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

[Zavaleta]

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

Yeah, in my opinion, a fun Cold War game should look more like Victoria than Hearts of Iron. The deck would be stacked against Britain and France in many ways at the start of the game, like it is against the Aztecs and Incas in EU4, but plenty of players will enjoy the challenge of playing against the odds.

 

[MN121MN]

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

IMHO, the "Third World" (NAM), is quite loose compared to the other two. I mean, many of the members are more inclined to one part of the spectrum, not staying in the middle.

But yes, international politics really took off, especally in the regional politics. There we see things like ASEAN, Mercusor, etc.

====
BTW, I recently took a look at an interesting game, Afghanistan '11 (from the same devs who made Vietnam '65), and the way they handle guerilla-based movements is quite interesting. One of the mechanics I really enjoy is their Hearts & Minds mechanic and Political Power points, in which Hearts & Minds affect the loyalty and helpfulness of the people (modelling this into HoI 4/Vic based mechanics, maybe an increase in risk revolt, penalty to reconaissance and higher attrition rate). Meanwhile, the Political Power affects the amount of soldiers we can deploy (we can model this similar to the volunteer mechanics in HoI4, where we might be able to model the proxy wars).

 

[Zavaleta]

IMHO, the "Third World" (NAM), is quite loose compared to the other two. I mean, many of the members are more inclined to one part of the spectrum, not staying in the middle.

Yes, the NAM never really amounted to much substantial weight during the Cold War. But the idea was here. I think it would be fun for players to have the option to pursue this path as a minor country. It should not be easy, but an option.

 

[aruon]

but how would the NAM as a whole interact with with the superpowers? sure there were countries like Tito's Yugoslavia that was firmly communist but rejected the soviet sphere, and arab nationalists like Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt who were too belligerent to be controlled, but there were nations like Castro's Cuba who were very much in bed with a superpower at one point or another.

 

[caedussl]

but how would the NAM as a whole interact with with the superpowers? sure there were countries like Tito's Yugoslavia that was firmly communist but rejected the soviet sphere, and arab nationalists like Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt who were too belligerent to be controlled, but there were nations like Castro's Cuba who were very much in bed with a superpower at one point or another.

They could have it where NAM countries are less restricted in their interactions with both NATO and Warsaw Pact nations (and NATO and Warsaw Pact nations can have very limited interactions with each other) but be more vulnerable to attack/subversion. If you attack someone aligned with the other two (let's say USSR attacks NATO allies Japan), it brings all alliance members in. But if you attack a NaM country, it leads to a Vietnam/Angola/Afghanistan situation. NAM can be affiliated with one of the two but do not bring in the whole one side. NAM countries don't necessarily have to be part of NAM in real life, there just any state not substantive allied with either NATO or the USSR. So generally NATO aligned Spain and South Africa are NAM but are affiliated with NATO. NAM countries can ally with each other freely (the game should start with the Arab states allied together for example). If one NAM country or alliance becomes suffiently influential or powerful, it can form its own faction. Two examples of this could be either the PRC or the Arab League forming major factions. I'm not sold on my last idea because it would take away from the duality of a Cold War game but I think it would be interesting .

 

[Rip Off Productions]

So an Idea ocured to me today, not sure how viable it would be ,but here it goes;

there are several kinds of "counties" in varying tiers;

Government in Exile: control no land(or only a vary small percentage of what they claim is rightfully theirs? Taiwan's claim to be the rightful sovereign government of The Republic of China while The People's Republic of China claims they are just a province of them, though the whole "Two Chinas" situation could require it's own system[which could in turn be reused for any other long standing/stalemated civil war]), but can try to gather support to retake the territory they previously ruled from other nations(should have their own sub-menu/screen in the Diplomacy tab?), this government form could also be used for landless international organizations.

Rebellion/Revolution: controls some land, but isn't widely acknowledged as the rightful ruler of that territory, in addition to representing revolts, this is also used to represent parts of counties that are not under their government's control, such as African warlords, Mexican drug cartels, indigenous tribes and so on. if control is maintained long enough(and they are the proper type of "rebels") they may form a proper nation from this territory.

Nation: what you'd expect to play as in a PDX grand strategy.

Union: a network of "autonomous" subjects/member states, the scale of this autonomy can vary greatly and change over time, it would be something of a mix between Stellaris's Federations and EU4's HRE.

