Announcing Supreme Ruler The Great War

[George Geczy]

As you've read in our announcement ( http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 11&t=25617 ), Chris is leading the development of Supreme Ruler The Great War, a new instalment for the SR series.

SRGW (or SRTGW? gotta decide on that...) is a bit of a hybrid. It's much more than a DLC, but we do recognize that it's not a full overhaul of the game engine, so it will be priced in that "middle area". We're pretty excited about the new content, but also it gives us the opportunity to continue developing on the SR series and game engine. As we've always done, it means that we can also continue to provide updates and new engine features to our existing SRU players.

There will be more information released over the next few weeks, and we'll answer whatever questions we can. Thanks everybody for the continued support of BattleGoat and the Supreme Ruler series.

-- George.

[mikeownage]

[Zuikaku]

I hope you'll be able to devote much, much more development time to the AI. Wars are great and fun (in the game, not reality), but more refined diplomacy and better AI are these small and invisible things that will greatly enhace SR's replayability and awesomeness

And I hope that providing arms to the opposition will finally result in guerillas spawning

[way2co0l]

Oh woot! Can't wait to hear more details about this.

[Fistalis]

-snip- (So, even if you're not a WWI fan, but you've been wanting to find a way to support our work - buy SRGW!)

-- George.

My question becomes how will the engine be added to or changed in order to reflect the reality of how much of WW1 was an infantry/ trench war. I love SR but i have a feeling the current way things work isn't going to fair well for WW1.

Just as the engine doesn't handle guerrilla warfare well i'm not sure it will handle the stalemated trench warfare well either.The most disheartening moment for me was realizing in testing the modern world mod how bad the SR engine was at reflecting the reality of 4th gen warfare and that no matter how many hours I put into it the mod was never going to quite live up to my vision. The Engine is primarily functional at simulating 3rd gen warfare, and it does that well. It tends to start failing when attempting to simulate other generations. 4th gen in modern times.. and 2nd Generation in WW1.

Also worth mentioning is chemical warfare which saw its most widespread usage in WW1.

Of course I support your endeavor I love you guys. But this is the biggest Issue I see with the proposed title, granted I don't know of your development plans or any work that has already been done to better the engine. I understand the title has just been announced and it will be some time before details such as those related to my questions will be unveiled.


Edit: REmoved from other thread and reposted here.
Edit 2: Don't take it the wrong way.. I'm excited to see you guys working on another SR title. I don't mean to be critical. The above was just the first thing that came to my mind when I read the announcement. Believe it or not my questionable feedback is meant to help...

[George Geczy]

Believe it or not my questionable feedback is meant to help...

This feedback is great, keep on sending it! Some elements of the engine and AI regarding WWI will only really become apparent once we start testing it with all the equipment and orbat content in place, and that phase is going to start very shortly. But we will be looking closely at how to make sure the AI understands the "generational" differences for WWI.

Chemical warfare is an interesting question and I don't have a clear answer for it right now. On one hand, most historians don't see it as being a significant tactical element - except for a very, very limited number of battles, it was used ineffectively or else easily countered (gas masks, etc). On the other hand, there are those occasional (though rare) battles where it had an effect.

So still pondering that one.

-- George.

[GIJoe597]

My question becomes how will the engine be added to or changed in order to reflect the reality of how much of WW1 was an infantry/ trench war.

My thoughts also. I have not played a WW1 game since Command HQ in 1990 or 91, cannot remember. That period has never interested me because of the static nature of warfare.

For the people who have been asking for this, congratulations! Hopefully it will be a great seller.

[Zuikaku]

Wouldn't massed foot infantry and artillery (with no tanks and slow early tanks) resulted in somewhat slow and stalemated warfare even in current SR engine? Especially on the Western front?

[way2co0l]

The problem I can foresee is that massed infantry won't be static enough with the way the AI plays. The closest example I can think of for frontal warfare which would look anything close to what I'd expect on the western front would be the korean war in the cold war sandbox. But with the massive amount of fighting that occurs on that front, military goods tend to quickly exhaust themselves unless heavily subsidized. Even if they are, the fighting is incredibly intense for maybe a month or 2, but then you can see them crack and it's all over. Primarily because there's no such thing as depth or reserves. So I'm afraid the wars might be over very quickly, even if you're only using leg infantry, far earlier than it should be.

