his role-as you will see when I do my writeup of FoM!TNO on the FoM thread, and if it's a "fictional universe's equvilent to TNO", I'll use villains that genuinely redeemed themselves for this role or had the door open for that).
Not to mention that if there was a fictional story with a character acting like this, I would support that storyline wholeheartedly because I have less issues with these storylines in a purely fictional environment and such a hypothetical fictional storyline will be better written than most villain feels bad storylines out there(despite what the tumblr, stitchmediamix and Lily Orchard crowd thinks, pure fiction is the best place to explore these themes, not somewhere that should be barred off because of fictional bodycounts: in part because working with reality and horrible people IRL, as well as real atrocities and bodycounts, opens a big can of worms and is a bigger no-no as we see with some of the controversy here).
*-For RedsVerse!TNO, I admit I did use Heydrich and the same plotline, but I gave it a different ending where he does try to consolidate power on the ruins of Germany: only for him to be killed by either another ambitious SS leader or Speidel and Germany to descend into a bloodier warlord era.
Last edited:
brooklyn99
Banned
Moyme's posts that I picked from discord hadn't to do with redemption per se, nor were picked by me because of such. They were critiques on Heydrich's characterization. Particularly how dumb it is that Heydrich would ever consider allying with the slaves and Poles, especially as his stances on the matters of "race" were apparently more hardcore than even Himmler (the guy who wants to wipe all non-aryans through nuclear fire). The redemption thing was something I chose to delve into as I wanted to weigh in on the Heydrich criticism myself.
The problem with this interpretation of Heydrich being used is that it's clearly not the case in the writing of the path. Heydrich clearly is doing what he's doing because he genuinely believes that Naziism is the path forwards for Germany; his suicide is entirely centered around his realization that Naziism has just brought more blood and suffering to Germany, rather than saving it. If he had killed himself because he realized that all his careerism had only made him king of the ashes that would be one thing, but it's clear that, in the game itself, Heydrich does what he does because he's a Nazi fanatic who thinks he has to.