To be honest, a Cold War game sounds terrible to me. Am I alone in this?
- 15
- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't think I'd buy a game that's exclusive to the Cold War, I just want Paradox to extend HoI4 into the Cold War with a big DLC if the game sells succesfully.
- 1
- 1
Nah HOI is built around WW2 and it's a war game. A cold war game shouldn't be purely a war game but something like Victoria with loads of politics and economy.
- 9
- 2
well with all the new features for HOI 4 like those announced in the world tension DD, a good Cold War mod just might be doable. especially if it pops up soon after the HOI 4 release.
- 2
I'm thinking of an alternate history mod where the Axis powers won the war kinda like Wolfenstein: New Order, it would be really cool.
that definately HAS to become a mod or submod. because if there's anything just about anyone can agree on, it's
A Cold War game sounds like it'd be either really good or really bad depending on whether or not it's given the right treatment.
The political atmosphere of the era between 1945-1992 mostly focused on the exact opposite premise of every other PDS game - that is to say, making sure countries WEREN'T expanding. Or, more specifically, making sure countries that had a political ideology that wasn't in line with yours or weren't your allies weren't expanding or gaining political power. Diplomatic relations were based a lot on containment and the way the world saw you was also based on making sure you weren't going beyond your borders, particularly through war. If you'll notice, during this time period very few countries actually had any border changes. In fact, countries were more likely during this time to be split apart into smaller countries and unification was only ever considered between countries that shared a culture torn apart by politics or colonialism - Germany, Yemen, etc.
A Cold War game would thus need to be almost entirely about diplomacy and have very in-depth diplomacy features, especially relating to crises as there were a lot of those (Maybe similar to the Vicky2 crisis thing), with little focus on war - war would probably only ever be used to change other governments and the name of the game would be all about hegemony.
The game wouldn't even really need to be about economics as much as Vicky is, it would be primarily and diplomatic and political game. There lies the issue though - making a Cold War game without making it too similar to Victoria 2 (Or 3 if that's out beforehand). Otherwise it might as well just be Victoria 2 with the dates changed a few years forward.
The years would obviously be easy to determine - ending a few days after the fall of the Soviet Union on January 1st, 1992, and beginning either with the Yalta Conference, VE Day, or VJ Day. It's everything else that makes this game a challenge to make without it being a glorified Vicky Mod or else just boring.
You can't even bring Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron into the ideas for such a game, the politics were completely different and Hearts of Iron is primarily a war game, something that you would actively try to avoid during the Cold War.
Fot a Cold War game, we would need to have properly emulated: An arms race, the space race, technological development, unification or dissolution of countries based on culture and ideology, nuclear arms, mutually assured destruction, etc.
The game should feel tense from beginning to end, never knowing if you're going to be thrown into a war or have to start one. War should be a nightmare - America lost most of its wars in this time period. In fact, most major countries that instigated a war lost those wars and spent a great deal of money and effort on them and just caused unrest back home. A game like this needs mechanics that, while interesting, are completely opposite to the way you play any other PDS game.
The political atmosphere of the era between 1945-1992 mostly focused on the exact opposite premise of every other PDS game - that is to say, making sure countries WEREN'T expanding. Or, more specifically, making sure countries that had a political ideology that wasn't in line with yours or weren't your allies weren't expanding or gaining political power. Diplomatic relations were based a lot on containment and the way the world saw you was also based on making sure you weren't going beyond your borders, particularly through war. If you'll notice, during this time period very few countries actually had any border changes. In fact, countries were more likely during this time to be split apart into smaller countries and unification was only ever considered between countries that shared a culture torn apart by politics or colonialism - Germany, Yemen, etc.
A Cold War game would thus need to be almost entirely about diplomacy and have very in-depth diplomacy features, especially relating to crises as there were a lot of those (Maybe similar to the Vicky2 crisis thing), with little focus on war - war would probably only ever be used to change other governments and the name of the game would be all about hegemony.
The game wouldn't even really need to be about economics as much as Vicky is, it would be primarily and diplomatic and political game. There lies the issue though - making a Cold War game without making it too similar to Victoria 2 (Or 3 if that's out beforehand). Otherwise it might as well just be Victoria 2 with the dates changed a few years forward.
