Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Talk about on-going development of Supreme Ruler 2020 here. What would you like to see in updates or in a future Supreme Ruler title?

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Locked
KeanoManu
Corporal
Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 13 2008
Location: Stockholm

Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by KeanoManu »

I've played Supreme Ruler 2020 for a while now, and even though it was very hard to learn everything i would say it was definitely worth it. But i would like to come with a few suggestions to make next version in the series even better.
I don't know, but do BattleGoat see this game as purely a war-game or do the company has visions for more politics and diplomacy in it?

Diplomacy

* Organizations like NATO, EU and the WWF should be in the game which the countries can join or leave.

* New organizations could be created mid-game. Maybe the UN will be replaced by another similar organization in 100 years? One that will ban dictatorships and not let countries like China & Russia has veto so they can ruin it for everyone.

* Create deals with other countries about building certain structures in their country, or lease them. Military bases for example. The US has many bases in other countries for example. It's possible to use other countries bases in the game now with certain deals, but it could be done more in-depth. Make the deal to take over and run the military base instead of sharing it with the mother country.

* Having many more things to do in regard of diplomatic relations with other countries. If the relations are bad we should be able to try to fix the relations, if they're good we should be able to have meetings with them to continue the good relations.

Internal politics

* We should be able to build new towns. I've seen on the forums that it has been talked about before and that the developers don't think it's realistic, there are no examples from recent times outside of China. I would argue that the reason for that is that new towns are usually established in countries that are transformed from an undeveloped country to a developed country. We don't see it in the Western world today, but look back 100-200 years and it happened all the time, especially in the U.S. In the Arab world it seems to be popular to build new cities too (Iran & Saudi Arabia).
- It would also be good if we could rename constructions that are built over hexes without a name (other than the positioning).

* Political parties. Simply.
- Maybe even a mode that when an election is lost, we get to chose if we want to remain in power with the new rulers or if we want to go into opposition.
- Ban political parties.
- Turning a democracy into a dictatorship or turning a dictatorship into a democracy. It should be possible by both war and diplomacy.

Regions

I know the countries in the game at the moment are called regions, but they should become countries and inside those countries we should get regions. All countries today have several regions inside the country, but they are called different things in different countries.

* Some regions have more autonomy than others. It may be a good idea to let a region have a little autonomy if they demand it if you want to avoid a conflict that may end in the secession of that region.
- In some countries, the regions aren't really noticeable. They just don't have a system where different regions are threaten different. Sweden for example.
- While some countries have a system where all regions have a little autonomy over some things. The U.S for example.
- And some countries let a few regions have big autonomy while some doesn't have that much. Spain (with Basque & Catalonia) for example.

* Ability to create, split or merge new regions as the game moves on. It will of course not always be popular within the regions.
- Splitting a region in a peace deal may cause the people there to be upset and seeking for re-unification in one or another way. Either inside one of the countries it may be the trigger for that region to get a large independence movement. Something like that should depend much on how strong the region is. A region that is made-up mainly by one ethnical group or a culture may not want to belong to a country that doesn't share their culture.

External politics

* Support opposition or rebels in a country if you dislike the current regime. Probably not so useful in most cases and it can easily turn into hostilities between you and the regime you want to take down. One of the best examples of this is the whole Colombia/Farc issue. Where the U.S supports the current regime and the de facto dictatorship Venezuela supports Farc, which almost resulted in a war not so long time ago. This is not the same as liberation. This is more trying to replace the regime in a country without a military conflict, but sometimes it may evolve into an armed conflict even though that was not the purpose.

* More in-depth relations with other countries. More advance trade, political meetings with allies.

