SR30: On Resources, Production, and Trade by AVP

[AVP]

On Resources, Production, Trade and Investment:
Read Time: 17 minutes

Supreme Ruler is indeed a smart game. However, some of the mechanics that make it so, the economy in this case, deserve a review and revamp for the next title. This post outlines my wishlist of, not fantastical, but entirely possible changes to improve the accuracy of the simulation. There are understandable limitations dictated by the current engine, accessible gameplay experience, and, perhaps too, limitations on the company which make the current systems in place allowable, maybe even preferable by some. However, these systems are definitely not comprehensive, nor are they as smart as other aspects of the game. In three parts, I will make the case for expanding upon the current systems which deal with resources, production, and trade, and the way regions interact with one another in related matters by offering suggestions as to how such improvements could be made. Not all suggestions may be possible, but surely by laying out the case now, such features could be explored in the future.

- - - - - - - - - -

Part I: Resources

I understand that the synthesis of the 12 current resources in the series is a deliberate decision, limited by the constraints of the current engine and the necessity to simplify game mechanics for UI and gameplay purposes. However, the current list of resources holds the game back, not because more detail is better - this is not always the case- but because in its current form it lends itself to an inaccurate representation of the value of land and populations, and the modern global economy.

A reminder, the 12 resources featured in SR titles are: Agriculture, Rubber (debut in SR'36), Water (pre-SR'36), Timber, Petroleum, Coal, Ore, Uranium, Electricity, Consumer-, Industrial-, and Military Goods.

The simplified categories of resources are understandable, and I'd challenge anyone to come up with a better distillation of 12 critical resources, but they are imperfect in pretty significant ways. These general categories (some obviously more general than others) result in heavily advantaging some nations (mostly states with large amounts of territory), while significantly disadvantaging others. With the exceptions of the limited petroleum, uranium, and rubber deposits, most nations can pursue some form of autarky fairly easily with the other resources. As long as you have enough population and a reasonable amount of x resource within your own borders, you can forget about trading with the rest of the world entirely. Simply put, resources are in too great abundance. If you're playing as the United States, this may seem like an accurate representation of America's bountiful plains and resource-laden geography, however, even America needs to import. Whether it's Swiss Gold, Canadian Nickle and Aluminum, Colombian and Brazilian Coffee, Avocados from Mexico, Guatemalan Bananas, or German Pharmaceuticals, the United States needs goods from other countries. Yes, some of this trade is political, much of it because it's more economical, but still a critical portion of American trade is done out of necessity. The US does not have all of the raw resources needed to satiate its demand, both from industries and consumers. You really cannot grow cocoa in the continental United States, thus imports.

The current system though, makes this problem irrelevant. Demand for tropical fruit, plastics, or lithium is nonexistent. Thus, if you're Ecuador or Guatemala, China, Australia, or Chile, you really cannot leverage your competitive advantage and resource riches. If you're Ecuador, Banana exports make up nearly a fifth (18.6% in 2020) of your total exports, and Ecuador accounted for nearly a third of the world's banana production between 2014-2018 according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. That's $3.83B in 2020 according to OEC - not exactly chump change. However, try playing Ecuador in the 2020 Scenario and maintain your dominant hold on the world's share of banana production using the generic production of agriculture - yeah, your production of agriculture is inconsequential to the rest of the world. Meanwhile, you will watch as "agricultural" producers around the globe increase production and exports, and global demand for Ag subsequently falls to unsustainable levels, whereby your own production merely becomes subsistence. You're probably better off cannibalizing most of your farms and building oil fields... In the real world, if, due to some political or climate-/nature-related catastrophe, the world were to lose Ecuador's production of bananas, the world would probably go bananas. All the while producers in the Philippines and in other Latin American states would make cash hand over fist until either the lost production can be replaced or demand for bananas falls. This is just one example of how the game's lack of diverse commodities is a problem.

In Practice

OK, so what would an ideal list of commodities look like? Well, like a I said above, I challenge anyone to come up with a list of resources better than the one Battle Goat (BG) settled on given the engine constrainsts, however, I have a few suggestions. Ideally, you could add up to 40 commodities, with a cap of 60 or 70, represented in the game. This cap is not arbitrary; I've come up with a list of 40 commodities. Furthermore, if you're using over 60 commodities, you're venturing into the "nightmare territory" that Geroge Geczy mentioned, where production chains become too complex and overwhelming for both the game and the player. Bringing it back though, this number (cap of 60/70) would give the global economy a sufficient amount of commodities to address the issues stated above without overcomplicating this component of gameplay.

I've drafted up 4 sets of lists, titled S1-4 (Set 1-4), that include more detailed commodity sets. S1 is what BG currently portrays in the game, including water. S2 is my compromise to BG, fitting within the 16-commodity limit. Note that this list does not fully address the problems laid out above, but it does begin to address them. S3 is an even more detailed list of 20 goods and finally S4, which includes more than 35 goods. I won't be listing S4 as it is the least likely to be considered by the developers for this iteration of the game, but if you're interested, I'll share.

S2: The easiest to implement, yet still far from perfect (16)
- Agriculture
- Rubber
- Water
- Timber
- Petroleum
- Natural Gas
- Coal
- Common Metals and Stones (simplified common minerals)
- Precious Metals and Stones (simplified precious minerals)
- Rare Earth Metals
- Uranium
- Electricity
- Basic Industrial Goods
- Complex Industrial Goods
- Consumer Goods
- Military Goods

The interplay of these resources is still pretty simple and straightforward. One could certainly swap in Fuel for one of these resources as there's a strong case to be made, but it would require the elimination/simplification of another resource to fit within the 16-resource cap. Gun to my head, I'd combine Petroleum and Natural Gas and just label them Hydrocarbons and add in fuel. It would open up biofuel and refined petroleum production chains; The former which is to become more important in the future and the latter which is an important production chain today.

Anyways, starting with Water, it's used by Civ Demand, Agriculture prod., Coal/Common Metal/Precious Metal/RE Metal mining, Electricity PP production (coal/petrol/nat. gas/nuclear/hydroelectric [built on source]), Basic Industrial Goods (think concrete, cement, glass, bricks, lumber, pipes, fibers, plastics, chemicals, fertilizers, sheet metal, prefab structures, machine parts, wires, etc). Precious Metals and Stones are used by Civ Demand because oh, do people love shiny things. Nat. Gas via plant = Electricity. Basic Industrial Goods (inputs = water + timber + rubber + common metals & stones + petroleum/ or nat gas + electricity) used by Complex Industrial Goods, Consumer Goods, and the construction of infrastructure/buildings. Complex Industrial Goods on the other hands are the electrical components and heavy machinery that allows mordern, high-end manufacturing to exist... Semiconductors, ICs (microchips), other small electrical components, batteries, generators, engines, heavy machinery, vehicle bodies and frames, etc. The inputs for Complex Industrial Goods are RE Metals + Basic Industrial Goods + Rubber + Electricity. Complex Industrial Goods are used by Consumer Goods and certain unit fabrication.

