Mixing Crusader Kings and Victoria = Real life game?

[Polarisan]

I was brainstorming earlier on an idea that occured to me. Imagine a game set in the post cold war in which you can choose a nation to play as, and in that nation, you can choose a political party to play as, and inside that political party, you can decide an influencial position to be in (in the case of the united states imagine choosing between Democrats/Republicans, President, Governors, Mayors, Senators and Congressmen) What I'm imagining is once you do that the game develops into a kind of mixture of CK2 and Victoria II, in the sense that you play as a "Person" and you manage your family (as politicians do somewhat inherit the political influence of the progenitor, Bush an example) So you can decide to choose the type of gameplay you want to do to get more votes and stuff that can push you higher up the political spectrum and becoming an influential person in your party or just standing still.

Eventually once you get a county or a state you can govern that and become either more popular or not and make a run for president or senator or something. And once you get to the presidency you can interact on the higher level between nations (Imagine Obama dealing with the Syrian situation right now, the UN, stuff like that)

I thought it was an interesting concept that only Paradox could adopt and develop to a point where a new franchise is born. What are your thoughts?

Cheers!

 

[Prime624]

Like Democracy 2, except PDS style (aka better in every way)?

 

[Polarisan]

Yeah I guess you could say that. Mixing elements of CK2 (being a vassal and holding your province and bossing around but still being bound to a higher authority) and victoria II (Political parties and stuff) and adding new elements of the modern world politics seems like a viable idea in my opinion.

And we all know that only PDS can pull this off on a grand scale

 

[Carbon]

This was talked about before (contemporary timeline PDS game) and although I'd want nothing more than to see this materialize, it's virtually impossible, at least for the moment.

Economy is more important than ever in history, and the globalized economy of our world is so complex that not even economists know what's going on and not even mathematicians can model it completely. The world economy is about 2000x more complex than the 19th century industrial economy that Victoria simulates.

Having a post-Cold War grand strategy game that can't simulate the economy fully is pointless as every policy decision, whether private, public, military, state or international, considers the economy in some way; whether budget, logistics, spending, etc.

Not to mention the difficulty of modelling such a dynamic world. In 2006, not a single human on Earth could've forseen that in a couple pf years, many regimes in the Arab World that have existed for decades would get rapidly toppled through a wave of revolutions.

Again, as awesome as it is, it's not feasible.

 

[Tiaexz]

Plus the fact economists are constantly inventing new schemes and rules in order to scam more money from the populace makes modelling very difficult as how are you going to recreate the events of the latest depression with corporations 'breaking the rules' as providing the from figures for LIBOR, 'mislabeled subprime packages', currency trading. and what not. The imaginary economy market (where everything is just numbers on a computer screen) is worth six times more than the real market (where there are actual products).

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

I would be interested in seeing how it would be done. Though some would disagree with me. I think classical Imperialism is done. Sphering still occurs but the great powers are not trying to pain the map as much of their color as possible. This would be very different form other PDS games where that is definitely the case.

 

[Juggernaught]

Kinda offtopic and dunno why but after reading this thread I have got this overwhelming urge to play RR Tycoon.

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

I wonder if you would have to make aggressive expansion penalties just really really high. And they would become global. Like in EU4 people don't care if its on the other side of the world but in modern times they would. Nations would actually care less if it were internal aka Rawanda, Syria.

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

Now that I think about it. This game would be incredibly hard to make without people getting very offended. That could be arguably the largest reason to not make this game.

 

[Polarisan]

People will be offended no matter what you do. In EUIV It's the balkans and what culture should what region have. In HoI 3 The game cannot have the swatsika as the official flag of germany and China's offended at being depicted as a nation in civil war. In CK2 I guess there could be some degree of offense taken by someone and in Victoria? Well let's not even talk about victoria.

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

I feel like modern times would have people being by far the most offended. It would be saying. Right now my country can come and kill your country. Even if its true people would not like it and want to think that their country is stronger than it is. TO do a nice example of this. America has by far the strongest military in the world presently. What do you think people would feel like if someone playing as American went to war with Sweden and just destroyed them without contest. Most people would like to think. "Not my country! We are way stronger than you think and we band together and fight street to street and win!" When in truth if America really wanted to invest their effort into fighting any country they would win. You would really need to add in systems of containment that prevent this in real life. SO the reason this does not happen in real life is because going to war in America is very close to political suicide. Unless you have what the people deem to be a very very good reason they dont want the war. The longer the war goes on the more upset they get. So realistically the president could never go to war with Sweeden. The people would not let it happen. So in the game if you were playing as the president would you simulate that and not let the player make that many actions? It is realistic but im sure quite frustrating to get blocked from what you want to do all the time by congress, the supreme court, and political opinion.