* Give the help to solve conflicts in other regions. For example the Israel-palestina conflict where many of the worlds countries are trying to help to solve the conflict. When a war arises in the game, other (neutral), countries will try to negotiate between the involving parties. Every conflict, small or big, should have a "window" where stats and hard-facts will be presented, but also where different interactions can be made, and not only by the fighting parties.
- A list of the obvious ones: Who are fighting?. But also a list of the ones that are trying to negotiate.
- How's the peace-negotiation going? Are the parties willing to still negotiate or are their only goal to destroy the enemy? Maybe then it's time for some neutral countries to intervene and stop the one who are making an genocide. The Kosovo War are a good example of when countries that didn't had anything to do with it from the beginning became involved only to stop a genocide. WWII are another example.
- How much damage has been caused? Both material damage but also human damage.
- Different actions like inviting the different sides into peace talks on neutral ground. Or, for neutral countries, an option to take a diplomatic side, meaning that they are supporting one side but aren't involved in the war. The Israel-palestina conflict is a good example where many countries are clearly supporting one side but aren't involved in any fighting.
- More options to end a conflict. Instead of only having the option to annex we should have several options.
-- Annexing just a part of the country.
-- Giving independence for a part of the country.
-- Overthrow one, or several, governments. What will happen with the heads of that government? Send them to Hague? Execute them? Just let them go? Maybe "give them to the people". Let the mob take care of business.
-- Status Quo.

* Aid
- Simply giving aid to countries that needs it. An easy way to make friends. Could be by sending money, sending food or build a school.
- The UN is doing much of these, but single countries are helping with even more.

Database

I don't know much about programming but isn't it possible to create a "universal database" for a game like this? Where information about countries, cities, units and everything are stored and can be re-used for every title in the series and also built upon.
That would make it easier to create more features as you don't have to create the map over and over again. Now the game has this map with cities and so, for the next version you don't have to worry about that but instead you can do other stuff like adding history to the cities.

For example, in the first version of the game every city maybe only has "stats" for the current population. But in next years version you could add stuff like historical population, founding year & demography of the city.

Every city should have different stats on how good they are at certain areas. For example Infrastructure & Crime.

This could be done for almost everything in the game, not only cities and countries. After a while the game will contain much more information about everything even though it's not necessary to re-create all information for the next game.

Warfare

* One thing that bothers me in SR2020 is that when a city is completely destroyed it will never be built up again. It would be better if a city never became totally destroyed. It can go down to 0% but never disappear. Other facilities such as industrial centers or air strips should of course be possible to completely erase.

* It would be nice to use an advanced filter with auto-deploying missiles. I had a few submarines outside the coast and used them to fire Tridents over the whole world. But often the game loaded missiles with a much less range than the trident, which was annoying. I would have liked it if I was able to tell the game only to deploy tridents or missiles with a range over x km to those subs.

* Superpowers should be able to bully other countries a little more. The U.S are doing airstrikes Pakistan, Russia have been occupying Georgian territory for several years and called it "Peacekeepers". So just because a country cross the borders to another country it shouldn't be a 100% chance of war. Colombia killed a few FARC-members inside Ecuadorian territory last year, it became a diplomatic crisis but no war.
- The US-Pakistan example again. I think it should be possible to do military operations inside a country with the help of that countries government. For example if they have problems with partisans. If doing it the "good guy"-way you'll need to wait for approval for your actions which could take a day or two and may decrease the chance of success. Doing the "bad guy"-way of it, you'll just ran over your friends and hope they'll not make a big thing of it. I've heard that Obama aren't ruling that last option out of the Pakistan conflict.

Liberation
This is one of the most important issues, at least for me. I really miss it in the game, and to be honest, it's something that most of the games in this genre don't have even though it should be an important part of a geo-political/war game.
New countries are created all the time in the world today. But we rarely see annexations, which is the only possible "peace" in SR2020.

This could add a whole new way to play the game and especially a whole new way for wars to be created where we can engage.

* Several regions in the world today want independence from their current states. For different reasons.
- Different reasons can be (Of course, some of them have more than one reason):
-- Cultural: If a smaller region inside a state doesn't share the same culture as the rest of the country. Examples: (Basque)
-- Religious: When a group or region in a country doesn't share the same religion as the state, it may sometimes create tensions. Examples: Chechnya
-- Historical: Regions that once was independent but not anymore. Examples: Scania, Isn't an active separatist movement at the moment but it would definitely become if Sweden would start to fall apart or get a war on our soil.
-- Ethnical: Ethnical groups seeking for a country to call their own. Examples: (Kurdistan), Kurdistan are a good example as it also covers five countries, which i think aren't uncommon for cultural/ethnical separatist movements. Romani, Are spread over Europe but without a country. Just like the jews were before. Maybe they will also get a country? In Romania maybe?.
-- Political: Should be possible to happen randomly for all countries. The country splits into two. Both claims to be the "real", and they both get the original countries name but with something that explains their differences. Examples: Vietnam (North & South), Korea (North & South), China (Communist & Taiwan), Germany (East & West).