S3: A step in the right direction (20)
- Grains and Oilseeds
- Fruits and Vegetables
- Livestock
- Coffee, Tea, and Herbs
- Rubber
- Water
- Timber
- Petroleum
- Natural Gas
- Coal
- Common Metals and Stones (simplified common minerals)
- Precious Metals and Stones (simplified precious minerals)
- Rare Earth Metals
- Uranium
- Electricity
- Basic Industrial Goods
- Complex Industrial Goods
- Basic Consumer Goods
- Complex Consumer Goods
- Military Goods

Again, a strong case could be made for refined fuel. Additionally, it seems reasonable that someone could make the case for aquaculture (fishies!) to be added, if not separately, attached to livestock. Livestock and Aquaculture could be grouped together with fish/shrimp/oyster/etc deposits on sea hexes. I left aquaculture out as I'm still unsure vis-a-vis in-game implementation. One can easily go down a rabbit hole with this one and before you know it you're asking the developers to figure out how to implement EEZs... and if you do, you better have a good suggestion for them. The other complication to aquaculture is that some, fish, move.. a lot. And, some countries extend their fishing into other nation's EEZs. A decision on this would also need to be made. Ideally though, aquaculture would be represented in the game.

To add one final thought on Livestock and Aquaculture, if this was in the game, it opens up the possibility for synthetic production facilities via tech to satiate Civ demand as traditional harvesting of these resources becomes A. unsustainable or B. less economical.

Two other honorable mentions that didn't make the list are Staple Fibers, notably cotton (though includes wool and flax), and Tobacco. You may remember your history teacher in middle- or high school referring to these as "cash crops". They're still very important commodities today, however fitting them into this list is tough and by including them you start to venture into Set 4 territory, which is why they were left out.

Alright, so looking at S3 again, most of the production and consumption models for these commodities would mirror those laid out in S2, but obviously, agriculture has been separated out here and Consumer Goods now also have a hierarchy to them. Let's start with agricultural products. Obviously, civilian demand for all of it. I think the more agricultural commodities your region has access to, the happier and healthier your population should be. Note: Coffee and certain Herbs are used in the manufacturing process of certain drugs/pharmaceuticals. However, if one really wanted to add them to the production chain of finished goods, I would add them into the process of basic industrial goods (think chemical compounds extracted from them) and call it a day. My suggestion though would be to just avoid this altogether and simply leave it at civilian demand. Same goes for Grains and Oilseeds, Fruits and Vegetables, and Livestock. You could make the case that these commodities could go into the production of Basic Consumer Goods (Clothing, Alcohol, Confections, etc), but again, my suggestion is to leave it modifiable for modders and simply have these goods consumed by Civ Demand after harvest.

Moving on to consumer goods, what are Basic Consumer Goods? Basic Consumer Goods are clothing, footwear, maybe jewelry (I'd leave precious metals working the way they do in S2 and keep it simple), furniture, toys, small household items (lamps, rugs, silverware, plates/cups/pots/pans, cleaning supplies, soaps, hygiene products, etc), paper products, paints, and basic tools. The inputs for Basic Consumer Goods are rubber + basic industrial goods + electricity. Complex Consumer Goods on the other hand are your gadgets: TVs, cellphones, computers, calculators, household appliances, 3D Printers, that CD-Rom of SR2020 you have lying around, your Xbox, cars, trucks, train and train cars, and aircraft. The inputs for Complex Consumer Goods are complex industrial goods + basic industrial goods + basic consumer goods + electricity.

UI

BG does not need to reinvent the wheel here. The current layout, yes, is too small to accommodate 16 (or more) resources, however, it isn't bad either. Other games have pursued a pop up window menu approach for displaying resource lists; think Paradox's Victoria, Hearts of Iron, Imperator Rome series or Factus Games's Making History series. If you really want to get fancy with it, include a graph of the change in the price of commodities. Many strategy game players have a hard time saying "no" to a game with graphs.

As far as placing resources at the top of the screen goes... I urge caution. Games that do this, Paradox's Stellaris or Factus's Making History, generally keep their resources simple. For instance, in both of these games "consumer goods" don't exist the same way as how SR represents them. Yes, you can build textiles in Making History but the motivation behind doing so is to produce "wealth", not because there is a domestic or international demand for textiles.

IF placing resources at the top of the screen is the direction the developers take, limiting the resources displayed should be considered (The vitals: energy, food, and military goods). The rest can be displayed in the full resource menu, whatever that will look like. Simple displays are fine and maybe even preferred. For instance, a drop menu to pull up data and options for specific commodities might make modding more resources into the game easier for modders.

Another wishlist UI feature is price graphs to show the historic trends (1-, 6-, 12-, 60-, and 120 months) of commodity prices on the world market. I'd like to know how prices compare historically and what trends exist in the market. For more on this see Addendum 2 below this post.

Closing Thoughts

There is a lot that can be done to improve the diversity of resources within the game while working within the constraints of the engine. If the max allowable resources are 16, USE THEM. This will vastly improve the economic simulation in the game as regions with better infrastructure, more technology, and more capital will be able to produce more high-end goods, while poorer regions will be able to exploit their competitive advantage in labor costs and location in the harvesting raw resources and basic goods.

- - - - - - - - - -

Part II: Production

Clearly, production is a huge part of the game. Whether it's harvesting raw resources, manufacturing goods, or building tanks -- you need facilities. This section will focus on economic facilities, though I may drop a comment or two touching on military fabrication as well. I will look at facility types, their inputs, and their interactions with the simulation -- demand, depletion/replenishment, determinants of production output, storage, scale, conversion, placement, and ownership. All of these suggestions aim to work within and build upon current systems operating within Supreme Ruler. All of my comments will work with the assumption of having a Set 2 list [see Part I] of resources in the game.

Facility Types and Inputs:

Building upon the current system for facilities in Supreme Ruler here is a list of facilities, their inputs, and characteristics.

Agriculture: Farms and Orchards as they exist nominally in the game as hexes with arable land without agriculture facilities shouldn't require electricity, water, petroleum, or basic- and complex industrial goods. To me, unimproved hexes capable of producing agriculture represent small, basic, just above subsistence farmland. Their labor-to-output ratio is much higher, making them less optimal. It makes sense for these unimproved plots to produce agriculture without the need for industrial inputs, but of course, their production is nowhere near its potential with a facility. Agricultural facilities on the other hand, to me, represent mechanized farms. These are larger farms with Tractors, Combines, and Planters; using electricity, petroleum, water, and synthetic agricultural inputs (fertilizers) to harvest crops. With the help of these inputs, they are extremely effective at doing what they do.

