I feel like a beta tester...

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 30 2008

I mean no offense, George, but that's just intellectually disingenuous.

It's certainly fair to think that, but from my own personal perspective of how the game is designed it isn't the case. In fact, it isn't even the case of naval invasions and islands - it's the same case in the middle of Europe.

The core debating point (often debated in other threads and other forums as well) is whether Supreme Ruler 2020 should be designed as a fight where everyone (or at least a reasonable number of regions) are trying to take over the world, or whether they are playing as modern nations in a reasonably realistic way. Though there are many ways to play SR2020 (diplomatic, economic etc), the core concept is that you - the human player - is trying to become 'Supreme Ruler'. This isn't a secret, it's the name of the game, after all

You are the ego manic trying to become Supreme Ruler, and the rest of world is going about minding their own business and trying to stop you from affecting their own interests.

The arguments made against this is that it would be better, from a gameplay standpoint, if the AI was trying all-out to wipe you off the face of the earth. Not only is this not realistic (except for a few specific cases, ie the US against Iraq/Iran/North Korea

), but this is not the case with a lot of strategy and war games - the classic Panzer General series, for instance, offered the player an objective, and the sole purpose of the AI player was to prevent the player from reaching the objective. The PG AI wasn't tasked with eliminating the human or reaching its own objective, it was tasked with preventing the human from reaching the human's objectives. The concept is similar in SR2020.

As I say, this gameplay concept is debated among Supreme Ruler players (and the dev team too), but just because it is a "human on the offense" instead of a "human on the defense" game doesn't make it faulty, just a different design concept. You say that I'm being disingenuous because (from your view) it was the lack of naval assault offense on the part of the AI that resulted in this concept, but from my view it was this concept that resulted in the lack of a need for AI 'extermination' offensive strategies.

There are already dozens of different ways and styles to play SR2020, but we make no secret of the fact that "defending yourself from extermination by the AI hordes" is not one of those styles, at least not in the Campaign game. (We will be releasing more free scenarios like 'German Advance' where the scenario objective is survival, but those are specific scenarios and not sandbox gameplay.)

-- George / BattleGoat Studios

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 30 2008

Talon Soft's West Front game was 255-pages and companion Rising Run and East Front were 190-pages....and they all were very complete as to Player guides as to both understanding the system and mechanics.

There is no question that Talonsoft's manuals are among the best in the business - but they are also rare exceptions.

I've been making note of people's comments on the manual, it is an interesting topic that we need to look at more closely. The fact is that in a modern PC title it is very difficult to come out with a manual of more than 100 pages - in many countries that packaging simply cannot support anything larger. It is also very rare to see games with manuals of the size SR2020 has - Civ4 released a larger print manual only in it's 'deluxe' version, which also sold for nearly double the price of what SR2020 sells for. As well, a lot of space in the deluxe manual is filled with reference information on units/buildings/etc, and that sort of info isn't necessarily useful in helping to learn the game.

I personally think the manual is quite good, though it does leave a lot up to the player to discover - its point is more to convey concepts than very detailed specifics. The ingame interface and tooltip system etc all provide a lot of feedback as players explore how to play, and my thought is that for most players a hyper-detailed manual is not only unnecessary but also a bit cumbersome.

In the first update we provided additional information by way of the 'walkthroughs' included, but we are certainly willing to hear from players what specific things they would like to see in the manual that isn't there.

-- George.

The Beastmaster · Post by **The Beastmaster** » Jun 30 2008

The core debating point (often debated in other threads and other forums as well) is whether Supreme Ruler 2020 should be designed as a fight where everyone (or at least a reasonable number of regions) are trying to take over the world, or whether they are playing as modern nations in a reasonably realistic way. Though there are many ways to play SR2020 (diplomatic, economic etc), the core concept is that you - the human player - is trying to become 'Supreme Ruler'. This isn't a secret, it's the name of the game, after all You are the ego manic trying to become Supreme Ruler, and the rest of world is going about minding their own business and trying to stop you from affecting their own interests.
-- George / BattleGoat Studios

I didn't realize that about the game... at least not from what read and/or skimmed through from the website and reviews. Judging by reviews that I remember reading, I'm not sure that they know that part of the game either. (maybe my memory is faulty here)

That would explain a lot though... and I imagine it makes the sandbox mode game a VERY lengthy game where eventually it will be you (the player) against the world, eventually, even if you honor every contract and do little to offend everyone else. Eventually, your military production capacity will tick off people to the point of being hated worse than the US,Russia and China are combined (in reality), I would think.

