If Paradox did a Cold War game, what features would you want?

[jmpveg22]

I would like a complex and Tiered economic and trading system. One that makes nearly every country somewhat important for their resources.

Level One "Raw goods": These are simple and accessible to every nation. Things like Coal, Iron, Different types of agriculture, metals, and Fossil Fuels. Basically stuff that you drill or mine for. Easily accessible but not as profitable. Though some can be very profitable given their occurrence and need.

Level Two "Refined goods": These require level one goods to procure. Things like steel, fuel, plastics, chemicals, rubber, cement, etc etc etc. These are made in factories the player builds or allows to be built. These goods are more profitable but require a steady stream of raw goods and power/infrastructure to make.

Level Three "Complex goods": These require level 2 goods to procure. Cars, Tanks, Planes, ships, weapons, etc etc. These are very profitable but require vast manpower and resources, trade, industry, infrastructure to produce.

 

[Metz]

The game should probably start after May 23rd, 1949 (creation of West Germany) and go up until January 1st, 2000. So, to round things, it would be from January 1st, 1950 to January 1st, 2001.

The thing about the Cold War is that it would mostly be proxy wars and guerilla warfare which means not a lot of divisions being moved around like in HoI4.

The game would deal with a lot of internal politics and decolonization.

 

[Rip Off Productions]

The game should probably start after May 23rd, 1949 (creation of West Germany) and go up until January 1st, 2000. So, to round things, it would be from January 1st, 1950 to January 1st, 2001.

honestly I don't think a Cold War game should have a set end date, the Cold War goes on as long as there are two Super Powers with opposing ethical/moral views, sure the game can be programed with the expectation that it will rarely go longer then a century, and the tech-tree likely wouldn't go much farther then the early internet age, but hey, why not? maybe have a few crazy super techs available, perhaps locked behind a on/off "rule" like CK2's supernatural events are.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Because even if supertechs are optional, you'd still have to balance them. And spend extra dev time designing them. And get complaints about them. They're not worth including.

 

[Mundane]

The game should probably start after May 23rd, 1949 (creation of West Germany) and go up until January 1st, 2000. So, to round things, it would be from January 1st, 1950 to January 1st, 2001.

The thing about the Cold War is that it would mostly be proxy wars and guerilla warfare which means not a lot of divisions being moved around like in HoI4.

The game would deal with a lot of internal politics and decolonization.

I'd prefer the game to start immediately after German capitulation, so that we can have some intrigue during the Occupation of Germany and Austria. The possibility of the failure of Renner's Austrian government, the creation of East and West Austria, the Stalin Note, the Werwolf guerillas, border incidents...

 

[Adamgerd]

1950s divergences:
-Sino-Soviet split... or solidification (the split has it's beginnings once Khrushchev came to power)
- Arab victory over Israel... and the firm establishment of Pan-Arabism
- Korean Unification
-German Reunification
-French Indochinese victory
-etc etc etc

There are literally hundreds of alternative histories that are possible in the 1950s alone... trust me i think you would get your fill for the Cold War.

No czechoslovakia? Though they could have events for Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland that a crisis can occur and if NATO diplomatically backs you, then you can challenge the USSR and it has a chance of backing down, which makes you go to NATO, while you might back down and stay there or WW3 might result and you would fight against the USSR with NATO and this would apply for the 3 above countries. Thus, you could have a chance of leaving even if a minor power with such a situation and not be stuck with being a USSR's puppet. Or maybe this could be added as a "Warsaw Pact Revolts" DLC

 

[Vogelwiese]

I'd prefer the game to start immediately after German capitulation, so that we can have some intrigue during the Occupation of Germany and Austria. The possibility of the failure of Renner's Austrian government, the creation of East and West Austria, the Stalin Note, the Werwolf guerillas, border incidents...

A possible separation of Germany by the 4 occupying powers would also be a nice outcome. So Western Germany divided into 3 (maybe more kind of similar to the modern day federal states) different democratic states and an Eastern socialist one with the possibility of reunification out of those states.