One type of agricultural facility is not enough though. Hydroponic facilities should make a comeback AND add an agricultural facility that is an alternative to the default where farms use more electricity and more complex industrial goods (Note: proposed default farm uses: Water + Petroleum + Electricity + Basic Ind Goods + Complex Ind. Goods). These second-tier farms don't necessarily produce more, but they represent farmers utilizing future electrical farming machinery. These farming facilities (hydroponics to work differently) should have a larger upfront finished good resource cost and then have a resource maintenance cost (aka inputs) but at a lower level for higher manufactured goods because even tractors break down.

Rubber: Things look good here. Rubber plantations and synthetic rubber all look good. I'd add basic the new category of industrial goods to the inputs for synthetics.

Water: Such a supercritical resource in many places. For those who don't live near an above-ground source of fresh water, your choices are wells/groundwater pumps or desalination plants. Wells are finite and require heavy machinery (aka complex industrial goods) to construct. Desalination plants consume a high amount of electricity to convert salt water into fresh but the only limit is cost and capacity (do you have enough electricity and can you afford them).

Timber: A-OK. Maybe consider adding finished goods and electricity as inputs for timber production, but I understand why there are no inputs for it currently.

Petroleum: This is mostly good - oil fields and oil rigs, solid. It's worth considering though that not all oil pumps are equal and you might need more advanced tech to reach certain deposits around the world. Perhaps some upgraded facilities to unlock via the tech tree are in order, that's my suggestion.

Natural Gas: Obviously drilling for natural gas is done using various methods depending on the source you're working with. To make it simple, you can just call one Conventional Gas Well and another Hydraulic Fracturing Well. Hydraulic Fracturing (Fra_cking) uses a considerable amount of water and the game should reflect that in the input required. Additionally, I think there should be a tech, let's call it Shale Extraction or Horizontal Drilling, that unlocks the Hydraulic Fracturing Well facility and unlocks more natural gas deposits. To reflect fra_cking's greater access to potential sources it should produce more gas than the conventional well facility, that way it also makes sense to build.

Coal, Uranium, Common-, Precious, and Rare Earth Mineral Mining: The way ore and coal extraction work in the game is nearly perfect as is. Two suggestions: 1.) Perhaps establish a similar hierarchy of two facilities to represent extraction and industry modernization; 2.) Mining coal, metals, and rock minerals require water in the extraction and harvesting process and mining requires lots of heavy machinery and trucks. The inputs should be water + basic industrial goods + complex industrial goods + (complex) consumer goods + electricity.

Electricity: With more resources, comes more options for power production. Facility-wise this one is pretty self-explanatory. I'll add that water should be added to inputs for coal, natural gas, petroleum, nuclear, and geothermal. Yes, that's right, geothermal too. With the addition of water as a resource back on the map, I think the placement of electricity on hexes (previously denoting areas acceptable for hydroelectric plant placement) could not indicate areas where geothermal energy could be harnessed. Dams going forward can maybe be placed on river hexes only where electricity is also present and geothermal on hexes that aren't rivers. Just one idea for how to minimize hydroelectric dam spam on every tile that's a river if this is the direction developers go with.

Also, if you're curious how much water different power plants use, here's a report sponsored by the US Dept of Energy in 2011 that lays it out. A fantastic table on page 14 of the report (pg 16 of the pdf reader). Link: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1171537

Finished Goods (Basic/Complex Industrial-, Consumer-, Military Goods): So we've covered the inputs for most of these, but I haven't touched on facility types. The current small, medium, and large scale works fine. Maybe add a mega size, call it an "Industrial Estate" or something, (=2-3 large goods plants) to represent production in larger cities where build slots become scarce.

Side Note #1: Shipyards

OK, so on the topic of facilities and scaling, certain production facilities should have stratified production scaling. In this case, shipyards should have three tiers to them; Let's call them Tier 1 (the largest, most capable yards [builds every ship classification under the sun]), Tier 2 (medium-sized yards, capable on building multiple small to mid-sized vessels simultaneously [if the devs keep the same mission classifications, this would be your transport, patrol, and escort craft, think anything up to 550 ft. in length]), Tier 3 (Small, single yard facilities, capable of building transport/cargo ships or OPVs [transport or patrol]).

If this is possible, I think it would be smart to also add production slots to a facility to represent size. So for instance, a tier-one shipyard would have 1 production slot capable of producing any ship (these facilities are extremely large and are the most expensive to build and maintain), a tier-two shipyard would have 2-3 productions slots capable of producing transport, patrol, and escort classes of ships (representing expansive yards with significant capabilities) and a tier-three shipyard would have 1 production slot for transport and patrol classes of ships.

These tiers do not correspond to any industry or military system of classification, however, I did borrow the professional model of classification for shipyards in determining what a tiered system could look like in the game.

Side Note #2: Infrastructure

Infrastructure (roads, rail, airports, seaports, etc) should also be stratified into tiers. Not all roads and railroads should distribute supply equally and this should affect the speed of units moving along them as well.

Road: Dirt roads, paved roads, highways. Roads should generally have a wider supply radius than rail, as trucks really are the workhorses of the global supply chain once cargo is brought to shore. They go just about anywhere.

Rail: Railroads, high-speed rail, high-speed maglev.

Airports and Seaports: This is a less pressing wishlist item, but airports and seaports can follow the same trend (each higher tier provides more supply + benefit than the last).

Airports can be stratified into airstrips (small capacity than airfields [2 Sqns max], airfields, and air bases. Note: There are a bunch of ways you can slice this, eg. by material (dirt, PSP, paved airstrips), by capacity (apron and runways), etc. But the three categories above keep things simple while still adding depth.

Seaports can be stratified into seapiers, seaports, and automated seaports. Now certain ports around the world are prime locations for unloading and loading vessels because they are natural harbors. The game could represent these important spots by having a water hex tile called Natural Harbor which increases the supply output of adjacent seaport facilities or all urban, industrial, and military facilities adjacent to it.

Pipelines: Pipelines are super important and their placement has played a critical role in history and geopolitics. If you weren't aware of this before the recent events in Europe, I bet you definitely are now. When I speak of pipelines, I only mean major pipelines which connect oil and gas sources to international markets. The developers surely know how important pipelines are, but the problem has always been implementation in the game. I have a solution to this [see Part III] but for this section, the only to suggest is that pipelines should be built and represented like road and rail infrastructure.

Electrical Grids: You could follow a similar path for electricity, but rather than have major power lines represented on the map, I think Electricity should be kept working as it was in SRU. My only suggestion would be to restrict the sale of electricity to only countries with an Integrated Power Grid treaty with the seller.

