Why not? To me it seems like a very boring game to watch the world getting destructed while having no say in it.
- 1
-
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.
I have an idea for mechanic which would both fit the game, make it more interesting and prevent too many instances of draw results of a campaign.
The mechanic is called „ROT.”
The name is derived from Soviet accusations in their propaganda, that the West was rotten (i.e. „rotten West”) and sooner or later would inevitably fall due to its imperfections. Ironically, the opposite happened, because the USSR became so „rotten” as to be beyond all hope of repair or reformation.
So how would this work? In essence, „Rot” measures how much you have compromised your ideals in order to gain the upper hand against your ideological rival. Rot would „fuel” actions which are questionable (e.g. supporting the overthrow of other governments), reprehensible (e.g. suppressing your own citizens) or contrary to what your ideology holds dear (e.g. cheating during elections in democratic countries/allowing for disparities and favouritism in communist countries). In the short term it would grant immediate effects, but in the long run it would endanger your future success by accumulating maluses in all aspects of your country, since its excesses would cause your citizens (and those of foreign ones as well) to lose faith in the ideology that you represent and begin drift towards the opponent’s ideology , who may not be ideal, but at least tries more than you do.
Some of you might say, that it would resemble „Corruption” in EU4 too much to be original, but there is one key difference: one would have to use it win the game, otherwise the “clean” player would lose against the one who was not afraid to get his or her hands dirty. This would require the player to use it and, since here or she would not know the Rot value of his or her opponent, the resulting paranoia (fitting taking into account the subject matter) would force the player to make some hard decisions whether to pursue his or her goals or let it rest for a moment and regain some semblance of ideological purity. It would also fit the game thematically since the real Cold War was fought by using tactics which were not always legal or ethical, but were effective and got the job done and thus would convey the “grey morality” of the era. And last, but not least, it would prevent the campaign ending with a draw too many times, since, sooner or later, one side would go too far one the Rot scale and begin its decline, allowing the other to win without resorting to military action and risking World War III.
Any opinions?
The mechanic is called „ROT.”
The name is derived from Soviet accusations in their propaganda, that the West was rotten (i.e. „rotten West”) and sooner or later would inevitably fall due to its imperfections. Ironically, the opposite happened, because the USSR became so „rotten” as to be beyond all hope of repair or reformation.
So how would this work? In essence, „Rot” measures how much you have compromised your ideals in order to gain the upper hand against your ideological rival. Rot would „fuel” actions which are questionable (e.g. supporting the overthrow of other governments), reprehensible (e.g. suppressing your own citizens) or contrary to what your ideology holds dear (e.g. cheating during elections in democratic countries/allowing for disparities and favouritism in communist countries). In the short term it would grant immediate effects, but in the long run it would endanger your future success by accumulating maluses in all aspects of your country, since its excesses would cause your citizens (and those of foreign ones as well) to lose faith in the ideology that you represent and begin drift towards the opponent’s ideology , who may not be ideal, but at least tries more than you do.
Some of you might say, that it would resemble „Corruption” in EU4 too much to be original, but there is one key difference: one would have to use it win the game, otherwise the “clean” player would lose against the one who was not afraid to get his or her hands dirty. This would require the player to use it and, since here or she would not know the Rot value of his or her opponent, the resulting paranoia (fitting taking into account the subject matter) would force the player to make some hard decisions whether to pursue his or her goals or let it rest for a moment and regain some semblance of ideological purity. It would also fit the game thematically since the real Cold War was fought by using tactics which were not always legal or ethical, but were effective and got the job done and thus would convey the “grey morality” of the era. And last, but not least, it would prevent the campaign ending with a draw too many times, since, sooner or later, one side would go too far one the Rot scale and begin its decline, allowing the other to win without resorting to military action and risking World War III.
Any opinions?
Great idea. I like it. That would also make the peacetime game pretty interesting and lead to more realistic results.
I think there should also be the mechanic to lose "Rot", e.g. due to prestige projects like the space programs. Economy also should be a heavy factor here.
I hope we find a game that adequately models an environmental and pollution dynamic as well. Even if the Soviets and eastern bloc did make it to the year 2000 and not modify their trajectory... the environmental damage they caused would have caused problems (economically, healthcare wise, and approval wise) for them. The same was true in the USA prior to the 1960s.
actually much damage caused by the soviets to their own territory happened well before the collapse of the USSR. the death of the Aral sea was irreversible by 1991. and there's a ton of videos on creepy, abandoned, etc. areas in russia like abandoned bases, regions destroyed by pollution, nuclear waste and the like.
but yeah it would be interesting how environmentalism could impact. pure economic powerhouse vs not leaving useless wastelands. fossil fuels vs more limited renewable power sources.
As far as I can tell, the biggest issue with a lot of Cold War game development is one of scope. There's too much to go through and too many complicated details to portray. If I were head of a development team making a Cold War game, I'd keep the scope very restricted.