There is also the idea that some countries now hold back their true military might when in conflict. So in Americas most recent wars we have never thrown all of our troops resources or anything into one area. So in a game would you allow america to shoot its nukes? Launch all of its missiles? Or would you have them hold their military back because its unnecessary for them to use it all?


So that was just focusing on some issues that would come from America. There are even more American ideas but I did not want to say to much if people were not interested. I am sure other nations have some interesting factors presently as well.

 

[superskierpat]

And thats why a sci fi game would be best.

They could do pretty much whatever they wanted without offending people.

 

[Comintern1919]

I feel like modern times would have people being by far the most offended. It would be saying. Right now my country can come and kill your country. Even if its true people would not like it and want to think that their country is stronger than it is. TO do a nice example of this. America has by far the strongest military in the world presently. What do you think people would feel like if someone playing as American went to war with Sweden and just destroyed them without contest. Most people would like to think. "Not my country! We are way stronger than you think and we band together and fight street to street and win!" When in truth if America really wanted to invest their effort into fighting any country they would win. You would really need to add in systems of containment that prevent this in real life. SO the reason this does not happen in real life is because going to war in America is very close to political suicide. Unless you have what the people deem to be a very very good reason they dont want the war. The longer the war goes on the more upset they get. So realistically the president could never go to war with Sweeden. The people would not let it happen. So in the game if you were playing as the president would you simulate that and not let the player make that many actions? It is realistic but im sure quite frustrating to get blocked from what you want to do all the time by congress, the supreme court, and political opinion.

There is also the idea that some countries now hold back their true military might when in conflict. So in Americas most recent wars we have never thrown all of our troops resources or anything into one area. So in a game would you allow america to shoot its nukes? Launch all of its missiles? Or would you have them hold their military back because its unnecessary for them to use it all?


So that was just focusing on some issues that would come from America. There are even more American ideas but I did not want to say to much if people were not interested. I am sure other nations have some interesting factors presently as well.

Wow, talk about hypocracy, dude. You criticises people like the swedish for saying their Country is stronger than it actually is, while talking about how America can kick everyones ass.

No, the USA could NOT just attack a country and expect to win without (very) much effort. War is more than about Technology and Equipment. Don't underestimate the will, intelligence and bravery of Non-US-Americans, just look to the arabic world. Also, the USA is already very unpopular internationally, and even the USA could not win against a broad coalition of different Nations.

The USA may have *one* of the strongest military, but that doesn't mean it could just Curb-Stomp everyone. The World is not all about the USA, sorry.

 

[grisamentum]

Wow, talk about hypocracy, dude. You criticises people like the swedish for saying their Country is stronger than it actually is, while talking about how America can kick everyones ass.

No, the USA could NOT just attack a country and expect to win without (very) much effort. War is more than about Technology and Equipment. Don't underestimate the will, intelligence and bravery of Non-US-Americans, just look to the arabic world. Also, the USA is already very unpopular internationally, and even the USA could not win against a broad coalition of different Nations.

The USA may have *one* of the strongest military, but that doesn't mean it could just Curb-Stomp everyone. The World is not all about the USA, sorry.

Oh god, this thread is going places.

Of course the US could curb-stomp everyone. The US could fight the entire rest of the world combined and it would be an even fight. Any 1v1 for the US would be no contest: US victory. Realistically, US is the only country in the world that could even FIGHT every other country in the world. If Sweden declared war on Japan... nothing would happen. Neither country is anywhere near each other, no ability to project power or really touch each other at all.

US is the only country in the world that can put hundreds of planes and conventional missiles in to the air in any part of the world nearly instantly. Nobody has the ability to project force like the US. Even China - barely 1 aircraft carrier they bought unfinished from Soviet Union and just now got to work. US has 10 and is building 7 more. More fleet tonnage than next 12 biggest navies combined. Long-range bombers that nobody else has.

Could the US invade and occupy everyone? No, of course not. But obviously the US could destroy the government, military, and economy of any country it wanted to.