Side Note #3: Toursim and Financial Sectors

The Tourism and Financial sector facilities in the game should require consumer goods for operation. Even a nature reserve requires park employees who require service vehicles, outdoor equipment, and various other consumer products.

Demand

Demand should be dynamic. As the seasons, weather, and temperature change in parts of the world so too should their demand for electricity or water. I don't know if you need to divide the world up into Battlezone hexes where at certain parts of the years, let's say when X part of the world is between OCT and MAR, their Civ demand for electricity rises. Or for X Battlezone, their Civ Demand for Water is X, higher than other parts of the world. Or when Global Temperatures rise, Civ demand for X goods rise too. If we're discussing SR30, this needs to be a feature of the game.

Depletion

Some resources can be depleted. These non-renewable resource deposits need a limit on their gross output. I shouldn't be able to continuously mine a hex in the German Ruhr region with 6 coal mines or continuously pump oil from a hex with six oil fields in the Arabian Gulf for 100 years and have no end in sight to production. Listen, there's a lot of coal in the Ruhr and lots of oil in the Gulf, but it's not limitless. There needs to be some deference paid to sustainable resource management. Whether it's minerals, gas, oil, or uranium, these resources have a very long replenishment cycle and there should be a limit to the amount you can extract from each deposit; thus making management of extraction rates for these resources critical.

For renewables (water, timber, rubber) there should also be some management involved. There's only so much water you can extract from groundwater and it's possible to dry up a source of water if your consumption outpaces the source's replenishment. NOTE: I did not mention water sources that come from freshwater hexes, like lakes or rivers, because modeling consumption and replenishment rates from these sources seems too difficult to me. So good news for those who play nations on the Great Lakes or lovers of the Aral Sea and want to see it retain its remaining water supply.

Back to the manifesto... Similarly for Rubber and Timber, if you overharvest these resources the harvesting facilities should eventually consume the hex's ability to sustain production. This devastation should exist until a player decides to replenish the hex's ability to do so, and that should be EXPENSIVE and TIME-CONSUMING. After all, 16km of mature trees don't sprout up overnight.

If I consider Resource Set 3 for a moment and the inclusion of aquaculture, depletion should also be a possibility here too. Many nations are grappling with the consequences of decades, or even centuries, of overfishing and poor resource management. Some fishermen even leave their national waters for those of other states to harvest from their fisheries. If S3 were to be included, the depletion of aquaculture should be present as well.

There should be techs that help increase your rates of extraction for raw resource facilities and perhaps also a tech that gives you access to the numbers on how many units of X resource remains in a hex.

Replenishment

Just as resource deposits have limits to storage within a hex, they should also have a replenishment rate. So X amount of a given resource is added back into the hex's storage each day or year. Let's say I consume X amount of Timber from a hex each day, then there should also be X replenishment rate/day or year. Obviously, for non-renewables, this replenishment rate should be 0. Maybe you can synthetically produce certain non-renewable minerals in synthetic lab facilities via an expensive process with advanced tech as was the case with the modeling of synthetic oil and rubber production in SRU.

Just as technology can help improve extraction rates of resources, so too should technology help with replenishment rates. In the US for instance, current practices are estimated to harvest 900 million trees/year with nearly 2.5 billion replanted annually. The reforesting ratio, in this case, is 2.5 trees replanted for every 1 tree harvested.

Other Determinants of Production Output/Extraction Rate:

Extraction rates over time are of course not linear. Problems and Disasters, both man-made and natural, occur affecting output. Be it a forest fire, storm, disease (plants get sick too), war, on-site accident, plague, or protest, production delays should occur. Some events are random (forest fires, storms, poor harvest, protests, on-site accidents) and events such as war (or sabotage) are determined by players and the AI. These dilemmas should exist in the game to provide another layer of depth to the production simulation. Obviously, certain climate-related events can be tied to climate spending or pollution in a given region, and protests could be tied to approval ratings (maybe the workers or companies want a lower tax rate).

Storage

OK, so a big wishlist item of mine for SR30 is the introduction of storage capacity. This precursor to a massive system like this already exists in the game when looking at electricity storage, but for other goods, this system doesn't apply. Currently, nations can store endless quantities of goods. This means that when the market price for a commodity falls, tough choices such as reducing output don't necessarily need to be made. You can merely reduce, or entirely stop, exports of that commodity until market prices return to a preferable level, all the while you've accumulated loads of that good. I'd like the developers to introduce storage capacities for various commodities.

It can work like this: Every urban center, seaport/-pier, airport, and supply depot, contributes a small amount of storage capacity to the overall storage capacity for each good. Barracks provide a small amount of storage capacity for military goods (like 500-1K). All raw resource extraction facilities and finished goods facilities provide some storage capacity for their specific commodity. And finally, specialized storage facilities (which don't provide supply like supply depots) provide storage for specific goods. Here's what these specialized storage facilities could look like:

Grain Storage Facility (Food warehouses, freezer facilities, and silos) provides 500,000 units of agricultural storage capacity.

Water Storage Facility (Water tank facilities or reservoirs) provides 5,000,000 units of water storage capacity.

Oil and Gas Storage Facility (Oil and natural gas tank farms/depots) provide 15,000,000 bbl storage capacity

Military Goods Storage Facility (Motor pools, ammo depots, etc) provides 50,000 units of military goods storage capacity. An argument could be made for just having the supply depot facility serve this purpose. That seems reasonable to me as well.

Coal, Uranium, and Mineral Storage Facility (Specialized Warehouses, hangers, etc) provides 250,000 units of storage capacity for each of these resources.

Electricity Storage Facility (Large battery facilities) provides 250,000 MWh of storage capacity for a large facility and 25,000 MWh of storage capacity for a small facility. This should have two sizes as battery technology will improve our ability to store electricity for those rainy days. Obviously, the larger facilities are more advanced tech and should be more expensive. These storage facilities and urban centers are the only facilities that should provide storage for electricity.

Warehouse Facility This facility provides 75,000 units of storage capacity to the national storage capacities for Timber, Rubber, Basic Industrial Goods, Complex Industrial Goods, and Consumer Goods.

I think the size of the urban center (village, town, city) should affect the storage capacity it provides.

Conversion

I understand upgrading units and facilities was an idea explored by the developers in the past. For facilities, I don't think they should be "upgraded" per se, but rather just changed. There are times when you want a facility to use a different manufacturing process and other times when you need to revert it back [see Types of Facilities].

Placement

It would be amazing if you could negotiate with another region for the construction of a facility or infrastructure project in their territory. For instance, propose the construction of an airport at a specific hex or a road between your regions from point x to point y and offer to give them cash or goods in exchange for agreeing to the project.

