If Paradox did a Cold War game, what features would you want?

[Rip Off Productions]

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.

Well "a few" was a relative term comparing the one-sided bombing of Israel's enemies in the Middle East, and a full USA vs. USSR(+their allies?) ICBM cluster f*ck all over the world.

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.

But wouldn't the damage the nukes do destroying infrastructure, irradiating resources, and killing POPs interacting with the game's economy system do the work for "post-apocalyptic resource management" if the war was big enough? maybe having a "Nuclear Winter" event that impacts output of Crops(and solar panels if those exist in the game) world wide if enough high-yield nukes are detonated at the same time.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Well "a few" was a relative term comparing the one-sided bombing of Israel's enemies in the Middle East, and a full USA vs. USSR(+their allies?) ICBM cluster f*ck all over the world.



But wouldn't the damage the nukes do destroying infrastructure, irradiating resources, and killing POPs interacting with the game's economy system do the work for "post-apocalyptic resource management" if the war was big enough? maybe having a "Nuclear Winter" event that impacts output of Crops(and solar panels if those exist in the game) world wide if enough high-yield nukes are detonated at the same time.

Not entirely. If enough cities were razed, we could expect governments to fall entirely (public unwilling to cooperate), logistical systems that aren't represented in-game failing, and so on. A government would surely form from the chaos, but it would not be the same government (break in continuity).

Of course, this is assuming a major nuking. I don't know how historical this is (I have heard that the superpowers really did plan to fling all their nukes in the first salvo), but I'd like for it to be possible to limit strategic nukes to a few strikes, like in Red Storm Rising. A US where cities like, say, Nashville get nuked would probably collapse. A US where nukes are limited to places like Galveston and San Diego would probably still be functional, just crippled.

 

[aruon]

Of course, this is assuming a major nuking. I don't know how historical this is (I have heard that the superpowers really did plan to fling all their nukes in the first salvo), but I'd like for it to be possible to limit strategic nukes to a few strikes, like in Red Storm Rising. A US where cities like, say, Nashville get nuked would probably collapse. A US where nukes are limited to places like Galveston and San Diego would probably still be functional, just crippled.

i think that was the case. one big salvo of nukes and you'd possibly take down launch sites either directly or through EMP before another ICBM could be placed and launched.

the hard thing with limiting nuke strike areas is that during the cold war there were tens of thousands of 1+ megaton nukes ready to be wasted on even small towns and as backups. even today the US and russia both field nuke totals in the 7000s. even with HOI province counts that would most certainly go into a CW game, that's more than 1 nuke for every russian and american province respectively.

as for major cities themselves, it'd have to take at least a few megaton-size nukes to collapse most VIP cities as their suburbs can be far-reaching and potentially not get the brunt of the implosion, blinding (literally) light, and gamma rays.

 

[gja102]

My main concern about a cold war game is the fact that it will be dominated by just two powers which will have a massive impact on grand strategy gameplay. I'm not against the idea of the game itself, I would love Paradox to attempt a 20th century grand strategy that had a broader scope than HOI, I just think there are a number of natural problems which need to be taken into account.

All other Paradox games feature a number of great powers jostling for supremacy. Reducing this to a binary 'USSR v USA' will lead to a number of potential gameplay issues.

If you're being realistic, playing as a superpower will be the only way to win, limiting you to just two 'proper' playthroughs. Of course, it may be like EU4 and allow blobbing from smaller powers, but pretty soon into your Sweden WC it will stop feeling realistic.

Playing as a superpower isn't always fun - the closest comparison I can think of is Britain in the 1832 Victoria 2 start. The massive power of the Royal Navy lets you do what you want and influence smaller nations at will, but taking over an already-dominant power saps any sense of achievement, and running a globe-spanning empire from day1 is a management headache, especially for new players. Then again, NOT playing as a superpower comes with its own set of problems, as if the AI decides to stomp on your plans you are pretty much powerless. Using V2 as an example again, a lot of the strategies for playing minor powers in 1832 basically start with 'keep your head down for the first 40 years until the Royal Navy can be legitimately challenged'.

In short, a 1945 start needs nuanced features that work equally well for superpowers and everyone else... and I think that is a very challenging design for grand strategy. Not impossible, but difficult, especially when taking AI into account.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

A 1946 start would have the POSSIBILITY of France and Britain pushing through their war-weariness, and maintaining wartime industry levels to keep a quasi-superpower state. At that point, the state of Japan has yet to be decided, so they could potentially be kept a superpower.
Otherwise, the trick is to have different goals with different countries. Not every goal in the game will be to become world hegemon. That is the goal of the USA and the USSR. The goal of secondary world powers like France and GB is to a) maintain their empires, and b) add new limited spheres of influence. The goal of regional powers (Iran, China, Egypt, South Africa) is to create a limited sphere of influence, in a game of power with their immediate neighbours. The goal of non-powers is to become powers.

So there's several types of conflict you'd see. Superpowers fight proxy wars. European Powers fight colonial wars of liberation. Regional and non-powers fight conventional wars, and try to angle support from other Super- or European Powers to give them an edge.

 

[Zavaleta]

There should also be a viable "Third World" gameplay strategy for nations to seek out and make a viable non-aligned movement that could counter the USA and USSR hegemony. That was a real movement in the world following decolonization. The main international political focus of the game should be on how to deal with decolonization. In retrospect it is easy to forget that there were lots of competing visions for what the world would look like during the Cold War.

 

[aruon]

A 1946 start would have the POSSIBILITY of France and Britain pushing through their war-weariness, and maintaining wartime industry levels to keep a quasi-superpower state.

actually the UK was considered a superpower until 1954.

 

[jmpveg22]

actually the UK was considered a superpower until 1954.

Thank you Egypt, India, and Colonized Middle East/Africa...

Freeing the rest of us from the Tyranny of the Crown.

 

[Zavaleta]

actually the UK was considered a superpower until 1954.

The Brits still think they are a superpower... So, yeah, there is plenty of room for country variety in a Cold War game.

 

[aruon]

Thank you Egypt, India, and Colonized Middle East/Africa...

Freeing the rest of us from the Tyranny of the Crown.

well yeah that was the point. then decolonization happened and the british empire slowly ceased to be. though historians point to the suez canal crisis as what ended the superpower status of UK. they no longer had the influence.

 

[Rip Off Productions]

Not entirely. If enough cities were razed, we could expect governments to fall entirely (public unwilling to cooperate), logistical systems that aren't represented in-game failing, and so on. A government would surely form from the chaos, but it would not be the same government (break in continuity).

well the Cold War era was filled with civil wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions, protests(both peaceful and violent), governments in exile, roaming bands of warlords and organized crime syndicates; so if all of those things(and multiple instances of each of them) dogpile on the victims of nuclear war/fallout that would work wouldn't it?

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

True, they were considered a superpower by contemporaries, mostly, British, but their ability to project effective hard power did not match up to their reputation. Since 1946, they a) gave up trying to figure out Israel-Palestine, b) relinquished India due to rising unrest, c), lost Egypt to a Revolution, and d), failed to defeat Egypt in a conventional war alongside a second European power and a European-tech-level regional power. Those strike me as being on a different level of power as the United States and USSR in this period.

 

[jmpveg22]

True, they were considered a superpower by contemporaries, mostly, British, but their ability to project effective hard power did not match up to their reputation. Since 1946, they a) gave up trying to figure out Israel-Palestine, b) relinquished India due to rising unrest, c), lost Egypt to a Revolution, and d), failed to defeat Egypt in a conventional war alongside a second European power and a European-tech-level regional power. Those strike me as being on a different level of power as the United States and USSR in this period.

they are... but the perception of the time was that the UK was still a "recovering superpower".

Now the reality was FAAAARRR from the common perception. Just goes to show you that ppl really should question their long held beliefs about life in the time they are in... because we are often blind/ noseblind to the stink of the situation around us when we are wrapped up in it.

 

[Zavaleta]

True, they were considered a superpower by contemporaries, mostly, British, but their ability to project effective hard power did not match up to their reputation. Since 1946, they a) gave up trying to figure out Israel-Palestine, b) relinquished India due to rising unrest, c), lost Egypt to a Revolution, and d), failed to defeat Egypt in a conventional war alongside a second European power and a European-tech-level regional power. Those strike me as being on a different level of power as the United States and USSR in this period.

The US failed to defeat the Vietnamese national liberation army in a conventional war. I don't see your point. Both Britain and France projected power all over the world during the Cold War. Mostly in their former colonies. The US did not even compete with their power in most of post-colonial Africa until after the end of the Cold War. Either could make for a fun second rate power to play in a Cold War game.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

The US failed to defeat the Vietnamese national liberation army in a conventional war. I don't see your point. Both Britain and France projected power all over the world during the Cold War. Mostly in their former colonies. The US did not even compete with their power in most of post-colonial Africa until after the end of the Cold War. Either could make for a fun second rate power to play in a Cold War game.

There could be lots of different ranks of power that you could try to raise up to a higher level as a player. There's no reason you have to be the top dog, just taking a minor nation and making it into a regional power or major power can be quite the feat or challenge.

 

[gja102]

Both Britain and France projected power all over the world during the Cold War. Mostly in their former colonies. The US did not even compete with their power in most of post-colonial Africa until after the end of the Cold War. Either could make for a fun second rate power to play in a Cold War game.

I'd have cited Britain and France as two of the hardest powers to make fun during this time period, simply due to decolonization feeling like a "failure" in conventional Paradox strategy terms. Depending on how it was handled, watching your huge empire disintegrate regardless of your actions could be pretty frustrating for a lot of players.

 

[Zavaleta]

I'd have cited Britain and France as two of the hardest powers to make fun during this time period, simply due to decolonization feeling like a "failure" in conventional Paradox strategy terms. Depending on how it was handled, watching your huge empire disintegrate regardless of your actions could be pretty frustrating for a lot of players.

For this reason, the game would have to be specifically designed around managing decolonization in my opinion. The player could be offered different options for dealing with the growing call to decolonize. From maintaining an iron grip on the colonies (like Portugal tried) to managing a transition to national elites while maintaining proxy control (like Britain did in much of its former colonies). The player should be encouraged to try these different options depending on the situation where success is not simply measured in territorial control like in EU4. It is also another reason for the game to have a robust economic system through which the player can maintain and profit from maintaining a sphere on influence in other independent countries. A well designed decolonization mechanic would add a lot towards simulating Cold War politics. Buttressing France's colonial influence against communist revolutionaries is how the US got involved in Vietnam in the first place. At the same time, the US was interested in moving decolonization forward in order to transfer these regions from British and French influence to the US. I think it would make for a fun game to give the player dynamic options for how to deal with these events.

Most Cold War games have made the mistake in my opinion of focusing on big hypothetical tank battles in Europe, when in reality, most of the action played out in the rest of the world.

 

[Rip Off Productions]

The US failed to defeat the Vietnamese national liberation army in a conventional war. I don't see your point.

actually the USA was kicking ass in Vietnam, but never pushed North, and the public opposition to the war resulted in politicians ending it early and stop supporting the Southern Vietnamese, thus allowing the North to recuperate and win the war themselves later.

so maybe including a system where some kind of "war exhaustion" that can counter "war score" so you can be forced to loose a winning war would be used to replicate this?

 

[aruon]

they are... but the perception of the time was that the UK was still a "recovering superpower".

Now the reality was FAAAARRR from the common perception. Just goes to show you that ppl really should question their long held beliefs about life in the time they are in... because we are often blind/ noseblind to the stink of the situation around us when we are wrapped up in it.

i wouldn't say the reality was that the sun setting on british empire was unavoidable. there were just too many factors at too far a distance and FAR too high a cost to ever be worth it. all the Africans vying for their own states, the billion+ population of the British Raj on the verge of a bloody uprising, and Soviet-backed Arab nationalism... that's basically 3 continents (well 2 1/2) all screaming " **** off! ". not even the US would want to put up with those astronomical management costs.

one of the issues with perception are when there's nothing to prove that perception wrong. if the US and china got into a full on military (because china is becoming expansionist and aggressive) or economic (because Trump is kind of a psychopath) pissing match, the proto-superpower may be able to maintain/outlast the established top tog though either through guile or just sheer attrition. regardless of what happens then, there's either 2 superpowers or none.

The US did not even compete with their power in most of post-colonial Africa until after the end of the Cold War. Either could make for a fun second rate power to play in a Cold War game.

the US projected power mostly through NATO in the west, Israel in the middle east, and through CIA-backed assassinations, coups, and uprisings that installed dictators everywhere else.

as for africa, there's really never been any major strategic payoff to the US influencing africa. the effort to forward democracy and humanitarianism can only get you so far when the military value of the affected areas is almost nil. now if only the soviets didn't see most of africa as a munitions dump...

actually the USA was kicking ass in Vietnam, but never pushed North, and the public opposition to the war resulted in politicians ending it early and stop supporting the Southern Vietnamese, thus allowing the North to recuperate and win the war themselves later.

this is correct. the US was never trying to actually "win".

so maybe including a system where some kind of "war exhaustion" that can counter "war score" so you can be forced to loose a winning war would be used to replicate this?

pretty much this. copy-pasting EU4s war exhaustion mechanics for cold war use would work as a good starting point as it already covers most of the bases.

 

[gja102]

For this reason, the game would have to be specifically designed around managing decolonization in my opinion. The player could be offered different options for dealing with the growing call to decolonize. From maintaining an iron grip on the colonies (like Portugal tried) to managing a transition to national elites while maintaining proxy control (like Britain did in much of its former colonies). The player should be encouraged to try these different options depending on the situation where success is not simply measured in territorial control like in EU4. It is also another reason for the game to have a robust economic system through which the player can maintain and profit from maintaining a sphere on influence in other independent countries....

Most Cold War games have made the mistake in my opinion of focusing on big hypothetical tank battles in Europe, when in reality, most of the action played out in the rest of the world.

Moving the focus AWAY from fighting WW3 would actually help with a lot of the gameplay issues I was concerned about. More options with economic development and soft power would make minors and mid-level powers playable (rather than just getting swept aside by the first inevitable tank blitz or nuke salvo beyond your control).

Propaganda and the shifting battleground of ideas should be a major feature of the game. Playing through decolonisation as the British or the French should almost be about brand management as much as anything. Too much of an iron grip (or even dragging the Americans in to help you) and the Soviets will have a much easier time portraying the West as a bunch of evil imperialists. Let your empire go too easily, and the rival propaganda will portray you as weak and undercut your own ideology. World conquest should not be possible, but putting your mark on the dominant worldview should. I guess the Brits could decide whether to push for a Commonwealth, or lean more towards an Anglosphere with the US and Australia... whereas Paris could try and push to be the head of a more Franco-centric European Union. Features-wise, interactions with press and media outlets, and a minor characters system (nothing CK2 level, but enough to add flavour to national politics, propaganda, press battles and espionage).