Just like Rome goes ancient - id like to see the next game go modern...

[unmerged(59432)]

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

I wasnt trying to forment anything.

And just so you know, I didnt support it.

 

[Mr. Domino]

I know alot of people think wars are boring and like economic buildup. But I think economic buildup/diplomacy in the modern age isn't as meaningful in the difference they make as they were in Victoria (which I like). Take Russia for example, from 1995-2008. What would the game be like? I guess you could manage your economy, invade chechnya (would that be in good taste?), and do some UN stuff with the Iraq war or the invasion of Kosovo.

But really, even if played brillantly Russia is pretty much the same as a Russia where I just fast forwarded and played poorly. I could never go to the UN in game, grow my economy at 3% a year instead of 6% for a decade, and fundamentally I would still just have a big nation that maybe had less prestige points and a second world economy that just lagged farther than it should have way. There is no existential threat to Russia, no real danger, and no realistic chance my GDP will ever match the EU or the US even with double digit growth for a decade. And this is one of the most interesting and important nations "in the game" over 15 years.

In Victoria, you could take a small country like Belgium, turn it into an industrial power (somewaht realistically) then invade Africa (somewhat realistically) grab some colonies, fight a couple major wars, annex oh, part of the Netherlands and so on. You could grow and then actually do stuff. In a modern game you could spend 50 years growing as China and still lag behind the West, and then still be boxed by an American nuclear umbrella over Taiwan and a world community that hasn't had a major big power war in decades.

 

[Oriental Despot]

What Paradox needs to do is make a game set in the Dark Ages so I can do a megacampaign and reenact the 1939 Scythian invasion of Chile.

A Cold War title would be very nice though. Anybody ever play Shadow President? I can see Paradox doing great things in a similar vein.

 

[unmerged(485)]

What Paradox needs to do is make a game set in the Dark Ages so I can do a megacampaign and reenact the 1939 Scythian invasion of Chile.

A Cold War title would be very nice though. Anybody ever play Shadow President? I can see Paradox doing great things in a similar vein.

Are you kidding? The Persians of Chile would crush any Scythian invasion!

 

[Vharzul]

IMO a modern settings isnt fitting to play and would be rather boring, id rather play the History periods, like WW1 & 2 and then EU3 periods and CK etc, they just have more depth and fun factor.

 

[alvaro]

IMO a modern settings isnt fitting to play and would be rather boring, id rather play the History periods, like WW1 & 2 and then EU3 periods and CK etc, they just have more depth and fun factor.

yes, but the depth factor gets fuzzy when playing more than 100 years in a game.

 

[unmerged(38835)]

just a few thoughts on this:

i think a game starting in a hypothetical 2005 or even 2010 would be fine.

game-wise we have a similar situation to victoria:

pops with a lot of needs and different ideologies and political mainstreams

we have an economic powerhouse, several regional powers, some on the step to become major powers

i think complicated stuff like statebuilding should be left out or merely abstracted by event chains

NUKES: an option to switch it off will do

espionage options could range from "hack the pentagon" kind of operations to special forces infiltration

the focus should be empower your state in an anarchic world, which apart from HOI and CK -series is the usually approach for paradox games

i think the ambitions of superpower II were quite good, just implementation was bad.

so lets hope for some kind of HOI/victoria hybrid

 

[-MoRiDin-]

But id like something that is easier than Victoria or HOI.

gave yourself away... learn to play my man... learn to play...

pops with a lot of needs and different ideologies and political mainstreams

Like what? Ideology is dead no one stand up for what they believe any more.. hitler went to jail, lenin exile... people just do give like that any more... atleast not for radical thought they believe in....

 

[alvaro]

Like what? Ideology is dead no one stand up for what they believe any more.. hitler went to jail, lenin exile... people just do give like that any more... atleast not for radical thought they believe in....

beans, the XXIth century ideology!


it's true though, if you want easier than Hoi you'd hardly find something in paradox games. IMO game developpers should go for more difficult and AI detachable games.

 

[unmerged(38835)]

religious ideologies
think of islamism or christian fundamentalists

new socialism rising in several southern american states

and i can see good old nationalism around the corner

pro and anti western

of course the respective nationalities would quarrel about their pops and their basic ideologies and ppl who dont care about that would complain that the borders of poland are wrong....as always

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

I think Hearts of Iron is good for WWI, of course it could be more complex, but WWII could and should, too.

Nope. It doesn´t accurately represent the battles of the western front, for example. It is impossible to get the AI of HOI2 to attack heavily fortified areas and suffer heavy casualties.

 

[takedown47]

what about a game that takes place between 1953-2053? You play history for half of it and the rest is all plausible as it hasn't happened yet! The goal is to gain hegemony over the world much like the US and Soviets were duking it out with covert operatives. With the game brought into 2008 you'd witness China and the US locked in a dangerous power struggle cold war 2 with perhaps a rebuilding russia on the fringes waiting to regain her place in the sun.

features:

warfare primarily fought with intelleigence operations (huge arsenal of missions and specialised teams. A spy on a mission can do more damage than an army)

if nukes are used everyone suffers huge economic and environmental problems and nation using nukes suffer huge amounts of prestige (thus making it harder towin the game).

if conventional war is fought (ie. invasion Iraq, Turkish invasion of north Iraq) then the attacker gets a slight prestige hit.

