i just looked that up http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...n-old-american-made-m60a3-tanks-killing-16142
wow. the M60A3 SLEP. god damn raytheon... i'll take 1000.
-
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 just looked that up http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...n-old-american-made-m60a3-tanks-killing-16142
wow. the M60A3 SLEP. god damn raytheon... i'll take 1000.
Here are my 2 cents.
The game would be from end of HoI4 to the start of Stellaris. So like 250 years worth of play.
Obviously the game starts with Nuclear Weapons and the Mutually Assured Destruction Scenario. So you have to fight proxy wars to expand your influence, and many game mechanics would focus on keeping these proxy wars from growing into big wars because the world can get destroyed.
This isn't to say that nukes are never used. But too many nukes and the world gets a radio active wasteland. And when you convert the game to Stellaris then you can find destroyed earth with the cockroaches on it.
So a primary objective of the nuclear race would be playing the intelligence, treaty, and global governance game to make sure most nations don't get nukes - so you can fight your proxy wars through them. If they do then you still have to time to do stuff against them. Because that nation would need a certain number of nukes to ensure mutually assured destruction. Before they get that number you might be able to invade.
How do you defeat the other nuclear nations? ....by slow espionage and propagation of ideas, religions, etc....
Signing of many treaties that bring your ailed nations closer together - NATO is the military organization, and the Europeans used this comradity to begin integrating their economies with European Union.
Example:
Soviet Union fell in 1990. Russia turned Democratic and Capitalist and has built up its nation. Now if the west had played its cards right they would have got Russia into NATO and a strong ally.
China - they tuned their economy capitalist but kept the government Communist. They would need more time to bring into the fold.
Now a big mechanic that needs to be put into the game from the get go is Corruption. Corruption of the social classes. The 1%, elites, middle class, poor.
The 1% and elites LOVE high corruption but the middle class and poor hate it. And it takes time to trickle into society and create unrest.
So you could have a whole set of game mechanics around managing this class structure. Keep in mind that this class structure is prevalent in all countries, but their effects might be lessened or blurred due to many factors.
I could really go on about this as I have a background in Economics and Sociology.
Some big things about managing you population should include
Propaganda - Obviously this gets your people to support the government. It works better on uneducated populations, or education systems that are tailored for propaganda(like the current western education system).
Education - Basic education? free thinker education? propaganda education? Smarter populations are more opposed to war mongering while propaganda populations are on board with it. Dumb populations are easier to control but you don't get much out of them.
Now, how would the game handle space exploration? Well the race to the moon would be more of a prestigious, nationalistic, technological, populace inspiration, etc... None of this switching screen over to mars to manage the colony. There would also be options late in the game to launch far off colony projects. So if you do nuke the world and switch over, your stellaris empire will be a solar system or two over and you can go find the nuked earth. And sometimes you can find the far off colony that might be small and it joins your Empire. Other times if they found a suitable world it would be a rival human empire. And it would have the government form and various traits of the nation that launched it.
This type of project would require huge infrastructure and resources, so you would need fairly stable nation and a massive nation to do it. Size wise something along the lines of a United North America(Canada, US, Mex) or former Soviet Block, China + Japan + Southeast Asia. Also with excellent infrastructure.
Obviously play with the dates for this. Earliest I could see is maybe 2050 date to even unlock the tech to send colonies. And these could expeditions could also fail!
If paradox is interested in making such a game I could provide lots of input.
The game would be from end of HoI4 to the start of Stellaris. So like 250 years worth of play.
Obviously the game starts with Nuclear Weapons and the Mutually Assured Destruction Scenario. So you have to fight proxy wars to expand your influence, and many game mechanics would focus on keeping these proxy wars from growing into big wars because the world can get destroyed.
This isn't to say that nukes are never used. But too many nukes and the world gets a radio active wasteland. And when you convert the game to Stellaris then you can find destroyed earth with the cockroaches on it.
So a primary objective of the nuclear race would be playing the intelligence, treaty, and global governance game to make sure most nations don't get nukes - so you can fight your proxy wars through them. If they do then you still have to time to do stuff against them. Because that nation would need a certain number of nukes to ensure mutually assured destruction. Before they get that number you might be able to invade.
How do you defeat the other nuclear nations? ....by slow espionage and propagation of ideas, religions, etc....
Signing of many treaties that bring your ailed nations closer together - NATO is the military organization, and the Europeans used this comradity to begin integrating their economies with European Union.
Example:
Soviet Union fell in 1990. Russia turned Democratic and Capitalist and has built up its nation. Now if the west had played its cards right they would have got Russia into NATO and a strong ally.
China - they tuned their economy capitalist but kept the government Communist. They would need more time to bring into the fold.
Now a big mechanic that needs to be put into the game from the get go is Corruption. Corruption of the social classes. The 1%, elites, middle class, poor.
The 1% and elites LOVE high corruption but the middle class and poor hate it. And it takes time to trickle into society and create unrest.
So you could have a whole set of game mechanics around managing this class structure. Keep in mind that this class structure is prevalent in all countries, but their effects might be lessened or blurred due to many factors.
I could really go on about this as I have a background in Economics and Sociology.
Some big things about managing you population should include
Propaganda - Obviously this gets your people to support the government. It works better on uneducated populations, or education systems that are tailored for propaganda(like the current western education system).
Education - Basic education? free thinker education? propaganda education? Smarter populations are more opposed to war mongering while propaganda populations are on board with it. Dumb populations are easier to control but you don't get much out of them.
Now, how would the game handle space exploration? Well the race to the moon would be more of a prestigious, nationalistic, technological, populace inspiration, etc... None of this switching screen over to mars to manage the colony. There would also be options late in the game to launch far off colony projects. So if you do nuke the world and switch over, your stellaris empire will be a solar system or two over and you can go find the nuked earth. And sometimes you can find the far off colony that might be small and it joins your Empire. Other times if they found a suitable world it would be a rival human empire. And it would have the government form and various traits of the nation that launched it.
This type of project would require huge infrastructure and resources, so you would need fairly stable nation and a massive nation to do it. Size wise something along the lines of a United North America(Canada, US, Mex) or former Soviet Block, China + Japan + Southeast Asia. Also with excellent infrastructure.
Obviously play with the dates for this. Earliest I could see is maybe 2050 date to even unlock the tech to send colonies. And these could expeditions could also fail!
If paradox is interested in making such a game I could provide lots of input.
