Loyalty?

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Zuikaku »

Fistalis wrote: 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, If SR would have just taken HALF of the poltical etc of SP2 with their 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)
Unfortunatelly, that is the true. And the most tragic aspect of SR is that although it tries so hard (too hard) being just (another) wargame and concentrating on that aspect of the game, the fact is - players who want to play just another action wargame won't be impressed a bit by it.

And that is the sad true. I really hoped that BGs will put their efforts on the parts of the SR that are unique and lacking in many, many other games (those potential little things and details I could see from the first time I installed SR), but they just tend to ignore these and try to be more similar to 628 other WW2 "strategy" games on the market. Let's be true, that is their right, that is their decision, that is their vision, that is their company policy ,that is their company. As a fan, I can be only sad about that, sad and disappointed. I expected more details, more fun non-war things to do and less RTS action...

It is still a great game, but it coul'd be epic.

And it still lacks selective unit trade |O

Sensuikans are also flawed :-(
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 »

I would say that HOI is much more a "war game" then SR is... but here in lies the problem. HOI has built upon itself through its releases, and is actually a much better "war game" then SR (even if all the ideas we all have were implemented). But that is what you have to do to become a really big, you have to focus on 1 thing first and do that really really well. Then you expand.

SR seems to have taken the other approach where they try to incorporate as much as possible, but nothing works amazing.

Lets take for example HOI3 HQ and ordering system. I can put individual armies or go as high as Theater commanders on AI control and give them specific province targets I want captured. Examples would be I want leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad all captured. The AI will automatically move units around, order planes and bombings, respond to counter attacks, support attacks to defeat units and then move units to other places. WHILE it doesn't do this perfectly, it does it quite well. You can even give targets to your allies as the Leader of your alliance. Germany can give targets to Japan to prioritize targets in China, targets for Italy in the Mediterranean, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria against USSR, etc, etc.

The only pain of this entire system is the actual manually putting all groups into each HQ.

Or lets take the convoy system, it works exactly the way its supposed to, and is quite annoying how damaging it is to your economy. As Germany it is quite easy to complete destroy Great Britain without ever having to land troops on the mainland. If you build nothing but submarines as your navy, this means you can focus all your research on Land and airforce, and only on submarines and sub doctrines. You submarine force now assuming you have been building 5-10 per run in the range of 50+ by 1939, and your subs completely decimate all convoys from the British. Britain suffers the same fundamental flaw that Japan does, all resources are built in its colonies, and if you destroy the convoy system, Britain cannot even build fast enough to replenish the losses, and all remaining IC (around 50-80) is completely set to building convoys and escorts.

If Britain cannot get supplies to its troops, their org and strength falls, which means Italy can take Malta, Gibraltar, Suez canal, etc and further cut off Britain's supplies.

And with Britain now only to produce at around 40% of its full production, and all production now going to new convoys and escorts, your naval bombers and subs, and Navy are now able to fully wreck havoc on Britains Navy because they will not have the IC to bring new ships into service or repair them. Now as Germany in full war mode you are outproducing Great britain by around 6-10 times in Industry output and can focus all your research, manpower, and production on the future war with USSR.

What makes this a "great war game" is that its very realistic, and very balanced, to the point that if you really want to win you have to research WW2 and what nations did right and wrong. But they have also focused completely on the war aspect. Only once they got that right did they start adding in the ideas that you guys are wanting in SR. Funding Partisans, Partisan underground networks, etc etc. And now with release #4 coming out in 1 year they will further develop the war game even more and build out a few more of the other stuff.

From my perspective, SR is not a war game, not even a "4X" game. It's an economic game with war added. You have to learn what it takes to run a war economy, to plan out the next few years of what your going to need to build what your war is going to need. You can't simply play this game and arbitrarily build whatever you want. That is what SR needs to focus on and build out, which is where all my suggestions have gone.

