Which era would make a better game?

[captainroot]

I hardly think the map painter crowd would be happy with it. Just see the first threads: Stupid game, I can't do WC.

These threads would be made by people not aware of the fact, that in a Cold War game one paints the map with one's "ideology" rather than by establishing "direct control."

I sincerely would expect Victoria players to not make these threads at all: they are already familiar with the concept of "sphere of influence."

 

[klopkr]

EvW campaign would have lasted from 1946 to 1991. 1991 was exactly 30 years ago, so it is already hard to consider it "very recent history" and it gets harder to do so with each passing year.

Although true the history of that time touches directly on multiple issues literally going on today.

1. How do you represent Isreal-Palestine?
2. How do you represent Tibet? The great leap forward? Tiananmen square?
3. So many genocides. How do you give rawanada justice? The khmer? are latin american death squads gonna be a mechanic? This stuff is literally the basis for so much political history of this era and the 'crisises' that drove them.
4. How do you represent modern border conflicts? China, pakistan, india, etc.

It's not that I think the timeframe isn't interesting. It's just that it's significantly more of a minefield than most other settings. HoI4 already skirts the hell out of this stuff. How does a company represent the last few years tastefully and without controversy? I don't know the answer to that.

 

[zorkman]

I remember my father telling us as kids, that history can only really start getting told when everyone involved is dead.

 

[captainroot]

Although true the history of that time touches directly on multiple issues literally going on today.

1. How do you represent Isreal-Palestine?

First of all, I am NOT a game developer, so please don't expect me to present a fully developed game (along with accompanying Developer Diaries for perusal) as an answer to your questions.

With that out of the way, I think there are some ways to present Palestine: it can be either a rebellious province(s) of Isreal (including the Gaza strip), a new category of polital entity in PDX games (something along the lines of puppet of HoI4 which is extremely limited in its actions BUT still allows for the outside world to interact with it) or an occupied terriotry akin to the ones depicted in HoI4 (complete with resistance and garrison mechanics). All of this, of course, under the condition that Israel occupies Palestine and/or doesn't get annihilated by the neighbouring countires early in the campaign.

2. How do you represent Tibet? The great leap forward? Tiananmen square?

Tibet: as an independent existing country at the start of the campaign, which can be annexed by China. Judging by HoI4 there is no problem.

The Great Leap: Forward: a string of RNG events activated upon undertaking the decision to initate it. It would require making hard choices, some of which would be mutually exclusive, and balancing factions. If a player succeeds, the PRC goes through it with flying colours. If the player makes some blunders along the way, we get the historical result. If the player fails, the PRC becomes perilously close to fracturing or severly weakened in the long run.

Tiananmen square: the same mechanic for protests/political opposition as for every other country (inclduing the USA) with a number of options for dealing with the protesters, each one having long-lasting consequences.

Please do remember, that you are making an assumption here, that the communists will win the Chinese Civil War early in the campaign each and every time. What if the opposite happens and Chiang Kai-shek forces Mao Zedong and his followers to flee?

3. So many genocides. How do you give rawanada justice? The khmer? are latin american death squads gonna be a mechanic? This stuff is literally the basis for so much political history of this era and the 'crisises' that drove them.

HoI4 got away without depicting the you-know-what-we-cannot-discuss-here while being one of the most popular of PDX games that I really fail to see the problem here (don't believe me? Check Occupation laws and pay close attention to "Brutal oppression" next time you play HoI4).

4. How do you represent modern border conflicts? China, pakistan, india, etc.

The simplest of the bunch: significant "border friction" malus to mutual relations, attrition mechanics applicable to garrisons and, depending on the size of the countries, their respective military and whether they have access to atomic weapons, a source of concern (and opportunity) for the international community allowing for special dimplomatic actions and an in-game Doomsday Clock modifier.

It's not that I think the timeframe isn't interesting. It's just that it's significantly more of a minefield than most other settings. HoI4 already skirts the hell out of this stuff.

As I've already mentioned when referring to HoI4 Occupation laws, it isn't impossible, it just requires finesse.

How does a company represent the last few years tastefully and without controversy? I don't know the answer to that.

Perhaps by not representing the last few years just yet and doing a game about the Cold War? Plus, these guys weren't afraid do make a DLC about Donald Trump so the sky is the limit.

I remember my father telling us as kids, that history can only really start getting told when everyone involved is dead.

The danger here is that the narrative can get taken over by opportunists, who will not wait for those deaths.

 

[klopkr]

Idk my dude. I think you vastly underestimate the controversy you're treading on here by just boldosing over all these issues with abstracted game mechanics. Honestly some of your suggestions sound yikes to me.

Maybe i'm too sensitive to it but either way business is avoidant of political controversy.

 

[Ezumiyr]

It seems pretty evident to me that a game set in the contemporary era would have to be fantasy. Maybe something about alien infiltrators in a near future, or better, the colonization of Mars/the Moon... or even a game where we play as big corporations instead of countries (with the end game being a cyberpunk dystopia with megacorporations fighting each-other).
A game where we could play as real countries would obviously be too controversial, or worse: utterly biased. It's crazy that some people don't seem to understand that. What kind of social bubble do you live in?

 

[TheCheeseMaster]

IR to CK proposals have always felt to me like something proposed solely to fill in the timeline rather than because it has unique mechanics or an interesting setting. Also, if IR showed that Rome isn't enough of a pull to make a grand strategy game successful, there's no way in hell the comparative minor historical footnotes such as Huns, Soissons, Visigoths, or Vadals would. I remember starting a game in the CK2 WTWSMS mod and just thinking there's basically no one on the map I really care about besides Rome, and how many times would I want to play as Rome in a bookmark about their downfall?

Instead I'd really love to see either another crack at a Cold War game. East vs West had some really interesting nuggets of ideas that have the potential to be fleshed out and explored in their own games. The Cold War is a period where technology went crazy, there were plenty of wars, but symetric and asymetric, the United Nations was integral to diploamcy, the economy dictated foreign policy, and idealogies crumbled old empires. As a cross between HOI and Vic (but leaning more Vic imo), a Cold War gsg would be epic.

Or, and this is a wildcard answer, I'd love to see Paradox make a game set in prehistory with a Civilisation style start where you create your own nation from scratch. A kinda 4x but from a more zoomed out perspective.

 

[Kovax]

Or, and this is a wildcard answer, I'd love to see Paradox make a game set in prehistory with a Civilisation style start where you create your own nation from scratch. A kinda 4x but from a more zoomed out perspective.

The thing I disliked about Civ's approach to prehistory was that it lasted for just so long and then jumped suddenly into the next era, rather than building up gradually. By the time you got a chance to really take an interest in it, it was over and on to the next set of techs and units. I'd like to see a game that focuses on that period, rather than just using it as an intro phase.

 

[zorkman]

The thing I disliked about Civ's approach to prehistory was that it lasted for just so long and then jumped suddenly into the next era, rather than building up gradually. By the time you got a chance to really take an interest in it, it was over and on to the next set of techs and units. I'd like to see a game that focuses on that period, rather than just using it as an intro phase.

Play on Marathan & time crawls by, meaning you get to see the various techs & units longer before moving on.