will there be a political dimension other than alliance membership and relations to the super powers? I.e., can I have a socialist yugo hostile to the USSR, or will yugoslavias political stance not matter in this case?
-
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.
Regional proxy wars were a key aspect of the time frame, and should be the most likely to occur. A WW3 type war was unlikely given the mutually assured destruction. For this game to shine the US and USSR should be all about supporting wars indirectly against the other, while avoiding direct confrontation. Isolating the other diplomatically should work to win the cold war without a NATO Vs Warsaw Pact war. Essentially a cultural or diplomatic victory should be more achievable than a direct military defeat, as the cold war eventually ended with.
If historical conflicts like Korea and Vietnam are not hard coded events, why would the Iranian revolution be included?
If historical conflicts like Korea and Vietnam are not hard coded events, why would the Iranian revolution be included?
Last edited:
Ok, I spent some time looking at Supreme Ruler 2020 the previous title and here are some of my suggestions:
1. Drop the Real-time strategy approach with the map. Go grand strategy instead and use a map divided into provinces. The map in Hearts of Iron 3 is really good with some 15000 provinces. Having the map divided into really small provinces gives you the ability to move around with your units and do those strategic movements you want.
Also having provinces makes the game more in line with what we have had from Paradox usually. Paradox games all use provinces and are very successful.
2. Make the game compatible with the rest of Paradox titles. I would like to continue my Hearts of Iron 3 game from 1948 all throughout Cold War and modern times to the future, make that possible. Make it possible to import a HoI3 save game and use that as a basis for a scenario.
Also having that possibility would make for some very interesting games, for example, what if Nazi Germany won the war in a game of HoI3 and you use that as a basis? You would have Germany and the US facing off as superpowers or maybe 3 or 4 superpowers (US, Germany, Russia since it can´t really be crushed and will always remain a strong factor and China).
3. Have the game continue far into the future, 2100 would be nice, although it can be hard to speculate what sort of technology there would be in those times. At least 2050 would be nice.
4. The game needs to have a good combat system and a good system for controlling and managing population, production and other civilian aspects. Hearts of Iron 3 has a good military system with good chain of command between units etc. and Victoria 2 has a good population management system. Look to those for ideas. Combine a good military system with a good civilian system and there you have it.
5. Use brigade sized units, thats the basic building block of modern armies, a battalion is too small to make a strategic difference. You can then combine brigades into divisions and divisions into corps and so forth as in HoI3. In HoI3 the basic army unit is the division made up of brigades (the player can design a division made up of brigades of his/her choice). Towards the modern era however the armies began to use the brigade instead of the division as the basic unit. A brigade is more mobile than a division but is still strong enough to be an independent force. So basically you can have armies on the map made up of just single brigades (a single brigade division).
6. Consider having unit attachments for brigades or divisions. In HoI3 there are no unit attachments but you can put any type of a brigade into your division in the division designer (a good tool). It´s just that an artillery brigade (a whole brigade made up of just arty) is a massive boost to firepower, maybe sometimes you just want to give an infantry brigade some more firepower by attaching an arty battalion to it or an anti-tank battalion. (unit attachments can be battalion sized since they are not independent units on map)
7. Technology can be used to design new weapons and new vehicles for the military. It would be good if there were some kind of a design element to military units. Or simply the military units would be upgraded to using the newest and best technology available. (like in HoI3) For example, tanks can be upgraded with new guns, new fire-control systems and new armor when those become available.
Some elements can be designable, for example you could decide that you want your destroyer or cruiser to be focused into the anti-air or anti-submarine role and you could decide which weapons and upgrades it carries from a list of available techs. You could later possibly change these configurations, at a cost of course (upgrade cost). Similarly you could decide what weapons your infantry brigade will carry, will it be a heavily armed special forces brigade with the latest tech or a reserve brigade with older and cheaper equipment?
