What I meant was, if they're afraid of inserting current real-world conflicts and controversies, the AI can easily create world conflicts that aren't in the headlines on its own, as it tends to do (eventually) in every other PDX game.
-
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.
What I meant was, if they're afraid of inserting current real-world conflicts and controversies, the AI can easily create world conflicts that aren't in the headlines on its own, as it tends to do (eventually) in every other PDX game.
I think it would be extremely interesting to see a cold war+ geopolitical simulator. Make it focused on diplomacy and power dynamics, with dynamic treaties and organizations that can be made between countries. Early 1950s would make a good start date as the stage had mostly been set, and it could last until exactly 2000, letting modders deal with the explosive 21st century. The effective end would however be that of the cold war. Either one power wins, or neither.
The game could have some Vicky 2-esque economics focused on the rise of oil nations and eventually the growth of information industries and such. There's a lot you could do here, but I don't think it should be the main focus.
When it comes to internal politics, you couldn't do this without a proper political party mechanic, where each party/faction has a different ideology, economic practise, and a global alliagance.
Diplomacy would be the cornerstone of the game, with dynamic treaties which member countries can negotiate over time. Instead of a "form alliance" and accept option, you would instead open a menu with various deals and concessions. Everything would cost something so it isn't profitable to spam everything with everything, and your ruling party will become unpopular if you seem too weak to your enemies. Negotiation would also take physical time to negotiate, and can break entirely. Over time various treaties would stack up on another. Larger alliances/treaty organizations would consist of a variety of treaties bundled into one faction. Of course the largest of this is the United Nations, where a lot of interesting diplomacy could happen.
You'd need some good espionage mechanic that allows you to find out about both treaties and wars before they happen. In addition you could have counterespionage, tech stealing, and covert/open support of aligned parties. Military coups could stand as a very lucrative but dangerous move to push the global balance of power in your favour.
Finally when it comes to wars you'd have to go away from the binary at-war/not-at-war mechanic of other Paradox games. You could do something similar to HoI4's volunteers, but not the scripted limits to how much you could send. Instead sending your army would need a lot of political pressure and could be met by heavy opposition back at home. Armies would also have more political/diplomatic effects based on where you place them so you can't just move it all to warzones. In addition there's the danger of escalation, especially in the case of a certain type of missile.
So how would you win the game? I could imagine an end-screen which shows both how succesful your global alignment where. But in addition there'd be a general "state of the world" stat that rewards you for bettering the world, working for human rights and preserving global peace. And only then on a second page, you'd have the stats for your own nation.
The game could have some Vicky 2-esque economics focused on the rise of oil nations and eventually the growth of information industries and such. There's a lot you could do here, but I don't think it should be the main focus.
When it comes to internal politics, you couldn't do this without a proper political party mechanic, where each party/faction has a different ideology, economic practise, and a global alliagance.
Diplomacy would be the cornerstone of the game, with dynamic treaties which member countries can negotiate over time. Instead of a "form alliance" and accept option, you would instead open a menu with various deals and concessions. Everything would cost something so it isn't profitable to spam everything with everything, and your ruling party will become unpopular if you seem too weak to your enemies. Negotiation would also take physical time to negotiate, and can break entirely. Over time various treaties would stack up on another. Larger alliances/treaty organizations would consist of a variety of treaties bundled into one faction. Of course the largest of this is the United Nations, where a lot of interesting diplomacy could happen.
You'd need some good espionage mechanic that allows you to find out about both treaties and wars before they happen. In addition you could have counterespionage, tech stealing, and covert/open support of aligned parties. Military coups could stand as a very lucrative but dangerous move to push the global balance of power in your favour.
Finally when it comes to wars you'd have to go away from the binary at-war/not-at-war mechanic of other Paradox games. You could do something similar to HoI4's volunteers, but not the scripted limits to how much you could send. Instead sending your army would need a lot of political pressure and could be met by heavy opposition back at home. Armies would also have more political/diplomatic effects based on where you place them so you can't just move it all to warzones. In addition there's the danger of escalation, especially in the case of a certain type of missile.
So how would you win the game? I could imagine an end-screen which shows both how succesful your global alignment where. But in addition there'd be a general "state of the world" stat that rewards you for bettering the world, working for human rights and preserving global peace. And only then on a second page, you'd have the stats for your own nation.
Last edited:
I know Paradox is likely never going to do something like this, but I'd love if their "modern" era game was another genre-shift, like CKI;. Basically, a game where you aren't playing as a nation-state, ala EU4 or Vicky II.
For example, maybe a game where instead of playing as a nation-state/political actor, you play as a multinational (and eventually transnational) corporation. I imagine that the game would begin sometime in the 1950s or so, and would include both American-style, free-wheeling corporations as well as Soviet state-run enterprises and nascent, post-colonial corporations like the Nigerian National Shipping Line (which is an extra challenge). The goal is to insert yourself into various markets, manage the production/sale of goods and services, and remain competitive by legitimate or illegitimate means.
States are in the background, doing stuff: for example, the United States is likely to get into a war in Korea, but the mechanisms are highly abstracted and (unless you're playing as the Smith & Wesson corporation or something similarly war-related), you're probably not going to have direct influence on the outcome. That said, there's still plenty of opportunity to throw money at politicians and get them to do things, and I'd imagine there'd be a DLC which adds the "corporate state" feature, a la United Fruit Company in Guatemala or Shell in Nigeria, where a corporation acquires de jure access to military force. Maybe the "Business of War" DLC, which also expands the options available to arms dealers/manufacturers in general as part of the free patch?
For example, maybe a game where instead of playing as a nation-state/political actor, you play as a multinational (and eventually transnational) corporation. I imagine that the game would begin sometime in the 1950s or so, and would include both American-style, free-wheeling corporations as well as Soviet state-run enterprises and nascent, post-colonial corporations like the Nigerian National Shipping Line (which is an extra challenge). The goal is to insert yourself into various markets, manage the production/sale of goods and services, and remain competitive by legitimate or illegitimate means.
States are in the background, doing stuff: for example, the United States is likely to get into a war in Korea, but the mechanisms are highly abstracted and (unless you're playing as the Smith & Wesson corporation or something similarly war-related), you're probably not going to have direct influence on the outcome. That said, there's still plenty of opportunity to throw money at politicians and get them to do things, and I'd imagine there'd be a DLC which adds the "corporate state" feature, a la United Fruit Company in Guatemala or Shell in Nigeria, where a corporation acquires de jure access to military force. Maybe the "Business of War" DLC, which also expands the options available to arms dealers/manufacturers in general as part of the free patch?
It´s kind of the inherent problem of the coldwar era that responsibility and decisionmaking simply outgrew the capacity of a single person. Same as how scientific progress more and more grows into a Group endeavor instead of a single genius brewing.
Also. This would ENSURE. Someone´s going to be pissed. a lot.
Also. This would ENSURE. Someone´s going to be pissed. a lot.
How would it look?
Imagine Haiti invading the United States within the first few years off the game.
Horrendous AI.
A mana based political system which only serves to give your nation buffs.
Years of DLC which make the game even worse over time.
There's your game. But fans will love it .
Imagine Haiti invading the United States within the first few years off the game.
Horrendous AI.
A mana based political system which only serves to give your nation buffs.
Years of DLC which make the game even worse over time.
There's your game. But fans will love it .
It would be difficult because the world is very different. America is by far the most powerful country in the world during that time period. The nation however does not want to do what would have been traditionally considered “total war.” They don’t use all of their force or attempt to destroy the other countries.
Some may debate this but America also doesn’t desire to expand its borders. If the USA wanted to it could very easily conquer Mexico and Canada. It doesn’t want to though. In general western countries now want to avoid wars if possible.
Power doesn’t just come from how much land you control or how much you can conquer. America has compete dominance in that arena and then doesn’t fight. This allows for competition to thrive in other areas. So a game in that time period would either have to break history and act like war is what brings power now or they would have to develop lots of internal systems. Some of these systems won’t be entertaining either. Like planned economies have proven to be less successful during that time period. So you’d have to talk about developing environments which allow entrepreneurs to create businesses and have innovation. We could debate why it’s this way but, this has historically happened with less government intervention vs with more.
It would be odd to have a game where most but not all of the big players aren’t wanting to attack their neighbors and where power growth doesn’t happen from wars or government action vs the people creating influential companies. My guess is it would be less fun unless they when ahistorical with it. I also believe this game won’t happen. At least not for a long long time.
Some may debate this but America also doesn’t desire to expand its borders. If the USA wanted to it could very easily conquer Mexico and Canada. It doesn’t want to though. In general western countries now want to avoid wars if possible.
