That would be cool. I think one approach to this would be the ability to build divisions. Divisions, corps etc could have slots that the payer decides to fill with various batalions.It would also be cool to see Supreme Ruler 2010 with a 'small hex size whole world' approach, where you could play the entire world tactically at a 10km hex size with full zoom in/zoom out.
Like to know something about SR 2010 2?
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
dust off
- General
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Sep 23 2003
- Location: UK
-
Baloogan
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Aug 14 2004
- Location: Canada, BC
-
Lonewulf
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 32
- Joined: May 05 2004
You don't know how much I would love that!!! I drool just thinking about that world map...... would love to see you guys jump on that project, thought of course after 2010 releases.George Geczy wrote:Yeah, I too would like to see WWII done with the Supreme Ruler engine, as you say HOI does a bit of this but not on the same "tactical warfare" strategy level. So that is a definite possibility.
It would also be cool to see Supreme Ruler 2010 with a 'small hex size whole world' approach, where you could play the entire world tactically at a 10km hex size with full zoom in/zoom out. However, just the gameplay and user interface issues would be huge - how do you keep a map with 8 million hexes playable? Thousands (maybe even tens of thousands) of units? In a large region you would have to be able to hand off entire sections of the world for 'regional governors' to run for you, etc. And of course the technical issues, though with growing hardware specs they might not be impossible.
.
-
Son of Moose
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: May 19 2004
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Indeed this is a mouth-watering prospect ... one that could "christen" my upgraded pc early next year.how do you keep a map with 8 million hexes playable? Thousands (maybe even tens of thousands) of units
[If I can afford it, it would be a bit of a "Rambo rig" so that this sort of mega game should suit it (and me) just fine ].-
Ashbery76
- Major
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: England.
-
Aurore
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Jul 15 2004
-
Son of Moose
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: May 19 2004
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
In many respects, I certainly agree with Ashbery76 that WW2 has been "done to death".
Another possible option (that would be somewhat different from SR2010 --- although it could hopefully retain ALL the best features of SR2010) would be for Battle Goat to create a small-scaled (meaning each hex would be measured in METERS rather than KILOMETERS) Medieval game. Perhaps somewhat like Stronghold 2 should have been --- there is an enormously long thread dedicated to fan requests in the Stonghold Heaven website forum. Instead (from the limited amount of information available about this upcoming game) one is limited to a maximum of 1000 units and the maximum maps are probably not much bigger than the ridiculously small ones in Stronghold 1. Furthermore, this game (like Children of the Nile) seems to be suffering from a severe dose of "Simification" --- where the devs can't seem to resist the temptation of jumping on "The Sims" bandwagon by forcing the player to pay a disproportinate amount of time appeasing his people. (Btw: I know that there is a similar feature in SR2010 but it seems to be far more integrated into the gameplay mechanics ).
Therefore one could play a MUCH more ambitious and sophisticated version of Stronghold with more than an added element of Medieval: Total War. Personally I have always longed for a combination of the City Builder and RTS genres. The City Builder genre (without a prominent military element ... like Children of the Nile) seems imho fairly lacking in any real purpose. Likewise, the RTS genre would only improve with the addition of a strong STRATEGIC building element. This development would add so many more options (both economic and military) to the game. The Medieval period (or, possibly, the Ancient period) would surely lend itself to this rich treatment.
Another possible option (that would be somewhat different from SR2010 --- although it could hopefully retain ALL the best features of SR2010) would be for Battle Goat to create a small-scaled (meaning each hex would be measured in METERS rather than KILOMETERS) Medieval game. Perhaps somewhat like Stronghold 2 should have been --- there is an enormously long thread dedicated to fan requests in the Stonghold Heaven website forum. Instead (from the limited amount of information available about this upcoming game) one is limited to a maximum of 1000 units and the maximum maps are probably not much bigger than the ridiculously small ones in Stronghold 1. Furthermore, this game (like Children of the Nile) seems to be suffering from a severe dose of "Simification" --- where the devs can't seem to resist the temptation of jumping on "The Sims" bandwagon by forcing the player to pay a disproportinate amount of time appeasing his people. (Btw: I know that there is a similar feature in SR2010 but it seems to be far more integrated into the gameplay mechanics
). Therefore one could play a MUCH more ambitious and sophisticated version of Stronghold with more than an added element of Medieval: Total War. Personally I have always longed for a combination of the City Builder and RTS genres. The City Builder genre (without a prominent military element ... like Children of the Nile) seems imho fairly lacking in any real purpose. Likewise, the RTS genre would only improve with the addition of a strong STRATEGIC building element. This development would add so many more options (both economic and military) to the game. The Medieval period (or, possibly, the Ancient period) would surely lend itself to this rich treatment.
