Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

If Paradox made a game about the XXI century, what feauters would you want?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Milten said:
Yeah, I'd expect something like that. With global-spanning corporations having bigger budgets than some countries it would be not to have them as major players. Growing more and more, overcoming anti-monopoly restrictions in countries one by one seems like interesting anti-utopian scenario to me.
Other organizations you mentioned, could be fun too, though I don't see how para-militarists would grow after some point.
Click to expand...
I think for para-militaries they could have like a cap on their growth, so after a certain amount of victory and the more territory they hold the harder it is for them and the more buffs they get; to counteract this they could have a decision to stop being a non-state actor and become a state, perhaps seeking recognition. I read in a novel by Andrew Marr which is set in the near future how ISIS won the war in the Middle East and Britain recognised it as a state in exchange for not being subject to its terrorism. Something similar might occur with paramilitaries in a XXI century Paradox game.
 
Julian Torres said:
I think for para-militaries they could have like a cap on their growth, so after a certain amount of victory and the more territory they hold the harder it is for them and the more buffs they get; to counteract this they could have a decision to stop being a non-state actor and become a state, perhaps seeking recognition. I read in a novel by Andrew Marr which is set in the near future how ISIS won the war in the Middle East and Britain recognised it as a state in exchange for not being subject to its terrorism. Something similar might occur with paramilitaries in a XXI century Paradox game.
Click to expand...
I'd like for a modern or cold war game to basically have you play a political party in a country rather than a country itself. So for a stable democratic country like the US it would be easier to work within the system and get into power while for a more tumultuous, corrupt, or autocratic country like Iraq it might be easier to wait for a weakness and try armed takeover.

You could even play a party that exists in multiple states so for example a Taliban playthrough would have influence everywhere Pahsto culture exists (so Afghanistan and Pakistan mainly)
 
wingren013 said:
I'd like for a modern or cold war game to basically have you play a political party in a country rather than a country itself. So for a stable democratic country like the US it would be easier to work within the system and get into power while for a more tumultuous, corrupt, or autocratic country like Iraq it might be easier to wait for a weakness and try armed takeover.

You could even play a party that exists in multiple states so for example a Taliban playthrough would have influence everywhere Pahsto culture exists (so Afghanistan and Pakistan mainly)
Click to expand...
That would be a really interesting mechanic, although I'm not sure if political parties would be the best way to model that.
 
It would need to have a very strong focus on internal politics, on ethics and on issues - more strongly even than Victoria. Warfare should be abstracted a bit more, too, or at least have an AI assist feature similar to HoI 3/4.

Also, my personal little preference: I want pie charts / parliamentary makeup charts.
 
The new world order and the end of history. I once had a history book that detailed the entire history of the world up until about 1999. I remember the last chapter was about the expansion of democracy in the aftermath of the cold war. It talked a lot about climate change and globalization and bit about terrorism with a few sentences dedicated to al qaeda. It should be about that: the final victory of peace and democracy, the people of the world beating their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and all the little children of the world joining hands and sing in happiness and peace, and how that went to shit.
 
A long time period is the main one for me. I kinda hope they don't do a Vicky 3 since around a hundred years is far too short for my liking. So if they were to do a modern day one I'd much rather it go quite a bit in to the future (ideally a fair way in to the past as well). So something like 1950s - 2200 (Stellaris!) would be minimum for me. Ideally much longer though.
 
Kapi96 said:
A long time period is the main one for me. I kinda hope they don't do a Vicky 3 since around a hundred years is far too short for my liking. So if they were to do a modern day one I'd much rather it go quite a bit in to the future (ideally a fair way in to the past as well). So something like 1950s - 2200 (Stellaris!) would be minimum for me. Ideally much longer though.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. Paradox has yet to make a Cold War game, but that would be really narrow. Creating a game set after WW2, or at least very close to the end of it, going into the late 21st century could create some intrestings scenarios while also creating a number of actual startinging points.
 
Something similar to Victoria 2, but sphereing is more complex and useful, make justifications for war way harder, but with a work around where you can try to get a large group of nations to get behind attacking a certain nation. Also have something doing with international organizations and treaties like the EU, NATO, and NAFTA. The internal political parts should be a large focus of the game, though emphasis for election years and times of crisis. The result of the game should be possible future crises, like civil wars in multiple countries, a war in Asia or Europe, and demographic shift or collapse. Also immigration would need to upped by a lot in numbers.
 
I think colonization of the solar system should be a defining feature of the game.

Earth would the Western Europe of this game and have much fewer provinces than in the other Paradox games. Military expansion on Earth would be hard due to alliances and the constant risk for nuclear retaliation. Land, air and sea forces would exist but wouldn't be too complex so that we could also have space forces without overcomplicating things. Space forces would become more and more important as tech increases with orbital bombardment and asteroid flinging WMD's eventually becoming features.

The most powerful WMD's could decolonize target provinces and make them impossible to colonize again without the right tech. The user would get extreme diplomacy malluses and perhaps internal dissent too. Potentially a whole world like Earth itself could be depopulated this way, but humanity could live on elsewhere.

