Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks - Changes Report

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
User avatar
Anatolian
Major
Posts: 183
Joined: Sep 24 2009
Human: Yes

Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks - Changes Report

Post by Anatolian »

Changes Report
Help add your idea's to this development changes report.

Now, im going to bring up the common complaints that users have made about Supreme Ruler, so expect nothing new. What i will do, however, is put forward suggestions that are mathematically simple and easy to implement in the current SR engine (derived from judgements of what developers have said that can/cannot do in the current capacity of the game engine since details of what game engine is actually being used have not been mentioned that i know of).

Now, sustainability is a big problem in Supreme Ruler 2020. What do i mean by that?
As the years progress, idle countries will continue pumping out endless units. Eventually, entire continents are over filled with units of other countries, sometimes even flowing over into neighbouring borders. The result of this is unrealisticly large numbers of military personnel, sometimes well above what an economy can handle, and usually well above the processing capabilities of the majority of PC's and laptops. The solution? Find a way to nuke entire continents or.......now here is the actual only solution that is within the realm of practicality.... restarting the game. How tedious!

Obviously such concerns are not an immediate worry. It takes a number of years before it gets to that stage. It still, however, accounts to an unsustainable long term gaming environment. The solution?

The DEFCON system will have to be redone. Completely stripped naked and redressed. I will state some possible mathematically scenario's in which this can be implemented.

- DEFCON will bare in mind a variety of factors. During times of war, it will be maxed out. However, AI may decide to reduce the DEFCON level to the lowest level possible during periods of war if:

If treasury is decreasing more than X% every day and GDP/c decreasing X% every day then reduce DEFCON.

If national treasury is decreasing by a percentage X deemed by the developers everyday, and a GDP/c being reduced at a percentage X deemed by the developers everyday, then AI should choose to reduce DEFCON level to ensure economic strain is eased (since mechanisms for AI to increase taxes/reduce expenditure is in place, no need to discuss).

This will provide a more realistic AI perception of DEFCON levels.

- DEFCON levels after war usually remain needlessly high, creating national economies in-game which are poor, debt riddled, and uncompetitive, not to mention bad allies and foes. DEFCON levels should decrease after war over time via the following mathematical scenario (they already do but not as effectively):

share border:

If causus belli>=80 then ELEVATED
If causus belli>=60 and <80 GAURDED
If causus belli <60 then PEACE

No border:

If causus belli>=90 then ELEVATED
If causus belli>=70 and <90 GAURDED
If causus belli <70 then PEACE


In simple terms, if CB is equal to or greater than 80% if that country shares a border, AI should make DEFCON elevated, if it is equal to or greater than 60% but lower than 80% it should make it Guarded and if CB is less than 60% it should set it to peace levels.

This is lower for countries who share no border for the obvious reason that no shared boarders provide less perception of a threat. If Casus belli is equal to or greater than 90, DEFCON is elevated - if Causus belli is greater than or equal to 70 but less than 90, DEFCON is gaurded and if CB is smaller than 70, DEFCON is put to PEACE.

- Relations with another country which has gone to war with an allied country should see its relations affected negatively and result in a 10% increase in CB if they share borders.

- Now for the sustainability problem.
the following is irrespective of the amount of military fabrication that nation has, it only affects the speed at which the units are created because of the amounts being produced at any one time, but does not change the maximum units allowed for each DEFCON level.

If DEFCON = PEACE then maximum personnel =300,000
If DEFCON = GAURDED then maximum personnel =600,000
If DEFCON = ELEVATED then maximum personnel =800,000
IF DEFCON = AT WAR then maximum personnel infinite

An ingenious and easy solution to the problem of continued military expansion and game lag. The above simply means that if DEFCON level is at PEACE, that nation cannot create more than 300,000 units. If DEFCON is Gaurded, that nation cannot create more than 600,000 units....and so on, you understand the gist. If DEFCON is at war, the number is infinite, as is the status quo with any DEFCON level which is the main problem.

If a nation goes from ELEVATED to PEACE when under Defcon ELEVATED that nation has produced 800,000, then that amount of soldiers are kept the same, but do not produce any units under PEACE defcon because the 300,000 unit limit under PEACE has been exceeded.

What do you think?
Even if developers made the number of units AI players/ Human players are allowed to produce under DEFCON Elevated is made infinite, it would still serve to triple the playable lifetime of an SR game and make it far more sustainable than it already is.

REPORT UPDATE: Thanks to Rhyus for suggesting an additional development improvement on this ''changes report''.

