Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

A modern Hearts of Iron.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 45524 Bug Reports 15220 After Action Reports (AAR)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mabzie555

Mabzie555

Second Lieutenant
12 Badges
May 2, 2014
135
8
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
You know what would be great, a Hearts of Iron game set in 2014 or so.

Although nukes might ruin it, unless there's some sort of heavy restrictions on when they can be used.

Discuss.
 
There was East vs West, but was cancelled. I wouldn't hope for modern day grand strategy game, not until after Hoi4 is done with dozen of expansions released, at very earliest.
 
Mabzie555 said:
You know what would be great, a Hearts of Iron game set in 2014 or so.

Although nukes might ruin it, unless there's some sort of heavy restrictions on when they can be used.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Search up "MDS2 for Darkest Hour". Although the newer version has been screwed up bad it's pretty much the game you're looking for. It starts in 2003.
 
I feel the 21st century is so different from the WWII era that HOI wouldn't do it justice. How would you simulate terrorist attacks and counter-terrorism? Assymetrical warfare against insurgences and revolutionaries (simply making them rebels or very weak ordinary divisions would be way too simple, in my opinion)? The issues related to global warming? The Arab-Israeli conflict? Not to mention that ours is a very peaceful period, and so without a proper economic system, most of the countries would sit around twiddling thumbs, unless you want to start some very ahistorical wars.

That Game We Don't Talk About would come closer as it has more things to do during peace-time, but even then I'd be sceptical.

Wouldn't really mind seeing this, but I'd prefer Paradox stuck to making historical games.
 
A modern GSG would have to be a new franchise IMO. Except for the Gulf War, opening of the Iraq War, and a few other examples, unconventional warfare has been the norm since Vietnam; other examples like Ukraine and Georgia are conventional, but extremely small scale (relatively speaking) in terms of the area being fought over. So the whole system of big armies occupying sectors pushing against an enemy front line would have to be replaced by something a bit more organic. The last time something like that was possible on a HoI scale was the 80s.

I do love the idea though. You could do so many interesting things. The UN would be like the new papacy, except with even less power :p

The US would be like the UK in Victoria 2 except even more OP, but you could balance it by having extremely low tolerances for war exhaustion (3,000 deaths in Iraq was enough to turn the public against it, compare that to 50,000 in Vietnam). The US would be unstoppable in very short conventional wars, but prolonged unconventional wars would carry massive costs for the party in power.

There would be the other bonus for the US that defense spending is considered near sacred. Western European countries could have involuntary (to the player) cuts to the military if there's an economic downturn.

There's so much you can do. Though I must say, the version of this game I have in my head is more akin to a 2000's Victoria than a 2000's Hearts of Iron.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
safe-keeper said:
Wouldn't really mind seeing this, but I'd prefer Paradox stuck to making historical games.
Click to expand...

Well, the Cold War defined as 1946-1991 period is definitely history now, so there's no reason Paradox can't try and make a Cold War era (+modern era DLCs) game once they have some time following the release of HoI IV and its major DLCs. Besides, launching a new franchise to increase the variety of their products would be good for business. Otherwise, Paradox will eventually contract the "Sequel Syndrome" plaguing some of the major video game companies. I wouldn't want to start looking at EU, Victoria, Crusader Kings and Hearts of Iron the same way I look at FIFA, Battlefield, Call of Duty, etc.
 
Last edited:
Well, WW2 was mostly small scale squad tactics, yet we have Hearts of Iron. Medieval battles were mostly army vs army, yet we have Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis. Sure modern era could be done! Terrorism etc is no different in game terms than espionage really, and Afghanistan war - we have attrition. Allow partisans to be in same province as the enemy, and they would increase attrition losses, and higher suppression unit has, less likely partisans are to inflict attrition damage.
Just an example what i wrote without too much thinking. Some experienced game developer who knows about modern wars (Finnish game developers? We have mandatory conscription, many choose armed service so many would know something about it. I don`t know, i just said it) could do it.
 