For the base game I would only have the USSR and the USA be playable. Other nations have their own special peculiarities, and it would be impossible to model them all right away (and it would lack depth if they tried), so the developers should try and make the most important countries play well first, then add in other nations via DLC (potentially first starting with a Fate of the Empires DLC then going to China, etc). People suggesting that non government entities be payable right away are expecting and asking for the impossible.
I'd also only have one start date. Almost no one plays the other start dates, and modeling them all would be extremely time consuming. I'd start in 1949. Whatever date is picked, the Cold War should be unavoidable. The devs shouldn't waste time trying to make a world that doesn't have the most important conflict in it enjoyable.
Later start dates could be added in via DLC, but earlier start dates (except perhaps 1944, so the exact arrangement of the postwar settlements still need to be determined) should be left to mods. A huge issue with many Paradox games is that they try and represent too much. EUs mechanics don't work well for the Napoleonic Era, and Victoria stops making sense around WW1 (and the less said about early age CK2 the better). So limit the time.
For the base game I would only have the USSR and the USA be playable. Other nations have their own special peculiarities, and it would be impossible to model them all right away (and it would lack depth if they tried), so the developers should try and make the most important countries play well first, then add in other nations via DLC (potentially first starting with a Fate of the Empires DLC then going to China, etc). People suggesting that non government entities be payable right away are expecting and asking for the impossible.
I'd also only have one start date. Almost no one plays the other start dates, and modeling them all would be extremely time consuming. I'd start in 1949. Whatever date is picked, the Cold War should be unavoidable. The devs shouldn't waste time trying to make a world that doesn't have the most important conflict in it enjoyable.
Later start dates could be added in via DLC, but earlier start dates (except perhaps 1944, so the exact arrangement of the postwar settlements still need to be determined) should be left to mods. A huge issue with many Paradox games is that they try and represent too much. EUs mechanics don't work well for the Napoleonic Era, and Victoria stops making sense around WW1 (and the less said about early age CK2 the better). So limit the time.
Last edited:
See I would go the other way around to limit scope...
I would have only one start date of 1950, but have an extensive list researched actors and countries you can choose from. Their economies, Military standing, social status, technological level... everything researched and included to the best of ability. And 1950 lessens the stress of having to program/script out complex dynamics, as most of major actors, dynamics and powers were set in stone at this point.
Other start dates (with the same level of researched actors) would more than merit the cost of a DLC. It would be the first time DLC is actually worth its cost if it is done correctly.
while I agree that a limited scope for initial development and holding off on other things for DLC expansions, I think this thread is vary much about what our dream game for a Paradox developed Cold War-Era Grand Strategy would be; what we'd want to see from the "final" version of the game with all those DLCs would look and play like.
honestly I don't see why it can't just be called corruption, sense it is mostly reffering to government functions.
having several internal mechanics would better represent social issues and unrest resulting from divergent ideals and morals, and so on.
That's way too much to offer. Almost every nation- and, frankly, probably every single one- would be bland to play and not detailed enough to enjoy. After all the DLCs are out then it can include everything, but the initial game should have its scope limited to only an extremely small handful of very important countries (as I said above, I'd strongly support just making two nations playable at first, maybe with a free DLC adding Great Britain later).
Last edited:
How would having ALL major/minor nations fully researched and realistically modeled out for 1 or 2 timeframes be "bland".
To me i dont like the idea currently in play of paying $$$ to be able to accurately play ________ nation. I see it as exploitative.
Finish a game completely then release. Dont punish consumers by forcing them to pay to complete an incomplete playing experience. I'd gladly pay $50 for a finished game, then $20 for the time starting points expansion packs assuming 75% of nations were accurately modeled out.
Because you will never get a Cold War base game where all the nations are realistically modelled. They will have to take shortcuts- major shortcuts- on all the nations (not just minor ones. Even important ones like the Soviet Union and the United States) if they try.
And the game isn't 'incomplete' if you can't play all the nations. Many grand strategy games don't let you play all the nations because some are unbalanced if a human plays them or are simply not fleshed out enough.
Finally, of course in my ideal Cold War game you'd be able to play all the nations. I just don't think it's possible for the base game to do that in a way that's actually fun to play
Last edited:
true, but the base launch game only having the USA and USSR playable would be kind of boring; at least China and the UK should also be playable as well.
I think all other countries could be playable, just in sort of default mode - basically a choice join Side/stay neutral and later revamp major ones with unique mechanics and specific ambitions/ideology.
If the base game mechanics are deep enough, you don't need too much extra fluff events for each country. Difference in how countries play should be based on those countries starting positions, not on arbitrary rules and events. The US shouldn't be a two-party-state because those are the rules, it should be a two-party-state because to win over voters parties need Organization, and the effects of Organization are exponential, making it difficult for third parties to break into American politics, for example. Thus, you should be able to have all the world playable, just some countries are limited in the actions they can take. Namibia isn't going to be playing superpower politics, but they for sure can play with regional politics.