- AI should reserve all of its personnel when DEFCON is below elevated.
Last edited by Anatolian on May 21 2010, edited 4 times in total.
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin
Rhyus
Colonel
Posts: 363
Joined: Feb 19 2010
Human: Yes
Location: Barnsley, Yorkshire, England

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks

Post by Rhyus »

What about when not at war the AI puts all or most units in reserve (this is what i do when im not at war), wouldn't that help game speed.
User avatar
Anatolian
Major
Posts: 183
Joined: Sep 24 2009
Human: Yes

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks

Post by Anatolian »

Rhyus wrote:What about when not at war the AI puts all or most units in reserve (this is what i do when im not at war), wouldn't that help game speed.
To a degree. But if that country goes to war, speed will only become an issue again. It CAN be integrated beside the changes i have suggested. That would definetly improve gameplay sustainability and speed. I have added your suggestion to the report.
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin
catatonic
General
Posts: 1113
Joined: Jun 03 2009
Human: Yes

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks - Changes Rep

Post by catatonic »

Anatolian wrote: If DEFCON = PEACE then maximum units =300,000
If DEFCON = GAURDED then maximum units =600,000
If DEFCON = ELEVATED then maximum units =800,000
IF DEFCON = AT WAR then maximum unuts infinite
Don't you mean 300,000 personnel?

I don't think that there are 300,000 units on the whole map.

If so, why would you suggest limiting personnel rather than units and fabs?
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012
Rhyus
Colonel
Posts: 363
Joined: Feb 19 2010
Human: Yes
Location: Barnsley, Yorkshire, England

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks

Post by Rhyus »

Anatolian wrote:
Rhyus wrote:What about when not at war the AI puts all or most units in reserve (this is what i do when im not at war), wouldn't that help game speed.
To a degree. But if that country goes to war, speed will only become an issue again. It CAN be integrated beside the changes i have suggested. That would definetly improve gameplay sustainability and speed. I have added your suggestion to the report.
Not every region is at war all of the time so all of those regions no at war with all their units in reserve will help speed quite a lot. As i have noticed even the really small AI regions have lots and lots of units just sitting around or patrolling all over the place after a few years of play which can slow down the games quite considerably. Also like Catotonic said above at each defcon level The AI regions can only have so many units out at a time might help as well.
User avatar
Ruges
General
Posts: 3408
Joined: Aug 22 2008
Location: Nearby, really I'll see you tonight when your sleeping
Contact:

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks - Changes Rep

Post by Ruges »

Dont forget the reason those units are out, and not reservedis becouse they are a deterent. The AI for some reason or anouther has decided that county B is a threat to them and will likily attack them. So they raise there defcon level and deploy there units in a defensive behavior. And since most of the world has somone who hates them they keep this defensive stance.

however your OP does have merit. I do think Defcon should be more related to budget and what they are doing combat wise. If your using less then 10 percent of your units in combat you should not be at defcon 1. If you are using less then 20 percent of your units in combat you should not be at defcon 2 or 1, Unless you maintain a positive budget. Defcon 1 and 2 are huge money sinks. While they do give a large bonus to combat, If your not using that bonus why pay for it? Even myself as a player will leave my defcon at level 3 unless I am performing major combat. Its too exspensive.

As for what units should be deployed during peace. I think it should be a phazed sequence. If a new threat pops up go ahead and deploy all those units. However (and I think this should apply for countries at war too). If there is no combat for a month, and they are not making a posative budget they should send 10 percent of there units into reserve. Same thing next month and the following month. Until 90 percent of there units are in reserve during peace time, and 50 are in reserve during wartime. And if 50 percent get into reserve during wartime the countries should consider opting for a peace treaty.

As for production of military units. I dunno yet. Maybe only keep enough units around that they have the manpower to deploy? Or slightly more units then they can deploy? Also by having the units in reserve they will be able to scrap (or sell) out dated equipment and modernize there military.
Rhyus
Colonel
Posts: 363
Joined: Feb 19 2010
Human: Yes
Location: Barnsley, Yorkshire, England

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks - Changes Rep

Post by Rhyus »

I think that would be the best way of doing it Ruges. You said something about the AI and peace treaties, just wondering do AI regions make peace with other AI regions.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks - Changes Rep

Post by Balthagor »

sometimes they do.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Anatolian
Major
Posts: 183
Joined: Sep 24 2009
Human: Yes

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks - Changes Rep

Post by Anatolian »

catatonic wrote:
Anatolian wrote: If DEFCON = PEACE then maximum units =300,000
If DEFCON = GAURDED then maximum units =600,000
If DEFCON = ELEVATED then maximum units =800,000
IF DEFCON = AT WAR then maximum unuts infinite
Don't you mean 300,000 personnel?

