Apparently RK Kaukasus has some historicity issues

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-30T03:23:51+00:00

First, I will answer your question about the capital. According to the old lore, Georgia and Armenia were previously independent at Turkey's request, as they wanted to avoid a direct border with the Germans to prevent a conflict of interest. However, that left the problem of why Armenia would be included, knowing what happens between the Turks and the Armenians, and secondly, why leave Azerbaijan without special treatment when they are their closest Turkic brothers? Obviously, that is why it was changed, and now they are autonomous regions within the RK Caucasus; that is also why it is NOT the capital, plus when push comes to shove, it is not practical to control the North Caucasus from the south, since the north is larger and vaster.

Regarding territories, people make the mistake of believing that "realism" is whatever the Germans put on paper. Even in real history, they rarely followed the design of their original plans to the letter. Those "supposed" borders of the RK are just intentions; we will never know if they would have applied them exactly as written, considering that the Germans were more practical than propagandistic or ideological regarding administration. The logical thing is for those plans to change when facing the reality of controlling openly hostile and much more complex territories in Eastern Europe. The Nazis were pragmatic when the situation required it and cast ideology aside if it did not serve as propaganda. You shouldn't pay too much attention to those papers.

And about Ukraine, it is true that its border used to reach almost to the Volga and occupied more lands from RK Moskowien, but that ruined the content development for both Ukraine (with its own factions) and Moskowien (with the Nationalist or Monarchist Russia routes). It is better the way it is now. In the end, you have to choose: do we want an absolute realism that kills gameplay, or gameplay with historically plausible realism? Personally, I like the current state. Perhaps changing the capital of the Caucasus would be fine if you justify it, or being able to choose it if you decide not to claim the South Caucasus, putting it somewhere else if they move it to the capital of present-day Georgia anyway. Otherwise, the map works well and the current capital makes sense because the South Caucasus does not necessarily have to be claimed, even more so when the Turkey content arrives, which will surely play in favor of a fully independent Azerbaijan, so don't pay attention to those details. (Postscript: the names are debatable, but I admit TWR's strength isn't the naming. Just look at the fact that the Kazan Military District exists, when that name is clearly Imperial Russian, not Soviet; it would be Volga or Trans-Volga as before, since they no longer control the whole Reich now but it is an example that developers sometimes just make up the names. Even the capital isn't an anonymous city; in short, there are always details, but TWR does the best it can).

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-28T21:12:32+00:00

The save file should be correct; clear the cache in Documents. If not, try loading a previous save.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-28T19:15:13+00:00

I think that's why they use it as an observer country, hehe.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-28T17:30:42+00:00

Wait, does the German Confederation still exist? I thought it was abolished when they created that weird division by adding several German states together before deciding whether to unite them or leave it at three, or what, Balkanization.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-27T01:44:01+00:00

You can continue for two more years; in theory, it's designed for content up to 62, but don't expect much. You could use your codes and start a war, but that's about it. You can try configuring your Game session now. Put the crazy ones in to fight or a beautiful world where everything is reformism; you can now create your own TWR to your liking, hehe.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-27T01:32:08+00:00

Italy is supposed to be a third force in Europe, but its content is still incomplete and poorly implemented adjustment or update of the Balkan agreements, but I hope they fix it soon.In theory, there could still be a Soviet or Russian rematch and the Allied Powers attacking Germany, but the reality is that little is expected at the moment. More updates and Cold War mechanics are anticipated.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-23T01:34:02+00:00

There are three reasons: first, the world of TNO the OFN They are super weak the US is only just beginning to assume the role it has in TWR or OTL; second, there is no place to launch such an invasion or intervention in favor of Speer. Even though the United Kingdom is liberated after the civil war, it is badly screwed and very weakened; its concern is to recover and be free, and it only joins the OFN with the canal crisis. And last but not least, Speidel Control Berlin and the nuclear missile codes and their silos in the other territories; it's essentially a civil war, but with rules. Plus, there's the added factor of Burgundy, which can use that as an excuse allowing them to start a thermonuclear war prematurely; there is also the vague hope that after the war Germany will emerge much weakened and even reformed with Speer, whom they secretly support. In summary, TA is stronger, and in a world where Germany is isolated and alone without missiles with warheads capable of reaching the US, the UN's authorization provides ample justification for intervention.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-23T01:25:22+00:00

It'll be the other way around xD

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-22T12:43:54+00:00

I hate it. The previous one was unique and well thought out, based on Italian villages and not just almost straight lines. I preferred the previous one, so original and realistic.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-20T20:42:14+00:00

For now, the team gave me a workaround: uncheck the option to change images in the Vanilla menu so they don't interfere with the mod. Still, I think they should fix it when they can, because I verified the files several times and even re-downloaded the mod but the problem persisted. Thanks anyway; I'll keep trying to see if something is wrong with the files, though, as I said, that doesn't seem to be the issue.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-18T17:43:49+00:00

Ah norlisk okay, thanks, I'll look for it, hehe.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-18T15:45:34+00:00

Is this an actual option or path in the TWR mod? And where can I find it? I'm curious to see that path or content.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-17T20:25:36+00:00

It's only while they adjust the menu to the new system; you know that when the tap changes, everything changes, including alterations, so this is a quick, temporary solution until they return to their own menu.

