Hearts of Iron IV - The Ultimate WWII Strategy Game

[Makabb]

When they said "there was a clear bad guy" I closed the video.

I closed the first time they said 'epic'

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

epikkk

Watched the world war multiplayer videos they uploaded, game seems like a clusterfuck. Might be worth it after 1-2 years of patches and addons.

 

[Dayyālu]

Note that the old dude never names the third aggressor state (I would have hard to name Italy as being that important to the course of the war because of how incompetent Mussolini and his regime were).

Shuddup, you Finn!

While your inconsequential nation bathes in unlikely claims supported by barely understood and proven historiography, The Mighty Italian Fascist Empire won the entire war!


For the Allies, of course.


(On the other hand, Italy is rather important for the course of the war. North Africa, the Balkans and the Italian front tied up a considerable number of German assets. Even if I have to wonder if the somewhat less negative popular opinion of Mussolini - the usual spiel of Hitler/Stalin as the "bad guys" and Mussolini as the random buffon - should not be revised a little. It's not that the italians lacked the guts to be brutal, they lacked the organization and the political motivation, as Arendt said long ago. Ask to the torched villages in Yugoslavia if the Fascists weren't brutal enough.)

Oh yeah because the Soviet Union invading literally every country along its Western border totally wasn't aggressive or anything.

Of the limited knowledge I have of Soviet foreign policy (I don't read Russian) the Soviet Union and Stalin in particular were cultivating delusions that the entire world would have jumped against them in five/ten year's time. So, the massive tech and industrial preparations done in the Thirties, just a little fucked up by the Purges. After the Polish debacle in the 20', the aggressiveness of the Union was surely less pronunced of the 1938 Reich.

There is even an interesting school of thought that believes that Stalin would have wholeheartedly supported the Axis power beyond the ad-hoc Polish affair and the tech/resources exchanges, if only Hitler wasn't so focused on killing him first.

Who the fuck knows.

 

[Lone Wolf]

There is even an interesting school of thought that believes that Stalin would have wholeheartedly supported the Axis power beyond the ad-hoc Polish affair and the tech/resources exchanges, if only Hitler wasn't so focused on killing him first.

Not exactly. Stalin was desperate to keep the Soviet Union out of a major war before 1942. For all his many flaws, he was not completely blind as to the capacities of the RKKA. After the '39-40 Finnish campaign, and Germany's French campaign, there was a radical doctrinal re-shuffle that would take years to put into effect. Basically, Tukhachevsky's mechanized formations - rolled back in the aftermath of the Great Purge and the Spanish Civil War - were once again brought back.

When they held wargames later in 1940, there were some Road to Damascus moments of honesty about whether it was appropriate to consider one German division to be of the same combat value as their Soviet counterparts. Stalin argued that realism was needed, and that there was to be no such equivalence (forcing a do-over wherein the Soviets were considerably weaker).

Really, the entire effort to stop a war in 1941 was a recognition of that reality; the Soviets simply weren't ready.

I think Timothy Snyder put it best when asked about which was worse of the two that when you are talking about two regimes that murdered millions because of ethnicity, class, or other category, you cannot claim there is a lesser evil to be had there.

Ludicrous, in truth. Of course you can claim a lesser evil. Stalin's regime was dictatorial, thuggish and murderous. But it was largely rational, could therefore be reasoned with (and was) and didn't conduct its foreign policy according to a retarded, ideological manifest destiny (Communism in one country, anyone? As opposed to Trotsky's world revolution). Hitler's regime, on the other hand...

People who want to put those regimes in the exact same basket are usually the descendants of victims of Soviet repression (Finns, Balts, Poles and some Ukrainians usually) and are letting their objectivity be clouded by grudges.

 

[Dayyālu]

People who want to put those regimes in the exact same basket are usually the descendants of victims of Soviet repression (Finns, Balts, Poles and some Ukrainians usually) and are letting their objectivity be clouded by grudges.

In this case you are quite understating one of the great changes in Western European historical perceptions: from children's books to proper history the great conflicts of the 20th century have been slowly redrawn from "Anti-Fascist" to "Anti-Totalitarian", where with the label of "Totalitarian" we sell everything from Hitler, to Stalin, to Pinochet, to Mao, to Yugoslavia, to Ataturk even.

This is of course simplicistic, but was particularly strong in the era of the eastward expansion of the EU when a common ground was needed with the former Eastern Block countries that had their fair share of grievances with the previous regime. This has proven somewhat problematic to reconcile with some of our historical traditions (the Italian Republic is a miracolous post war blend of Communists and Christian Democrats, and the entire constitution has a strong Anti-Fascist feel, so it's somewhat clunky to adapt to the new sensibilities, not that they are not trying). The dominant narrative is that Stalin and Hitler are interchangeable, finesse and historical context be damned.