- 7
- 1
Eh, I would avoid Near Future settings. A Cold War game should be historical, and focused on reconstructing history. Shouldn't sacrifice the ability to have a historical space race for the ability to colonize mars. Switching over to Stellaris is a cool goal, but a converter would work just as fine as if it used 2010 as a conversion date, and you just "jumped" in technology. Would require a change in Stellaris anyhow, as that game requires only one empire per planet.
- 5
- 1
My 2 cents:
A low risk prototype of what a cold war era would look like as the last dlc for hoi 4.
It would have a late 1945, maybe a jan 1st 1946 scenario, with a few achievements so it wouldn't be a dead scenario.
Timeline and tech tree would be extended to at least 1950 for more techs.
It would revolve around the inventions and politics of the early cold war.
Most of the cold war mechanics would trigger after multiple nations get nukes.
If it was a stand alone game?
I would want it to be like V2.
I would want the timeline to be 1945 to 2045.
It would be like Victoria 2 in the sense that it would be what can you do in 100 years with said country?
Are you going to crash and burn?
Can you take Oman/Ethiopia /Thailand/Colombia into space,and in more than 1 way, in spite of USA and USSR?
As USA/USSR it would be about the cold war.
As other countries it would be how well can you do between the two.
First half would be about the cold war than it would transition into the late game information era with its problems and the close future's problems.
(Think automation/Internet/climate change/possible nuke exchange/robotic advances/ect.
A low risk prototype of what a cold war era would look like as the last dlc for hoi 4.
It would have a late 1945, maybe a jan 1st 1946 scenario, with a few achievements so it wouldn't be a dead scenario.
Timeline and tech tree would be extended to at least 1950 for more techs.
It would revolve around the inventions and politics of the early cold war.
Most of the cold war mechanics would trigger after multiple nations get nukes.
If it was a stand alone game?
I would want it to be like V2.
I would want the timeline to be 1945 to 2045.
It would be like Victoria 2 in the sense that it would be what can you do in 100 years with said country?
Are you going to crash and burn?
Can you take Oman/Ethiopia /Thailand/Colombia into space,and in more than 1 way, in spite of USA and USSR?
As USA/USSR it would be about the cold war.
As other countries it would be how well can you do between the two.
First half would be about the cold war than it would transition into the late game information era with its problems and the close future's problems.
(Think automation/Internet/climate change/possible nuke exchange/robotic advances/ect.
Last edited:
Not going too far in the future is a good idea. But no need to go so low as 2010. ....especially how things are heating up now'a'days with EU vs USA vs Russia vs China vs the ISIS proxy war blowing up into potentially big war.
In my Opinion the earliest end date would be 2050. Throw in some future space race to make it fun to convert to Stellaris and you can easily go to 2100 .....then just roll back stellaris date to 2100.
The reason I say 2050 as earliest date is because that's when alot of populations statistics are shown to start stabilizing. And even if we developed some interstellar drive technology right now, it would take 30 years to refine, develop, create infrastructure to build and make use of the technology.
And remember that the Cold war didn't really end in 1990. As long as we have to nations of substantial strength with nukes that are not getting along - we have a cold war.
The goal of a cold war game is to not create a 'hot war'. Hence it would need substantial mechanics focus on economics, spying, government systems, population management.
The reason HoI4 goes into the 1950's is because its alternate history.
1945 is the end of WW2 because they dropped nukes. ....those nukes were almost sunk by Japanese submarines. Which means the war could easily last another year or two.
Go back a bit further and maybe soviet union falls to Germany. Its unlikely that North America gets invaded. So then we have a Cold war between the west and Nazi Germany.
Last edited:
- 2
We're talking about a Cold War game, not a Modern Day game. Doing even the first of these was too big a task for the EvW team even with years of development time, so I don't see how anyone is supposed to do Cold War+Modern Day+Near Future.
This is especially the case when the only reason is just to fill the gap between HOI and Stellaris.
I think a Doomsday DLC for HOI4 (similar to the Doomsday Expansion for HOI2) with a late 1945 start-date opening with a USSR v. Western Allies hot war would be a good idea. The Doomsday scenario for HOI2 was actually quite fun, it just didn't have any flavour content to go with it, so I'd like to see another try at making it for HOI4.
This is especially the case when the only reason is just to fill the gap between HOI and Stellaris.
I think a Doomsday DLC for HOI4 (similar to the Doomsday Expansion for HOI2) with a late 1945 start-date opening with a USSR v. Western Allies hot war would be a good idea. The Doomsday scenario for HOI2 was actually quite fun, it just didn't have any flavour content to go with it, so I'd like to see another try at making it for HOI4.
- 3
I think that any Cold War game.. SHOULD NOT cover the modern era. However I think Any Cold war game SHOULD be extended PAST the actual end of the Cold war as the ramifications of the time period are far reaching.
Plus in reality the USSR Really could have and most likely should still be around today. Case in point: imagine if the USSR did not suffer the August 1991 coup, OR imagine if Gorbachev focused all of his efforts on Perestroika and totally left out Glasnost (which really fermented MUCH of the problems of the 1980s). Either one of these realities likely yields a reformed USSR (like the one that was actually proposed) that still exists today.
Hell imagine if the cliche "Hardliners lock up Gorby" plot comes into fruition. Then the USSR & Warsaw Pact likely exist well into the 1990s.
But i think the End of the Cold War era is regardless the 1990s, too much past that was contingent upon the events that transpired.
So any Cold War game should take place Between 1950-2000 (A nice 50 year period, also one where all the sides were near set). Also this accounts for many alternate realities that could have transpired.
Plus in reality the USSR Really could have and most likely should still be around today. Case in point: imagine if the USSR did not suffer the August 1991 coup, OR imagine if Gorbachev focused all of his efforts on Perestroika and totally left out Glasnost (which really fermented MUCH of the problems of the 1980s). Either one of these realities likely yields a reformed USSR (like the one that was actually proposed) that still exists today.
Hell imagine if the cliche "Hardliners lock up Gorby" plot comes into fruition. Then the USSR & Warsaw Pact likely exist well into the 1990s.
But i think the End of the Cold War era is regardless the 1990s, too much past that was contingent upon the events that transpired.
So any Cold War game should take place Between 1950-2000 (A nice 50 year period, also one where all the sides were near set). Also this accounts for many alternate realities that could have transpired.
Last edited:
- 1
what is obvious: In EU4 we have "culture" and religion.
