Dev Diary July 2017 - SRGW Status Update

[Balthagor]

Game development with a small studio always presents unique challenges. The most common is that each person has multiple roles to play, often that pull one's attention in different directions. But today I'm pulling myself away from the development work to write a long overdue developer update.

Supreme Ruler The Great War has moved forward a great deal since my last blog in April. We've begun testing the Sandbox and the campaigns. The tutorial is also complete. There are still some specific features we're working on and those are some of what I'll be discussing today.

Trenches

Used extensively on the Western front and at times in the Eastern and Mesopotamian fronts, these became iconic symbols of the war. Our decision is to treat these as "upgrades" that can be added to the map, much like you would build a factory or base, but at a much lower cost and time to build. They will allow units to entrench where they otherwise could not. It will also make the location a "close combat" zone. Some of this is still to be implemented and might be tweaked at release.

Zeppelins

These were used in relatively small numbers, but will be featured. There were few countries using them, but France, Germany and the UK will have some in their opening inventory. The model for this is still pending, so can't show them off yet. The current plan is that they will move much as helicopters do in SRU.

Infantry and Artillery

At the start of the war, this is about all that existed in most armies. There were a handful of armored cars, but military leaders didn't yet understand how to use those effectively. New entries were created for pre '36 infantry with appropriate stats and slower movement speeds. Pre-1920 artillery have also had their movement speeds reduced.

Tech tree

As followers of our series would expect, the game builds on the technology tree which we have continued to develop for more than a decade now. Since SR1936 added techs going back to the 1900s, we already had some of what we would need, but have still added more than 25 new technologies and worked to keep the pace of unit discoveries consistent to what was seen during the war. Some technologies need to be added to deal with the new elements we model in The Great War, such as chemical weapon attacks...

Chemical Artillery

While the introduction of chemical weapons was just one of the many horrors of the battlefield in the first world war, it was of short-lived effectiveness. Interestingly, my research uncovered that gas attacks were the reason for the global trend away from beards, as gas masks fit best against a clean shaven face. Our decision for how to represent these in game is to introduce a new artillery unit flagged as a chemical weapon. Units hit by this artillery will face a higher level of suppression, which in game terms makes them suffer greater casualties when attacked. We're also adding a second technology to the tech tree which, once researched, negates the effect of this unit. So ideally chemical weapons in game will have a window of effectiveness to reflect their historical impact.

Events

This remains where the bulk of the development is focused. We have already added about 500 lines of events for the sandbox, with additional event lines for each campaign. These are mostly conditional and therefore require a lot of review to be sure they are properly implemented. Getting all the events in covering the years of the war is our biggest challenge at this time.

Once complete, our outline calls for one sandbox, five campaigns, one tutorial and two scenarios. Quite honestly, the scenarios are behind schedule. Most scenarios happen further into the war, making them dependant on the sandbox events we're still adding. We are considering a substitution for scenarios at release and adding scenarios post-release, but we'll update that as we reach the deadlines.

Thanks again to everyone for the ongoing support of Supreme Ruler The Great War, we look forward to getting the game out and getting the reactions of you our community members.

Cheers,

[Nerei]

I would say any claims that chemical weapons are ineffective today are quite erroneous. Yes primitive chemical weapons such as mustard gas can to some extend be negated with a simple gas mask but there are far more potent weapons available today (also mustard gas cause burns so it is still not completely ineffective even with a gas mask).

Today a simple gas mask alone is basically going to do nothing to save you from a chemical attack using say V series nerve agents (the VX variant is what was used to kill Kim Jong-nam).
A world war 2 soldier like this Finn is very likely to suffer an agonising death within an hour of exposure to a concentrated VX aerosol and this modern day US soldier is not going to be doing any better.

To protect against these you pretty much needs a full body suit rated for modern chemical agents and ideally an independent air supply to go with it. Such gear is bulky and any rupture of the suit can be fatal so usage of say V series chemical weapons certainly would cause increased attrition on the battlefield even against a prepared foe though preparation will naturally help quite a bit.
The V series is also intended as an area denial weapon and a saturated area will remain quite hazardous to unprotected humans for days maybe even weeks if the weather is right.

The V series is from the 1960's. Apparently the USSR conducted research into far more potent chemical weapons that where better at defeating chemical weapons defences while also being more deadly. These claims have not been independently verified from what I understand but it would not surprise me if they where at least partly true nor would it surprise me if the US have done exactly the same.
Basically the USSR did not at any point consider chemical weapons for usage against NATO forces obsolete so chances are they probably are not.