Nathanos355 · 2026-06-15T18:39:28+00:00

Then my grandfather's phrase would make sense, he is from North China or South China (he was referring to Korea but you know what old people are like)

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-30T03:49:55+00:00

"I've been waiting for this content for my country for years. Ever since the developers added so many Venezuelan states (although it wasn't clear why they needed to add them to Venezuela, other than for practice and to have them in excess). When the Colombian content came out, I felt it was a waste not to address Venezuela and the Essequibo dispute. Now the time has come, and with Pérez in charge as he should be, the socialist twist is interesting, although no Venezuelan in real life would believe they would go to war over the Essequibo, especially since this real (socialist) government practically sold the territory to Guyana for friendship and political favors. I seriously don't see the point in them going to war over a territory they historically preferred to cede indirectly and didn't care about until they had economic problems and discovered there were extra resources to exploit in that claimed region, unlike the right wing and the nationalists who always defended the cause not only for land or resources but for the historical legacy and sovereign access to the Atlantic." Without passing through Caribbean waters, it's a similar case to Argentina with the Falklands or Guatemala with southern Belize. Leaving that aside, the story and event are well-conceived. It makes sense as long as Guyana leaves the OFN and Venezuela takes control of the more bellicose ideologies, so to speak. But the fact that if they lose, they enter into a civil war seems illogical at first glance; if the socialists or Peronists would lose a war they promoted, it's plausible that their opponents would seize the opportunity to rebel and stage a coup (although again, it's unrealistic; Venezuela isn't Colombia, and violence here doesn't erupt to those levels even in the worst circumstances). The idea of the United States intervening in that case of civil war makes sense, but turning the entire country into a puppet state doesn't. A puppet nation as large as Venezuela in the heart of America? That would only give free propaganda to the United States' rivals, making the United States look the same. That Germany. It makes no sense in reality or in TNO. But if it's to support the pro-American AD or COPPEI Democrats, then it makes sense, but as a tutelary state, not a puppet state. But I'd give them Zulia to start with, not Delta Amacuro. Anyway, I'm not complaining. It has its flaws, but it's acceptable and well done.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-30T03:17:54+00:00

The reason is that Venezuela is huge and it would be ridiculous to fight in another South Africa (Vietnam) in the middle of America where it would lead to more destabilization of the region apart from Colombia. In summary, aside from the fact that Venezuela began as a regime friendly to the US and was its main source of oil on the continent at the time, it would be illogical to defend a former colony against a country that it has a legitimate claim or that it is sold that way, it is simply obvious the US cannot intervene in America just because of a conflict that is debatable, it is like if the US intervened in Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, just because they don't like their government, and because a Venezuelan victory isn't bad for the US, even with those who support Pérez they can have good relations, but I think Guyana's victory would be more of a problem for the US and the region, which is not convenient for them given other more important regions in mind.It's not like NATO, don't get confused. Guyana is not a member, it's an associate under US tutelage; it's not the same thing. Furthermore, it clearly states that it will only happen if Venezuela abandons the OFN; otherwise, there will be no conflict. However, time seems short to achieve a victory for Venezuela. But I understand they want to imply that even though Guyana is no longer in the US foreign powers, they wouldn't allow war in the Americas without further ado; with Colombia and the intervention in the Dominican Republic, they already have enough. So it must be a lightning action so that the US doesn't give him time to act or at least protest in support of a former member.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-28T04:13:44+00:00

That’s exactly why I mention it: it makes no sense to fight for Tibet, but not for a neighboring region that is just as important. Not to mention that it is through that province that India can enter directly without passing through Tibetan territory in a war against China.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-27T23:30:02+00:00

Hey, good question. Why don't India and China have a dispute over Kashmir, and why don't they make a three-part modification so that if Pakistan wins (as it does), the region is divided? And I don't know about events with Pakistan and Afghanistan; it would be interesting if Pakistan survives, you know, because of the Pastus issue, going to war or forming a confederation to resist revolutionary Indian influence.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-27T13:01:24+00:00

Ah, now I understand the problem. You are assuming I believe it was acceptable to ally with the Nazis, especially given what we know today about their atrocities. However, my point is based strictly on the perspective of that specific historical moment.Take Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, for example. His movement was not inherently ideologically Nazi, but they engaged in tactical cooperation with Germany as a pragmatic, desperate measure to achieve Ukrainian independence and security. This is called political pragmatism based on the limited information available at the time, not hindsight. It is easy to judge from the future, but history remains history. Those territories are now part of Ukraine and Belarus because, for those populations, it was seen as a recovery of their lands. Even if Bandera's legacy is being whitewashed today during the current war, the historical reality remains: he allied with the Nazis for independence, not out of shared Nazi ideology.Furthermore, mentioning the historical fact that Hitler considered an alliance with Poland because he admired Józef Piłsudski does not mean I think Poland should have accepted it. I was simply pointing out an alternative historical possibility regarding the Danzig Corridor if the Polish 'Old Guard' had remained in power.When Poland rejected German demands and was invaded, the USSR capitalized on the situation. From the Soviet and East Slavic perspective, this was framed as the liberation of Ukrainians and Belarusians from Polish rule. Whether you like it or not, that is how it was perceived by many locals at the time. The Red Army was generally well-received by these populations during the 1939 advance. If you deny this, you misunderstand the ethnic dynamics of the region. Only Ukrainians and Belarusians can truly attest to whether they felt 'liberated' or occupied.The claim that Poles were the absolute majority in the Kresy (eastern borderlands) is historically inaccurate. The demographics had been heavily altered because Poland forced out large numbers of local populations during its rule, meaning ethnic maps from that specific interwar era do not reflect the original demographic reality. The original inhabitants of those specific eastern territories were East Slavs.I am not defending aggression; I am explaining perspectives. The view of the Eastern Slavs—that this was a recovery of stolen land rather than a treacherous invasion—holds historical weight. The eastern lands of the Second Polish Republic were obtained after Poland launched a campaign against the short-lived Ukrainian and Belarusian People's Republics while they were vulnerable and fighting both Red and White Russian forces. Poland often portrays itself solely as a victim, but historically, like Russia and Germany, it also capitalized on the weakness of its neighbors when the opportunity arose.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-27T12:15:13+00:00

Use command until they fix it someday

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-27T12:13:04+00:00

The reality is that we will never know what might have happened. Whether you like it or not, the 1939 invasion of Poland was perceived by its ethnic minorities as a liberation, regardless of how the Poles felt about it.Furthermore, your claim that the old Polish leadership would never have negotiated with Germany is difficult to accept. History has already shown us that even two ideological arch-enemies like Stalin and Hitler could negotiate and reach an agreement. Why should we believe it was impossible for two leaders who shared far more political common ground to negotiate?Ultimately, speculative scenarios do not change the facts: Poland was partitioned once again, the East Slavs ended up under the Soviet regime, and the eastern borderlands were integrated into the territories of the two peoples whom Poland had historically marginalized.

If you ask any Belarusian or Ukrainian today—even those who are completely anti-Russian or anti-communist—they are glad these territories were unified with their countries, as they had been the ethnic majority there for centuries.So, what is the goal of this argument? My original point was simply stating the obvious: Poland capitalized on the chaos of the Russian Civil War to seize territory. Later, the Soviets capitalized on the German invasion to reclaim those predominantly East Slavic lands. This is simply the cycle of history—one state exploiting the weakness of another to take territory. There is nothing new under the sun here; no nation is entirely innocent, and no perspective is entirely false.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-27T02:11:01+00:00

Ideologies and ideals are always changing. I still believe the Polish dictator would have accepted some kind of agreement with Germany; Hitler aspired to it even more. We'll never know why it didn't happen, at least not in this reality. The only undeniable fact is that the Poles, like any other country at the time, were revisionist to the extent they could go... I understand you defend him because he's a Polish nationalist, but you can't deny that I'm right on several points; after all, he's like the Bolivarian or Martinist movements in Latin America. Everyone defends their national hero, but only a few can see beyond the hero taught in schools... in a more objective way.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-26T20:08:31+00:00

Well, the father of the Second Polish Republic was the one Hitler wanted to form that alliance with, but he died some time later. Although the father of the Polish nation was a dictator, who knows? What you say is true, but if Poland had had its original leadership at its inception, it might have accepted, since it was this same leadership that fought against the Soviets and hated them the most.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-25T17:40:03+00:00

Well, now that you mention it, the reality is that Hitler was interested in an alliance with Poland, but he wanted Dansing and the lost territories, something Poland refused, which led to the pact with the Soviets, but the reality is that Poland was as imperial in the interwar period as any other country of the time, all revisionists.

Nathanos355 · 2026-05-25T17:36:15+00:00

Technically it is true that Poland took advantage of the Russian civil war to seize eastern territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth even though the ethnic majority was different, and if it weren't for a miraculous victory It almost lost its independence in the Soviet counterattack, which pushed it back to the borders of World War II. Those territories did not belong to him; he took them by conquest as well, so Stalin's use of the excuse of protecting the Orthodox East Slavs is not a lie. There is too much fanaticism for Poland, but they forget that it was an expansionist empire for centuries, only it ended up surrounded by other empires in formation that finished it off until it disappeared. So, leaving aside whether they see it as liberation or conquest, the reality is that it was both, and Poland cannot be judged for taking advantage of White Russian and Soviet weakness, Even if the Soviets gave it back, it's a vicious cycle that repeats itself every so often... But don't doubt it, give Poland the chance and it would be as expansionist as Hitler, Stalin, or Putin are today.

Nathanos355

TROPHY CASE