You say look at the Arabic world, but all I see is that America wasted a lot of time trying to set up a new government and society after absolutely curbstomping the militaries of Iraq and the Taliban. Is Hamid Karzai NOT still the president of Afghanistan? Of course he is, the US put him there, and he's still in power. Does it suck? Of course - but that was whatever the US was trying to do AFTER they won the war. Same thing in Iraq. Invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. Building a new Iraq? Hard and expensive - not the military's job, either.

 

[Comintern1919]

Oh god, this thread is going places.

Of course the US could curb-stomp everyone. The US could fight the entire rest of the world combined and it would be an even fight. Any 1v1 for the US would be no contest: US victory. Realistically, US is the only country in the world that could even FIGHT every other country in the world. If Sweden declared war on Japan... nothing would happen. Neither country is anywhere near each other, no ability to project power or really touch each other at all.

US is the only country in the world that can put hundreds of planes and conventional missiles in to the air in any part of the world nearly instantly. Nobody has the ability to project force like the US. Even China - barely 1 aircraft carrier they bought unfinished from Soviet Union and just now got to work. US has 10 and is building 7 more. More fleet tonnage than next 12 biggest navies combined. Long-range bombers that nobody else has.

Could the US invade and occupy everyone? No, of course not. But obviously the US could destroy the government, military, and economy of any country it wanted to.

You say look at the Arabic world, but all I see is that America wasted a lot of time trying to set up a new government and society after absolutely curbstomping the militaries of Iraq and the Taliban. Is Hamid Karzai NOT still the president of Afghanistan? Of course he is, the US put him there, and he's still in power. Does it suck? Of course - but that was whatever the US was trying to do AFTER they won the war. Same thing in Iraq. Invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. Building a new Iraq? Hard and expensive - not the military's job, either.

Yeah, sorry for the Off-Topic, but this thread IS about Politics, right?

Are you FU.... FRIGGING serious? USA vs THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD, and you'd think the USA will win? How... OMG, I can't even describe how biased your opinion is. The Population of the USA is 313.9 million, the Population of the world is 7.142 billion. I have seen many people overestimating their Country, especially US-Americans, but this is really the worst I have ever read.

You say that because of Manpower? China has more.

You say that because of Technology? First, the USA is NOT the only Nuclear Power, secondly, not every country outside of the USA is backwater and still living on the middle ages, even though US-Americans like to think that. (Once, a US-Girl seriously asked me if we have Internet in Germany.... IN GERMANY). Also, Japan.

Hell, even against a single country the USA may lose. There are so many examples in history were a small force defeated a way superior force:
- The Greek states successfully repelled the mighty Achaemenid Persian Empire at the Battle of Salamis.
- Sun Tzu, of Wu, with 33,000 men, being outnumbered by Chu ten to one, defeated the Chu forces.
- The Scottish army of Robert the Bruce, outnumbered almost three to one, defeated the English force of Edward II at the Battle of Bannockburn.
- In the 1552 siege of Eger, 2,100 Hungarians were able to withstand the onslaught of 80,000 Ottoman soldiers.
- The Viet Minh triumphed over French colonial forces in the Indochina War while the NLF + North Vietnam eroded, exhausted and ultimately outlasted the United States and South Vietnam in the Vietnam War.

So yeah, I don't think it would be certain that the USA could defeat every Nation on the Earth. Could they bomb every one? Maybe, though I really doubt that. But War is not that simple. there is more to it than just bombing everything. You probably think:

1. Bomb everyone
2. ???
3. Profit

Seriously, please tell me how exactly the USA could win against every Country at once. Please, I'd love to know.

 

[Augustus93]

I feel like modern times would have people being by far the most offended. It would be saying. Right now my country can come and kill your country. Even if its true people would not like it and want to think that their country is stronger than it is. TO do a nice example of this. America has by far the strongest military in the world presently. What do you think people would feel like if someone playing as American went to war with Sweden and just destroyed them without contest. Most people would like to think. "Not my country! We are way stronger than you think and we band together and fight street to street and win!" When in truth if America really wanted to invest their effort into fighting any country they would win. You would really need to add in systems of containment that prevent this in real life. SO the reason this does not happen in real life is because going to war in America is very close to political suicide. Unless you have what the people deem to be a very very good reason they dont want the war. The longer the war goes on the more upset they get. So realistically the president could never go to war with Sweeden. The people would not let it happen. So in the game if you were playing as the president would you simulate that and not let the player make that many actions? It is realistic but im sure quite frustrating to get blocked from what you want to do all the time by congress, the supreme court, and political opinion.

