A modern Hearts of Iron.

[Bargey]

removed- Had a dad

I would not expect one until after Victoria 3, and even then...

But please paradox! Give us 1945-2015! That would be so great!

 

[Mabzie555]

I would be happy with any post-WW2 period.

Doesn't have to be 21st century.

A game that starts, say, 1955 would be great.

 

[Samut]

I would love to have a Democracy 3-esque Paradox game. I had a lot of fun with Democracy 3. The only problem though was that well- all you're looking at are charts
[video=youtube;JjNTeqvd_qk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjNTeqvd_qk[/video]
I'd like to see the world map, manage the military, wage war and other Paradoxian game features.

I can see it getting boring when you're not at war because there's so hardly any wars in the present (not that I want more irl) so having a Democracy 3-like system where you manage your government and policies would keep you occupied. I guess the only negative is if there's a FULL SCALE WAR and that would only cause more unnecessary micromanagement but I guess you could simplify the Government simulation aspect.

So yeah, maybe simplify the government management (there's a bit of fat you can trim off from D3) :shrug:

 

[ViKiNG-NoR]

They should make a scenario so we could play on the same game from 1936-2014. could play cold war and get more nations on the map through the years. and can form nato later for example and do different events would be fun. would need a better diplomacy to, so its something to do later in the game when its not war all the time. but i hope diplomacy is better now anyway than hoi3.

 

[Smileyou]

war changes, wars as they were fought in 1900-1945 are most likely not to be repeated because of nukes, so maybe proxy wars yes,
but even that behind the scenes most wars today are economic, currency wars, diplomatic ultimatums, pressure, energy wars, bribes,
using terrorism to your benefit, black ops, financing terrorist for your gain, biological warfare etc.

So, completely different interface would be needed for hearts of iron (21st century).. actually the name hearts of iron is not suitable,
since the wars become more clandestine, more "dirty", less out there and in the open, so maybe the title should be Minds of Steel,
and wars should be beyond pack of corporations fighting against other corporations by using "nations" to mask their intent and war
on information to hide this from general population and enemy try to expose this to sabotage you..

 

[TheRomanRuler]

They should make a scenario so we could play on the same game from 1936-2014. could play cold war and get more nations on the map through the years. and can form nato later for example and do different events would be fun. would need a better diplomacy to, so its something to do later in the game when its not war all the time. but i hope diplomacy is better now anyway than hoi3.

I would love that. But would be too hard i think, better to first make WW game, Cold War game and modern warfare game. Then eventually combine them if that is possible.

 

[ViKiNG-NoR]

I would love that. But would be too hard i think, better to first make WW game, Cold War game and modern warfare game. Then eventually combine them if that is possible.

Yea they could make it like you say with exspansion packs.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

I would love to have a Democracy 3-esque Paradox game. I had a lot of fun with Democracy 3. The only problem though was that well- all you're looking at are charts
[video=youtube;JjNTeqvd_qk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjNTeqvd_qk[/video]
I'd like to see the world map, manage the military, wage war and other Paradoxian game features.

I can see it getting boring when you're not at war because there's so hardly any wars in the present (not that I want more irl) so having a Democracy 3-like system where you manage your government and policies would keep you occupied. I guess the only negative is if there's a FULL SCALE WAR and that would only cause more unnecessary micromanagement but I guess you could simplify the Government simulation aspect.

So yeah, maybe simplify the government management (there's a bit of fat you can trim off from D3) :shrug:

Hardly any wars at the present? Let's count...
Syria/Iraq
Afghanistan/Pakistan
Mexico
South Sudan
Somalia
Central African Republic (dying down)
Northern Nigeria
Sinai/Egypt
Donbass/Ukraine

...and that's just what I can think of now. I agree that the HOI model would not work now since the age of world wars is over, but there are still many wars going on.

Also, whoever suggested biological weapons are used often nowadays, they aren't. And please don't give Ebola conspiracy theories.

 

[PlayerHOI]

As someone working on a modern day mod for Hearts of Iron 3 I can guarantee you 100% that Paradox have no plans on making a modern day game anytime soon.

Most obvious reason is due to how difficult it is to properly model modern wars which are more often than not proxy wars instead of outright battles between countries. The other reason is because its much easier to tell history in retrospective than our current history, even a cold war mod is simpler since in a nutshell you have your "good guys" and "bad guys"... today these things are much more complicated and there is so much controversy over events it is pretty much impossible to make a game without taking a side and then being blamed for bias towards one side or the other.

Also, if you think about it since the end of the Vietnam wars there were only a handful of big conflicts and even these were never between two even powers so they ended very quickly (at least as far as army vs army fighting goes). Not sure such a game can be very attractive in terms of what it can offer to players who like playing wars instead of a political and diplomatic simulator... find me a Victoria 2 player who plays it just for its economic aspects.