In air units it would be important to be able to choose what weapons the planes carry, because you can do different missions with different weapons. For example, a fighter-bomber can go tank hunting with anti-tank missiles or go bombing infantry with napalm or strike radar installations with radar-seeking missiles, there are weapons for every mission type. It would be good if this was modelled into the game, air units could do different things with different weapons.
8. Combat system has to take into account different things. First there is just physics, will a bullet or a grenade penetrate the steel plate of a tank? That´s just one thing that has to be realistically modelled. Better training will make soldiers harder to hit and will make them more lethal to the enemy. Improved tactics and doctrines also make the infantry more lethal. How an infantry team or squad operates is a matter of tactics for example. You can research better tactics etc. from technology, but in the combat system they have to be realistically modelled, so their effects come into play.
I would suggest following combat values for ground units:
Soft Attack: against infantry, trucks and unarmored vehicles.
Hard Attack: against tanks and armored vehicles.
Close Air Attack (this is from SR2020): this is mainly against helicopters against which you can defend with machine guns and shoulder launched missiles.
Air Attack: This is against air units that fly higher, mostly attacked with missiles. There is no need for having three air attack values (close, mid and high) as in SP2020 Helicopters and ground attack aircraft fly low and can be attacked with guns and missiles and the rest fly higher requiring missiles to attack them. All this can be done with just one air attack value, just make all the strategic bombers etc. have a high defence value due to the altitude they fly in, so no air defence unit can touch them.
Note: I would put helicopters as a ground brigade that supports ground units directly on the battlefield, while air units fly missions like in HoI3. Having an attack helicopter brigade in your division can give you a big boost to your anti-tank defences and having a transport helicopter brigade would give you a limited range paradrop capability, you could leapfrog on the battlefield doing strategic manouevers with paradrop capability.
Then come the defence values.
For ground units I would suggest following.
Defensiveness: This value would be the tactical skill of the unit, that is how good the unit is at NOT getting hit, that is avoiding damage. A soldiers training is probably the best thing that keeps him alive, this value would reflect that, skill in taking cover and avoiding bullets.
Armor: When tactics fail to prevent damage and a hit occurs, this value comes into play. Armor is the second line of defence. Vehicles can have steel plate or other armor, but infantrymen have none, at least not until bulletproof vests are developed, then even infantry can start to have armor.
So, every attack must pass through TWO checks, first against defensiveness to see if the target can evade and then it must pass through the armor of the target.
The same values can be used for air and sea units with some modifications.
There are many things I could suggest, but the foremost in my mind at the moment is that the game should be compatible with the rest of Paradox titles and PLEASE don´t use the awful hex based map again, use a map with provinces, like in other Paradox titles.
All I can say is, learn from the success of Hearts of Iron 3 and Victoria 2 and combine the good parts from those two games and you´ll have a classic in your hands.
Also, please make good music for the game, the music in SR2020 is not very inspiring, it only serves to bore the player to death.
Don´t forget art, good art with paintings and photographs can make a great game visually. Events should have pictures in them and so forth.
Also, the Space Race and the race to the Moon should be modelled into the game. The space race brought about many new technologies but at a great cost, the investments to research and production were huge.
So, my vision is a province based map with huge amounts of provinces. A good combat system, aswell as good tech, population management, trade, diplomacy and other systems. The game should cover the cold war period and go on into the future. The game should be compatible with the rest of Paradox titles, so you can continue from HoI3 and go on.
There are my suggestions for now. Cheers!
1. Drop the Real-time strategy approach with the map. Go grand strategy instead and use a map divided into provinces. The map in Hearts of Iron 3 is really good with some 15000 provinces. Having the map divided into really small provinces gives you the ability to move around with your units and do those strategic movements you want.
Also having provinces makes the game more in line with what we have had from Paradox usually. Paradox games all use provinces and are very successful.
2. Make the game compatible with the rest of Paradox titles. I would like to continue my Hearts of Iron 3 game from 1948 all throughout Cold War and modern times to the future, make that possible. Make it possible to import a HoI3 save game and use that as a basis for a scenario.