Examples of Unions would be The British Empire/Commonwealth(and maybe the other remaining European colonial empires as well, this makes decolonization easier, but also removes changes in how the new independent nations are shaped if they're all "premade" that way [the India/Pakistan split for example, though setting up all the separate Indian Princely States and then using special decolonization events to merge them together could work]), The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(Russia and her Satellites/puppets), and could also be used for the People's Republic of China(split into its many provinces, Hong Kong and Macau[which would be transferred from the British and Portuguese Unions in events/diplomacy?], and allowing Tibet to be "integrated" while retaining some its identity, and maybe some interesting mechanics for the previously mentioned "Two Chinas") and the USA(The 50 states, D.C., some of the larger Indian Reservations, and the Overseas Territories[which could include the Philippians at the earlier start date(s?), though trying to keep them and possibly integrate them as a State would be a pain, after all making Porto Rico the 51st State still hasn't happened], though the uninhabited islands could maybe be integrated as part of D.C. or the nearest State/Territory for simplicity's sake).

Unions could also be used to represent diplomatic systems like the EU and the UN, possibly enabling those organizations to develop into full fledged political entities of their own if enough influence is accrued/given to it from members

 

[aruon]

So an Idea ocured to me today, not sure how viable it would be ,but here it goes;

there are several kinds of "counties" in varying tiers;

Government in Exile: control no land(or only a vary small percentage of what they claim is rightfully theirs? Taiwan's claim to be the rightful sovereign government of The Republic of China while The People's Republic of China claims they are just a province of them, though the whole "Two Chinas" situation could require it's own system[which could in turn be reused for any other long standing/stalemated civil war]), but can try to gather support to retake the territory they previously ruled from other nations(should have their own sub-menu/screen in the Diplomacy tab?), this government form could also be used for landless international organizations.

interesting.

in contrast to your idea, personally i've thought of GiEs (well, true GiEs who hold no land) in the cold war context as being more like a title claim in crusader kings 2. for example there are 2 governments-in-exile based out of the US that represent Iran: the Qajar royal dynasty (ousted by the first of the Pahlavis), and the Pahlavi royal dynasty (ousted by the 1979 revolution), both lay claim to the throne (and thus leadership) of Iran. a modified version of HOI 4s coup system could allow a foreign-backed coup and/or invasion centered around that GiE being put back into power.

 

[Rip Off Productions]

interesting.

in contrast to your idea, personally i've thought of GiEs (well, true GiEs who hold no land) in the cold war context as being more like a title claim in crusader kings 2. for example there are 2 governments-in-exile based out of the US that represent Iran: the Qajar royal dynasty (ousted by the first of the Pahlavis), and the Pahlavi royal dynasty (ousted by the 1979 revolution), both lay claim to the throne (and thus leadership) of Iran. a modified version of HOI 4s coup system could allow a foreign-backed coup and/or invasion centered around that GiE being put back into power.

well the GIEs(both actual ones and the international organizations that reuse the system) would have a specific location(s) in the world, though some would move around more then others/have multiple 'offices'/'embassies' or whatever appropriate terms would fit best.

how long an GIE can last would also be an issue, some could last basically forever(royal families keep having kids and fallowing the lines of succession), but more complicated government types would fall apart/lose legitimacy after the deaths of the last member(s) of it who fled the county in question(democracies can't keep going when they can't hold elections to replace people, even if term lengths stop mattering for them).

and what do you think of my "Unions" idea? I mostly thought of it as a good way of 'debuffing' the big powers and giving them more to do for internal politicking(and more ways for smaller outsiders to try to influence them)

 

[aruon]

well the GIEs(both actual ones and the international organizations that reuse the system) would have a specific location(s) in the world, though some would move around more then others/have multiple 'offices'/'embassies' or whatever appropriate terms would fit best.

how long an GIE can last would also be an issue, some could last basically forever(royal families keep having kids and fallowing the lines of succession), but more complicated government types would fall apart/lose legitimacy after the deaths of the last member(s) of it who fled the county in question(democracies can't keep going when they can't hold elections to replace people, even if term lengths stop mattering for them).

and what do you think of my "Unions" idea? I mostly thought of it as a good way of 'debuffing' the big powers and giving them more to do for internal politicking(and more ways for smaller outsiders to try to influence them)

Union: a network of "autonomous" subjects/member states, the scale of this autonomy can vary greatly and change over time, it would be something of a mix between Stellaris's Federations and EU4's HRE.

Examples of Unions would be The British Empire/Commonwealth(and maybe the other remaining European colonial empires as well, this makes decolonization easier, but also removes changes in how the new independent nations are shaped if they're all "premade" that way [the India/Pakistan split for example, though setting up all the separate Indian Princely States and then using special decolonization events to merge them together could work]), The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(Russia and her Satellites/puppets), and could also be used for the People's Republic of China(split into its many provinces, Hong Kong and Macau[which would be transferred from the British and Portuguese Unions in events/diplomacy?], and allowing Tibet to be "integrated" while retaining some its identity, and maybe some interesting mechanics for the previously mentioned "Two Chinas") and the USA(The 50 states, D.C., some of the larger Indian Reservations, and the Overseas Territories[which could include the Philippians at the earlier start date(s?), though trying to keep them and possibly integrate them as a State would be a pain, after all making Porto Rico the 51st State still hasn't happened], though the uninhabited islands could maybe be integrated as part of D.C. or the nearest State/Territory for simplicity's sake).