* Some regions may also just want to change country. They may belong to one country but would rather belong to another. Examples: South Ossetia.

* Every "internal region" in the game should be able to be independence, but some would of course be almost impossible unless the player really funds the separatist movement there, while it should be almost inevitable for some regions to start a civil war for their independence.

* When the separatist country covers more than one country?
- The separatists should be able to be of a different strength in the different countries. Look at Kurdistan who is active in Turkey and Iraq but not as strong in Iran, Syria & Armenia.

* What will the separatists do?
- First of all, they should seek a friendly way to gain their independence. But most of the time a country will not let one of its provinces to break away without a fight. An example of when it indeed did happen though is the Serbia & Montenegro split in 2006.
- When they can't gain independence in a diplomatic way, some will give up but some will start to fight against the government. Violent demonstrations, car bombs/minor attentats (that will lower the morale/scare your population) and other minor violent actions.
- After a while it can evolve into a full military conflict - a civil war.
- If a independence movement has enough support from other countries in the world they may just declare independence without a war. Just like Kosovo last year. Serbia doesn't like it but Kosovo’s support from around the world makes it almost impossible for Serbia to stop it.

* What can the player and AI do?
- The player and the AI should be able to support separatist movements. With money & weapons mainly. It's no secret that Russia recently supported the separatists in South Ossetia & Abkhazia for example. And it's also no secret that the U.S has supported different separatists globally.
- The player and the AI should also be able to support the current regime against separatists if a country gets a problem with it. It should depend on the countries relationship (for the AI).
- The support should be either secret or public. Of course, the secret support could be revealed if you're not careful. And that should not be good for your reputation in the world, and especially against the country you support separatists in.

* Triggers
- One trigger for a separatist movement to become active are of course foreign support, but it should be ways for countries to defend themselves against it.
- Taking good care of the different religious & ethnical groups in the country will greatly reduce the risk of them to start any troubles.
- Allowing a little autonomy for different regions will also reduce the risk of them wanting even more power.
- A high GDP should also reduce the risk. You won't be successful to support separatists in the U.S states for example. Not unless you disrupts the country in other ways, like fighting a war on their soil or any other way that will greatly weaken the U.S government. But to start a civil war in a country like Nigeria won't be that hard.
- Political rebels should mainly start to be active when the current government is weak. Either if they're about to be defeated in a war or if the current government has a very low support from the people.
- Once a separatist movement has become active it should be very hard to defeat them. Even though your national army outnumbers them by far they won't go down that easy.


