The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

[Zuikaku]

Are any new details available so far?

[sparky282]

I'd love to see a couple more classes for transport helicopters and another for corvettes

And other improvements to the UI I can no longer live without such as [UI-MOD] Supreme Overview and [UI-MOD] Large order list

I'm sure you will update the unit database which is great but dated in a model world start now.

AI improvements is a must for me they have got better lately but more is needed in sandbox I've never seen a nuke used against me.

I'd love to some more involvement with countries before a full out war very much like Iran and the USA right now possible missile strikes and aggression that could but doesn't always lead to a full-blown war.
Also along those lines, I'd like more civil wars and natural disasters that I can get involved with rather than just being an event message.

Please make the AI order the units in a way that means they build with variety instead of a spamming the same unit because in their eyes its the best.

And last but not least, please stop them building 1944 battleships in 2018 if you only do one thing make it this lol

[amynase]

Super cool to hear that we will get another Supreme Ruler Top things on my wishlist would probably be

#1 Stronger building AI, to add an additional challenge to the player. An AI that identifies what goods it needs more of or it can make most money with and then large scale builds those goods, so it is no longer possible for the player to easily become the largest producer of goods and resources. Would also make games that you play for 10+ years more intresting.

#2 Factions, these could work like mega alliances, where everyone is allied to everyone. Factions could have one leader (Germany for Axis, Soviet Union for Warsaw Pact, USA for NATO etc) that decides what new countries can join their faction. Then if any country declares war on any member of a faction, all countries within the faction declare war on that country.

#3 An AI that scraps old units. Right now if you play a game for 10+ years the AI never stops to mass produce units, which ends up significantly slowing the game down.

#4 Maybe an idea outside the scope of the game, but Climate change. All countries have to work together to scrap old coal and oil plants and use less fuel, or the world heats up and eventually coastal tiles get flooded, agriculture produces less and your population begins to starve and decrease no matter what you do. If there is global warming in the game it could also tie in well with the effects of using nukes, that could then lead to a nuclear winter that severely reduces food production and also makes your population decrease.

[SGTscuba]

Multiple sizes of facilities like back in sr2010, either by having certain types have more slots, or by limiting production to certain types/weights of units.

Plane "sizes" similar to missile capacity, for when they deploy aircraft carriers so that the Midway isn't the be all and end all.

Remove the bump to social spending that happens when your treasury is over $10,000m. It annoys me and makes little sense, if i'm build a treasury up above that, maybe i'm saving it up for a big building program, it shouldn't arbitrarily increase social spending because reasons it seems to do it.

[dax1]

#2 Factions, these could work like mega alliances, where everyone is allied to everyone. Factions could have one leader (Germany for Axis, Soviet Union for Warsaw Pact, USA for NATO etc) that decides what new countries can join their faction. Then if any country declares war on any member of a faction, all countries within the faction declare war on that country.

also join in democratic way ...if new country have very good relation with faction-country(x), this one vote yes. that for all countries of faction...so new country could join in faction if 50%+1 vote for "yes", or maybe need 100%..it could depend by faction type...

[sparky282]

Multiple sizes of facilities like back in sr2010, either by having certain types have more slots, or by limiting production to certain types/weights of units.

Plane "sizes" similar to missile capacity, for when they deploy aircraft carriers so that the Midway isn't the be all and end all.

Both of these seem like fantastic ideas!

[Nerei]

While I like the idea of improving carriers to make modern carriers less pointless I do not like the idea of just porting over the missile system 1:1.
The problem with porting over that system 1:1 is that the max size of missiles tend to be largely irrelevant for anything but a corvette. Any unit with a capacity of 72 or higher will technically be capable of carrying any missile in-game. Effectively though they hit that limit already at 24-32 unless they are submarines and you want to load SLBM's aboard them.

Really for the system to work properly I would say it needs to have both a max size and a max capacity variable independent of each other. Building carriers with the current missile system will in many cases result in carriers with either too low capacity or to high max size which will defeat a good deal of the reason to make this change.


As mentioned that flaw is already found in the missile system if you try and make a realistic payload for warships. I mean how do I report errors with the missile payload of the SSGN Ohio?