The years would obviously be easy to determine - ending a few days after the fall of the Soviet Union on January 1st, 1992, and beginning either with the Yalta Conference, VE Day, or VJ Day. It's everything else that makes this game a challenge to make without it being a glorified Vicky Mod or else just boring.
You can't even bring Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron into the ideas for such a game, the politics were completely different and Hearts of Iron is primarily a war game, something that you would actively try to avoid during the Cold War.
Fot a Cold War game, we would need to have properly emulated: An arms race, the space race, technological development, unification or dissolution of countries based on culture and ideology, nuclear arms, mutually assured destruction, etc.
The game should feel tense from beginning to end, never knowing if you're going to be thrown into a war or have to start one. War should be a nightmare - America lost most of its wars in this time period. In fact, most major countries that instigated a war lost those wars and spent a great deal of money and effort on them and just caused unrest back home. A game like this needs mechanics that, while interesting, are completely opposite to the way you play any other PDS game.
Last edited:
- 5
- 2
- 1
HoI is a wargame and nothing more. Victoria II is nifty although it can can only simulate pre-war style economy, and has a lot of lazy and pathetic awkward restrictions.
That's why a full Cold War game with proper economy, lots of political options, espionage and so on, is needed. Another game modded to fit it will not work.
Also, there would be a need to build a game that doesn't revolve around conquering more territory. Remember, this time European barbarities turned on them and they got kicked out of their own 'colonies'. Lots of independent nations. And rather than annexing nations everyone just set up a puppet government and left.
That's why a full Cold War game with proper economy, lots of political options, espionage and so on, is needed. Another game modded to fit it will not work.
Also, there would be a need to build a game that doesn't revolve around conquering more territory. Remember, this time European barbarities turned on them and they got kicked out of their own 'colonies'. Lots of independent nations. And rather than annexing nations everyone just set up a puppet government and left.
- 1
- 1
I wouldn't say the europeans got kicked out of their colonies (at least most of the time), since the British and French at least tried to handle the dismantling of their empires amicably most of the time.
don't forget, during wars, countries like the USA and USSR never utilized their full armies and/or fought with severe restrictions. Vietnam for the US for example was never meant to be won, just not a loss. while the Sovets and Afghan communists only ever truly controlled a tiny amount of Afghanistan during that war.
as for tense, that'd mainly be if you were a neutral or not quite aligned country between the superpowers for the most part. other than that yeah, a play with almost any CW country should be no walk in the park provided you not like, Tonga or something like that.
HoI4 already lasts to 1948 and those features you mentioned can be added by time, patches and DLC. They extended the timeline for CK2 so it's very likely they'll do the same for HoI4 and a Cold War DLC that lets you play past 1948 would be a direct buy. An exclusive Cold War game would not be fun in my opinion, they should just use some features from Victoria and add it to HoI so that a Cold War scenario can be done.
- 5
The issue with that is that warfare has basically never been conducted the same since World War: The Sequel. You can't take Hearts of Iron and throw elements from Victoria in there and call it a day. I think a Cold War game CAN be interesting to play, the focus would just be on diplomacy rather than warfare or economics even. A Hearts of Iron-like game wouldn't work, because most wars fought after WW2 were mostly wars against guerilla fighters and insurgencies, I can think of very few if any that were as clear-cut as "shoot all the guys wearing this colour uniform" during the Cold War era, thus the Hearts of Iron war mechanics just wouldn't work.
In a Cold War style game you probably would end up getting into a lot of wars, mostly civil wars or helping out an ally in theirs and also trying to maintain influence. Even after the UK lost her colonies, the country still maintained a lot of influence in those areas, and that's something that can absolutely be fun to emulate. Not in being the blobbiest or most powerful country, but being the most influential.
In a Cold War style game you probably would end up getting into a lot of wars, mostly civil wars or helping out an ally in theirs and also trying to maintain influence. Even after the UK lost her colonies, the country still maintained a lot of influence in those areas, and that's something that can absolutely be fun to emulate. Not in being the blobbiest or most powerful country, but being the most influential.
- 7
All you really need for a Cold War game is Victoria economics, Hearts of Iron combat, and (modified) Europa Universalis diplomacy. I say modified because the system would be based around blocs, but it would be more like EU than the others due to an emphasis on diplomatic maneuvering and having a large number of ways to interact with other countries.