In col-war game, we have : ethnic groups, (=culture), IDEOLOGY and relgion.
In col-war game, we have : ethnic groups, (=culture), IDEOLOGY and relgion.
- e,g, USSR. Primary ethnic group=Russian, accepted= Ukrainian. Kazakh, Uzbek, etc.(all 15 rep.) Ideology= Communist, State relgion= Atheist
- e.g. UK Primary thnic group= English,accepted= Scottish, Welsh. Ideology= Conservative, Social democrats (Changes upon elections) State relgion = Church of England
- e.g. France Primary ethnic group= French. accpeted= none, Ideology= (Conservative, Social democrats), State relgion= Secular
- 1
An Idea for making the management of running a World Superpower less tedious, most of it would be done by allotting the nation's budget to various sub-groups;
Military: farther divided into the Amy, Navy, Air Force, and Nuclear Weapons, where budget determines the "force limit" of sorts and the rate that new tech in those categories get developed, as well as how frequent events effecting those branches occur.
Space Program: spending more makes the more expensive missions more likely to happen and more likely to succeed when they do, as well as the invention of some technologies. there is also the large payout in prestige/influence or some other similar resource when successful, especially if you're the first in the world.
Public Spending: maintains the roads, schools, and any other state run civilian service, this category is naturally more expensive for a socialist/communist nation unless they cut some corners.
Espionage: divided into Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence(and maybe even a Domestic and Foreign sub-branches as well), much like the Space program this effects how often events concerning spycraft effect you, and likely hood of their success/failure, as well as adding or removing some options from the diplomacy screen.
Military: farther divided into the Amy, Navy, Air Force, and Nuclear Weapons, where budget determines the "force limit" of sorts and the rate that new tech in those categories get developed, as well as how frequent events effecting those branches occur.
Space Program: spending more makes the more expensive missions more likely to happen and more likely to succeed when they do, as well as the invention of some technologies. there is also the large payout in prestige/influence or some other similar resource when successful, especially if you're the first in the world.
Public Spending: maintains the roads, schools, and any other state run civilian service, this category is naturally more expensive for a socialist/communist nation unless they cut some corners.
Espionage: divided into Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence(and maybe even a Domestic and Foreign sub-branches as well), much like the Space program this effects how often events concerning spycraft effect you, and likely hood of their success/failure, as well as adding or removing some options from the diplomacy screen.
I wish I'd seen this thread when it was first posted. I'd like to get my thoughts written down (apologies if they restate positions that have already been taken):
In terms of dream features, I'd like particular attention to be paid to alternate history scenarios imported from Hearts of Iron III and IV; such as an Axis victory resulting in a Japanese-German Cold War, a more proactive British policy resulting in an isolated Soviet Union (and the principal conflict being between the United States and the British Empire), or a Communist near world conquest resulting in a more pronounced Sino-Soviet split to balance things out.
...
I could write more, and probably will as the thread progresses.
- A clear path for neutral parties, such as the Non-Aligned Movement; this making it feasible for a third option to solve the Cold War. It ought to encompass all possible scenarios; such as a stronger Yugoslavia pulling down the Iron Curtain, the solidification of a pan-Arab or pan-African state or effective supranational body, the rise of fascism in Latin America, and so on.
- Immediate game over at the outbreak of nuclear war, a la the classic game Balance of Power.
- The option of averting the Cold War entirely, with a 1946 or '47 start date to simulate the aftermath of World War Two. It should be very difficult, but not impossible, to prevent the escalation of hostilities if the United States retreats back into isolationism.
- Antagonism between the United States and their Allies in Europe, if the Suez Crisis ends if favour of the Franco-British-Israeli alliance. In general, I think there should be a greater remit for other European powers to follow the Portuguese model in colonial affairs.
In terms of dream features, I'd like particular attention to be paid to alternate history scenarios imported from Hearts of Iron III and IV; such as an Axis victory resulting in a Japanese-German Cold War, a more proactive British policy resulting in an isolated Soviet Union (and the principal conflict being between the United States and the British Empire), or a Communist near world conquest resulting in a more pronounced Sino-Soviet split to balance things out.
...
I could write more, and probably will as the thread progresses.
- 1
- 1
- 1
I would like a comprehensive and complex economic aspect of a Cold War game. One where trading and resource management is essential. One where manufacturing of goods is dependent upon creation and or acquisition of prerequisite goods.
16 Base resources making a number of more complex resources. Coupled with a complex diplomatic system (which includes embargo and trade bans)... peacetime would never be boring.
Further more the 16 Base resources should be accurately placed on the globe. To encourage strategic depth and trade.
BREAKDOWN OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTION
Agriculture: Cheapest (to make and trade)
Cotton
Wheat
Corn
Sugar
Produce
Lumber (Used to heat population)
Raw Materials: Very Cheap
Iron
Coal (Also used to heat population, more effectively)
Copper
Bauxite
Silicates
Uranium
Ore Metals
Precious Metals
Natural Gas (Also used to more heat population, most effective)
Petroleum
Manufactured goods Facilities: Cheap
Aluminum Plant: needs Silicone and Bauxite to manufacture aluminum
Steel Mill: Needs Iron and Coal to make Steel (Which is also used to make facilities)
Oil Refinery: Needs Petroleum to make Fuel (military vehicles, automobiles, planes, and ships use fuel) and Petro-byproducts
Flour Mill: Needs Wheat to make Flour
Corn Mill: Needs Corn to make Cornmeal
Textile Plant: Needs Cotton to make Textiles
Cement Plant: Needs Silicates to make Cement (Used to make all Buildings)
Ceramic Plants: Needs Silicates to make Ceramics
Timber Plant: Needs Lumber to make Timber
Polymer Plant: Needs Sugar to make Polymer
Food Production: Very Cheap
Food Processing Plant Level One: Needs Produce To make 100 Tons of Food
Food Processing Plant Level Two: Needs Flour/Cornmeal to make 1,000 Tons of Food
Food Processing Plant Level Three: Needs Sugar, Flour/Cornmeal, and Produce to make 10,000 Tons of Food
Complex Manufactured Goods Facilities: Medium Cost
Plastics Plant: Petro-byproducts, and Polymer to make Plastics
Electronics Plant: Copper, Silicates, Precious Metals, Ore Metals, and Aluminum to make Electronics
Complex Textiles: Polymer and Textiles to make Complex Textiles.