The massive growth of pretty much what can be defined as Fascist/Populist movements in most of Western/Eastern Europe can be even be linked to this slow but definite weakening of the Anti-Fascist tradition: guess the Overlords are going to try to reverse that as the EU crisis is worsening daily, but again, who the fuck knows.

Off topic, off topic. Sorreh.

 

[CptMace]

I'll always be amazed by the capacity of the plebs to totally ignore the fact that western Europe was just as vassalized by their conqueror liberator as eastern Europe was by theirs.
Different methods, that's for sure, but still.

Although doesn't that ring any bell for you that the american dominion european union incorporated every former vassal of the USSR as soon as they could once Russia fell (and got almost destroyed by the drunkyard Eltsine, a good friend of the West this fella) ? All of the Brussels fucks even admit today that "this was a mistake to expand so fast", sure, but why did they have to expand so fast now then ? Or why did Obama specifically demands that the UK stay in the EU ?

I mean, it's not like we already know that the founding fathers(®) of the european union worked for the CIA.

The leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.

 

[GarfunkeL]

How is that different from the way Moscow funded nearly every anti-nuclear and pro-peace movement west of the Iron Curtain? US acted in their best interests, which was to firstly rebuild Germany and Japan so they could become markets for US goods, and secondly to get post-war Europe in shape so that the USSR couldn't just roll over it. This coincidentally was in the best interests of anyone who was not a dyed-in-the-wool Communist or a total Russophile.

Of course you can claim a lesser evil

Can you? Stalin caused more deaths than Hitler and Communism has killed more than Nazism. Sure, if Hitler had been allowed to finish his programs, the total death toll would eventually have been mind-numbingly massive but he didn't. Stalin, on the other hand, was happily restarting his Purges in early 1950s and would have kept going if he hadn't died - or assassinated, which is very much possible.

The Mighty Italian Fascist Empire won the entire war! For the Allies, of course.

Yup. Italy actually did play a significant role in WW2:

1. The weak response from Great-Britain to Itaian conquest of Abyssinia led Hitler to believe he could get away with murder.
2. Italian invasion of Greece (along the pro-British coup in Yugoslavia) forced Germany to postpone Barbarossa by two weeks but, more importantly, meant that two Panzer divisions were being refitted throughout the late summer of 1941. Furthermore, the partisan war in Yugoslavia and, to a lesser extent, in Greece kept bleeding German and Italian resources that could have been used elsewhere more productively.
3. The Italian collapse in North-Africa again diverted German resources - initially mere 2 divisions, but the numbers kept growing as well, albeit too late to have a decisive impact. Plus all the Luftwaffe assets that the Germans really could not spare but had to, as well as diverting German U-boats from Atlantic to the Mediterranean where they ended up being stuck.

The craziest thing is that OKH planners knew all the weaknesses of Italy and had recommended as early as 1938 that Italy would best serve German interests by remaining neutral and thus preventing a total British embargo of Germany. But Mussolini wanted his share of the glory.

 

[Dayyālu]

Can you? Stalin caused more deaths than Hitler and Communism has killed more than Nazism. Sure, if Hitler had been allowed to finish his programs, the total death toll would eventually have been mind-numbingly massive but he didn't. Stalin, on the other hand, was happily restarting his Purges in early 1950s and would have kept going if he hadn't died - or assassinated, which is very much possible.

Historical revisionism, one point at a time. Should we restart the Eternal Debate about the position of our good old friend Nolte? Both sides can summon endless parades of sources and historians (most of them I can't even read, truth be told) to prove or disprove the numbers.

We are all lucky that Uncle Joseph died when he did, though. Crazy fuck he was.

But I'd suggest to close the off topic I opened. Not the time or the place, and we would summon the usual irksome Nazi memers.

The Mighty Italian Fascist Empire won the entire war! For the Allies, of course.

Yup. Italy actually did play a significant role in WW2:

The craziest thing is that OKH planners knew all the weaknesses of Italy and had recommended as early as 1938 that Italy would best serve German interests by remaining neutral and thus preventing a total British embargo of Germany. But Mussolini wanted his share of the glory.

Sum that with the "help" we gave on the Eastern Front (poor fucks) and with the 1943 Armistice/RSI debacle, and Italy I guess truly did more to further the Allied cause than many minors.

Prob is, Mussolini could not afford to be left outside of the war (as his regime was pretty much held up by propaganda and a strongman image and little else). Italy in WW2 is a deeply fascinating subject if you, like me, love to study failures: there is not a single facet of modern combat or a single campaign (bar British Somaliland) were they won or "got it right". The "Black Legend" of British origin that the Italians fails to have the guts to fight is of course propaganda, as the common soldier was often more than able and willing: but the amount of structural problems is mind-boggling.