Precision bombing

This is an idea I’ve been thinking about for a time, but it would probably need the database-idea too to work as it will need much information about all the cities in the game.
In SR2020 we can bomb cities, but that's mainly just bombing the people in the city without any reason behind it. That's generally not how wars are done these days.
I saw a program on the television a week ago or so about the initial stages of the Iraq War. The U.S bombed Baghdad, just as it is possible in the game, but they only bombed targets that were used by the regime. They didn't attack the people of the city. And in the recent Gaza War we heard many reports on how Israel mainly targeted structures used by the terrorist organization Hamas, but they also bombed the homes of their leaders. In this case it was some collateral damage, but it's hard when the enemy fight without a uniform and hide in the crowd ( :wink: ). While the government is usually already underground when the war starts, bombing their facilities can have a more symbolic value that lowers the moral of both the leaders and the people.
It may be a little too much micromanagement, so it should be an alternative to leave it totally up to the military officers what we'll attack in a city.
I think we should be able to choose targets when bombing a city. Of course, we could still just bomb the city SR2020/WWII-style, but precision bombing are more modern. To do this, it should be an option or so in the military screen where we can plan aerial attacks. Open it and get a list of countries we are at war with and then cities in that country. Open a city and we get a list of possible targets in that city.
- Government buildings: Every capital should have these in the list of possible targets. All types of governmental buildings, from the seat of government to the individual homes of all ministers. Attacking these would give big benefits if your goal is to overthrow the current regime. It would lower the moral of all ministers (simply making them less effective in their respective areas) and attacking individual homes would lower the moral of the attacked minister very much and if you're lucky even kill him. Killing a minister should bring temporary chaos of that area in the country, which would then gradually but slowly come to normal again. So killing the minister of defense could make their armed forces very vulnerable for a short time and very disorganized for a long time. That would give your forces big advantages.
- Infrastructure: Bombing roads, rails, bridges, airports, seaports and stuff like that. It would hit hard on both the military and civilians. Individual Airports and seaports should be individual targets while general roads are more general and every hit lowers the infrastructure stat in the city. Well-known/big bridges should also be individual targets, such as the Brooklyn Bridge, Golden Gate & Öresundsbron.
- Landmarks: Landmarks are already in the game and something we can bomb, but they are not individual and only in the biggest cities. I think all larger individual landmarks in big cities should be in the game in the list of possible targets. Instead of just having a landmark in Paris it should have the Eiffel Tower, Arc the Triomphe and the Louvre. When there's a war between two states this should usually not be the target, but separatist movements should be more prone to attack this type of targets. Doing that should have a huge impact on the moral and prestige of the country, and especially on the targeted city. An example of an separatist movement that detonates a bomb in a city is the 1996 Manchester bombing by IRA. It did indeed not target a landmark, but it targeted the financial part of the city, which are closely associated with landmarks. ETA is notorious for it too. And in a WWIII scenario, i believe that military armies would also start to attack landmarks, even though it's not common in the current conflicts in the world. Maybe the destruction of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad during the Iraq-war can count as an example of when a countries army attacked a landmark of another country.




Statistics

* I really miss that there's not statistics of the wars once they end and the region is erased. At the moment we only have the total kills/death for all wars, and when a country falls it's erased. It would be fun if we could split it and see statistics for the different wars too. And also that the statistics are still there after a region falls or after a peace treaty.

* More war statistics.
- Total civilian casualties.
- Maybe a day-by-day reporting of how the war goes. Example: The first day i lose 10.000 km2 and 10 units but the next day I win 20.000 km2 without losing a single unit. A scenario like that is simply written as a 10.000 km2 win and 10 units lost in the game at the moment.
- Possible more?


* I would like to have demographics in the game. Religion, ethnicity & nationality (immigration). At the moment we have religion, but i don't think the figures change anything during the game.
- Statistics could be made of everything. But the ones I stated are most important for me at least. If the game starts to use a database it would be easier to put more and more statistics in the game.



Other

* It should be possible to ask the UN for building rights or buy land from the UN for different project. Like building a bridge over straits that have a one-hexed UN-line trough it, which is basically every strait. Or for producing oil of the coasts.

* What will the timeline of the next game be? 2030? Sounds a little to far into the future. Maybe the series should change a little and go closer to modern time? So if the next game is released in 2012, the game will start in 2013?
* If they chose to make a database, we could have several different start dates in the game if history is included in the database.

* Of course, the speed issue. But I guess it's something that are high priority and will be fixed as computers are getting better.


This message was written over a long time, I started it over a month ago. So I've probably missed some important things.
Hundane
General
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sep 11 2008

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by Hundane »

I like alot of these ideas
* Create deals with other countries about building certain structures in their country, or lease them. Military bases for example. The US has many bases in other countries for example. It's possible to use other countries bases in the game now with certain deals, but it could be done more in-depth. Make the deal to take over and run the military base instead of sharing it with the mother country.
I like this just because it could be used deviously by the AI and the player. Let another region build thier bases in your lands, face the consequences if your civilians dislike foriegn troops on thier soil , opportunity to break the original deal and basically have that other region build your bases, plus the opportunity to use forward bases for recon and deployments.

