-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not too sure if a modern day simulation would be popular... I mean we have stuff like CoD4 to tide us over.
Agreed - I think the thread is now moving in the direction of ultra-ancient instead 
Difficulty in learning to play a game and difficulty in learning to play it well are two completely different things.shasla6 said:
Last edited:
Tambourmajor said:
..pff.. you forgot your own post so quickly
"stop dumbing games down to make them easy"
I was thinking about how a modern game could be done if Paradox did it. And I really don't think any game that takes place in the 50s and later will work with the old paradox formula at all, they'd have to reinvent their system.
If they did do a cold war or modern game, they'd have to emphasize politics over war, because that's what the modern era is all about. The era of NATO and the UN. Combat would have to be even further abstracted. Nothing about combat in the modern era could possible tie into paradox's current system. HoI2 was an interesting compromise, but even that wouldn't be good enough. They'd either have to make it way too complex for a global strategy game, or abstract it considerably as to take tactics out of the picture almost completely. There's little inbetween ground to work with.
They'd also have to completely revamp politics and diplomacy. The entire idea of conquest is obsolete now, no nation can take control, directly or indirectly, of another nation without having the entire world threatening to intervene.
In the end, I think I'd really like to see a complex cold war era political simulation on a global scale done right, but it's too much of a departure from what Paradox is used to doing, I doubt they will ever do it.
If they did do a cold war or modern game, they'd have to emphasize politics over war, because that's what the modern era is all about. The era of NATO and the UN. Combat would have to be even further abstracted. Nothing about combat in the modern era could possible tie into paradox's current system. HoI2 was an interesting compromise, but even that wouldn't be good enough. They'd either have to make it way too complex for a global strategy game, or abstract it considerably as to take tactics out of the picture almost completely. There's little inbetween ground to work with.
They'd also have to completely revamp politics and diplomacy. The entire idea of conquest is obsolete now, no nation can take control, directly or indirectly, of another nation without having the entire world threatening to intervene.
In the end, I think I'd really like to see a complex cold war era political simulation on a global scale done right, but it's too much of a departure from what Paradox is used to doing, I doubt they will ever do it.
l3illyl3ob said:
Let me guess...the usa didn't invade Iraq, they "liberated" it. :rofl:
Dspencer said:
There are exceptions, but this isn't the middle ages where you could invade and take direct control of someone else's territory on almost no pretense at all. At least with the Iraq war America doesn't tax the Iraqis and they have their own government. But let's not start a pointless debate nobody will win on the subject
l3illyl3ob said:
I agree pretty much with you. diplomacy should be reworked completely and economy in the game should at least look like if it were real. on top of that Paradox has a better and easier target on adapting strategy with role playing like crusaders kings. I think they hit the corner stone there on new strategy games, and not only strategic but also tactical. that makes the experience completely different as your goals are more personal and therefore more fun.
On the other hand some fresh air won't hurt paradox either.
l3illyl3ob said:
Yes, in other words we get the burden of conquest without the pay off. Bunglers.
It seems Paradox is hesitating to step into the modern era like Cold War to Present day and getting past WWII seems very difficult to them. But from what I see, had Superpower 2 been developed by Paradox it would have been a great game. Paradox has the ability to create a great modern era game! Before Rome's announcement I had a strong hope that this time they would make a game based on Cold War to present day but instead they are developing Rome and have chosen the era before Christ. I again hope that after Rome we may see a game based on Cold War to Present day making Paradox series complete in terms of era represented i.e. from Roman era to the present day. May be someday in future we see a HD DVD edition of Paradox representing the history of the world with all their great titles from Roman era to the modern era!
Dspencer said:
He is talking about annexation - something that hasnt happened to my knolwedge very often in the last 60 years.
So I dunno what the laugh is for...
I think we all agree that a modern day game developped by paradox would improve any standard available nowadays. But the problem is the scope and the perspective. Even historians are not happy writting about too modern events as it's difficult to guess the consecuences and more over the future interpretation of the facts (nobody wants to be remembered as the most mistaken writter of the age). For instance, could anyone in Europe's 30's have written something close to the real fate of the nazis? In this sense the aproach of battlegoat with supreme ruler 2010 was convenient (although not much challeging imo) as they set the starting point in a close future to get rid of historical events once and for ever. It makes sense, imagine porting EU to the 80's and making an event for the fall of Berlin's wall. What triggers should be used? what effects should it cause? it's difficult a very argueable.
still there are a couple of things that may go around the problem.
1) a modern day game á la EU3. no historical events. set the starting conditions and let the game run.
2) a whatif game. instead of scenarios you get whatif games where you face alternative history like, dunno, UK got kicked ass in Malvinas, Democratic revolution in Iraq gets allied with USA, Islamic revolution in Turkey (this is a bit crazy, I know)... and here comes the problem, these may not be interesting starting point but sensitive issues for some people.
Just today we got in Spain a TV channel alarming about a game called The shadows of the civil war, an RTS to kill nacionales or republicans. it's free promotion, if it were about my company I'd be happy about it, but I think paradox is not so daring in this sense.
still there are a couple of things that may go around the problem.
1) a modern day game á la EU3. no historical events. set the starting conditions and let the game run.
2) a whatif game. instead of scenarios you get whatif games where you face alternative history like, dunno, UK got kicked ass in Malvinas, Democratic revolution in Iraq gets allied with USA, Islamic revolution in Turkey (this is a bit crazy, I know)... and here comes the problem, these may not be interesting starting point but sensitive issues for some people.
Just today we got in Spain a TV channel alarming about a game called The shadows of the civil war, an RTS to kill nacionales or republicans. it's free promotion, if it were about my company I'd be happy about it, but I think paradox is not so daring in this sense.
alvaro said:
0:00 June 27, 1988: USA declared war on Albania!
0:00 June 27, 1988: USSR declared war on USA!
0:00 June 27, 1988: Global Thermonuclear War happened to us.
Bodhisattvas said:Try the game "superpower 2"
It has way too many flaws, Healthcare systems? Where? I don't know, they rushed it out far too fas. Paradox would have made a Far better game, for sure.
Maharaja said:
The laugh is for the USA claim that they liberated Iraq, yet still occupy it. No one said anything about annexation...conquest doesn't always involve annexation, either. He was talking about conquest, and that no nation could dare it, as they would face the world, like what happened to iraq in the first gulf war. All i said was that no one intervened in the second war when the USA invaded iraq, thus showing an exception to his rule.
Also, if you're trying to foment argument about whether or not the Iraq war was justified, don't bother, we have all chosen our sides already, and no one is going to change their mind about how they feel about the iraq war
And what does this have to do with the game?Dspencer said:The laugh is for the USA claim that they liberated Iraq, yet still occupy it. No one said anything about annexation...conquest doesn't always involve annexation, either. He was talking about conquest, and that no nation could dare it, as they would face the world, like what happened to iraq in the first gulf war. All i said was that no one intervened in the second war when the USA invaded iraq, thus showing an exception to his rule.
Also, if you're trying to foment argument about whether or not the Iraq war was justified, don't bother, we have all chosen our sides already, and no one is going to change their mind about how they feel about the iraq war