Ultimate?

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
tommo8993
Captain
Posts: 105
Joined: Aug 31 2010
Human: Yes

Ultimate?

Post by tommo8993 »

Meaning:
1.being or happening at the end of a process; final.
2.being the best or most extreme example of its kind.

So whats next after this game. By definition "ultimate" you cant make anything better than this :)
Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 884
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Kristijonas »

Personally, I hope they sell the franchise so a more competent group of developers can remake the game with more features. But that's just me :wink:
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Balthagor »

No other projects have been announced at this time.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
mikeownage
Colonel
Posts: 273
Joined: Jun 25 2008
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Ultimate?

Post by mikeownage »

Kristijonas wrote:Personally, I hope they sell the franchise so a more competent group of developers can remake the game with more features. But that's just me :wink:
I don't think they are incompetent I think it has more to do with they have one coder and he can only do so much. I think they need to increase their staff so that way they can refine and add more features.
Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 884
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Kristijonas »

Didn't know they only had one coder!

I guess my argument stands though: the word 'competent' means "the ability to do something successfully or efficiently." One coder for a game of this scale doesn't make the company competent.
Scoose
Major
Posts: 161
Joined: Aug 27 2008
Location: Liverpool

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Scoose »

Kristijonas wrote:Didn't know they only had one coder!

I guess my argument stands though: the word 'competent' means "the ability to do something successfully or efficiently." One coder for a game of this scale doesn't make the company competent.

If you dont like the games, don't play them. There is no need to insult people who work hard to make games for other peoples enjoyment, there are plenty of games that I dont like but I wouldnt dream of going to a game site to tell them they are incompetent because I don't like it.
Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 884
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Kristijonas »

Oh buy I love this game. It's just that compared to what it could be, it really sucks!
suaske666
Major
Posts: 157
Joined: Apr 02 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by suaske666 »

Scoose wrote: If you don't like the games, don't play them. There is no need to insult people who work hard to make games for other peoples enjoyment, there are plenty of games that I don't like but I wouldn't dream of going to a game site to tell them they are incompetent because I don't like it.
they don't just make these games for other people's enjoyment. they make them for money. i'm not saying money's their only motive, but it sure is the most important. and since that guy's a customer, he has every right to complain if he feels he isn't getting his money's worth. calling someone incompetent shouldn't be considered a true insult. an insult is usually when you call someone something over which they have no control over (such as ugly, stupid or some other words i'll refrain from using) competence is entirely in your control, so whether or not YOU CHOOSE to be competent is up to you. it's like telling someone they are lazy. it's not a good thing to be lazy, but if you don't want to be lazy you can always start being diligent.

NOTE I don't think the BG devs are incompetent. I do however feel they seem to be making decisions that i would consider cheap. i won't elaborate further as i have done so more times than I'm proud of.
wasp
Corporal
Posts: 8
Joined: Sep 04 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by wasp »

I wouldn't waste my time playing another game of theirs. It's not about money, after all it's only US$49.99 tops. The most crucial aspect of the game is the time spent is well worth it, and for this BG sucks big time. Bought 2 of their games, while playing I had the most excruciating time, it was painful to play. SR 2020 was so slow i could leave it on 24/7 for a week and come back to see it only progress 9 years!!!

SR 1936 has so many bugs, playing it was so frustrating, the more i play the more bugs i see. Worst bug was espionage bug, every other day i had someone sabotaging me and costing me on average US$2 million a day for repairs, when i tried to sabotage back, i can't send spies, after reading some feedback and deactivating/activating academy, then allowing Minister control, the sabotages i sent became recon missions, wth, i DON'T WANT RECON, I WANT SABOTAGE, so i tried to recall my spies, i couldn't, so each passing day i had to spent US$20m for damn recon!! Had to spent billions to build more academies and security bureaus and upping my law budget, yet enemies keep succeeding in sabotaging my buildings, some days there were 5 successful sabotages on my facilities. Had to spent 7% of my GDP (world's largest) on counter espionage and it didn't work!!

