Scenario Plot Lines

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jun 05 2002

Some scenarios have obvious story-line histories (ex. the Middle East). But for other geographic regions in the world we need logical political reasons for local conflict. If any reasons occur to you, feel free to post them here!

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 05 2002

Asia- Japan,china,russia- mineral resoures,specificaly those islands south of japan that they all want,or the siberian resources.

Africa- political unrest- unified africa campaign

Africa- resources,uranium,diamonds,etc...

Ireland,England- re-unification of ireland

Australia- aborigine(sp) free state to reclaimation of entire country
Maybe a US version with the native tribes.

Asia- North ,south korea- unification

danc · Post by **danc** » Jun 06 2002

On 2002-06-05 17:10, tkobo wrote:
Asia- Japan,china,russia- mineral resoures,specificaly those islands south of japan that they all want,or the siberian resources.

This is the BIG ONE!

Another would be the Mexicans wanting to liberate the lands stolen from them in The Mexican-American war. The US would have to be in chaos prior to this starting.

jfbbis · Post by **jfbbis** » Jun 06 2002

Europe : a small country (Austria ?) goes extremely extreme right, the others european state decide to intervene to "preserve human rights", the small country calls ultra nationalist russia to help..

Reddemon · Post by **Reddemon** » Jun 10 2002

Hey i have one. How about the Cubans taking back there land from that evil dictator Fidel then striking back at russia for putting them in a communist community for over 50 yrs.

I do have another question about the campaign in the game. Is it going to be opened-ended campaign? Meaning after a few hundred turns the game wont just give up on me or the AI starts to make some really stupid moves. Also is the AI going to really put some pressure on you when it sees that you are trying to take over the world.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jun 10 2002

On 2002-06-10 09:20, Reddemon wrote:
I do have another question about the campaign in the game. Is it going to be opened-ended campaign? Meaning after a few hundred turns the game wont just give up on me or the AI starts to make some really stupid moves. Also is the AI going to really put some pressure on you when it sees that you are trying to take over the world.

Some scenarios may be more open-ended than others. One of the possibilities we are contemplating is that there will be "Region Re-Unification Votes" scheduled to occur at a specific date in some of the Western Democracy Scenarios. This would put a firm end date on a scenario... You either win that election, or you lost the scenario.

The other option would be making it truly "Open-Ended", in which case, NO the AI player would not suddenly get brain dead and allow an easier win. The AI will actually be learning from your actions, so the longer a scenario runs, the more likely you will be to lose it!

Reddemon · Post by **Reddemon** » Jun 10 2002

Thank you for answering my question BG.

I love this AI already. Finally a AI that is worthy to compete with me on a head to head game. Well for now I will just sit back and wait and keep reading everything about this game until it hits the market or go back and keep playing with Super Power

Actually saying that, I do have another question about nuke warfare. Is it going to always end up in a nuke conflict like SP or can i take over the world with conventional means. I know how AI's are they dont like to lose so is your AI programmed to use nukes first or to use them once they have been used on it?

I have so many questions and so little patience

well i will go back to work now and just keep daydreaming of the release date for this game.

btw i found out about this game on Super Power forum

even there they say good stuff about your game.

[ This Message was edited by: Reddemon on 2002-06-10 10:27 ]

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 10 2002

Cuban scenario,thats a good one that gets my vote.

[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2002-06-10 11:17 ]

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 11 2002

Is it going to always end up in a nuke conflict like SP or can i take over the world with conventional means. I know how AI's are they dont like to lose so is your AI programmed to use nukes first or to use them once they have been used on it?

I have a strong personal preference here, which is to make the AI not use nukes unless the human player(s) do first.

Interestingly, this may make the game more fun to play for those players that avoid nukes themselves, but there is some question about how realistic it would be - for instance, recently it was reported that the US has a 'nuclear weapons plan' that includes a large number of situations where the US would use nukes against conventional attacks. And let's not forget that the first nuke used in wartime was also launched by the US against a conventional-weapons enemy; so if a Western Democracy is so willing to choose this type of weapon, how likely is it that a fanatical dictatorship would avoid it?

-- George.

harley9699 · Post by **harley9699** » Jul 04 2002

"I have a strong personal preference here, which is to make the AI not use nukes unless the human player(s) do first."