-
George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
Lots of interesting ideas - certainly a lot of choices to keep the modders going 
As far as the actual future path of the Supreme Ruler engine, well, we'll have to see what comes up - one thing at a time. (A 'Galactic Ruler' version was originally planned, especially since I really wanted to see what a space strategy sim would be like if the strategic elements included features such as supply lines; however, given how long the development cycle of SR2010 has been, it could very well be that the Galaxy will be colonized by the time we finish Galactic Ruler )
Regarding my earlier comments about the '10km world' with 8 million total hexes, nowadays the issues are less technical and more 'human' - for instance, just how 'playable' is such a huge map with so many units? What can we do to make a game of this scope actually work and be able to be managed by a single player?
Some of these issues already begin to show up in our 'World Level' map in the present SR2010, though that's only a half million hexes in size...
-- George.
As far as the actual future path of the Supreme Ruler engine, well, we'll have to see what comes up - one thing at a time. (A 'Galactic Ruler' version was originally planned, especially since I really wanted to see what a space strategy sim would be like if the strategic elements included features such as supply lines; however, given how long the development cycle of SR2010 has been, it could very well be that the Galaxy will be colonized by the time we finish Galactic Ruler )Regarding my earlier comments about the '10km world' with 8 million total hexes, nowadays the issues are less technical and more 'human' - for instance, just how 'playable' is such a huge map with so many units? What can we do to make a game of this scope actually work and be able to be managed by a single player?
Some of these issues already begin to show up in our 'World Level' map in the present SR2010, though that's only a half million hexes in size...
-- George.
-
Son of Moose
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: May 19 2004
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
George:
As you can tell from several of my recent (and indeed past) posts, I am very much a fan of the "big is beautiful philosophy". [However, to be absolutely honest, gameplay considerations will ALWAYS trump the innate capacity of a game to feature gigantic maps and huge unit numbers].
However, several of my favourite games have been (in my mind) somewhat devalued by their lack of capacity (read map size and unit number limitations). In many respects, Age of Empires (and especially its Rise of Rome expansion pack) is my favourite "basic" RTS game. It was pretty much "State of the Art" when released way back in 1997 but the passage of time has severely eroded its capacity when compared to often inferior (gameplay wise) current releases. The Gigantic maps are now comparatively tiny and the SP pop limit of 50 is ludicrous.
Therefore, what I am trying to say in a rather roundabout way, is that I truly long for an in-depth strategy game with a near inordinate capacity such as SR2010.
However, apart from some fairly obvious considerations (like possibly average game length ... although it would probably be a bonus for tenacious SP players), what other "problems" have you noticed while playing on such a large map? I would be REALLY interested to learn more in this regard. :(
As you can tell from several of my recent (and indeed past) posts, I am very much a fan of the "big is beautiful philosophy". [However, to be absolutely honest, gameplay considerations will ALWAYS trump the innate capacity of a game to feature gigantic maps and huge unit numbers].
However, several of my favourite games have been (in my mind) somewhat devalued by their lack of capacity (read map size and unit number limitations). In many respects, Age of Empires (and especially its Rise of Rome expansion pack) is my favourite "basic" RTS game. It was pretty much "State of the Art" when released way back in 1997 but the passage of time has severely eroded its capacity when compared to often inferior (gameplay wise) current releases. The Gigantic maps are now comparatively tiny and the SP pop limit of 50 is ludicrous.
Therefore, what I am trying to say in a rather roundabout way, is that I truly long for an in-depth strategy game with a near inordinate capacity such as SR2010.
However, apart from some fairly obvious considerations (like possibly average game length ... although it would probably be a bonus for tenacious SP players), what other "problems" have you noticed while playing on such a large map? I would be REALLY interested to learn more in this regard. :(
-
prime_642
- Captain
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Jan 14 2004
You know, for a sequel, why not fully implement unit heirarchy? I don't mean just put names to commanders, i mean allowing those AI commanders to actually micromanage the units, and also make tactical decisions on their own to carry out a broad objective such as "Invade country x and sieze the following hexes, etc" Then, that AI general can delegate to an AI Brigadier general to "Sieze this area", or "Attack this unit" Then, that AI can delegate to a Colonel to "Attack this spot from this side".