 

[jmpveg22]

A possible separation of Germany by the 4 occupying powers would also be a nice outcome. So Western Germany divided into 3 (maybe more kind of similar to the modern day federal states) different democratic states and an Eastern socialist one with the possibility of reunification out of those states.

My issue with earlier Cold War start dates is that i doubt the engine or developers will be able to adequately model or simulate the dynamics at play. Let's take HOI4 for example... it has been months and they still havent been able to iron out simple things like the Pacific Theatre (or any other number of examples).

So i think start date when all the main actors (USA, USSR, Both Germanies, Israel, PRC, UK, FRANCE, etc etc etc) are solidified would be preferable.

 

[Adamgerd]

My issue with earlier Cold War start dates is that i doubt the engine or developers will be able to adequately model or simulate the dynamics at play. Let's take HOI4 for example... it has been months and they still havent been able to iron out simple things like the Pacific Theatre (or any other number of examples).

So i think start date when all the main actors (USA, USSR, Both Germanies, Israel, PRC, UK, FRANCE, etc etc etc) are solidified would be preferable.

Wait a few years and the bugs should be ironed out EU4 also wasn't the best at release. And I see how in some ways it might appeal to some but I also means that you can only really play as these countries. For example Czechoslovakia or another communist European country won't be able to change much or really do anything due to being a puppet of the USSR, well unless they would maybe have an event as described earlier of getting NATO support, etc.

 

[jmpveg22]

Wait a few years and the bugs should be ironed out EU4 also wasn't the best at release. And I see how in some ways it might appeal to some but I also means that you can only really play as these countries. For example Czechoslovakia or another communist European country won't be able to change much or really do anything due to being a puppet of the USSR, well unless they would maybe have an event as described earlier of getting NATO support, etc.

A few years??? See that is the problem... the fact that we accept game or immersion breaking issues for years at a time. And that developers have caught onto this and actively exploit it.

I would rather have a working and functional (gameplay wise and immersion wise) product i paid for than one i will have to pay to add onto over the course of years to make it working and functional.

Plus i would imagine czech would be available @ release... (i kinda included it in the etc part, and if you lok earlier in the thread you see a comprehensive list of actors). Plus Czech could change immensionly in 1968.

 

[Adamgerd]

A few years??? See that is the problem... the fact that we accept game or immersion breaking issues for years at a time. And that developers have caught onto this and actively exploit it.

I would rather have a working and functional (gameplay wise and immersion wise) product i paid for than one i will have to pay to add onto over the course of years to make it working and functional.

Oh yeah they do exploit it. All Businesses want to increase their profit and when they can exploit a thing and still get a profit, chances are they will. Paradox has a near monopoly on these types of games hence some exploits. However Imo, although I'd prefer it like that, the active development a least makes sure, it's developed longer and in time for money it's still relatively good

Plus i would imagine czech would be available @ release... (i kinda included it in the etc part, and if you lok earlier in the thread you see a comprehensive list of actors). Plus Czech could change immensionly in 1968.

Indeed and in a strategy game it might happen earlier too or later. As I said earlier, it'd be good to have some kind of event chain linked to various Eastern European countries where western countries might back their cause, sending USSR an ultimatum or not.

So as one of the Eastern European minors, you could play pro-Moscow or more pro-West. And the USSR would choose between WW3 or having the country become fully independent and neutral and for it to fire if the European country starts going more and more pro-west, maybe even have like the piety system in EU4, with 2 sides and the US being on one side and USSR on the other side and the closer you moved to the US side, the larger the chance of it happening and the chance increases when he USSR has a starvation crisis or otherwise is weakened and also becoming more democratic when you move to the US and more totalitarian communist when you move to the USSR.

With the sino-soviet split, it could maybe then have the China added as a third side, and when the event fires as a communist country (if you're still on the USSR's side), you choose whether to support the soviets or the Chinese with better relations with the side you support and worsened with the one you did not. And fi you move to the west, eventually the event of soviet independence fires and then maybe application to NATO.