Also having that possibility would make for some very interesting games, for example, what if Nazi Germany won the war in a game of HoI3 and you use that as a basis? You would have Germany and the US facing off as superpowers or maybe 3 or 4 superpowers (US, Germany, Russia since it can´t really be crushed and will always remain a strong factor and China).
3. Have the game continue far into the future, 2100 would be nice, although it can be hard to speculate what sort of technology there would be in those times. At least 2050 would be nice.
4. The game needs to have a good combat system and a good system for controlling and managing population, production and other civilian aspects. Hearts of Iron 3 has a good military system with good chain of command between units etc. and Victoria 2 has a good population management system. Look to those for ideas. Combine a good military system with a good civilian system and there you have it.
5. Use brigade sized units, thats the basic building block of modern armies, a battalion is too small to make a strategic difference. You can then combine brigades into divisions and divisions into corps and so forth as in HoI3. In HoI3 the basic army unit is the division made up of brigades (the player can design a division made up of brigades of his/her choice). Towards the modern era however the armies began to use the brigade instead of the division as the basic unit. A brigade is more mobile than a division but is still strong enough to be an independent force. So basically you can have armies on the map made up of just single brigades (a single brigade division).
6. Consider having unit attachments for brigades or divisions. In HoI3 there are no unit attachments but you can put any type of a brigade into your division in the division designer (a good tool). It´s just that an artillery brigade (a whole brigade made up of just arty) is a massive boost to firepower, maybe sometimes you just want to give an infantry brigade some more firepower by attaching an arty battalion to it or an anti-tank battalion. (unit attachments can be battalion sized since they are not independent units on map)
7. Technology can be used to design new weapons and new vehicles for the military. It would be good if there were some kind of a design element to military units. Or simply the military units would be upgraded to using the newest and best technology available. (like in HoI3) For example, tanks can be upgraded with new guns, new fire-control systems and new armor when those become available.
Some elements can be designable, for example you could decide that you want your destroyer or cruiser to be focused into the anti-air or anti-submarine role and you could decide which weapons and upgrades it carries from a list of available techs. You could later possibly change these configurations, at a cost of course (upgrade cost). Similarly you could decide what weapons your infantry brigade will carry, will it be a heavily armed special forces brigade with the latest tech or a reserve brigade with older and cheaper equipment?
In air units it would be important to be able to choose what weapons the planes carry, because you can do different missions with different weapons. For example, a fighter-bomber can go tank hunting with anti-tank missiles or go bombing infantry with napalm or strike radar installations with radar-seeking missiles, there are weapons for every mission type. It would be good if this was modelled into the game, air units could do different things with different weapons.
8. Combat system has to take into account different things. First there is just physics, will a bullet or a grenade penetrate the steel plate of a tank? That´s just one thing that has to be realistically modelled. Better training will make soldiers harder to hit and will make them more lethal to the enemy. Improved tactics and doctrines also make the infantry more lethal. How an infantry team or squad operates is a matter of tactics for example. You can research better tactics etc. from technology, but in the combat system they have to be realistically modelled, so their effects come into play.
I would suggest following combat values for ground units:
Soft Attack: against infantry, trucks and unarmored vehicles.
Hard Attack: against tanks and armored vehicles.
Close Air Attack (this is from SR2020): this is mainly against helicopters against which you can defend with machine guns and shoulder launched missiles.
Air Attack: This is against air units that fly higher, mostly attacked with missiles. There is no need for having three air attack values (close, mid and high) as in SP2020 Helicopters and ground attack aircraft fly low and can be attacked with guns and missiles and the rest fly higher requiring missiles to attack them. All this can be done with just one air attack value, just make all the strategic bombers etc. have a high defence value due to the altitude they fly in, so no air defence unit can touch them.