I have a question George,
Is there any variant AI routines in the game, especially in the sandbox game where the AI will start to take over large chunks of the world?
Or does the AI only appear to be doing that at times because of cause and effect, where treaties-alliances and other factors cause a country to appear to be doing that, when in reality, they are minding their own business and only forced into military action due to situations that are somewhat out of their control?

Shadi · Post by **Shadi** » Jun 30 2008

I prefer a PDF manual to hardcopy. I can put it on my phone and read it during breaks. But the big one is that I can SEARCH for keywords. This is very important that the EDITORS understand this; and they ensure terminology stays the same throughout the manual for a given subject. ie "spies" vs "agents".

>SR2020 (diplomatic, economic etc)
maybe if the AI actually put up a fight in the economic area. You could probably solve this with more tech tree branches that reduce the cost of producing goods or increase rate; then make the AI attracted to researching these.

>ingame interface and tooltip system
maybe if they had some real info, the current ones are strangely vague & useless. other than by trial & error or playing 2010, how would we know a hydroponic farm will cost more to operate, produce less, but could be placed anywhere?

myros · Post by **myros** » Jul 01 2008

Using the PG analogy is a little telling. AI from a decade ago was pretty much at its limit with fixed scripted scenarios where it had a very limited amount of options to consider.

However with 2020 we were lead to believe we were getting "Next Generation AI", not last decades ;p When someone claims to have something "Next Generation" I look at the current generation and see what we can expect from something beyond that. I'm sorry but your AI doesnt come close to even current generation games such as Gal Civ II or HOI 2's invasion AI coding.

Your AI, in terms of military, is very predictable and is mostly still passive (although appears a bit better than 2010). What other AI is there? Economic? Well I guess, it takes me about 5 minutes to review an economy for a nation at game start and see whats needed ... course I can build new things to correct problems, which of course the AI can't, so what else is it doing?

Diplomacy? Sure, except it seems to follow the same path every game. Same countries go to war each time, if thats the next gen AI it seems a little predictable again.

Sorry if it seems Im overly negative here, I honestly enjoyed 2010 and will probably enjoy 2020 once the major bugs are fixed. But claims of 'next gen AI' which cant even do the things we gamers expect from current gen AI in games is a bit hard to swallow.

But hey, it's by design ..we know.

Myros

Post by **George Geczy** » Jul 01 2008

Or does the AI only appear to be doing that at times because of cause and effect, where treaties-alliances and other factors cause a country to appear to be doing that, when in reality, they are minding their own business and only forced into military action due to situations that are somewhat out of their control?

Yes, that is generally the way the AI is designed to function. As I say, there is a good argument to be made that it is more realistic this way, and also that it works better this way versus some player styles.

-- George.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Jul 01 2008

I am not convinced by comparing Panzergeneral which is a linear game to a sandbox game like 2020.In strategy games like CIV,HOI,EU,etc A.I invasions is vital to gameplay and fun.I can see it would be very hard to program sea invasions in 2020 because of the huge amount of units in the game.The unit scale should have been divisional in my view.

jscott991 · Post by **jscott991** » Jul 01 2008

Well George, you sold me. I'm cancelling my order immediately. I can't believe you would post that a passive AI that will simply react to player actions is both desirable and intentional. At least when Paradox realized that the AI in HOI couldn't use transports or the AI in EU3 couldn't deal with inflation, they were upfront and honest about it. They admitted the AI was faulty and let the players decide whether to keep playing. You are actually claiming that an AI that can't manage naval combat and transports is the end-all AI for the game; that its working as designed and this is the game that 2020 is intended to be. That's absurd!

