Closed Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83

Thread: Hearts of Iron: Modern Warfare

  1. #61
    Captain
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIISemper Fi
    Victoria II: Heart of Darkness

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt am Main
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by NiCr View Post
    Yeah what I said was tongue in cheek, but to your point. Many games that came out in the C64 apple era, would never sell today. We are starved for bigger and better and it must thrill. Geopolitical "games" would be very limited in appeal IMO.
    Hehe i agree, but I'd still like it
    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
    - Dom Helder Camara

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Slan View Post
    Ever heard of the NATO? Germany is a member, you know. In game terms, the same faction as the USA, which means they can station troops in Germany wherever they want (which is not really the case in reality, but the game is an abstraction).
    I hope I won't be stoned for this, but I would say that Iraq and Afghanistan are currently puppets of the USA in the game's terminology...
    I just picked Germany as an example, change it to Arab Emirates or something there are a lot of US bases to pick from, for now I rest my case.

    I liked the lower part of the reply though...........Nice.

    Regards

    Otto

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaplain View Post
    No, because modern economies cannot sustain the stress of large-scale warfare. We'll never see WW3 - it's too expensive.
    I remember reading similar things being said after WW1. When it comes to war States find the money.

    Mine is a yes. Possibly a hypothetical period from present to near future may be more fun than Cold War. I think that with the new generation of wrgamers coming through there's more profit in modern strategy these days. When Combat Mission Shock Force was announced so many fans slatedthe decision to try a modern era. From what has been psted it's been very successful.

  4. #64
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Supreme Ruler 2020 supposed to be something along these lines...sure it is post-modern and may not contain all the features desired (IDK I've never played it.)

    I know the forums for it are dead quiet but, that doesn't necassarily mean much, case in point EU Rome.

    Does SR 2020 lack the economic/geopolitical modeling to fill this niche (with or without modding?)

  5. #65
    Colonel angj57's Avatar
    For The GloryHearts of Iron IIIVictoria: RevolutionsSemper Fi

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    884
    Any modern era grand strategy game would have to have a good model for insurgency warfare-- after all, partisans and revolters are the most annoying part of any strategy game, and that would be the main feature of managing a war situation like that of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. It would also need to have an economic system as complex as the one in Victoria (or more so) and a combat system as complex as the one in HOI (or more so). After all in HoI every country is basically in a state of wartime mobilization, building as many military units as they can, but in the modern world only a very small minority of marginal countries do this-- North Korea, Myanmar, Pre-war Iraq . . . that's about it. Modern alliance systems are also too complex to even think about representing in game. Such a game would be cool but would be nearly impossible to design.
    Personality: Relentless
    Background: Cursed Luck
    Shock -2, Fire -4

  6. #66
    Sergeant Calvert's Avatar
    A Game of DwarvesHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCities in MotionCrusader Kings IIEU3 Complete
    Galactic AssaultHearts of Iron IIIIron CrossLeviathan: WarshipsLost Empire - Immortals
    MagickaMarch of the EaglesEuropa Universalis: RomeSengokuSword of the Stars
    Sword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Pride of Nations500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New Philadelphia, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by GCZ View Post
    Well, maybe, but I still would say no after all. Such expansion would need to have included serious limitation on the use of nuclear and other mass slaughter weapons to make it playable and fun. But considering, that the modern warfare is all about the asymetric wars, you are loosing all the fun in it (I mean it is not challenging at all = not fun). So to make it enjoyable, you would need to make it a simulation of a global war. But if you make it a global war, you also need to include a massive usage of nuclear weapons. And this makes it NOT fun again.

    Can you see that vicious circle in it?
    I was in the US Army during the entirety of the 1980s and we specifically trained to fight the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies in a non-nuclear environment. While the predominance of MAD was the common strategic thought through the 1950s and 1960s, by the 1970s that had changed and many land forces, including the US's, organizationally restructured themselves away from the nuclear battlefield pentomic divisional structure (which turned out to be operationally unwieldy) back to the conventional weapons based triangular structure.

