The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2152
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

Some more suggestions from Whismerhill over on Discord:
suggestion : when a country specifically ask for resources for less money :
-if it's because relationship is bad => change nothing
-if it's for another reason : (country is broke/country has internal troubles/country is at war....)
then relabelling/tagging diplomacy actions as "aid" would be kinda cool, and also would make it obvious that you're getting relationship bonuses because you're being the "good guy" that helps their country

-option to put trades on the country's debts toward you would be cool too ? (dunno if this exist in real life?)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
el_slapper
Captain
Posts: 142
Joined: Jun 30 2005
Location: vente
Contact:

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by el_slapper »

Back to the game after a long time. Just finished off the USA in WW2 scenario (with Italy, not with Andorra, I know, I'm weak...)

keep in mind I did not try this galactic thing yet (will have to, one day), so maybe some things are already there.

(1) Scale the price of infrastructure techs. By infrastructure, I mean all techs that actually improve your industrial base. Power grid should cost according to the size of the country/electric production. Rail upgrades should depend on the size of your railway system. I don't get why it should cost Serbia as much as Russia to upgrade its rail system.

(2) this one is an engine overhaul, so I don't know if possible, but... disconnect units from vehicles/equipment, ala HOI4. it would make for a more logical units life cycle.
(a) enough equipment is produced (let's say 18 G91Rs)
(b) training is done.
(c) unit is sent to combat, gets experience, suffers losses
(d) replacements for losses are taken directly from production (I lost 5 G91Rs? I need to manufacture them again. I can't replace them just by magical repair). Some experience is likemy to be lost with replacements (adjusted with military financing?). Replacements make efficiency lower for several weeks (I just read from Michel Goya that you need 1 week for refurbishing 10% of a unit, though I don't know how broad it counts)
(e) when a new model is available (still in my italian case, the Tornado IDS), I need a full set of 18 tornados in reserve to send the unit in training again. Some experience is lost due to the difference between G91 & Tornado. Pilots lost some specifics, but after training, still keep a lot of their battle experience. Remaining G91s are sent back to reserve, from where they can be used to replenish remaining G91 units, ve scrapped, or be sent to an ally (Like Italian France).



==>advantage of point 1 : makes playing a huge country more painful, like IRL. There are too many advantages to be huge, and not enough advantages being small.
==>advantages of point 2 : makes weapons production more dynamic, allows reserves to be used a more realistic way, makes replacements actually make sense, makes sold units to foreign countries not immortal (Mirage F1 are no more manufactured, you lose one, it's lost forever IRL)

I don't mean go full HoI4 and allow full customization of batallions. This would be insane considering the scale of the game (I would actually love it, adding a few Milans and Mistral to my Vabs, but I'm not sure it would fit well huge scenarii).

But manufacture Tornados one by one, and you need to keep the line open as long as you want your squadrons replenished after losses at war.


There is also a point (3) I want to make, but production times seem too short to me. It's damn too easy to churn out insane numbers of units quickly to react to geostrategic changes. Not entering politics, just current events show that in a modern war that does not last years, belligerents are stuck to what they have at war start...and what is sent to them with quick training from non-fighting allies.
War, about who is right?about who is left!
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2152
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

Individual locks for social spending and taxes! (like in SR2010)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2152
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

Another from Discord:
Whismerhill wrote: introduce policies
a couple example :
-POLICY : use guided ballistic/missile artillery
EFFECTS : reduce area effect damage by 50% (units in same tile get less blast damage from artillery damage)
increase cost of ammo, reduce civilian casualties by 90%, increase international opinion
-POLICY : ensure civilians are not near target of operations :
EFFECTS : reduce civilian casualties by 90%, increase international opinion, increase indirect strikes capable units initiative (slowing attacks), decreases population unrest in democracies, increase population unrest in dictatorships
-POLICY : barren earth
EFFECTS : destroy vital infrastructure, every building indescriminately in cities
+50% to structures & pop, -25% damage to units, reduce entrench bonuses in cities
emigration from territory that is loyal to a country you're at war with increases
once sufficiently destroyed a city may not offer the "close combat" in all cases (e.g. game may roll a dice & treat the city as open terrain)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2152
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

A button that lets you share techs and unit designs with your colonies automatically.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 304
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by milivoje02 »

Joint research of units and technology with other countries.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 21183
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by Balthagor »

