Is there a reason Paradox did not do a MDS?

[Alsadius]

Problem is, modern division-scale warfare is boring. If a war starts between majors, pop goes half of humanity. HoI it's not. Yes, Call of Duty can modernize, because at the level of individual soldiers, modern warfare is still an interesting topic for a game. Nuking the planet, not so much. The controversy aspect would be a killer too, but fundamentally the problem is with conquer-the-world gameplay in an era of ICBMs.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Not to mention having to protray one country - or a group of countries - as the aggressor/aggressors. I think a official MDS is a can of worms waiting to be opened.

 

[Myth]

Problem is, modern division-scale warfare is boring. If a war starts between majors, pop goes half of humanity. HoI it's not. Yes, Call of Duty can modernize, because at the level of individual soldiers, modern warfare is still an interesting topic for a game. Nuking the planet, not so much. The controversy aspect would be a killer too, but fundamentally the problem is with conquer-the-world gameplay in an era of ICBMs.

Well there was the whole concept of broken-backed warfare. Of course, not having had a nuclear war, we can't say how realistic it possibly could have been.

 

[Deo89]

We need a new Victoria-era based game, not a MDS based game.

Vicky is probably my fav Paradox game, but it is an unfinished game, it just requires some good polishing to make it really interesting, and the era it is set is probably the most balanced era you can have speaking in game terms, because there is a fair deal of Ground Warfare, Naval Warfare coupled with the importance of the economy, and a world politically divided in many great powers, none able to beat the other so easily.

 

[SeedSnatcher]

I wonder if folks'll be sitting around these forums in 40 years discussing about a game that starts in the 1990s.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Too controversial, and too much like fantasy beyond a certain point in time. Too many events Paradox would no doubt want to shy away from. The practical difficulties of simulating insurgencies and other unconventional warfare, too difficult to create a viable economic system. One of the major hot spots in the world is a banned topic here. It most likely won't ever happen.

Let's not get carried away. Topic bans apply to specific forums. You can discuss the "forbidden subject" in the history forums all you want, afaik.

Similarly, you can discuss subjects forbidden on this forum in OT.

 

[RioBrancoBaron]

Who in 2007 would have predicted the global economic meltdown of 2008-9?

The food crisis of early 2008 and the origins of the current crisis was forseeable. The house market in the US was already showing its problems in 2005. If you want to know how it was possible to predict the crisis you should read "Mobs, Markets and Messiahs" (don't remember the name of the authors). You can buy it Amazon in case you might be interested.

Modern Day Strategy games are too complex and not so enjoyable as other types of strategy games. I played Supreme Ruler 2020 and it was not as good as HoI.

 

[Myth]

Let's not get carried away. Topic bans apply to specific forums. You can discuss the "forbidden subject" in the history forums all you want, afaik.

Similarly, you can discuss subjects forbidden on this forum in OT.

As far as I can tell, the topic in mind is just blanket-banned, but that might just be because no Paradox game has incorporated it in any meaningful way yet

 

[ashbery76]

It would be a fantasy scenario because no important war has happened apart from the Falklands

 

[Myth]

Iran-Iraq War? Grenada? Gulf War? Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s? Chechnya (twice)? Afghanistan (twice)? Iraq War? Russo-Georgian War? I'm sure I'm missing some.

 

[Von Biddulph]

And there is always Supreme Ruler 2020..

 

[Alexander Seil]

Iran-Iraq War? Grenada? Gulf War? Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s? Chechnya (twice)? Afghanistan (twice)? Iraq War? Russo-Georgian War? I'm sure I'm missing some.

Depends on what your definition of MDS is. Let's say you want post-1960.

Yeah, you're missing multiple wars between India and Pakistan, probably about 40 wars in Africa, Vietnam (just the American part), a short war between Vietnam and China (late '70's), not to mention the potential and until recently rather likely conflicts in Korea and between ROC and PRC.

A much bigger problem is that the engine is completely unsuitable for these kind of things. They're too micro, and they're too political. You'd have to re-do the political system from scratch for an MDS to make any sense.

 

[Myth]

Depends on what your definition of MDS is.

Yep. He mentioned Falklands though, so I took that as more or less my starting point. Course, I forgot Lebanon (both times, or all three if you could the marines), the Kargil conflict, and all the stuff in Africa, and probably more. Still, even in the past thirty years there's been more than enough. The problem, as you point out, is the engine.

 

[Black Lotus]

People like HoI in the WWII era because there were clear sides, an us vs. them, now whether your side was "good" or not, that's a point of view. Also, WWII featured massive movements of grand strategy. In a MDS if you the United States went to "war" with Iraq in 2003, how much strategy would you have? You'd honestly just could attack move your units from right across the international boarder to Bagdad and you'd "win". A new game would be needed to simulate the political ramifications of such moves.

 

[barleyman]

The real culprit of our boring times is of course true weapons of mass destruction.

Every country with major nuclear arsenal can inflict a terrible toll on any single opponent, even as a weapon of last measure. Not to mention most industrial countries could have nuclear weapons in relatively short term if it was felt as necessary for national survival.

So the nuclear powers of our time, Russia, USA, China, France, UK, Israel, India and Pakistan are practically off limits for having their heartland invaded by conventional warfare. North Korea would really like to join the club too and they also have their own ballistic missile program.. Then there's Iran which wants the bomb to keep from being "liberated". Japan is also making noises WRT north korean nukes and so on and so on.

You _cannot_ have multi-year war between industrial countries without nuclear holocaust entering the equation anymore. cf mutually assured destruction doctrine for what I'm talking about. Do not have ballistic missiles? Well, just get some proxy company to ship your bloody nuke in a shipping container to the target..

So mostly we see terrible drawn out conflicts such as ethiopia - etitrea war between countries without industrial backbone to really churn out war material en masse.

And in any case, say whatever you want but EU is our last, best hope for peace in multicultural europe..

 

[DarthJF]

I would actually very much like if they made Cold War game. But nothing like HOI, but a game centered around diplomatical, technological and political comptetion. HOI concentrates on war, whereas in the game I have in mind warfare would have only a limited role. Instead it should be more like Victoria, but with deeper political and diplomatical models to simulate all the shadow boxing that was going on between US and USSR.

But a game like that would require a lot of effort to work and be very different from what Paradox has done so far, so I'm not hopeful of there coming one.

 

[barleyman]

Instead it should be more like Victoria, but with deeper political and diplomatical models to simulate all the shadow boxing that was going on between US and USSR.

Cold war conflict also was "spoiled" by MAD. USSR cranked out crazy numbers of conventional arms and could have thrown true sea of tanks into Fulda gap. However, NATO made no secret of being ready to strike back with (tactical) nuclear weapons to even the playground.

Not to mention September 26 1983 could very well have been the Judgement Day..

 

[DarthJF]

Cold war conflict also was "spoiled" by MAD. USSR cranked out crazy numbers of conventional arms and could have thrown true sea of tanks into Fulda gap. However, NATO made no secret of being ready to strike back with (tactical) nuclear weapons to even the playground.

Yes, but like I said it wouldn't have to be about WW3 with nukes flying about. What I had in mind would be a game where you try to achieve a kind of "influence victory" for your block without triggering WW3. Heck, full scale nuclear war could very well mean game over for all I care.

 

[Gogog]

The answer seems obvious to me... go forward 40-50 years and you can avoid the controversy and weave your story and background to fit your rules.

If done right it could be quite interesting.

 

[Nilmerf]

I would like to see Paradox try this, but not based on a HOI model. Make it more of an economic and political game than a war game. It certainly deserves a shot before Rome II does.