Paradox set on modern day

[cuendillar]

Also, sorry, I forgot. Chinese government was offended. Something about cores or other things like this, or Tibet, can't recall details.

I think it was that the various warlord states wasn't found compatible with China's official "one China" policy - that China was defacto divided between various governments less than a century ago calls that into question so they'd rather it not be known.

 

[aono]

I think it was that the various warlord states wasn't found compatible with China's official "one China" policy - that China was defacto divided between various governments less than a century ago calls that into question so they'd rather it not be known.

Quite possible.

 

[Etrutian]

Oh! Who would own Crimea, Tibet, Taiwan or how many Koreas would be around in 2025?
Who would win Russian and US president elections in 2024 and 2020 correspondently?
How would situation in Syria end?
I can continue. But "near future" is as bad as "now".

Have a static start date at January 2000.

No major mideast madness and recent fall of USSR would be the most moderate (and interesting) picture. As for Taiwan/China; clearly you make Taiwan a protectorate of China (or just a general province.) Why close yourself out of a billion+ market to appease a 25million+ market?



My concern with a modern PDX game is that I think it would be terribly boring. The world is insanely balanced right now. Conflicts are won by purchasing power of one end over the other, even in regions with small or agrarian economies. No one can take land anymore, and the process to annexation is drawn out. In cases where annexation has been attempted in remote regions with military means, a large power almost always intercedes (see Iraq-Kuwait). The only war fought in recent memory witch whole annexations (without large scale, direct, support) would be the Ethiopian-Eritrian; the land Ethiopia won in self-defence is still under debate 20 years on.


If such a game were created; it would need to be 'the vicky3 of Politics and Diplomacy' for PDX. War would be strange and unprofitable. War though makes most PDX games fun.

 

[coffeelingfine]

I want a sci-fi game set 100 years into the future where a second ice age happens. Like Battlefield 2142 but as a grand strategy game.

Gameplay wise it wouldn't be much different from HOI.

 

[Sarius1997]

Have a static start date at January 2000.

No major mideast madness and recent fall of USSR would be the most moderate (and interesting) picture. As for Taiwan/China; clearly you make Taiwan a protectorate of China (or just a general province.) Why close yourself out of a billion+ market to appease a 25million+ market?

Doesn't change the problem with cores though. Also, imagine the discussion on here if Paradox would make Taiwan a Protectorate or a Province.

My concern with a modern PDX game is that I think it would be terribly boring. The world is insanely balanced right now. Conflicts are won by purchasing power of one end over the other, even in regions with small or agrarian economies. No one can take land anymore, and the process to annexation is drawn out. In cases where annexation has been attempted in remote regions with military means, a large power almost always intercedes (see Iraq-Kuwait). The only war fought in recent memory witch whole annexations (without large scale, direct, support) would be the Ethiopian-Eritrian; the land Ethiopia won in self-defence is still under debate 20 years on.


If such a game were created; it would need to be 'the vicky3 of Politics and Diplomacy' for PDX. War would be strange and unprofitable. War though makes most PDX games fun.

Honestly, war is terribly, terribly boring in Paradox games. It only kinda works in HoI4

 

[Etrutian]

Doesn't change the problem with cores though. Also, imagine the discussion on here if Paradox would make Taiwan a Protectorate or a Province.

So long as no one implements 'Ocean Cores', it should be fine. One would also need to treat almost all of China's current holdings as Cores (Taiwan/Tibet/Xinjiang).
Regardless of debate on a forum with several thousand people on a forum (they would be wonderfully lively), a market with a billion+ is worth appeasement.

'Paris is worth a mass'


I can only imagine smaller dictatorships caring about coring. The good news about them as that (compared to china), their censorship boards are likely not capable of sifting through cores of fairly obscure games. (PDX, being fairly obscure to most, except for perhaps Stellaris)

 

[Sarius1997]

So long as no one implements 'Ocean Cores', it should be fine. One would also need to treat almost all of China's current holdings as Cores (Taiwan/Tibet/Xinjiang).
Regardless of debate on a forum with several thousand people on a forum (they would be wonderfully lively), a market with a billion+ is worth appeasement.

'Paris is worth a mass'


I can only imagine smaller dictatorships caring about coring. The good news about them as that (compared to china), their censorship boards are likely not capable of sifting through cores of fairly obscure games. (PDX, being fairly obscure to most, except for perhaps Stellaris)

Oh, i think no one has anything against PRC cores in Taiwan, etc.... But the chinese government would be very pissed off to see Tibetean cores, or something like this, and if you leave those things out it just turns into a fantasy game.
And those cores aren't the only discussion that is important. What about Crimea? Has it russian cores? The whole situation in former Jugoslavia is still a cluster**** and was worse back then in 2000. And so on. Yes, it would be great to have as a game, but all those things need to be considered.

