Global War on Terror Grand Strategy Game

[JDP]

I recently played Labyrinth, a board game based on the global war on terror after the events of 9/11. It is made by GMT (the makers of Twilight Struggle). (I highly recommend both.) It got me thinking that I would LOVE to see Paradox do a strategy game based on the global war on terror. The strategic considerations in such a game would be deep and very interesting. You could model the war of ideas, sectarian conflict, geo-political support, coalition building, terrorism financing, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, intelligence operations, the trade-off between liberty and security, nation building, etc. The list goes on and on. It would also be a very interesting period/topic for building alternative histories. What would have happened if the US did not invade Iraq? What if the US invaded Iran or Pakistan? Think about all the different ways the Arab Spring could resolve. What will happen with ISIS? Also, this game would be very different in that it would have to model asymmetric warfare, which could lead to some very interesting gameplay.

I recognize that there might be some resistance to the idea of making a game that deals with terrorism, but games about any armed conflict deal with the same considerations. And the fact is that terrorism is just a small part of the global conflict that we see in the world today. I believe it can be done tastefully and respectfully, just like Paradox has done with all of their other titles.

I'm curious to hear what others think. Anybody else find this idea interesting?

 

[GC13]

I'd be very interested, but it would be a lot safer for them to fictionalize it—make systems moddable so you could mod in all of the real-world ideologies and countries, but not have to put up with the hassle of releasing a game about such touchy subject matter themselves.

Of course I still want them to make a Godfather-style strategy game (as I have ever since I first played as a republic in Crusader Kings 2, since that's what it felt like).

 

[pontifex_medius]

I don't think this idea is very feasible, as terrorism/insurgency is too asymmetrical to simulate in a strategy game. How would you fight the insurgents? Would the insurgents be depicted as brigades on the map, or as numbers on a province panel? How would you defeat the terrorists? How can you defeat terrorists when it seems that the harder you fight them, the more support they will accrue? How would the terrorists defeat you? What happens if the terrorists "win"? Also, PI would get in a lot of trouble if you were allowed to play as a terrorist organization like al Qaida or IS, so you would only be able to play as countries which would be boring in the long run.

 

[aruon]

what pontifex said. while it's definately an intresting concept no doubt, the unique complexities would make it a beast to do, and most of the described features would be present in a cold war game.

 

[grisamentum]

I don't think this idea is very feasible, as terrorism/insurgency is too asymmetrical to simulate in a strategy game. How would you fight the insurgents? Would the insurgents be depicted as brigades on the map, or as numbers on a province panel? How would you defeat the terrorists? How can you defeat terrorists when it seems that the harder you fight them, the more support they will accrue? How would the terrorists defeat you? What happens if the terrorists "win"?

If you had played the board game he referenced, Labyrinth, you would know the answer to all those questions.

Of course, it you have played that game, you'd also know why OP's idea is terrible. Games like Labyrinth work because they are not open-ended strategy games. There are tightly phased, have specific moves, and the events are balanced around the fact that you have a narrow range of options.

 

[Galaahd]

Eh. I think it's a stupid idea simply for the reason that the whole "War on terror" thing is just an excuse, a casus belli.

The reasons are always geopolitical, and of "national interests". Just make a modern geopolitical game in which secret services and intelligence have an important role. But making a whole game centered on the "War on terror" and giving the defeat of terrorism as main objective only makes for a simplistic and naive game. Even worse, it'd look incredibly biased.

 

[JDP]

Games like Labyrinth work because they are not open-ended strategy games. There are tightly phased, have specific moves, and the events are balanced around the fact that you have a narrow range of options.

You have just described every good board game. That's like saying HoI would not be a good game because Axis & Allies has these qualities.

Eh. I think it's a stupid idea simply for the reason that the whole "War on terror" thing is just an excuse, a casus belli.

The reasons are always geopolitical, and of "national interests". Just make a modern geopolitical game in which secret services and intelligence have an important role. But making a whole game centered on the "War on terror" and giving the defeat of terrorism as main objective only makes for a simplistic and naive game. Even worse, it'd look incredibly biased.

Well first, let's just say that I'm not worried about people thinking I'm biased when it comes to Islamic Jihad. But I don't think there is anything simplistic or naïve about the geopolitical considerations of the war on terror. And those considerations are quite different from your typical Cold War sphere of influence mechanics.

 

[JDP]

I don't think this idea is very feasible, as terrorism/insurgency is too asymmetrical to simulate in a strategy game. How would you fight the insurgents? Would the insurgents be depicted as brigades on the map, or as numbers on a province panel? How would you defeat the terrorists? How can you defeat terrorists when it seems that the harder you fight them, the more support they will accrue? How would the terrorists defeat you? What happens if the terrorists "win"? Also, PI would get in a lot of trouble if you were allowed to play as a terrorist organization like al Qaida or IS, so you would only be able to play as countries which would be boring in the long run.

