Supreme Ruler 1936?

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Dec 06 2003

Wow, even after all of this, you guys are going to start researching Panzers, 88s, Spitfires, Zeros....? Are you planning on taking a long, well deserved vacation when you finish SR 2010?

I know, first things first, but wow... another game with this level of detail? Gluttons for punishment?

Keep up the good work!

Post by **George Geczy** » Dec 19 2003

Yes, we are gluttons for punishment... but at least in 1936 there were a lot fewer different types of equipment in service.

The geo-political world of 1936 certainly provides a very interesting background for a strategy engine as sophisticated as the Supreme Ruler engine, so once the 2010 version is done (!) it should be a worthy challenge to tackle this earlier era.

-- George.

<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>

Benos · Post by **Benos** » Mar 24 2004

Arg WW2 Stratergie games are sooooooo overdone

there is so many of them we dont need another one! everytime is see a promicing turn based stratergy title its ww2 ww2 ww2 ww2 arg i carnt stand it. there hasnt been a good modern stratergie since operational art of war!

well thats my 2 c

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Mar 25 2004

I agree with Benos here and I guess I have said in other threads as well that I consider WW2 overdone.

Every 2nd fps,almost every simulation,many strategy games.
Certainly,who would claim that there are too few WW2 games?

BUT...as I see it Battlegoat also wants to "milk the cow",they have build a masterpiece of an engine (or at least are about to put it together) and now they want to use it again.
This isnt new,not necessarily a bad thing and I cant and wont blame them.

SO...they cant just move on and make a worthy successor of Master of Orion as much some of us want that.
They would have to add or modify quite some things until that would work.
And this wont fit with the goal of using the same engine.

The next game somehow has to "stay on earth" as so to speak.

And what setting would you choose?

While it might be pratical to choose a setting that also plays in our time period that would result in game that would be quite similar to the current game.
A "Cold War" sequel was in discussion IIRC and it was mentioned that there would be problems witht the game being to similar.

And even if they would make major improvements (like weather) on the engine it would still end up fighting for customers with the original title.

Dont get me wrong,I would buy this game and Im sure most of us in the forum here would.
But for the other costumers these games would be too alike and the differences too minimal.
Does anyone know
Age of Wonders:Shadow Magic by the way...?

So in conclusion a setting would have to be found to allow BG to still use their engine,eventually with some improvements or minor modifications of course,and that would be different enough.

And sadly a WW2 setting would satisfy all of these requirements

,and it would also have the benefit of being seen as "popular" by the marketing guys.
After all there are so many WW2 games out there and someone seems to buy them.

And maybe just because there are no alternatives left at the time.
That was pretty much the reason why I ended up buying "Hearts of Iron" and "Silent Storm".

How do the others feel about that?

herr neumann · Post by **herr neumann** » Mar 25 2004

I agree that the number of ww2 games is really amazingly big but somehow I still find myself wanting for more. Of all those ww2 games out there only Hearts of iron is seriously going to rival Supreme Ruler 1936 - all other's have different emphasis.

I myself prefer much more WW2 game than 4x or even modern era game but that's purely personal preference. Probably because I'm sort of ww2-semi-buff...

djtrix · Post by **djtrix** » Mar 25 2004

I have always been a fan of the future. I thoroughly enjoy games set in a fictional future time. Although SR2010 is technically the future it is very similar to today. I'd like to see SR2200 or something. Some governments have successfully moved towards social techs and improved their social structure. Some have fallen off.. I think the possibilities are endless. I don't know how compatible with the engine this would be though.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Mar 25 2004

Maybe we should start with WWI then... It's not so overdone!

MrWhite · Post by **MrWhite** » Mar 25 2004

I don't think so folks...

The only game that comes close to the level of detail and depth of game is Hearts of Iron and really this game wasn't as detailed as I would have liked it, I say lets see it, I would love to see something in this light...

Korny · Post by **Korny** » Mar 25 2004

On 2004-03-25 09:41, BattleGoat wrote:
Maybe we should start with WWI then... It's not so overdone!

But WWI is boring - WW2 is the most "fun" war - europe/asia/america is in big slugfest - its hard to beat...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Korny on 2004-03-25 14:52 ]</font>

Slash78 · Post by **Slash78** » Mar 25 2004

WW2 will never be overdone, it has almost endless potiental for improvement. However, I woundn't mind seeing a WW1 game either or one that starts a little earlier. Ground combat might be a little duller then many wars, as it would almost always turn into a blood slug fest. However there are all those Dreadnaughts, Battlecruisers, Armored Cruisers, etc. Naval combat would be good. For more gameplay you might go with a 'SR1870' or 'SR1880' that would cover alot of the Imperial age wars and the Great War.

Benos · Post by **Benos** » Mar 26 2004

yeah ww1 might be good, artillary would be good and the slow moving and stalemate of battle would be interesting to experience.

ww2 wouldnt be to bad either, i just got a bit emotional b4 because over the past 2 years ive been wanting to get a that simulates mosern conflict but have been frustratingly continally confronted with ww2 games

the scope of sr2010 being more of a dictator simulater (hehe) rather than a general simulator would work well with ww2 quite well.

mabye these can be create if a modding is made possable.

"Age of Wonders:Shadow Magic by the way...?"
Juergen

i like AOW1 but was put off by 2 sorta whats this new one like i herd its stand alone

herr neumann · Post by **herr neumann** » Mar 26 2004

Wether you decide to make ww1 or ww2 game, i hope that it will be on "grand" scale - that is not scenario-hopping as in SR2010 but one big world map with all the states!

If done correctly it would really be a pleasure to play this kind of game - main campaigns in europe, small skirmishes in colonies, totally different war on seas (submarines vs. convoys!), bigger the empire - bigger the la ResistanÃ£e etc.

Baah, I suddenly started drooling....

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Mar 26 2004

The only other WW2 pcgame of 2010 scale is hearts of iron, so it's not overdone at all.

prime_642 · Post by **prime_642** » Mar 26 2004

How about a SR1774-1815? The Napoleonic and Revolutionary Wars would be a very interesting time for simulation, and i don't think anyone has done a grand-strategic game with the depth of SR2010 in that era. With the possible exception of Paradox's Europa Universalis... But your game will so much better that they'll be no serious competition... And if napoleon is overdone, how about SR1840? The Mexican War, American Civil War, Crimean War (Britain + France vs Russia with Prussia and Austria as innocent bystanders) and a host of others to boot (Prussia vs. Austria, Prussia + half of Germany vs. France...) all took place at the time...

MrWhite · Post by **MrWhite** » Mar 26 2004

I don't know there's jsut something about a massive game like this that can cause pre 20th century battles to seem slow... If you really think about it if the game times were to stay the same the time to march armies would be in the months not days and the supply economy would be a bi different...

I don't know the engine seems to be more fitted for the 20th century... Games of the 19th century and older are more apt to be playable in more toned down games such as Europe Univeralis and what not.

Just me opinions...