Perhaps Beta Test Naval War: Arctic Circle?

Seagulls dealt with, sir.
What is Naval War: Arctic Circle? Paradox reckon it’s a “Real Time Strategy (RTS) game where the player battles enemy naval and aerial forces for power and ultimate world domination,” and I believe them. Those of you for whom world domination, and also meticulous naval strategy, is of interest, might fancy some time trying it out in the beta test, which can be signed up for right here.

Naval War: Arctic Circle is out in “Q2” of next year, and there’s a trailer in the icy depths below.


  1. Kandon Arc says:

    This game intrigues me, but the prospect of commanding a modern carrier task force terrifies me.

    EDIT: Do submarines really have massive flags painted on the side?

    • Tribunal says:

      I’m always intrigued by promises of world domination. However I’m unsure as to how am I supposed to accomplish such a grand objective with only naval forces. I mean, who will pillage the cities, towns and villages?

    • olemars says:

      Only american subs have giant flags.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      I was just thinking the same thing. I mean, obviously 70% of the words surface is water, so you could dominate that bit, but nearly all the people live on the solid bits.

    • Kandon Arc says:

      I think you’re supposed to be pillaging the Arctic for resources.

    • Zenicetus says:

      If “World Domination” means terrifying the rest of the planet by holding the biggest stick, then that pretty much describes the U.S. and Russian strategic submarine fleet. It’s all-or-nothing though; you get to dominate a bunch of radioactive craters if you ever go active.

      People tend to forget about this, but those big missile boats are still out there on regular patrol. They just have their targeting locked down on standby. I live close enough to one of the US boomer ports to see them heading out on patrol every so often. If this category of sub isn’t in the game, then it’s not really about World Domination, but an Arctic conflict over mineral rights or whatever could still be interesting. I’ll have to check this game out.

    • Kevin says:

      Well any country that matters *will* have a coastline, so navies matter. And a carrier is ostensibly 4.5 acres of mobile and sovereign territory that can be parked off the coast of any nation, which every nation in the world has to respect.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Yeah, carriers are the other problem for a game like this. NATO (basically the US) has multiple carrier task forces, so it’s going to be a very lopsided scenario where the Russians have to use sub attacks and whatever land-based air cover they can manage.

      It will be interesting to see how they set this up, so the Russians aren’t at a massive disadvantage. That’s basically the problem with any post Cold War scenario that has a focus on the heavy hardware, instead of asymmetric ground combat.

    • Kevin says:

      Well on the plus side for the Russians, they’ve made up for that deficiency by building lots and lots of attack subs and cruise missile maritime bombers. It was theorised that the Soviets would have fought the naval war of WW3 much the same way the Germans fought the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2: Using subs and long-range bombers to attack convoys and starve the European powers into submission.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Hmmm… I suppose the Arctic conflict scenario does favor Russia somewhat, since it turns the liability of their isolated Northern ports into an asset. Now if they can just get rid of that flag painted on the side of the sub….

    • BobsLawnService says:

      Carrier fleets are incredible tools for the projection of power in the modern age if not the most powerful tool.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      Actually, no. Carriers are useful when you can park them off the coast off some podunk dictator’s place. For actual modern day naval battles they’re as outdated as battleships in WW2. The ideal naval vessel these days would be something fast and stealthy that can carry lots of missiles. Something like this: link to

  2. Burky says:

    Hilariously misguided music choice there.

    • MrThingy says:

      Indeed. Feels a bit like another Youtube user pinched the original video and then dubbed it with random metal (which seems to be 90% of videos on Youtube).

  3. Guyver says:

    applied, thanks for the heads up RPS.
    looking very forward this game. :D

  4. jellydonut says:

    Signed up already :)

  5. MyPoorFeet says:

    This makes me want to dust off my old copy of Harpoon.

  6. buzzmong says:

    Another Paradox game eh? I’ll keep an eye on it.

  7. Saiko Kila says:

    I’m surprised to see a CNN website’s spoof which does not contain any Apple (or “Fapple” in that case, whatever) reference. They miss the point.

  8. gayylalgli says:

    I was under the impression that Microsoft still owned the rights to all Battletech- and Shadowrun-related video games. I hope that their license is expiring so that someone who actually wants to make a real Shadowrun game can give it a go – this looks like a step in the right direction. If they can get a lot of buzz, they’ll be a lot more likely to get funding and investors. Few years back Smith & Tinker (Tinker & Smith?) which had one of the original folks that created Mechwarrior and was a part of FASA bought the rights back from Microsoft.seo service