Sorry if this has been asked, how will a WW3 style situation be handled? I think balance of power did it well, but then again that might be too boring.
-
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.
Jup, jugoslavia break up with very "nice" violence, but look at Czechoslakia - he split up to czech and slovak republick without any violence. It realy depends on ethnic relations inside that state if he will break out in peace or in war (and SU breaked up without much violence).
and have one important question trelating indepence gaining for colonies - how they will be handled ? I mean political (flag) wise - they will change if gained independe under different power than in history ? One african country have ak-47 in thier flag,as thank to soviets for support (and gun which won war for them) - and I think it will be imposible to have this flag if independed under usa side.
What we should have is, even if it is unperfect, a certain theory about why a country can collapse peacefully and another die in great violence. One idea I could have would be that, if a country has something like a very poor approbation rate in the secesionnist States, there is no hope and so it will peacefully collapse. If it have some hope, it should most likely fight back. It depend also certainly of the power of that country and international reaction. The situation in USSR was note like the situation during the decolonisation, althought sometings are similar (lack of faith, for example). Some countries, like Portugal, fought until they were defeated in their own land, some (the British) withdraw without too regret. Perhaps some hope of remaining a big part of the new country policies could make a difference (that is called by some people neo-colonialism). There should be a way to discriminate different people, to give weight to colonial fights.I don't really know, but I would like that if things are historically plausible. I would not like that if, for example, colonial empires remain until 1990.
About the end date, I would say january 1st 2000. It is the end of the century, there is hope, Russia is in deep ... and USA are at their highest stand (or I think).
About the end date, I would say january 1st 2000. It is the end of the century, there is hope, Russia is in deep ... and USA are at their highest stand (or I think).
All of those involved "Proxy Warfare", and it was one of the most important points in the Cold War era. Not easy to represent in a game, though.
By Proxy Warfare I refer to lending support to a nation struggling against another, without declaring war against the attacking nation. This should not be done without consequences though, and espionage should certainly play a role in the ability to conduct these wars. For instance, Soviet Union spies in Afghanistan discovering proof of CIA involvement would raise threat level of the US, making them look worse in the eyes of the world, in the same way declaring a war against a minor would (although with different impacts).
The balance to hit here is that while you may bring nations under your heel, increasing your power, you will push away other nations who might also be valuable additions to your bloc.
Also, don't make it too US vs SOV centered, we've had the rise of China and Japan as powerhouses, along with other emergent countries, with their regional feuds, like India (Pakistan) and Brazil (Argentina).
PS_- Technically, Portugal didn't fight until it was military defeated, only until the Revolution that overthrew Salazar's fascist regime, and proclaimed freedom to the colonies (except Azores and Madeira which are autonomous regions ATM). Still, to be honest, Portugal wasn't going anywhere in Africa, even considering the relatively low support given by the Comintern to the independentist movements in Africa, Portugal was slowly losing the war.
Last edited:
I really hope they deal with the military system in a better manner than SR 2020. I'd like to see them create an actual hierarchy system ala HoI3, and then have the ability to give a command(HQ) a set of objectives and the command will use its forces in a more coordinated manner to accomplish them. Please steer away from the "unit" and move towards a Division/Corps base line unit. What bothered me about SR2020 was the fact it was essentially an RTS combat model, slapped onto a grand strategy game. By late game there were tens of thousands of units floating around which killed game performance and the AI was completely unable to control them in any sort of coordinated manner, it was attack through attrition, usually piece meal.
If Battlegoat addresses the military side of the game, it very likely will become my favorite franchise of all time
If Battlegoat addresses the military side of the game, it very likely will become my favorite franchise of all time
I strongly support this. The Division level would probably be the best for this environment.
Sorry if this has been answered, but will the United Nations and/or the United Nations Security Council be implemented at all?