A post-cold war game?

[AndrejK]

Has there been any thoughts about a post- Cold war game...
I mean after the collapse of the USSR mechanics of HoI seem to be irrelevant, as politics changed.

apart from countries, we also have important inhtergovernmental organisations (UN), NGOs, corporations, subnational entities (e.g. Catalonia), terrorist groups, mafia, religious institutions. Having such a game (realistically) portraying all those institutions would be cool .
The EU and UN could use some HRE mechanics from EU4.
Any thoughts?

 

[Heradite]

Has there been any thoughts about a post- Cold war game...
I mean after the collapse of the USSR mechanics of HoI seem to be irrelevant, as politics changed.

apart from countries, we also have important inhtergovernmental organisations (UN), NGOs, corporations, subnational entities (e.g. Catalonia), terrorist groups, mafia, religious institutions. Having such a game (realistically) portraying all those institutions would be cool .
The EU and UN could use some HRE mechanics from EU4.
Any thoughts?

Wait 8 years. By then World War 3 will be over and those of us who survived in bunkers can play that.

(In all seriousness a grand strategy game of beating back domestic and international terrorists could be fun. How much liberty to curtail in the name of a
safety?)

 

[AndrejK]

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apart from classical infantry , (outdated) cavalry and artillery and armoured units (tanks), various ships and airforces, there also ought to be civilian units.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 and FBiH.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 and guerrillas/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 24 districts)
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/has influence. 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.

 

[AndrejK]

Districts for Slovakia, Croatia and Bosnia, religions @ start date 1989 (used census data from year 1991). Borders are chosen to copy admin divisions of the country, and where significant, also allow ethnic gerrymandering.


Useful site :http://pop-stat.mashke.org/

 

[silentsam5]

Dang, you put in a lot of thought, @AndrejK. Sounds like it would be a lot of fun, but I can't really see Paradox creating a game like this.

 

[silentsam5]

Actually, since Stellaris, I can imagine Paradox doing something like this.

 

[pavig]

Supreme Ruler Ultimate is worth a look. It's a hot mess, but does fulfill the criteria of grand strategy, and it's cheap on the humblebundle store at the moment. Not as elegant as Paradox games, but I was surprised by the depth and complexity.

 

[AndrejK]

Really if Paradox was to something like this, I woukd be prepared to help

 

[Avian Overlord]

No reason not to unify the whole post-WW2 period into one game. The Cold War might be over, but the same political norms persist and states use the same methods to project power in the modern day.

 

[Augustus93]

This has been brought up multiple times and they did state that they will not make any such game. The reason being was that it would hit a little too close to home. Stellaris is set 200 years into the future, it is fictional. The cold war is probably their limit when it comes to the "modern" age.

 

[Kapi96]

Providing the time period went in to the futre a fair way (the limited timeframe is the biggest turn off for HOI and Victoria for me), I'd totally play something like that!

 

[gia257]

This has been brought up multiple times and they did state that they will not make any such game. The reason being was that it would hit a little too close to home. Stellaris is set 200 years into the future, it is fictional. The cold war is probably their limit when it comes to the "modern" age.

If somebody doesnt like an specific portrayal their HQ could get a gift

 

[TheFuego]

I think that post-cold war grand strategy game should be heavily based on managing inner politics, international relations, finances, managing inner regions and UN and EU.

When a region is too autonomus or if it's a federal nation, you could play as the state and try to get independence either peacefully with the help of EU/UN or violently.

 

[WankoStankins]

They won't do it because to do it rightly would require allowing people to enact controversial-ass policies. It would be shit if it only showed acceptable things. For some reason it's okay to show bad things like imperialism and slavery if it happened hundreds of years ago but not to show unsavory things about today or about nazis and shit (because there are still people who are nazis I guess, while old-school imperialists like those in Victoria II are pretty dead). No matter how you depict it there would be tons of political bias that people would complain about from various corners.

I still want it though, mainly to enact a worldwide communist revolution. Of course, I'd rather have the Cold War included, since it's much easier to include a span of actual history than have it be completely unknown future time.

 

[AndrejK]

I think that post-cold war grand strategy game should be heavily based on managing inner politics, international relations, finances, managing inner regions and UN and EU.

When a region is too autonomus or if it's a federal nation, you could play as the state and try to get independence either peacefully with the help of EU/UN or violently.

Seems that such cases would be quite frequent.
Also, UN Security council (dis)approval of any border changes would be quite a feature, holding down any warmongers.