And mostly darkly hilarious.

 

[Irenaeus III]

We are all lucky that Uncle Joseph died when he did, though.

Not really, I heard he was about to kill a lot of Jews (again) before he was murdered.

 

[Erzherzog]

Italy in WW2 is a deeply fascinating subject if you, like me, love to study failures

I mean, I'm at the HoI4 thread aren't I?

But I agree, Italy is immensely interesting to me. Probably my second most played nation in HoI3.

 

[curry]

"there was a clear bad guy"

The International Jew

 

[Lone Wolf]

Can you? Stalin caused more deaths than Hitler and Communism has killed more than Nazism.

In what possible way?

Unless you try to put the responsibility for WW2 on Stalin's shoulders (please don't), that's simply not realistic, even if we were to take a ridiculous document like the Black Book of Communism at face value. Holodomor (or the larger Soviet famine of the early 30s that killed about 6-7m, total, across the Union) wiped away 2-3m Ukrainians directly. Whether or not it was an evil master plan of Stalin is immaterial; he bears responsibility as much as the circumstances of the time do. Throw in a few more million over the course of the purges of the late 30s and including other victims of political repression (although state records - the only real evidence available - shows fewer than 1.5m executions across more than a decade). You don't even scratch Hitler's total. Not even remotely. Because Hitler absolutely bears responsibility for the deaths of WW2 in Europe.

Then again, playing this game is silly. Stalin had people killed over perceived political missteps and his own paranoid delusions. Hitler's victims were mostly the result of his personal ideology - and as you say, the only saving grace is that his plans did not fully come to fruition. Is one the 'greater' evil? Of course. Of course it is. Stalin's crimes were about power and control. Hitler's were about reshaping the world to his whims. The latter is so much more dangerous it hardly bears discussing it further.

In the wider sense, comparing the ideologies is ridiculous. Come on, man. Let's not boil the discussion down to the lowest common denominator of historical happenstance. What Mao did in China cannot be laid at Stalin's feet. I have a lot of antipathy for Stalin, but there is no link. Nor can the crimes of the Khmer Rouge, or the Kims in Korea or those of Castro. The ideology in question didn't determine the outcome of those regimes taking power; the people at the top did.

 

[Cassidy]

Personally I haven't yet noticed this whole Hitler censorship thing. A relatively recent devblog? In earlier ones Hitler was still visible as normal.

You know, the most hilarious part in this will then be the fact that there are two characters with censored portraits in Pdox games, Hitler and Muhammed. Therefore, Hitler = Muhammed. Insheil.

The most hilarious part is that Stalin killed exponentially more innocents than Hitler but he is a buddy of all retarded

:incloosive: liberals

Therefore its OK to have his portrait.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I was going to post a mini-essay on the topic but then I realized that Dayyālu is right and so what's the point.

 

[Raghar]

I was going to post a mini-essay on the topic but then I realized that Dayyālu is right and so what's the point.

C'mon essays are always fun.

The craziest thing is that OKH planners knew all the weaknesses of Italy and had recommended as early as 1938 that Italy would best serve German interests by remaining neutral and thus preventing a total British embargo of Germany. But Mussolini wanted his share of the glory.

But can we have neutral Italy, in HIO4? When I spend effort to have German Russian alliance in HOI2, they posted funny message and didn't allow it.

I think a lot of Hitler's strategic decisions were sound. German influence in China. Japan not attacking China and being friendly to Germany prevented a lot of problems. And there were also his reasonable decisions in europe. And lets not forget that famous ship which was disallowed to bring Jews to US. All these things should have a place in HOI4.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I wonder how it will feel to play a minor power like Portugal in the game, sitting around looking at everyone else have fun might get boring.

 

[Reject_666_6]

They rattle on about hindsight, but I'll bet my butt their Treaty of Munich decision will be just as half-assed as in previous games. Germany will get a pop-up like usual: do you want to relive historical easy mode until 1942-ish (Munich Agreement option) or do you want to start a risky war against two heavily fortified fronts in Frogland and Pepikland (Fall Grün option)? Britain will have no say in the matter, despite the fact that Chamberlain is 100% responsible for the course history took in arranging the summit and appeasing the Reich.

Is it so wrong to want to play as the Brits and cockblock Germany into a limited European war (FRA, GBR, CZE vs a less stacked GER, with possible intervention from ITA, POL or SPA), with a nice segue into a bitter peace and a reversal of the war as it happened, with the West (including Germany) allying to stop the Red Tide from '42-'43 on?

 

[Average Manatee]

Didn't the UK decide whether to appease Hitler or not in HoI3? IIRC you just took some stupidly big dissent hit (like +20%)

 

[Reject_666_6]

Germany had the initiating decision in 1938, with only a few trivial requirements like CZE not being in a faction or GER not being librul, etc. IIRC, the only way to stop it firing as the UK was to get the Czechs to ally with you. Of course it's just a nitpick, dissent hit was manageable.

