Where do you want to go today?
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- BattleGoat
- General
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
In Supreme Ruler 2010, you have the option of starting a campaign or playing a scenario from almost anywhere in the world. In this topic, let us know where in the world you would start your campaign from.
_________________
David Thompson
Lead Designer / Partner
BattleGoat Studios
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BattleGoat on 2002-06-05 09:57 ]</font>
_________________
David Thompson
Lead Designer / Partner
BattleGoat Studios
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BattleGoat on 2002-06-05 09:57 ]</font>
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
-
- Corporal
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: Germersheim, Germany
Well:
israel-arab World
North Korea-South Korea
NATO-Warsaw Pact
China-US
Falklands War 2
EU-England,US
Turky-Greece
Russia-China
Another WW2 based in nower time??
Brasil-Argentina
US-Drug Cartels
Australia+New Zealand-Indonesia
Gulf War2
War against terror
Spain-England(Gibraltar)
etc,etc,etc,etc!!!
crazy_merch
sorry, that should be in the scenario wishlist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crazy_merch on 2002-06-05 15:48 ]</font>
israel-arab World
North Korea-South Korea
NATO-Warsaw Pact
China-US
Falklands War 2
EU-England,US
Turky-Greece
Russia-China
Another WW2 based in nower time??
Brasil-Argentina
US-Drug Cartels
Australia+New Zealand-Indonesia
Gulf War2
War against terror
Spain-England(Gibraltar)
etc,etc,etc,etc!!!
crazy_merch
sorry, that should be in the scenario wishlist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crazy_merch on 2002-06-05 15:48 ]</font>
- Ashbery76
- Major
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: England.
-
- Sergeant
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: Dan
California, and North America.
What first caught my eye when I checked out this game (from my daily gamespy email) was the map of Northern California. The San Francisco bay area was clearly visible. I just drove to Idaho on vacation, Through the Nevada/Oregon desert. I thought about what a modern combined arms conflict would look like going through this area. Supreme Ruler 2010 will allow me to try it.
What first caught my eye when I checked out this game (from my daily gamespy email) was the map of Northern California. The San Francisco bay area was clearly visible. I just drove to Idaho on vacation, Through the Nevada/Oregon desert. I thought about what a modern combined arms conflict would look like going through this area. Supreme Ruler 2010 will allow me to try it.
-
- Sergeant
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
One of the suggestions above caught my eye: "War against terror".
One would think it would be somewhat hard to design a scenario around that - by their definition terrorists are not traditional military units, and do not attack in traditional ways.
While our lead designer has been pondering whether (and how) to add a terrorism element to the game, it would primarily involve the sponsoring of terrorism, not the actual terrorist 'units' themselves.
If all a "War on terror" scenario had was big nations swooping down on third-world sponsors of terrorism, it would be a rather one sided game (aka what's happening today).
-- George.
One would think it would be somewhat hard to design a scenario around that - by their definition terrorists are not traditional military units, and do not attack in traditional ways.
While our lead designer has been pondering whether (and how) to add a terrorism element to the game, it would primarily involve the sponsoring of terrorism, not the actual terrorist 'units' themselves.
If all a "War on terror" scenario had was big nations swooping down on third-world sponsors of terrorism, it would be a rather one sided game (aka what's happening today).
-- George.
-
- Sergeant
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: Dan
I agree that terrorist shouldn't be a unit, but that one could sponsor terrorists as a strategy. There should be a lot of 'downside' though, similar to being a 'slaver' nation in Civ. Call to Power.
If you are 'known' to support terrorists (ie; a percentage chance of being linked to terrorism you initiate), not only is it an act of war, but you gain a negative reputation. Then, any terrorist attacks could be linked back to you, even if you didn't innitiate them. The downside is you can get blamed (and attacked) for terrorism you didn't commit - similar to the US retaliation against the chemical plant in the Sudan. It was against the wrong perpetrators, but nobody really cared because Sudan is known as a terrorist state.
There could be other downsides as well, but this seems globally accurate. I bet Syria and Libya were on their hands and knees praying the US didn't somehow (innacurately) link them to 9-11.
If you are 'known' to support terrorists (ie; a percentage chance of being linked to terrorism you initiate), not only is it an act of war, but you gain a negative reputation. Then, any terrorist attacks could be linked back to you, even if you didn't innitiate them. The downside is you can get blamed (and attacked) for terrorism you didn't commit - similar to the US retaliation against the chemical plant in the Sudan. It was against the wrong perpetrators, but nobody really cared because Sudan is known as a terrorist state.
There could be other downsides as well, but this seems globally accurate. I bet Syria and Libya were on their hands and knees praying the US didn't somehow (innacurately) link them to 9-11.
-
- General
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Contact:
We already have a prime example of terrorist sponsering and such in Pakistan/India.
Now game wise why not simply have it so one could build 'Training Camps' and Fake Funding orginizations in country that make militia style units that are AI controlled and you list the preference on what countries be harrassed. Then they merely go out and harrass them.
A disputed region style scenario such as Kashmir and Pakistan/India would be interesting.
Then again I being from that region have always had an interest in it all hehe.
Now game wise why not simply have it so one could build 'Training Camps' and Fake Funding orginizations in country that make militia style units that are AI controlled and you list the preference on what countries be harrassed. Then they merely go out and harrass them.
A disputed region style scenario such as Kashmir and Pakistan/India would be interesting.
Then again I being from that region have always had an interest in it all hehe.
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Building training camps in enemy territory would actually be unrealistic. If you look at the situation in India/Pakistan, a large number of Muslim Kasmiri supporters are not Pakistani, but from other Muslim nations only using Pakistan for access to Kashmir. Now the fact that Pakistan turns a blind eye is another issue, but it's certain that Pakistan didn't have a direct hand in the "building" of any training camps within Kashmir.
The effect in the game seems to be more interesting when funding "destabalization activities" causes precisly that, destabalization. In SR2010, players must always be aware of their approval rating to be sure that they will remain in power. If you fund terrorist activities in your neighbours territory, you will hurt his apporval rating. If you are caught using destabalization activities, it will hurt your approval rating. This also gives players the option of reacting to terrorism through either military or diplomatic solutions. Just because there is terrorism doesn't mean you have to send in troops. However, catching your neighbour funding terrorists in your nation is certainly "just cause" to attack disputed territory in the eyes of your population. We are quite proud of our design for Supreme Ruler 2010 that allows for either military, diplomatic or economic victories.
The effect in the game seems to be more interesting when funding "destabalization activities" causes precisly that, destabalization. In SR2010, players must always be aware of their approval rating to be sure that they will remain in power. If you fund terrorist activities in your neighbours territory, you will hurt his apporval rating. If you are caught using destabalization activities, it will hurt your approval rating. This also gives players the option of reacting to terrorism through either military or diplomatic solutions. Just because there is terrorism doesn't mean you have to send in troops. However, catching your neighbour funding terrorists in your nation is certainly "just cause" to attack disputed territory in the eyes of your population. We are quite proud of our design for Supreme Ruler 2010 that allows for either military, diplomatic or economic victories.
-
- Private
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Aug 14 2002
- BattleGoat
- General
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
-
- General
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Contact:
- BattleGoat
- General
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
- tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
Um, i think the north STILL has a higher population and more industry than the south.
Add to this that the states in the south are much more tourist income oriented than the north.
This income would be non-existant in a civil war.
Florida would go into bankruptcy if it lost its tourist income.The state is almost one big tourist trap.
Add to this that the states in the south are much more tourist income oriented than the north.
This income would be non-existant in a civil war.
Florida would go into bankruptcy if it lost its tourist income.The state is almost one big tourist trap.