Where do you want to go today?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jun 05 2002

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

[ This Message was edited by: BattleGoat on 2002-06-05 09:57 ]

Post by **Balthagor** » Jun 05 2002

Personally, being Canadian, I am looking forward to starting in Ontario and taking over the rest of the country, then the world

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios

[ This Message was edited by: BattleGoat on 2002-06-05 10:33 ]

crazy_merch · Post by **crazy_merch** » Jun 05 2002

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ This Message was edited by: crazy_merch on 2002-06-05 15:48 ]

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Jun 05 2002

Germany and start the Fourth Reich.

danc · Post by **danc** » Jun 06 2002

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.

jfbbis · Post by **jfbbis** » Jun 06 2002

Indonesia : Singapore then China then the world. Possibilities are intriguing.....

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 08 2002

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.

danc · Post by **danc** » Jun 08 2002

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.

Empier4552 · Post by **Empier4552** » Jun 08 2002

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.

Post by **Balthagor** » Jun 09 2002

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.

Krushchev · Post by **Krushchev** » Aug 15 2002

Somehow a disintegrated US makes for so much fun. Maybe a Confederate(Southern) breakoff would make for a fun scenario.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Aug 16 2002

North vs South (Eastern US) is definitely one of the scenarios! After it would be the then combined North/South Eastern US vs the Western US.

Empier4552 · Post by **Empier4552** » Aug 16 2002

a north vs south would be a onesided battle for sure win for the south.

Simply put the South has a greater population, more industry, more land than the north.

In the civil war it was pretty much reversed. If we had such a war the South would win no doubt.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Aug 16 2002

Not sure I agree with Empier on this one... After all, most of the population of Florida is just retired Canadians

(We're tough, but we loose a little ferocity when we're in walkers!

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Aug 16 2002

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.