I know that these forums probably get grandiose game ideas all the time (and that these ideas will probably never be realized), but I thought I'd share this just for fun. I think Paradox could create one of the best political sims of all time if they wanted to. (Apologies if someone has already suggested something like this; it just seems like such a great fit.)
Note that even though I envision this as a mainly 20th-century game, it would be very different to HOI, which I'll explain.
Imagine a game where you get to play as a political party starting in 1919, after the Paris Peace Conference (starting here would make more sense than starting in 1900, since the conference shaped much of how the world is today). You can start as the leader of any party in the world, whether it's a lunatic fringe group or a mainstream 'big tent' coalition. Let's say you start as the British Labour Party.
Your goals for the game are determined by your party's goals, as laid out in its constitution. In this case, you would want to win the UK leadership race with enough seats to be able to pass certain pieces of pro-worker legislation. You can view your personal popularity and your party's popularity by electoral district or by administrative region (county, province, state, etc.). You can use propaganda to boost your popularity and you have to decide which regions you strategically sink that promotional investment into, based on each region's demographics. You can also win if the current government happens to be unpopular, which you can hasten (though the current government's unpopularity would not necessarily mean an even more hostile party wouldn't get in instead of you!)
Once in power, you set your government's agenda and try to pass legislation. No legislation = low popularity with everyone. Too extreme too early and you'll face backlash, but over time you can warm the population up to more extreme ideas if you want (through propaganda, the # of years same-ideology legislation has been in effect, etc.) Or you can stick around the political center for a less risky game, but then you need to control entryism and deal with activists further toward the extreme end of your ideology.
Globally, you can share resources with other parties by joining factions like the IST. Other parties might also lend you support if your party is not exactly aligned with theirs, but is the most viable party that shares a number of legislative goals (ie. Labour might choose to support a more radical socialist party in another country if the only other real option is a fascist party.) Meanwhile, you can impose sanctions on leaders of different ideologies in an effort to tank their economy and lower their popularity. Then they get replaced with friendly leaders who will help you out.
And if this happens to you? Elect a new party leader, change your party's constitution if necessary, and start campaigning again.
Unlike HOI, war would not be a focus for this game. In fact, you would usually want wars to be short if they were to happen at all, as a long war could turf you out of power. You might be able to take advantage of such a situation in order to impose emergency powers, and maybe even become a tyrant. But this would not be a take-over-the-world game, save for spreading your ideology. The game ends at the year 2019, or when your party folds (holds no seats and runs out of money.)
I could elaborate, but I think you get the idea. The length of this post might make it seem like I spent a lot of time thinking this up, but it really all came to me in about five minutes. A lot of these mechanics would simply be slight variations on things in other Paradox games, but put together in a unique way.
Would you enjoy playing a game like this?
Note that even though I envision this as a mainly 20th-century game, it would be very different to HOI, which I'll explain.
Imagine a game where you get to play as a political party starting in 1919, after the Paris Peace Conference (starting here would make more sense than starting in 1900, since the conference shaped much of how the world is today). You can start as the leader of any party in the world, whether it's a lunatic fringe group or a mainstream 'big tent' coalition. Let's say you start as the British Labour Party.
Your goals for the game are determined by your party's goals, as laid out in its constitution. In this case, you would want to win the UK leadership race with enough seats to be able to pass certain pieces of pro-worker legislation. You can view your personal popularity and your party's popularity by electoral district or by administrative region (county, province, state, etc.). You can use propaganda to boost your popularity and you have to decide which regions you strategically sink that promotional investment into, based on each region's demographics. You can also win if the current government happens to be unpopular, which you can hasten (though the current government's unpopularity would not necessarily mean an even more hostile party wouldn't get in instead of you!)
Once in power, you set your government's agenda and try to pass legislation. No legislation = low popularity with everyone. Too extreme too early and you'll face backlash, but over time you can warm the population up to more extreme ideas if you want (through propaganda, the # of years same-ideology legislation has been in effect, etc.) Or you can stick around the political center for a less risky game, but then you need to control entryism and deal with activists further toward the extreme end of your ideology.
Globally, you can share resources with other parties by joining factions like the IST. Other parties might also lend you support if your party is not exactly aligned with theirs, but is the most viable party that shares a number of legislative goals (ie. Labour might choose to support a more radical socialist party in another country if the only other real option is a fascist party.) Meanwhile, you can impose sanctions on leaders of different ideologies in an effort to tank their economy and lower their popularity. Then they get replaced with friendly leaders who will help you out.
And if this happens to you? Elect a new party leader, change your party's constitution if necessary, and start campaigning again.
Unlike HOI, war would not be a focus for this game. In fact, you would usually want wars to be short if they were to happen at all, as a long war could turf you out of power. You might be able to take advantage of such a situation in order to impose emergency powers, and maybe even become a tyrant. But this would not be a take-over-the-world game, save for spreading your ideology. The game ends at the year 2019, or when your party folds (holds no seats and runs out of money.)
I could elaborate, but I think you get the idea. The length of this post might make it seem like I spent a lot of time thinking this up, but it really all came to me in about five minutes. A lot of these mechanics would simply be slight variations on things in other Paradox games, but put together in a unique way.
Would you enjoy playing a game like this?
Last edited:
- 1
