-
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 very much EXPECT a Cold War game to have the population and economic system from Victoria II. Not having that really put me off of East vs West back when that was still a thing.
Really, a Cold War game needs to be focused on internal development and diplomacy over combat. It was the "Cold" War, not World War III. You win by producing more fridges and butter than your enemy.
Also, for the love of Dog, no nuclear winter. It's a discredited "theory" that was a fraud from the start. And if we want to get really interesting, have it be possible to intercept nukes and add some randomness to the damage they do. The reason nuclear stockpiles were so large was because most nukes couldn't be expected to "finish the job," some would get shot down, some would miss, some would get destroyed in the silo by enemy nukes. And the less urbanized a province is, the less an individual nuke should damage it.
It should be possible to wage World War III with both conventional and nuclear weapons and come out intact.
Really, a Cold War game needs to be focused on internal development and diplomacy over combat. It was the "Cold" War, not World War III. You win by producing more fridges and butter than your enemy.
Also, for the love of Dog, no nuclear winter. It's a discredited "theory" that was a fraud from the start. And if we want to get really interesting, have it be possible to intercept nukes and add some randomness to the damage they do. The reason nuclear stockpiles were so large was because most nukes couldn't be expected to "finish the job," some would get shot down, some would miss, some would get destroyed in the silo by enemy nukes. And the less urbanized a province is, the less an individual nuke should damage it.
It should be possible to wage World War III with both conventional and nuclear weapons and come out intact.
.png){kind=avatar}
The economic system would really need to be the deepest they have ever had (even more detailed then the one in Victoria II).
I hope they would hire an economist as an advisor to design such a system, such that you don't get any weird head scratching mechanics such as the trade or inflation system in EU4.
Similar thing with the politics: I would expect a very detailed internal political system (especially in democracies, where the wrong candidate winning might really hurt you) as well as realistic diplomacy.
Another big focus should be put on the technology system, with a big focus nuclear weapons (some technologies that could threaten MAD, such as nuclear weapons that can destroy the enemies ability to retaliate or a defence system against some nuclear weapons) as well as prestigious technologies (such as the space race) that do not provide you that much of a direct benefit but sway your population as well as other countries towards your ideology and finally economic technologies that would work differently in non communist countries in that they are not only researchable by the player, but will also be automatically researched over time by companies such that capitalist countries have a benefit in those (to compensate for the negatives they get from having a more limited control over many things) as well as making for an interesting choice (do I need that technology desperately enough that I want to research it myself or am I okay with waiting for it to be researched automatically).
I hope they would hire an economist as an advisor to design such a system, such that you don't get any weird head scratching mechanics such as the trade or inflation system in EU4.
Similar thing with the politics: I would expect a very detailed internal political system (especially in democracies, where the wrong candidate winning might really hurt you) as well as realistic diplomacy.
Another big focus should be put on the technology system, with a big focus nuclear weapons (some technologies that could threaten MAD, such as nuclear weapons that can destroy the enemies ability to retaliate or a defence system against some nuclear weapons) as well as prestigious technologies (such as the space race) that do not provide you that much of a direct benefit but sway your population as well as other countries towards your ideology and finally economic technologies that would work differently in non communist countries in that they are not only researchable by the player, but will also be automatically researched over time by companies such that capitalist countries have a benefit in those (to compensate for the negatives they get from having a more limited control over many things) as well as making for an interesting choice (do I need that technology desperately enough that I want to research it myself or am I okay with waiting for it to be researched automatically).
Oh, I also want lots of events and decisions driving the story in a Cold War game. Longer Paradox games, like EU4 and CK2, can function perfectly fine on the basis of their mechanics, but in my experience, shorter ones like HOI and Vicky do poorly if they don't have more "guidance," especially for complex events which would be hard to simulate through mechanics alone (like the Great War or the collapse of Austro-Hungary in Victoria II).
I would assume a Cold War game, at its maximum, would run from 1945 to present-day; so, 72 years. However, it could easily be 1948 to 1991, a mere 43 years. Less than half of Victoria II. So, you'd want it to be rich in historical content.
