Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Modern game?

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.
ed84

ed84

Captain
10 Badges
Nov 5, 2012
378
46
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
It would be great if Paradox could attempt a modern game. Obv it be very challenging as the economy of today is much more complicated than it was during the middle ages lol, but if I had faith in any company to get it right, it's def Paradox.

Would people on here have any interest in such a game?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
It would be very nice, but Paradox has said many times that they will not do a modern-era game.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
RyanX said:
So far the modern era has been pretty boring... in a good way of course, but still boring.
Click to expand...

I think it is by far the most exciting time in history. Sure, if your goal is world domination..true, that doesn't happen, but political campaigns, political aspects of running a country, economic aspects, policy, is so complex compared to the past.

But situations like Crimea, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq..also show there is an opportunity to def make military aspects important. Yeah maybe the game wouldn't allow you to take over the world, but strategizing about military/intelligence would still be important.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Well there are complications to dealign with modern times. I can see why they'd chose not to. Also the entire look of the game would be very diffrent. It would almost all be spreadsheets (think the democracy series), with only maps in areas of importance (like crisis areas). The whole map painted they usually go for would be null (You can't do a military WC in the nuclear age), in fact there's little reason to have a world map at all.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
TheDungen said:
Well there are complications to dealign with modern times. I can see why they'd chose not to. Also the entire look of the game would be very diffrent. It would almost all be spreadsheets (think the democracy series), with only maps in areas of importance (like crisis areas). The whole map painted they usually go for would be null (You can't do a military WC in the nuclear age), in fact there's little reason to have a world map at all.
Click to expand...
Have you ever played Masters of the World/Geopolitical Simulator 3? They have a map. They do a lot of things right, but because of the complexity of game, they took some shortcuts, and it sort of ruins it for me. Their games have been like money grabs..update a few things here and there (keep the base the same) and charge people obscene amounts for new verions.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
There are three games similar to Paradox, that are set in modern times and I have played them extensively:

1. Superpower 2
2. Masters of the World - Geopolitical Simulator 3
3. Supreme Ruler 2020 (or Supreme Ruler Cold War, the successor)

Superpower 2 is...meh...at best. There were many nice ideas, the level of customization in some places is high, and the globe-based map is gorgeous (and rather unique). But the game is plagued with lazy development, there is lack of depth in every single respect. The developers didn't focused too much on some part of the game while completely neglecting others. The politics are ridiculous and outrageously bland. There are no rebels, so you can ban Islam in Iran and turn it into a 90% Zoroastrian nation without consequences, or turn China into a democracy and then theocracy and back to a communist country in a matter of seconds, or turn USA into a monarchy at whim. The UI is crap, the minimalist UI style failed and information is never there when you seek it. Much of the mechanics are hidden and are left unexplained. Economic gameplay is something I never got, but I read that it only works for a while and then everyone becomes a billionaire at some point. There is no internal management and what is there is untrackable. Military gameplay is really, really bad. And there are bugs. Really boring game unless you play multiplayer with a lot of players who are mature and sane-minded enough to let roleplay proceed. Lazy devs didn't patch it to the fullest either.

Next comes Geopolitical Simulator 3. When I first played it I found it to be the deepest political simulation I have ever seen. And then I realized the game is so bad it doesn't even need describing. There is a lot of data presented, and the options you have a huge. But then the UI is utterly crap and fugly. You have to go from menus after menus to reach somewhere. A lot of things don't make sense. If Superpower 2 had no rebels or protests, this game throws one at you at every single step for little reason. Increased tax rate from 4% to 4.1%? Fired a few bureaucrats to reduce pain on your ailing budget? Demolished a hospital somewhere? Made your mum and dad the minister? Just made a proposal to change the voting system somewhat? Congrats, your entire country is now violently rioting, there is anarchy everywhere, your cabinet is openly declaring you as a scumbag and resigning in waves, and your military is about to assassinate you (even when playing North Korea or Saudi Arabia). Economic side of the game is wild. Military side of the game is...my god, it is damn terrible and it is better for your sanity if you pretend that it simply doesn't exist and don't touch it in the game often. Diplomacy is wonky. Nothing works as intended, and as I said everything is made more painful by the terrible UI (the only part of the UI I liked was the tutorial professor/adviser near the right of the window). And the performance of the game is horrible too, with frequent crashes. And the bugs...oh goodness the entire game is flooded in them. In general, the game is an excellent, excellent idea with a pathetic and terrible execution by really lazy devs.

Finally, there is Supreme Ruler 2020. This game is the most playable out of the above two, and can be seriously enjoyable at times. But it is not without problems, suffers from a bad/ugly UI and map, and while the military side of the game is deep, the internal management as far as I have seen was non-existent. The game is heavily military focused. That said, Supreme Ruler Cold War (the immediate successor of the game, starting in 1948) had many improvements although I feel they too were military focused and internal depth was bad. Both those games had horrendous bugs at first although I hear most of them were patched. These are playable games at least.
 
  • 6
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
How does these compare to democracy 3?
 
GeneralPetrov said:
Democracy 3 is very different, it's basically completely focused on politics and doesn't actually have a map, whereas these games sort of focus on everything, from politics to economics, to military.
Click to expand...
Well like I said I don't think a modern era game really needs a map.
 
TheDungen said:
How does these compare to democracy 3?
Click to expand...

These games and Democracy 3 are as different as day and night, or sky and ground.

Democracy 3 doesn't have a map, it purely works in numbers and the UI presenting them. You don't have a defined military and no units, all you have is the control of military budget. And thus there is no warfare in the game, only terrorist attacks. Your population is completely fixed and never rises or falls, it only changes in percentage (for example percentage of farmers decline by 4% and percentage of socialists and immigrants rises by 4% etc.). And it is not a simulation either. Some policies/situations and their results just don't make sense and have to be modded hard to be more realistic The political system is heavily biased towards the government system of a few nations in Europe and Americas and doesn't reflect the whole world at all. There is no parliament, you are free to enact arbitrary policies as long as you have 'political mana'. This isn't realistic. You have a fixed cabinet of 5-6 ministers, even though a real cabinet can be larger than 60+ in some large nations. There are only two parties, and this is the biggest downer for any remaining hint of realism (heck, even PRC/mainland China has multiple parties despite being a one-party dictatorship). The game has a plethora of other problems.

And in the end, your only goal is to get reelected and not bother about how your nation is doing. Your only goal is to get public opinion higher and higher and you don't give a damn if your nation is sinking fast. In the other games, you have to focus not just on getting reelected but also on building your nation up and clearing debts and inducing stability, so that your base is actually decently strong and not fall down like a castle of cards when you take power.

Besides, once you reach the optimal setup there is nothing to disrupt your game. Got out of debt and enacted some right policies that reduce problems somewhat? Congrats, now you have 90% population support and you can just keep pushing end-turn button and nothing bad will happen, problems will somehow automatically fix themselves and you'll be infinitely reelected. This is fun for maybe a game or two but becomes really boring afterwards.

It can be a very enjoyable game at times, but it can never be called deep to keep you engaged for too long. And it is certainly not a real simulation. And it can be ridiculous because it doesn't have much real-world mechanics, and it works solely on the lines of UK and USA and represents other nations like crap, nothing more. It is a good game considering it was a one-man project and the UI is clean and gorgeous, but still, it is not a realistic game and doesn't have many mechanics. If you buy it, buy it thinking of it as just a game and meant for playing only USA/UK/France, that way it will be enjoyable and not frustrating.

I guess there is no modern political simulation game that actually has some real quality gameplay.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
GeneralPetrov said:
Well, it does if your managing your military. Would be pretty hard without a map.
Click to expand...
Not really what good does a map do you to do that? Atleast a world map? You'd get a crisis era popup that alows you to open u a smaller map over say eastern ukraine+crimea or syria+iraq and use thta for the troop movements in the area.But actually moving troops from and to that theatre could be automated because it's so quickly done anyway in modern times. Honestly I think that war could pretty much be abstracted away to a level where you just chose how to deal with a conflict and then your generals give you a status report on it. Leaving you to focus on important issues instead of microing our military vanity projects.
 
TheDungen said:
Not really what good does a map do you to do that? Atleast a world map? You'd get a crisis era popup that alows you to open u a smaller map over say eastern ukraine+crimea or syria+iraq and use thta for the troop movements in the area.But actually moving troops from and to that theatre could be automated because it's so quickly done anyway in modern times. Honestly I think that war could pretty much be abstracted away to a level where you just chose how to deal with a conflict and then your generals give you a status report on it. Leaving you to focus on important issues instead of microing our military vanity projects.
Click to expand...
But that's kind of the whole point of most strategy games and paradox games, microing our military IS the important bit, and the politics and economics are the more secondary mechanics. That and I love admiring a map of my glorious empire.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
GeneralPetrov said:
But that's kind of the whole point of most strategy games and paradox games, microing our military IS the important bit, and the politics and economics are the more secondary mechanics. That and I love admiring a map of my glorious empire.
Click to expand...
Well it is the time frame (period) that dictates what's important/emphasized in the game. For example, military is still very important in Victorian times, but economic factors really become as crucial if not more important. (because the time period covers industrialization) Today, economy without a doubt takes #1 spot. It is prob precisely this reality that makes paradox not so interested in doing such a game, on top of the complexity of doing it successfully. I get the sense that they, like many players here, really enjoy the world conquest aspects of these games the most.
 
GeneralPetrov said:
But that's kind of the whole point of most strategy games and paradox games, microing our military IS the important bit, and the politics and economics are the more secondary mechanics. That and I love admiring a map of my glorious empire.
Click to expand...
No you think it's the important thing myself I find war to be the boring stressfull part which I could see more abstracted in most of their games.
 
TheDungen said:
No you think it's the important thing myself I find war to be the boring stressfull part which I could see more abstracted in most of their games.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand me: that's not my opinion, managing military just is the most important thing in vast majority of strategy games.

Having said that, I'm pretty surprised you actually like paradox games to be honest, considering you think the war part is the boring and stressful part, and that in pretty much all paradox games war is by far the biggest part of the game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
GeneralPetrov said:
I don't think you understand me: that's not my opinion, managing military just is the most important thing in vast majority of strategy games.

Having said that, I'm pretty surprised you actually like paradox games to be honest, considering you think the war part is the boring and stressful part, and that in pretty much all paradox games war is by far the biggest part of the game.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know that's why it's boring everyone does it. What's awesome with paradox GSGs is that they actually include some of the other stuff too. And I push that they should include more of the other stuff, because quite frankly the opposite is being just like everyone else.

Eh why wouldn't I like apradox games they are the only ones who even offer a sliver of the non war aspect of history everyone else focuses way more on war. I'm surpised you like paradox games there are plenty of games out there wich a much greater emphasise on war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back