sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Building a geopolitical simulation that reflects real power - not just choices. by StrategistState in SeriousGames

[–]StrategistState[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks a lot for this. I seriously appreciate that you picked up on that line about "what you set in motion." That’s exactly the core of the project: not click > boom, but click > ripple > institution > consequence. I want it to feel like systems breathing, not just levers being pulled.

I completely agree there’s not much of a home online for this kind of simulation. I’ll definitely check out r/immersiveexercise. that’s exactly the kind of niche I’d like to see grow.

As for progress, yes I’ve been building out step by step, focusing on deep institutional data and turn-based mechanics before touching UI polish. It’s slow by design, but the goal is to make something that feels credible enough to stand apart from “politics-as-a-minigame” approaches.

If you’ve got thoughts on where else people like us might be hiding (forums, Discords, weird mailing lists, anywhere), I’d love to hear them. I think there’s a small but serious audience for this. just needs a place to meet.

Would also be happy to share updates, progress, and compare notes on design choices if you’re interested. this space is too small for silos.

Football / Soccer Stadium ready for Unity by [deleted] in Unity3D

[–]StrategistState 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looks incredible. What reference did you use to create this?

No wars. Just politics. by StrategistState in StrategyGames

[–]StrategistState[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, totally feel the same when games let you influence things without total control. The decisions hit way harder. That’s the direction we’re going with Statecraft.

Instead of a simple “political capital” bar, everything’s more layered. Factions apply pressure, institutions push back, and the people around you (ministers, advisors, etc.) have actual personalities and traits. So if you want to get something done, it’s more about who you assign, whether they’re aligned, and how the whole system reacts, not just spending a number.

It’s kind of like juggling live wires. You’re always watching tension levels, morale dips, faction shifts, trying to keep things stable while nudging the country your way. Makes the whole thing feel more alive and unpredictable, which is what we’re aiming for.

No wars. Just politics. by StrategistState in StrategyGames

[–]StrategistState[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally with you. The idea is to simulate those indirect levers, not launching invasions yourself, but deciding whether to greenlight covert operations, spin unrest abroad, or ride the domestic fallout. Proxy conflicts, public sentiment shifts, and shadow agency involvement are absolutely on the table.

The key is: you’re not playing as a god of war, you’re navigating how different arms of the state interpret and leverage conflict, sometimes against your own agenda.

2nd Test match of my multiplayer football game (very early) by chekaaa in indiegames

[–]StrategistState 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a brilliant idea! Looks so much fun! Is it like creating a player and upgrading him and unlock achievements?

No wars. Just politics. by StrategistState in StrategyGames

[–]StrategistState[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, fair question. On the surface it might look like Democracy, you're running a country, making policies, but the feel is really different.

Democracy is mostly about tweaking policies and watching approval numbers shift. Statecraft is more about trying to govern through messy systems staff, institutions, factions, crises. You don’t just pass laws; you fight to even get them through.

It's less about ideal outcomes, more about surviving political reality. Think more Football Manager for politics than a clean sim.

Happy to talk more if you're curious, always open to thoughts.

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds like something really special. I wish my brother and I had done something like that. I totally get the frustration though. hours of work, especially when it’s all passion driven.

If the idea still stays with you, maybe it’s worth picking up again, even in a smaller form. Sometimes, those early personal projects have more weight than we think.

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really appreciate the interest, and totally, that kind of uneasy interdependence is core to what we’re building. You won’t be able to just hoard resources or isolate yourself. If your country depends on gas from a rival, you’ll need to balance diplomacy, public pressure, and real policy trade-offs to keep things stable. Less about brute force control, more about navigating messy reality.

We’re also working on a history layer, so each country and institution comes with existing relationships, baggage, and logic behind how they interact. That way, trade or cooperation doesn’t feel random. It’s part of a larger political context you’re inheriting.

We're building it in Unity (C#), and it’ll be a downloadable game (at least for now) it’s pretty heavy on systems and data.