 

[Etrutian]

Oh, i think no one has anything against PRC cores in Taiwan, etc.... But the chinese government would be very pissed off to see Tibetean cores, or something like this, and if you leave those things out it just turns into a fantasy game.
And those cores aren't the only discussion that is important. What about Crimea? Has it russian cores? The whole situation in former Jugoslavia is still a cluster**** and was worse back then in 2000. And so on. Yes, it would be great to have as a game, but all those things need to be considered.

Ehhh. Tibet existed independently for what, 30-40 years? Once could argue the core expired easily after 50 years. (given that the PRC took it back over in 1950.)

I reckon I'm a bit more cutthroat (see: ignorant) about the general politics of small local populations. If its profitable to the cores (or allow Taiwan to essentially be fully integrated, against reality) then its likely worth doing.

As for Russia and its old cores; Crimea would be an old, Russian, core. Regardless of Ukraine's displeasure. So would all the former states of the USSR. A bit like Byzantium to the Ottomans in EU4. (see population of 44million vs 145 million). Ukraine is also significantly more free market than Russia; so the same restrictions as the PRC would be unlikely to fall in place.

The Balkans are even a bit easier; there are maps of who owned what in 2000. Then you also create a 'unification' goal to reform Yugoslavia.


Thinking about it; the weirdest situation would be the DPRK and SK; A system would have to exist for armistice agreements.

 

[Sarius1997]

Ehhh. Tibet existed independently for what, 30-40 years? Once could argue the core expired easily after 50 years. (given that the PRC took it back over in 1950.)

I reckon I'm a bit more cutthroat (see: ignorant) about the general politics of small local populations. If its profitable to the cores (or allow Taiwan to essentially be fully integrated, against reality) then its likely worth doing.

The thing is, if you just simply add Taiwan to the PRC in the international version, there will be lots and lots of pissed of reviews. And again, the cores need to be there, not simply because of realism, but because of balance.

As for Russia and its old cores; Crimea would be an old, Russian, core. Regardless of Ukraine's displeasure. So would all the former states of the USSR. A bit like Byzantium to the Ottomans in EU4. (see population of 44million vs 145 million). Ukraine is also significantly more free market than Russia; so the same restrictions as the PRC would be unlikely to fall in place.

The restrictions aren't the problem, pissed off players are.

The Balkans are even a bit easier; there are maps of who owned what in 2000. Then you also create a 'unification' goal to reform Yugoslavia.

Who controls what is never the problem. The cores are.


Thinking about it; the weirdest situation would be the DPRK and SK; A system would have to exist for armistice agreements.

 

[Etrutian]

The thing is, if you just simply add Taiwan to the PRC in the international version, there will be lots and lots of pissed of reviews. And again, the cores need to be there, not simply because of realism, but because of balance.

The restrictions aren't the problem, pissed off players are.

Who controls what is never the problem. The cores are.

I don't know if there would really be a balance issue with the PRC if Taiwan was just an integrated province. It would play out similar to other regional powers in EU and CK; a-symmetrical grand strat. In 2000 we saw Brazil, the US, the EU and China as the big, local, dogs. Brazil had a booming economy with massive natural resource. US and EU were massive trading blocks; the life blood of China/Brazil. China naturally had a massive production surplus that was growing and a potential population problem. While one could argue that Taiwan would pacify the PRC; so could Japan or SK (or the UN system, which condemns and kills trade for those that annex). This list leaves out the other big dog, India. But India was still developing, so it would be a late game powerhouse.

I'm also a bit under the assumption that PDX is a bit resistant to poor, non-game performance reviews. It got a lot of flak for its regional repricing, but I would like to see the metrics on if those reviews actually impacted any new sales. PDX also probably gets constant poor reviews for whatever EU4 decides is a core, or its decisions on faith. I guess I would like to explore whether poor reviews due to non-gameplay issues really impact the sales of a game or not. I have seen reviews harm a game if the developer is acting in bad faith, but not so much thematic gameplay choices by a dev. The only thing I would be worried about is outright bans, which explains my stance on how to treat the PRC.


'What are the % demographics of the audience, and would the splits really effect sales?'

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

Will never happen.

