The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Rosalis
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 232
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by Rosalis »

Would be nice if they bring out a descision for SRNG. Wether it will be SRU 2.0 or more focused in modern times. For modern times i dont mind more focus on region units. If its gonna be all eras, well i dont want to see 20k more units that are basicly useless in modern times to sort thru them, wether it is in a modding environment or gameplay.

In my opinion SR2020 was just fine. Have a light infantry for the east and west, same as special forces. Dont make it complicated, there are already enough issues (or typos) with units. Adding them is one thing, removing them is a whole other, also gotta think about new players. SR2020 everything could be way more easily identified, wether it was a tank or artillery unit. Experienced players will have no problem with this, for new players they will just be overwhelmed. All respect to Nerei, but thats my opinion in a free world and i dont really care about models. What im missing is an option, wether to turn those models on or not. Wether to have a balanced game, or a game where you can exploit the east, since there seems to be alot of demand for that.

Instead of that you could also adress resources to work out mercenaries or finetune the strategic trading pool. With more units, its more an US vs Russia game. Just compare the 2. SR2020 few regions had unique designs, but almost everyone could form a balanced army (and act on it=worldwide wars), SRU you always have to knock on the door of either US or Russia.

No way people are fine with a competetive worldwide AA design, tanks are already a problem, let alone interceptors. Bias even turned to regions like India or China like they cant invent anything competetive. Personally i have seen enough of those topics. If strategic trading pool is implemented in a way the units get to the right regions, that will already be a huge accomplishment, and i definetely got my doubts on that altho devs are devs, they like to develop, hopefully with respect to the game and all the regions. Russia being killed because it declared over 10 wars before finishing one, and US just sitting on their continent, i already know how its gonna be. Its not gonna change anything, and might as well see Abraham tanks driving around under Syrian or Iranian control or the east, like now, isnt gonna have anything competetive.
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by milivoje02 »

Rosalis wrote:
Aug 01 2020
Would be nice if they bring out a descision for SRNG. Wether it will be SRU 2.0 or more focused in modern times. For modern times i dont mind more focus on region units. If its gonna be all eras, well i dont want to see 20k more units that are basicly useless in modern times to sort thru them, wether it is in a modding environment or gameplay.

In my opinion SR2020 was just fine. Have a light infantry for the east and west, same as special forces. Dont make it complicated, there are already enough issues (or typos) with units. Adding them is one thing, removing them is a whole other, also gotta think about new players. SR2020 everything could be way more easily identified, wether it was a tank or artillery unit. Experienced players will have no problem with this, for new players they will just be overwhelmed. All respect to Nerei, but thats my opinion in a free world and i dont really care about models. What im missing is an option, wether to turn those models on or not. Wether to have a balanced game, or a game where you can exploit the east, since there seems to be alot of demand for that.

Instead of that you could also adress resources to work out mercenaries or finetune the strategic trading pool. With more units, its more an US vs Russia game. Just compare the 2. SR2020 few regions had unique designs, but almost everyone could form a balanced army (and act on it=worldwide wars), SRU you always have to knock on the door of either US or Russia.

No way people are fine with a competetive worldwide AA design, tanks are already a problem, let alone interceptors. Bias even turned to regions like India or China like they cant invent anything competetive. Personally i have seen enough of those topics. If strategic trading pool is implemented in a way the units get to the right regions, that will already be a huge accomplishment, and i definetely got my doubts on that altho devs are devs, they like to develop, hopefully with respect to the game and all the regions. Russia being killed because it declared over 10 wars before finishing one, and US just sitting on their continent, i already know how its gonna be. Its not gonna change anything, and might as well see Abraham tanks driving around under Syrian or Iranian control or the east, like now, isnt gonna have anything competetive.
I agree on the most part of the text mentioned.
Rosalis
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 232
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by Rosalis »

I know it sounds harsh and all, but someone needs to say the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIgxB5TuGU

Just criticly watch this video, this is the gameplay you provide to most users. Warning tho, turn down your sound. Like almost all games sound is way to high, and this game makes it even worse.