I purchased 2010 and did not play it after my first week because the game basically played itself (I discovered this when I managed to conquer the entire US starting as Mass. without ever doing anything on my own; once I was attacked or declared war, the AI would manage my units and conquer my neighbors one right after another) and because even if I had wanted to learn the game, the constant AI declarations of war made it absurd to even try (why bother building power plants, when you're going to be attacked in 10 minutes and the AI will just conquer your opponent for you.).

Now, it seems 2020 is completely the opposite. The AI is simply an obstacle to player advancement. Instead of simulating real world governments in fact, you claim to be doing so while doing the exact opposite. Is it really necessary for AI nations to be plotting to take over the world in order for them to be able to use transports or conduct invasions? Shouldn't China be able to attack Taiwan? Shouldn't China be able to invade Japan if Japan invades them and loses? It doesn't make any sense.

Again, the problem isn't so much that these problems exist in a first release (every Paradox game has these same issues, but I still buy and wait out each patch for each EU game). The problem is that you've actually had the gall to tell us that this is how the game was supposed to function and that the game is better with these "features" in place.

Post by **George Geczy** » Jul 01 2008

I have not made the claim that the game is 'better' for being the way it is (versus a more aggressive AI), just that it is possibly unfair to consider it to be 'worse' for being designed this way.

Play as France, attack Germany to try to take control of Europe, and you'll find you have a tough, determined AI opponent to fight with; one that will use a number of military strategies and other tactics against you. After playing the game longer than most

I still find the AI to be a tough opponent requiring careful planning and tactics to defeat.

And of course we're just talking about the sandbox/campaign modes, the scenarios give a number of challenges that are also very interesting and varied. I particularly like the 'German Advance' scenario (which, admittedly, has the human player on the defensive), but there's lots of different ways to play the game and the various scenarios included.

Yes, I can agree that a game where the AI regions would be more aggressive and even reckless would also be interesting, but my point is that I do not agree that the lack of this design element makes SR2020 'uninteresting'. The fact is that the SR2020 design currently is made around the (human) player being the one with the 'Supreme Ruler' ambitions, and that there is a LOT of gameplay value in that premise.

-- George.

jscott991 · Post by **jscott991** » Jul 01 2008

You poke at the edges of people's arguments and posit straw-men (the idea of a ravenous horde of AI nations attacking the player is not what people are proposing).

Why can't the AI use transports?

Why can't the AI conduct invasions AFTER it has been attacked?

Why can't the AI develop its economy after its attacked and needs to militarize (the way any power does when it goes to war)?

How are these shortcomings part of a design philosophy?

Thanks for the responses, btw. I remember the support on the original game being just as good. It just might be that 2020 has developed even further from the Paradox-type strategy games that I would prefer.

Aermord · Post by **Aermord** » Jul 02 2008

I like it when an AI is not aggressive against a country only because this country is controlled by a player. I like games where the AI becomes aggressive if it is being given reason to become aggressive, no matter if it is the human player or the AI of another country that causes this aggression. Hence, I really like the casus belli system in SR2020, where a countrys actions can lead to its neighbours declaring war. You can always discuss improvements of the casus belli system, personally I would like that a countrys casus belli against you can go up if you have many diplomatic dealings with that countrys enemies.

I like the fact in SR2020 that I can run a country with an isolationism foreign policy and that the surrounding world pretty much let me be. What I would like to see a bit more from the AI in SR2020, however, is that it has a purpose as well. The back story of the game shows a lot of purpose, for instance Germany and France are angry that they are not given a share of North Sea oil. This gives the impression that the worry for oil shortages is actually a reason for some countries to get more offensive. So what I would love to see from the AI is then that the AI from a country that fears oil shortages will try to bully oil producing countries into trading with them, or directly declare war to gain control of oil production themselves.