High Test Steel Mill: Needs Steel, and Ore Metals to make High Test Steel
Carbon Fiber Plant: Needs Coal, Natural Gas, and Polymer to make Carbon Fiber
Luxury Goods: Needs Ceramics, Precious Metals, Polymer, and Textiles to make Luxury Goods
Consumer Good Production: High Cost
Consumer Goods Plant Level One: Needs Textiles, Timber, and Ceramics to make 100 tons of Consumer Goods
Consumer Goods Plant Level Two: Needs Complex Textiles, Steel, and Aluminum, to make 1000 tons of Consumer goods
Consumer Goods Plant Level Three: Plastics, High Test Steel, Aluminum, and Electronics to make 10,000 tons of consumer goods
Capital Goods Facilities: Very High Cost
Automobile Plant: Needs Plastics, High Test Steel, Complex Textiles, Capital Goods, and Fuel to make Automobiles (which improve trade)
Civilian Aircraft Plant: Needs Plastics, High Test Steel, Aluminum, Carbon Fiber, Capital Goods, and Fuel to make Aircraft (improve trade more)
Civilian Shipyards: Needs Plastics, Steel, High Test Steel, Aluminum, Capital Goods, Carbon Fiber, and Fuel to make Civilian Ships (improve trade the most)
Machine Plant: Needs Steel, High Test Steel, Aluminum, Electronics, Carbon Fiber, to make Machines (needed to make factories/facilities)
Military Resources: Very High Cost
Armored Steel Mill: Needs Steel, Ore Metals, and Precious Metals to manufacture Armored Steel (Used in military equipment production)
Complex Armored Steel: Needs Steel, Carbon Fiber, and Ceramics to make Complex Armored Steel (Used in more advanced military equipment production)
Uranium Enrichment Facility: Needs Uranium and Natural Gas to make Enriched Uranium (Used In nuclear power plants and Low yield Nuclear weapons)
Power Plants: Energy for the Country, (pollution reduces life expectancy and standard of living)
Wood: Needs Lumber to make 25MW... medium pollution
Coal Plant: Needs Coal to make 100MW (small plant), 200MW (medium plant), and 400MW (large plant)... high pollution
Natural Gas Plant: Need Natural Gas to make 125MW (small plant), 250MW (large plant)... medium pollution
Petroleum Plant: Needs Petroleum 250MW (small) 500MW (large)... high pollution
Hydro: Needs River to make 500MW (Small), 1000MW (Medium), 2000MW... no pollution, but also must flood land area,
Breeder/Research Nuclear: Needs Enriched Uranium to make 200MW AND Plutonium (used for high yield/advanced nuclear weapons)... low pollution
Nuclear: Uses Enriched Uranium to make 400MW (Small) 800MW (Medium) 1200MW (Large)... low pollution
Solar: 25MW, 50MW... no pollution
Wind: 25 MW, 50MW, 100MW... no pollution
16 Base resources making a number of more complex resources. Coupled with a complex diplomatic system (which includes embargo and trade bans)... peacetime would never be boring.
Further more the 16 Base resources should be accurately placed on the globe. To encourage strategic depth and trade.
BREAKDOWN OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTION
Agriculture: Cheapest (to make and trade)
Cotton
Wheat
Corn
Sugar
Produce
Lumber (Used to heat population)
Raw Materials: Very Cheap
Iron
Coal (Also used to heat population, more effectively)
Copper
Bauxite
Silicates
Uranium
Ore Metals
Precious Metals
Natural Gas (Also used to more heat population, most effective)
Petroleum
Manufactured goods Facilities: Cheap
Aluminum Plant: needs Silicone and Bauxite to manufacture aluminum
Steel Mill: Needs Iron and Coal to make Steel (Which is also used to make facilities)
Oil Refinery: Needs Petroleum to make Fuel (military vehicles, automobiles, planes, and ships use fuel) and Petro-byproducts
Flour Mill: Needs Wheat to make Flour
Corn Mill: Needs Corn to make Cornmeal
Textile Plant: Needs Cotton to make Textiles
Cement Plant: Needs Silicates to make Cement (Used to make all Buildings)
Ceramic Plants: Needs Silicates to make Ceramics
Timber Plant: Needs Lumber to make Timber
Polymer Plant: Needs Sugar to make Polymer
Food Production: Very Cheap
Food Processing Plant Level One: Needs Produce To make 100 Tons of Food
Food Processing Plant Level Two: Needs Flour/Cornmeal to make 1,000 Tons of Food
Food Processing Plant Level Three: Needs Sugar, Flour/Cornmeal, and Produce to make 10,000 Tons of Food
Complex Manufactured Goods Facilities: Medium Cost
Plastics Plant: Petro-byproducts, and Polymer to make Plastics
Electronics Plant: Copper, Silicates, Precious Metals, Ore Metals, and Aluminum to make Electronics
Complex Textiles: Polymer and Textiles to make Complex Textiles.