SGTscuba wrote:
Apr 29 2022
A button that lets you share techs and unit designs with your colonies automatically.
Done - it's a Treaty that has been added for GR development. There are two, one for "share a snapshot of what we know right now" and one for "share now and ongoing".
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 21183
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by Balthagor »

milivoje02 wrote:
Apr 29 2022
Joint research of units and technology with other countries.
This would need more details. What do you mean by "joint"? Are we both putting money in? What if my economy is twice as big?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2152
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

Balthagor wrote:
Apr 29 2022
SGTscuba wrote:
Apr 29 2022
A button that lets you share techs and unit designs with your colonies automatically.
Done - it's a Treaty that has been added for GR development. There are two, one for "share a snapshot of what we know right now" and one for "share now and ongoing".
Nice
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 304
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by milivoje02 »

Balthagor wrote:
Apr 29 2022
milivoje02 wrote:
Apr 29 2022
Joint research of units and technology with other countries.
This would need more details. What do you mean by "joint"? Are we both putting money in? What if my economy is twice as big?
Divide the project price by the number of participants. The organizer of the project comes with a price of project and determine the size of the investment. Expensive technological projects are carried out in this way.

-USA have more then twice bigger economy from United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands... And they participated in project F 35 plane.
-Yugoslavia in 1984 called France to help in development of Super sonic plane Novi Avion (in game NA-1 Kobac 11129). French Dassault designed and supported development in Yugoslavia(Belgrade(Zarkovo air institute)). Francehad had economy several times larger than Yugoslavia's.
-Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain join in Eurofighter Typhoon project and there were oscillations in their economies. And is currently only produced in the UK.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2152
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

I think the Indirect flag shouldn't have any effect during ship to ship combat. This would mean battleships would only engage 1 ship at a time instead of just engaging an entire stack. This would make smaller ships more viable en masse against them instead of just getting stack wiped.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Nerei
General
Posts: 1320
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by Nerei »

I agree. Even with large calibre main guns you really need a direct hit to do much especially if your opponent is armoured. Splash damage is not really a thing you can count on and unlike say infantry you cannot mix up a few destroyers unless you plan on ramming them together.

Really unless we assume battleships are constantly swapping targets or their aim is sufficiently terrible that they randomly hit other ships they really should only hit one target at a time. For the record the first one means the crew is willfully spending a notable amount of their limited time and ammunition (re)acquiring range to enemy vessels and the latter means it is so inaccurate that it might as well lose 99% of its naval attack strength.

So yes I agree that warships should not do indirect damage to other vessels as it is implemented in the game.
Yes that means the battleship would only be able to engage say one enemy torpedo boat at a time but as it is right now you can have a battleship engaging 7 enemy battleships at the same time which is at least as unrealistic and at least the former means bringing along a destroyer meat-shield has more value.
In general a rework of how indirect fire works would be great as the current system has some issues like how bombers and artillery are a bit too great at turning a very large area into fine red mist (yes a hex is an insanely large area to turn into paste unless we are using megaton range nuclear weapons).
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 21183
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by Balthagor »

Just to be clear, you would still have them indirect against any land targets they engage?

If we find indirect fire "too effective" we could of course bulk increase indirect defense of all units by for example 10% or something...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2152
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by SGTscuba »

Balthagor wrote:
May 25 2022
Just to be clear, you would still have them indirect against any land targets they engage?

If we find indirect fire "too effective" we could of course bulk increase indirect defense of all units by for example 10% or something...
Yes, the ships would still indirect against land targets as they'd effectively be artillery then.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Tnarg
Colonel
Posts: 255
Joined: Feb 06 2008

Re: The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

Post by Tnarg »

Supreme Ruler Next Generation Wish list:

When building units, the ability to select battalion size and training level. Example 2, 3, 4, or 5 Companies in a Battalion and then choose Conscript, Reserve, Active, Elite training levels.

Unit Commands and Hierarchy. Attaching battalions to brigades or divisions and then attaching those to corps or armies. AI chooses from generic templates (Mechanized, Armor, Airborne..) Player can customize.

If a unit within one of these formations is lost a replacement is automatically drawn from reserves, you can designate if you want low, medium, or higher quality replacements.

Military Leader System, with leaders offering bonuses. Generic Leaders would be fine, but moddable for the community to add too.

Bring back the training system, Arctic, Desert, Mountain, Urban, Jungle, with associated bonuses to these environments.

More options for Casus belli: Cyber Attacks, Sanctions, Population type, Government Type

Different types of war declaration: Cyber War, Leader Removal, Special Operation, Limited War, Full

Cyber, Electronic, and Satellite Warfare.

Precision vs Scorched Earth Combat Effects on world population opinion.

Refugee system.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”