Unions could also be used to represent diplomatic systems like the EU and the UN, possibly enabling those organizations to develop into full fledged political entities of their own if enough influence is accrued/given to it from members

it's definitely interesting. and it would add an extra level of intrigue to make colonial empires and the superpowers more enticing to play as. it would fully model the non-sovereign british commonwealth territories (though most Raj princely states are far too small), make playing one of the SSRs possible without needing to partition the USSR, and shake the US up a bit by being able to play as a state, and in the case of a major union nation like scandinavia or the arab or maghreb unions or the aforementioned EU be able to play as their parts. though china would have to be omitted from this system as PRC subdivisions have NO true autonomy at all (especially the "autonomous provinces" of Xinjiang and Tibet).

 

[Rip Off Productions]

it's definitely interesting. and it would add an extra level of intrigue to make colonial empires and the superpowers more enticing to play as. it would fully model the non-sovereign british commonwealth territories (though most Raj princely states are far too small), make playing one of the SSRs possible without needing to partition the USSR, and shake the US up a bit by being able to play as a state, and in the case of a major union nation like scandinavia or the arab or maghreb unions or the aforementioned EU be able to play as their parts. though china would have to be omitted from this system as PRC subdivisions have NO true autonomy at all (especially the "autonomous provinces" of Xinjiang and Tibet).

hmm, fair point about China.

playing as USA States wouldn't exactly be that much fun... you could better micro-manage that state's economy and some local laws, but the Federal Government in Washington D.C. would still control a vast majority of important things, though in a Multiplayer game where everyone is playing as States and co-operating to orcistraite/manage corruption to better influence the Federal Government/start an insurrection.

Thinking about it some more I think my "governments in exile" idea could be renamed "Major Political Entities" and would cover Governments in Exile, International Organizations(UN general assembly, EU Parliament, the WHO, the CDC, and probably more that I can't think of right now), "Micro-Nations"(places like The Vatican City/Papacy/Holy See that are smaller then a single province), and major internal elements of a county(the Indian Reservations in the USA and Canada and similar systems in other nations who would have "claims" to curtain provinces and the support of the POPs of the appropriate culture/ethnicity living there), the many "Autonomous Oblasts" in the Soviet Union that are to small to make into a payable satellite, big political parties and movements(so that their influence on internal politics can be tracked and foreign powers can try to support or impede them), and maybe Intelligence Agencies depending on how the game's espionage system works.

 

[jmpveg22]

At this point... i would even be happy with a revamp or reboot of Supreme Ruler Cold War. Seriously us cold war fans are kinda crapped upon by the gaming industry!

 

[WankoStankins]

A cold war game should definitely be more like Victoria 2 than Hoi. I don't even think there should be units on the map, there should be abstract force allocations and priorities, the game has to simulate guerilla warfare. So you can set certain zones as areas where you want high force concentrations or frequent submarine patrols or whatever, but don't actually have to manage all of it and not generate huge lag like Hoi4 gets once it gets to 1945.

The main game should be economy, diplomacy, espionage. The effect of the military would mainly be on how it contributes to your "diplomacy", and being able to gain influence using military force or the threat of it and so on.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Late-game lag wouldn't be a thing I don't think. How much larger were 1990 armies compared with 1950 armies? HoI4 is a game based on escalating warfare, Cold War would be a game based on brinkmanship, waves of escalation and crucially deescalation. I think the possibility of large-scale conventional war should still be there. There were conventional wars in the period, it wasn't simply Proxy Wars, Guerilla Wars, or Nuclear War. You had regional powers engage in conventional war against each other: 1980 Iran-Iraq, 1962 China-India, 1948 Arab-Israeli, 1950 Korea, 1956 Suez, 1967 Six-Day War. These conflicts should be fully explored, not abstracted away.

 

[Elfwind]

Spy stuff is a must. Spahs evyware... even in cho hair.

 

[WhaleThemedMercandise]

I feel like, instead of a World Tension meter, there should be a Doomsday Clock.

Every ceasefire, every disarmament measure, every averted situation and every act of cooperation ticks time back. But whenever you detonate an atom bomb, when a particularly nasty proxy-war breaks out, for every Tsar Bomba and successful Star Wars project, if you embargo the other side, if you get caught spying, and in every Cuban Missile Crisis, the clock goes forward, and forward, and forward.

Until it strikes midnight, and then nuclear war occurs.

 

[aruon]

I feel like, instead of a World Tension meter, there should be a Doomsday Clock.