Upgrade buildings, repair buildings, Infrastructure, Upgrading units, scrapping units. All of that goes back to Production and economy, and if all of that was easy, intuitive, and amazing then I think they would easily compete with HOI.

I think that Loyalty plays an important role in this, but I don't think its a very high priority to the point it needs to be changed before launch. However, I disagree with the current loyalty mechanics completely, and would love to see them changed. Do we really believe that Germany conquering Russia, that they would really get 66% of the materials? Ha the Germans hated the Russians and were exterminating them. USSR lost approximately 20 million people during the 3 years it was at war with Germany.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Zuikaku »

bluestreak2k5 wrote:
I think that Loyalty plays an important role in this, but I don't think its a very high priority to the point it needs to be changed before launch. However, I disagree with the current loyalty mechanics completely, and would love to see them changed. Do we really believe that Germany conquering Russia, that they would really get 66% of the materials? Ha the Germans hated the Russians and were exterminating them. USSR lost approximately 20 million people during the 3 years it was at war with Germany.
And now we are talking about corelations between loyalty and domestic policies :D
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
Jacklax100
Lieutenant
Posts: 67
Joined: Nov 30 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Jacklax100 »

I think that when you originally bordered a zone of a country (example given: Ireland and the Belfast zone) and take over that zone, there should be a 50-50 split of loyalty. Also when you take over an entire population (example given: taking over all hexes loyal to Wales) you should be able to have the same options that you have when taking over an entire country. Finally, when a portion of a nation that isn't loyal to that nation is conquered, it should change loyalty to the victim of the attack if it was victorious, if the victim fell, there shouldn't be any loyalty change.
Von Bismarck
Captain
Posts: 111
Joined: Feb 14 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Von Bismarck »

I decided to weigh in here knowing that this is a 5 page post and the game is being released in less than a week, lol. Never the less, it seems to me that the developers are ignoring the idea of subcultures existing peacefully within a country's borders, or within several countries' borders. It should be noted that these did exist and some continue to exist even today w/o their own separate governments or borders. Croatians, Slovaks, Cossacks, Georgians, Kurds, Serbs & Croats; these subcultures all existed within the territory of other states at the outset of WWII.

To some degree there is agreement, that the Ukrainians, and Baltic states were grateful for the ousting of communism. The Germans were initially met with welcome, as an alternative to Soviet oppression. In a hypothetical scenario, one could argue that if the Germans had been willing or able to bring the economic and political relief that was needed that these cultures would have been accepting of such a subservient relationship, at least while they were still at war. However, German occupation was far from being any better and therefore I have no examples of what it might have been.

In an earlier post from page 1, someone tried to make the point that the wall between East and West came down for some other reason than an economic one. While on it's surface, some might identify political insurgency as the cause and the demand for freedom the reason, the root of these is economics based. Communism in theory is a Utopian vision that is flawed only by human weakness and application. If prosperity were easily attained under this philosophy then there would be no need for any wall in the first place. I happen to believe that if an occupier could bring socioeconomic relief to a region that desperately needs and wants it, then they would support it even if it was just a means to an end; that end being self rule or at least some type of representative government. Hence, my theory is that if the German occupiers had not been so savagely indifferent to the people they conquered, or that they had not been so altruistically confident in genetics, and racially driven beliefs, that outcomes of the war may have been different.

In the scope of this game I would like to see a change made to the loyalty system that reflects a populace's improved conditions. If goods and services/jobs are now more available than what they were previously, then that should be portrayed accurately. There are less tangible factors to be considered than just economic, i.e. justice, freedom, dignity, ecology, health, and literacy, etc., but in general these things are tied to economic relief and prosperity. My overall point is that improved loyalty over the short term should be possible to achieve in these instances; therefore, annexation should not always be a prohibitive option. Whether or not you are willing or are able to codify such events, is another question.
pietrko
Corporal
Posts: 4
Joined: Sep 21 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by pietrko »

@Georege Geczy:
It seems that you sir used only the examples that could support your thesis whilst it is the proof of opposite thesis that requires showing examples.
To prove your thesis you should consider all cases.