Really no need for anything more, just focus on what you already have and improve that. When people enjoy that they will tell their friends, no marketing can beat that.

Some sort of division builder would be nice, i think people look at all those units and are like no way im gonna entrench the Russia border, for that they should be punished. I just like to say, start with it, and you done it before you know it, after you capture territory from Russia, you already have a defence division on the border city that you can move up. Russia could wipe him before april if they declared on EU instead of everyone else, wether he has vodniks or not. Part 2, after taking over all the small countries, economy plummets and he starts cheating in money so he can "improve the economy". I guess everything is allowed, but you cant even blame him. Its good, mature and positive feedback.

The division builder should be just as strong for the AI as for the player. More of an ease of gameplay instead of an exploit against the AI. And it doesnt add anything new if you know what i mean, its improving what you already have. Personally i dont really care if it comes or not, just can imagine it will help the people complaining about unit control. Also why not return the rule of max 7 divisions or brigades in 1 hex? like now thousands can be in 1 hex as long order is on the city they wanna capture. Add more strategic to capturing lots of clustered cities. AI will have problems, but that will force you to improve the operations of planes.

Besides all this i just think the rate of repair is pretty crazy, should be like 3-4 times longer for land units. Air is pretty descent, you need those back asap since 1 is 11. Navy seems to be very fast as well. Maybe 2x as long. Pretty sure something got broken since land and navy seems to repair way faster then SR2020. Also impact of MG is pretty low because of it. Anyone agrees with this? I always loved making money on my own wars, something bankers all too good know.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1983
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

Export prices caps should be much more fluid as even when the world is short of oil, rubber and military goods, prices aren't skyrocketing until the point where either countries cannot buy it, or demand falls sufficiently (same thing I suppose) and the selling price vs demand reaches a nice equilibrium.

Yes I realise that it may make oil $50+ per barrel in the 36 scenario, but then the Ai might go and be pushed into build more oil production perhaps?
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
greensheen
Corporal
Posts: 4
Joined: Dec 12 2016
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by greensheen »

for SR NG:

Please consider going to a globe, like Google earth, without any hexes at all. This is a radical new approach.

Suggestions for improvement along current game theme:

1. Make EVERYTHING modable, especially the ai. And please rethink the AI so that it works like a smart human general.

2. Containerize and make upgradable the units, including air-force and navy/ships. Allow users to group and upgrade component elements of a unit into a visible template that can be a division/fleet/air-wing or other size template. Be able to keep experience of component personel, and be able to upgrade their equipment/vehicles, so use troops and equipment as separate component parts of a "unit". End the silly endless progression of unique units that can't be upgraded, and stick with the standard NATO style display of everything. The displayed unit should show class: like armour, mobile, airbourn, infantry, etc, and also display the unit strength or type modifiers: like medium, heavy... This eliminates the dozens and dozens of endless different units, the way you do it now, and makes things much more understandable in reading maps and conveying useful information with the icons. Show unit indicators for variable conditions, such as readiness, and state of supply, mode of movement, equipment loss, fuel, etc.

3. Have component personnel falling into various MOS groups, each one having its own training centers. Tank training for tank troops. Fighter training for those types of pilots. The various classes of equipment require the appropriately trained people ....

4. Have production lines for equipment/vehicles and maintain inventories of each produced type of equipment. Thus, upgrades, attrition, loss replacement, training, all depend on the proper equipment inventory and production. Look at how HOI 4 does this, and use it as an inspiration.

5. Have all your input and data display windows be relocatable, and resizeable. Improve the immersion factor, and supply appropriate graphics for each technology, and equipment type that can be researched.

6. Have each type of component for each type of branch of the military have its own technology: thus research engines, projectiles size, and type, the calibre of the barrel, industrial meathod, armor, etc, not a certain "type" of unit: because the unit is a composite of many different components, and many different technologies. A vehicle or weapon should be viewed as an expression of its component parts.