Note: I would put helicopters as a ground brigade that supports ground units directly on the battlefield, while air units fly missions like in HoI3. Having an attack helicopter brigade in your division can give you a big boost to your anti-tank defences and having a transport helicopter brigade would give you a limited range paradrop capability, you could leapfrog on the battlefield doing strategic manouevers with paradrop capability.
Then come the defence values.
For ground units I would suggest following.
Defensiveness: This value would be the tactical skill of the unit, that is how good the unit is at NOT getting hit, that is avoiding damage. A soldiers training is probably the best thing that keeps him alive, this value would reflect that, skill in taking cover and avoiding bullets.
Armor: When tactics fail to prevent damage and a hit occurs, this value comes into play. Armor is the second line of defence. Vehicles can have steel plate or other armor, but infantrymen have none, at least not until bulletproof vests are developed, then even infantry can start to have armor.
So, every attack must pass through TWO checks, first against defensiveness to see if the target can evade and then it must pass through the armor of the target.
The same values can be used for air and sea units with some modifications.
There are many things I could suggest, but the foremost in my mind at the moment is that the game should be compatible with the rest of Paradox titles and PLEASE don´t use the awful hex based map again, use a map with provinces, like in other Paradox titles.
All I can say is, learn from the success of Hearts of Iron 3 and Victoria 2 and combine the good parts from those two games and you´ll have a classic in your hands.
Also, please make good music for the game, the music in SR2020 is not very inspiring, it only serves to bore the player to death.
Don´t forget art, good art with paintings and photographs can make a great game visually. Events should have pictures in them and so forth.
Also, the Space Race and the race to the Moon should be modelled into the game. The space race brought about many new technologies but at a great cost, the investments to research and production were huge.
So, my vision is a province based map with huge amounts of provinces. A good combat system, aswell as good tech, population management, trade, diplomacy and other systems. The game should cover the cold war period and go on into the future. The game should be compatible with the rest of Paradox titles, so you can continue from HoI3 and go on.
There are my suggestions for now. Cheers!
What you've described sounds very good, but I think it is necessary to point out that Battlegoat, who are developing this game, are a completely different studio from Paradox. What you describe is a potential setup for a Paradox Cold War game, but what will actually be coming is a Battlegoat Cold War game. There are major differences in the design philosophy and background, and these won't be overcome. Which is not to say that one would be better than the other, just (very) different.
I think we can expect incremental improvements over SR2020, and perhaps some enhancement of politics and alliances, but not much more.
Indeed, Porcupine is correct...
@Jopo-80 - while we appreciate the suggestions and feedback, this is not another in the Paradox series of titles based on the same mechanic. They make very nice games, but this is our engine, our design and we quite like it. The game will remain real time with hexes, not provinces, and since we don't have Paradox's code and they don't have our code it would be impossible to make the two systems cross compatible for files.
@Jopo-80 - while we appreciate the suggestions and feedback, this is not another in the Paradox series of titles based on the same mechanic. They make very nice games, but this is our engine, our design and we quite like it. The game will remain real time with hexes, not provinces, and since we don't have Paradox's code and they don't have our code it would be impossible to make the two systems cross compatible for files.
Chris, I'm going to point out the elephant in the room: how are nuclear weapons handled?
k, I won't just leave it at that 
Nuclear missiles/bombs will still be in the game. For the more strategic aspect we're still discussing the design. Really, once the nukes are flying you have sort of lost the game. The purpose of the game is to avoid WWIII while disrupting the opposing sphere. We do however recognize some players may want to beyond the point of Armageddon so we're still exploring options.
Nuclear missiles/bombs will still be in the game. For the more strategic aspect we're still discussing the design. Really, once the nukes are flying you have sort of lost the game. The purpose of the game is to avoid WWIII while disrupting the opposing sphere. We do however recognize some players may want to beyond the point of Armageddon so we're still exploring options.
k, I won't just leave it at that
Nuclear missiles/bombs will still be in the game. For the more strategic aspect we're still discussing the design. Really, once the nukes are flying you have sort of lost the game. The purpose of the game is to avoid WWIII while disrupting the opposing sphere. We do however recognize some players may want to beyond the point of Armageddon so we're still exploring options.