The loyalty of regions changed a lot in period 1936-2012. And you just can't make realistic simulator without it.
Consider the latest events on Ukraine - it is not politically correct to say that but their society is in fact very divided and large part of it would rather choose their future with Russia.
And what about Scotland and 45% of people voting for Scotland independence in recent referendum - now when they share language culture etc?
Another example: Kosovo - within 70 year the loyalty there changed completely due to Albanian immigration and bigger reproduction rate of Albanian people.
Catalonia, Basque country, Belgium ?

And of course good examples of loyalty changes by others:
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.
Its fact that all those examples all not in 1 to 1 with your concept of loyalty but since BattleGoat didn't implemented anything other their validity holds.
Usually it doesn't happen with aid of state or due to migration - but you should really consider implementing it once more.
And also it is almost impossible to swallow whole regian that had their own statehood but change of the borders followed by migration, assimilation would do the job on some part of territory.

Finally from business perspective I find it really strange that BattleGoat studio constantly refuse to implement feature that many players want - (Loyalty was discussed with each version hundred times.)
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20485
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Balthagor »

I don't really think Scotland or Crimea loyalty have changed, I understood this situation to have existed for a very long time. Same with Catalonia.

All the examples from the previous player are not changes in loyalty, they are changes in the population - expulsions. That sort of event could perhaps be modeled now that we have a scripted event to change loyalty, but expulsions of populations isn't something that happens as a regular occurrence. Kosovo is a similar situation, it's who lives there that changed, not what country the people living there support.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
pietrko
Corporal
Posts: 4
Joined: Sep 21 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by pietrko »

All the examples from the previous player are not changes in loyalty, they are changes in the population - expulsions. That sort of event could perhaps be modeled now that we have a scripted event to change loyalty, but expulsions of populations isn't something that happens as a regular occurrence. Kosovo is a similar situation, it's who lives there that changed, not what country the people living there support.
I totally agree,
but since you don't provide mechanics that take into account change of population culture, ethnicity etc and only the "loyalty" which is the closest thing to those (if you consider effects on other aspects of game) - mine and previous guys arguments hold.

Besides lack of any ways to affect loyalty spoils the fun and is against the would-be "sandbox" nature of game - this is a serious flaw in long-games in which I assume your new "Ultimate SR" should shine :D

SR is already very inflexible when it comes to diplomacy and conquering.
People addressed this issues in topics under the name "land trading", also reviewers said so (from gameinformer.com):
Despite the enormity of the game experience (such as the seemingly limitless list of military and technological units to research) and the huge array of economic and political tools at the players dispense, Supreme Ruler 2020 falls surprisingly short in areas that less successful games of the genre have implemented well. During conflict, it is not possible to occupy land and return it or even sell land. Instead, all land that is invaded (unless the player changes the rules of engagement so the land is not occupied) becomes a permanent part of your nation and cannot be taken away unless invaded by other powers. The list of diplomatic treaties available is fairly limited and the management of these treaties are fairly rigid when compared to what was offered in Super Power II where multiple nations where allowed to participate in treaties and apply pressure on other nations to accept them.
read here full review
I bet that if only the reviewer would play longer he would notice that game is equally "rigid" when it comes to loyalty changes :P

....and here:
We hope over the years we see greater attention to warfare, diplomacy and domestic policy in this game if the guys over at BattleGoat's Studio ever aim to create a product that makes a lasting name for itself.
...the reviewer simply forgot loyalty.
:D

Also lack of loyalty change is an absurd on barely inhabited lands such as arctic, large parts of china, kazakhstan, large portion of russia, middle of australia, etc.
Even minor population migration or simply making a military outpost in such hexes would affect lolyalty greatly.
magiclight
Warrant Officer
Posts: 26
Joined: Oct 20 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by magiclight »

I'm not sure about you, but I often feel discouraged to post in these threads after reading all the countless pages.