I explored this idea in a mod I was planning for SRU. I had a unit, I had to make it a helicopter so it could cross borders, that would trigger an event if it was deployed on a hex for 5 days that would allow a player to pay (to the host region) to start construction of a specific facility (industrial, military, etc) on a hex. I'd imagine using this process in the game would be heavy on the game checking to see where these "agent" units are to trigger events. Perhaps the developers can explore another way to make this possible, such as making construction on the map pending, depending on if they accept an offer for, idk, cash for construction project.

Side Note: I think the game could benefit if the developers created a "diplomatic" trait that could be applied to units allowing them to cross other countries' borders without being harmed. I thought of units such as an "NGO" unit (improves civ rating with target country over time) or a "Land Procurement Delegation" unit (which would trigger an event to buy a certain hex for your region at a crazy cost of course). These are just a few examples.

Ownership

Like pipelines, I'll explore this idea more in Part III [see Foreign Direct Investment] but I want to start the discussion on this here. There are many industrial facilities around the world where the owner(s) or laborers involved in production are foreign nationals. This important reality needs to be reflected in the game. Now, to me, representing foreign labor in the production of goods is seemingly too difficult to model in SR, and the free flow of labor treaty abstractly covers this idea (sorta), BUT profits from an overseas facility could be modeled. Again, for more on this and my idea for implementation, continue reading Part III [see Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)].

- - - - - - - - - -

Part III: Trade and Foreign Direct Investment

In SRU, and in its preceding titles, trade always felt like it was lacking depth. For SR30 this area of the game should be expanded, allowing for more interesting gameplay while simultaneously adding another educational component to the game. Trading is too safe and all too easily can nations, who in reality both supply and rely on the WM, ignore it entirely if they so choose. This section offers suggestions for how to make trading and global investment smarter and more accurately represented in the game.

Trade

Currently, trade is portrayed too simply in the game. Every deal is safe (War in the Atlantic system aside) and resources move between sellers and buyers seamlessly and instantaneously. Worried that your military expansion into your neighbor will result in fewer buyers for your staple exports? Don't be! Embargos, quotas, and tariffs are nothing to worry about because they don't happen. Worried that your merchant fleet is vulnerable to piracy or enemy interdiction? Pssssh, relax; Everything is safe. This needs to change.

Sanctions

Starting with Sanctions, players should have the option to issue general or specific embargos, quotas, and tariffs on other regions. Embargos are the simplest to implement, where issuing one against another region means the end of trade, in totality or only for a specific good. This means that not only can an embargoed region not buy a good from me directly, but it should also not be able to buy that good from me on the WM either. You can take this idea a step further by combining it with some sort of interplay with diplomacy where groups of like-minded, very friendly nations can embargo other regions cooperatively.

Quotas are a lower-priority wishlist item, but it would be neat to have the ability to dictate how much of a good my nation imports from specific countries, not just the WM as a whole. Perhaps there can be an advanced options menu that hides this feature. It's worth considering seeing how important quotas and, more specifically, tariff-rate quotas are in trade, economics, and diplomacy.

On that last note: Tariff-rate quotas (TRQ) are quotas for a specific commodity being imported where any imports that exceed that quota are taxed at a higher rate. A notable example is the US TRQ on Nicaraguan sugar. American administrations have used TRQs on Nicaraguan sugar to punish for their actions which are displeasing to the US. The US also hopes that this can give the United States leverage in influencing a favorable change in position and action by the Nicaraguan govt. We can debate the efficacy of TRQs all day, but my point here is to illustrate how they are used and how they are important.

Tariffs

They can work exactly how they do currently, with the added suggestion above on TRQs and the option to just place blanket tariffs on imports from a specific region(s).

Modeling Trade on the Map

If possible without affecting the gameplay, I'd love to see goods move between buyers and sellers on the map. This gives ports and rail infrastructure greater importance. Plus, it gives AI and player navies, somewhere to patrol and something to escort when normally deploying a fleet seems unnecessary unless for planning and scouting purposes. On top of all this, you may also be able to model disruptions to the flow of trade goods - A canal becomes randomly blocked, a port blockaded (incoming enemy trade interdicted), a sea lane mined, etc.

In Practice, this is how I visualize this working. When a trade deal is agreed upon, the goods are taken out of inventory and begin moving from a seller's capital to the buyer's capital, where they are subsequently deposited into the buyer's inventory. Trade should be represented on the map with units displaying the amount of trade they have in cargo. So on land, I visualize this being depicted as a locomotive unit (displaying that it's carrying the max 1000 or 2000 units of X) from Washington DC to Ottawa via a rail connection. If the trade has to go embark on a ship to reach the buyer's capital then it should move from the seller's capital to the nearest port to the buyer's capital and then embark on a container ship unit (which can hold a max of 10,000 units of X) where it travels to the nearest port to available port to the buyer's capital then disembarks and continues via rail to the capital city.

Ok, so I know what you're thinking - What if a port A.) doesn't have a rail connection to the capital city, B.) A country is landlocked and/or has no access to a viable port within their country, and C.) If the capital city is moved due to enemy capture or player choice? Great questions! Here are my answers:

A.) Most ports have rail infrastructure attached or nearby and this should be modeled for major ports in the game at the start. Rail lines already exist at many ports and run across countries, often tagging up with the capital city at some juncture. I see rail as the priority mode of transport for goods whenever possible.

B.) This is a problem for many countries, however, you will find that they have rail connections that link up with foreign cities and ports. Nations should be able to sign Trade Access Treaties with other regions allowing for their trade to utilize and move along foreign networks when efficient to do so. For instance, If the United States sells or gives arms to Afghanistan that trade should start at Washington, move to a US port, then embark towards the nearest available port to Kabul (will need to be a nation that has signed a Trade Access Treaty with Washington). Let's say that port is the Pakistani port of Karachi. From Karachi, that US trade will embark on a train(s) and proceed toward Kabul, which has access to the port of Karachi via a rail network in Pakistan that branches off in one direction that terminates in Kabul.

Still follow? Here's how it goes the other way. If Afghanistan wanted to buy or sell X commodity on the world market it would need a Trade Access Treaty with one of its neighbors whereby it could export to the buying nation. So Afghan trade would move from Kabul via rail to the capital city of the buyer nation if possible, or not possible or efficient, would move to Karachi (Pakistan) or Chah Bahar (Iran) and embark on a ship to the nearest available port with a rail connection to the buyers capital. Note, the port that Afghan trade disembarks at would need to have A. a rail connection to the buyer's capital if the capital wasn't a port city and B. if disembarking in the buyer's nation is impossible, Afghanistan would need a Trade Access Treaty with the nation whose port needs to be used to get there. Most nations have Trade Access Treaties with others.

OK - one more scenario. Let's say the United States is selling Consumer Goods to Ireland. The US has a mutual Trade Access Treaty with Canada. If this is the optimal route, trade should move from Washington via rail to Quebec or Halifax (probably Quebec), then embark on a ship to Dublin where it will disembark and appear in Ireland's inventory.

