Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Hearts of Iron: Modern Warfare

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Things I miss in

Strategy games is:

1. To use "Gunboat Diplomacy".

2. Be able to destroy one of my own buildings/skyscraper, and blame a other country for "Terror" and invade it!

3. To have foreign bases in other countrys after a war is concluded, like after WWII, Germany/Japan and so on still has foreign troops on their soil.

4. To be able to invade a country by using bases on my enemys/friends territorium, and use surrounding bases in other countrys in wartimes.

5. To be able to use "Premature warfare" in case I feel my country might be invaded, and take action to prevent it.

6. to be able to use "National Security" doctrines to enforce my power on enemys/freinds.

7. To be able to support/destabilize another country with undercover operations before invading it.

8. To be able to install "marrionett/puppets" goverments.

Just a few things I have missed a few years now in my strategy games.

Regards

Otto
 
Last edited:
I say no.

If you want to do a global conflict game this system is no good. Modern warfare is about mobility, detection, and destruction. Once the shooring starts the fight is generally over already (even without WMDs).

The true cold war and beyond era is about political influence which is not a strength of this platform :)
 
MrOtto said:
Strategy games is:

1. To use "Gunboat Diplomacy".

2. Be able to destroy one of my own buildings/skyscraper, and blame a other country for "Terror" and invade it!

3. To have foreign bases in other countrys after a war is concluded, like after WWII, Germany/Japan and so on still has foreign invaders on their soil.

4. To be able to invade a country by using my bases on the enemys/friends territorium, and my surrounding bases in other countrys in wartimes.

5. To be able to use "Premature warfare" in case I feel my country might be invaded, and take action to prevent it.

6. to be able to use "National Security" doctrines to enforce my power on enemys/freinds.

Just a few things I have missed a few years now in my strategy games.

Regards

Otto
Click to expand...

1. I can't say anything against this one.

2. You can do that in HoI3. It is called "Increase Threat".

3. That is the Puppet system.

4. You mean attacking from neutral land? Why should you be able to do that?

5. If you think your country might be invaded, it means that someone has a high threat against you. It's implemented.

6. Bullying others around? What do you mean exactly?
 
nestorius said:
.....though the game would be more focused on Diplomacy and economy rather than warfare, in effect a sort of vicky though more specialised with regard to espionage, international trade and diplomacy. Where war could of course be possible but would if it involved the 2 nuclear camps resulting in game end or some other bizarre stability..
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this. So atm Id have to say no regarding OP's ? as the current Diplomacy/Politics system is still not finished & not even realistically balanced atm. If Paradox can finish those then link it to some sort of "Defcon" system regarding use of nukes it may have possibilities.

Personally Id rather see Paradox cleanup the surrender/end of war scripts & then maybe add provisions for the Indochinese War, Korean War.....Sudan Crisis...etc expansion. All of which were fought conventionally with the major advent being the Helicopter.
 
I'm not sure that a modern warfare HoI necessarily leads to armagedon. There would of course be the threat of nuclear destruction. There would need to be a strong game mechanic against nuclear strikes on majors, but strikes at lesser puppet nations might simply engender limited nuclear exchanges or even non-nuclear responses.
 
The winning conditions could eventually be similar to a combination of Vicky and the old Balance of Power game; be the leader in terms of economy, prestige or something like that while avoiding nuclear war.
 
Otacon said:
The only thing most of us Germans of today are good at is to say "I'm sorry". Isn't that pussy?
Click to expand...

Yes it is and welcome to USA: 2010! :rofl:


A HOI Modern Warfare would basically consist of a partisan popping up in every occupied territory you have each day. You know one of the things that make HOI 3 sooo much fun X 100!
 
MrOtto said:
Strategy games is:

1. To use "Gunboat Diplomacy".

2. Be able to destroy one of my own buildings/skyscraper, and blame a other country for "Terror" and invade it!

3. To have foreign bases in other countrys after a war is concluded, like after WWII, Germany/Japan and so on still has foreign troops on their soil.

4. To be able to invade a country by using bases on my enemys/friends territorium, and use surrounding bases in other countrys in wartimes.

