the map could display your influence, your wc would be painting your influence all over the world
-
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.
Influence is not binary. Unfortunatly it's a mistake a lot of people make these days.
Stilll there ar emany kind sof influences, cultural, military, political and so on.
considering it would replace military, it needs that one definitely, not that i would argue against a cultural influence map
I would like it but I don't think Paradox will make it any time soon.I am hoping for Superpower 3 though, which won't come soon but developers did say they would do another SP eventually.
Making a modern-age wargame in the vein of Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron has one teensy little problem:
Nukes.
They're interesting in a lot of situations, yes. Particularly in games like DEFCON where there's little point in doing anything else but nuking your enemies over and over again, or in simulationist games that try to realistically portray the tensions of Cold War. But for games where one tries to increase and maintain their influence, nukes sound like a frustrating ass-pull weapon that can devastate you without any practical defense. It's just not fun. Theoretically one could limit the use of nukes using some sort of tension meter ("no one can fire their nukes until we're THIS close to WWIII") but that sounds like EU4 Aggressive Expansion except nukes instead of coalitions, and everyone knows how beloved that mechanic is.
Nukes.
They're interesting in a lot of situations, yes. Particularly in games like DEFCON where there's little point in doing anything else but nuking your enemies over and over again, or in simulationist games that try to realistically portray the tensions of Cold War. But for games where one tries to increase and maintain their influence, nukes sound like a frustrating ass-pull weapon that can devastate you without any practical defense. It's just not fun. Theoretically one could limit the use of nukes using some sort of tension meter ("no one can fire their nukes until we're THIS close to WWIII") but that sounds like EU4 Aggressive Expansion except nukes instead of coalitions, and everyone knows how beloved that mechanic is.
hmm, idk, maybe it could be fun to have them
I suppose it would be a lot of work, rewarding work if done right, but a lot of work.First simulation of what already happens, countries dont want anyone to use nukes so you/them can make moves to prevent spread of nuclear weapons, group together in blocks, sanctions, etc, diplomacy game. Second you yourself dont want nukes to be used unless it was last resort, so internal pressure and effects of their use near your land. Third, if you are a nuclear power, MAD, logistics on how you deploy your own MAD strategy in the most effective way possible (cheap, effectiveness, etc). Finally, rogues, if nuclear power B gets a jumpy leader you have to be extra careful of your moves so as not to start nuclear war, maybe even have actual rogues get their hands on nukes (eg terrorists) if neither you nor any other power invest heavily on a spy network to keep the others in check.
Too many people are taking the rather narrow view of modern life as 'countries'.
But most of what impacts modern life is money, business, politics, individuals and the likes.
I'd love a CK2 starting in 1991 and the end of the Cold War, but substantially warped to form its own take on modern life.
It'd be an intriguing grand strategy game set in the present. But I don't think it'd be very Paradox-y.
But most of what impacts modern life is money, business, politics, individuals and the likes.
I'd love a CK2 starting in 1991 and the end of the Cold War, but substantially warped to form its own take on modern life.
It'd be an intriguing grand strategy game set in the present. But I don't think it'd be very Paradox-y.
- 1
Financial dynasties are huge problem but they aren't that critical in deciding the future of a country or manking as a whole. They have a scary amount of power but nowhere near the power some concpiracy nuts give them.
- 2
I would think if they did this at all it would be an expansion of Hearts of Iron.
- 1
No hearts of iron focuses on full scale war, on all fronts until one side surrenders unconditionally. That doesn't fot the modern era even remotly.
Not necessarily true. Paradox was willing to move into the Cold War era, which is not full scale war.
The main problem with doing a modern day period is that do we really understand the themes of this period of time? Things that seem important now may actually be entirely irrelevant in the future.
For example the financial crisis didn't change much in the way of world politics, not compared to something like the great depression. Has the Arab spring actually led to much change? Has Russia taking Crimea really changed much? etc.
I'd much rather they did a 4000BC game.
For example the financial crisis didn't change much in the way of world politics, not compared to something like the great depression. Has the Arab spring actually led to much change? Has Russia taking Crimea really changed much? etc.
I'd much rather they did a 4000BC game.
- 1
It was a standalone game, but was still Hearts of Iron. It was officially named "East vs West: a Hearts of Iron game"
Actually we don't know that the full fallout of the financial crisis may yet be to be seen. And we must also consider the changes it prevented, like the futher centralisation of the EU.
- 1
It's fun to think of one but I don't think it would actually work. Here are a few problems.
America is unquestionably the strongest military nation in the world. Other countries often have to get Americas nod of approval before going to war and certain parts of the map are off limits (North and South America.)
Nukes are overpowered. The two which were dropped in WWII are very~ weak compared to modern versions. During the Cold War, America developed nuclear warheads which also divide multiple times after launch. This means that you don't need a nuke per province. You shoot those and they divide to hit the major cities.
This leads to the third point. Nuclear nations are fighting with kid gloves now. Nations don't want to unleash their full power. The recent American conflicts have very little to do with a true full on war. The larger nuclear powers don't want to fight either. Russia knows that America has a stronger military but they are counting on war weariness and the nuclear deterrent to prevent a conflict as they are annexing nearby states. It's kinda like this... Imagine you want to kill a deer near your house (I am not a hunter and am just using the deer as an example). One person has a rifle, the next person has a rocket launcher, the next a bomb, then a nuclear bomb equivalent of Hiroshima, then a modern nuclear bomb. Is the modern nuclear bomb substantially stronger than the historical nuclear bomb or a regular bomb? Definitely! Does it matter? Not really, either way the deer is going to die. so would it be fun to play a game in kid gloves all the time?
Last point and I'll stop so it doesn't get too long. Countries no longer expand just because they can. Expanding can actually hurt your country far more than it helps. America could conquer Mexico if it wanted. It would actually make America weaker to do so. That would be odd to have in a game.
America is unquestionably the strongest military nation in the world. Other countries often have to get Americas nod of approval before going to war and certain parts of the map are off limits (North and South America.)
Nukes are overpowered. The two which were dropped in WWII are very~ weak compared to modern versions. During the Cold War, America developed nuclear warheads which also divide multiple times after launch. This means that you don't need a nuke per province. You shoot those and they divide to hit the major cities.
This leads to the third point. Nuclear nations are fighting with kid gloves now. Nations don't want to unleash their full power. The recent American conflicts have very little to do with a true full on war. The larger nuclear powers don't want to fight either. Russia knows that America has a stronger military but they are counting on war weariness and the nuclear deterrent to prevent a conflict as they are annexing nearby states. It's kinda like this... Imagine you want to kill a deer near your house (I am not a hunter and am just using the deer as an example). One person has a rifle, the next person has a rocket launcher, the next a bomb, then a nuclear bomb equivalent of Hiroshima, then a modern nuclear bomb. Is the modern nuclear bomb substantially stronger than the historical nuclear bomb or a regular bomb? Definitely! Does it matter? Not really, either way the deer is going to die. so would it be fun to play a game in kid gloves all the time?
Last point and I'll stop so it doesn't get too long. Countries no longer expand just because they can. Expanding can actually hurt your country far more than it helps. America could conquer Mexico if it wanted. It would actually make America weaker to do so. That would be odd to have in a game.
- 1