7. Use historical persons for each period and each country, the way HOI series did it, and show their portraits where appropriate, for better immersion and an authentic feel.

8. Have an on-map chain of command with historical commanders with their portraits, and visible chain of command indicators. Have benefits for units inside each chain of command, based on the talents of the leaders, and have leaders progress in different talents from their experience. Have divisions comprising, corps, and corps, comprising armies, and armies, comprising army groups, and army groups comprising fronts. A leader can be promoted, and or demoted to serve in the chain of command as required. A corps commander is a 3-star general, etc. Use HOI 3 as an example and inspiration here.

9. Have political and governmental choices that reflect historical possibilities, and use good appropriate graphics for immersion.

10. Have even more sound effects for significant events, like a technology completion.

11. Allow users to specify pop-up messages, linked to map locations for any kind of significant event, like a new attack, a surrender of a unit, a unit completing an order.

12. Have the ability to queue up multiple orders for a unit (remember a template is a unit), and allow synchronization with other units via clock time, or by location, and allow different modes for units: rail travel, road travel, sea travel, air travel, tactical travel, standing orders, degree of commitment to a battle, actions based on results of encounters and battles, degree of entrenchment.

13. Have more elaborate location defensive structures, such as coastal defense, land defense, degree of fort development.

14. Stop using large entities to convey elements on a map: don't use elaborate road/rail symbols, use appropriate colored and shaped lines to portray roads and rail-lines, as well as the status of the repair or building of such features. Consider how military maps convey information, and try to copy those features. Currently you use far too much graphics real estate to convey roads, rail lines, and hex improvements. Make is look like a real map! This helps with immersion, readability, and looks much more realistic if it is done well.

15. Just like you should have component military "units", also have component non-military units such as road/rail construction crews and equipment. These become needed for actual building/repair of some structures, the way you are currently using "engineers" as a speed up of building, except that all building requires the appropriate crews and supplies/materials in order to do the actual building in all cases. This also means classes of civilians, just like you have different MOS for the military. The more talented professions such as scientist, engineers (civilian), even medical, all require special training, and each class of person, be they farmer or industrial, or professional must be the the appropriate place for the appropriate work to get done. You can't just build an industry somewhere unless you have the road/rails infrastructure, and the people with living quarters to work there.

16. If you keep a hex-based map, and do not implement a hexless map, then move rivers/straight terrain features to edges of hexes, rather than having rivers comprise a whole hex. Only large bodies of waters with actual sizes of hex-size whould have whole or groups of hexes. The current system is unrealistic, and does not portray hex control involved with taking briges. The current system interferes with proper combat of units separated by rivers.

I have dozens of other ideas on how to improve realism and immersion, to give a more realistic feel to the game, but the above is a good start.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1983
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

The load into command should force the units to move to the nearest loading point instead of having to be next to each other for it to work.

For example:
If land unit is selected to load into ship, both head to the nearest common port then load in.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
ArthurDesmond
Warrant Officer
Posts: 38
Joined: Jul 14 2020
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by ArthurDesmond »

If units can be split and reinforced to produce heavy units it should be possible to do this to an entire stack with a command, instead of having to manually split and combine them.

There are issues with inconsistent and useless units, but the difficulty of giving units comprehensive or conditional orders, along with the UI, is the main pain I see.

An OOB with objectives, operational theater assignments, and ROE sorted for all units differrtially based on an assigned posture for the division, army, etc. Something a bit like HOI but less activist and broad, just enough to make sure air and arty forces assigned to a division or mission will automatically engage threats and obstacles which are in their theater and attacking their assigned army.

ELMER from TOAW is very good at this sort of thing, even though it lacks grand strategic planning capability. All I need is something to replace giving every unit specific orders or letting the minister throw my units around the map at random and suicide all my engineers attacking towns.

A hard to explain issue I have with most strategy games is that even if the combat engine and units give plausible results the AI is too dumb to use realistic tactics and thus it has to be responded to with cheese as realistic tactics are punished.