High Test Steel Mill: Needs Steel, and Ore Metals to make High Test Steel
Carbon Fiber Plant: Needs Coal, Natural Gas, and Polymer to make Carbon Fiber
Luxury Goods: Needs Ceramics, Precious Metals, Polymer, and Textiles to make Luxury Goods
Consumer Good Production: High Cost
Consumer Goods Plant Level One: Needs Textiles, Timber, and Ceramics to make 100 tons of Consumer Goods
Consumer Goods Plant Level Two: Needs Complex Textiles, Steel, and Aluminum, to make 1000 tons of Consumer goods
Consumer Goods Plant Level Three: Plastics, High Test Steel, Aluminum, and Electronics to make 10,000 tons of consumer goods
Capital Goods Facilities: Very High Cost
Automobile Plant: Needs Plastics, High Test Steel, Complex Textiles, Capital Goods, and Fuel to make Automobiles (which improve trade)
Civilian Aircraft Plant: Needs Plastics, High Test Steel, Aluminum, Carbon Fiber, Capital Goods, and Fuel to make Aircraft (improve trade more)
Civilian Shipyards: Needs Plastics, Steel, High Test Steel, Aluminum, Capital Goods, Carbon Fiber, and Fuel to make Civilian Ships (improve trade the most)
Machine Plant: Needs Steel, High Test Steel, Aluminum, Electronics, Carbon Fiber, to make Machines (needed to make factories/facilities)
Military Resources: Very High Cost
Armored Steel Mill: Needs Steel, Ore Metals, and Precious Metals to manufacture Armored Steel (Used in military equipment production)
Complex Armored Steel: Needs Steel, Carbon Fiber, and Ceramics to make Complex Armored Steel (Used in more advanced military equipment production)
Uranium Enrichment Facility: Needs Uranium and Natural Gas to make Enriched Uranium (Used In nuclear power plants and Low yield Nuclear weapons)
Power Plants: Energy for the Country, (pollution reduces life expectancy and standard of living)
Wood: Needs Lumber to make 25MW... medium pollution
Coal Plant: Needs Coal to make 100MW (small plant), 200MW (medium plant), and 400MW (large plant)... high pollution
Natural Gas Plant: Need Natural Gas to make 125MW (small plant), 250MW (large plant)... medium pollution
Petroleum Plant: Needs Petroleum 250MW (small) 500MW (large)... high pollution
Hydro: Needs River to make 500MW (Small), 1000MW (Medium), 2000MW... no pollution, but also must flood land area,
Breeder/Research Nuclear: Needs Enriched Uranium to make 200MW AND Plutonium (used for high yield/advanced nuclear weapons)... low pollution
Nuclear: Uses Enriched Uranium to make 400MW (Small) 800MW (Medium) 1200MW (Large)... low pollution
Solar: 25MW, 50MW... no pollution
Wind: 25 MW, 50MW, 100MW... no pollution
in my personal dream scenario, each nation can have it's own set of ethics/ideal/beliefs/whatever you want to call it(both governments and POPs have them, civil wars can start if the citizens become divided ideologically, and revolutions inevitable if a majority believes in opposing ideals to their government). relations are improved or hindered by how similar or dissimilar two nations' ideals are, in turn determining who are allies and rivals, thus creating the Cold War at the game's onset, but allowing the conflict to shift as ideals change among nations.
- 1
Interesting thread!
I would say that say that in terms of wars the obvious system would be HOI4 and it`s battle mechanics. Though I think it would have to be developed a bit given that HOI4 combat system deals mainly with moving divisions of soldiers while the wars and proxy wars of Cold War often dealt with insurgencies and not full on confrontations. Perhaps making battions the movable troops you see and make the divisions the one`s you assign to a frontline? And perhaps in a bigger perspective Assign army commanders to theaters?
In terms of politics I think Stellaris and the way each faction choose from an octagon wether to be collectivist or individualist, be rascist or open to other races, spiritual or materialist, war-mongerer och pascifist. that could be preset things each nation could have. And the political parties in each country could in a way represent some combination of this. Still thee would be main ideologies like democratic, fascist and communist. But more parties could stand for sub-ideologies that could in turn given, let`s say an election could define the country conditions until next elections. The thing I thought HOI4 lacked the most was the lack of decisions. Things that you did all the time in EU4 and CK2, which could impact your faction or your ruler etc. What if these decisions were brought back and perhaps influenced the politics? So once elections came you would not have to choose party as in HOI4, but all the choices made up to that point by the player would presents the party that wins. If you could model a diplomatic system out of that I think it would be really fun. Then you would have differences not just between three main ideologies, but also between parties ideologies which could be reflected for say in how a conservative lead Britain would feel about a social-democratic France.
In terms of diplomacy I would much rather bring back the EU4 diplomatics reformed to fit modern era. Still there are large factions in the cold war era with the Warsaw bloc and NATO but and I think those could be in the game, but I do rather miss individual alliances and that sort of system as well. Also the whole system about setting up spy operations etc would also be nice if it was brought back. A Cold War game wouldn`t necesary be that much about warfare so therefore the diplomacy would have to stand out more in comparison to what it did in HOI4. And as I said before. The party that runs a country affects relations, even if the diplomacy is between to democratic countries.
I think that the Victoria II system om research could be brought back and improved upon to make it more easily managed? Or perhaps a fusion of the Victoria 2 system of resorces, research and economics with HOI4 system of resoruces, economics, factories and production, given that factories does matter and so does the resources on the map if you end up in a war. I think that given that the strategic resoruces was very important in HOI4 they should be included in a Cold War game as well. But perhaps also perhaps make them applyable to the civilian side of the economy? That`s also a thing given the rapid industrilisation that occured post WW2, it would be ignorant to assume that just branding everything meaningful to the population besides military stuff as "consumer products" would still work for an Cold War game given that larger portions of the game could be about managing a country in peace.
About war and peace, I think that the world tension from HOI4 could return in a Cold War game, and when people developed enough nukes, there could be another meter that measures risk of flashpoint? That is that a nuclear war breaks out, and that the natural thing to play the game especially if you play to win, is to be able to set about your actions without triggering a flashpoint? This would perhaps mostly concern the superpowers or the mjor powers that has nukes. And the the game would be set up in a way that triggering a nuclear war is the very last option.
Regarding Time-span, I think that perhaps the game could extend itself from 1945 til 2000? I know Gorbachev talked about the Soviet Union in the 21st century and it would be an interesting goal for the game, which country and ideology rules at the end of the 20th century?
I would say that say that in terms of wars the obvious system would be HOI4 and it`s battle mechanics. Though I think it would have to be developed a bit given that HOI4 combat system deals mainly with moving divisions of soldiers while the wars and proxy wars of Cold War often dealt with insurgencies and not full on confrontations. Perhaps making battions the movable troops you see and make the divisions the one`s you assign to a frontline? And perhaps in a bigger perspective Assign army commanders to theaters?
In terms of politics I think Stellaris and the way each faction choose from an octagon wether to be collectivist or individualist, be rascist or open to other races, spiritual or materialist, war-mongerer och pascifist. that could be preset things each nation could have. And the political parties in each country could in a way represent some combination of this. Still thee would be main ideologies like democratic, fascist and communist. But more parties could stand for sub-ideologies that could in turn given, let`s say an election could define the country conditions until next elections. The thing I thought HOI4 lacked the most was the lack of decisions. Things that you did all the time in EU4 and CK2, which could impact your faction or your ruler etc. What if these decisions were brought back and perhaps influenced the politics? So once elections came you would not have to choose party as in HOI4, but all the choices made up to that point by the player would presents the party that wins. If you could model a diplomatic system out of that I think it would be really fun. Then you would have differences not just between three main ideologies, but also between parties ideologies which could be reflected for say in how a conservative lead Britain would feel about a social-democratic France.