Every ceasefire, every disarmament measure, every averted situation and every act of cooperation ticks time back. But whenever you detonate an atom bomb, when a particularly nasty proxy-war breaks out, for every Tsar Bomba and successful Star Wars project, if you embargo the other side, if you get caught spying, and in every Cuban Missile Crisis, the clock goes forward, and forward, and forward.

Until it strikes midnight, and then nuclear war occurs.

East vs West had that. in reality all the doomsday clock is is just a limiter to keep the AI from going full nuclear holocaust at any given moment.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

I'm not sure. That's the classic way of representing it, but I feel like that's very "been there done that", as well as being simplistic. Nuclear war doesn't break out because a meter got too high, it breaks out because leaders made a strategic decision that a strike at this moment was advantageous. A player wanting a nuclear strike shouldn't have to wait until enough spies get caught to do it, they should just be able to do it and then pay the consequences. Likewise, an AI shouldn't see a perfect technological and social window for a nuclear strike but not be able to strike because they're one caught spy behind in tensions, they should be able to follow the full decision-making process, judging estimated foreign reprisals and domestic unrest from the strike, without arbitrary bans.

 

[gia257]

All of these sound like good ideas, I think a Cold War Game would be fun. As to realistic weapons procurement, I had a thought the other day, which would pretty much just cause intense rage, where every program you start can occasionally double in cost and production time.

It coudl be fun, specially as you'd want world tension to remain cold, opposite of HOI

 

[Loaf Warden]

One thing I'd like to see in a Paradox Cold War game is the possibility of a start date before 1945.

Yes, I know there was no "Cold War" before 1945, and a start date that includes World War II would seem to tread on HoI's territory. The default start for the base game should be 1945 (or 1950), just as 1066 is the default start of CKII. But like CKII has had a couple of DLCs that make it possible to start earlier, I'd like our hypothetical Cold War game to have the option, even if only in a DLC, to start as far back as 1922. In addition to being the year Stalin took charge of the Soviet Union, it is also the year that Mussolini became prime minister of Italy. Because I envision the Cold War game as being as much about the spreading of ideology as it would be about preparing for (and trying to avoid) nuclear armaggeddon, and pushing the starting date to before World War II has been fought would make Fascism a potentially viable alternative to the binary USA/USSR setup that some people in this thread have expressed concern about.

Not that V-E Day extinguished all Fascism forever, of course. But with an alternate World War II where the Axis was more successful, its most powerful proponents would have had a lot more influence in the course of history to come, and the Cold War could have ended up as a standoff between three major ideologies instead of only two. Or possibly still two, but not the same two.

Starting as far back as 1922 could also mean the Nazi Party never comes to power and the Axis as we know it never forms, but that's alternate history for you. But I think it would be fun to have the option to give other nations the chance to try to enter the Cold War as superpowers, and open the game with a race to see who will be the first to develop the nuclear weaponry that will allow the Cold War itself to kick in and drive the course of the rest of the game.

No, I don't think every playthrough should require the player to risk not having the Cold War we know from history in-game. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to work my way through World War II every time I wanted to start a new campaign of a game that's supposed to be about the Cold War! That's why I'm perfectly happy to consign this content to a secondary start date available only though a DLC. The base game, by all means, should start out as the familiar Cold War, with the two major ideologies and two initial superpowers we know from real history. Clearly that's what most people who buy a Cold War game are going to want, and I'm all for that. But if DLC can allow Crusader Kings II to begin 326 years before the First Crusade, surely it wouldn't betray the point of a Cold War game to allow, just as an option, a couple of decades of pre-Cold War setup for those who feel like reshuffling the players and deciding on a different balance of power for the era.

As for treading on HoI, I'd say the war mechanics of this game clearly wouldn't be as deep as in that series. HoI was designed from the ground up to be able to simulate with richness and depth all the minute details of leading a nation in the midst of the largest war in history. (I assume; I haven't actually played it.) Our hypothetical Cold War game would be far more focused on politics, espionage, and diplomacy, with most actual in-game wars being relatively small-scale proxy wars. It wouldn't need to be able to support the same depth of war mechanics as HoI does. So it really wouldn't compete with HoI at all, since that series would still exist for anyone who wanted to immerse themselves in the detail-oriented total war experience it offers; the World War II that would be fought in my hypothetical DLC could afford to be run at a much more superficial level than that, seeing that it's really only there to determine who the superpowers are and what ideologies they dominate with once the real meat of the game, the Cold War itself, gets going.

 

[Matt the Czar]

A globe instead of a map would be much more useful, since the two major powers in the Cold War just had the north pole separating them. Also, have the ability to draw with the mouse your nuclear strategy, such as a team of bombers flying over the Atlantic for the US, or mobile launcher placement for the USSR.