This is something a company like Paradox would very much prefer to avoid and I totally understand them. It is even a bit of a Paradox (huh) but some of the issues a modern day game would have to deal with are the same issues which are not allowed to be discussed on these forums... so you'd have a situation where the company makes a game but than in a way tells you not to talk about it since it creates chaos on the forums.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

As someone working on a modern day mod for Hearts of Iron 3 I can guarantee you 100% that Paradox have no plans on making a modern day game anytime soon.

Most obvious reason is due to how difficult it is to properly model modern wars which are more often than not proxy wars instead of outright battles between countries. The other reason is because its much easier to tell history in retrospective than our current history, even a cold war mod is simpler since in a nutshell you have your "good guys" and "bad guys"... today these things are much more complicated and there is so much controversy over events it is pretty much impossible to make a game without taking a side and then being blamed for bias towards one side or the other.

Also, if you think about it since the end of the Vietnam wars there were only a handful of big conflicts and even these were never between two even powers so they ended very quickly (at least as far as army vs army fighting goes). Not sure such a game can be very attractive in terms of what it can offer to players who like playing wars instead of a political and diplomatic simulator... find me a Victoria 2 player who plays it just for its economic aspects.

This is something a company like Paradox would very much prefer to avoid and I totally understand them. It is even a bit of a Paradox (huh) but some of the issue a modern day game would have to deal with are the same issues which are not allowed to be discussed on these forums... so you'd have a situation where the company makes a game but than in a way tells you not to talk about it since it creates chaos on the forums.

"Good guys" and "bad guys" very much in inverted commas. While the USSR bloc was generally far worse than the USA bloc, there were certain places where the capitalists came out worse (South America). South Viet Nam was also a corrupt and nasty dictatorship.

What constitutes a big conflict? Afghanistan has killed well over 1 million people, Somalia several hundred thousand, and Syria/Iraq somewhere in the 200,000-300,000 range at least. Not to mention the Congo wars, which killed somewhere between 3-5 MILLION people, mainly excess deaths through starvation and disease.

A modern game would be more a politics game, and Paradox would likely bungle it, but then, what's new about that...

 

[ikeokp]

A think a modern HOI game would be better represented by a over-haul to Victoria 2. The base model of the game would be so much fun to portray in the modern world.

 

[safe-keeper]

Hardly any wars at the present? Let's count...
Syria/Iraq
Afghanistan/Pakistan
Mexico
South Sudan
Somalia
Central African Republic (dying down)
Northern Nigeria
Sinai/Egypt
Donbass/Ukraine

Yup. Hardly any. We live in perhaps the most peaceful time in human history. Consider that there are seven billion people and about 200 countries in the world. The current armed conflicts are tragic to the people who experience them, but still, the vast majority of the world is at peace.

I suppose a modern Paradox game would be reminiscent of the Anno series. There would be some fighting, of course, but your focus would be trade and sustainability.

 

[Secret Master]

Yup. Hardly any. We live in perhaps the most peaceful time in human history. Consider that there are seven billion people and about 200 countries in the world. The current armed conflicts are tragic to the people who experience them, but still, the vast majority of the world is at peace.

I suppose a modern Paradox game would be reminiscent of the Anno series. There would be some fighting, of course, but your focus would be trade and sustainability.

Ironically, this would work well with some elements from Vic2. The world sees fewer casualty intensive wars per 100,00 population than the past several centuries, but a lot of what happens in foreign policy is related to soft power, particularly economics. Sure, China and the United States could start a non-nuclear war in Asia and kill millions of people over several years, leaving everything from Beijing to Saigon a smoking ruin, but why bother? It would kill the economy. There's more money to be made playing for an advantage in currency markets or jockeying for market advantage in pork futures.

It's like playing Vic2 with a really low infamy cap. Sure, Saddam can try to justify a war against Kuwait, but if he screws up, a worldwide coalition intervenes and cuts Iraq down to size.

 

[Finnway]

I've thought that too. But I don't see what conflict they would base a game around. It would mostly have to be about proxy wars.

 

[Smileyou]

Vicky platform is suited best for modern conflict one, but emphasise should be on economics,politics.. weapons and
military is mostly a factor of diplomacy, or how serious your position is taken instead of an actual tool to acomplish
something by war..

same goes for technologies, ..

overhauling Vic platform is best for modern 2001-2025 era.. lots of stuff to research, lots of different economic
ideas, emergence of multipolar world versus effort to extinguish it in favor for singular hegemon power..

World bank, imf, trying to get allies2support your cause either by economic incentives(if you are not a hegemon),
or by military threats(if u r a hegemon)..



but as someone already mentioned, problem with developing political-games of modern era is you have 2 make a
political stand, and backlash is imminent.. today if a pc game developer makes a game that says US foreign policy
is correct i can't see how they can maintain composure on the forums)lol.. on other hand if they say US foreign
policy is wrong i can't see them resisting pressure from State Department itself)) democracy and all, its freedom
until you oppose the regime, then you have to do "The Assange" and live in a foreign embassy if you don't want
to be sent to the gulags of our modern times..

