US or Soviet?

[XuiSha]

Japan or China or North Korea is what I would play!

[Mission Space]

SOUTH AFRICA they almost developed nukes, had an excellent armed forces, but hey with all the new added features i could also have a fun time killing communists in Rhodesia

if there is, the Space race should be very fun and challenging

[Communazi]

Japan or China or North Korea is what I would play!

haha.. I imagine playing as occupied Japan in the 50's would be a barrel of fun.

Israel could be a very interesting country to play I think.. they probably had an even bigger military advantage in the 50's

Or India and siding with the soviets.

[Glen-livet]

Yugoslavia

And my only question is, will they put missile silos in d game?

[Balthagor]

...And my only question is, will they put missile silos in d game?

Strategic Missiles (ICBMs, etc.) are sort of required for this time period. I suppose there might be some solution that doesn't put the silos themselves on the map but using silo facilities is likely where we'll start the concept. We're still doing work on this area.

[Hullu Hevonen]

In the early Cold War I would go with USSR, but after 1970's onwards I would go with USA

[tkobo]

..... occupied Japan ....

I hadnt thought about that yet.This probably means a new,or at least very expanded, loyalty system

[Lightbringer]

India, South Africa, or Brazil could all have some interesting imperialistic opportunities by playing both the big dogs off against each other without threatening any resource areas (example: Middle East oil fields) and forcing one or both to intercede.

-Light

[Balthagor]

FYI, made a comment on another forum that I thought was worth mentioning here;

Regarding playing US/Soviet vs. rest of world, I would expect that to play out differently when it's all said and done. As a superpower the player will be trying to "grow" their side of the conflict (Nato/Warsaw). As any other region in the sandbox you can't directly affect the direction of those entities. How the game plays as other regions is still being decided

If you guys have specific comments on how the game should "feel" when you're not one of the big guys let us know.

[Hundane]

As any other region in the sandbox you can't directly affect the direction of those entities. How the game plays as other regions is still being decided

The thing that concerns me is the historical elements. I like to be able to choose the course of my region and not be forced to follow a certain historical path or not be able to make certain decisions based on thats not what they (the region im playing) did in history. Playing that region and going down a different path might be extremely more difficult and may even seem impossible but it shouldnt be banned from my list of options to do. If I want to make an ally with whomever, I should be able to attempt to become one, if I want to establish trade, I should be able to attempt it. If I want to Fubar my game and declare war on Nato or Warsaw or both then I should be allowed. I should be able to start my goals from day 1 and not have to wait till certain events happen or till after a certain game year is reached. I might not be successful but I should have a chance to try the impossible.

[George Geczy]

. I like to be able to choose the course of my region and not be forced to follow a certain historical path or not be able to make certain decisions based on thats not what they (the region im playing) did in history.

When playing in sandbox mode it is certainly expected that players will be able to player in a very open, unscripted way. That being said there is also a desire by some players to see a more historical progression, and this is something we may need to address with some game options.

The bigger issues revolve around how to determine wining or losing in Sandbox games. In SR2020 the point of winning was "take over the world" - pretty simple in theory. However in practice a lot of people didn't like this approach, and instead made complaints such as "how come the AI doesn't attack me"... well, in 2020, it is not the goal of each AI region to take over the world, it is the goal of the human player to take over the world - it is the goal of the AI to stop you. Some people also prefer to play SR2020 as a bit of a "world simulator" - which is fine, but then what is the winning condition? is there even one?

The Campaign mode of Cold War has nice clean victory conditions - NATO versus Warsaw Pact, grow your influence in the world, destroy the other side.

Sandbox mode is less clean - are you meant to play as a spectator staying alive while the AI NATO and AI Warsaw Pact mess things up around you? Are you meant to bring a third sphere (generally the "Non-Aligned Movement") to power? Or should the Cold War elements be toned down so you can play in a more 2020-style ? Then we also get back to the fact that we couldn't all agree on what the 2020-style was in the first place....