You as the player will not be able to move the units unless you take personal controll, and by taking personal control, it is assumed that by spending a significant amount of time commanding units, you won't have time to also micromanage economy, or approve immeadiately that urgent request by the security minister to put down riots, etc.
Once this is implemented, a whole new host of multiplayer options would open up. For example, on a gigantic map of, say, Russia, Germany, and the rest of Europe, You could simulate a Warsaw Pact attack by having one supreme ruler, NATO's Secretary General, on NATO's side, and one supreme ruler, the Secretary General of the Communist Party, on the Warsaw Pact's side. Then, their would be countless subcommanders. Say, SACEUR, teh commander of British Army on the Rhine, the American 1st Armoured division commander, etc. And on Russia's side, you could have the commander of the Third Shock Army, the First Guards Tank Army, the Defence Minister, etc. ALL OF THOSE POSITIONS COULD BE FILLED BY ACTUAL PLAYERS! If the subordinates don't follow the orders of their commanders, they can get booted from the game by their commander.
By implementing out unit heirarchy, gigantic maps could be played, because the player would no longer have to, or even should, personally move the units, he instead simply gives the order to his General of the Armies, who gives the order to the commander of the 1st Marine division, etc.
Non-millitary posts might be filled also, for example, the secretary of state would handle diplomacy, and the secretary of the treasury would have jurisdiction over financial matters, etc.
You as the player will not be able to move the units unless you take personal controll, and by taking personal control, it is assumed that by spending a significant amount of time commanding units, you won't have time to also micromanage economy, or approve immeadiately that urgent request by the security minister to put down riots, etc.
Once this is implemented, a whole new host of multiplayer options would open up. For example, on a gigantic map of, say, Russia, Germany, and the rest of Europe, You could simulate a Warsaw Pact attack by having one supreme ruler, NATO's Secretary General, on NATO's side, and one supreme ruler, the Secretary General of the Communist Party, on the Warsaw Pact's side. Then, their would be countless subcommanders. Say, SACEUR, teh commander of British Army on the Rhine, the American 1st Armoured division commander, etc. And on Russia's side, you could have the commander of the Third Shock Army, the First Guards Tank Army, the Defence Minister, etc. ALL OF THOSE POSITIONS COULD BE FILLED BY ACTUAL PLAYERS! If the subordinates don't follow the orders of their commanders, they can get booted from the game by their commander.
By implementing out unit heirarchy, gigantic maps could be played, because the player would no longer have to, or even should, personally move the units, he instead simply gives the order to his General of the Armies, who gives the order to the commander of the 1st Marine division, etc.
Non-millitary posts might be filled also, for example, the secretary of state would handle diplomacy, and the secretary of the treasury would have jurisdiction over financial matters, etc.
-
Lonewulf
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 32
- Joined: May 05 2004
It's been done a lot but think of the reasons for that. Huge options and a huge group of people love that era. (Me included). While there are several games in that genre, its because that’s what a lot of people like.... and you really can't get that kind of scope in any other war. Granted, I love all type of strategy games, but I don't think WW2 is 'done to death' as there is always room for advancement and improvement in that game genre. I'll be buying HoI II, and if they continue to make and improve it, I'll be buying HoI VIII if they released it. I love WW2, and no matter how many games or times it’s done...I'll buy the game if it’s a good game.Son of Moose wrote:In many respects, I certainly agree with Ashbery76 that WW2 has been "done to death".
)
-
Draken
- General
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Jul 14 2004
- Human: Yes
- Location: Space Coast, FL
-
Son of Moose
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: May 19 2004
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Lonewulf:
In many respects, I do actually have some sympathy for your viewpoint as WW2 was indeed THE Great War with MILLIONS of combatants engaged in massive battles in TWO separate arenas.
Therefore, it might be great if our friends at Battle Goat could devise THE DEFINITIVE WW2 strategy game!! The major caveat would be that this game would have to be substantially better than any other WW2 currently on the market. This would be no mean feat as there are (by all accounts) several fairly good WW2 games out there ... however, I certainly have faith in the abilities of David, George, Chris and the team to develop something truly special.
Here (in line with several of my SR2010 posts) is a possible outline for a future BG WW2 epic:
# Consider using a much smaller scale for each hex ... perhaps even as small as that used in Command and Conquer: Generals (or ?Sudden Strike) so that one can truly operate at the "coalface".
# Consider using INDIVIDUAL units (rather than the batallions in SR2010) so that one can regularly employ Rome: Total War (or Cossacks 2)-type unit numbers. Perhaps some form of unit hierachy (as suggested by Prime_642 and seconded by Draken) could be employed to make unit management more accessible.
