Taken from another thread, but I was thinking about what a Cold War game might look like perhaps branching off of Hearts of Iron should Paradox decide to make an entirely new title, or at least a special expansion for HoI 4.
Considering that Hearts of Iron mechanics come close, but not entirely close enough, to suit the Cold War era, what are the players' suggestions for what might make for a good Cold War game? How can espionage and Proxy Wars be made interesting and interactive?
Initially I thought that retaining the strategic, division, and combat mechanics of HoI4 might work, considering the closeness in timespan and how we start to see an even wider blossoming of strategic and tactical options. Then I thought that those mechanics were suited mostly for the epic scale of World War II where it was all about pitched battles and epic campaigns. That is fine if the Hot War begins(which should be dissuaded against unless the player wants to run the risk of nuclear war, which is a totally different issue), but how can smaller-scale proxy wars be depicted? The United States should not be able to concentrate the entirety of its military might on North Korea as it could Japan just six years earlier, for example, as it could not within the limited scale of fighting. Of course, the game must be made interesting for a variety of countries and not just the USA and USSR. France and the UK, for example, will need to struggle over whether to maintain their colonies (by force if necessary), or to let them go with grace (and how the independence process is carried out - do you nation-build or hand power over authoritarian strongmen?)
Perhaps the elements of espionage and politics of HoI3 should be restored and further elaborated on as the Soviets and US try to build alliances through the use of guile and open warfare. The mechanics behind different "soft" and "hard" power should be defined - US intervention in Vietnam contributing to "hard" power while Soviet investments in the economies and governments of Africa represent "soft" power. The emphasis on engineering revolutions and counter-revolutions, as well as the support of Capitalistic or Communist political parties in democracies. And do you help rig elections, or try to propagate your ideology through fair means? Anything and everything has consequences. Dissent should also play a major factor, particularly with the advent of televised media and how your state chooses to deal with issues like war footage on television and the ensuing anti-war protests as a result thereof. Public approval should play a role as a major inhibitor of large-scale military intervention without good cause (therefore, causi belli must have different "strength" values depending on how justified a particular conflict is - the stronger [or perhaps more moral] the cause for war, the less dissent it will cause). Furthermore, as long as a war goes well, where gains are clear and the enemy shows signs of weakening, the popularity of the war will remain high. That also means that the concept of guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency operations must be better depicted, rather than using a rehashing of simple partisans, rebellions, and resistance movements. Popular issues like the right of free speech and the campaign for civil rights for ethnic minorities should also play a part, but once again, any decision is bound to upset somebody.
I might think up some more ideas later, but what do others think about a Cold War title?
Considering that Hearts of Iron mechanics come close, but not entirely close enough, to suit the Cold War era, what are the players' suggestions for what might make for a good Cold War game? How can espionage and Proxy Wars be made interesting and interactive?
Initially I thought that retaining the strategic, division, and combat mechanics of HoI4 might work, considering the closeness in timespan and how we start to see an even wider blossoming of strategic and tactical options. Then I thought that those mechanics were suited mostly for the epic scale of World War II where it was all about pitched battles and epic campaigns. That is fine if the Hot War begins(which should be dissuaded against unless the player wants to run the risk of nuclear war, which is a totally different issue), but how can smaller-scale proxy wars be depicted? The United States should not be able to concentrate the entirety of its military might on North Korea as it could Japan just six years earlier, for example, as it could not within the limited scale of fighting. Of course, the game must be made interesting for a variety of countries and not just the USA and USSR. France and the UK, for example, will need to struggle over whether to maintain their colonies (by force if necessary), or to let them go with grace (and how the independence process is carried out - do you nation-build or hand power over authoritarian strongmen?)
Perhaps the elements of espionage and politics of HoI3 should be restored and further elaborated on as the Soviets and US try to build alliances through the use of guile and open warfare. The mechanics behind different "soft" and "hard" power should be defined - US intervention in Vietnam contributing to "hard" power while Soviet investments in the economies and governments of Africa represent "soft" power. The emphasis on engineering revolutions and counter-revolutions, as well as the support of Capitalistic or Communist political parties in democracies. And do you help rig elections, or try to propagate your ideology through fair means? Anything and everything has consequences. Dissent should also play a major factor, particularly with the advent of televised media and how your state chooses to deal with issues like war footage on television and the ensuing anti-war protests as a result thereof. Public approval should play a role as a major inhibitor of large-scale military intervention without good cause (therefore, causi belli must have different "strength" values depending on how justified a particular conflict is - the stronger [or perhaps more moral] the cause for war, the less dissent it will cause). Furthermore, as long as a war goes well, where gains are clear and the enemy shows signs of weakening, the popularity of the war will remain high. That also means that the concept of guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency operations must be better depicted, rather than using a rehashing of simple partisans, rebellions, and resistance movements. Popular issues like the right of free speech and the campaign for civil rights for ethnic minorities should also play a part, but once again, any decision is bound to upset somebody.
I might think up some more ideas later, but what do others think about a Cold War title?
- 4
- 1