Off top of my head, reasons why:

Tibet
Israel/Palestine
Crimean Peninsula/Donbass/Ukraine/Russia
China Sea
Taiwan


See where I'm going with this?

 

[gja102]

I agree that a present-day setting would be extremely controversial, and also a poor choice for anything resembling a wargame, since soft power and political influence are the main battlegrounds today. I suppose a Twilight Struggle - style game of the modern superpowers expanding their influence and trying to undercut opposing ideologies might work (but even then, the Cold War is a better setting for that).

You could escape the controversies by having a game in a near-future setting, where the slate has essentially been 'wiped' by a previous WW3 and a limited nuclear exchange. The starting setup could even be procedurally generated so that the outcome of the fictional WW3 was different each time. One game, the US and Canada could have merged into a North American superpower. The next game, the US is a fractured mess of squabbling militias. That way, Paradox get to avoid making pronouncements on current geopolitics, aren't constrained by 'unrealistic' mechanics, and massively increase replayability into the bargain.

I think it would be a little more like CK2, but instead of a noble at the head of dynasty, you're an oligarch at the head of an oil company or something. That's be fun - but that's just my slanted world view.

I'd love to see a modern or future CK2 as well. However, as I raised in another thread, I'm not sure how well dynastic gameplay would transplant to a non-feudal setting. Would be awesome if it worked, though.

 

[ponpon8623]

I agree that a present-day setting would be extremely controversial, and also a poor choice for anything resembling a wargame, since soft power and political influence are the main battlegrounds today. I suppose a Twilight Struggle - style game of the modern superpowers expanding their influence and trying to undercut opposing ideologies might work (but even then, the Cold War is a better setting for that).

[/引用]

I think that a detailed internal affairs system that can deal with contemporary issues such as democratization or autocracy is necessary.

 

[Commonblob]

Eversim did it. It's not exactly popular.

What was the game called, please?

 

[aono]

What was the game called, please?

Commander in Chief and it's sequels. Series called "Geopolitical Simulator".

 

[Commonblob]

Thanks

 

[Copper Blood]

There is a game called SuperPower 2 on steam. It's got some decent reviews.

 

[rttl147]

oh boy, now that would be hell of a game.

imagine victoria 2, except it has to include realistic simulation of democratic elections (so already you get something of a game within a game; such a broad subject if it were to be reflected in detail, and it should be given it's of immense importance in a game with a concept like this, would require hundreds of separate mechanics, and don't forget the major nations today have very different way of running their elections and very different political systems even though they share the same ideology, so that would be a doozy), the complex nature of modern macroeconomics (basically providing player with a way to conduct both monetary and fiscal policies; highly developed representation of global market and ways to interact with it, influence it and adopt your economical strategy accordingly to it's current state), trade, and trade would have to be tied to both technology and labor division, and technology on it's own currently would be a subject itself bigger than anything ever reflected in any Paradox game before, then you have military which also has to be conducted with high relevance to technology, and while there are many more aspects of running a nation in modern world, those i have listed so far are all closely intertwined, they impact each other to a huge extent. collective attitude of society would determine the extent of your success and that could also depend on a multitude of things.

imagine the research tree too, given the fact that there is not a single aspect of national progress that is not being impacted in a very major way by scientific progress.

oh, right, and there is also space basically victoria 2 concept + parts of hoi4 concept in much greater detail and complexity + some parts of stellaris concept closely tied to a reliable simulator of internal and global politics. education is already a factor in vic 2 but it would have to also become much more complicated since it's basically directly proportional to the extent of your success in economy, trade, technology and subsequently everything else there is. and we have social issues today which would make social issues of vic2 look like a bit of silly, simple fun.

so basically, love the idea, would definitely buy it and play it, but i pity Paradox if they ever go through with this

 

[Person012345]

But there is a mod in hearts of Iron 4 thats set on modern day, which is called Millenium dawn, I've seen no one complaining about political bias there, neither I did, I just played the mod. what only took me off from that mod is the unbalanced military power for majors, I mean Russian military is way too weak in that mod.

Well, I've not played Russia in the mod so I don't know how well it compares, but to be fair after right wingers destroyed the soviet union and disintegrated the Russian economy, they did have a comparatively weak military that they've only recently been building back up. I also forgot when the mod is set.

 

[GamerGeek]

Well, I've not played Russia in the mod so I don't know how well it compares, but to be fair after right wingers destroyed the soviet union and disintegrated the Russian economy, they did have a comparatively weak military that they've only recently been building back up. I also forgot when the mod is set.

Earliest start is in 2000.