There is also the idea that some countries now hold back their true military might when in conflict. So in Americas most recent wars we have never thrown all of our troops resources or anything into one area. So in a game would you allow america to shoot its nukes? Launch all of its missiles? Or would you have them hold their military back because its unnecessary for them to use it all?


So that was just focusing on some issues that would come from America. There are even more American ideas but I did not want to say to much if people were not interested. I am sure other nations have some interesting factors presently as well.

Some of US defeats:
1.) First Indochina war
2.) Vietnam war
3.) Laotian Civil War
4.) Bay of Pigs Invasion
5.) Cambodian Civil War
6.) War in Somalia

And most of their "victories" are pathetic leaving countries in jeopardy while they profit from it.

 

[grisamentum]

Some of US defeats:
1.) First Indochina war
2.) Vietnam war
3.) Laotian Civil War
4.) Bay of Pigs Invasion
5.) Cambodian Civil War
6.) War in Somalia

It's fascinating that this is the best you can come up with for "US defeats"

1. First Indochina War a guerrilla war against France by Vietnam. US Army didn't fight in it.
2. Vietnam War, fine, failure of strategy and propaganda.
3. Again, no real American involvement. Can't say America "fought" in this war.
4. Bay of Pigs - again, no American military involvement.
5. Cambodian civil war - again, not a war America actually fought in.
6. "War in Somalia" - Not really a war, not something America actually involved in.

What you have just listed is a bunch of limited military interventions in civil wars of other countries. The Vietnam War is the only example of any kind of large-scale intervention. And even then, it's not a war where America was trying to invade and conquer someone, but where America was foolishly trying to defend a puppet state from a popular insurrection. If America had wanted to invade and destroy North Vietnam, it could have (in fact Eisenhower advised Kennedy and Johnson to do that or leave).

Also interesting that besides the questionable example of Somalia, you haven't listed a single one that's within the last 40 years. American military dominance has only increased since then, as the technology gap and wealth gap has widened.

And most of their "victories" are pathetic leaving countries in jeopardy while they profit from it.

I'm pretty sure that would be the whole idea of offensive wars in Paradox games. But even if we weren't talking about video game comparisons, the Gulf War in 1990-91 was a pretty good example of what you could expect if the US were to fight most of the world's other militaries. In the words of an earlier poster, it was a completely one-sided "curbstomp."

I understand you say "pathetic" because you're mad and jealous that your country isn't as important, powerful, or wealthy as the United States. But you might as well get used to it, because it's not changing any time soon.

 

[grisamentum]

Yeah, sorry for the Off-Topic, but this thread IS about Politics, right?

Are you FU.... FRIGGING serious? USA vs THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD, and you'd think the USA will win? How... OMG, I can't even describe how biased your opinion is. The Population of the USA is 313.9 million, the Population of the world is 7.142 billion. I have seen many people overestimating their Country, especially US-Americans, but this is really the worst I have ever read.

You say that because of Manpower? China has more.

You say that because of Technology? First, the USA is NOT the only Nuclear Power, secondly, not every country outside of the USA is backwater and still living on the middle ages, even though US-Americans like to think that. (Once, a US-Girl seriously asked me if we have Internet in Germany.... IN GERMANY). Also, Japan.

Hell, even against a single country the USA may lose. There are so many examples in history were a small force defeated a way superior force:
- The Greek states successfully repelled the mighty Achaemenid Persian Empire at the Battle of Salamis.
- Sun Tzu, of Wu, with 33,000 men, being outnumbered by Chu ten to one, defeated the Chu forces.
- The Scottish army of Robert the Bruce, outnumbered almost three to one, defeated the English force of Edward II at the Battle of Bannockburn.
- In the 1552 siege of Eger, 2,100 Hungarians were able to withstand the onslaught of 80,000 Ottoman soldiers.
- The Viet Minh triumphed over French colonial forces in the Indochina War while the NLF + North Vietnam eroded, exhausted and ultimately outlasted the United States and South Vietnam in the Vietnam War.

So yeah, I don't think it would be certain that the USA could defeat every Nation on the Earth. Could they bomb every one? Maybe, though I really doubt that. But War is not that simple. there is more to it than just bombing everything. You probably think:

1. Bomb everyone
2. ???
3. Profit

Seriously, please tell me how exactly the USA could win against every Country at once. Please, I'd love to know.