Basically, if the AI used and built units like a real nation it would be more immersive and make the game more rewarding to players who take the time to build their military to counter certain opponents or deal with specific tasks. As it is I just use Mech inf and a few tanks with tons of arty against whatever random stacks the AI uses. It's less challenging and also makes a lot of cool special units unnecessary because the AI doesn't use the strategies they're designed to counter. AT and AA work well, but don't usually become necessary as you can just bomb all the enemy runways and the AI is bad at air war. Again, this need not be a problem of unit stats and combat resolution, instead it's the lack of formation and counterattack, etc. the AI can manage.

This is not easy to fix, it's persistent in many complex games, but it would really help if some kind of combined arms and operational depth manifested with more deliberate attacks and army compositions. Throwing high pip units at enemies near objectives might work sometimes but it is a kind of Zerg tactic that underutilizes the different technical tools available, making some superfluous.
ArthurDesmond
Warrant Officer
Posts: 38
Joined: Jul 14 2020
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by ArthurDesmond »

This is originally part of a post about something else but reflects my thoughts so far on units...

I think less of a focus on equipment-as-units and instead training infantry based on your doctrine and them getting stat changes based on which equipment is assigned. Functional company sized units, and support equipment, adding up to the unit. If this sounds like hearts of iron 4 that's not what I actually envision, instead doctrine techs would unlock unit types (Inf, Mobile, Tanks) and you give them so many tanks and APCs as required by the doctrine. This would require researching OOB of companies in real armies and figuring out some rough variants of units and equipment types for those particular companies (riflemen, air cavalry, etc.) whose final stats are added to by how much of any type of equipment is integrated. Max speeds overland and average tactical (rather than strategic) maneuver affecting combat outcomes, etc.

I essentially want some unit design that combines equipment and doctrine/organization, with stats affected by an interplay of both and the combat systems other features (terrain, RNG events caused by equipment and doctrine present). Countries with similar doctrine and level of training might get different results because their equipment doesn't work as well with a particular tactic, etc. But I don't think it needs to be some hyper complex Sim attempt like CMANO, just a reflection of how units are used rather than just how they're armed.

I 'd also like some features of ROE, AI orientation, theaters and Hotspot to instead be integrated into unit orientation settings in the OOB, which might also include a designated theater. Essentially armies on down get a theater, region and disposition or objective along with something in there like the current system of initiative and ROE. If the player or scenario designer can designate units to cooperate and have certain dispositions it frees the AI up from trying to do grand strategy and operational deployments at the same time. The AI could have army types built according to the equipment it has at hand and roughly deploy those armies to regions and fronts with preset (local) orientation and brigade tactics baked in. Essentially the AI would be on the divisional and corps levels instead of area and overall deployment. It's easier for me to build an army and give it rules than to manage every formation, and relying on the current AI is inefficient to say the least. I do feel like some of the current features are in the right direction, but the hierarchy is lacking.

Also, infinite unit build needs to be addressed and also not so easy to use as a player. Super buildup for world wars I get, but if the AI had army templates it could decide to eliminate and build units more easily based on the template being filled rather than the pips. This is easier to say than actually program. I think it could be done but might require a revision of how units and orders are handled in the code, which is obviously a large undertaking even if the concept was worked out.

I would overall like a SRNG that resembles SRU in scope and employs many of unique features (equipment variety and operational level army control) with a system worked from the ground up to better synthesize these aspects together. A ton of stuff that was added in the last update (I read the changelog) was going toward some of the UI and C&C issues that I am speculating about here. But I get the sense that a lot of baked in or hard to change features have been in the way of finding a more satisfying solution, which is why I am glad that a new game is being designed.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1983
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

The fire missile command should make a unit move into range if it's not and then fire the missile. I know I made a mod to do it but it did have the issue of the unit not returning after firing which I think the command should do.

Also, when strat command is used, submarines and ships should only target places they have range from the sea to do, and should move into range and then fire.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1983
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

The ability to unload singular units from transports.

Disable helicopters resupplying ships.

Somehow enable supply ships to resupply carrier units as their planes use up the carriers supplies.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”