In terms of diplomacy I would much rather bring back the EU4 diplomatics reformed to fit modern era. Still there are large factions in the cold war era with the Warsaw bloc and NATO but and I think those could be in the game, but I do rather miss individual alliances and that sort of system as well. Also the whole system about setting up spy operations etc would also be nice if it was brought back. A Cold War game wouldn`t necesary be that much about warfare so therefore the diplomacy would have to stand out more in comparison to what it did in HOI4. And as I said before. The party that runs a country affects relations, even if the diplomacy is between to democratic countries.
I think that the Victoria II system om research could be brought back and improved upon to make it more easily managed? Or perhaps a fusion of the Victoria 2 system of resorces, research and economics with HOI4 system of resoruces, economics, factories and production, given that factories does matter and so does the resources on the map if you end up in a war. I think that given that the strategic resoruces was very important in HOI4 they should be included in a Cold War game as well. But perhaps also perhaps make them applyable to the civilian side of the economy? That`s also a thing given the rapid industrilisation that occured post WW2, it would be ignorant to assume that just branding everything meaningful to the population besides military stuff as "consumer products" would still work for an Cold War game given that larger portions of the game could be about managing a country in peace.
About war and peace, I think that the world tension from HOI4 could return in a Cold War game, and when people developed enough nukes, there could be another meter that measures risk of flashpoint? That is that a nuclear war breaks out, and that the natural thing to play the game especially if you play to win, is to be able to set about your actions without triggering a flashpoint? This would perhaps mostly concern the superpowers or the mjor powers that has nukes. And the the game would be set up in a way that triggering a nuclear war is the very last option.
Regarding Time-span, I think that perhaps the game could extend itself from 1945 til 2000? I know Gorbachev talked about the Soviet Union in the 21st century and it would be an interesting goal for the game, which country and ideology rules at the end of the 20th century?
- 2
I've done a bit of thinking about how to do a Cold War/Modern/Near Future grand strategy:
-Do all three of those. The post-WWII era all operates under similar principles, and the same game could easily handle all three. Look at the current Iran/Saudi Arabian Cold War for an example of the same dynamics playing out after '91. Or Chinese influence in Africa. This would also make the Cold War itself less zero sum, which fits the nature of the conflict better.
-Governance as an endless series of trade-offs. If you've played Democracy 3, you have an idea of how this works. Every policy can enact has disadvantages, and today's problems are often the result of the solution to yesterday's problems, and the optimal set of polices varies with . A political currency ala Stellaris Influence and mandates for democracies would fit in well, as would V2 style social movements. Desegregation, the formation of welfare states, and free market reforms should all have compelling gameplay in their own right.
-Rivalry and Spheres of Influence. Countries of similar power who are ideologically opposed or have opposing interests become rivals, and each want to out-compete the other. Whenever a significantly more powerful country signs a deal with a smaller country (such as a trade deal, economic aid, military advisors etc.) the more powerful country gains a number of influence points in that country. When this number exceeds a certain threshold the small country becomes part of the large country's sphere of influence. This has several effects related to prestige and political pressure, but most importantly a country's rivals cannot make deals with it that will grant them influence. If they want access to that country, they'll have to back a rebel faction within that country or an outside enemy. This should recreate Cold War dynamics nicely. (Readers may notice certain similarities to a certain Cold War boardgame here.)
-No declarations of war. Instead, states may offer ultimatums to other states to get them to for example, stop putting missiles in Cuba. This triggers a crisis, a countdown to war unless the two sides can come to a deal. One of the key factors in who comes out with a better deal is what would be expected to happen should the two sides come to blows. This means that you can use your army and nukes to get your way without needing to actually go to war, and would create arms races between rival powers.
-Playable insurgencies and interesting COIN mechanics. Players should play as regimes, not countries. This means you might actually lose the game. However, if your regime is overthrown in a coup or regime change, you have the chance to come back into power.
-Do all three of those. The post-WWII era all operates under similar principles, and the same game could easily handle all three. Look at the current Iran/Saudi Arabian Cold War for an example of the same dynamics playing out after '91. Or Chinese influence in Africa. This would also make the Cold War itself less zero sum, which fits the nature of the conflict better.
-Governance as an endless series of trade-offs. If you've played Democracy 3, you have an idea of how this works. Every policy can enact has disadvantages, and today's problems are often the result of the solution to yesterday's problems, and the optimal set of polices varies with . A political currency ala Stellaris Influence and mandates for democracies would fit in well, as would V2 style social movements. Desegregation, the formation of welfare states, and free market reforms should all have compelling gameplay in their own right.
-Rivalry and Spheres of Influence. Countries of similar power who are ideologically opposed or have opposing interests become rivals, and each want to out-compete the other. Whenever a significantly more powerful country signs a deal with a smaller country (such as a trade deal, economic aid, military advisors etc.) the more powerful country gains a number of influence points in that country. When this number exceeds a certain threshold the small country becomes part of the large country's sphere of influence. This has several effects related to prestige and political pressure, but most importantly a country's rivals cannot make deals with it that will grant them influence. If they want access to that country, they'll have to back a rebel faction within that country or an outside enemy. This should recreate Cold War dynamics nicely. (Readers may notice certain similarities to a certain Cold War boardgame here.)
-No declarations of war. Instead, states may offer ultimatums to other states to get them to for example, stop putting missiles in Cuba. This triggers a crisis, a countdown to war unless the two sides can come to a deal. One of the key factors in who comes out with a better deal is what would be expected to happen should the two sides come to blows. This means that you can use your army and nukes to get your way without needing to actually go to war, and would create arms races between rival powers.
-Playable insurgencies and interesting COIN mechanics. Players should play as regimes, not countries. This means you might actually lose the game. However, if your regime is overthrown in a coup or regime change, you have the chance to come back into power.
- 1
- 1
There should be natural drift out of spheres of influence as well though. I don't think that once a country enters a sphere of influence it is necessarily permanently "captured". Leaving a sphere of influence through peaceful election of a different party, or the shift of a party's policies should be possible.
Love the declaration of war idea.
Disagree with playing as regimes, not countries. I want to be able to play with the mission of "Return democracy peacefully to the USSR". Your system wouldn't allow me to do that without losing. Agree with playable insurgencies. In my concept of COIN, insurgencies involved control of provinces, and insurgent forces can be given to Tags.