5. To be able to use "Premature warfare" in case I feel my country might be invaded, and take action to prevent it.

6. to be able to use "National Security" doctrines to enforce my power on enemys/freinds.

7. To be able to support/destabilize another country with undercover operations before invading it.

8. To be able to install "marrionett/puppets" goverments.

Just a few things I have missed a few years now in my strategy games.

Regards

Otto
Click to expand...

Perhaps a game titled HOI UN: Modern Welfare would interest you. The premise would be the would is a "happy" place. Units are supplied by "hope" and you can distribute "change" points for diplomacy. If a country attempts belligerency you can send them a terse letter or implement ineffective sanctions, but only if you can get a conscientious from the other major players. Countries could loan money to others while they drive up their deficits. Events could be an oil spill or government workers riot. The game would last until the player was so bored out of their mind that they wanted to end mankind forever in nuclear armageddon, I would estimate about 15 minutes into the game. :D

Oh, almost forgot make 4 patches for it that eventually make it semi-playable. Then release the "Global Warming: September Fried" expansion. ;)
 
NiCr said:
Perhaps a game titled HOI UN: Modern Welfare would interest you. The premise would be the would is a "happy" place. Units are supplied by "hope" and you can distribute "change" points for diplomacy. If a country attempts belligerency you can send them a terse letter or implement ineffective sanctions, but only if you can get a conscientious from the other major players. Countries could loan money to others while they drive up their deficits. Events could be an oil spill or government workers riot.
Click to expand...

You are making fun of it but i'd like it :) remember geopolitique on the c64 and apple?
 
lordashran said:
You are making fun of it but i'd like it :) remember geopolitique on the c64 and apple?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Capzero said:
I say no.

If you want to do a global conflict game this system is no good. Modern warfare is about mobility, detection, and destruction. Once the shooring starts the fight is generally over already (even without WMDs).

The true cold war and beyond era is about political influence which is not a strength of this platform :)
Click to expand...

What? Tell that to the US troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe you mean wars between mobilized great power armies which hasn't happened so really it is all conjecture. More of modern wars is preparation because obviously it hasn't happened yet but the theory is the speed of modern war fully deployed(short of WMD) would mean the best prepared opponents is the victor. IE- technology, training, depth of defense(including space based, infrastructure, electronics etc).

I think a modern war operation game could be interesting but almost impossible to really do well. So many secret weapons systems and different strategies which have never been tested in opposition so it would be mostly guess work. Plus modeling the affects between civilian willpower and military losses... it would be 10 years of preparation and 6 months of fighting or less.
 
Slan said:
1. I can't say anything against this one.

6. Bullying others around? What do you mean exactly?
Click to expand...

Well I think it is more of making others see the world your way, a political thing i suppose.

"4. You mean attacking from neutral land? Why should you be able to do that?"


I Have noticed that U.S.A. have bases in countries all over the world today like Irak, Germany, Japan to mention some of them, if we take Germany for exampel they are a neutral country for now anyway.

So in given situation US can start an military mission from that country at any given time. And many other countries with American bases is used as military platforms all over the world today.

I just like to have the same options in a strategy title as in real life.

Regards

Otto
 
MrOtto said:
Well I think it is more of making others see the world your way, a political thing i suppose.

"4. You mean attacking from neutral land? Why should you be able to do that?"


I Have noticed that U.S.A. have bases in countries all over the world today like Irak, Germany, Japan to mention some of them, if we take Germany for exampel they are a neutral country for now anyway.

So in given situation US can start an military mission from that country at any given time. And many other countries with American bases is used as military platforms all over the world today.

I just like to have the same options in a strategy title as in real life.

Regards

Otto
Click to expand...

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...
 
MrOtto said:
Well I think it is more of making others see the world your way, a political thing i suppose.

"4. You mean attacking from neutral land? Why should you be able to do that?"


I Have noticed that U.S.A. have bases in countries all over the world today like Irak, Germany, Japan to mention some of them, if we take Germany for exampel they are a neutral country for now anyway.

So in given situation US can start an military mission from that country at any given time. And many other countries with American bases is used as military platforms all over the world today.

I just like to have the same options in a strategy title as in real life.

Regards

Otto
Click to expand...

Irak?(Iraq)
Do you come from the Netherlands? :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back