Cool. I agree that if a full exchange happens, both sides should lose, but I think there should be some chance of a tactical exchange that stays tactical, however small. It'd be cool if they could be used without being used too, if you take my meaning. Great for intimidation and deterrence.
Sounds like , "The only way to win is not to play".
I agree with Red. IMO the ability for the Cold War to turn hot is has to be there, The U.S. and Soviets should have to be able to fight a war that may have the use of tactical nukes. Using those may trigger Armageddon with both sides losing but even if both sides used a few nukes that shouldnt end your game.
US, USSR should also be able to fight a limited conventional war, though there should be a risk of escalation if the fighting goes on too long.
I think, when keeping the major technological progress that was possible in this time, we should not have scripted event. Also, sorry to Jopo, but I had understanded that this game won't be like the sequel of HoI. In fact, I kind of dislike the three side war of HoI3 in its concept, because that left nothing to smallest wars. This is a different engine, and I think this engine could work. I just don't want another Superpower or Mission President (but I have to confess that I never played to the second game I talk about and I just didn't because the critics were so awful). I have to feel like I'm in a plausible wolrd, and this is difficult to do. Maybe some improved could be make on military, but I stay on my position: More diplomacy, more internal policy. I want to live the intern constestation, scandals, system crisis, Coup, I want also to be stopped by my population if I'm a warmonger and left it in needs.
What would be incredible would be to properly simulate the big fact of the period, by the simple mechanic of the game. Some example : Schism between Yugoslavia and USSR, Prague Spring, Cuban revolution and Missiles Crisis, decolonisation, democratisation, Blue Helmets, secesionnist movements (and their possible victory), Third World, and if I have to stop, I have to say that I want Germany reunification (or Corea, in a different world) and final collapsing of USSR without a single fireshot related to that in all Russia. Trust into politic system have to be here.
What would be incredible would be to properly simulate the big fact of the period, by the simple mechanic of the game. Some example : Schism between Yugoslavia and USSR, Prague Spring, Cuban revolution and Missiles Crisis, decolonisation, democratisation, Blue Helmets, secesionnist movements (and their possible victory), Third World, and if I have to stop, I have to say that I want Germany reunification (or Corea, in a different world) and final collapsing of USSR without a single fireshot related to that in all Russia. Trust into politic system have to be here.
I would say a diplomatic option to get what you want by threatening others (not just with nukes) or demonstrating your power is something that has to be there in such a timeframe.
The ability rename countries. One of the things that turned me off with SR2020 was North Korea. It's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Not North Korea. Similar for Taiwan, they should be the Republic of China. It's silly to reconquer mainland China and still be called "Taiwan." Super Power 2 had that same problem though.
The ability to liberate conquered nations would be nice. Obviously they'd wind up closely aligned with you as you've installed a government similar to your ideology, or if you wanted to built international good will you could allow free elections etc.
With regards to war, having a "status quo" peace would be nice. That was kind of irritating in SR2020, peace could be declared while they've occupied parts of your land and you've occupied parts of theres when perhaps all you wanted was just peace. Since there's no outline of their original borders pre-invasion, it can be hard obviously to know what was yours and what was theirs.
I agree though about revamping the military model. I loved the details involved don't get me wrong, but it was simply overwhelming having as Russia for instance over 3,000 units. It's just to many!
The ability to liberate conquered nations would be nice. Obviously they'd wind up closely aligned with you as you've installed a government similar to your ideology, or if you wanted to built international good will you could allow free elections etc.
With regards to war, having a "status quo" peace would be nice. That was kind of irritating in SR2020, peace could be declared while they've occupied parts of your land and you've occupied parts of theres when perhaps all you wanted was just peace. Since there's no outline of their original borders pre-invasion, it can be hard obviously to know what was yours and what was theirs.