But the bigger obstacle from my perspective would be on the diplomatic side after the war. I understand the argument has always been that this is primarily a war game focused on the conflict side of things with the player goal of becoming a genuine supreme ruler, but one of the big draws is going to be playing through the eras. That's even mentioned in the reveal as allowing an epic gameplay experience that spans into the 21st century. But that creates an expectation to recreate those events. I understand player actions will have have an effect to change the course of history, but with the current game mechanics, it's not really possible to recreate the real world realities that came with the end of the war. The resulting peace, Germany's humiliation, breaking up of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Russia's civil war, and the various territorial gains that were taken from various participants while allowing for Germany to still exist as an independent nation. Current mechanics don't really allow any way to recreate these things and I think it's going to take a lot of work to change that. Let's say you play as the US or England and come out the victors, but France winds up occupying most of Germany. The current peace system pretty much is a possession is 9/10ths of the law argument, and the territory you currently hold when you make peace is what you keep. There's no negotiation, no forcing France to release Germany back or to release the Austria-Hungary states as independent. That's an issue in my humble opinion that I'd hope you guys can find a solution to.

Like Fistalis, I'm definitely not trying to be negative or take the air out of anyone's balloon. Or Zeppelin in this case would be more thematically correct. lol. It's just feedback for things others might also hope for in the game so hopefully you guys can find some way to make it work. I'm pretty sure quite a few of us are going to hope for an opportunity to progress things at least somewhat historically and allow for a long term game that spans into the new modern world, but that's going to be difficult if the fallout from WW1 makes it impossible for any semblance of reality to come from it.

[Zuikaku]

The problem I can foresee is that massed infantry won't be static enough with the way the AI plays. The closest example I can think of for frontal warfare which would look anything close to what I'd expect on the western front would be the korean war in the cold war sandbox. But with the massive amount of fighting that occurs on that front, military goods tend to quickly exhaust themselves unless heavily subsidized. Even if they are, the fighting is incredibly intense for maybe a month or 2, but then you can see them crack and it's all over. Primarily because there's no such thing as depth or reserves. So I'm afraid the wars might be over very quickly, even if you're only using leg infantry, far earlier than it should be.

I don't think this can be solved within limitations of SR engine, but maybe George will be able to surprise us

But the bigger obstacle from my perspective would be on the diplomatic side after the war. I understand the argument has always been that this is primarily a war game focused on the conflict side of things with the player goal of becoming a genuine supreme ruler, but one of the big draws is going to be playing through the eras. That's even mentioned in the reveal as allowing an epic gameplay experience that spans into the 21st century. But that creates an expectation to recreate those events. I understand player actions will have have an effect to change the course of history, but with the current game mechanics, it's not really possible to recreate the real world realities that came with the end of the war. The resulting peace, Germany's humiliation, breaking up of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Russia's civil war, and the various territorial gains that were taken from various participants while allowing for Germany to still exist as an independent nation. Current mechanics don't really allow any way to recreate these things and I think it's going to take a lot of work to change that. Let's say you play as the US or England and come out the victors, but France winds up occupying most of Germany. The current peace system pretty much is a possession is 9/10ths of the law argument, and the territory you currently hold when you make peace is what you keep. There's no negotiation, no forcing France to release Germany back or to release the Austria-Hungary states as independent. That's an issue in my humble opinion that I'd hope you guys can find a solution to.

I'm all for devs to focus on AI and diplomacy. I gave some suggestions on how to adress some problems you have pointed out to. Think tjhat teaching AI to liberate and colonize other regions woul'd ba a great first step. And new peace treaty system woul'd be something great!