Most (but not all) insurgencies are best done with Civil War tags, where the 'rebel' Tag gets the name of a specific party (usually a banned party). Thus, you could have the Taliban (banned Afghani Fundamentalist party) as a civil war in Afghanistan. FARC would control land in Colombia.
Love the declaration of war idea.
Disagree with playing as regimes, not countries. I want to be able to play with the mission of "Return democracy peacefully to the USSR". Your system wouldn't allow me to do that without losing. Agree with playable insurgencies. In my concept of COIN, insurgencies involved control of provinces, and insurgent forces can be given to Tags.
Most (but not all) insurgencies are best done with Civil War tags, where the 'rebel' Tag gets the name of a specific party (usually a banned party). Thus, you could have the Taliban (banned Afghani Fundamentalist party) as a civil war in Afghanistan. FARC would control land in Colombia.
exactly what I think, in a world of Nuclear Deterrence and M.A.D. the Cold War never really ends; just "Colder" or "Hotter", and that's based who is on which side and their possession of power within that side(and exactly what makes those "sides" different enough to be different sides, that should also be able to dynamically shift and change).
For example the 'starting' Cold War of "Capitalism vs Communism" can fade/transition into the 'modern' Cold War of "Globalism vs Nationalism".
Sure, the state itself could switch sides or go neutral by canceling the deals it has with its superpower, e.g. Sadat. Or threaten to do so in order to get stuff out its backer.
While its most important in this era, I actually think this should be used in all the Paradox games. It's more interesting and reflects how states actually end up at war better than the current system.
I didn't peaceful transitions that maintain political continuity to count as regime change under this system. If you look at lot of places that have democratized the old dictatorial party still runs candidates, and places like that would still count as the same tag as the dictatorship.
You very rarely have just two factions in a civil war. I was thinking something more along the lines of "Afghanistan" being a CK2-esque title and different regimes as the character/tag equivalents.
Hmmmm, I'm still not sure. That holds true even in coup or violent revolution scenarios. There's often a "continuity" party at least, constructed from members of the previous ruling party, even if under a different name. I could accept your system so long as you're given the opportunity to tag-switch when the opposition arises.
Right, but that's why the titles are dynamically generated, similar as to CK2 again. There's no need to have pre-set TAGs for each and every possible party or rebel group or regime for each and every country. I mean, in Canada alone you'd have to have a Democrat tag, a Communist tag, a neo-Fascist tag, possibly a Monarchist or Autocratic tag, a Fundamentalist tag, that's a lot of tag bloat, and tag bloat is, in all PDS games to date, one of the largest causes of slow-downs.
My system, you one tag per country. A civil war would generate dynamic tags based on the parties in the civil war, similar to how CK2 generates rebel titles. Perhaps each 'party' in a country has a flag and colour already assigned to it, that the dynamic tag would read and adopt.
International insurgencies, in my system, are a matter that perhaps can be relegated to DLC material. After all, they're a rather late-game development.
It might be interesting to take the extended history of Afghanistan over the game period to show how this might work.
So, assuming 1946 game start, Afghanistan is a monarchy (hereditary permanent head of state) with an appointed Prime Minister (arbitrary length). Halfway through the first year in the game (effectively a first-day before-unpause player move), the King appoints a Conservative ideology Prime Minister. They do several political reforms, but end up withdrawing reforms because they risk electing Liberals to power. If they ended up holding elections, the Liberals could win, and their supporters would want to side-line the King, and have at best a full constitutional monarchy, at worst, a republic. The player is playing in the Kings interests mostly, sooooo, out goes the Conservative, in comes the Autocrat ideology.
The date is now 1953, and we've seen Afghanistan go from Autocrat to Conservative, threaten to go Liberal, and return to Autocrat. Under the Autocrats, we see a decade of leaning towards the Soviets and away from Pakistan. Trade with Pakistan is high, so the loss of relations hurts the economy, raising unrest. To try and deal with this, the player decides to try some democratic reforms again. Switching ideology again back to Conservative, they start allowing other parties to organize. Oooops, he's seeing a huge rise in extremist parties, Fundamentalists, Neo-Fascists, and various Communist parties. Two of those are the Stalinist Khalq or Masses faction, and the Leninist Parcham or Banner faction. They're treated as two different "parties" in game, despite both officially being parts of the People's Democratic Party. Additionally, the powerful Authoritarian ideology gains unrest and organization, and, through events, changes the policies they support; they no longer support the monarchy.
The date is now 1973, and we've seen Afghanistan go Autocrat to Conservative to Autocrat to Conservative. 1973 sees a peaceful coup. The Autocrats declare a Republic, in-game a Dictatorship. Thus far, we've peacefully switched Prime Ministers 4 times, and once had a peaceful coup regime change. This is our first crisis point; this is a full regime change, yet there was no bloodshed, no opportunity to fight against it. Autocratic unrest and organization got high enough that they were able to win enough of the military that no resistance was possible. The only way to fight this would be to prevent their unrest and organization from rising. The player shrugs their shoulders, and begins solidifying Autocratic rule. When playing as the Monarchy, they were alternating giving and repealing rights to deal with dissent, and now they decide to try something else, a brutal crackdown, outlawing all other parties. The other parties have already raised their Organization enough that the outlawing doesn't affect them much, and just raises Unrest through the roof.
1978, the Khalqis lead their own coup, this one bloody. Still, it only takes a single day. Again, there wasn't a civil war, no movement of soldiers, no frontlines. You COULD I guess have a single-day battle in which the Khalqi-aligned tank battalion stationed on the outskirts of Kabul attacked a garrison unit in the city itself, with support from an air battalion, and won in a single day, but also, effectively, no way to fight against the coup once its launched, at least from the perspective of a player.
Now, by default, when a Communist wins, only the three Communist ideology parties are legalized. The Player decides to play as a caricature of a Communist dictatorship, and decides that only the Khalqis should have power, outlawing the other parties. He enacts Secularism policies, which pisses of the Fundamentalists. Unrest is rising to ridiculously high levels nationwide.