For some countries like France or Italy it might also make sense that you can choose to do the opposite and move to the USSR's side from the US side. And for france and UK, also decolonization events where you can choose to decolonize or keep the colonies, with both having benefits but harms, ie. with one you have a stronger economy and country with more prestige, but you harm your relation with the US and maybe have insurgencies against you, while the other increases your relation with the US, but you have less prestige and a weaker economy and country or something like that

 

[Ivashanko]

I disagree. Because in HOI4, 1936 might be default, but that's because it was the first one added. CK2 had start dates as dlc's and 1066 is still one of the most played ones, not 768. So have the Cold War with 1945, 1948 and hopefully 1967 and possibly even the cuban missile crisis. And then add a start date as a dlc for 1936 or maybe even 1934 or the best would be 1919 right after versailles peace conference or 2 different dlc's with start dates. One would have 1919 and 1934, the other would have 1936, 1939 and the base game would have 1945 or 1948 and hopefully the cuban missile crisis and Prague spring, although 1967 might just be me wanting it as that actually did have potential into a war if the allies had helped Czechoslovakia. Also CK2 and EU4 also overlap, yet EU4 first decade is completely different from ck2 last decade. So it could be something similar, that they do overlap, but the Cold War's focus is different

This won't happen. It'd be silly for Paradox to cannibalize another one of their games (and one of their most profitable series), so there is no hope that they will have a starting date that starts before 1945. Look for mods to do that.

Anyways, one of the biggest issues Paradox has is that their games are often too long to model any one period particularly well (CK2 handles the Crusades poorly, for instance, EU4 doesn't do justice to the Napoleonic Era, and the less we say about Victoria 2's take on World War 1 or the American Civil War the better). It is much better for them to have a tighter focus than a larger one.

Finally, having a game where the central conflict might not occur seems counterintuitive. There are plenty of ways the Cold War could have turned out differently, and having a game explore those ways would be fun

 

[jmpveg22]

The game should be a political/trade/economic/diplomatic simulation 1st and foremost.... and a military simulation second.

 

[grandad1982]

Extra Credits have an episode on the Berlin Airlift. This seems like a good place to put it!

 

[MN121MN]

Idk why but after much consideration, I feel that a lighter strategy game, based on the idea that you are controlling an intelligence agency, instead of the state, for one of the major countries (or maybe for any countries?) during the Cold War would be interesting to see. That would necessitate the lack of advanced economic ideas, though the ability to influence the economy of a major country (e.g. each agencies has resources derived from the country's economic performance, if you sabotage/influence Congress to sanction a country, their economy might dwindle and the effectiveness of their agency are reduced).

 

[Rip Off Productions]

Idk why but after much consideration, I feel that a lighter strategy game, based on the idea that you are controlling an intelligence agency, instead of the state, for one of the major countries (or maybe for any countries?) during the Cold War would be interesting to see. That would necessitate the lack of advanced economic ideas, though the ability to influence the economy of a major country (e.g. each agencies has resources derived from the country's economic performance, if you sabotage/influence Congress to sanction a country, their economy might dwindle and the effectiveness of their agency are reduced).

Espionage is definitely going to need to be one of the most fleshed out systems in a Cold War game, but not the only one.

I see 5(maybe 6) major systems:

Espionage: maybe split into separate domestic and international tabs, this becomes more important with your size/influence, especially as you develop better technology.

Diplomacy: pretty self-explanatory, might have some overlapping mechanics with espionage

Economic: the Capitalism vs Communism angle is a big part of the era, though I imagine that your nation's infrastructure would also be here, as well as some technologies that don't fit in other categories.

Military Strategy: researching, building, and managing army, naval, and air forces. this becomes less important the bigger/more influential you are, especially if you're a nuclear power.

Nuclear Strategy: researching, building, and positioning your nuclear arsenal.


and on the topic of economics... that is likely to be the biggest problem with the game's 'balancing', sense Communism has several inherent flaws that make long term survivability impossible if modeled realistically:

 

[MN121MN]

Espionage is definitely going to need to be one of the most fleshed out systems in a Cold War game, but not the only one.

I see 5(maybe 6) major systems:

Espionage: maybe split into separate domestic and international tabs, this becomes more important with your size/influence, especially as you develop better technology.