C.) If a capital city is moved to a place that doesn't have a port or rail connection to a port (including via trade access treaty), then a road connection to a friendly/neutral port can be utilized via trucks (let's say a Semi Truck convoy can carry 300 units of X resource). But trucks should be the mode of transportation of last resort.

OK, so now you're thinking, "what about transporting goods by air?" Yes, Perhaps you need to get goods to a location quickly or maybe you're supplying a small rebel faction with arms... I've got you covered. Know that air cargo transport, compared with rail and shipping makes up a smaller slice of the pie and not everything can be transported by aircraft. I think if you're trading coal, common metals and stone, precious metals and stones and rare earth metals the option for executing the trade via Air should be unavailable (blocked out). Agriculture, Rubber, Water, Timber, Uranium (yellow cake), Petrol, Nat. Gas, Basic Industrial-, Complex Industrial-, Consumer-, and Military Goods should all be transportable by air. I don't know about electricity here - outside of my wheelhouse - but whatever the developers decide will probably make sense for the game.

Here's an example of air transport: Iran sells military goods to Syria and selects only air as the mode of transportation. A civilian airliner-/cargo-looking unit takes off from the airbase in Tehran and flies to the Syrian-controlled airbase in Damascus, where the goods are added to Syria's inventory. IF air transport is impossible (the recipient possesses no airbase) then the transaction cannot be completed. A Trade access treaty should be required for these special air cargo units to move over a neutral nation's airspace. Therefore, Iran will need a Trade Access Treaty with Iraq or Turkey, or the plane will need to fly over international waters (not a quick journey). IF the only accessible airbase is in another country with a Trade Access Treaty or an airbase connected to the capital city via road or rail, the goods will disembark there and continue in the appropriate manner to the destination capital city.

Pipelines and Electrical Grids

As I mentioned in Part II, electrical grids should not be modeled in SR30 like other infrastructure. The developers should simplify this simulation by having the sale of electricity permissible when Integrated Electrical Grid treaties are signed. Pipelines though are another beast. They should be extremely efficient at moving liquids or gases across the map at higher capacities than other modes of transport. Pipelines should work in a similar fashion as roads, rails, and seaports with some caveats. Pipelines are built similarly but should start at the host nation's capital and a foreign destination capital to sell oil, natural gas, or water via pipeline when making a trade deal. For instance, if Russia wants to sell natural gas to Germany via pipeline it needs to first build a pipeline (with approval from transit states) from Moscow to Berlin. Once fully completed and an available route is set up (no breaks or damage), Russia can make a trade deal with Germany to sell natural gas by selecting "pipeline" as the mode of transport. The Natural Gas will instantly arrive in Germany's inventory. Yes, pipelines can also be laid at the bottom of the ocean, I'm not sure how the developers would implement this but it would be cool if that was an option too. It's safer and cheaper sometimes when you take out the middlemen.

If Germany wants to sell that natural gas to any other state in the same fashion, the Germans would need a pipeline route running from Berlin to the destination capital. OK, but let's say Germany wants to sell Natural gas via pipeline to the UK. If there is no direct pipeline connection (underwater), German gas would need to travel by pipeline to a port that is connected by pipeline, where it will travel via ship to the nearest UK port to London. If that is London, great (gas arrived), if that is another port, then the gas is offloaded and sent via rail to London, or if there's a pipeline connecting the British port to London, then it also instantly arrives in the UK's inventory.

For more on this and the logic AI could use to determine the mode of transportation, see Addendum #1: Modeling Trade on the Map

Modeling Trade on the Map: UI

I've alluded to this already but when establishing a trade deal, the player or AI player should determine the mode of transport by ticking options for modes of transport somewhere on the trade screen pop-up. If an option is unticked, then that mode of transport will not be considered when the computer figures out the best path for a trade. If a required path for trade is left unticked then a pop-up such as the one that exists in-game for failed deals should appear letting the player know the transaction was not possible.

Interdicting Trade

With trade now on the map, enemy regions should be able to attack it. Simple as that. If an option were to be created for attacking trade units, or military units too for that matter, when they are in International Waters without a declaration of war triggered, that would be cool. Piracy, hostile exchanges (See the action of Libyan Coast in 1989 Libya vs US Navy). Perhaps a foe option tick by selecting the nation you want in ROE for units. If FOE tick for a particular nation is on for 3 consecutive days, AI automatically declares war, and war is triggered for the player or other AI region too.

Duration of Trade Deals

Listen, I love the options for trade deal lengths currently in the game but we NEED longer durations. My suggestion is to add 1,2,3, and 5-year trade deal lengths. Right now it is too short and players need to establish trade deals constantly. Side note, it'd be cool too if you could just propose to renew the terms of the deal with a click of a button and the AI can either accept or renegotiate, thus sending us back into the trade deal like normal.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

As I mentioned in Part II [see ownership] FDI would be an amazing feature that, frankly, would set the Supreme Ruler series in a league of its own. By FDI, I mean just the establishment and funding of facilities. Here's how I envision it working:

In Practice:
So let's say I was playing Norway or Canada and wanted to build a Basic Industrial Goods plant in Trinidad and Tobago; a real-world example of TT fertilizer production. I'd first propose building my facility on X hex with Trinidad and Tobago, and if they accept, construction would start on my dime (maybe I've offered construction goods and cash to get the project approved). Once completed, Trinidad and Tobago would see their production of Basic Industrial Goods increase accordingly, their unemployment change, and they could sell the surplus commodity on the World Market (WM), as well as interact with the facility via taxes and spending. However, Trinidad and Tobago would see the facility on that hex greyed/faded out when observing the facility in the LAND tab. Trinidad and Tobago couldn't demolish or change it (upgrade/downgrade). Meanwhile, the region that owns the facility could modify it or shut it down at any time via interaction at the LAND tab and for every day, month, quarter, or year the owning nation would get a lump sum of wealth indicating profits from the facility. The owner nation would of course also have to pay maintenance for the facility but would not be responsible for the importation of inputs for that overseas facility. Responsibility for importing inputs would be left to the host nation.

UI

All interactions and proposals to build FDI facilities should happen in the LAND tab. Perhaps when built, there could be a small image of the owner nation's flag next to the facility icon on that screen, so players know if they own it or if someone else does. Players should also be able to offer to buy facilities via the LAND tab by left- or right-clicking on them bringing up an options menu to propose construction (if open slot) or to purchase the facility.

Additionally, there should be an option for the host country to nationalize a facility using the LAND tab as well and that should carry all of the effects you think it would (negative relations impact).

There should be a place where a country can see how much income they receive from FDI by country (a list) and FDI income and expenditures should also be represented in the budget reports.