But you can look at it this way in the current game, if your deploying troops in another region and using thier supply , it almost like a free lease agreement. The current way however means that any repairs or putting units into reserve means to move them back to your own soil. Still would be a good feature for the next series.
* We should be able to build new towns. I've seen on the forums that it has been talked about before and that the developers don't think it's realistic, there are no examples from recent times outside of China. I would argue that the reason for that is that new towns are usually established in countries that are transformed from an undeveloped country to a developed country. We don't see it in the Western world today, but look back 100-200 years and it happened all the time, especially in the U.S. In the Arab world it seems to be popular to build new cities too (Iran & Saudi Arabia).
This Im not for, an industrial complex is basically a new city. A military base is also.

However, I would like the ability to rename those complexes and bases.
* Some regions have more autonomy than others. It may be a good idea to let a region have a little autonomy if they demand it if you want to avoid a conflict that may end in the secession of that region.
- In some countries, the regions aren't really noticeable. They just don't have a system where different regions are threaten different. Sweden for example.
- While some countries have a system where all regions have a little autonomy over some things. The U.S for example.
- And some countries let a few regions have big autonomy while some doesn't have that much. Spain (with Basque & Catalonia) for example.

* Ability to create, split or merge new regions as the game moves on. It will of course not always be popular within the regions.
- Splitting a region in a peace deal may cause the people there to be upset and seeking for re-unification in one or another way. Either inside one of the countries it may be the trigger for that region to get a large independence movement. Something like that should depend much on how strong the region is. A region that is made-up mainly by one ethnical group or a culture may not want to belong to a country that doesn't share their culture.

This area of the game IMO could be the best selling point for a new game. The ability for the AI to have regions in a country that they may have to use military force or make consession to appease the civilians could lead to some awesome gameplaying. Creating civil wars, which side do you help or do you take the opportunity to conquer the country and stabalize the area.
The ability to allow the gamer to create his own "faction" for lack of a better word inside one of these regions or countries could be really fun.

The external politics you mentioned would go good with above and would really enhance the game.
* Superpowers should be able to bully other countries a little more. The U.S are doing airstrikes Pakistan, Russia have been occupying Georgian territory for several years and called it "Peacekeepers". So just because a country cross the borders to another country it shouldn't be a 100% chance of war. Colombia killed a few FARC-members inside Ecuadorian territory last year, it became a diplomatic crisis but no war.

I agree with this in a way but think it may be hard to really implement in the game. If they ever add in stuff like terrorist camps or NBC production facilities then I would hope that the AI as well as the player could attempt to destroy these and not have be an auto declaration of war.

Liberation
This is one of the most important issues, at least for me. I really miss it in the game, and to be honest, it's something that most of the games in this genre don't have even though it should be an important part of a geo-political/war game.
New countries are created all the time in the world today. But we rarely see annexations, which is the only possible "peace" in SR2020.
Everything you listed under this part is good stuff IMO and would like to see BG do this.

Precision bombing IMO should be limited to single buildings and bridges. If you want to bomb the whole town to kill civilians thats fine , it should bring world opinion of you way down. The thing I noticed currently in SR2020 is that it takes a lot of missiles to destroy a building but understand that it represents more than just one building but the repair rate on those are really fast. Bridges on the otherhand should not be that hard to destroy. A combination of the buildings you suggested with the current ones could make for some interesting targets. Especially like the idea about killing the ministers and having effects to thier departments felt by that country or region.

The stats..... I would like to see more stats but its probally the least important criteria for a new game for myself. But if they are included , I will look at them thats for sure.

As for as other ideas

I would like to see a better spy system than 2020 has currently. Intel academy as a fabrication plant with the ability to produce specialized spies for espionage, sabatoge, aiding militants or terrorists , terrorist cells, kidnappers, mercenaries ETC...

I would like to see some building that can be hidden , found , destroyed , and sabotaged that also would have impacts on that region if they are discovered like , terrorist camps, nbc production facilities, missile test sites, NBC weapons, pirate bases or somthing similiar.