I don't think that there are 300,000 units on the whole map.

If so, why would you suggest limiting personnel rather than units and fabs?
Ah yes, personnel! My bad, will change that. I dont think limiting fabs is that realistic. In the real world, and i'll give the UK as an example, there is a set rate of recruitment in times of peace, and a higher set rate during war time. In times of war, if you are fighting Russia with 1 million personnel and you have 500,000 with only a limited amount of fabs, you stand no chance. Whereas in what i have suggested, under war DEFCON, the numbers you can produce are unlimited. This makes for a more exciting fight that lasts.
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Anatolian
Major
Posts: 183
Joined: Sep 24 2009
Human: Yes

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks

Post by Anatolian »

Rhyus wrote:
Anatolian wrote:
Rhyus wrote:What about when not at war the AI puts all or most units in reserve (this is what i do when im not at war), wouldn't that help game speed.
To a degree. But if that country goes to war, speed will only become an issue again. It CAN be integrated beside the changes i have suggested. That would definetly improve gameplay sustainability and speed. I have added your suggestion to the report.
Not every region is at war all of the time so all of those regions no at war with all their units in reserve will help speed quite a lot. As i have noticed even the really small AI regions have lots and lots of units just sitting around or patrolling all over the place after a few years of play which can slow down the games quite considerably. Also like Catotonic said above at each defcon level The AI regions can only have so many units out at a time might help as well.
Actually i liked your idea very much, and changed my mind. It has been added to the end of the report thanks to you.
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Anatolian
Major
Posts: 183
Joined: Sep 24 2009
Human: Yes

Re: Sustainability is what Supreme Ruler lacks - Changes Rep

Post by Anatolian »

Ruges wrote:Dont forget the reason those units are out, and not reservedis becouse they are a deterent. The AI for some reason or anouther has decided that county B is a threat to them and will likily attack them. So they raise there defcon level and deploy there units in a defensive behavior. And since most of the world has somone who hates them they keep this defensive stance.
Look at the changes i have made to the report at the end, where i have given credit to Rhyus.
however your OP does have merit. I do think Defcon should be more related to budget and what they are doing combat wise. If your using less then 10 percent of your units in combat you should not be at defcon 1. If you are using less then 20 percent of your units in combat you should not be at defcon 2 or 1, Unless you maintain a positive budget. Defcon 1 and 2 are huge money sinks. While they do give a large bonus to combat, If your not using that bonus why pay for it? Even myself as a player will leave my defcon at level 3 unless I am performing major combat. Its too exspensive.
Of course it has merit, and yes, i only hope the developers take an interest. 8)
As for what units should be deployed during peace. I think it should be a phazed sequence. If a new threat pops up go ahead and deploy all those units. However (and I think this should apply for countries at war too). If there is no combat for a month, and they are not making a posative budget they should send 10 percent of there units into reserve. Same thing next month and the following month. Until 90 percent of there units are in reserve during peace time, and 50 are in reserve during wartime. And if 50 percent get into reserve during wartime the countries should consider opting for a peace treaty.
Its certainly an idea, but for the sake of keeping things simple i have avoided going into great detail with regards to reserving personnel. The computer already knows how to percieve a threat and lower DEFCON based on that (based on my forumula of changing DEFCON according to budget and the one BG has programmed for anyway). So with the decrease in a perception of threat, the amount of personnel reserved will also change.
For example, i suggested that DEFCON lowers in accordance with GDP/C and treasury. If it falls below elevated, that means that country is likely experience big treasurey and GDP/C reductions (at least its falling by X% assigned by BG). So with it, when DEFCON falls below elevated, all personnel is reserved. This is just another step in securing the budget by the AI. There really is no point in keeping personnel deployed when that country cannot afford it anyway.

If the AI percieves a threat and increases DEFCON (when the budget can support it), and the AI sets DEFCON at elevated, the AI will deploy reservist personnel anyway, according to the suggestions made in the report.

Therefore, not only will AI's keep up a better and bigger fight, but they will have the economic means to do so as well. It just makes enemies and allies more reliable, and the game far my competitive, if the rules in place make sure that AI's dont lead themselves blindly to military and economic slumps.
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin
Locked

Return to “Development - 2020”