And the economic modelling is so fail, even in 1945 many ran into financial difficulties, by 1950 game become unplayable. Game was run in medium economic difficulty.

And the damn trade bug is crushing!! Several times i did trades through diplomatic channels and netted me close to a billion BUT the next few weeks my budget became heavily negative, so in the end i didn't gain a single cent. So i can't trade my way out of financial difficulties.

And the AI is still so stupid militarily speaking, diplomatically speaking AI is retarded, they don't seem to know how to make peace when winning became impossible.

Once bitten twice shy, twice bitten? Never again. Which is why fewer people bought their games with each "new" edition. No thanks.
Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 884
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Kristijonas »

Well I guess I'm stuck with SR because I really love the genre of global geopolitical games. Masters of the World was also appealing, but I didn't like some thing about it. Having to deal with public and military opinions as a dictator was too much for me. I couldn't rule my country as I wanted so I simply didn't play. Supreme Ruler faults are far more forgivable for my tastes. But yeah, basically nothing really substantial has changed since SR2020. New SR games feel like glorified expansion packs. And they are, in a way - it's the same engine, using same files, etc. (Not saying that's a bad thing). Anyway, I just bought SR1936 only now and I'm looking forward to buy SR Ultimate because I find the game playable even now. Especially when I try REALLY hard to put a blind eye (that's the expression yes?) on many things in this game. Ignorance is bliss in this game :lol: "digging deeper all you get is dirty"
wasp
Corporal
Posts: 8
Joined: Sep 04 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by wasp »

Kristijonas wrote:Well I guess I'm stuck with SR because I really love the genre of global geopolitical games. Masters of the World was also appealing, but I didn't like some thing about it. Having to deal with public and military opinions as a dictator was too much for me. I couldn't rule my country as I wanted so I simply didn't play. Supreme Ruler faults are far more forgivable for my tastes. But yeah, basically nothing really substantial has changed since SR2020. New SR games feel like glorified expansion packs. And they are, in a way - it's the same engine, using same files, etc. (Not saying that's a bad thing). Anyway, I just bought SR1936 only now and I'm looking forward to buy SR Ultimate because I find the game playable even now. Especially when I try REALLY hard to put a blind eye (that's the expression yes?) on many things in this game. Ignorance is bliss in this game :lol: "digging deeper all you get is dirty"
I played Rulers of Nations, the predecessor of Masters of the World, that game is far more realistic and far deeper in economic,political and diplomatic matters and way far fewer bugs. Only thing it loses to SR is military but then SR military has some bugs and issues and AI military is so dumb that it negates whatever advantages that SR has over RON in military matters.

Paradox also has many great strategy games, i bought and played a few of their titles, to me and many others they are the best strategy game developers by far.

SR would have been a great game IF they can fix most of the bugs and issues which i'm afraid will never get fixed. I also tried to close an eye with some deficiency of SR but for a military strategy game if you are constantly running out of money even when you only spend 1% of your GDP on defense, it's a hopeless game. I have never been so frustrated and angry at a game, I have never complain about Rulers of Nations and Paradoxes games.
Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 884
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Kristijonas »

Well it's your opinion. While Rulers of Nations does have more depth, I don't like the artificial boundaries there as mentioned before.
As for Paradox games: yeah, they're superb. But there is no modern day game. And HOI is total **** in my books. Tried HOI2, HOI3, Arsenal of Democracy, Day of Darkness and disgusted by all of them. Just my preferences are different I guess.
Aragos
General
Posts: 1431
Joined: Jan 13 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Aragos »

Kristijonas wrote:Well I guess I'm stuck with SR because I really love the genre of global geopolitical games. Masters of the World was also appealing, but I didn't like some thing about it. Having to deal with public and military opinions as a dictator was too much for me. I couldn't rule my country as I wanted so I simply didn't play. Supreme Ruler faults are far more forgivable for my tastes. But yeah, basically nothing really substantial has changed since SR2020. New SR games feel like glorified expansion packs. And they are, in a way - it's the same engine, using same files, etc. (Not saying that's a bad thing). Anyway, I just bought SR1936 only now and I'm looking forward to buy SR Ultimate because I find the game playable even now. Especially when I try REALLY hard to put a blind eye (that's the expression yes?) on many things in this game. Ignorance is bliss in this game :lol: "digging deeper all you get is dirty"
I enjoyed MoW's public and diplomatic options the best. I thought the military system was just sort of plastered over the domestic/diplo system.