Not only have the World Market to sell commodities but a Black Market as well. Regions/countries could use these to fund seperatists secretly or make cash and could include things like drugs ( maybe a certain type depending on region) ,small arms, slaves, counterfeit techs, smuggling the other commodities, gems, nuke material ETC.... Whatever they make for the black market would need a production facility that off course would be one of those types that could be hidden, maybe even from the region its located. In other words , the bad guys could try to build a facility on the good guys turf and hope it stays hidden. Good excuse to use counter espionage or have some units patrolling in those out of the way places in your own backyard.

I would like to see a better U.N. but I dont have any ideas on this subject.

SR2025 Global Counter Insurgency

WOWZA !!!! what a lot of words. Wonder if anyone will read this after I went to all the trouble to type.

Oh well Im done for now.
User avatar
Ruges
General
Posts: 3408
Joined: Aug 22 2008
Location: Nearby, really I'll see you tonight when your sleeping
Contact:

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by Ruges »

WOWZA ! what a lot of words. Wonder if anyone will read this after I went to all the trouble to type.
Yes.

Now personaly I still believe somone is testing out a bot on the forums. And this is the best post I have seen yet. There are only a couple things he posted that dont really interpret into the game. And everything he posted can be gathered from the forums and wiki. But it has come a long way since the first post they posted.
User avatar
sa_3_d911
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 827
Joined: Feb 27 2009
Location: Egypt,The arab world

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by sa_3_d911 »

Hundane&KeanoManu i defiantly agree with every thing u said but i would like to add a small idea i don't know if his is possible or not but i would like if i could press like a key & the game would zoom in big time & if iam for example attacking a city with 2 plane squadrons & 1 infantry & say that these 2 squadrons have 20 planes in them & the infantry has 10 men & the enemy has one infantry(10 men also) it would be cool if i get to control each of these planes&men as if i am playing generals or world in conflict or something like that that would defiantly be more interesting & make this game a lot more challenging & i would like to say that if the changes that all three of us proposed were actually done i would be willing to buy the game even at double the price cuz it will be the best stratigic game in the world :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Last edited by sa_3_d911 on Apr 03 2009, edited 1 time in total.
"If I weren't an Egyptian, I would have wished to be an Egyptian" Mostafa kamel


MAY THE SOULS OF THE THOUSANDS WHO GAVE UP THERE MOST PRECIOUS THING FOR US REST IN PEACE ,AMIN
User avatar
Darkreaper
Lieutenant
Posts: 63
Joined: Mar 01 2009
Location: Port Hardy, BC
Contact:

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by Darkreaper »

i think Keanu pretty much covered all the bases there lol
Image
User avatar
StrikeForce20
Captain
Posts: 106
Joined: Aug 01 2008
Location: Paris, France

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by StrikeForce20 »

Yes indeed, having bases in other countries is a very good idea, for that there should be an option in diplomacy that is "Allow Military Buildings" or something like that in other countries which would make you have an easier way of becoming SUPREME RULER
User avatar
StrikeForce20
Captain
Posts: 106
Joined: Aug 01 2008
Location: Paris, France

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by StrikeForce20 »

Also Strategic Redeployment would be a good idea if your considering a mass invasion of a nation.
birsealmighty
Sergeant
Posts: 14
Joined: Aug 29 2008

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by birsealmighty »

I have just read this posting having been away from the forums for a while and I believe the owner of this posting has wrote one of the best yet.

For a long time I've been an advocate of having more of a balance within Supreme Ruler 2020. I bought this game NOT for the war element instead choosing to play and enjoy the the other aspects. It is now accepted that since the end of the 2nd World War we have lived under the premise of having peace by the threat of nuclear destruction. Many people nowadays do not think about this aspect, however the threat is still there. It is for this reason along with the creation of NATO and its offshoots that we have not had World War 3 through conventional means. Yet in the game, and I understand the storyline, but war always breaks out very early. There is simply not enough political content in the game to produce peaceful options or solutions right now. An alternative future up to 2030 is that war will break out between countries over energy, water and food because of global warming. It is human need that precipitates war between bordering countries, not just because they WANT to take them over.