I'd love a Paradox Cold War and Modern game whether they were HoI or Victoria based.

I could see a Cold War expansion for HoI 4, but reckon a modern would be more a new base game.


But damn, I wish they'd have made that which cannot be mentioned.
 
As far as I can tell, any game of the post-WWII era would be best served by completely new mechanics. The Cold War isn't just nukes and space programs on top of tanks and Communism.

That being said, most folks tend to forget that each of Paradox's major franchises are different kinds of games. Ignoring their historical periods, they have radically different focuses. CK2 is all about dynastic politics and religion and individual characters. You can have a perfectly fun game being a power behind the throne in a huge empire without stepping up and taking it yourself. Sometimes more fun, depending on the empire. Hell, CK2 can be the Paradox game that is most fun to lose.

EU4 is about painting the map and trade. It's got all kinds of nuances, but at the end of the day, it's an empire building game. EU4 is the only game made by the studio that focuses on exploration and controlling trade (not just controlling economic activity). Even merchant republics in CK2 are small potatoes compared to trade in EU4.

Vic2 is a game of economics. It's the only Paradox game where the amount of coal available in the world can literally enable economic growth or strangle and kill the economy. Empire building is important, but the smart players are less concerned with map painting and more concerned with conquering POPs and specific resources. But, aside from all that, Vic2 is also a game where dominance can be achieved through smart internal management much more so than any other game in the portfolio.

HOI3 is all about the war. The only thing that matters is winning the war. The long term repercussions are irrelevant. Impoverished your people for 8 years? Doesn't matter. Spent 4 years under partial German occupation, only to turn it around liberate everything from Moscow to Paris? Doesn't matter. Conquered China, but got nuked and occupied at home? Doesn't matter. Exhausted your manpower pool completely fighting to get to the last 20 miles towards Berlin for a German surrender? Doesn't matter. In Vic2, fighting a lengthy war that wipes out tons of manpower will have consequences you feel for years that will be unpleasant. In EU4, betting everything on a war right now that you barely win results in your enemies taking you apart later. In CK2, winning the current holy war is meaningless if your genius ruler is killed in battle against the infidels, leaving his clubfooted imbecile son in regency, with half your titles handed out to your other sons in gavelkind (because you didn't sort it out before dying), and your treacherous uncle is the regent, refusing to approve anything that would help the realm while revoking titles via plots and lowering crown authority.

If I were a game designer working in Sweden, I'd say to myself, "What new kind of strategy game could I make, that could still use some stuff from the current iteration of Clausewitz? And what historical era could I place it in?" What I wouldn't do is say, "Alright, let's crank out a Cold War game and just use the same gimmicks from HOI."
 
I would also like to add, sometimes German divisions were to purposely allow themselves to be encircled at strongholds, what the Germans called a 'Festung'. Those were fortified areas usually at supply and communication centers, they were to slow the Soviets down and cause attrition,
 
Secret Master said:
If I were a game designer working in Sweden, I'd say to myself, "What new kind of strategy game could I make, that could still use some stuff from the current iteration of Clausewitz? And what historical era could I place it in?" What I wouldn't do is say, "Alright, let's crank out a Cold War game and just use the same gimmicks from HOI."
Click to expand...
I guess I would say something "cross of CK2 and Victoria 2" with "stuff occasionally falling into world war like in HoI"
While in CK2 you must rely on your vassals and keep them happy, modern day scenario would include keeping various factions like army, civil service, political parties, special interests, loyal in order to be able to project force abroad and domestically. Add to that international trade and industry of Victoria, with prices of various resource fluctuating depending on technology and stability of countries that produce them. It would be hilarious to see how such game with simulate, for example, geo-political effects of oil being made obsolete by new technology being discovered.
 
captainroot said:
Well, the Cold War defined as 1946-1991 period is definitely history now, so there's no reason Paradox can't try and make a Cold War era (+modern era DLCs) game once they have some time following the release of HoI IV and its major DLCs.
Click to expand...
Yeah. But I was talking about a 21st century setting, since that was what the OP proposed.
 