Power doesn’t just come from how much land you control or how much you can conquer. America has compete dominance in that arena and then doesn’t fight. This allows for competition to thrive in other areas. So a game in that time period would either have to break history and act like war is what brings power now or they would have to develop lots of internal systems. Some of these systems won’t be entertaining either. Like planned economies have proven to be less successful during that time period. So you’d have to talk about developing environments which allow entrepreneurs to create businesses and have innovation. We could debate why it’s this way but, this has historically happened with less government intervention vs with more.
It would be odd to have a game where most but not all of the big players aren’t wanting to attack their neighbors and where power growth doesn’t happen from wars or government action vs the people creating influential companies. My guess is it would be less fun unless they when ahistorical with it. I also believe this game won’t happen. At least not for a long long time.
Get a commodore 64 or Atari ST emulator and play Balance of Power (circa mid 80s).
The Cold War is kind of boring because its a bi-polar world and the best simulator should lead to very little happening. If anything major happens, it probably is extraordinarily bad.
If you want to sim NATO vs. Warsaw Pact in some fantasy world where only a limited number of tac nukes are used, feel free to mod one of the HOI series. I find HOI2 mods the most fun still. But, use whichever you prefer.
The Cold War is kind of boring because its a bi-polar world and the best simulator should lead to very little happening. If anything major happens, it probably is extraordinarily bad.
If you want to sim NATO vs. Warsaw Pact in some fantasy world where only a limited number of tac nukes are used, feel free to mod one of the HOI series. I find HOI2 mods the most fun still. But, use whichever you prefer.
Please don't. There's no way they could make such a game without expressing their opinion on something. It's best if they stay neutral.
.png){kind=avatar}
I would very much disagree. Just think about all the crises that brought the world to the brink of war - not much changing doesn't mean it will be uninteresting. In my opinion, the need for intricate diplomacy and to manoeuvre carefully would make the game all the more interesting compared to marching doom stacks around. That said, the game would have to be quite different from what Paradox usually does for that.
I know, many of us thinking that modern setting would be very boring because lack of wars...
But it does not have to be a full fledged simulator game that copes exactly the cold war up to 2019.
I'd would like a modern (Near-futuristic to be more precise) themed grand strategy game. The game starting date would be from 2034 or just 2030, there could be a choice to choose 2048, 2053, you get the idea. The game could span up to 2100 or furhter.
The plot is that in earlier times (during the years 2019 to 2029) NATO was disbanded, USA went isolationist and european union became smaller for random reasons. That would open up for a more open sandbox approach of the game.
Basicaly, like HoI4, but with much more focus on political aspect of the game, while retaining the elements of territorial expansion, fictitious pacts/agreements forming during the game, new nations becoming powers or super powers, basicaly where situations develop in unpredictable ways.
But it does not have to be a full fledged simulator game that copes exactly the cold war up to 2019.
I'd would like a modern (Near-futuristic to be more precise) themed grand strategy game. The game starting date would be from 2034 or just 2030, there could be a choice to choose 2048, 2053, you get the idea. The game could span up to 2100 or furhter.
The plot is that in earlier times (during the years 2019 to 2029) NATO was disbanded, USA went isolationist and european union became smaller for random reasons. That would open up for a more open sandbox approach of the game.
Basicaly, like HoI4, but with much more focus on political aspect of the game, while retaining the elements of territorial expansion, fictitious pacts/agreements forming during the game, new nations becoming powers or super powers, basicaly where situations develop in unpredictable ways.
Last edited:
A Paradox modern geopolitics game would have all features you could imagine...except the simple ability to rename units for some reason.
That and many of those features would be tied to mana.
That and many of those features would be tied to mana.
If it was not so much a wargame as a rogue-like grand strategy diplomacy, which could add hybrid RPG elements. Total nuclear war should (obviously) be Game Over for everybody.
You skipped the first part of my answer where I offered a pre-existing game which tried to do what you're discussing. It was a very fun game until you figured out it was kind of playing russian roulette. The way to win was to prod the USSR a little at a time into losing face. Of course the way to lose was to prod the USSR into losing face in a way that they prefered nuclear annihilation. The winning strategy and the losing strategy rolled up into one with the RNG deciding if you win or lose isn't very fun. But, that is probably the best simulator of the Cold War ever. Hell, if not for one guy during the Cuban missile crisis, we might not be posting this. The Russian fleet commander backed down against orders from Moscow because he didn't want to be responsible for millions of deaths.