Whilst this is one of the "big" issues with SR, most of us avoid the problem entirely by scrapping and rebuilding on territory that is loyal to the country we play. I think most of us feel this is kinda gamey and not at all realistic, but we do it because it makes economic sense.

In theory if you build over every hex of your original nation (lets pick Ireland), surely you'd have to employ many people from your conquered overseas territories (perhaps Chinese people). Without thinking about the logistics of that, it seems unrealistic that the Chinese labor force would produce as much in Ireland as the Irish labor force.
There in my opinion is the problem, conquered people don't suddenly become more productive because you moved them from A (China) and placed them in B (Ireland).

We care about loyalty because we care about production efficiency. Loosing 50%? hurts.
Now the game has "a scripted event to change loyalty" built into it, it seemed the right time to to make a post.

An easy fix is modders being able to change loyalties.

I would also support expanded development on this area, perhaps we SHOULD be able to influence loyalty over the course of 50-100 years or more. Ultimate seems focused on long term games, which is great news, maybe this is BG's opportunity to implement features which would not have worked in shorter games.
Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 868
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Kristijonas »

I totally agree with that. I would consider moving industry to my loyal hexes, but that would be cheating as the AI would never do that. And, as you've mentioned, that's just not logical, I can't even roleplay that decision. Why would it be more profitable to employ people in factories in the US and not in China where materials and workforce are cheaper..
There could be atleast a switch to completely turn off loyalty system.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by Zuikaku »

There shoul'd be way for hexes to change loyalty. It surely shoul'd not be something that happens often, but it shoul'd happen sometimes. And we shoul'd be able to influence it through domestic policies, war and economy.

Loyalty do change in real life!
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
mattpilot
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 224
Joined: Feb 09 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by mattpilot »

Interesting to see that this thread is 4 years old ..... and still nothing has changed about loyalty.
provolone
Warrant Officer
Posts: 40
Joined: Dec 14 2011
Human: Yes
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal GMT+5:45
Contact:

Re: Loyalty?

Post by provolone »

A good example of the broken loyalty mechanic would be N. Yemen conquering Adan. As BG stated on page one of this thread, the French did not gain loyalty in Indochina. However, some governments may have a better claim to territory than the existing rulers. Penalizing N. Yemen in a Cold War game for conquering the neighboring British territory seems suspect. Moreover, the way post war borders are partitioned could use a review in the ideal world.

If we could liberate/annex/colonize by battle zone...
hoddized
Colonel
Posts: 302
Joined: Jun 18 2008
Location: Iceland

Re: Loyalty?

Post by hoddized »

Dynamic loyalty? Large amounts of immigrants into a country could change loyalty in border areas, conquered territories might attract immigrants from the conqueror etc...
I like the idea of loyalty creeping around based on circumstances, terrible relations between countries that have hexes loyal to the rival would increase the chances of that hex reverting to the controllers loyalty (immigrants from the rival country leaving) but could also cause casus belli. Nationals from one country populating areas of another are often a source of conflict, like in Ukraine as we speak.

On a related note, I would like to see the implementation of annexation based on battle zones, instead of just liberate, colonize or fully annex. Full annexation is pretty rare nowadays, but should by no means be excluded. Partial annexations like that could then later be a source of border friction.

Kveðja,

Höddi
rogerbacon
Lieutenant
Posts: 96
Joined: Aug 05 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Loyalty?

Post by rogerbacon »

hoddized wrote:Dynamic loyalty? Large amounts of immigrants into a country could change loyalty in border areas, ...
If such a system is implemented (God forbid) then I want the ability to control immigration to my country. I don't want the southern part of my country changing its loyalty to Mexico just because there's uncontrolled immigration of people coming in to my country because I fully fund my social programs. That's too much like real life to enjoy the game.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”