[mikeownage]

List of ideas:

* Some what off topic but can we get a cheat that removes all deployed units on the map, This would help speed up games that go years into the future. In the 1936 campaign when you reach the late 1950's, some countries can have 2k+ units deployed.
* I'd also like to have my an option for my colonies keeps their military production or to seize it and even return if should I desire.
* I also find that the minister AI never seems to auto build naval production with the exception of Japan. Can you make the AI for both human and computer controller companies build some naval fab automatically as well? Maybe a specific policy for land, navy and air?
* Why does annexing my own colony have a negative effect on my diplomacy rating?
* I think the amount of control we can have over colonies would greater increase the advantages of having a colony in the first place.
* Can we get a way to mass scrap units in reserve? Right now you would have to deploy them then filter to the ones you want to scrap.
* When you start collecting massive units in reserve and go to try to trade some it can slow the UI down massively, Would it be possible to make some changes that would increase UI performance when there are massive units to trade? Maybe change it to show them grouped like the unit production area?

Regardless :

[Fistalis]

This feedback is great, keep on sending it! Some elements of the engine and AI regarding WWI will only really become apparent once we start testing it with all the equipment and orbat content in place, and that phase is going to start very shortly. But we will be looking closely at how to make sure the AI understands the "generational" differences for WWI.
-- George.

One option to look which may help is having different weightings for which units to build depending on tech/time.. etc. Having multiple files to pull from and basing which file on some trigger. A specific era tech would show the huge differences and the evolution of warfare..

Could take it a step further and have AI using different tactics based on something similar. Preferably a tech or group of techs so you know the nation has the capability to perform using the specific tactics. A good example being Germany in WW2 using the basics of 3rd gen warfare while france was still using 2nd gen. If one could see this happen in an organic way.. IE not necessarily that specific instance but one nation who has attained the tech and using 3rd gen tactics rolling over a nation who is still stuck in 2nd gen it would certainly put emphasis the evolving nature of warfare throughout the game. (as much as i would hope for changes to better reflect 4th gen that's another beast entirely, and not exactly in the scope of the titles primary time frame)

Just spit balling.. and implementation is always the hard part. We both know it's easy for me to suggest this or that but you actually implementing it is another story..


Since I'm bringing up various things on generational warfare. The use of Camouflage uniforms was an important change in 2nd gen warfare. hopefully you have techs which adjust the units stealth ratings based on this in the future. Maybe going so far as to have techs to specialize in specific terrains camo.(also give me a better excuse to use my jerry rigged camo infantry textures)

[Zuikaku]

Since I'm bringing up various things on generational warfare. The use of Camouflage uniforms was an important change in 2nd gen warfare. hopefully you have techs which adjust the units stealth ratings based on this in the future. Maybe going so far as to have techs to specialize in specific terrains camo.(also give me a better excuse to use my jerry rigged camo infantry textures)

I think that camouflage uniforms have more effect on tactical level (ground defense rating) than strategic (stealth value).

[MalaVolpe]

Maybe even have techs for small things like Steel Helmets which were introduced over the course of the war by many of the combatants. I also think the Russian revolution needs to be shown to some degree especially due to that events major ramifications later on. Maybe even have a specific scenario for the Russian Civil War? Anywhom, this game is an instant purchase for me

[Micheal Berg]

Great to see the SR series going forward.....waiting with bated breath...

One point i would like to add/discuss please;

Germany entered the war with the notion that it would be very difficult to fight a war on two fronts simultaneously, France (Western Front) and Russia (Eastern Front).
They estimated that Russia would take 6 to 8 weeks to mobilize its Armed Forces, and that it would take them (Germany), 3 to 4 weeks to conquer France (provided it used it complete military might)
The plan was to commit its whole force against France, then shift all of them quickly to the Eastern Front against Russia.
They planed to do this by using trains to move the force around. An estimated 8 000 trains for Western Front and 10 000 for the Eastern Front would be needed and taken from Germany's massive train infrastructure at the time.

Now, how would this be reflected in the game?

I must admit that i do not like fighting with infantry and towed artillery, as the time it takes to move around the map takes to long, even if you have developed infrastructure in a hex.

Would you be able to move a Infantry battalion from Paris to the Russian border within 2 game weeks?

In closing, thanks BG for the best game ever....

MB