Loyalty?

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

phasmatik
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Jan 27 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by phasmatik »

Hi!

(yes I know, first post)

I just discoverded this game and I love it!

But yeah, I would love to have the "evolving loyalty" as a option in the game so that players could activate it if they think it is legitimate.

(!personal opinion!) As a swiss living in Switzerland wich is a country with four cultures, four official languages and yet one national identity, evolving loyalty when you put the means and accept the differences ect is an evidence.

By putting it as an activable option everybody would be happy on planet SR1936. 8)
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Zuikaku »

Balthagor wrote:May be possible as conditional events in the updated events system. Exchange of territory is not something a player can do.
Do you want historical examples of loyalty change? There are many of them just in 1936-2000 timeframe.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
bluestreak2k5
Captain
Posts: 123
Joined: Jan 14 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by bluestreak2k5 »

Balthagor wrote:
tristanjay wrote:...forced evacuations and genocide followed by resettlement by nationals. or long-term occupation and propoganda.
The engine doesn't model any of these except long-term occupation which many groups have shown does not necessarily diminish past loyalties (Palestinians, Kurds, etc.).
I would like to point out that Kurdish, along with a few others minorities never assimilated because they were oppressed in their society.

Palestinians is a whole complicated view on itself because technically it wasn't even Palestine, it was a British colony with Jews and Palestinians living there peacefully until Britain took the land and turned it into Israel. So Israel itself technically never occupied Palestine. However, if you want to talk about the land Israel won in the 7 day war against all the Arab nations, then that is an example.

This is where a more complex loyalty modeling could come in, for example:
All loyalty groups become % based.
Base loyalty changes are 1% per year to the new occupier.

Dictatorships/communists get a -50% bonus to this and democracies get a 50% increase to this.

Add in a multiplier for how well your taking care of your population. IE if you have 100% spending on social spending then this is all multiplied by 1. 90% spending = .9, 110% = 1.1.

Obviously this would be a very complicated model, and probably massive changes needed for this.
Aragos
General
Posts: 1431
Joined: Jan 13 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Aragos »

I do like the Democracy benefit. As of now, not much difference between the two except Dictatorships are easier for world conquest.
tofofnts
Captain
Posts: 128
Joined: Nov 17 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by tofofnts »

Why not have migration based loyalty?
If people are fleeing your country into neighboring countries, we might see fluctuations in loyalty of border regions
"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is."
-Oscar Wilde
suaske666
Major
Posts: 157
Joined: Apr 02 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by suaske666 »

George Geczy wrote: So, let's open the floor to the counter-point : when in the Cold War period (1950-1990 ish) was loyalty to an occupier ever affected positively ?
first of all why limit the time frame? this is a ww2 game after all.

ok eastern europe is an unfair example. i mean i could point to poland today being almost 100% polish, even thought 30% o the regions were german. Gdansk being a prime example. but you already said that there would be no ethnic cleansing. I mean i can't see a scenario of ww2 ending (with either side winning) and there not being massive ethnic cleansing. but i'll let it go.

What you are asking is making existing peoples loyal to the occupier. OK here is a good example:

When hitler "united" the germans, by taking provinces such as Austria, Elsaß-Lothringen, Danzig, the Sudetenland etc. the Germans were very happy. in fact that happiness was kept active up until the very end of the war. you could say they were fanatics. they were very LOYAL. unlike for example the French who were not only quick to surrender in battle, but functioned normally under occupation (let's not pretend that the french partisans could ever compare to Yugoslav partisans, and that they were anything other than a propaganda tool which was kept alive till today).
my point being: look at germany today? look at it 50 years ago, or even earlier. They aren't protesting. they didn't protest. isn't it weird that the german people, known for being stubborn, that were such fanatics one day, were so quick to accept "democracy". I mean sure you could point to the "denazification" process(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification), but do you really believe that 80 million germans (ok less since i'm talking about west germany) could be persuaded to change their political affiliation, and accept the regime forced by the occupier overnight because of some kind of government program? well i do, because the results show. Germany is today the most Americanized nation in europe. and it happened basically overnight.

Other simpler, and more short term examples inclued: (france, as stated before), denmark, norway, belgium, The Netherlands etc. i won't say Bohemia-Moravia as this is a highly controversial subject.

ant any rate YES there ARE and WERE examples of citizens loyalty changing in mass.
Thumboy
Lieutenant
Posts: 85
Joined: Oct 13 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Thumboy »

Indeed, loyalty has changed a lot. Ethnic cleansing is a very common thing in the 20th century, especially in Europe.

Some examples:

The expulsion of Konigsberg Germans and their replacement by ethnic Russians.
The expulsion of Silesian, Masurian and Pomeranian Germans and their replacement by Kresy Poles who were in turn expelled from Poland's former eastern territories.
The expulsion of Suteden Germans and their replacement by ethnic Czechs.
The expulsion of the Soviet Union's minorities such as Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, Chechens, Abkhasians ect. to Siberia.
The expulsions of Palestinians from much of Palestine and their replacement by Jews.

I am sure there are more examples, but here is a list of some I came up with.
User avatar
Uriens
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 516
Joined: Oct 05 2005

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Uriens »

Balthagor wrote:May be possible as conditional events in the updated events system. Exchange of territory is not something a player can do.
I'd love to see expanded mod commands that you mention. For example, conditional event that if a region A controls certain hexes (cities, capitals, critical hexes in general) and regions B and C no longer exist, nation changes name (Region D) and flag with loyality changes (from region A,B and C into region D's). It would work into some 'reunification war' scenarios. Could be applied to civil wars or fictional scenarios like Shattered World from SR2020 where south, east and west Germany fight each other and whoever wins takes over as just Germany with proper flag.
Also, this would allow world wide scenarios that follow SR2010 path where regions fight or vote for unified leather who will in turn take over as a single region with proper loyalty change. Another example, SR2010 scenario for Italy. 4 Italian regions (or was it 5 with Malta?) make a vote for the region leader who, after the vote, takes over as unified Italy with proper flag and loyalty change.
This event system would allow for many such scenarios happening across the globe, all in one single game.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Zuikaku »

Thumboy wrote:
I am sure there are more examples, but here is a list of some I came up with.
There are many more - even in Europe and not to mention Africa and Asia....
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
Wyndmage
Corporal
Posts: 3
Joined: Feb 17 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Wyndmage »

What about The Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States? While loyalty was high for the Kingdom of Hawaii those loyal to the US orchestrated to overthrow the government with the main goal of seeking Hawaii's annexation to the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow ... an_Kingdom

There was a small, short lived counter revolution in 1895. However, Hawaii was annexed in 1898 and became the Territory of Hawaii. Eventually, they became a state. They are quite loyal now.

Perhaps loyalty should change but only gradually over a long period of time to your side. Say 20-30 years?

Also, one could also point to Alaska as being somewhat of an example but the circumstances of that don't exactly fit.
Fistalis
General
Posts: 3306
Joined: Jun 23 2009
Human: Yes
Location: x:355 y:216
Contact:

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Fistalis »

Wyndmage wrote:What about The Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States? While loyalty was high for the Kingdom of Hawaii those loyal to the US orchestrated to overthrow the government with the main goal of seeking Hawaii's annexation to the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow ... an_Kingdom

There was a small, short lived counter revolution in 1895. However, Hawaii was annexed in 1898 and became the Territory of Hawaii. Eventually, they became a state. They are quite loyal now.

Perhaps loyalty should change but only gradually over a long period of time to your side. Say 20-30 years?

Also, one could also point to Alaska as being somewhat of an example but the circumstances of that don't exactly fit.
already poked them in the eye with that example.. but im too lazy to search for their response. (its especially important considering hawaii was still a territory and not a state during WW2) They basically kept it in territory status until they would have the votes to become a state. AKA until loyalty was high enough.
Fistalis wrote:BG-> |O <-- You

Thus sums the previous conversation and any addition to this thread.
I stand by the above quote.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.
bluestreak2k5
Captain
Posts: 123
Joined: Jan 14 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by bluestreak2k5 »

While I think the chances of them changing is unlikely, I also think part of it is that there isn't enough time to push such a big change to loyalty if they still wanted to try and launch Q1.

Thus, I think this would be a really good 1st expansion change to the game.

It would fix the Austria problem right now where they only provide 66% of the manpower and resources due to loyalty, and if you changed this to be a % based loyalty that fluctuates then you could set loyalty to Germany at around 80% upon the event.
Fistalis
General
Posts: 3306
Joined: Jun 23 2009
Human: Yes
Location: x:355 y:216
Contact:

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Fistalis »

bluestreak2k5 wrote:While I think the chances of them changing is unlikely, I also think part of it is that there isn't enough time to push such a big change to loyalty if they still wanted to try and launch Q1.

Thus, I think this would be a really good 1st expansion change to the game.

It would fix the Austria problem right now where they only provide 66% of the manpower and resources due to loyalty, and if you changed this to be a % based loyalty that fluctuates then you could set loyalty to Germany at around 80% upon the event.
Meh we've been fighting this battle since 2020, its less about time and more about what BG wants to prioritize. This has never been high on their priority list since most of them disagree any changes are needed.

Yes.. now there isn't likely enough time, but thats because they never planned on changing it anyway.. lol
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Zuikaku »

Fistalis wrote: Meh we've been fighting this battle since 2020, its less about time and more about what BG wants to prioritize. This has never been high on their priority list since most of them disagree any changes are needed.

Yes.. now there isn't likely enough time, but thats because they never planned on changing it anyway.. lol
They tend to prioritize wrong things. IMO graphic changes should be very low priority. What adds to the repleyability value and ingame depth is not graphics and redesigning menus (although it's not a bad thing but when resources are limited....) but such tiny little details like domestic policies, diplomacy, population migrations, loyalty changes, uprisings, financing and supplying rebels (Syria is the latest and great example), espionage, AI improvements... and selective unit trade :D
I know that BGs disagree on this.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
Fistalis
General
Posts: 3306
Joined: Jun 23 2009
Human: Yes
Location: x:355 y:216
Contact:

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Fistalis »

Zuikaku wrote:
Fistalis wrote: Meh we've been fighting this battle since 2020, its less about time and more about what BG wants to prioritize. This has never been high on their priority list since most of them disagree any changes are needed.

Yes.. now there isn't likely enough time, but thats because they never planned on changing it anyway.. lol
They tend to prioritize wrong things. IMO graphic changes should be very low priority. What adds to the repleyability value and ingame depth is not graphics and redesigning menus (although it's not a bad thing but when resources are limited....) but such tiny little details like domestic policies, diplomacy, population migrations, loyalty changes, uprisings, financing and supplying rebels (Syria is the latest and great example), espionage, AI improvements... and selective unit trade :D
I know that BGs disagree on this.
here's the thing IMO. I have no issue with graphics changes. But to be honest..the change from 2020 to CW as NOT enough to admit you devoted Lead programmer time to it. Was it improved? yes. But not enough to commit the lead programmer to it rather than to adding/improving gameplay systems. I know they spent time on it.. but to be honest.. (not to be that guy but.. I AM that guy) if you werent going to jump into the current decade with your graphics why spend your lead programmers time on it??

Especially given the genre. Depth, gameplay options, AI etc etc etc are far more rewarding to put time into. Its never gonna be Crysis etc so lets be honest. People can get over the 2d sat image.. less so the lack of .... loyalty changes over 100 years or lack of false flag operations, internal politics.. etc etc etc. (just to be clear here loyalty NEVEr changes.. 1000 years while improbable in normal gameplay would see 0 change in loyalty)

Since this is likely to be the LAST SR i will say there are too many incomplete and ignored areas for me. SR at its base is a war game, no more no less. It does fine in that aspect (OTHER THAN AI) but that is the ONLY area it seems actually fleshed out.

and thats likely why when a certain person said NO to the question of "is SR a grand strategy game?" they said so. Because War.. is really all SR is about. there is no "grand" strategy. everything comes down to balancing your resources ETC for war.

Embargoes? no
multiparty treaties? No
meaningful resource acquisition? No
Meaningful diplomacy? no
Internal politics? NO
true differentiation of economic systems? no
meaningful espionage? NO
Economics which have international reprecussions? not really
etc etc etc no.
War game... the end.

This is coming from likely the most stalwart of defenders for SR.. because I saw what it "could" be. and now looking back at what it is/was...come to the realization that if I dont learn to program better than all is lost for the genre. (P.S. Hoi will never enter my gaming vocabullary til they grow outside the axis and allies rip off (and maybe quit milking WW2 and try some REAL Geopolitics), If SR would have just taken HALF of the poltical etc of SP2 with SRs war game then it would have been THE game.. but they have fought and pushed back against every suggestion that they should look at AT least the economic/espionage sides of that game)
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”