I agree though about revamping the military model. I loved the details involved don't get me wrong, but it was simply overwhelming having as Russia for instance over 3,000 units. It's just to many!
I agree, going from 540 man battalions to 3000 man brigades would make Managing SR militaries so much easier, Liberation would be nice so If you were India for example and you invade pakistan and conquer it you wouldn't have to keep troops everywhere to occupy the place and a "Status-Quo Peace" diplomatic option would be wonderful.
The "Status-Quo Liberation Brigade Resolution" has now been seconded by the Representative from the Confederate States of America, Thirds?
Possibility to decrease/destroy nuclear capability of one country, using one of the following:
Espionage (sabotage)
Aistrikes (shouldn't be too effective at it, since the missile silos were built to resist such attacks)
Ground attacks
And last, but not the least, Missile Defence systems.
This would make it possible to acquire a Diplomatic advantage in a conflict, by having more nuclear firepower than the enemy, the obvious military advantage of minimizing Tactical Nuke usage against large concentrations of troops, plus being possile to wage a conventional total war, or even to use nuclear power without fear of retaliation.
Of course, by official numbers (which probably are way lower than reality), you would have to disable thousands of warheads to attack a Superpower without fear of nuclear annihilation.
Espionage (sabotage)
Aistrikes (shouldn't be too effective at it, since the missile silos were built to resist such attacks)
Ground attacks
And last, but not the least, Missile Defence systems.
This would make it possible to acquire a Diplomatic advantage in a conflict, by having more nuclear firepower than the enemy, the obvious military advantage of minimizing Tactical Nuke usage against large concentrations of troops, plus being possile to wage a conventional total war, or even to use nuclear power without fear of retaliation.
Of course, by official numbers (which probably are way lower than reality), you would have to disable thousands of warheads to attack a Superpower without fear of nuclear annihilation.
In radiation-safe suits?
I don't suppose we could expand on that and this time have NBC actually be used on the battlefield? I remember in SR2020 alot of vehicles had NBC protection, but from what I think I read, it was never implemented, Nuclear, Bio and Chemical effects that is. Since nuclear weapons are generally easy to spot in terms of development by espionage, certain countries may want to embark on a bio/chemical route to safeguard themselves. Will that be possible?
I hope this isn't handled poorly. If I loose in case the Cold War goes hot I want to loose because my ability to wage war has been destroyed, and not because I suddenly get some giant message on my screen that says "Game Over, the cold war went hot!"
I also think the risk of total devastation should decrease as you grow more powerful. For example, if the rest of Europe (that is, the Western pro-capitalist nations such as the UK, France and West Germany) become victims of communist revolts/go Communist and then join the rest of the Communist block then the Soviet Union should have far greater resources at its disposal since it would no longer have to deal with any nuclear threats in Europe and could instead use his new European allies against the USA instead thus increasing the chance that he could at the very least survive a nuclear confrontation while the US could not.
I also think it should be possible to research or come up with some kind of a defense against nuclear strikes, something that doesn't make the player immune to nuclear attacks even by a long shot but still something that prevents the whole game from being over 2 min after the war goes hot.
I think the best way to allow the player to both survive a nuclear strike and continue his war afterward would be with a combination of all game mechanics. He would need really advanced techs, his sphere of influence has to cover most of the nuclear armed countries, he has to have all sorts of anti-nuclear defenses ready etc.
I also think nations loyal to one sphere should at least consider joining the other in case things start to look grim for it. If All of Europe besides the UK decides to go Communist for example, then the UK would be under much more pressure to join the Communist block as well to avoid total defeat in case the war goes hot.
Also, what if a proxy war starts somewhere that isn't a 3rd world country? What if for example, France gets thrown into a civil war where Communist rebels try to overthrow the capitalist government? How would the superpowers deal with such an event assuming that such a thing can happen in the game?
Last edited: