The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20448
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

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

#91 Post by Balthagor » Apr 30 2020

regardless, let's get back on topic, shall we?

Should the property of aircraft to reach "high air" level remain uncommon as future units are researched, or will this ability become more commonplace in the coming 20+ years?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

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

#92 Post by milivoje02 » Apr 30 2020

Balthagor wrote:
Apr 30 2020
regardless, let's get back on topic, shall we?

Should the property of aircraft to reach "high air" level remain uncommon as future units are researched, or will this ability become more commonplace in the coming 20+ years?
The military industries of the world have announced armed action against satellites in orbit. So in the next 20 years we should expect weapons that will be able to operate in this field. Planes flying at altitudes near the stratosphere should be expected. Mig 41 will come in the next 10 years in production. Countries will organize countermeasures and response. Because armed balance is something that has been present for decades. So absolutely yes. High flyers should be expected on all tasks and even I believe the action from the boundary of the stratovers to satellites(USA had a project in 1970).
How about creating an ammo variety option? Because countries often introduce new penetrators with higher lethal power for existing weapons and classify it as ammunition rather than an innovation on the firing system.

Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 868
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

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

#93 Post by Kristijonas » Apr 30 2020

Balthagor wrote:
Apr 30 2020

Should the property of aircraft to reach "high air" level remain uncommon as future units are researched, or will this ability become more commonplace in the coming 20+ years?
I think it depends on what technologies we believe will be there in 20+ years. If we are not talking about revolutionary innovations that would make space travel easy, then more or less same limits would apply as they do now. I personally do not know why warplanes do not fly very high (what makes their altitude limited) (except for thin air) but maybe someone knows why, and that would help answer the question.

Since the same conditions as now will probably apply in 20+ years (without revolutionary innovations) I would recommend still making high air somewhat rare, otherwise it can make low-mid-high air differences a bit meaningless. Besides, high-air could be interpreted as satellite high, even.

Just my illiterate thoughts. :D

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1959
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

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

#94 Post by SGTscuba » Apr 30 2020

Balthagor wrote:
Apr 30 2020
regardless, let's get back on topic, shall we?

Should the property of aircraft to reach "high air" level remain uncommon as future units are researched, or will this ability become more commonplace in the coming 20+ years?
Short of a major jump in engine technology, it will remain uncommon due to engine technology.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 868
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

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

#95 Post by Kristijonas » Apr 30 2020

SGTscuba wrote:
Apr 30 2020
Short of a major jump in engine technology, it will remain uncommon due to engine technology.
In one short sentence you wrote what I tried to say in two paragraphs. Thank you for the lesson.

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1959
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

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

#96 Post by SGTscuba » Apr 30 2020

Kristijonas wrote:
Apr 30 2020
SGTscuba wrote:
Apr 30 2020
Short of a major jump in engine technology, it will remain uncommon due to engine technology.
In one short sentence you wrote what I tried to say in two paragraphs. Thank you for the lesson.
I was tempted to give a longer answer, but decided against it. But, in case Balth wants some justification rather than "just cos", here is the reasoning:

The higher you go, the thinner the air, this means less oxygen to use in the combustion process within an engine. This means less potential thrust, although on the other side you also have less drag. This is a problem that conventional engines cannot get around due to the fuel mixture they use. If you study the blackbird, it had a special (and VERY expensive) fuel to get around this. (it burned a different colour is the hint).

Another problem is, things cool less due to the lower pressure, this can cause heat buildup problems (this happened with the blackbird) due to the lack of a medium to dissipate heat. (fun experiment - put a cup of coffee in a low pressure chamber, put that chamber on the window sill, and then watch it boil in no time in the sunlight)

The other problem is, wings work on pressure differentials, the lower the overall pressure, the less the differential pressure between the top and the bottom of the wing can be. This obviously also starts to limit payload more.

The above reasons are why planes tend to fly around 25-40k feet as it offers a good balance of efficiency vs payload vs engineering costs.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

Nerei
General
Posts: 1098
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

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

#97 Post by Nerei » Apr 30 2020

High air as defined by the wiki just means going above 70.000 feet or 21300m. That is not really that high. The service ceiling of the of the good old F-15 Eagle is around 65.500 feet or 20.000m.

The thing is the way the game defines high air is fundamentally flawed. Going high alone is not going to keep you safe. That logic worked in the 1950's where SAM systems where primitive but already in 1960 that logic was dead when Francis Gary Powers U2 Dragon Lady was shot down over the USSR. That aircraft has a service ceiling of 24.000M/80.000 feet so well within high air range.

The SR-71 could be seen as an example of high air being harder to hit but that is only part of the story.

The main difference between the SR-71 and U-2 is speed not altitude. Yes the service ceiling of the SR-71 is a bit higher but that is not that important.
The real advantage was that at Mach 3.2 it could basically outlast enemy missiles helped by the time it took to actually acquire a proper lock on it.
The altitude helps as the missile expends energy reaching it but alone is not the saviour of the SR-71. Again if it had been the U2 would not have been as vulnerable as it was.

One good reason the SR-71 have this high a service ceiling is simply that going high means going fast is easier. I would argue that a SR-71 flying at Mach 3.2 at 65.000 feet would be a lot harder to hit than the U2 at 80.000 feet. However according to the game the U2 would be the harder to kill as nearly no enemies would be capable of hitting it and if they can their attack stats are abysmal.


If we look at it from the games perspective (e.g. defence) one of the main reasons there are few aircraft in the high air range is simply economics. Building aircraft that can fly at 85.000 feet is a lot more expensive than building a SAM that can kill it so you only really want to pay for that altitude if you outright need it for something else.
The MiG-41 might need it as it is intended to defend Russian airspace. That is a vast area which means the aircraft needs to be fast to intercept distant incursions and again going fast is easier at altitude.

Again take the SR-71. It is an impressive aircraft but it is not exactly cheap. The wikipedia listed price it is around $34M which sounds great right until you consider that Lockheed was ordered to destroy the tools used in the creation of the SR-71 and related A-12 in early 1968. If we assume it is 1968 dollars then inflation correcting means the SR-71 in 2020 would cost around $250M each.

A RIM-161 SM-3 anti-ballistic missile cost $9-25M if we go by wikipedia and is massive overkill as it can shoot down the ISS.
If we assume we could make a modified RIM-66 that could kill the SR-71 even if it results in a price increase of 400% we would still only be at around 1% of the price of the inflation corrected SR-71. The service ceiling of the RIM-66 is already basically there.

Fitting missiles that can kill a SR-71 on aircraft would certainly also be possible despite the game having like 13 aircraft capable of hitting high air targets. The US tested the ASM-135 ASAT in the 1980's. That was an air launched anti-satellite weapon.
If it is possible to fit weapons capable of hitting target at 1.800.000 feet on aircraft it is probably also possible to fit them with weapons capable of 71.000 feet.

Funny really. The F-15 Eagle was used as test platform for an anti-satellite weapon but in-game it cannot hit targets flying 4500 feet above it service ceiling.

Really the main reason there are few weapons used to hit targets in this altitude bracket is that there are few targets there not that it cannot be done.
It is the same reason there have been no new heavily armoured battleships post WWII despite anti-ship missiles being aomewhat ineffective against such targets. Building new or modifying existing weapons is extremely cheap compared to building such a ship.


Another issue I see with the current low-mid-high air system is it means you are grouping aircraft like the U-2 with say Trident missiles rather than the B-52. Shooting down a ballistic missile is a whole different league than a comparatively low flying target like the U2. Basically you are grouping targets flying at 85.000 feet with targets at 5.000.000 feet. Yes intercepting a ballistic missile in the post boost but pre-entry phase might mean hitting it at that insane altitude.


Really if you plan at looking at high air in detail I would suggest overhauling it a bit more as the system as it is right now is flawed.

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

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

#98 Post by milivoje02 » Apr 30 2020

Perhaps the better question is the effectiveness of tactical aircraft on ground targets. Land targets are not easy noticable from the ear. Especially armored if is camouflaged and arranged in combat order. Tanks and armored vehicles afer switching their engine off after 30 minutes will be invisible on the infrared scener. The effect currently present in the game is justified only if the unit is detected on the move or in combat.
Again the composition of the unit. In combat conditions, it is unlikely that they will encounter a unit made up of only one type of soldier or armored vehicle(after Napoleon era armies began to deploy units of combined military backgrounds for greater efficiency). The tank company will not perform on its own( only if it's not Rambo(Sylvester Stallone :lol: ), but will also cooperate with AA veicle,trupe carier(infantry) and reconnaissance platoon. Means it's hard to see on the battlefield a unit of 50-100 people made up of the same equipment. And the infantry would be literally not visible in the terrain where there is forest terrain.
Last edited by milivoje02 on Apr 30 2020, edited 1 time in total.

evildari
Colonel
Posts: 463
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

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

#99 Post by evildari » Apr 30 2020

+1 what milivoje02 said about whole units consisting of one specific hardware model (ie m1a1 tank)
Also iam missing whole platoons of inflatable rubber (damn i hate that resource) tanks - to waste precious ammuniton.
On the other hand i fear the AI spamming them all over the world.
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

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

#100 Post by milivoje02 » May 01 2020

Question for devolopers: Would it be a burden for game engine to learn AI to build a satelite?
USA had project AMS 135 missle mounted on F 15 for engage satelite from lover stratosphere,Russia have a mig 31 with a 79M6 missile for engage satelite from lover stratosphere. China test anti satelite ground difence missle... It would insert a new battlefield into the game.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20448
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

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

#101 Post by Balthagor » May 01 2020

Hard to tell at this point, so many things for SRNG still need to be decided. There will be discussions about satellites though.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

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

#102 Post by milivoje02 » May 01 2020

Have you considered my proposal to move the initial start development technology(all countries) for helicopters from 1931 to technology Modern Heliocopter Prototyupe----Year 1945. In scenario World 2020?
Because in most countries civilian engines that are produced have higher power and transmission technology than those of the 1945 vertical rotors. It is 80 years between eras...

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20448
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

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

#103 Post by Balthagor » May 01 2020

I have not yet, currently I'm focused on Galactic Ruler tasks. This whole thread will be reviewed at some point to pull out all the suggestions.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

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

#104 Post by milivoje02 » May 01 2020

Can i ask what model will be taken for civilization development in Galactic Ruler? Will it be close to theory wich has been made to public physicist Michito Kaku?

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20448
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

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

#105 Post by Balthagor » May 01 2020

Not sure what you're asking. Models are used for units. What do you mean by civilization development? Cities?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”