A modern Hearts of Iron.

[MOK]

A modern game would not be a "war game" primarily at all. This is one of the least violent times in history. Why is everybody so fixed on the idea of world conquests that would just end in massive coalitions and/or MAD?

+1

Grand strategy games past '45 can not be a military grand strategy game, it's too politically driven, by nuclear necessity. It is not HoI, no matter the features and improvements. Hearts of Iron is about armor, infantry, divisions, mostly conventional warfare, regional strategies, and the means of facilitating them. The only way you get that in the modern area is in very limited war theaters, where MAD isn't a factor.

I feel the only way to expand HoI is through alternate realities similar to the WWII era, or by going back in time. If its not within those parameters, it's a different sort of game, with a different name.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Silent before the storm. I believe if we look at the history we will find just as peaceful time (note, limited to "civilized" nations, like for example no war in Europe. "Undiscovered" civilizations don`t count), armies getting smaller and more professional - hmm, ever heard of "Pax Romana"? Roman army got smaller and it became professional, and Rome had never seen more peaceful period. Then, empire crumbled and eventually numerous wars broke it. Up until modern days Europeans (Romans) have been strongest in the world, but then barbarians (Chinese for example) got stronger and civilized and became a huge threat to the empire. Eventually Western part of the empire fell (lets compare that to Europe due to having land connection to east, way easier to get destroyed in wars than america). Eastern part of the Empire stood alone, untill after a long time it was destroyed too. No longer western civilization, replaced by barbaric civilizations like Goths and Franks.
This, of course, is just a theory (and i guess i forgot some parts while i was writing other parts), but in any case there is still huge hope left for world (this sounds silly, like i would be some Prophet :laugh, and that is fact that Europe has settled her disputes (Roman civil wars?) and if united, would have the strongest economy and if they just want it, army, in the world.
History will repeat itself if nobody is there to listen what it has to say. And that, is not just a mere theory,

 

[RaptorCommander]

It would be extremely hard to produce a game that reflects the conventional/unconventional wars of today. The shear killing power available to some nations with just their conventional forces, let alone nukes/bio/chem weapons, would render the game non-possible as conflict would be over in weeks/months. The only reason insurgency warfare works today is that countries (western) are unwilling to committee to a roman style peace (make a desert and call it peace).

No country (perhaps China/Russia/India) would be able to wage a WW2 style war (over years) as the economic supply lines required to maintain that many well armed and equipped soldiers/planes/boats on the field are to long to maintain effectively.

 

[Dinglehoff]

The modern grand strategy would be possible in a game. It would have modern military speed and tactics but we would see a return to Victoria style war outcomes, provided the player and AI laid the diplomatic groundwork to keep things non-nuclear beforehand.

I would see it working something like: There are tension meters between powers and things that you and the AI do will increase or decrease those tensions. Tensions are rising over whatever international problem but you and the AI know that nuclear exchange is going to ruin everything and probably result in game over. So you agree that as long as tensions stay below a certain level, the nukes don't fly unless the other side(the player) does it first. Then the border/bush/proxy war is fought, territories, colonies, reparations, governments, and spheres of influence change hands and Armaggedon is avoided.

 

[billt568]

Any modern gsg would have to be first and foremost an economics simulator like Vicky 2 but much more extensive to account for commodities and financial sectors. Paradox would have to hire an Economist PhD to write up the system, or preferably two from different schools. Then you need an asymetrical warfare simulator, I think this would be well handled on a micro map of every section or region where you play whackamole with terrorists with increased effectiveness but also increased international criticism and public pressure as you increase leverage. Then you need a politics simulator ala Democracy 3, except I think paradox can make it way more user friendly and less assassination friendly, and more cynical. Finally you need a media/public outcry game to constantly put pressure on you. I would imagine the game going from scandal to crisis point to disaster, with global problems represented (climate change, authoritarian government, rogue states, religious problems).

Honestly Vicky 2 is a great system, it just needs to be streamlined, and the boring gaps of nothing have to be filled in.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

It would be extremely hard to produce a game that reflects the conventional/unconventional wars of today. The shear killing power available to some nations with just their conventional forces, let alone nukes/bio/chem weapons, would render the game non-possible as conflict would be over in weeks/months. The only reason insurgency warfare works today is that countries (western) are unwilling to committee to a roman style peace (make a desert and call it peace).

No country (perhaps China/Russia/India) would be able to wage a WW2 style war (over years) as the economic supply lines required to maintain that many well armed and equipped soldiers/planes/boats on the field are to long to maintain effectively.

A conventional war would not last years. Modern munitions are so destructive and, more importantly, accurate that most materiel would be destroyed in a few weeks, though mopping up could take years. This would not "make the game non-possible", it would just make collapsing civilisation, also known as World War 3, rather unwise.

Smashing terrorists does not always lead to criticism. Pakistan has recently announced that "there are no good Taliban" and that they will fight them to the end. This has been welcomed by most of the Pakistani population, and few outside are criticising either. Increasing ferocity also increases collateral killing and torture, which will drive the victims' relatives to join the terrorists and can make the problem much worse (the Mau Mau war in Kenya, for example, was largely about which side could commit slightly fewer atrocities to gain the support of most of the Kikuyu). Counter-insurgency is massively complex and could make a good game, but I doubt that Paradox could handle it properly, given how badly they usually deal with rebels.

TheRomanRuler, your post is full of vaguely racist bullshit. Chinese barbarians? Their empire was older than Rome's. The barbarians that destroyed Rome were just as European as the Romans themselves, and Rome went through turbulent times of decline with wars with Persia and internal decay as the emperor became a mere vassal of the army and acted mainly to please them for fear of being killed. Farmers were more and more strangled with taxes to the point where the barbarian conquest was even a relief for some. I have no idea why I was the one who got banned, but spouting mildly offensive nonsense is tolerated here unless the precious developers are insulted, or anyone dares speak the truth about certain events of Second World War, on a discussion about the Second World War.

 

[Secret Master]

If we can't play nice, the thread will have to go away.

If someone posts something offensive, contact a moderator. Discussing moderator actions, or lack of action, in public is against forum rules.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

No one is allowed to dispute with the almighty moderators, even if they do so politely, and I have no intention of doing so politely. Nice to see the principles of dictatorship nicely upheld. At least I can just delete all my Paradox games, go outside and see that the Nazis didn't win the war in real life.

If this is my last post, I want you all to know that however stupid I thought you were, I still think your right to free expression trumps any moderator's pretensions.

I love you all, really.

BBB

 

[Had a dad]

No, anyone can dispute a moderator, or admin etc, but you must do so via PM as the rule states. It's really simple.

If you are serious about loving your fellow forumites, just follow the rules and you'll be able to continue communicating with them. Saying they are stupid however isn't allowed.

You've now continued to take this thread more OT and continued your breach of rule #2 so gonna close this thread, with a general warning.