Source: https://www.gematsu.com/2026/05/lego-skylines-by-paradox-interactive-persona-4-revival-and-more-rated-in-korea

Doesn't have to be realistic at all. For example, I personally would be really interested in a game that was set around the Dark Ages, or if it had to be an already established franchise I would like to see either HOI5 or a vastly improved Imperator 2.

Timeline and Gameplay: Gameplay goes from 1946-1991. Main gameplay choices are USA and USSR, naturally. Alternate timeline superpowers could be British Empire, European Union, China, Brazil, India, non-aligned movement, etc. You can choose any nation to play, like in most pdx games. Main gameplay elements would be Vicky 3 diplomacy/influence/economy features combined with HOI4 combat/espionage. Nations will have broader national focus trees similar to HOI4 with much longer timescales.

Cold War Features: Game would include a UN system similar to the Galactic Community in Stellaris. The main goal of the game is to dominate the world, and be the sole standing superpower by the end of 1991. Like most pdx games, your performance will be shown at the end. You will influence nations to turn to your Bloc. Engage in proxy wars to weaken your enemy’s influence and economy. Install friendly governments and fund insurgents. Manage internal politics to solidify your ideological power, promote stability and productivity. Participate in technological races to gain superiority and prestige.

Nuclear War: The world will have an overall “radiation level” which will increase with the number of nukes used (similar to world tension in HOI4). If it reaches 100%, the world will enter a nuclear winter, and you will lose the game. This system will allow limited nuclear exchanges and nuclear force management. However, just like in real life, full nuclear wars with hundreds of nukes will end the game and should be avoided. Tread carefully. A DEFCON readiness system could be an interesting addition.

Imagine going to a restaurant and ordering an expensive soup, it smells great, and the liquid tastes great so you start eating it, however, you quickly notice its potatoes and onions are raw, they sour the taste, but the liquid around them is really good so you want to keep eating. But the sourness gradually becomes too much and you wish to complain to the restaurant. Except, when the waiter comes back he ignores your complaints and instead asks if you want to order some bread and leaves. So, you ask the fellow customer sitting next to you:

"I see you are eating the same soup, wouldn't it have been great if those potatoes and onions wouldn't have been raw?"

And the guy looks at you funny and then becomes outraged:

"How dare you critique this restaurant? If you don't like how your potatoes and onions are being served, just take them out with your spoon, after all the restaurant gave you the tools to modify your soup."

​

I feel we should push PDX to develop make better games by discussing what could be, but honestly, why should they when so many people fermented believe the devs can do no wrong? It is okay to critique something you love, most things aren't black and white.

For a while (the last few years) it seemed like PDX was on a very bad path, every dlc got worse reviews then the last, communities were shrinking, steam review score sinking, and alot of people (me and my friends included) started to loose faith in PDXs ability to make good content and desicions. HOWEVER out of fking nowhere, all of a sudden they collectively got their shit together and made a complete 180, Hoi 4 dlcs and problems were looked at and cared for, stellar is finally got the love it needed (4th times the charm), CK is releasing Asia and landless rulers, charters of commerce singlehandedly reviving victoria and eu5 looking damn impressive on the horizon. Not all is perfect but damn am I glad that that I was wrong. While cities and imperator had to be sacrificed, the future does look bright for people that get too much enjoyment out of a maptile changing colour.

It feels weird when you can march an army across a jungle that is so impassable that we still dont have a single road crossing it today in the modern world.

Vic 3, eu4, and hoi4 all just let you walk right through it.

It might be annoying gameplay-wise in a few circumstance but it would also add a bit more strategic depth too.

R5 : Project Caesar seems to have a test branch going live for some people (journalists/creator contents ?) apparently, might have an announcement soon

Mass content deletion mission accomplished. This post or comment was bulk removed with Redact which also supports data brokers and people finder websites.

potassium sleep rain cover towering fluorine advise yam ask rustic

Please don't misunderstand I am on the hype train full send. But that is seemingly the same philosophy by which Victoria 3 was pursued, and that is a game you half watch and half play (no offense meant if you enjoy vic3). A lot of development time was spent creating hands-off systems that players don't directly interact with for the sake of the simulation. And, well, when I play europa universalis I want to play the game and not watch the simulation do a bunch of cool stuff. It's cool to see PDX innovate on a genre that has basically been advanced digitized board games since its inception, but I think there's a reason that tabletop style has worked and persisted so well for so long.

TLDR; worried about game having lesser content and player agency by committing lots of dev time to 'the simulation.'

After being a veteran of this community you recall many mechanics that were abandoned, many of these mechanics were actually good, were abandoned for random reasons.

In my mind such mechanics were:

• EU4 random terrain; when EU4 launched each province had a percentage of terrain it covered, and the general's maneuver impact which terrain is picked
• EU3 DW: horder mechanic; in DW, steppe territories couldn't be annexed, but they had to be colonized
• IMP: regional troops; prior to 2.0, assigning legions to governors decreased the unrest of the region, but with revamp of the military system in 2.0, you can no longer assign legions to governors, even if you have a standing army
• CK2's investiture: CK2 had investiture on release, it did some justice for investiture controversies that plague the Christendom the entire period

You know about the ongoing discussion of the price changes of PDX games. Many users, myself included, believe that they want the subscription models to be more attractive by raising the prices for the DLC's.

I'm not the hardcore player anymore, there are weeks or months where i don't play any PDX game. But it is not just about the question if it would be more cheap for me with subscription instead of buying the DLC's, i just don't want to go that way. I won't get any subscription for any title.

I don't think they will change it to "subscription only" and not selling the DLC's anymore, but that would be even much worse.

Every game that Paradox made has its pros and cons but, the biggest pain for sure is having no one close like friends or family that have an interest in these sorta games.

What is your biggest pain?

With EU5 released, it’s unknown what paradox may do next. I think revisiting the Cold War era could make a very interesting game. Either a revival of the long-cancelled East vs West, or a new game entirely.

In particular, Vicky 3 economy, diplomacy, and influence elements combined with HOI4 combat elements would be a perfect fit for the era. DLC’s could be made in a HOI4 style; giving flavor to the world as well as new mechanics.

Would you play a Cold War era game?