Really the SSBN and SSGN Ohio is a good example of the problems with the system and how it is incapable of representing the difference between these ships.
Let's say I set the appropriate capacity for the SSGN variant which is 154 Tomahawk missiles. Tomahawks typically have a size of 4 meaning it needs a capacity of 154 * 4 = 616. Also it means its max size is 154. That is 8.5 times larger than any missile in-game. It is over 51 times the size of a UGM-96 meaning I can load 51 Trident I missiles aboard a SSGN Ohio. The SSBN Ohio could carry 24 of these. The conversion from SSBN to SSGN means Ohio can suddenly cram 2 trident missiles in each silo instead of 1.
Sure make the Trident 7 times larger than the Tomahawk so they are more equal. That just erases their differences. Also it does not solve the problem that say a Virginia with 4 Virginia Payload Modules (VPM) would be capable of carrying that Trident missile still.

So yes change the carrier capacity system to something like the missile system but make it with separate max size and max capacity and while at it make the same change to the missile system. Keep the Long deck and short deck system though. It will make it easier to represent the difference between a STOVL and CATOBAR carrier without risking having likely the CATOBAR carrier be capable of carrying too many STOVL aircraft.

[SGTscuba]

I had forgot that was the issue with sizes, but I did intend for the max size and max capacity for each carrier to be an independently set value.

[Nerei]

I was trying to design such a system some time ago and setting the values for world war 2 the numbers turned out great. Adding in aircraft like the F-3, F-4 and F-14 for the US Navy it broke completely for Midway and the super carriers when comparing them to Essex and other world war 2 carriers.
Working with both variables made it far more feasible.

So yes I want a variable for max size and capacity for carriers. I also want it for missiles.
It means we can fix cruise missiles vs ballistic missiles and we can get a situation where max missile size really means something.

I also have no problem with different sizes of shipyards and the like. It means it will be easier for nations without major shipyards to have some production capacity without adding facilities comparable to the Hyundai Ulsan shipyards. It might also make building advanced military infrastructure more complex although in all cases the challenge is if the AI will be able to handle it.

Also now while on ships we need a fix for conventional vs nuclear. Right now nuclear does not properly have the advantages it really does against conventional propulsion but it has all the cost penalties associated with it.

[milivoje02]

Proposal for good traffic.
During the trade in goods everything happens instantly.For example, if from Jamaica buy oil from say South Korea,it will take at least a few weeks for the first tanker to arrive at a minimum and not on the same day as in the game. This could be evaluated by the distance between countries. And not to get resources from a country 10,000 miles away in the same day.
And maybe the option to intercept and hijack the same good at sea.

[sparky282]

I was trying to design such a system some time ago and setting the values for world war 2 the numbers turned out great. Adding in aircraft like the F-3, F-4 and F-14 for the US Navy it broke completely for Midway and the super carriers when comparing them to Essex and other world war 2 carriers.
Working with both variables made it far more feasible.

So yes I want a variable for max size and capacity for carriers. I also want it for missiles.
It means we can fix cruise missiles vs ballistic missiles and we can get a situation where max missile size really means something.

I also have no problem with different sizes of shipyards and the like. It means it will be easier for nations without major shipyards to have some production capacity without adding facilities comparable to the Hyundai Ulsan shipyards. It might also make building advanced military infrastructure more complex although in all cases the challenge is if the AI will be able to handle it.

Also now while on ships we need a fix for conventional vs nuclear. Right now nuclear does not properly have the advantages it really does against conventional propulsion but it has all the cost penalties associated with it.

The missile system is broken and definitely needs looking at.

I agree with the idea of different shipyard sizes but also you could attach to that different era shipyards, for example, a ww2 shipyard capable of building an Iowa class battleship would not be capable of building an SSBN.
This would possibly be a way to stop the AI building world war 2 battleships in 2020 and as above midway class carriers in modern scenarios, so it might actually this might help the ai.

One idea I have relates to unit designs the way it is currently is very ridged and it's only possible to change the unit designs of a country with a rechache
What I'd like to see is a more flexible system where you could either select what countries unit designs you want to have available at the start of a game. Or the option to somehow to buy countries entire design catalog future and present in-game. Also I think you should get a countries military designs when you take over a country otherwise for example if I invade the USA those designs are gone from that game.

[Clubfoot55]

More flavor would be nice. Being able to choose country color on the map, more diversity in the way cities appear on the map, different models for capital cities and tourist attractions based on what's actually in the city, and country specific models for certain units. The way paradox handles flavor packs is a little dirty but I personally would be okay with Battlegoat doing something similar because it's such a small studio and the game desperately needs some of these changes (in particular selecting your own color).

Also, adding a training order that increases unit efficiency over time would be neat. Similar to how entrenchment builds up the entrenchment bonus over time. This isn't really necessary but it would be a nice addition.

[Nerei]

I would assume the checks the game uses for regional textures could be expanded to also cover models. That would be great for say infantry or units like the MIM-104 Patriot.


For selling models though I think there needs to be made some changes to how the engine handles models. Right now the picnums ID is built into the unit database which would make maintaining multiple packages complex.
Making it more flexible might not be a bad idea though.

Would it be possible to separate the picnum entries from the unit database and load it dynamically like the .picnums file? The way Ultimate loads mod graphics before core files would likely also work for graphics DLC.


While on the topic of adjusting regional graphics I would say changing it to use a custom string or better yet two or multiple prioritised strings not defined by worldavail would be great.

Regional models and more flexible regional textures would go a long way towards making region specific unit models while staying fairly close to the current system.

[sparky282]

More flavor would be nice. Being able to choose country color on the map, more diversity in the way cities appear on the map, different models for capital cities and tourist attractions based on what's actually in the city, and country specific models for certain units. The way paradox handles flavor packs is a little dirty but I personally would be okay with Battlegoat doing something similar because it's such a small studio and the game desperately needs some of these changes (in particular selecting your own color).

Also, adding a training order that increases unit efficiency over time would be neat. Similar to how entrenchment builds up the entrenchment bonus over time. This isn't really necessary but it would be a nice addition.

The country color would be very easy to implement as its already there pretty much if you change the regioncolour in the .cvp file which is normally blank and input your own color-hex thats the color your region is in game

[milivoje02]

The commercial spirit has changed a lot this game since I bought it. Supream Ruler 2020 form paradoxs was first i both bought. It was great because it was different from the offer games. There are everu country on word to play with and region tex tre interesting to devolop for each country. The one who likes to play easily he buys units. the one who like a little more demanding game he develops homemade.
The graphics were a little peoblematic for her.
When Supreme Ruler Ultimate come out on steam I was glad and I bought it. I was hoping for better graphics and more options. And there was great discrimination waiting for me in region groups. All the spirit from Suprem Ruler 2020 was lost. First expelled some units from the east europ group and then they expelled the southern Slav countries from that group and gave them nothing in tex tree. I wonder if i regret buying it.
Devolopers fall under the influence od multiplayers and totally forgot about single player people. they forgot that when playing for a country against computers, they want to have options to devolop units because after a while it becomes too easy for the game to just buy it is more interesting to develop it because it is more difficult. That is where you take away the joy of those what they play with X group people. If you want money from all the markets equip all game regions in the sense that you have plenty of development units.
What is so much discrimination about proposals?
I made a lot of announcements with units being produced in the Serbian army and uploaded data from the weapons manufacturer's website and you have not made a single change to the serbian product line while for all other countries you have made changes. Serbia is producing and sell armor vheicle Lazar 2(sinc 2012) self prop-hautw Nora b 52 (sinc 2008) and tank m 84 ab1(sinc 2010). thus, they should be placed in the production line of Serbia.
Finally, you should consider that money comes from us ordinary players and it will continue to come to a much greater extent than it will come from some who make their own mods.
I dont know whats going on in Mexico, Japan, Barbados. I can tell you whats going on in Balkan countries and I posted a lot of news on chapter UNIT ERRATA with links to manufacturer. And you have chosen to trust a character who invents mods rather than the maker of that equipment.
So you don't have to discriminate anyone.
I sincerely loved to buy again new game but I would not like this one to end in discriminatory manner.
I hope this saga that lasted for almost 2 years around X group will be over so that we who gave money to play with it will be satisfied. Not that 10 scenarios suffer because of one.