Tweet
Originally posted by General Ludd
What we need is a cold war game, or even just an all encompassing modern-era EU.
What we need is a cold war game, or even just an all encompassing modern-era EU.
-
Oh yes. That would be amazing. Truly amazing. -
Political simulators are a lot different than a full-fledged strategy game.Originally posted by Grumbold
We've had a lot of modern/cold war political simulators attempted in the last few years and they have all failed. I can't see Paradox being able to magic it onto a compelling format either given the pretty crude level of their political AI systems to date.Comment
-
Who's talking future? You could start it during the Cold War, or near Gulf 1.Originally posted by pg
anyhow, i agree they might have trouble in a future setting especially once the game couldn't be purely driven by historic events. you could make events for a future game that'd be believable but it'd be tough as you'd have to cover to many plausible occurances.Comment
-
I can see IRL America doing that tooOriginally posted by Grumbold
Nikolai, what worries me is a braindead AI with a nuclear button. I can see AI America invading a dozen different countries around the globe, all inadequately, then going nuclear as soon as an opponent gets the bomb.
Comment
-
I wonder if they might be doing something with the Mutant Chronicles license they aquired some time ago?
I have the rpg around somewhere - it had a lot of potential as a strategy game but the sci-fi/horror theme would be a bit of a departure from Paradox' current projects.
It'd be nice to have a Paradox game running on multiple maps - Play as one of the 5 Megacorps or the Brotherhood (or perhaps one of the lesser Corporations) and engage Dark Legion strongholds simultaneously on Mars and Venus while jockeying for power with the other Corps.Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I can see IRL America doing that too
RL America is trying to develop techs (precision guided super bunker buster missiles to kill nukes preemptively, and missile shields to make it easier to live with rogue nukes) so it doesnt have to do that. A modern era game would have to model such techs, but also take into account disagreement about viability of such techs. Perhaps a random factor - if A, missile defense works at the 99% level, if B missile defense works at the 40% level - you dont know when you deploy it - but IF you spend lots of money on testing, and wait several extra years to deploy, you resolve the uncertainty of whether youre in world A or world B.
Similarly any current world modeler would have to have a sophisticated model of bad boy points (invading Iraq without UNSC res raises bad boy points, but invading WITH a res offsets those bad boy points only in states - like europe, India - where "respect for UN" is high - wont matter as much in Islamic states - bad boy points can be further reduced if good outcome in post war Iraq - but that means use of resources that otherwise could be used for next target) and war weariness (differs with casualties, casus, etc) to fully model the tradeoffs involved that prevent the US from moving quickly from one target to the next (aside from lack of troops, which is the kind of thing all strat games have modeled for years)"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
RL America is trying to develop techs (precision guided super bunker buster missiles to kill nukes preemptively, and missile shields to make it easier to live with rogue nukes) so it doesnt have to do that. A modern era game would have to model such techs, but also take into account disagreement about viability of such techs. Perhaps a random factor - if A, missile defense works at the 99% level, if B missile defense works at the 40% level - you dont know when you deploy it - but IF you spend lots of money on testing, and wait several extra years to deploy, you resolve the uncertainty of whether youre in world A or world B.
Variable game rules - I likey
Comment
-
i think Avalon hills board game "1914" (a James Dunnigan design) had something like this with pregame event cards. No tech variability, but like "Belgians allow Germans free passage, Belgian troops disappear from board, Germans can use Belgian RRs like German RRs, and Britain no longer enters automatically after German entry into Belgium" It was an attempt to make the game LESS "history on rails" and to reflect the kinds of uncertainties the real decisionmakers faced - for example the French COULDNT count on Belgian resistance against Germany.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
RL America is trying to develop techs (precision guided super bunker buster missiles to kill nukes preemptively, and missile shields to make it easier to live with rogue nukes) so it doesnt have to do that. A modern era game would have to model such techs, but also take into account disagreement about viability of such techs. Perhaps a random factor - if A, missile defense works at the 99% level, if B missile defense works at the 40% level - you dont know when you deploy it - but IF you spend lots of money on testing, and wait several extra years to deploy, you resolve the uncertainty of whether youre in world A or world B.
Variable game rules - I likey
James Dunnigan
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
I most want to see Vicky II. EU III would be nice too.
A Cold War/modern game would be interesting, but honestly I don't think even Paradox could pull it off (then again, I didn't think Paradox could pull Vicky off either)."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
what do you think would make it hard to pull off? IM thinking the problem would be a conflict with less emphasis on war and even economics, and more on diplomacy, espionage, covert political involvements, domestic politics in dozens of polities, all interacting - the kinds of things PC games have historically not been all that good at. Perhaps there are other reasons, though.Originally posted by Ramo
I most want to see Vicky II. EU III would be nice too.
A Cold War/modern game would be interesting, but honestly I don't think even Paradox could pull it off (then again, I didn't think Paradox could pull Vicky off either)."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
The big problem I see is that, besides the fact that there's no precedent to fall back on, that modern political models are much harder to generalize across various states than modern martial models. The same is really true for economic models."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Isn't it likely Paradox will complete the series w/ a game that encompasses history from 1921 - 2004?"What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned our government must be strong. It's always right and never wrong,.....that's what I learned in school."
--- Tom Paxton song ('63)Comment
-
A couple of days ago, Paradox acquired the rights to develop games based on Diplomacy and Squad Leader ...
Comment
-
A Diplomacy game is probably quite within Paradox's possibilities, but Squad Leader...?
That'd be interesting (or humorous, in the worst case scenario) to see.DULCE BELLUM INEXPERTISComment
-
Those two games could be what she talked about, but I doubt it. Maybe she just fooled him.
Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.-Isaiah 41:10
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made - Psalms 139.14a
Also active on WePlayCiv.Comment
Comment