Actually, Victoria needs EU diplomacy as well...
Actually, Victoria needs EU diplomacy as well...
There does need to be a Cold War game, just that it would be thoroughly difficult to encompass. Where do you start? 1945? It took until 1949 for the Soviets and UK/USA to start to turn away from each other. Also, starting in 1945, you'd still need three factions, the UK had a 'sphere' and was still something of a third world power. It was only bad luck and several poor decisions (withdrawing from Greece in 1947) that meant the US took over. How do you simulate the death of a third player in the Cold War? Start from 1950? Well, then the UK wouldn't have the ambition to recover in the Suez Crisis, you'd have to railroad a decision chain there etc...
Political intrigue and espionage that happened is easy, it works nicely in Crusader Kings. Obviously, the same system wouldn't work, but the potential is there. Swaying governments etc, well people get very irritated, the main problem would be players. Imagine playing the US, you'd love being able to manipulate Central American states. But on the other side, if any of us play Central American countries (Guatemala in 1954), we'd be on here whining about how the game is tilted against us, its not true because 'really this could happen etc etc'. Some of us would love the challenge of being 'non-aligned' etc but could we all cope with the intrigue against us, playing as Iran, Chile or Guatemala?
Political intrigue and espionage that happened is easy, it works nicely in Crusader Kings. Obviously, the same system wouldn't work, but the potential is there. Swaying governments etc, well people get very irritated, the main problem would be players. Imagine playing the US, you'd love being able to manipulate Central American states. But on the other side, if any of us play Central American countries (Guatemala in 1954), we'd be on here whining about how the game is tilted against us, its not true because 'really this could happen etc etc'. Some of us would love the challenge of being 'non-aligned' etc but could we all cope with the intrigue against us, playing as Iran, Chile or Guatemala?
The starting date is of secondary importance only. It should be before the Korean war, but after the CPC had taken control of China. October 1949 would be a good choice IMO.
Great Britain was only powerful after WW2 because they were victorious, and because Europe had not yet adjusted to the new realities that entailed the advancement of the US and the USSR. GB had already lost control over South East Asia after the Japanese invasions, and India was practically a lost cause even before the war (only about 60 MPs were fighting to keep dominion over India). GB couldn't possibly have salvaged its colonies by force, especially not when its resources were needed in Great Britain itself. For all intents and purposes, GB had lost its global power after WW2, and so there's no need to reflect otherwise in a Cold War game.
There should be a neutrality option, enforced by resisting bloc influence. This should in turn be leveraged by a more limited access to trade goods/resources than what you would have by cooperating with a bloc. So if you're clever enough at keeping your economy going by not picking a side, you should be able to stay out of the great power politics. You would still be encouraged to pick a side depending on what they could offer you in return though.
- 1
1945 is by far the best dates, it gives a wider coverage of the period, as well as leaving some potential.
sounds good, there should be a "balance of power "slider- so depending on your actions as USSR/USA the slider would move in your favour or against you. If its in your favour for the longest amount of time over the period the game is set you "win". What moves it depends on hot/cold conflicts, alliances, trade, spread of faction (communist/capitalist). There could be the ability to instigate rebellions (Iran, El Salvador, Chile, Afghanistan, Korea, Ethiopia) etc and depending on which faction wins, it shifts the slider. You could choose how to support- weapons, trade, expertise etc.
i think a balance of power thing would be a little too arbitrary. the point of the cold war was that neither superpower could ever achieve supremacy over the other, because that would either result in nuclear war like with the Cuban Missile Crisis, or that advantage being immediately outlawed via treaties like with USSRs Fractional Orbital Bombardment System.
something awesome that i remember the EvW had was something a system of government perception. be too lenient or dovish on issues, your population will see you as weak-minded and inneffectual, be too aggresive and hardline and you could risk starting WWIII if the other superpower doesn't back down, or look like a giant prick if they call your bluff. now THAT would be awesome!
If there's going to be a Cold War game, I'd better be able to play as any nation, choose my economics, and, most critically, I must be able to stage coup d'etats and "interventions" where I can choose to align with certain factions and change the government accordingly. They'd better have unique flags for all government types.
- 1