primary focus on building your economy through a PoP's system like in Victoria.

space program (available from 1969 onwards). very costly and time consuming. consumes huge amounts of military industrial complex factory floor space. requires high investment etc. Much like researching nukes in HoI2 Doomsday (it takes along time is requires a step by step process)

You get the following benefits:

1. substantial prestige for starting the program
2. large amount of prestige if you're the first nation to put an object into orbit (historicaly around mid 1950's)
3. average prestige if you put an object in space (the more nations that have already done it the less u get)
4. huge amount of prestige if you're the first to put a man in space (soviets historically were the first to do this)
5. average prestige if you put a man in space (the more nations that have already done it the less u get)
6. massive prestige if you're the first to put a man on the moon (less if you're not the first same as above)
7. massive prestige if you're the first to put a man on mars (2022 onwards)
8. large prestige if you put a space station into orbit

 

[unmerged(76802)]

How time consuming? The US put our first man in space in 1961. Eight years later, we landed four guys on the Moon.

 

[Dspencer]

I think a modern day game would be amazing, but i don't think Paradox could get away with it. Would they be honest about USA subsidies that cripple the worlds' cotton industry? Would they portray the breton woods institutes in an honest light? Could they show how oil reserves priced in US dollars add to America's financial rating, and how if OPEC switched over to euros, the US would be facing collapse? What about what would happen if China pulled out the trillion dollars they have in holdings in the US dollar, and the world economic collapse that would happen as a result? A modern day game would only work if it was much more complex than vicky, and while vicky is THE best game by paradox, alot of people still don't get it. How would paradox portray a global economic system run by schmucks who read sun tzu's art of war, and apply it to economics?

 

[l3illyl3ob]

what about a game that takes place between 1953-2053? You play history for half of it and the rest is all plausible as it hasn't happened yet! The goal is to gain hegemony over the world much like the US and Soviets were duking it out with covert operatives. With the game brought into 2008 you'd witness China and the US locked in a dangerous power struggle cold war 2 with perhaps a rebuilding russia on the fringes waiting to regain her place in the sun.

It would lack focus too much. Think about how much the world has changed since 1953, how much more do you think it will change in 2053? Everything the game is about will be radically different in the two dates and you can't really do a single game in that entire time frame.

 

[ikki]

It would lack focus too much. Think about how much the world has changed since 1953, how much more do you think it will change in 2053? Everything the game is about will be radically different in the two dates and you can't really do a single game in that entire time frame.

Yeah.. in 1900 the worry was what to do with the manure in a century when everyone in a city would have many horses....

Half a century later the race was on for oil.

Today we worry about oil, in 100 years .... we might have solved all energy even space problems (x-dimensional space), but the worry instead is making sure everyone participates in forming the society, as we have easily made weapons of massdestruction that everyone owns. Anyone just need to think the thought and have any number of people killed instantly, or some such.

 

[unmerged(59432)]

A lot of people have raised eyebrows when I said I found Victoria hard, well let me put that in perspective.

1). I found systems in the game such as elections and trade very complicated, i.e. not user-friendly.

2). Every time I did make any progress, the game crashed.

Thats why I mentioned I would like more generalised directives and policies in political and economic areas - not micro management - more along the lines of 'build it and they will come' Sim City style (assuming one has a market economy, etc). A country's leader dosent have to micro manage how many tires there are in the country

 

[Strager]

Yeah, that could be interesting. But a contemporary game would have the slightly disconcerting effect of becoming obsolete with every passing day.

Thats what mods and expansions are for. Maybe even offically have an update every 6 months to include the latest territory changes etc.

It could be feesably done - and would be pretty darn cool. Maybe have it start in the mid-late 1800s and move through the following eras: Civil War. WWI, WWII, Cold War (and associated wars of course in the style of nam, korea, cuba etc.), GWI, GWII (current "Iraq" war) etc. -- would be the best EU game to date.

Nukes wouldn't be a concern until midway through the game, and a "Cold War" event could start quickly as soon as a second nation gets them. Using a Nuke durring the "Cold War" would pretty much mean a game over as nukes go flying round the world. After the "Cold War" (if it ends at all) it still would be difficult to use them because just about every major power would have them, and using one would trigger a response from SOMEONE- unless there was a good reason to do so (which would be very unlikely)


EDIT: An awesome mod idea if Paradox ever did it would be a "Post-Nucular War"/Postapocolytpic mod

 

[unmerged(76802)]

It could be feesably done - and would be pretty darn cool. Maybe have it start in the mid-late 1800s and move through the following eras: Civil War. WWI, WWII, Cold War (and associated wars of course in the style of nam, korea, cuba etc.), GWI, GWII (current "Iraq" war) etc. -- would be the best EU game to date.

So, you expect one game to model the set-piece battles of the Civil War, the trench warfare of WW1, the blitzkrieg of WW2, and the brushfire wars of the Cold War.

Would you like it to make you coffee and banana-flavored ice cream too?

 

[unmerged(52731)]

Im not thinking a modern game would be doable using the current engines and modern technology. Also, it would likely be boring as sin. Imagine playing the Iraq war? A week and you've already won. 5+ years later your still sitting there fighting constant "peasant uprisings". Wars might be cool, but anything serious (US vs Russia) would have to involve nukes or the game would be silly. Nukes, as many have said, are boring and if modeled correctly, game-ending.

Next game should be CK 2