Diplomacy: pretty self-explanatory, might have some overlapping mechanics with espionage

Economic: the Capitalism vs Communism angle is a big part of the era, though I imagine that your nation's infrastructure would also be here, as well as some technologies that don't fit in other categories.

Military Strategy: researching, building, and managing army, naval, and air forces. this becomes less important the bigger/more influential you are, especially if you're a nuclear power.

Nuclear Strategy: researching, building, and positioning your nuclear arsenal.


and on the topic of economics... that is likely to be the biggest problem with the game's 'balancing', sense Communism has several inherent flaws that make long term survivability impossible if modeled realistically:

Oh, if we talk about a GSG, sure. I'm just throwing out an idea for a lighter genre of strategy game, akin to X-COM.

Diplomacy would be easy, if not for the existence of supra-national bodies like the UN.

 

[AndrejK]

I would prefer rather a post-cold war game
Crossposting:
What I would imagine is cool new units:
apart from classical infantry , (outdated) cavalry and artillery and armoured units (tanks), various ships and airforces, there also ought to be civilian units.
On one side policemen, elite commandos and guards, on the other (in)visible units such as terrorist cells and gangs/criminals. These unit types will be at first invisible - but to increase their influence the gangs will need to demand "protection" money and also vendetta warfare against rival mafias will occur. Similarly terrorists will carry out attacks.Any of these actions will increase the influence of these groups, but also their visibility, thus making it easier for policemen to track them down.
Also unarmed units will appear such protesters (at a demo) , migrants and settlers.

list of playable factions:
1.Sovereign states - goals similar to standard paradox games. (Special feature: de iure borders. This mechanic is similar to CK2. To legitimize your expansion the UN Security council members need to approve any border changes)
In this category are also unrecognized states such as Abkhazia or Kosovo)
2.Entities - highly autonomus subnational entities such as Swiss cantons or Rep. SRPSKA andFBiH.Also any "republics" of Russia
3.States -The constituent areas of federations such as USA or Germany.
4.Regions - parts of decentralized states (Russia, France)
5.Provinces- parts of unitary states . (E.g.Slovakia)
6.Territories-dependent areas, AO of Russia.

All of these will have four letter tags

Religious institutions (Churches) will have their goal to get as many faithful as possible. They will have borders of cannonical territories, and it will be them who can place missionaries.
Criminals will try to accumulate as many money and influence as possible while not being caught.
Terrorists will.. well you know.
NGOs and Corporations should be present in the game but only AI I guess.They will try to influence governments or accumulate money respectively.

Also new unit types: militia (recruited in times of need by subnational entities), insurgents andguerrillas/partisans (the last are invisible- they may hide and avoid battle).

Ethnic groups and religions should be portrayed to 5% accuracy.Also the game is to depart from large "provinces" to "districts" - with the size of Rhodos, Greece or slightly smaller than Luxembourg. Also apart from this ideology will be also present. (Communist, Socialist, Centrist, Conservative, Nationalist, liberal, Fascist,"Religious" , Authoritarian , Anarchist,...)

(My home Slovakia be divided into roughly 24districts)
Also rebel types :
1.Social
2.Separatist
3.Ideological
4.Religious

also a new indicator: frustration. The level of frustration is higher if corruption is high, if stability is low and if mafia or terrorism is visible/hasinfluence. Frustration means not only higher unrest but also more people in terrorism and criminals.

also maybe some political parties (Democrats,Republicans, Labour. .) should be playable.

Alternatively: not playing as countries at all, rather as political parties (as in CK2), corporations, religious organizations, mafias, terrorist organizations

 

[Adamgerd]

I'd say that a post cold-war game is probably unlikely since we don't really yet know the major events of this century and due to various legal issues if it was done

 

[jmpveg22]

Diplomacy would be easy, if not for the existence of supra-national bodies like the UN.

I think a UN in a cold war game could be done right and be extremely fun. I mean the UN was a big pusher of major events during the cold war as many powers used it to achieve a multitude of objectives (Decolonization being the prime example).