    I believe that the HOI3 engine can be used for a hypothetical NATO-Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union-PRC conflict in the 1970s or 1980s with limited use of nuclear weapons and still function, however I strongly doubt that the diplomacy and production aspects during a conflict would have any significant impact. Instead of producing new units, most manufacturing capacity would be used to generate supplies (and ammunition expenditures in conflicts after WW2 increased exponentially, particularly during the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars and the Gulf War) and to manufacture replacements. It can be done but I think that it could be done better as a tactical game instead of a strategic one.
    Rich Goranson (Magister Stephan Calvert deGrey, OP)
    New Philadelphia, OH, USA (Marche of Alderford, Barony of Brendoken, Midrealm)

    "I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." - King Henry II of England

  7. #67

    Cool

    Supreme Ruler 2020 deals with this, the game is a bit complex for me, makes HOI3 look like its checkers for beginners.

    www.paradoxplaza.com/SupremeRuler2020/

    :P At least thats after trying it out for an hour then deciding its too hard.

    What was cool in SR 2010, itmight be in 2020 was that you could fight civil wars, so I could take on the other Australian Sates and NZ with Victoria.
    2010 was pretty good, don't remember seeing much about nukes though.

    -peace out!

  8. #68
    I still think that such iteration of HoI set in the modern era would be pretty cool. We'd get to play in today's world and do all different sorts of things just like modern shooters really caught on after game developers recycled WW2-era shooters for the 93834948409th time.

  9. #69
    I remember playing a board game years ago (has it been decades?) called Red Storm Rising based on the book of the same name. It fit the bill of being large scale division based combat but the system was obviously overly simplified, at least compared to something like HOI. I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of HOI system applied to that concept and made for the PC. Factions could be NATO and Warsaw Pact, you could either keep a world map or go for a larger scale map of just Europe and the Atlantic. All in all though, I would have to agree with what others have said......I would prefer that HOI (as a WWII game) continue to be upgraded and improved instead of time being devoted to other projects.

  10. #70
    Cold war era was about economic, idealogical and military competition. To prevent the game from becoming a boring global nuclear destruction, I think it is important to set the "conditions of victory" correctly. So that party wins who can inrease his "spehere of influence" more than the other one. So e.g. if the Soviet Union wants to impose communism on some country, he cant first destroy it by nukes because then there is no country left anymore...But basically this would mean that cold war grand strategy game should in many ways be rather different from HOI to model the Cold War era correctly.

    EDIT: Without nukes, does NATO have any chance to stop the Warsaw pact? The Soviet Union was extremely strong what regards to traditional weapons.
    Last edited by tapi2705; 26-03-2011 at 19:04.

  11. #71
    Private
    Achtung PanzerCrusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIISupreme Ruler 2020 Gold
    Europa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by tapi2705 View Post
    Cold war era was about economic, idealogical and military competition. To prevent the game from becoming a boring global nuclear destruction, I think it is important to set the "conditions of victory" correctly. So that party wins who can inrease his "spehere of influence" more than the other one. So e.g. if the Soviet Union wants to impose communism on some country, he cant first destroy it by nukes because then there is no country left anymore...But basically this would mean that cold war grand strategy game should in many ways be rather different from HOI to model the Cold War era correctly.

    EDIT: Without nukes, does NATO have any chance to stop the Warsaw pact? The Soviet Union was extremely strong what regards to traditional weapons.
    Soviet Union had man power and more of everything...NATO relied on tactics and better equipment. Key would be Air Superiority...if NATO could gain that...then the Ground Attack and Attack Helicopters could devastate Soviet Armor and Mechanized Units. I think early on the Soviets would inflict a great deal of damage on forces stationed in Germany though. In reality after both sides had nukes....WW3 would have involved nukes no doubt about it.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by jtoatoktoe View Post
    Soviet Union had man power and more of everything...NATO relied on tactics and better equipment. Key would be Air Superiority...if NATO could gain that...then the Ground Attack and Attack Helicopters could devastate Soviet Armor and Mechanized Units. I think early on the Soviets would inflict a great deal of damage on forces stationed in Germany though. In reality after both sides had nukes....WW3 would have involved nukes no doubt about it.
    If I remeber correctly, the Soviet Union had promised that it wont be the first one to use nukes. NATO countries however never made such promises. This perhaps tells that NATO generals thought that at least tactical nuke strikes would be necessery to stop the attack.

