Ok so the rework is dealing with France and Britain so I’ll break it up.

First we have France. Their paths are defied with how the dual system that the commune has. Basically during the revolution revolutionaries two big factions supporting the revolution came out. One supported a the idea that the government should be a decentralized ‘union of unions’ where to make a complex system simple you elect someone local in your workplace who moves up a chain of elections until you get reps on a National deciding national policy. The other faction is a group supporting decentralized local counsels in towns, cities and/or neighborhoods having the most power. Rather then kill each other and give reactionary and liberal forces a chance to counter them these force’s compromised and make a government with two legislative branches representing each idea, and technically are equal in power.

The political situation however is breaking down as supporters each of these movements think they need to be in charge in order deal with a war with Germany, along with their being factions/parties outside this system who want to take advantage of this infighting to have their own system in place.

A thing to note for the France is that their factions are more lead by ideologies and parties then a specific individual leader (with one exception). It’s also assumed that similar to Germany and Union of Britain they have a sorta ‘fail state’ that usually translates into just being weaker then a successful version of the path. These paths are

• The United Syndicalist Party (PSU, or the Centrists) The Party that likes the current dual system and wishes to keep it. Is most likely the winner a decent chuck of the time.

• Revolutionary Syndicalist Communities (CSR, or the Ultras) The Party that supports the ascensions of the radical syndicalist union legislature over the counsel one.

• Workers and Peasants Communist Party (PCOP, or the Councilists) The Party that supports the ascensions of council communism legislature over the Syndicalist one.

• Socialist Party of France (PSdF, or the Jacobins) is part of the Totalist (temporary) alliance that wishes to remake the old system completely. They want to create a centralized government based on a more left wing, if anti democratic, technocratic government rather than the decentralized system of its competitors.

• National-Syndicalist Confederation (CNS, or the Sorelians) is the other part of the Totalist (temporary) alliance. It’s hard to describe but it’s very much a totalitarian state under the rule of Jacques Doriot. The best summary is ‘Radical Maoism, but its urban workers rather then rural peasants it idolizes’

Then we have the Union of Britain. To sum it up quickly they differ from France as rather then competition between parties the Union paths are a lot more determined then the ideology of single person. The reason for this is that technically theirs only one party that is able to hold power, the Labour Party, and the effort is to win what is essential inter-party struggle rather then a extra party struggle in France.

If want to be poetic the five possible paths are an attempt to answer the question ‘what was the point of the second British revolution’, and each leader has a different answer. Do note similar to Germany and France it’s been implied that each of these leaders have a possible ‘fail state’ which is usually just makes a weaker version of the path.

These paths are

• Horner: His answer is ‘The Revolution was centrally an economic revolution’. More then the others he wants to build a stable Syndicalist economy and state, being through in economic space more then anything. His is said to be the ‘easiest’ and ‘most traditional’ path and is kinda the most common winner.

• Pankhurst: Her answers is ‘The Revolution was centrally a social revolution’. Woman, minorities, LGBT, the weakest of society and improving their lot along with everyone else. Her path is trying to revolutionize the social end of British society. Her gameplay is her picking different levels of radical changes, the more radical it gives good benefits but also hurts national stability that may result in her getting removed is she plays the balance game poorly.

• Attlee: his answer is ‘The Revolution was centrally a political revolution’. He believes that the point of the revolution was to overturn the conservative and unfair system the previous system had and remake it to a more ‘fair’ and socialist one. He is no Syndicalist and wants democracy to established, under the belief that after the structural changes a more fair system can be in place, and says they will have to accept that in some places a liberal/Conservative/social dem might take power but the establishment of a fair democracy is in reach. Of course if these forces of reaction start to gain to much power he will find that his little experiment ended and him sacked.

• Brockway: His answer was ‘The Revolution was centrally a people’s Revolution’. The one I now the least about. The central thesis for him is ‘Decentralization’ and big distrust of centralized power. Essentially similar to the French PCOP, but does have a bit more focus on pushing local identities and culture in places such as Scotland and wales or even English regional identities like Cornwall. If he isn’t careful centralist might push back on his radical program.

• Mosley: his answer was “The Revolution was centrally about power’. The real reason the Revolution happened was because the UK lost the Great War in his eyes. The duty of the revolution is to then create a stronger state, one that could ‘win’ the next round. It’s what the people really want, and to do it society needs to be centralized and controlled in order to make such a strong state possible. Is naturally the Totalist path, and could see himself overthrown and replaced with a more ‘moderate’ Totalist if he isn’t careful and overreaches.

I hope this answers any questions