BGForums

Loyalty should not be FIXED.

We've seen throughout history where countries deported, massacred, slaughtered inhabitants and replaced them with people of their own.

For instance Crimea. 300 years ago around 0% Russians lived there. During the Russian occupation they stole the land, slaughtered the inhabitants,
stole their food so they starved to death, forced them to leave the lands, deported them to Siberian death camps.

Roughly 90% of the original population on the Crimea was slaughtered by the Russians and replaced by Russians from Russia to maintain
the local economy, food production and military assets on the Crimea.

That's how you can change the loyalty of a region to your own and tell the world: but the people living there are loyal to me!

Just slaughter, starve, rape, deport the original inhabitants..

Something similar I'm missing in SR..

Of course this would cause friction with other nations and could go into my other proposal of "teaming up against global dominating countries" ..

the more you change loyalty in your favor, the more you add to the Threshold where eventually the world will ally against you.

mrgenie wrote: ↑Apr 26 2019 Something similar I'm missing in SR..

It's not "missing", we decided not to put in attrocities and other actions like these that would force change loyalty. Work on this area is a low priority compared to other things on our wishlist.

Fair enough it's not on the top of the wishlist...
But it should be on the "list"

Maybe for players feedback BG releases the "list" of topics that are on there and the "priorities" which will be done first, second, etc..?

The problem with this argument is that loyalty does not only change as the result of "atrocities".

mrgenie wrote: ↑May 08 2019 Maybe for players feedback BG releases the "list" of topics that are on there and the "priorities" which will be done first, second, etc..?

We do discuss broad "roadmaps" at times, but if we give out a list like this and then change things even a little some in the community will instantly attack us demanding to know why things changed. The community has taught me that we can't give out that level of detail.

"The community has taught me that we can't give out that level of detail."

In Germany it's common if you say something you always say:" bis zu" or "ohne gewaehr"

practically this allows 100% of the companies and the government to say anything they want ...

You could do the same in English..

if you change the roadmap, that's fine by me.. I understand it's not a god given command LOL

Companies have to be flexible, people have to be flexible, we all must accept as time passes by things change..

but at least it would give us a clue..

Also it's normal that what you intentionally wanted, maybe during development you find out it's not worth it and scrap it altogether..

That's sad, I would be sad if features planned don't get through, but we all have to accept it..

We all plan as kids to get big houses, big cars, lots of vacations, good jobs, ...

and then we step into the reality of adulthood to find out life is not what you plan but how you live it...

I only wish everyone was as understanding as you are.

.

Precisely. Offering extra details is playing with fire, I have no reason to take the heat.

I have no trouble talking about the released version, I'm very proud of that.

.

Thanks, SRU and SRGW have been, on a business case, our most succesful titles.

Well I keep wondering how you managed such a supurb engine. I played and reviewed many strategy titles, granted SR is more a tactical-strategy combination more towards tactical, but I never seen any game to handle
units so realistic... It's obvious you can never program real human behavior in a game engine. At least not with current technology.. would take AI to a whole new level and we definitely would need a whole new generation of AI hardware..

So I'm really stunned how advanced SR is.

It's unparalleled and unmatched by any game on this planet.

So yes you should be proud on that.

That's why I comment so much to the game... it's worth discussing and witing comments.. since this development should never die!

I'd love to participate on a free base to add more to the game during my free time but I'd be more interested in adding features like long term strategy aka nation building.

So I'd not touch the unit AI engine.. but if I had the source codes I'd start working on an AI to build up countries, adding at least 50 more resources to the game..
adding complex industrial buildings like cascaded industries needed for 1 unit..

i.e. you need companies to build radars, missiles, and they need suppliers as well...

So I'd work on that really.

Also adding more "human" resources like tobacco, water, bread, cattle, horses, etc..

without horses you wouldn't be able to build SRGW recon units for example
Without engine industry you wouldn't be able to build tanks..

I'd also work on pathing, like preventing tanks from entering mountain regions without proper infrastructure and if they did they'd be sitting ducks like in reality you wouldn't send armored divisions into the alps trying to beat the Swiss army with
1000 tanks locked up in Grindelwald..

We do appreciate the feedback, it does feed many of our discussions.

mrgenie wrote: ↑May 29 2019 ...Also adding more "human" resources like tobacco, water, bread, cattle, horses, etc..

Overall, we're satsified with how complex the game is now. We're at a point now that if we add a new complex feature to the game we would want to remove something else to maintain the level of depth we have now.

yes the level of depth is great on the existing features..

But you know, as gamer we always want MORE )