I didn't say the USA would automatically win, I said it would be an even fight. For example entire German military has less than 300 combat aircraft. Same with British - a few hundred fighters and strike aircraft in all service branches. US Air Force alone has ~3000. US Navy also has thousands more.

Even if you add up all countries with technological parity (Russia, all OECD countries, arguably China) you will get something AROUND the same size.

Same story with navy: vastly more ships of every kind than any other country, and more and heavier ships than most countries combined. Just look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

Same story with army: US has ~9000 tanks modern main battle tanks. Even assuming Russian and Chinese tanks are comparable (doubtful), and you add all those together with all the other European tanks, sorry, you just don't get nearly as many. Other countries have a few hundred modern tanks at most.

I mean, have you looked at US military spending any time in the past 20 years?

This isn't CK2 where you can levy a bunch of light infantry. You have spend years building equipment, researching new equipment, training the military. Rest of the world just isn't doing it at the same scale of the US. Sorry, US could fight rest of entire world combined and it would be relatively even.

 

[Augustus93]

It's fascinating that this is the best you can come up with for "US defeats"

1. First Indochina War a guerrilla war against France by Vietnam. US Army didn't fight in it.
2. Vietnam War, fine, failure of strategy and propaganda.
3. Again, no real American involvement. Can't say America "fought" in this war.
4. Bay of Pigs - again, no American military involvement.
5. Cambodian civil war - again, not a war America actually fought in.
6. "War in Somalia" - Not really a war, not something America actually involved in.

What you have just listed is a bunch of limited military interventions in civil wars of other countries. The Vietnam War is the only example of any kind of large-scale intervention. And even then, it's not a war where America was trying to invade and conquer someone, but where America was foolishly trying to defend a puppet state from a popular insurrection. If America had wanted to invade and destroy North Vietnam, it could have (in fact Eisenhower advised Kennedy and Johnson to do that or leave).

Also interesting that besides the questionable example of Somalia, you haven't listed a single one that's within the last 40 years. American military dominance has only increased since then, as the technology gap and wealth gap has widened.



I'm pretty sure that would be the whole idea of offensive wars in Paradox games. But even if we weren't talking about video game comparisons, the Gulf War in 1990-91 was a pretty good example of what you could expect if the US were to fight most of the world's other militaries. In the words of an earlier poster, it was a completely one-sided "curbstomp."

I understand you say "pathetic" because you're mad and jealous that your country isn't as important, powerful, or wealthy as the United States. But you might as well get used to it, because it's not changing any time soon.

1. US army didn't fight, true. However US supported the french with assistance from their navy and air force.
2. No further comments as I sort of agree with you here.
3. This was also during cold war and again US used mainly their air force to provide support for the anti communists.
4. US involvement again with mainly their air force.
5. Again mainly involvement with their air force.
6. Ever heard of Operation Restore Hope?

How many large scale operations are there nowadays? Most of them are limited...
The US military is impressive in quantity but they can't stand up against the most of the world's militaries combined. One of the main reason is that this big military is dependent of oil. Why do you think that the US do so many "humanitarian" wars in the middle east...
I am not mad, but I am not delusional like some. Yeah you are so wealthy, tell me how much is your external debt is under your super president Obama? Not every country in the world want to play the police of the world like the US does.

 

[Augustus93]

I didn't say the USA would automatically win, I said it would be an even fight. For example entire German military has less than 300 combat aircraft. Same with British - a few hundred fighters and strike aircraft in all service branches. US Air Force alone has ~3000. US Navy also has thousands more.

Even if you add up all countries with technological parity (Russia, all OECD countries, arguably China) you will get something AROUND the same size.

Same story with navy: vastly more ships of every kind than any other country, and more and heavier ships than most countries combined. Just look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

Same story with army: US has ~9000 tanks modern main battle tanks. Even assuming Russian and Chinese tanks are comparable (doubtful), and you add all those together with all the other European tanks, sorry, you just don't get nearly as many. Other countries have a few hundred modern tanks at most.

I mean, have you looked at US military spending any time in the past 20 years?

This isn't CK2 where you can levy a bunch of light infantry. You have spend years building equipment, researching new equipment, training the military. Rest of the world just isn't doing it at the same scale of the US. Sorry, US could fight rest of entire world combined and it would be relatively even.

this graph does not represent the true military strength of the nations. Only how much they spend on their respective militaries. Do a graph where you show available manpower, land systems, naval strength, air force strength. The graph may look a little bit different, true that US would still be number 1 in all of these areas but not as dominant as you are trying to portray them in this graph.