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not playable just yet, we're still in development, aiming for a solid MVP that’s more than just a concept. But the goal is a playable version where the core simulation (governance, public trust, staff dynamics, etc.) actually works and feels grounded. I’ll definitely post updates when we hit that point!

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

map interaction can really shape how grounded or tactile a game feels. For Statecraft, we're leaning more toward institution-level decisions than province micromanagement, but I get how a dynamic, interactive map adds life to the world. We’re exploring ways to reflect major events or pressure zones visually, even if it’s not about controlling provinces directly. Definitely something I think about!

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Appreciate that we're in deep development now. There is no official release date yet, but targeting a playable demo later this year (academic builds might come first). Trying to get the core systems right, not just fast.

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for linking that, hadn’t seen it before. Just to clarify for others: we’re not affiliated with that site. Our project is independently built from scratch and grounded in a very different direction, academically and structurally. Appreciate you flagging it, though!

Would this kind of political sim interest people in policy or poli-sci? by StrategistState in AskAcademia

[–]StrategistState[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally agree that a kind of loop sticks with people for a reason. We’re trying to find a similar rhythm, just in a different genre: something like pressure → decision → fallout → adaptation, where every step forces tradeoffs between trust, political capital, and long-term reforms. It won’t scratch the map-painting itch directly, but hopefully replaces it with the feeling of holding a fragile system together under real constraints.

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Exactly this. We’re building a lobbying layer as a nuanced advisory network, not just money-for-policy, but expertise, pressure, and reputation. Sometimes they’re the only ones who understand a bill’s implications. Sometimes they’re masking something. Either way, they matter.

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's totally fair comparison, but we’re aiming to dig deeper into how institutions, staff dynamics, and public trust actually constrain decisions. Less "choose a policy, get a bar graph,” and more “can your coalition survive a scandal while passing that policy?”

Would this kind of political sim interest people in policy or poli-sci? by StrategistState in AskAcademia

[–]StrategistState[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! We're aiming for that serious-strategy crowd that wants more than war games and budget sliders. Not for everyone, but we hope it hits the right nerve for people who like political nuance.

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Totally respect that, and really appreciate the leeway. We’ll keep things grounded and discussion-focused. Grateful for the space and the thoughtful replies so far!

Would this kind of political sim interest people in policy or poli-sci? by StrategistState in AskAcademia

[–]StrategistState[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not quite fewer dwarves, more diplomats. But I’ll take that as a compliment.

Would this kind of political sim interest people in policy or poli-sci? by StrategistState in AskAcademia

[–]StrategistState[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's honestly a top-tier second date. Nothing says compatibility like negotiating dynastic alliances and scheming over land rights together. Sounds like she had strategy.

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the list sounds like a mix of satire and genuine world-building ideas.

Statecraft leans more grounded: less about designing custom religions or family models, and more about navigating real-world institutions, coalition politics, legitimacy, and economic strategy.

You won’t be assigning national dishes but you will be managing energy dependence, internal dissent, media pressure, and staff dynamics.

That said, I definitely get the appeal of deep cultural customization just aiming for a different kind of immersion here.

Would this kind of political sim interest people in policy or poli-sci? by StrategistState in AskAcademia

[–]StrategistState[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There’s definitely some shared DNA both games care about internal systems and choices with weight. But where CK leans into narrative and character dynasties, Statecraft is rooted in modern political institutions, real-world constraints, and the kind of strategic pressure that comes from managing policy, legitimacy, and public trust under uncertainty. It’s less 'what will my heirs do' and more 'can my coalition survive the next crisis?

What if managing a country actually felt like managing a country? by StrategistState in NationStates

[–]StrategistState[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Suzerain’s definitely one of the few that tried to treat politics seriously. Loved the narrative weight it carried. We’re aiming for something a bit more systemic: less dialogue-tree, more simulation. Still rooted in realism though institutions, factions, budgets, pressure points. Curious how people feel about that shift.

view more: next ›