Actually, it is the asymmetry that I think would be so fascinating. I would think that you would want to depict terrorist networks much in the same way that they operate now; networks with leaders and geographical spheres of operation. You would have to fight them with a multi pronged attack: intelligence/finance/covert ops/war of ideas/stabilizing the region politically. The difficulty of modeling this and succeeding in game is exactly why I think this would be interesting.

As for playing as AQ or ISIL, I can see where that might cause some controversy. But we play as Nazis every day. And first person shooters depict playable terrorists all the time. I think what you see in the first person genre is much more problematic than playing a highly conceptualized strategic simulation.

 

[aruon]

As for playing as AQ or ISIL, I can see where that might cause some controversy. But we play as Nazis every day. And first person shooters depict playable terrorists all the time. I think what you see in the first person genre is much more problematic than playing a highly conceptualized strategic simulation.

except playing as Nazi Germany, which ceased to exist before some of our parents or grandparents were even born, is a massive difference from terrorist organizations which still exist and cause massive damage and suffering today- as in right now today. and the differences between a fictional entity and a real one are very extreme, let alone fictional ones in an FPS where you play as an individual(s) [insert stereotypical nationality/religion extremist], AKA the video game equivalent of Rambo, and real, ongoing ones in a grand strategy simulation, where you for all intents and purposes ARE that entity. especially with ISIS, which has brought thousands of westerners into their ranks with propaganda, having even a mod to a game where you could play as them is practically free advertising- something which they mould most certainly catch on to- and that's the kind of thing that gets national governments involved. in the not friendly way. and some controversy is a dramatic understatement when guilt by association is a very real thing in the eyes of a government.

now, maybe they shouldn't be taboo for playing as for forever, like of course, the 3rd reich has, but it's a matter of good taste and unintentionally adding fuel to a fire that is still burning quite hotly.

as for "problematic" really? that dangerous kind of thinking is what politicians around the world since the late 70s have been using and abusing to their fullest to try and ban or censor video games (and don't forget, that's the same BS was used with comic books in the 50s, as well as rock music in the 60s). from Mortal Kombat to Hatred, FPS games always take the blame when something big happens because of how convenient of a scapegoat it is. even though there is actually very little clear and unbiased evidence from either side of the FPS violence debate to suggest anything.

 

[fleetothemoon]

The topic is too hot and sensitive... I don't think it would be worth potential PR troubles.

I would much rather PDS try their hands at a modern world simulator... although that also has its own can of worms.

 

[Will Steel]

Victoria II already depicts terrorism and it is a part of the game, but keep in mind that in that game it is NOT the Islam/Christianity terrorism of today. Terrorism in that game is a socio-politcal terrorism running parallel with economic systems.

In Vicky2 terrorists bomb factories (and thus work as a simple but big economic malus in the province). But they don't spawn just because you have a province with people following other religions. They spawn when dissatisfied people are there, which can very well be a minority population in the region (different religion or not). Kinda like communists terrorizing against your liberal capitalist government if you let the situation go too bad. It was another 'crime' penalties that get into your provinces if your bureaucratic efficiency isn't good enough.

In Victoria 1 terrorists also increased revolt risk as much as I've read about that game. So if you didn't deal with the situation, you'll have the 'insurgents' you were looking for anyway. But the rebels, again, would be political since the game doesn't model religious, extremist murderer rebels (and I think there weren't so many back in that era).

There could be a game about war against terrorism, but remember, devs' lives can get in risk. Those braindead murderers have a reach just about everywhere these days.

 

[fleetothemoon]

Victoria II already depicts terrorism and it is a part of the game, but keep in mind that in that game it is NOT the Islam/Christianity terrorism of today. Terrorism in that game is a socio-politcal terrorism running parallel with economic systems.

The line between political terrorism and religious terrorism are blurry.

You can argue that modern terrorism are political as much as they are religious... and unless if there is a major difference in their behavior - in the sense that, "religious terrorism" are different from "political terrorism" then it doesn't really matter anyway.

Also, what is this "Islamic/Christianity terrorism" you are talking about? The "War on Terror" has nothing to do with Christianity vs. Islam... mostly because Western nations like the United States (whom coined the term) are secular, and also because the so called Islamic terrorists do not just target Christians.

In Vicky2 terrorists bomb factories (and thus work as a simple but big economic malus in the province). But they don't spawn just because you have a province with people following other religions. They spawn when dissatisfied people are there, which can very well be a minority population in the region (different religion or not). Kinda like communists terrorizing against your liberal capitalist government if you let the situation go too bad. It was another 'crime' penalties that get into your provinces if your bureaucratic efficiency isn't good enough.

Contemporary terrorist acts are not relegated only to areas where is a minority following a different religion from the majority. Also, not all contemporary terrorism are linked to religion... although I guess the OP's "war on terror" is probably only focused on terrorism related to Islam or Islamic countries.

There could be a game about war against terrorism, but remember, devs' lives can get in risk. Those braindead murderers have a reach just about everywhere these days.

No way, even the terrorists love Paradox. I mean, just look at how they actually used a map from Victoria to illustrate their ambitions for new caliphate.

