-
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.
Something with a mix of Victoria and Democracy 3.
Democracy 3 has a rather decent model for internal politics. Demographics and laws and policies affects a whole lot of the nation. The focus on the game would need to have a focus on domestic level.
Thoug i don't think PDX every would dare to do something like that. If they represent some of the the parties leaders and conflicts in a and side would be in a uproar. Many of the leaders and persons during cold war is alive today or have children that are. Tibet, Balkan Wars, IRA, Vietnam war, Apartheid, etc etc
Democracy 3 has a rather decent model for internal politics. Demographics and laws and policies affects a whole lot of the nation. The focus on the game would need to have a focus on domestic level.
Thoug i don't think PDX every would dare to do something like that. If they represent some of the the parties leaders and conflicts in a and side would be in a uproar. Many of the leaders and persons during cold war is alive today or have children that are. Tibet, Balkan Wars, IRA, Vietnam war, Apartheid, etc etc
Last edited by a moderator:
First, Democracy 3 is hilariously broken and unrealistic. I wouldn't use that as a basis for anything grand strategy.
Second, you're right about the second issue to an extent. The thing is, they made WWII games when plenty of people who witnessed those events were still alive. There is a historical issue where a large part of the Cold War is too recent to have really been studied outside its events in a lot of cases, but I still think it's doable. Still, Paradox should be cautious about how they represent things, much like how HOI4 does not represent the vast majority of evil crap that went on during the war.
Can be done via abstraction. e.g. WE know what the "harshest occupation policy" employed by the Third Reich means in HoI4, even though the "you-know-what-forbidden-word" and "you-know-which-camps" are not represented in the game in any way. If PDX wanted to do the same for e.g. repression in the USSR, I'm sure they would get away with it by and stay true to history by representing the existence of gulags as some abstract number in an "oppression policy" lowering dissent/opposition in the country.
Anyway, my point is: PDX managed to make a WWII game without the "you-know-what-forbidden-word" and "you-know-which-camps," so I think that they are more than capable of developing a Cold War game which does not depict (explicitly) things, that would get PDX into trouble.
Well, the contents of this Developer Diary seem to indicate, that they are making a "trial run" using the upcoming reworked occupation system. Check out the icon of the lowest occupation law that is on the list in the lower right corner of this screenshot to see what I mean.
Is my mind, Demo3 is a fun game and the best system for a politics game to date.
The thing is that atleast in my mind a Cold War would revolve around much more a bout domestic issues rather than a conquer and build tansk like HOI4 and thus much more harder and rather impossible not to involve issues that is sensitive. PDX doesn't want to touch such subects. PDX is partly owned by Tencent, (one party state China), dont think they would allow the 20 millions dead dye to a result of the now ruling communist party. And a game during the cold war era thats not have such major events there, would i my mind not be rather fun. I think PDX thinks the same, and they wanna make games and want to risk to be the center of bad publicity. Just my thought.
I agree it would be more about domestic matters and diplomacy, but I disagree that Democracy 3 is a good model. It's over-simplified, the relationships between various nodes are all wrong, the developer's assumptions (in some cases his personal politics, in some cases false understandings of economics) make other nodes have inaccurate feedback.
I mean sure, it might be the "best" there is now but that's just because there's nothing else.
The cold war (and modern) eras are far too complex and complicated to deal with in one game. HoI works because it's only about war and only about a very short time period (10 years). A Cold War game would need to span at least 30-40 years, which makes it important to narrow the scope and focus of the content.
Therefore, I would suggest focusing the game entirely on espionage and intelligence. Topics/features would be:
Strategic level: Influence and coerce countries around the world and engage in ongoing regional conflicts
Operational level: Build up espionage networks and cells and conduct counter-espionage missions
Tactical level: Order and direct clandestine operations (perhaps as a "mini game" feature)
Playable countries should be limited and focused to KGB vs CIA (obviously) plus perhaps MI6 and CDSA.
Possibly the addition of internal security and counter-terrorism is too sensitive, but if not, that would make great playable options of Mossad, DGSE (France) and BOSS (South Africa).
Therefore, I would suggest focusing the game entirely on espionage and intelligence. Topics/features would be:
Strategic level: Influence and coerce countries around the world and engage in ongoing regional conflicts
Operational level: Build up espionage networks and cells and conduct counter-espionage missions
Tactical level: Order and direct clandestine operations (perhaps as a "mini game" feature)
Playable countries should be limited and focused to KGB vs CIA (obviously) plus perhaps MI6 and CDSA.
Possibly the addition of internal security and counter-terrorism is too sensitive, but if not, that would make great playable options of Mossad, DGSE (France) and BOSS (South Africa).
Not to dig up old troubles, but they pretty much had no choice about EvW. It was basically way, way past launch date, and still a bug-ridden mess that was not fun to play. Fixing it would have cost 2-300,000 Euros at least on top of what had already been spent (2-300,000 Euros at least at that point) and the game that would have resulted would not have sold enough to make that worthwhile (e.g., it would have still been lacking multiplayer).
Had EvW launched, we'd all be talking about it now as Paradox's biggest mistake, worse than e.g., March of the Eagles or other forgettable titles, because the forum outrage about it would have been that intense.
I think the general assessment that East vs West had to be cancelled is a fair one, it doesn't meant that we wouldn't still love it, it just means we might have been too few in number.
A cold war game in the style of paradox would need to work out specifically what it wanted to do before it started, and whether it would be fun.
Fun bits: Everything blowing up - I agree that this shouldn't be easy / possibly even doable, but how many of us got a bit giddy when the EvW clip came out of a nuclear attack? These was in the HoI3 days, it looked impressive for a "mod" of an existing game. An endgame scenario might be nice, but it shouldn't be easy to get to. That would hopefully lead to a "I don't want this to happen because I've invested in my game" feeling to encourage preventing endgame happening.