The Soviets invade in '79, and oust the Khalqis in favour of the Parchams. So we've had a peaceful coup, a bloody coup, and a foreign invasion to change government. Now, while the Parchams may be less extreme than the Khalqis, the very act of a coup raises unrest among all who do not share the ideologies of the coup. This finally triggers the long-awaited Fundamentalist revolt. Lacking support amongst the military, instead they spawn Irregulars/Insurgents, who control the highlands. This is our second real crisis, how to model this new civil war. I think that the Player should be given the option to tag switch to the Insurgents. Pakistan gives aid to the the Fundamentalists, both monetary and equipment. The USSR gives aid to the Autocrats mostly. I know, historically they were also fundamentalist, but for game-play purposes, there needs to be a difference between the Taliban and the anti-Communist rebels. So, we effectively have a three-tag civil war, with two of the rebel tags at peace with each other. The USSR unrest rises due to war exhaustion, so they withdraw after 10 years, leaving the Parchams to fight the revolt on their own. He survives three years. I believe the player tag-switched to the Autocrats when their revolt started, figuring perhaps an Afghanistan backed by the US could have some weight in the region.
The Autocrats are the initial winners, backed by the US. They become the new Afghanistan, but the Fundamentalists don't end their civil war. The player is still holding on to hope, and continues to fight against the Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists manage to capture the Afghanistan tag, but the player decides that he can still maintain control, deciding to hold on to the new Authoritarian United Front dynamic tag til death. He manages to hold on until renewed US aid and intervention hands him the Afghanistan tag again, after 9/11. The Fundamentalists keep a rebel Dynamic tag, holding on to at least one province up to the modern day, rising and falling.
The date is now 1953, and we've seen Afghanistan go from Autocrat to Conservative, threaten to go Liberal, and return to Autocrat. Under the Autocrats, we see a decade of leaning towards the Soviets and away from Pakistan. Trade with Pakistan is high, so the loss of relations hurts the economy, raising unrest. To try and deal with this, the player decides to try some democratic reforms again. Switching ideology again back to Conservative, they start allowing other parties to organize. Oooops, he's seeing a huge rise in extremist parties, Fundamentalists, Neo-Fascists, and various Communist parties. Two of those are the Stalinist Khalq or Masses faction, and the Leninist Parcham or Banner faction. They're treated as two different "parties" in game, despite both officially being parts of the People's Democratic Party. Additionally, the powerful Authoritarian ideology gains unrest and organization, and, through events, changes the policies they support; they no longer support the monarchy.
The date is now 1973, and we've seen Afghanistan go Autocrat to Conservative to Autocrat to Conservative. 1973 sees a peaceful coup. The Autocrats declare a Republic, in-game a Dictatorship. Thus far, we've peacefully switched Prime Ministers 4 times, and once had a peaceful coup regime change. This is our first crisis point; this is a full regime change, yet there was no bloodshed, no opportunity to fight against it. Autocratic unrest and organization got high enough that they were able to win enough of the military that no resistance was possible. The only way to fight this would be to prevent their unrest and organization from rising. The player shrugs their shoulders, and begins solidifying Autocratic rule. When playing as the Monarchy, they were alternating giving and repealing rights to deal with dissent, and now they decide to try something else, a brutal crackdown, outlawing all other parties. The other parties have already raised their Organization enough that the outlawing doesn't affect them much, and just raises Unrest through the roof.
1978, the Khalqis lead their own coup, this one bloody. Still, it only takes a single day. Again, there wasn't a civil war, no movement of soldiers, no frontlines. You COULD I guess have a single-day battle in which the Khalqi-aligned tank battalion stationed on the outskirts of Kabul attacked a garrison unit in the city itself, with support from an air battalion, and won in a single day, but also, effectively, no way to fight against the coup once its launched, at least from the perspective of a player.
Now, by default, when a Communist wins, only the three Communist ideology parties are legalized. The Player decides to play as a caricature of a Communist dictatorship, and decides that only the Khalqis should have power, outlawing the other parties. He enacts Secularism policies, which pisses of the Fundamentalists. Unrest is rising to ridiculously high levels nationwide.
The Soviets invade in '79, and oust the Khalqis in favour of the Parchams. So we've had a peaceful coup, a bloody coup, and a foreign invasion to change government. Now, while the Parchams may be less extreme than the Khalqis, the very act of a coup raises unrest among all who do not share the ideologies of the coup. This finally triggers the long-awaited Fundamentalist revolt. Lacking support amongst the military, instead they spawn Irregulars/Insurgents, who control the highlands. This is our second real crisis, how to model this new civil war. I think that the Player should be given the option to tag switch to the Insurgents. Pakistan gives aid to the the Fundamentalists, both monetary and equipment. The USSR gives aid to the Autocrats mostly. I know, historically they were also fundamentalist, but for game-play purposes, there needs to be a difference between the Taliban and the anti-Communist rebels. So, we effectively have a three-tag civil war, with two of the rebel tags at peace with each other. The USSR unrest rises due to war exhaustion, so they withdraw after 10 years, leaving the Parchams to fight the revolt on their own. He survives three years. I believe the player tag-switched to the Autocrats when their revolt started, figuring perhaps an Afghanistan backed by the US could have some weight in the region.
The Autocrats are the initial winners, backed by the US. They become the new Afghanistan, but the Fundamentalists don't end their civil war. The player is still holding on to hope, and continues to fight against the Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists manage to capture the Afghanistan tag, but the player decides that he can still maintain control, deciding to hold on to the new Authoritarian United Front dynamic tag til death. He manages to hold on until renewed US aid and intervention hands him the Afghanistan tag again, after 9/11. The Fundamentalists keep a rebel Dynamic tag, holding on to at least one province up to the modern day, rising and falling.
So, in conclusion, the player in my history of Afghanistan here: started as a Monarchy, and chose to switch Prime Ministers/between ideologies several times, before two coups, one peaceful and one bloody, switched his ideology. At no point was there a game-loss or an opportunity to tag-switch. Then the Soviets invade to change his government. He initially resists, not believing the Soviets would follow through, as they were both communist, but ends up falling under occupation and switching ideologies again. Again, no game-loss, still playing as Afghanistan. Now, the tricky bit comes, as there's a civil war. He declines the opportunity to tag-switch to the Fundamentalists, not believing them to be able to win, but accepts the opportunity to tag-switch to the Authoritarians, as they have US backing and he thinks he can be a power if he's backed by the US. So he's running as some temporary rebellion tag, and manages to win enough to become Afghanistan. The Fundamentalists are still fighting, and then they manage to win enough to become Afghanistan. He decides to hold on as an Authoritarian rebel tag, until a full American intervention gives him the Afghanistan tag back, with the Fundamentalists now using a rebel tag.
Boom. Don't force a player to lose if his regime loses, or allow him to tag-switch as rebels, and you give them more options.
