Some links to ideas I came up with earlier regarding what a hypothetical Cold War game should feature:
Regarding politics in a Cold War era game:
If Paradox did a Cold War game, what features would you want?
"In my humble opinion any Cold War game would require a system that differentiates thepolitical leanings of the population from those of the government and whether those leanings align to make influencing internal politics more exciting. It would also allow for more subtle tactics and make one's overall success or failure relevant.
For example: country A is communist according to its political pie chart, because communists constitute its majority if not its totality. The population is mostly communist according to its dedicated political pie chart, so there is an alignment between the government and the population and thus no trouble. Neighbouring country B is democratic as depicted by its own set of pie charts. As the decades go by, country B experiences economic growth, while country A experiences economic stagnation and, finally, regress. The political pie chart still indicates that the country is still run by communists and thus is still considered communist, but its population starts resenting its government (because, in their opinion, it does not manage the country properly), yearns for products and services available in the neighbouring democratic country (because the economy can't provide for their everyday needs) and is being influenced by democratic media and news or gossip coming from those who travelled there and came back (which slowly start seeping in as people look for some entertainment and wonder how people live in a different, perhaps even better system, and some of it may be part of a deliberate action taken by country B. Plus, it is hard to consider oneself a citizen of a successful country when children in country B play games on home computers and in your country having a home computer is considered a luxury if not a realm of science-fiction.). Thus, the political chart of the population starts indicating, that the population is drifting politically towards the democratic part of the spectrum, thus depicting its desire for a democratic government. The greater the disparity, the greater the chances that strikes, riots, and eventually, the formation of a political opposition, if not full civil war, will take place in country A.
This system would force the player to be mindful to not upset the population of its own country too much, making him or her make some hard choices (“Should I continue the Vietnam War and risk that my own unemployed citizens will turn against me, or should I end the war and stabilise the economy but allow Vietnam to become communist?”). It would also allow for a choice of strategies when influencing other countries. Feel lucky? Support a coup. The government will change and the population will slowly, but eventually follow the new system. Want to be subtle? Influence the population over a long period of time and make it do all the work of toppling its own government in favour of the one which is more suitable for your taste.
This system would also underline one of the key themes any Cold War must feature: in this war,
everything is a weapon, not only the military. The more successful you are in fields of science, art, sports, economy, etc., the more people in the countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain want to live the way you do, because, obviously, your success did not spring out of nowhere. Outclass the oponent and, eventually, the hearts and minds of their citizens will flock to your ideology."
Regarding the mechanic that would prevent most campaigns from ending in a draw:
If Paradox did a Cold War game, what features would you want?
"I have an idea for mechanic which would both fit the game, make it more interesting and prevent too many instances of draw results of a campaign.
The mechanic is called „ROT.”
The name is derived from Soviet accusations in their propaganda, that the West was rotten (i.e. „rotten West”) and sooner or later would inevitably fall due to its imperfections. Ironically, the opposite happened, because the USSR became so „rotten” as to be beyond all hope of repair or reformation.
So how would this work? In essence, „Rot” measures how much you have compromised your ideals in order to gain the upper hand against your ideological rival. Rot would „fuel” actions which are questionable (e.g. supporting the overthrow of other governments), reprehensible (e.g. suppressing your own citizens) or contrary to what your ideology holds dear (e.g. cheating during elections in democratic countries/allowing for disparities and favouritism in communist countries). In the short term it would grant immediate effects, but in the long run it would endanger your future success by accumulating maluses in all aspects of your country, since its excesses would cause your citizens (and those of foreign ones as well) to lose faith in the ideology that you represent and begin drift towards the opponent’s ideology , who may not be ideal, but at least tries more than you do.
Some of you might say, that it would resemble „Corruption” in EU4 too much to be original, but there is one key difference: one would
have to use it win the game, otherwise the “clean” player would lose against the one who was not afraid to get his or her hands dirty. This would require the player to use it and, since here or she would not know the Rot value of his or her opponent, the resulting paranoia (fitting taking into account the subject matter) would force the player to make some hard decisions whether to pursue his or her goals or let it rest for a moment and regain some semblance of ideological purity. It would also fit the game thematically since the real Cold War was fought by using tactics which were not always legal or ethical, but were effective and got the job done and thus would convey the “grey morality” of the era. And last, but not least, it would prevent the campaign ending with a draw too many times, since, sooner or later, one side would go too far one the Rot scale and begin its decline, allowing the other to win without resorting to military action and risking World War III."
Why Paradox should try making a Cold War game:
WW1 1914 + Cold War DLC
"Beating someone with an army? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Beating someone with your ideology, covert ops and political maneuvering, all the while staring into the eyes of the other big guy with his armies at the ready and a finger on The Button (and vice versa) and, the most important thing, doing it all without turning the world into a radioactive wasteland? Now that's something we would like to try out in a Paradox franchise that doesn't have a number after its title."
An last, but not least, the ULTIMATE argument In favour of Paradox:
A Normal Everyday Forum Login
<crosses fingers for a Cold War game developed by Paradox (because anyone else will
fail.
Poorly.).>
Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this,
@Dnote!