 

[sirmentlegen]

This is an interesting idea. I want to play as ISIS and destroy the west.

 

[aruon]

This is an interesting idea. I want to play as ISIS and destroy the west.

look at my previous post please.

 

[aruon]

No way, even the terrorists love Paradox. I mean, just look at how they actually used a map from Victoria to illustrate their ambitions for new caliphate.

your link keeps timing out for some reason. but as i can probably guess what that particular picture is, here's this little thing on DeviantArt that i made months ago when i first saw that picture on twitter.

 

[Will Steel]

The line between political terrorism and religious terrorism are blurry.

It sure is. How blurry it is depends upon what timeframe is in the context, but as much as I know about terrorism, it is almost always political alongside religious. Those murderous groups usually seek to carve out new states or take over and rule one.

You can argue that modern terrorism are political as much as they are religious... and unless if there is a major difference in their behavior - in the sense that, "religious terrorism" are different from "political terrorism" then it doesn't really matter anyway.

There is a big difference in my opinion in attacking a religious building of a minority population because they don't follow the mainstream religion, to terrorize them until they are either dead, out of the country or convert....and attacking an economic zone or a group of people because they don't follow the political ideology that someone wants, or don't have the economic system in place that they might wish.

However what you said is true as well. But remember, I am talking about how Victoria II terrorism works, not the contemporary real-world terrorism is.

Also, what is this "Islamic/Christianity terrorism" you are talking about? The "War on Terror" has nothing to do with Christianity vs. Islam... mostly because Western nations like the United States (whom coined the term) are secular, and also because the so called Islamic terrorists do not just target Christians.

Well, both of those violent monotheist religions have a history of terrorism, in one form or another over time, with one religion being more visibly in modern era. You misunderstood my point, I never meant Christianity VS Islam and all that. It is just that those religions have been and to a very good extent still are, the base and root of most religious violence in the world. So I used them to compare and contrast to the in-game terrorism.

This has nothing to do with USA's secularism either (it is not the only secular country, in fact there are a lot more, much better ones). What I am talking about is Vicky2's terrorism and not getting into the religious debate of the present world.

Contemporary terrorist acts are not relegated only to areas where is a minority following a different religion from the majority. Also, not all contemporary terrorism are linked to religion... although I guess the OP's "war on terror" is probably only focused on terrorism related to Islam or Islamic countries.

That's what I meant, you are right there. Vicky2's terrorism is a different story from the contemporary terrorism. The way it is depicted is political and socio-economical terrorism, and in the game it is basically a penalizing-but-harmless extension of rebellion.

A 'war on terror' basically means war on religious terrorism. Since political terrorism is already labelled as war against the said ideology itself (and not just terror), like the Cold War or capitalism VS communism and etc.

No way, even the terrorists love Paradox. I mean, just look at how they actually used a map from Victoria to illustrate their ambitions for new caliphate.

Yep, I saw that map last year when it was originally posted. Was playing a China campaign when I saw it, and I laughed a lot. Perhaps they want Qing, Austrian and Russian Empires to return?

 

[skynet464]

your link keeps timing out for some reason. but as i can probably guess what that particular picture is, here's this little thing on DeviantArt that i made months ago when i first saw that picture on twitter.

Austria-Hungary? A bit early for that, no?

 

[Chiro]

Look, I don't have any problems with with this being "to soon" or anything. A developer shouldn't keep himself from making a game because the topic is taboo.

But you can't make a realistic game about something if you don't have enough information. I mean, most terrorists are hiding somewhere right now and we don't know where they are, who they are, what they're planning etc. How can you make a good game out of that? Paradox already has the problem of western bias towards games as EU4, and that's a game about a timeperiod that ended 200 years ago (!). What do you think is going to happen when you make a game about a recent time period that hasn't even ended yet?

 

[Chiro]

And of course everybody knows there is only one way the Western World can deal with terrorism once and for all; total reconstruction of the Middle East and most of Africa. Economical, political, geographical. And that's not very fun.

 

[pontifex_medius]

Look, I don't have any problems with with this being "to soon" or anything. A developer shouldn't keep himself from making a game because the topic is taboo

I don't think Paradox cares what you think, but rather what the remainder of the Western hemisphere thinks. Even if they could make a workable model for a game, and even if they did publish it, the media reception would devastate the company. A large portion of the market (especially in the US) would turn their backs to Paradox. Also there's the risk that it would be censored in certain countries on the pretence that it "glorifies", "distorts" or "promotes" terrorism. PI knows that touchy subjects need a few decades to soften up.

And of course everybody knows there is only one way the Western World can deal with terrorism once and for all; total reconstruction of the Middle East and most of Africa. Economical, political, geographical. And that's not very fun.

Huh? This is exactly why there's terrorism in the Middle East. If the West hadn't colonized the area, fractured it into arbitrary borders, capitalized on its resources and of the people living there, Muslims might not have detested the West as much as they do. And you want to solve this problem the way that's been tried out since WW2, and which in turn has spawned ever more insurgents and terrorists. I guess we should be grateful that you don't run the world in real life.