There is also the question if you want to consider weapons such as white phosphorus ammunition as chemical weapons. Those are certainly still quite potent and fairly difficult to defend against. Basically any skin contact is quite bad and I suspect it would be bad for traditional chemical protection gear too.


It also just feels wrong that suddenly chemical weapons does not work. Basically conducting research means say all the ISIL fighters many of whom only have an assault rifle suddenly have a fully functional HAZMAT suit.
Militia troops, garrisons and other fast assembled troops might have limited protection against simple chemical weapons such as mustard gas but would be complete and utterly annihilated by any competent usage of say V series nerve agents.


Sorry to rant about chemical weapons but seriously these weapons are not obsolete. You are less likely to have a concentration of soldiers like you do in the trenches making them less effective, an NBC protected vehicle is fairly impervious making them less reliable than during the Great War and usage of chemical weapons is a diplomatic nightmare but they are certainly still effective if used right.

All that said it is interesting to read what thoughts goes into the design.

[way2co0l]

The thing with the chemical weapons in this sense is that they're focusing exclusively on its application to the WW1 era and basically leaving everything else the same as it's been. It's not a new chemical weapons mechanic that they plan to roll out into the broader game, instead only applying to this small window of opportunity. I can understand why because to provide a genuine chemical weapon component would require a lot of work to turn it into a fully fleshed out feature which they don't have the resources for. The mechanic they're adding sounds fine within the WW1 context, but wouldn't really work the same for later eras which is why I think they're limiting it.

[Balthagor]

I would say any claims that chemical weapons are ineffective today are quite erroneous...

Our goal is only to model chemical weapons between 1915-1918, not to model modern chemical weapons.

[Nerei]

As someone that prefers the modern period I really would have hoped it would somehow be tied to the already existing "NBC protected" flag. To me it also appears fairly strange to have that yet not use it when introducing chemical weapons but never mind then.

[Kristijonas]

I think BG is shooting itself in the foot by focusing on exclusive content for a WW1 game that only niche players are more interested in, instead of making it portable to SR:U which is the flagship of SR series. Especially when the system is already there and could be easily ported to add modern bio/chemical warfare to the game. But they were always weird with decisions. For example not wanting to make the game more complex... when the selling point of the game is its depth and appeal to simulator fans. Now you're losing appeal to complex strategy lovers and you will still not be interested and too complex for the rest. I guess the world just looks too different from the BG side and from the player side. Also don't mean to complain, the game (SRU) is already awesome!

[Kristijonas]

Oh but otherwise really nice things for SRGW! Just not much excited for the period.
Also are trenches really close combat zones? As far as I understand, it seems like they are on the contrary - far combating zones, with mortars, artillery being most important.

[Zuikaku]

I think BG is shooting itself in the foot by focusing on exclusive content for a WW1 game that only niche players are more interested in, instead of making it portable to SR:U which is the flagship of SR series. Especially when the system is already there and could be easily ported to add modern bio/chemical warfare to the game. But they were always weird with decisions. For example not wanting to make the game more complex... when the selling point of the game is its depth and appeal to simulator fans. Now you're losing appeal to complex strategy lovers and you will still not be interested and too complex for the rest. I guess the world just looks too different from the BG side and from the player side. Also don't mean to complain, the game (SRU) is already awesome!

I agree on this.

Also, Zeppelins should act as earliest form od strategic bombers and not helicopters. Historically, they could not land on unprepared airstrips and needed complex syste, of dedicated structures to refuel, rearm, repair and maintain. Also they were very sensitive to storms and rains - so they needed gigantic hangars. That were in fact large airfields/airbases. From gameplay perspective, do we really want AI to continue building (useless) zeppelins until the mid 0s when first helicopters are becoming available...
Like I said before, they were early form of strategic bombers and were used as strategic bombers. The moment when Gotha bombers, Handley Paiges or Zeppelin Staakens become available they were considered obsolete. Bombers were faster, easier to mantain, less expensive (and combustible) and more durable.

[George Geczy]

As is noted above, the WWI form of Chemical Weapons is certainly different than the modern form of nerve agents and other hyper-deadly products. We support the general view since WWII that use of such agents in warfare is not a valid tactical or strategic option - a combination of moral position and also recognition that the use of such weapons in response would be undesirable. As such, modern chemical weapons don't really have a role in the modern game simulation that fits a realistic narrative.

The WWI level of chemical weapons, on the other hand, was both a historical fact, and had not yet developed the moral "line" that we have in modern day thinking. The developments in the engine are targeted at that level of chemical technology.

Also, Zeppelins should act as earliest form of strategic bombers and not helicopters.