Such behaviour is what we see in the world today, a struggle for control of natural ressources - that alone has caused many wars. And SR2020 having been set in a near future makes creating an AI that will react on lack of natural ressources even more "realistic", as a lot of observers forsee that we will in fact in the near future experience wars being declared more or less because of the lack of natural ressources or food shortages.

jomni · Post by **jomni** » Jul 04 2008

I am sitting in the sidelines and not diving in yet. Although the game design is acceptable (human player aspires for domination while AI is defensive). I still cannot accept the fact that the AI cannot do amphibious invasions.

For example, conquering a big land mass gives you all the resources to build large armies. It may be difficult to achieve this but once you do it, then it's smooth sailing... Even though the whole world is against you, and you fail in some of your invasions, they cannot pounce on you while you're regrouping in your home continent because of this limitation. So you can just try and try until you succeed. Is this right? What makes the game more challenging if you already have half the world as your territory? Please enlighten me.

As for the manual, it's fine to have a printed manual that's quite slim just to describe the interface. But a very detailed manual with all the workings of the game should be made (wiki or PDF). For a game this complex, a manual is necessary. A good example is the complex flight simulation called Falcon 4.0 Allied Force. It has a 200 page starter manual that is printed. But it also has a monster 700 page PDF manual that walks you though the 30 Training Missions in detail.

I am actually in the market for a modern Geopolitical game but I think I have spotted SR2020's contender that does a lot of things right on the political space, but lacks detail in the military space. This game also has quite passive war AI but it gives you challenges even you're not at war because you will find a lot of opposition domestically as well (political parties, natural disasters, activists, et al.)... I'm not naming this game and it's also quite buggy.

The good new is that I am not ruling out the purchase of SR2020 because I see great potential. And even if I'm currently inclined to get the other game, SR2020 is still a good buy because it's a completely different design philosophy and gaming objective. I'm looking forward for the updates as I see BattleGoat is working hard on improving the game and is very responsive to suggestions.

d0mbo · Post by **d0mbo** » Jul 04 2008

George Geczy wrote: (...) You are the ego manic trying to become Supreme Ruler, and the rest of world is going about minding their own business and trying to stop you from affecting their own interests.

The arguments made against this is that it would be better, from a gameplay standpoint, if the AI was trying all-out to wipe you off the face of the earth. Not only is this not realistic (except for a few specific cases, ie the US against Iraq/Iran/North Korea ), but this is not the case with a lot of strategy and war games (...)

You say that I'm being disingenuous because (from your view) it was the lack of naval assault offense on the part of the AI that resulted in this concept, but from my view it was this concept that resulted in the lack of a need for AI 'extermination' offensive strategies.
-- George / BattleGoat Studios

So basically, Amphibious assaults after other nations wardeccing the player should not happen? This is a drastic change from your position a year ago.

Balthagor wrote: (...)

d0mbo wrote:...will the A.I. be capable of mounting air- and seaborne attacks?
I sure as hell hope so It is certainly our intention to make the AI more "capable" and this is high on our list. Since we're still early in the development I don't like to give deffinite answers yet.

True, there has been a lot of development going on, but it seems to me you guys changed your mind, which is unfortunate.

Let me finish by definately making a compliment to you guys for the things that ARE great in this game (hell - the people posting here winign about something like me just show they care) and your responsiveness on these forums. Very rarely seen these days so thumbs up.

Regards,
d0mbo.

Post by **Balthagor** » Jul 04 2008

d0mbo wrote:...So basically, Amphibious assaults after other nations wardeccing the player should not happen? This is a drastic change from your position a year ago...

I believe that was his position even a year ago, it was probably my opinion that you had read, I still support the idea of naval invasions (as George said, we're divided even within the studio on the issue) and will continue to ask for it.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Jul 04 2008

Does anyone apart from the designer think A.I that is passive and does very little is actually more fun from a gameplay standpoint? I find it a curious position when you compare it to all other grand sandbox strategy games from recent times.The A.I should be pro active.