Space colonization would like in EU and Vicky becomes the fastest way to grow in territory and acquire new resources, but would require advanced technology and investments beyond what most countries can afford. Colonization and development costs would go down with better tech. Each colonizable world would like Earth have a number of provinces but most would be very small. You should be able to play as a privat company and then you would have no territory to control on Earth but would be the controller of provinces you colonize.

I think EU4 colonial nations could be a good model for managing the colonies. You should be able to release them and if doing so have the option play as them. In the mid game, well developed colonies should demand more and more autonomy which could end with complete independence. If autonomy isn't granted then rebellions would be hard to avoid.

There should an EU4 Holy Roman Empire-like mechanic for the independent countries of each large world (Earth, Mars et. c.) and each collection of small worlds (The Belt, moons around a particular gas giant). This in combination with colonial independence movements would be a key mechanic for setting up the end game. The weaker the combined members of a HRE are compared to the rest of the solar system, the more willing they would be to unite into one nation through the HRE mechanics. The first united worlds would therefore be colonial worlds. When these have become powerful enough, even the nations of Earth would become inclined to unite in order for Earth to not become dominated by the other worlds.

The design goal is for late game to have a political situation like The Expanse or Eclipse Phase and perhaps have the possibility of ending with some epic wars for unifying the solar system.
 
Last edited:
Roobster88 said:
I think colonization of the solar system should be a defining feature of the game.

Earth would the Western Europe of this game and have much fewer provinces than in the other Paradox games. Military expansion on Earth would be hard due to alliances and the constant risk for nuclear retaliation. Land, air and sea forces would exist but wouldn't be too complex so that we could also have space forces without overcomplicating things. Space forces would become more and more important as tech increases with orbital bombardment and asteroid flinging WMD's eventually becoming features.

The most powerful WMD's could decolonize target provinces and make them impossible to colonize again without the right tech. The user would get extreme diplomacy malluses and perhaps internal dissent too. Potentially a whole world like Earth itself could be depopulated this way, but humanity could live on elsewhere.

Space colonization would like in EU and Vicky becomes the fastest way to grow in territory and acquire new resources, but would require advanced technology and investments beyond what most countries can afford. Colonization and development costs would go down with better tech. Each colonizable world would like Earth have a number of provinces but most would be very small. You should be able to play as a privat company and then you would have no territory to control on Earth but would be the controller of provinces you colonize.

I think EU4 colonial nations could be a good model for managing the colonies. You should be able to release them and if doing so have the option play as them. In the mid game, well developed colonies should demand more and more autonomy which could end with complete independence. If autonomy isn't granted then rebellions would be hard to avoid.

There should an EU4 Holy Roman Empire-like mechanic for the independent countries of each large world (Earth, Mars et. c.) and each collection of small worlds (The Belt, moons around a particular gas giant). This in combination with colonial independence movements would be a key mechanic for setting up the end game. The weaker the combined members of a HRE are compared to the rest of the solar system, the more willing they would be to unite into one nation through the HRE mechanics. The first united worlds would therefore be colonial worlds. When these have become powerful enough, even the nations of Earth would become inclined to unite in order for Earth to not become dominated by the other worlds.

The design goal is for late game to have a political situation like The Expanse or Eclipse Phase and perhaps have the possibility of ending with some epic wars for unifying the solar system.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but absolutely not 21. century.
 
Woifee said:
That's nice, but absolutely not 21. century.
Click to expand...
21st century would just be the starting century so it would be more like EU4 in terms of time-scale than Victoria. Just like when playing a western european country in EU4 the rest of the world doesn't matter at first, the rest of the solar system grows in importance over time.
It wouldn't go on until the "FTL Age" of Stellaris so any expeditions to outside the solar system would be off-map and take a very long time.
 
Global conspiracy with paranormal gameplay elements. Delta Green / X - Files modelled with CKII/XCOM mechanics. Main gameplay of gaining influence, power, wealth, contacts, allies, etc done CKII style, major paranormal interaction moments resolved as TBS scenes XCOM style.
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but I would want some kind of pressure system, which would sorta be like the world tension system in Hearts of Iron 4. Basically, you wouldn't be able to go around conquering nations, without consequences. For instance, you would have to get negative modifiers from the U.N. putting sanctions on you, for constant warring with others, and members might demand you give autonomy to regions. Another feature I would really like, is that if you attack a nation; it will give everyone a opinion modifier that varies depending on whom you attacked. Their friends will get a negative modified opinion of you, while their enemies will get a positive modified opinion of you, and etc.
 
I'm desperate for an organised crime strategy game like Gangsters: Organised Crime (1998). A Paradox game similar to CK2 but set in the 20th or 21st century, focusing on criminality, I think would be awesome.

Set it in a city (or country) where you divide it up into street blocks and neighbourhoods/districts.
 
So many contradictions in this century. We appear on a precipice of a medical revolution, and yet antibiotics are quickly becoming useless against rapidly evolving natural pathogens. Internet and high tech advanced a virtual century in progress in no time, but aging water systems are poisoning residents of our oldest cities. Our great United States is unchallenged in military technological prowess, and yet smaller countries seem to accomplish more with the old fashioned dissident crackdown and military occupation, boots on the ground if you will.

For a 21st game? I want it all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back