Just imagine being able to recreate some of the turning events of WW2 by employing GIGANTIC (and incredibly detailed) maps and (where appropriate) HUGE numbers of units. [Of course, as with some of my earlier suggestions for SR2010 megascenarios, these truly MASSIVE showcases would most probably mainly appeal to the hard core gamers in our midst ... and there would apear to be several!! ].
For example, two scenarios (one real and one mercifully never played out) come readily to mind:
# STALINGRAD ... just imagine being able to recreate an accurate replica of that doomed city and its surrounds (maybe up to circa 10km). As far as I remember, over ONE MILLION men fought on BOTH sides. This could most possibly have represented the largest battle in history.
The word EPIC is a gross understatement in this scenario. [Maybe with better management of resources, the astute player might even enable von Paulus to win!! ].
# TAKING TOKYO ... if the US had not succeeded in developing the atomic bomb by 1944/5, the island-hopping strategy would have continued until they had managed to launch Normandy-type landings on the Japanese mainland. (Obviously heavy aerial bombard might have severely weakened Tokyo's defences --- but there was still a very real prospect of a Stalingrad-type siege). The numbers required for this final push might well have equalled that of Stalingrad. Although this event never materialized, it would be fascinating to play it and see what might indeed have happened in the absence of the atomic bomb.
In many respects, I do actually have some sympathy for your viewpoint as WW2 was indeed THE Great War with MILLIONS of combatants engaged in massive battles in TWO separate arenas.
Therefore, it might be great if our friends at Battle Goat could devise THE DEFINITIVE WW2 strategy game!! The major caveat would be that this game would have to be substantially better than any other WW2 currently on the market.
This would be no mean feat as there are (by all accounts) several fairly good WW2 games out there ... however, I certainly have faith in the abilities of David, George, Chris and the team to develop something truly special. Here (in line with several of my SR2010 posts) is a possible outline for a future BG WW2 epic:
# Consider using a much smaller scale for each hex ... perhaps even as small as that used in Command and Conquer: Generals (or ?Sudden Strike) so that one can truly operate at the "coalface".
# Consider using INDIVIDUAL units (rather than the batallions in SR2010) so that one can regularly employ Rome: Total War (or Cossacks 2)-type unit numbers. Perhaps some form of unit hierachy (as suggested by Prime_642 and seconded by Draken) could be employed to make unit management more accessible.
Just imagine being able to recreate some of the turning events of WW2 by employing GIGANTIC (and incredibly detailed) maps and (where appropriate) HUGE numbers of units. [Of course, as with some of my earlier suggestions for SR2010 megascenarios, these truly MASSIVE showcases would most probably mainly appeal to the hard core gamers in our midst ... and there would apear to be several!!
].For example, two scenarios (one real and one mercifully never played out) come readily to mind:
# STALINGRAD ... just imagine being able to recreate an accurate replica of that doomed city and its surrounds (maybe up to circa 10km). As far as I remember, over ONE MILLION men fought on BOTH sides. This could most possibly have represented the largest battle in history.
The word EPIC is a gross understatement in this scenario. [Maybe with better management of resources, the astute player might even enable von Paulus to win!! ].# TAKING TOKYO ... if the US had not succeeded in developing the atomic bomb by 1944/5, the island-hopping strategy would have continued until they had managed to launch Normandy-type landings on the Japanese mainland. (Obviously heavy aerial bombard might have severely weakened Tokyo's defences --- but there was still a very real prospect of a Stalingrad-type siege). The numbers required for this final push might well have equalled that of Stalingrad. Although this event never materialized, it would be fascinating to play it and see what might indeed have happened in the absence of the atomic bomb.
-
George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
Yes, WWII had some very interesting strategic situations, which is one reason why it remains popular for games and simulations.
The Supreme Ruler engine can, I think, add a lot that other games haven't been able to cover (at least not in one game). While HOI does model some of the economic and production aspects, I think we still end up going in to more detail on that front. And our supply system is the most accurate (outside of the true 'heavy grognard' type wargames) at simulating the types of supply logistics a real battlefield would encounter.
But, that's still a ways off - we have a 2010 version to finish first
The Supreme Ruler engine can, I think, add a lot that other games haven't been able to cover (at least not in one game). While HOI does model some of the economic and production aspects, I think we still end up going in to more detail on that front. And our supply system is the most accurate (outside of the true 'heavy grognard' type wargames) at simulating the types of supply logistics a real battlefield would encounter.
But, that's still a ways off - we have a 2010 version to finish first