I would like to see the technologies expanded and shown more in the game. Within the European Union there is policy that allows travel, business and employment rights within every country that is part of it. Only NATO exists within the game at present. Another thing is that the line of sight does not work for me. Say a country within the game is being run by a dictatorship. They would be very guarded and would not give open access to any outside country, as in real life. However the media and the people within the countries themselves play a huge part. Introducing the media to the game could be an influence bearing in mind the media can influence for good and bad reasons. If you felt a country was a threat, maybe not a threat for war but say for humanitarian or even in the future ecological reasons you could attempt to place a spy in there and/or obtain satellite data, having all the time to be mindful of your own countries reaction. You would be dealing now with transnational companies such as Vodaphone, Ford, Shell, Microsoft, Nestle etc or their made up name equivalant along with IGO's such as the UN, NATO, the European Union or even the International Coffee Organisation. Social businesses are also making a rise in the world where Muhammad Yunus along with the Grameen Bank won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.

I've read many comments on these forums but I don't like when people say things like 'I don't think that is possible' or 'this would be hard to do.' This could be an exceptional game, one that even Geography & Modern Studies teachers round the world in Primary & Secondary schools recommend because of the content. I am in first year of University myself as a mature student and study International Relations along with History and would love to put into practice some of which I am learning. But unfortunately right now its war, war, war. People might be wondering why I persevere when I seems like I don't like the game. I actually do like - what the game could become and believe that Battlegoat Studios are missing a great opportunity if they do not follow up the non-war elements that are being suggested.

What I really would like to see is having this game moved online through a subscription charge. This way it could be placed on a server and allow it to have many times much more content than it does at present. Oh and it was suggested to me before when I asked for more commodities in the game (commodities specific to that country) that Superpower 2 uses this idea. Well being nosy I bought the game and played it for a day in total and I'm sorry to say that in my opinion its not up to much. With the game moved online Battlegoat Studios could open other transatlantic offices to keep up with the geo-political elements in Europe, Asia, Africa etc. I've never fancied World of Warcraft but understand how people play it. There is no reason why this game should not be massive online.
User avatar
sa_3_d911
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 827
Joined: Feb 27 2009
Location: Egypt,The arab world

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by sa_3_d911 »

birsealmighty wrote:I have just read this posting having been away from the forums for a while and I believe the owner of this posting has wrote one of the best yet.

For a long time I've been an advocate of having more of a balance within Supreme Ruler 2020. I bought this game NOT for the war element instead choosing to play and enjoy the the other aspects. It is now accepted that since the end of the 2nd World War we have lived under the premise of having peace by the threat of nuclear destruction. Many people nowadays do not think about this aspect, however the threat is still there. It is for this reason along with the creation of NATO and its offshoots that we have not had World War 3 through conventional means. Yet in the game, and I understand the storyline, but war always breaks out very early. There is simply not enough political content in the game to produce peaceful options or solutions right now. An alternative future up to 2030 is that war will break out between countries over energy, water and food because of global warming. It is human need that precipitates war between bordering countries, not just because they WANT to take them over.

I would like to see the technologies expanded and shown more in the game. Within the European Union there is policy that allows travel, business and employment rights within every country that is part of it. Only NATO exists within the game at present. Another thing is that the line of sight does not work for me. Say a country within the game is being run by a dictatorship. They would be very guarded and would not give open access to any outside country, as in real life. However the media and the people within the countries themselves play a huge part. Introducing the media to the game could be an influence bearing in mind the media can influence for good and bad reasons. If you felt a country was a threat, maybe not a threat for war but say for humanitarian or even in the future ecological reasons you could attempt to place a spy in there and/or obtain satellite data, having all the time to be mindful of your own countries reaction. You would be dealing now with transnational companies such as Vodaphone, Ford, Shell, Microsoft, Nestle etc or their made up name equivalant along with IGO's such as the UN, NATO, the European Union or even the International Coffee Organisation. Social businesses are also making a rise in the world where Muhammad Yunus along with the Grameen Bank won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.