TheRomanRuler said:
Well, WW2 was mostly small scale squad tactics, yet we have Hearts of Iron. Medieval battles were mostly army vs army, yet we have Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis. Sure modern era could be done! Terrorism etc is no different in game terms than espionage really, and Afghanistan war - we have attrition. Allow partisans to be in same province as the enemy, and they would increase attrition losses, and higher suppression unit has, less likely partisans are to inflict attrition damage.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but as I said, would this be fun? Would it be deep and engaging enough to be enjoyable? Sure, I suppose we could expand the HOI espionage and covert ops/coup system to attempt terrorist attacks, but how fun would it be? Likewise with fighting partians -- how much fun are you really having in HOI when an uprising happens somewhere and you have to send units to stomp it out?
 
Although Hearts of Iron its play style doesn't fit the modern era, I prefer it a lot to supreme ruler for example.

If HoI had more domestic and economical aspects it would work I think, kinda like VicII, where you have stuff to do that isn't building up a military in peace time. Combining stuff democracy 3 has into hearts of iron would be a lot of fun imo (it will probably bore you out after several playthroughs) and yes, I know that democracy 3 is a different game from a different company, I just wanted to give an example of how to flavor up internal politics and how to give different ideologies actual value.
 
I hope one day Paradox will make a Cold War game.
 
I find World War two the most interesting era to wargame. The sheer scope in size (different nations, continents etc...), the involvement and impact (millions of participants and casualties) and even more so likely the most technological decade of advancement in the history of the world (biplanes to a-bomb). I find military history interesting and all periods enjoyable in one way or another but you have to keep in mind the more technological the era the harder it will be to create a viable wargame. Each Era you advance through history the Major powers will be that much more powerful in a game. There is a reason why there was no World wars after WW2, first being economics (very few could truly afford any prolonged war) and the modern technology would lead to devastating casualties. This is why we had either aggression by Majors against minors or a minor vs minor conflict. While in our minds it seems interesting i think it would be difficult to viably put a game together that doesnt end up in a nuke fest.
 
This - while all of PDS' GSG games have different focusses, they all rely on war, to some degree or other, to provide a decent amount of the gameplay (Vicky 2 being the least of these, but the timeframe still covers WW1 and a bunch of other large conflicts). If you're talking post-WW2, there haven't been any major conflicts between world powers (imo, due to a combination of the advent of nuclear weapons and the increased wealth and the legitimacy this bestows on many Governments, that would fall apart in a significant conflict). So you're left with, at best, wars like Vietnam and the Gulf War, which were infrequent and fairly small beer unless we start having brigade-level control of forces, and then it's not a GSG any more.

So to pull off a post-WW2 GSG, it has to be a very different game than their other titles (well, if it's historical - I could dig a GSG game set in the universe of Tom Clany's Red Storm Rising book), and focus far more on other gameplay. Is it on staying in power as a political party (and if in a democracy, rotating into and out of opposition?)? Is it based on the country doing well and having to deep dive into economics and social policy (the non-war parts of Vicky on steroids?) It's a big issue to solve, talking the war out of GSG's leaves a gameplay gap that's pretty big and complicated to fill with something that works as well as armed conflict.

That said, I'd be over the moon if they ever did this :).

Secret Master said:
If I were a game designer working in Sweden, I'd say to myself, "What new kind of strategy game could I make, that could still use some stuff from the current iteration of Clausewitz? And what historical era could I place it in?" What I wouldn't do is say, "Alright, let's crank out a Cold War game and just use the same gimmicks from HOI."
Click to expand...

Indeed :). The Roman Empire/pre-Roman antiquity springs to mind.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back