To me, SR is a lot of fun, but not necessarily the ultimate pol-mil simulation. It just isn't designed to do that--it is a strategic RTS wargame, with a economic, diplo, etc. system over that framework.
Caliph
Sergeant
Posts: 13
Joined: Oct 27 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Ultimate?

Post by Caliph »

Kristijonas wrote:Well it's your opinion. While Rulers of Nations does have more depth, I don't like the artificial boundaries there as mentioned before.
As for Paradox games: yeah, they're superb. But there is no modern day game. And HOI is total **** in my books. Tried HOI2, HOI3, Arsenal of Democracy, Day of Darkness and disgusted by all of them. Just my preferences are different I guess.
I played the prequel to Rules of Nations and was not impressed, it had solid political but the groups like UN G8 etc were hollow, and it didn't seem to do much for gameplay. I got bored scheduling the 800 meetings with random world leaders, group heads, and NGO's. The economy was meh and the military was not impressive.

Paradox has some games that I like, but some aspects that I don't like either. They try for the "big picture" warfare, whereas SR series seems more small picture. I have all the SR series to date, and honestly my dream nation type game would be a mixture of all 3 types of games.

SR handles warfare really well, but the politics rarely means much. Politics is handled better in other games, but I do like being able to build up with the hexes, and it allows for a much more fluid and dynamic changing of borders. However Paradox's claim system for their war system allows you to just take part of a country and not the whole thing. For some of the SR games I play when I want to RP some historic thigns, like Israel taking the Sinai (but not the whole of Egypt), SR doesn't let me easily do that. I have to advance into the Sinai and manually tell my units not to advance deeper.

There are elements from all those games that I like, and it depends on the sort of mood I'm in. SR series used to be really slow but it is getting faster so I am finding myself going back and playing SR Cold war and 1936 more often. I love the new tech and new units, but also like the nation building aspect of it.

tl;dr SR makes games in a niche market, and in this niche market have found a good niche of their own (solid war games). Don't play SR if you want to mimic history or just nation build, play SR if you don't want a historic realistic experience and want to conquer the world. It has solid wargame mechanics, not so solid politics, and virtually non existent global groups like UN.
GIJoe597
Board Admin
Posts: 2918
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Ultimate?

Post by GIJoe597 »

Aragos wrote:To me, SR is a lot of fun, but not necessarily the ultimate pol-mil simulation.
I agree, I have been playing MoW for some time now. I have come to understand a bit more about it and it is meant to play LONG game, not short game. The diplomacy is superb, I assassinated my wife because you would not stop making comments to the press. I then attended the funeral and got a ratings bump :P

SR2020 is a great game, for what it is. BG has typed time and time again it was meant to be played within a 5-7 year time frame. Although I rather enjoy taking it out 30 - 50 years it still lacks the plethora of diplo options in MoW. Although SR2020 has a MUCH easer learning curve. I still play it almost daily.. in fact;

Just this week I was playing a world 2020 game and Germany ran rampant in Europe, I stayed neutral, but allied to UK and pump them with resources and techs, eventually UK conquered Germany, was nice to see the Challenger IIIs push into Germany .

MoW does lack in combat, BUT, if you could get a combination of both games with MoWs diplomacy options and trade requirements (if you want to build and export planes, you need to find cheap sources of Aluminum and such to import first), with some of the functions of SR2020, and the ability to play for decades.. hmm fine game that would be.
https://www.youtube.com/user/GIJoe597


Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”