I would assume a Cold War game, at its maximum, would run from 1945 to present-day; so, 72 years. However, it could easily be 1948 to 1991, a mere 43 years. Less than half of Victoria II. So, you'd want it to be rich in historical content.
THIS. Seriously, every time someone suggests that WW3 starting should be an automatic game over, all I can think of is how that would be such a huge waste of potential. If Paradox makes a Cold War game, they'll seriously need to read up on nuclear strategy and learn how and when countries would have used their nukes. Sure, you're trying to avoid nuclear war, but at the same time, it could easily be one of the best parts of the game. It'd be such a shame if they just cut it out just because they bought into that "destroying the world 10 times over" nonsense.
A nuclear war would suck massively for everyone involved (and the whole world, given the environmental effects), but wouldn't end the world or advanced civilization. The major powers government structures are gone, food prices have skyrocketed from the wrecked American/Soviet economies and the nuclear particulates in the atmosphere, and a massive refugee crisis. That sounds fascinating to play through as someone who wasn't part of the war. Heck, I would probably include a Cuban Missile Crisis Goes Hot scenario, just so that you could play in that environment. Especially because the USA and USSR AIs should probably be coded to prioritize not going to war with each other.
Agree 100% except on one front:
There is a difference between discussion, debate, and discredited. "Nuclear Winter" falls into the "Debate" category. Most Scientists do believe that the detonation and firestorms of hundreds of nukes WOULD cause lasting climate effects... for about a decade or two. Not the near permanent apocalyptic scenario offered by many movies. I do believe radiological issues should be modeled in said game as well though. Now thousands of Nukes... probably would compound the issues moreso.
In any event the aftermath of such event should be playable through... just damn near impossible and preferably avoidable. Meaning WWIII should NOT be a players primary goal if he/she wants to win the game as any country (unless you are playing as China and you want to see the USA and USSR in cinders so you can rise). Nuclear War would be very costly and no participatory country could survive it intact if we are to be realistic. Countries on the periphery or outside however...very possibly. It would be cool to see a "superpower Brazil" arise because all the other competition was wiped out or feeling lasting harmful effects from a conflict.
I think a Time frame of 1950-2000 would be more than sufficient.
By 1950 the Cold War sides were set and in full swing... and 2000 provides ample opportunity for alternate history. Plus 50 years of political, social, and geographical events is more than manageable... and it is a nice round number.
Fair point. I'm fine with radiation having nasty effects and possibly falls in agriculture, just not the apocalypse, like you mentioned.
And yeah, your state probably would be extremely fragile if you allow the enemy to nuke most of your places. I do think that one problem a lot of fictional stories have with nuclear war is that suppose that you want to nuke everything in a country, when in reality, you mostly just focus on taking out key infrastructure. My mom was raised in what had once been the SU's #2 nuclear target (due to the presence of air command nearby). Hitting Galveston would cripple the US. It'd be great if the game reflected factors like these.
Good to know that there are people who think nuclear war would not mean the end of modern civilization. What a lovely fantasy. I personally enjoy Paradox's attempt to create historical realism in their games. Let's keep it that way.
Extremely Fragile may actually be an understatement. In all honesty i do not believe that in a nuclear exchange between the USA and USSR... there would be no USA or USSR to speak of. Both sides would petty much cease to exist as role players globally, industrial powers, military powers, or even singular organized states/entities. There was just too much firepower aimed at each other for either one of them to escape horrific damage and loss of capital/capacity. For America this is further compounded by the concentration of the population along the Eastern seaboard, west coast, The MidWest (as in Illinois and Michigan), and Texas... at least the USSR was far more spread out.
Basically nuclear war would make either one of the two superpowers, essentially third tier global players overnight.
Thus it should be a players primary objective to maintain parity to discourage the prospect. Even a limited exchange (involving 100 or so detonations) would likely cost the player so dearly that they would no longer have the capacity to maintain their current global posture. The truth is: you cant win a nuclear war. EVEN If you do "win" it's a Pyrrhic victory anyway as you are now no longer in a position to command, utilize, or even have the power/standing you once had. If the event does happen i think the players primary goal would be to maintain their nation's integrity over that of being relevant in international affairs.
That is the most accurate and realistic gameplay for the cold war i think should be bore in mind: "you DON'T want a nuclear exchange"
That is not entirely true:
You can win a nuclear war, if you can attack in such a way that it disables the enemies second strike capabilities (e.g. by having nuclear weapons that can destroy the enemies launch facilities or by having sufficient missile defence systems). And I think such technologies would be quite interesting to implement in such a game, as they are both quite powerful, allowing you to destroy an unprepared enemy at little to no cost, but also quite dangerous to research, as an unprepared enemy has an incentive to launch a nuclear first strike, if he discovers that you are researching such technologies. As such they would make for a difficult choice. Do I think I can research those technologies without the enemy discovering it and potentially take him out without retaliation, or do I wait until he has sufficient defence capabilities and it is safe to research?
I should have specified...you cant win if it is between 2 sides with even 33-50% capability parity of one another. Thus a nuclear war between the USA and USSR was unwinnable for the overwhelming majority of the Cold War (pretty much the mid 1950s onward). Hence the concept of MAD.
A First Strike was NEVER going to achieve the desired result you described. In fact the only time such a situation existed/exists would be modern North Korea possibly (only because their program is in its infancy).
I do want proxy wars and I DON'T want being on the same team to mean that you can't proxy war someone. If someone wants to play america and team up with russia then fine, they should be able to do that, but that doesn't mean the two countries should be instantly at ease with each other and set about global conquest so they have hold hands and give each other flowers. Powers of relatively equal strength (and close enough, depending on their level of power projection) should always be somewhat antagonistic and working to undermine each other through espionage and proxy wars as to prevent the other power getting out of control and turning on them, and to weaken the other power so that they can eventually overpower them and the the sole dominating force on the world stage. Thus, I don't want the option of being in an alliance with another nation to mean that you cannot take hostile actions towards them. You just shouldn't be able to take OVERT hostile action towards them. Competing powers should never be able to be truly at peace. I think having this sort of design philosophy going in would make for a more dynamic system than placing arbitrary restrictions to try and keep things historical - in real life the cold war didn't pop out of nowhere because communism and capitalism magically hate each other. That was certainly a part of it, but remember they were allies just a few years prior. It's always been about vying for geopolitical control and promoting your own country at the expense of others. The Cold War ended when Russia was no longer a major threat to American geopolitical interests, and now that it has started to assert itself again, the US government is trying to restart it.
Being on the same team should bring an amount of stability in that your team won't openly attack you, with troops or nukes (at least not without breaking the alliance) but it shouldn't mean you are instantly best buds, subterfuge should still be rife and the competition between competing powers should be as strong as ever and it should meaningfully limit your options in dealing with the other power (for example if they openly declare support for one side in a war and send troops, you shouldn't be allowed to send troops to aid the other side - but you should still be able to provide covert material and intelligence assistance).
Being on the same team should bring an amount of stability in that your team won't openly attack you, with troops or nukes (at least not without breaking the alliance) but it shouldn't mean you are instantly best buds, subterfuge should still be rife and the competition between competing powers should be as strong as ever and it should meaningfully limit your options in dealing with the other power (for example if they openly declare support for one side in a war and send troops, you shouldn't be allowed to send troops to aid the other side - but you should still be able to provide covert material and intelligence assistance).
Mechanics for a post-nuclear conflict would be interesting to play. It would sort of diverge probably from the core mechanics of a Cold War game (which I agree with others would be a mix of HOI and Victoria), but fighting over the scraps of a world wrecked by nuclear weapons.
A reboot of the classic Crisis in the Kremlin was launched on Steam the other day. The UI is terrible, but the idea is there.
well the Scale of possible Nuclear Conflicts matters too; there's a difference between a world were the Cuban Missile Crisis goes hot, and one with Israel dropping a few tactical nukes to force an end of Arab aggression against them.
lol it wouldn't be a few
i think it was the CIA that estimated that israel has had a nuke stockpile ranging from several dozen to hundereds from 1970s-present.
i do wonder just how effective tac nukes would be though.
I could see that being an expansion pack, or even a "sub game" but it would be pretty hard to simulate proxy wars, mid 20th century economy, and arms races along with post apocalyptic resource management, fallout, and god knows what else.