 

[Average Manatee]

If you want to be the instigator of war as UK then all you need to do is raise German/Italian threat. I'm quite certain you can do it before the Czechs are at stake.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Yup. Italy actually did play a significant role in WW2:

The craziest thing is that OKH planners knew all the weaknesses of Italy and had recommended as early as 1938 that Italy would best serve German interests by remaining neutral and thus preventing a total British embargo of Germany. But Mussolini wanted his share of the glory.

Sum that with the "help" we gave on the Eastern Front (poor fucks) and with the 1943 Armistice/RSI debacle, and Italy I guess truly did more to further the Allied cause than many minors.

Prob is, Mussolini could not afford to be left outside of the war (as his regime was pretty much held up by propaganda and a strongman image and little else). Italy in WW2 is a deeply fascinating subject if you, like me, love to study failures: there is not a single facet of modern combat or a single campaign (bar British Somaliland) were they won or "got it right". The "Black Legend" of British origin that the Italians fails to have the guts to fight is of course propaganda, as the common soldier was often more than able and willing: but the amount of structural problems is mind-boggling.

And mostly darkly hilarious.[/QUOTE]
And it's made even more hilarious by the fact that Mussolini was basically a living cartoon character.

 

[Raghar]

Is it so wrong to want to play as the Brits and cockblock Germany into a limited European war (FRA, GBR, CZE vs a less stacked GER, with possible intervention from ITA, POL or SPA), with a nice segue into a bitter peace and a reversal of the war as it happened, with the West (including Germany) allying to stop the Red Tide from '42-'43 on?

They wouldn't fight. Theirs military was quite explicit that it was indefensible war. You'd need to allow Russian troops to arrive on czech territory for protection. Two divisions at least.
Then you'd have Hungary, who would take bite at Slovakia. And you'd have a bit larger war on continent before you could say "what Hungary?".
Not fighting the war, and having Russian troops would require Benesh decrets in year 1938. And that would leave Germany jagged.

And then what? Can France and Britain give Germany an explicit support and force Poland to jump at Russia and czechs/slovaks along with Hungary?

 

[GarfunkeL]

I mean, Chamberlain didn't fuck the Czechs over because he wanted to, he did it because he couldn't see any alternative options.

1. Poland and Romania made it clear that they would never allow Red Army transit rights. Without the Red Army, it would fall solely on the French and the British to invade Germany.
2. The British High Command was stacked with analysts whose main skillset was taking it up the bum and being utterly pessimistic about Allied capabilities while being totally optimistic about Axis capabilities.
3. Previous Governments had made sure that both the British Army and the Royal Air Force were mere shadows and even the Royal Navy had had to scale back on shipbuilding and modernization due to budget cuts.

So the French strategy relied on Germany being surrounded by enemies, just like in 1914, except this time Italy was not going to stab them in the back and the East-European countries would not let Russians in. The British strategy relied on continental blockade and the eventual starvation of their enemy, just like it had since Napoleon - but the threat of the new weapon, airplane, made Chamberlain believe that he had to buy time to improve the RAF, as otherwise the Luftwaffe would decimate London and other British cities. Of course he was utterly mistaken in this belief but he was hardly the first one.

In fact, in 1938 both France and Britain were better off vis-a-vis the Germans than they were in 1939. It would have been better to fight Germany in 1938 over Czechoslovakia instead of 1939 over Poland.

I don't know how HoI4 will handle this - probably badly, because every HoI iteration has had pretty poor events for this stuff at launch. In HoI3 it is possible to keep Italy neutral pretty long - you can even invite them to the Axis but just don't call them to the war. Eventually their threat will get high enough that UK or USA will DOW them but it's best to delay that moment for as long as possible.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I guess the biggest challenge is that when creating the situation for a game you have to worry about game concerns rather than alt-history what-ifs, since the war in question is one of those little events most people may have heard of and so you run into the whole metaknowledge problem.

Personally I think the best solution would be to have a more active domestic political scene with both political elites opinions and public opinion mattering, both for democracies and autocracies. So in case of Britain, you have aforementioned professional fudgepackers telling everyone no so if you want to Rambo the situation it's an uphill battle to gain support for the decision. By contrast in Germany you get to enjoy Manstein's situation where you have to constantly deal with an Austrian yokel with anger management issues and messiah complex.

 

[Reject_666_6]

Vaarna's got it, the answer is Great Men™ and their politics and views mattering + public opinion and its manipulation. One of these days I'm gonna make my vision of a WW2 Sengoku Rance-like game with Panzer General ripoff tactical combat a reality. Of course, this is easier said than done.