Unrelated, but I would also like to see a summary of my global trade at the end of each year, highlighting my top 3 largest import and export partners, gross imports and exports ($), and my annual trade balance. See Addendum 2 for more on this.

- - - - - - - - - -

Conclusion

Expanding the resource list and making modifications to production and trade will result in a more accurate, interesting, and smarter gameplay experience. SR30 should set future titles up with the potential to bring more in-depth gameplay. Even though the new engine and more regions will be possible in SR30, most players really won't see the significance of these achievements if the gameplay looks more or less the same as SRU. Galactic Ruler introduced a really incredible system of having different planes, or fields, of gameplay, but that innovative system was completely overlooked by many who bought and reviewed the game. SR30 needs to expand the series in a direction that will make Supreme Ruler set itself apart from other games that are trying to capture more of a share of this niche market. Not all of these suggestions may be possible, I understand that, but these suggestions seem entirely actionable. This is a blueprint for a smart game and I look forward to seeing what the developers come up with.

Please leave comments, suggestions, and questions below. I will get to them when I am able.

[SGTscuba]

I generally agree with this but personally I wouldn't expand the number of resources too much as it'll get complicated in my opinion.

Side Note #1: Shipyards

OK, so on the topic of facilities and scaling, certain production facilities should have stratified production scaling. In this case, shipyards should have three tiers to them; Let's call them Tier 1 (the largest, most capable yards [builds every ship classification under the sun]), Tier 2 (medium-sized yards, capable on building multiple small to mid-sized vessels simultaneously [if the devs keep the same mission classifications, this would be your transport, patrol, and escort craft, think anything up to 550 ft. in length]), Tier 3 (Small, single yard facilities, capable of building transport/cargo ships or OPVs [transport or patrol]).

If this is possible, I think it would be smart to also add production slots to a facility to represent size. So for instance, a tier-one shipyard would have 1 production slot capable of producing any ship (these facilities are extremely large and are the most expensive to build and maintain), a tier-two shipyard would have 2-3 productions slots capable of producing transport, patrol, and escort classes of ships (representing expansive yards with significant capabilities) and a tier-three shipyard would have 1 production slot for transport and patrol classes of ships.

These tiers do not correspond to any industry or military system of classification, however, I did borrow the professional model of classification for shipyards in determining what a tiered system could look like in the game.

I think this needs a thread of its own as some other variants of this idea have been discussed over the years (such as limiting by weight).

[AVP]

Scuba, I appreciate the note and feedback! I'll post a separate thread on shipyards specifically when I have the time this evening.

As for the resource count: I agree, the list of resources should only be expanded when there is a need to do so. 16 resources is the cap that currently exists due to engine restraints. This was relayed to me by George. S2 offers a vision of what 16 resources would look like and S3 offers a vision of what 20 resources could look like. Both are still very watered-down lists of resources (not too complex) but provide a greater sense of depth and variety in the game vis a vis resources and trade. What are your thoughts on either of these lists?

[Tnarg]

AVP, very good read. I think you have addressed many great ideas and would love to see most of these included to make the SR2030 feel like the ultimate geopolitical and economic simulator with lots of options and depth. Agree on not too many resources, but some more to flesh out economies of certain countries as described with the paragraph about the banana economy of Ecuador. A drug commodity would be interesting and open up a drug trade and wars. Being able to build in other countries would great too! Build up their infrastructure and production, swaying them into your sphere (Like what China is doing in Africa), maybe its cheaper to produce goods in another country, so that's just a good business model for making money, but now you are kind of protectorate of that country should greedy neighbors start taking interest. The tiers of ships yards! Yes! Supply Storage yes, target their supply hubs, cripple your enemy! Trade routes, although complex, but yes, great interdiction and piracy and a good reason to have a Navy. I would like to add Wi/Fi as an infrastructure and Microchips for reasons as noted in another 2030 suggestion thread.

[AVP]

Modeling Trade on the Map

If possible without affecting the gameplay, I'd love to see goods move between buyers and sellers on the map. This gives ports and rail infrastructure greater importance. Plus, it gives AI and player navies, somewhere to patrol and something to escort when normally deploying a fleet seems unnecessary unless for planning and scouting purposes. On top of all this, you may also be able to model disruptions to the flow of trade goods - A canal becomes randomly blocked, a port blockaded (incoming enemy trade interdicted), a sea lane mined, etc.

In Practice, this is how I visualize this working. When a trade deal is agreed upon, the goods are taken out of inventory and begin moving from a seller's capital to the buyer's capital, where they are subsequently deposited into the buyer's inventory. Trade should be represented on the map with units displaying the amount of trade they have in cargo. So on land, I visualize this being depicted as a locomotive unit (displaying that it's carrying the max 1000 or 2000 units of X) from Washington DC to Ottawa via a rail connection. If the trade has to go embark on a ship to reach the buyer's capital then it should move from the seller's capital to the nearest port to the buyer's capital and then embark on a container ship unit (which can hold a max of 10,000 units of X) where it travels to the nearest port to available port to the buyer's capital then disembarks and continues via rail to the capital city.

Ok, so I know what you're thinking - What if a port A.) doesn't have a rail connection to the capital city, B.) A country is landlocked and/or has no access to a viable port within their country, and C.) If the capital city is moved due to enemy capture or player choice? Great questions! Here are my answers:

A.) Most ports have rail infrastructure attached or nearby and this should be modeled for major ports in the game at the start. Rail lines already exist at many ports and run across countries, often tagging up with the capital city at some juncture. I see rail as the priority mode of transport for goods whenever possible.

B.) This is a problem for many countries, however, you will find that they have rail connections that link up with foreign cities and ports. Nations should be able to sign Trade Access Treaties with other regions allowing for their trade to utilize and move along foreign networks when efficient to do so. For instance, If the United States sells or gives arms to Afghanistan that trade should start at Washington, move to a US port, then embark towards the nearest available port to Kabul (will need to be a nation that has signed a Trade Access Treaty with Washington). Let's say that port is the Pakistani port of Karachi. From Karachi, that US trade will embark on a train(s) and proceed toward Kabul, which has access to the port of Karachi via a rail network in Pakistan that branches off in one direction that terminates in Kabul.

Still follow? Here's how it goes the other way. If Afghanistan wanted to buy or sell X commodity on the world market it would need a Trade Access Treaty with one of its neighbors whereby it could export to the buying nation. So Afghan trade would move from Kabul via rail to the capital city of the buyer nation if possible, or not possible or efficient, would move to Karachi (Pakistan) or Chah Bahar (Iran) and embark on a ship to the nearest available port with a rail connection to the buyers capital. Note, the port that Afghan trade disembarks at would need to have A. a rail connection to the buyer's capital if the capital wasn't a port city and B. if disembarking in the buyer's nation is impossible, Afghanistan would need a Trade Access Treaty with the nation whose port needs to be used to get there. Most nations have Trade Access Treaties with others.