  13. #73
    First Lieutenant De Savage's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIHearts of Iron IIINaval War: Arctic CircleVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    Victoria II: Heart of DarknessEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Vasily View Post
    Yes or no?
    No. HOI's engine does not work well with modern warfare. Instead I would like to see HEARTS OF IRON IV - COLD WAR. Think about it!

    Major wars: Korea and Vietnam, but most wars were fought by special forces or supported by intelligence agencies. if war breaks with USSR and USA that's the end of the game.

    Main focus of the game should be prestige gain from events: developing Hydrogen bomb, Space race, Moon race, atom bomb race, bomber race, etc. Also one major focus is influencing other nations and trying to get them to your sphere of influence.

    So instead of being wargame like HOI, it's more like Victoria or EU and focusing politics, espionage and techs.
    'You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread.' -German General Heinz Guderian

  14. #74
    Hearts of Iron would never work in a Modern Setting. I'm happy for mods to make that but a whole game made like HOI but with modern setting just wouldn't work well. That said I wouldn't mind seeing Paradox developing more Modern Setting games.

  15. #75
    First Lieutenant frissdassuboote's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneRome GoldSemper FiSword of the Stars
    Sword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler 2020 GoldSupreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    Victoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Ravensburg, Germany
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by Deluxion View Post
    Hmm... I would more prefer a game where u could do uprising against the government and create a new country, like in Jugoslavia, that would be AWESOME !
    it would be fun, but it would require a imens amount of work to create all that. but naming your own country would be cool.
    Es gibt keine verzweifelten Lagen, es gibt nur verzweifelte Menschen. (There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.)
    -General Heinz Guderian

  16. #76
    Captain
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest Hour
    MagickaMarch of the EaglesSemper FiVictoria 2Rise of Prussia

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    375
    I'd say go the other way around. Make a middle aged or Roman Empire era game similar to "Great Invasions: The Dark Ages" except make it playable in the Hearts of Iron format.

  17. #77
    Captain Owsik's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron IIISemper Fi

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kielce (Poland)
    Posts
    383
    Modern Warfare without ballistic missile submarines? No this is impossible. The year 1959 is end. Another historical times? Yes. Why? Because HoI3 is only a symbolic game, we have only a counter on the map, not this:

  18. #78
    First Lieutenant Caezaire's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourNaval War: Arctic Circle
    Semper FiVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by jtoatoktoe View Post
    Soviet Union had man power and more of everything...NATO relied on tactics and better equipment. Key would be Air Superiority...if NATO could gain that...then the Ground Attack and Attack Helicopters could devastate Soviet Armor and Mechanized Units. I think early on the Soviets would inflict a great deal of damage on forces stationed in Germany though. In reality after both sides had nukes....WW3 would have involved nukes no doubt about it.
    Here's a little Nato joke
    Two Soviet generals are walking down the Champs-Élysées when one asks
    "Oh by the way, Who won the air war?"

  19. #79
    Captain uberjedi's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCrusader Kings IIFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIISemper Fi
    Supreme Ruler 2020 GoldSupreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by angj57 View Post
    Any modern era grand strategy game would have to have a good model for insurgency warfare-- after all, partisans and revolters are the most annoying part of any strategy game, and that would be the main feature of managing a war situation like that of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. It would also need to have an economic system as complex as the one in Victoria (or more so) and a combat system as complex as the one in HOI (or more so). After all in HoI every country is basically in a state of wartime mobilization, building as many military units as they can, but in the modern world only a very small minority of marginal countries do this-- North Korea, Myanmar, Pre-war Iraq . . . that's about it. Modern alliance systems are also too complex to even think about representing in game. Such a game would be cool but would be nearly impossible to design.
    This.
    And many of todays "wars" are economical, technical and political rather than pure military.
    But I would absolutely love this kind of game.

  20. #80
    Field Marshal No idea's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMarch of the EaglesSemper FiVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere around the Universe...
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratege View Post
    Many games and movies ignore that a WWIII between the great/super powers would be quite short.
    A bit off topic, but, although I think like you, the very same thought the men who went to war in 1914, and they got a big, big and nasty surprise.

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts