For a while now I've toyed with the idea of an "emergent" Hearts of Iron game. By that I mean one in which every mechanic that changes the map, results in AI unpredictability and provides multiple paths to success is used to the hilt. Darkest Hour has tons of these features baked into the DNA, and the decision system for human players is particularly powerful.
Here's an example: Post-Apocalyptia. Take the same vibe as the Fallout Mod but rig it so that it's much more open-ended and less deterministic. Most of the map begins absolutely barren, meaning most infrastructure, bases, resources and even manpower are built/harvested/born on the backs of various "organic" event trees, investment decisions and so on. Every resource becomes a precious commodity, and the use of fuel for vehicles becomes particularly critical, but everybody has a shot at acquiring that fuel "somehow." The map is "colonized" from a Wastelands faction on the basis of "expedition" campaigns that limit expansion to small bites at a time, placing a premium on where you go first; border gore is likely but no worse than in other Paradox titles, and at least these are 'your' borders you're drawing. Meanwhile the AI scripts are as aggressive and expansionist as possible, but also rigged with semi-randomized changes of heart, invisible to players of course, which result in different alliances and no two games playing out the same way. Anywhere and everywhere that can be open-ended is: Ministers are reducible to policies, and by giving all possible policies to a player you allow them to customize their cabinet utterly. Or perhaps military leaders is the concern? Greatly increase the rate at which experience and traits are gained, and reduce leaders to no-skill generic/faceless slots which are then "groomed" over the course of long campaigns. Toss in plenty of fluff and flavor, roleplaying elements and so on, and voila: You now have an open-ended, Fallout-esque, multiplayer-capable post-apocalyptic sandbox.
The question is whether such a thing is even desirable enough to warrant the work. Hearts of Iron is in principle a wargame, and a fairly static one at that. The best mods are often judged by how many fixed outcomes were predicted and coded for ahead of time, rather than any significant changes to the mechanics or feel of the game. I know for a fact that everything I just described above is doable, and that I could do it if the motivation and time was there. But should it be done? What say you, denizen of the plaza?
Here's an example: Post-Apocalyptia. Take the same vibe as the Fallout Mod but rig it so that it's much more open-ended and less deterministic. Most of the map begins absolutely barren, meaning most infrastructure, bases, resources and even manpower are built/harvested/born on the backs of various "organic" event trees, investment decisions and so on. Every resource becomes a precious commodity, and the use of fuel for vehicles becomes particularly critical, but everybody has a shot at acquiring that fuel "somehow." The map is "colonized" from a Wastelands faction on the basis of "expedition" campaigns that limit expansion to small bites at a time, placing a premium on where you go first; border gore is likely but no worse than in other Paradox titles, and at least these are 'your' borders you're drawing. Meanwhile the AI scripts are as aggressive and expansionist as possible, but also rigged with semi-randomized changes of heart, invisible to players of course, which result in different alliances and no two games playing out the same way. Anywhere and everywhere that can be open-ended is: Ministers are reducible to policies, and by giving all possible policies to a player you allow them to customize their cabinet utterly. Or perhaps military leaders is the concern? Greatly increase the rate at which experience and traits are gained, and reduce leaders to no-skill generic/faceless slots which are then "groomed" over the course of long campaigns. Toss in plenty of fluff and flavor, roleplaying elements and so on, and voila: You now have an open-ended, Fallout-esque, multiplayer-capable post-apocalyptic sandbox.
The question is whether such a thing is even desirable enough to warrant the work. Hearts of Iron is in principle a wargame, and a fairly static one at that. The best mods are often judged by how many fixed outcomes were predicted and coded for ahead of time, rather than any significant changes to the mechanics or feel of the game. I know for a fact that everything I just described above is doable, and that I could do it if the motivation and time was there. But should it be done? What say you, denizen of the plaza?
Attachments
 Mods_PostApocalyptia.png)
- 1