Converting smaller nations to your ideology: Clearly this would be the most important part of the game in terms of how gameplay would work. If we're working on the premise that nuclear Armageddon is intended to be avoided, and 2 or more factions are playing out to beat the other without either destruction of one side or mutual; this is the way to go. I think this would require a IR/Vicky pop situation, doesn't have to go deep as Vicky unless it wants to, ideology by region might be enough (and then have factors relating to region output influence from events whether ideological support goes one way or the other). For democracies, the obvious answer is elections - I think historically accurate national and presidential elections, possibly governorship ones too would be reasonable to track. In other nations, a similar system would have to be installed, perhaps a military junta system where generals and admirals vie for power internally through more interpersonal relations with each other would be good. I don't know too well how later soviet system works, I'm guessing soviets wouldn't be greatly historical for them but there might be alternatives in collective leadership scenarios.
Big and small play: Factions I think should be set, whether that is 2 + neutral / China or 3+. Although its always nice to have it have the ability to be modded. Big nations should be more about influencing small nations or controlling states already in their sphere. Obviously the Soviet Union is a clear leader on that side, but it gets more complex for the other. United States yes, but a middle ranking for nations like UK, France would also be good. Smaller nations should be more practical, these are the ones fighting the wars - and should be more based on conflict mechanics. It should be possible to avoid war mechanics for the bigger nations as the point is they don't directly fight - although perhaps support roles or minor combat should be available.
Not so fun bits: Dangers of boring play. I think any game can have this. Start CK2 in Iceland on the first start date? Don't expect much to be going on. There will be nations in any cold war game that is the same, but people meme play everything anyway, we can still have silly games of random island territories becoming major nations for a laugh, as long as its not typical of the AI. Smaller nations need internal politics, even if most of it is influenced from outside, there should be ways of still making a difference. Border conflicts can also be a thing to keep things busy. Bigger nations, I think would need to rely more on the bigger game, as wars will be no existent - an IR/CK model of character interaction would probably be the minimum.
anyway, that's just my thoughts of what I would do.
A cold war game in the style of paradox would need to work out specifically what it wanted to do before it started, and whether it would be fun.
Fun bits: Everything blowing up - I agree that this shouldn't be easy / possibly even doable, but how many of us got a bit giddy when the EvW clip came out of a nuclear attack? These was in the HoI3 days, it looked impressive for a "mod" of an existing game. An endgame scenario might be nice, but it shouldn't be easy to get to. That would hopefully lead to a "I don't want this to happen because I've invested in my game" feeling to encourage preventing endgame happening.
Converting smaller nations to your ideology: Clearly this would be the most important part of the game in terms of how gameplay would work. If we're working on the premise that nuclear Armageddon is intended to be avoided, and 2 or more factions are playing out to beat the other without either destruction of one side or mutual; this is the way to go. I think this would require a IR/Vicky pop situation, doesn't have to go deep as Vicky unless it wants to, ideology by region might be enough (and then have factors relating to region output influence from events whether ideological support goes one way or the other). For democracies, the obvious answer is elections - I think historically accurate national and presidential elections, possibly governorship ones too would be reasonable to track. In other nations, a similar system would have to be installed, perhaps a military junta system where generals and admirals vie for power internally through more interpersonal relations with each other would be good. I don't know too well how later soviet system works, I'm guessing soviets wouldn't be greatly historical for them but there might be alternatives in collective leadership scenarios.
Big and small play: Factions I think should be set, whether that is 2 + neutral / China or 3+. Although its always nice to have it have the ability to be modded. Big nations should be more about influencing small nations or controlling states already in their sphere. Obviously the Soviet Union is a clear leader on that side, but it gets more complex for the other. United States yes, but a middle ranking for nations like UK, France would also be good. Smaller nations should be more practical, these are the ones fighting the wars - and should be more based on conflict mechanics. It should be possible to avoid war mechanics for the bigger nations as the point is they don't directly fight - although perhaps support roles or minor combat should be available.
Not so fun bits: Dangers of boring play. I think any game can have this. Start CK2 in Iceland on the first start date? Don't expect much to be going on. There will be nations in any cold war game that is the same, but people meme play everything anyway, we can still have silly games of random island territories becoming major nations for a laugh, as long as its not typical of the AI. Smaller nations need internal politics, even if most of it is influenced from outside, there should be ways of still making a difference. Border conflicts can also be a thing to keep things busy. Bigger nations, I think would need to rely more on the bigger game, as wars will be no existent - an IR/CK model of character interaction would probably be the minimum.
anyway, that's just my thoughts of what I would do.
I meant it as much in jest as anything. I know it was in trouble, that doesn't mean I can't still mourn the possibilities.
Hell I still think Runemaster sounded awesome.
Last edited:
There's a game that was just released on Steam called, "Command: Modern Operations" that looks promising; supposedly covers all modern conflicts from post WW2 to 2020+. It's a little pricey, so I'm wishlisting it and keeping an eye on how it fares.
If I was Paradox, I wouldn't.
There are so many feelz wrapped up in the Cold War and such that no matter what choices the devs make, everyone's gonna find something to be upset about.
And, there's no way they could accurately portray the mighty mighty awesomeness of the USMC without making that unit so OP that it breaks the game anyway.
There are so many feelz wrapped up in the Cold War and such that no matter what choices the devs make, everyone's gonna find something to be upset about.
And, there's no way they could accurately portray the mighty mighty awesomeness of the USMC without making that unit so OP that it breaks the game anyway.