I've read many comments on these forums but I don't like when people say things like 'I don't think that is possible' or 'this would be hard to do.' This could be an exceptional game, one that even Geography & Modern Studies teachers round the world in Primary & Secondary schools recommend because of the content. I am in first year of University myself as a mature student and study International Relations along with History and would love to put into practice some of which I am learning. But unfortunately right now its war, war, war. People might be wondering why I persevere when I seems like I don't like the game. I actually do like - what the game could become and believe that Battlegoat Studios are missing a great opportunity if they do not follow up the non-war elements that are being suggested.

What I really would like to see is having this game moved online through a subscription charge. This way it could be placed on a server and allow it to have many times much more content than it does at present. Oh and it was suggested to me before when I asked for more commodities in the game (commodities specific to that country) that Superpower 2 uses this idea. Well being nosy I bought the game and played it for a day in total and I'm sorry to say that in my opinion its not up to much. With the game moved online Battlegoat Studios could open other transatlantic offices to keep up with the geo-political elements in Europe, Asia, Africa etc. I've never fancied World of Warcraft but understand how people play it. There is no reason why this game should not be massive online.

amin to that brother you said it right i also bought this game for diplomatic&financial aspects before military ones & i agree with every thing u said :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
"If I weren't an Egyptian, I would have wished to be an Egyptian" Mostafa kamel


MAY THE SOULS OF THE THOUSANDS WHO GAVE UP THERE MOST PRECIOUS THING FOR US REST IN PEACE ,AMIN
a12356
Lieutenant
Posts: 60
Joined: Jul 26 2008

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by a12356 »

I agree to those,although i believe all those ideas about different regions would need an complete engine overhaul.

I especially like the idea of building things on UN territory.

I would like to add this:
-The player should be able to call his allies into a war.The response of your allies would depend on how good are you with them and how big are the win chances.
-The player should be able to provoke a war between one of his allies and another country,howewer not between two allies.
probyte
Lieutenant
Posts: 87
Joined: Jun 24 2008

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by probyte »

Why talking about the next release?
The actual one is still a horrible BETA which has a lot of open issues.... and the last bugfix is month ago...
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by Balthagor »

probyte wrote:...The actual one is still a horrible BETA which has a lot of open issues...
it is not a beta, we have a list of issues, which issue is so horrible to you?

And we did 5 updates in ~ 6 months IIRC.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Ruges
General
Posts: 3408
Joined: Aug 22 2008
Location: Nearby, really I'll see you tonight when your sleeping
Contact:

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by Ruges »

He just believes all games are games are still in beta. and we should have flying cars by now.
el_slapper
Captain
Posts: 141
Joined: Jun 30 2005
Location: vente
Contact:

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by el_slapper »

Well, there is always room to grow. Therefore, there is always a way to say a game is in beta, as there is always something you can do better. Being beta on HoI2 & 3, I've been often hurt to read comments about an "unfinished game" after all those years. HoI2 was playable with pleasure & very few crashbugs from scratch. It was improved a lot since, but that's the mark of a hard-working developer, not of a bad-working one. The Goats also have nice little enjoyable games.

If one wait for its software being bugless to sell it, he will never sell any, unfortunately.
War, about who is right?about who is left!
probyte
Lieutenant
Posts: 87
Joined: Jun 24 2008

Re: Supreme Ruler 2030? Ideas for next game in the series

Post by probyte »

Balthagor wrote:
probyte wrote:...The actual one is still a horrible BETA which has a lot of open issues...
it is not a beta, we have a list of issues, which issue is so horrible to you?

And we did 5 updates in ~ 6 months IIRC.
It is, lets take an simple example, the Avatar is not working since one year ... Multiplayer .-) this is far away from a real multiplayer mod.

But the most horrible thing is, that you can not leave regions, you can not help your ally qithout occupie land ...

Example:
I play as France, I want to help Israel. I land there with ships, going to war against syria and lebanon.
After 10 minutes I have french regions there and I have no cheance to leave it or give it to Israel...
Or setup a new goverment which is democratic...
If you so this very often you have a lot of french enclaves which will cost you resources etc ...

I can go ahead with a list of things which are really pain in the ass....

I cant await HOI3...
Locked

Return to “Development - 2020”