They won't do it because to do it rightly would require allowing people to enact controversial-ass policies. It would be shit if it only showed acceptable things. For some reason it's okay to show bad things like imperialism and slavery if it happened hundreds of years ago but not to show unsavory things about today or about nazis and shit (because there are still people who are nazis I guess, while old-school imperialists like those in Victoria II are pretty dead). No matter how you depict it there would be tons of political bias that people would complain about from various corners.

I still want it though, mainly to enact a worldwide communist revolution. Of course, I'd rather have the Cold War included, since it's much easier to include a span of actual history than have it be completely unknown future time.

I would like to try out how to get a greater Hungary.

Playing as a Mexican drug cartel might be actually quite interesting.

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

Well,though i would lova a post ww2 game, that plays around domestic issues, policies and international conventions etc and not about taking land by conqest. This would also mean that they woudl have to simulate every major political scandal sence ww2. PDX just wouln't dare, and i dont blame them. Aphartheid and the terrorism from ANC how would they involve that, the balkan wars etc, russia annexion of crimea. Any many leaders live to this day.

People argue & fight about what you name cookies, old tv-shows, statues and whatnot nowadays, a PDX-game modern era world spark the ww3 in the real life. Gamers would probably love it, but the world would hate it and it would be banned in the dictatorships like china. Don't think the world is mature for a modern world game, atleast not today, maybe a few years back or a few years ahead.

 

[AndrejK]

Well,though i would lova a post ww2 game, that plays around domestic issues, policies and international conventions etc and not about taking land by conqest. This would also mean that they woudl have to simulate every major political scandal sence ww2. PDX just wouln't dare, and i dont blame them. Aphartheid and the terrorism from ANC how would they involve that, the balkan wars etc, russia annexion of crimea. Any many leaders live to this day.

People argue & fight about what you name cookies, old tv-shows, statues and whatnot nowadays, a PDX-game modern era world spark the ww3 in the real life. Gamers would probably love it, but the world would hate it and it would be banned in the dictatorships like china. Don't think the world is mature for a modern world game, atleast not today, maybe a few years back or a few years ahead.

Oh, I see. Alive politicoans don't want to see their virtual versions , especially if they would find put that they have crappy stats.
I don't actually see it that difficult portraying the Balkan wars - you would have unrecognized states (Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia) , fighting each other and Bosnia. I can actually see militias/paramilitaries having a list of three "enemies", where they could chose a particular denomination, ethnicity or ideology. After conquering districts in a civil war, depending on the professionalism, there would be a chance of committing war crimes. (Soldiers doing bad things, such as murders and so).
Or you could get an event, where you can choose, whether you expel the hostile and undesirable population, or you force them to swear allegiance, or demand some higher taxes.
Apartheid portrayal? Well you could get a screen where it shows you human rights,
Underneath political rights, and it would tell you that only Boer men and women are entitled to vote.

 

[Steel_atlas]

We have been in a unipolar after ww2 the ussr was never a real threat to the us

 

[Lacost]

I also think that a modern day setting is simply too controversial for todays society. Depicting slavery and holy wars a few centuries ago is fine because it is already seen as history but as soon as people could still be alive from the depicted timeframe, this whole topic gets emotional.

Look at Germany for instance, which still is constantly censoring content about the NSDAP (no picture of Adolf Hitler in HOI4).

Now imagine Paradox would make a game including the 2000s where you can play as Saudi Arabia and take the mission to hijack planes and perform a well known terrorist attack with them.


If you place your game in a modern day setting, you have to be so extremely careful to not slip up because one minor oversight can completeley ruin everything your game stands for or what it was supposed to be. The biggest fail in this category is probably The Division from Massive Entertainment. This game has the most disgusting unintended gameplay implications I have ever seen in a game thus far. You basically run around in the streets of modern day New York and aimlessly mass-murder people on the streets because you are following the totalitarian orders of the US president. All legal, all backed by the law. The people you murder do lawfully "deserve" it....

Just for the sake of Paradox, I hope they never touch a modern day setting. As interesting as it would be for a player, there is simply no way on how you can implement an unbiased and unrestricted view of recent events.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

How would you pull it off? Considering people are less and less identifying as subjects of nations anymore, how do you run a country 100 years into the future, ruling people who forget you exist, or vote against anything you want to do? Vic II mechanics are only going to cover so many decades, you start getting to a point where boarders are obscured by human movement and communication, and state's job ends up just being "housekeeping".