This is a good alternative. Great thought.

samsam · Post by **samsam** » Jul 05 2002

potential conflicts:
1) India -Pakistan !!
2) Arab world -Israel (already inluded)
3) China expansion east (Spratly islands!) versus Filipines (USA..), Vietnam, Malaysia
4) China expansion west (Tibet, butan, corner with Pakistan/India, perhaps beyond)
5) USA's tentacles in S-America (donot rule out Uncle Sam's malicious intentions in current and recent history..boys).
6) Islam insurgance against ' the rest of the infidel world':
Muslims in SW Philippines, Indonesian radicals, Pakistans, Algerians, Libyans, Tsjaad, Iraq, Iran,..well, the list is long..
7)Bit far fetched: 'united' narcotics producing S-American and middle american countries versus the US ..or combined latino american countries with different interests (narcotics, no more IMF support,communists, etc..) against the US (which is somehow 'weakened'..(a political split/conflict of old confederates versus east coast states?)).

Bougainville Solomons;
Starts with papua new guinea versus slanders..
Then Australia gets involved..
Then ecoterrorists and/or Cuba supports the islanders..
More pacific island nations support Bougainvilleans..
Japan Indonesia/Malaysia/philippines support islanders..
..well, then it is up to you to make a balanced set of adversaries...to 'start' teh conflict.

9) Zambia..versus 'the rest of southern africa..
10) South Africa wanting to expand (in accordance to its political and economical growing importance)

11) Antarctica..ice melts;interesting resources and 'ancient' cultural sites discovered:
Global sprint of the big nations to get their piece of that cake
(currently: US, Norway, Chili, Australia, Newzealand..what more ?)..but why not some Chinese and Russian armed 'explorers' send there as well ?
(study 'Spratley islands conflict').

12) United Europe versus defecting nations..
(as with 19th century Civil war in the states)..
some One-Europe hardliner and dominating nations (France/Germany/Benelux/Portugal /Ireland) versus non pro-europe nations (UK, Switzerland (why not ?), Denmark, Norway, Austria) and provences of nations that disintegrate (Italy: Lombardia north/south split; Spain Bask split, Greece; Macedonia, Crete...).

13)
Greece -Turkey (correct..because turks are fed up of not being allowed to enter the EU)

..I also want to make it a strong point that nuclear missiles should not be used in this game..as it spoils the strategical/tactical 'fun' of such a game..
..with tanks and bombs you can argue that it selectively targets the opponent's military units..
..with a nuke you really can't..

Ps..what time period does this game have ?
Does it start with the time of the first world war ? Second world war ?

PPS WW2 saw that logistics and 'ports' of entry (harbours, airports, distribution points) were VERY important to keep an offensive going (Antwerp harbour, Tobruk North africa, Pacific theatre Islands hopping)...
How is this influence incorporated in this game ?
Are supply lines being 'measured' and affecting the supply output ?

Post by **Balthagor** » Jul 05 2002

On the timeline, we titled it Supreme Ruler 2010 as it is a follow up to the old TRS-80 Supreme Ruler but takes place beginning in the year 2010. Most scenarios will span 1-4 years and most campaings 10-25 years.

Thanks for the scenario comments, though I can rule out the Antarctica idea as it would not fit the current set of maps we are working on. However, the map editor will be included with the game so you'll have plenty of chance to make your own maps and send them out to friends.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Jul 06 2002

Hi this is my first post!

I just thought while you are talking about nukes I could ask a question:
How is nuclear (or chemical) warfare handled in the game.What are the options and how are nukes delieverd?

And BTW I like to see the nuclear missles stay,since they are realistic(In fact most warheads would be delieverd by missle).

[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2002-07-06 07:18 ]

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jul 06 2002

On 2002-07-06 07:15, Juergen wrote:
How is nuclear (or chemical) warfare handled in the game.What are the options and how are nukes delieverd?

NBC Weapons are handled as a technological advancement. If you have developed the technology, then any weapon that in the real world can be NBC equipped, will have that option in the game. (eg. SCUD Missiles will have conventional warheads, but if you develop NBC technologies, then you would have the option of replacing the warhead.)

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Jul 07 2002

Interesting,and what kind you damage would it do?Will the terrain around ground zero be destroyed (along with cities and the people),will there be fallout?Are ICBMs in the game?Will it be possible to do preemptive strikes?(That would be intersting since alomst no game simulates that)