-- George.

[UchihaMadara971]

Japan or China or North Korea is what I would play!

haha.. I imagine playing as occupied Japan in the 50's would be a barrel of fun.

Israel could be a very interesting country to play I think.. they probably had an even bigger military advantage in the 50's

Or India and siding with the soviets.

I think XuiSha might have made an interesting choice... Japan recently made plans to rearm iteself as well as restoring a Imperialist agenda as well as restoring an Absolute Monarch (Emperor) back to his full original powers which I have found from another website... http://video.nytimes.com/video/2007/08/ ... japan.html

Who knows? Japan could be very interesting if joining forces with North Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Union, along with China...

[Hundane]

are you meant to play as a spectator staying alive while the AI NATO and AI Warsaw Pact mess things up around you?

Having them compete over the players region would be interesting, both sides trying to lure the player to join using whatever means necessary. Overthrowing your government, showering you with gifts etc...

Are you meant to bring a third sphere (generally the "Non-Aligned Movement") to power?

That would be nice to have.

Or should the Cold War elements be toned down so you can play in a more 2020-style ?

I personally would want the AI to try to win and not just keep me from winning. Which brings up...

Some people also prefer to play SR2020 as a bit of a "world simulator" - which is fine, but then what is the winning condition?

One possible way would be to establish some secretive goals for number of AI regions that they would try to achieve during the game. US,USSR would have the ultimate goal of winning the Cold War but other AI regions could win by achieving their Supreme goals. So not only does the player have to somehow beat the Cold War but figure out what the other regions Supreme goals are and delay them till the player can achieve victory.

You can throw some kinks into it too....Lets say using espionage on a regions capital is how you discover the goals of that region, A regions supreme goal might not be in play in till a certain game year or it might show a false supreme goal or show a minor goal that they are working.

Winning conditions for the player might be based on the region he plays and could be historical or fantasy up to being Supreme Ruler of the world.

[George Geczy]

I personally would want the AI to try to win and not just keep me from winning

If in Sandbox you were, say, France, then what would a UK AI really want to be doing to "try to win"? Yes, in theory, if you were being a rogue state then the UK could possibly go all regime-change on you and try to beat you, but more likely in a real world they would sit back and let a superpower (ie the US) do that. So the UK "try to win" would be simply to sit on their island and enjoy the beach in summer.

One possible way would be to establish some secretive goals for number of AI regions that they would try to achieve during the game.

This actually sounds good at first read, but from prior experience I have concerns about how players will react. In general, players don't like things that happen without an obvious reason for the actions - even if the real world doesn't work that way. If the AI had 'secret' goals, or goals that the player could not easily see (and if the player could easily see them then they would not be secret), then achieving those goals would often involve taking actions that did not seem to make sense to the player. Yes, you are saying "well, figure out what his goal is from his actions!", but some players are just saying "stupid AI with its nonsensical actions".

An SR2020 example of this is AI alliances. There is significant internal "thought" that AIs use when determining how to ally with other AIs - one example is that they will see someone (most likely the human player) as a threat, and so they will communicate with a number of other AIs and form a "bloc" to ally together and try to blunt the threat; this will often involve allying with regions that may not be seen as their "friends", under the old gospel of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So a huge, complex decision making process - but because the decisions and reasons are not obvious to the player, the result is that players say "what, the US allies with Russia? That makes no sense - the AI alliances are so random and stupid."

Sid Meier has discussed this concept as well in some of his talks on Civilization - players want the AIs to be surprising, but not too surprising.

-- George.

[dust off]

Coups and changes of regime could add objectives if you implement ability to make nations pupets or give them freedom.

Oh yes, I'd really like to see th odd statge go rougue from time to time. Rogue states could be mostly historical in CW mode and a little more surprising in sand box. The issue of surprises can be helped with news that a nation is experiencing internal tension and feedback about the coup.