The relationship to "helicopters" is more regarding the simulation dynamic - how they move and use fuel. Their use in game would be more as early recon and strategic bombing. Hopefully the AI won't choose to build them by mid-century (although a modern day Zeppelin attack would certainly be unexpected!)

-- George.

[Nerei]

The General view supported by everyone but the US, USSR, UK, Libya, Iraq, Syria, the PRC, the DPRK and probably quite a few others but those are just the nations I know have had a chemical weapons program during the Cold War or later. That is to say a lot of nations did not support it.

As for feasibility you are aware of the Iran-Iraq war right? I have seen any number between 20.000 and 100.000+ dead Iranian soldiers listed as casualties from chemical warfare. That war was 1980 to 1988 and was between two fairly small states all things considered (compared to say an all out US-USSR war in Europe).
wikipedia link

The Iran-Iraq war really is the poster child for the feasibility of chemical weapons even in modern times.

Then there is Syria. I assume I do not have to provide links for that conflict? Yes we can argue if it is used against civilians or combatants but the difference between say SDF soldiers and civilians is not that great. They certainly will not survive a dose of VX so if you have it and are willing to use it it certainly will be effective.


So yes you may not think usage of chemical weapons during the Cold War and later is feasible but Iraq and Syria kinda proves you are wrong if you are willing to accept the political fallout. Then again that argument can be made for any WMD.
The above list of nations that disagree with your view of them not being feasible is also fairly telling really.

I also have to ask you when you intend for that cut off period to hit because Japan extensively used chemical weapons in China during the 1930's and 40's and apparently the US where both concerned about being attacked by chemical weapons and how to best deploy them against the USSR during the early parts of the Cold War. That is not considering the Iran-Iraq war which again was 1980 to 1988.


All this said I thought this game was about warfare amongst other things and we would not be restricted as to what is considered morally acceptable.
That said do you seriously think it is morally acceptable today if the US used nuclear weapons to turn every major PRC city into a glass crater? What about Russia doing it to US cities? How about the usage of nuclear weapons in general? We can do that in-game right now.
That is most certainly not morally acceptable but it certainly is possible and would have an effect as would the usage of chemical weapons on the battlefield as proven by nations like Iraq. They work. It has been proven more than enough to not be debatable. The sole question is if a nation is willing to take the consequences but again that is true with any WMD.

edit: I just want to stress that I am not demanding you add chemical weapons for later periods just please do not use the argument they are not effective or morally reprehensible.

[George Geczy]

The General view supported by everyone but ...

Good points, many of which I thought about when I was creating my post. There's no perfect answer, just a spectrum of opinion on the matter. For my own personal thoughts on your points:

- Most "non-rogue" states claim their Chemical stockpiles are intended as deterrent against the other side using their chemical weapons. And as creepy as that logic is, to some extent is effective, leading to my position that they would not be used in modern warfare.

- Nuclear weapons are actually more likely to be used in modern warfare because they can more easily be used against a number of states that do not have nuclear weapons; nukes are hard to develop, chemical weapons much less so.

- Post-WWI uses of Chemical weapons were still primarily similar to design to WWI formulations (mustard gas derivatives), and so the mechanic we are adding to the engine would work for simulating those. For example, in the Iraq/Iran war, the average use in battle resulted in under 10,000 casualties, and this would be simulated by the game engine mechanic we are adding for the WWI simulation; including the use of the NBC protection flag to protect against those attacks.

My comments against Chem in the modern maps are more directed towards the hyper-militarized nerve gas types, which would be far more deadly and indiscriminate than the mustard gas variants that Iraq and Syria and their predecessors used.

Although at this stage we haven't added a post-WWI (mustard gas) chemical artillery weapon to the game, using the new Chemical Weapon mechanic this can certainly be added or modded.

-- George.

[Kristijonas]

Yeah chemical weapons are totally indiscriminate and in many modern scenarios would lead to more civilian deaths than military deaths. And we know BattleGoat does not approve of genocidal tools

Likewise as George said, chemical weapons are shunned upon and rarely used in modern warfare so adding the mechanic to game is understandably not a priority.

That being said, most of the major countries have chemical weapon arsenals and Supreme Ruler being a simulator of "what if" warfare scenarios, it should be assumed that many of those wars WOULD see use of chemical weapons. For example imagine full-out wars of NK vs SK or China vs India. So it'd still be nice to have.

If it were my choice I'd probably make a new unit (or a few depending on agent used) that would basically be a movable land unit which upon selecting could be chosen to "deploy weapon" and it'd affect the hex that unit was in, reducing population and killing non NBC units and damaging NBC units depending on their NBC level. The chemical weapon unit would be destroyed in doing so.