 

[Zinegata]

The other essential issue is that the post-World War 2 narrative is much more than just the Cold War. This is also the era of decolonization, of attempts to move from "third world to first" (which sadly most nations failed in), and of various nations trying to find their place in the world. A bit like Victoria, your nation's narrative is going to be different depending on whether you're a Great Power, a Secondary Power, a Civilized Nation, or an Uncivilized nation - except this time you have the two superpowers, first world nations, second world nations, and third world nations.

Moreover, I would note that a big problem in the superpower rivalry narrative is that gamers tend to go for the "Third World War" solution - especially thanks to Red Storm Rising and all of the theoretical Third World War literature - when in reality a Third World War was almost certainly going to turn nuclear extremely quickly and lead to the destruction of civilization as we know it.

Hence, most games depicting a Third World War unrealistically presume a conventional-only conflict at the tactical level (e.g. World in Conflict, Red Alert, etc) while side-stepping the political realities and the fact that the enormous Soviet tank hordes were going to crush NATO (Group of Soviet Forces Germany alone outnumbered NATO by a factor of 2:1, and this doesn't yet count dozens more Divisions in the Soviet interior).

Only a very small number of games - notably "Balance of Power" on the PC and "Twilight Struggle" on the tabletop - realistically focus instead on making the superpowers actively seek to prevent a Third World War; albeit at the same time still advancing their position through non-direct conflict. Indeed, ironically you should see the Soviet Union and America - despite having the largest and most powerful militaries - using their troops the least.

Those I think are better models for anyone attempting to create a GSG about the Modern World, but mechanically they are very different from the warfare-centric engine used by Paradox games. It would also help educate people and make them realize that the Soviet Union was in fact trying just as hard as the United States to not trigger Armageddon and a lot of the fears of a Soviet invasion were unfounded propaganda; just as much of the Soviet Union's fears of a surprise US attack were just as rooted in paranoia than reality.

 

[Axe99]

Moreover, I would note that a big problem in the superpower rivalry narrative is that gamers tend to go for the "Third World War" solution - especially thanks to Red Storm Rising and all of the theoretical Third World War literature - when in reality a Third World War was almost certainly going to turn nuclear extremely quickly and lead to the destruction of civilization as we know it.

Oh aye - I think it'd make a good game, but it would be terribly unrealistic - but as you say, the current nature of PDS games (and most GSG gamers) needs a decent amount of war to maintain interest (or, presumably, there'd be tonnes of non-warfare centric GSG games ).

 

[Price de Nice]

"Good guys" and "bad guys" very much in inverted commas. While the USSR bloc was generally far worse than the USA bloc, there were certain places where the capitalists came out worse (South America). South Viet Nam was also a corrupt and nasty dictatorship.

What constitutes a big conflict? Afghanistan has killed well over 1 million people, Somalia several hundred thousand, and Syria/Iraq somewhere in the 200,000-300,000 range at least. Not to mention the Congo wars, which killed somewhere between 3-5 MILLION people, mainly excess deaths through starvation and disease.

A modern game would be more a politics game, and Paradox would likely bungle it, but then, what's new about that...

No.

The USSR were the bad guys.

This isn't even disputable.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

No.

The USSR were the bad guys.

This isn't even disputable.

The Soviet bloc was generally far worse.

However, the folks in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay may have slightly different views of the US side. Operation Condor and the resulting dictatorships were not really preferable to the socialist (not really hardcore communist) governments they may otherwise have had.

Regarding third world wars, I have already said that the age of world wars is over. The USSR had a massive numerical superiority of conventional ground forces and could easily have overrun continental Europe, but their relative lack of naval strength besides submarines would have stopped them from ever directly threatening the USA itself. Even taking Alaska seems a bit far-fetched. The same is true for Canada, the UK and Oceania. No side could have won decisively, even if nuclear weapons stayed in their silos for the most part. The Soviets did not want a third world war either, but no state really does nowadays, even North Korea, because of the possibility of nuclear or other kinds of destruction. However, one of the unfortunate truths of mutually assured destruction is that even if conventional forces start fighting somehow, nuclear states will most likely keep their weapons primed but very much grounded (see the Korean and Kargil wars for real examples of this), meaning that direct conventional conflicts between great powers are still very much possible. These conflicts would, however, likely be "stealth" and small scale rather than anything recognisable as a world war.

The lack of wars I see as a strength. War games are fine, but I would quite like to see more strategy games which are not completely based around it, especially games like EU4 where the whole point is fighting and expansion and everything else is pretty much ignored. The Victoria 2 model is the best for this, but I would prefer to see a game where war was only one aspect and it was perfectly possible to play the game without doing it very often.

Axe99 - A world war 3 game would be just plain stupid if it did not end some kind of peace treaty or the destruction of both parties fairly quickly. There are so, so, so many war games already, why should there be another that doesn't even make sense? Besides, with Paradox's aversion to poison gas or atrocities of any kind, I doubt the horrors of the collapse of civilisation would get past their PC sensibilities.

 

[Victor Cortez]

They've made a WW3 game already.
It's called Defcon, and playthroughs don't last that long lol