[way2co0l]

Well, just for my final 2 cents on the matter, I'd definitely love to see a working mechanic for chemical weapons as well, but from my personal perspective, it's not as big a deal to me. I'd rather see a working static front form of trench warfare, a much improved naval AI, and of course a map editor. Plus many other things. I respect that my priorities may not be the same as everyone else's, but for the things I personally desire, chemical weapon features are low on my list for what I'd prefer to see development time spent on so I understand if what they describe here is the extent of what they add for it. Again, no disrespect to those that want different things than I do, it's just my perspective.

[Nerei]

The totally indiscriminate weapon is the biological one. Chemical weapons are fairly controllable by comparison. G-series nerve agents remain potent for a fairly short period of time and would require re-application to maintain saturation of an area. From what I remember some of the G series nerve agents seriously starts losing potency in 30 minutes or so. Unless the enemy is right on top of you G series can be used without much risk.
Really it is the ideal weapon to throw at enemy positions wait a bit and then advance on the sick and dying enemy soldiers. If they are as well prepared as the Iranian infantry where casualties will be heavy.

If you read about how Iraq used them during the Iran-Iraq war it was actually fairly controlled and as long as you are not a moron and launch chemical shells while standing down-wind you are fine. Typical deployment would be with long range artillery and aircraft and attacked areas would generally use short lived chemical weapons such as G series allowing rapid occupation of said area. Area denial would naturally use weapons with greater longevity but the Iraqis did not plan to go near those anytime soon.

For the record Iraq did use potent G-series nerve agents such as tabun (GA) and Sarin (GB). It is not as potent as the V series nor is it as stable but sarin is still quite deadly and like the famous VX can be absorbed through skin.


As for usage of chemical agents I would not say they are less likely to be used than nuclear weapons. just the fact that they are one of the weapons of choice for unstable, rogue regimes is a good indicator that they are likely to be used.
Also they have actually been used far more. Literally hundreds of times in the Iran-Iraq war alone. They are just more local and harder to detect. Cuba has been accused of deploying both Sarin and VX when it intervened in Angola and Syria is accused of having used Sarin against rebels. Even if not true the Syrian regime most certainly have had the capability to produce it. I have seen claims that they where capable of producing V series too.

The Symbolism in Kim Jong-nam, the brother of Kim Jong-un being assassinated with VX nerve agent is fairly hard to miss. The DPRK has VX that much is certain.

Really there are several nations that are happy to use such weapons if they deem it in their interest and they have done so it the past.
If say the DPRK felt threatened and it might help them to saturate Seoul with VX I am fairly certain they would do just that.


Half the problem with chemical weapons is that they are so frighteningly easy to produce. One of the most extreme cases demonstrating this is probably Aum Shinrikyo when they in 1995 used Sarin in the Tokyo metro system. The doomsday cult actually made it themselves.
The other thing to consider is that it affect more people than just those killed outright. The Tokyo attack "only" killed 12 people but affected upwards of 5000 people. If the chemical weapon fully or just partially incapacitates the opponent it has worked quite well. In many ways they should be seen as support weapons.

They are also quite great weapons for demoralising the enemy.
You can imagine the joy it must be to fight in a region saturated with an extremely potent nerve agent. Even if you are properly protected any scratch, any rupture of your suit might very well expose you to lethal level of the agent and give you a fast but quite painful death. It most certainly is not good for morale which is also something chemical weapons are. Terror weapons.

Both the US and USSR considered this as a feasible tactic and the above mentioned VX is fairly capable as an area denial weapon. Iraq for comparison used far less potent chemicals such as Mustad gas for that role.¨


As for civilian casualties that might be the goal with chemical weapons in the first place. VX would be quite effective at clearing out say a garrisoned city.
Gassing a city is not a bad way to demoralise the enemy and that usage should not be underestimated. During the Iran-Iraq war Saddam Hussein threatened to load the missiles fired against Iran with chemical weapons and just the threat caused panic amongst the civilian population in cities such as Tehran.


Edit: For the record better AI is in my top 3 of most wished for updates. Chemical weapons is not ^_-

[YoMomma]

Trenches

Used extensively on the Western front and at times in the Eastern and Mesopotamian fronts, these became iconic symbols of the war. Our decision is to treat these as "upgrades" that can be added to the map, much like you would build a factory or base, but at a much lower cost and time to build. They will allow units to entrench where they otherwise could not. It will also make the location a "close combat" zone. Some of this is still to be implemented and might be tweaked at release.

The big question is, will ai use/make these or is this another OP player option?

[Edit by Moderator: Formatting cleanup]