OK - one more scenario. Let's say the United States is selling Consumer Goods to Ireland. The US has a mutual Trade Access Treaty with Canada. If this is the optimal route, trade should move from Washington via rail to Quebec or Halifax (probably Quebec), then embark on a ship to Dublin where it will disembark and appear in Ireland's inventory.

C.) If a capital city is moved to a place that doesn't have a port or rail connection to a port (including via trade access treaty), then a road connection to a friendly/neutral port can be utilized via trucks (let's say a Semi Truck convoy can carry 300 units of X resource). But trucks should be the mode of transportation of last resort.

OK, so now you're thinking, "what about transporting goods by air?" Yes, Perhaps you need to get goods to a location quickly or maybe you're supplying a small rebel faction with arms... I've got you covered. Know that air cargo transport, compared with rail and shipping makes up a smaller slice of the pie and not everything can be transported by aircraft. I think if you're trading coal, common metals and stone, precious metals and stones and rare earth metals the option for executing the trade via Air should be unavailable (blocked out). Agriculture, Rubber, Water, Timber, Uranium (yellow cake), Petrol, Nat. Gas, Basic Industrial-, Complex Industrial-, Consumer-, and Military Goods should all be transportable by air. I don't know about electricity here - outside of my wheelhouse - but whatever the developers decide will probably make sense for the game.

Here's an example of air transport: Iran sells military goods to Syria and selects only air as the mode of transportation. A civilian airliner-/cargo-looking unit takes off from the airbase in Tehran and flies to the Syrian-controlled airbase in Damascus, where the goods are added to Syria's inventory. IF air transport is impossible (the recipient possesses no airbase) then the transaction cannot be completed. A Trade access treaty should be required for these special air cargo units to move over a neutral nation's airspace. Therefore, Iran will need a Trade Access Treaty with Iraq or Turkey, or the plane will need to fly over international waters (not a quick journey). IF the only accessible airbase is in another country with a Trade Access Treaty or an airbase connected to the capital city via road or rail, the goods will disembark there and continue in the appropriate manner to the destination capital city.

Pipelines and Electrical Grids

As I mentioned in Part II, electrical grids should not be modeled in SR30 like other infrastructure. The developers should simplify this simulation by having the sale of electricity permissible when Integrated Electrical Grid treaties are signed. Pipelines though are another beast. They should be extremely efficient at moving liquids or gases across the map at higher capacities than other modes of transport. Pipelines should work in a similar fashion as roads, rails, and seaports with some caveats. Pipelines are built similarly but should start at the host nation's capital and a foreign destination capital to sell oil, natural gas, or water via pipeline when making a trade deal. For instance, if Russia wants to sell natural gas to Germany via pipeline it needs to first build a pipeline (with approval from transit states) from Moscow to Berlin. Once fully completed and an available route is set up (no breaks or damage), Russia can make a trade deal with Germany to sell natural gas by selecting "pipeline" as the mode of transport. The Natural Gas will instantly arrive in Germany's inventory. Yes, pipelines can also be laid at the bottom of the ocean, I'm not sure how the developers would implement this but it would be cool if that was an option too. It's safer and cheaper sometimes when you take out the middlemen.

If Germany wants to sell that natural gas to any other state in the same fashion, the Germans would need a pipeline route running from Berlin to the destination capital. OK, but let's say Germany wants to sell Natural gas via pipeline to the UK. If there is no direct pipeline connection (underwater), German gas would need to travel by pipeline to a port that is connected by pipeline, where it will travel via ship to the nearest UK port to London. If that is London, great (gas arrived), if that is another port, then the gas is offloaded and sent via rail to London, or if there's a pipeline connecting the British port to London, then it also instantly arrives in the UK's inventory.

Addendum #1: Modeling Trade on the Map

AI Logic for selecting mode of transportation

OK - so let's say you've completed a trade deal to sell Petroleum to another country and you've kept all modes of transportation ticked. How does the game determine which mode of transportation to use? You want to move goods from point A to point B efficiently, but remember, the most efficient way doesn't necessarily mean the fastest because different modes of transportation have different cargo capacities. After checking that a route is possible from A to B, the game should next decide which path would be able to complete the order the fastest and be the most efficient.

1. If there's a pipeline between points A and B then the petrol would use that route. 2. If not, then the game would go to the next most efficient way of transporting goods which is by using a quick rail connection. Remember, moving goods across distances by rail is more fuel efficient and cheaper (in the real world), and while the game doesn't take shipping costs into account it can model this reality. The other reason why using a nearby rail connection is preferred sometimes over maritime routes is because moving supplies over land is also safer. 3. OK, so if the time it takes a train(s) to get to the destination capital is slower than the time it would take to move to port, embark on a ship, and move to the Point B then the game would take a cargo ship.

Trucks would only be used as a mode of transport of last resort and aircraft, while faster than rail and ships are hardly efficient because of the low amount of goods they can carry.

For simplicity, the selling country is one that ships the resource. This could be explored further by including an option to select who is responsible for shipping, but frankly, doing this would overcomplicate an amazing feature that would add so much to the game. You'll find that Trade Access treaties will be very important, especially so for landlocked nations. One could imagine a scenario where two players (one playing as Afghanistan and another playing as Iran or Pakistan) find themselves at a point of tension where one player requests some sort of payment for continued trade access to the Afghanistan player (a real-world example).

Ok, so back to the logic, let's see how this would play out.

Example #1: Portugal sells 5K Consumer Goods to Turkey

Portugal sells a lump sum of 5000 Consumer goods to Turkey. Let's say one fully loaded freight train in this scenario carries 1000 units of cargo and moves at 48km/h (30mph) and one cargo ship carries 10,000 units of cargo and moves at 37km/h (20 kts). Our mariners here operate at brisk speeds, as they don't care about fuel consumption or the costs involved, and we won't take into account the total distance of high-speed rail and basic rail along the route. The total distance between Lisbon and Ankara over land is 4534 km. Portugal has Trade Access Treaties with every EU and Schengen member state, plus Serbia (others too but for this scenario, they don't matter). The distance over sea between the port of Lisbon and Istanbul is 3997 km, plus a final journey over rail from Istanbul to Ankara (441 km) for a total distance of 4438 km. Lastly, let's say a new train or container ship spawns at each game tick (2 hr increment I believe).

It would take one train over 94 hours (~3.9 days) to arrive in Ankara via a rail route from Lisbon, passing through Spain, France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, before finally arriving in Ankara. Note, it would take 5 trains to move the cargo so you can add 8 hours to the total journey when figuring out how long it would take to complete the transaction (last train arrives). The total time to complete the transaction is 102 hours (~4.25 days).

For our container ship (only 1 required) it would take 108 hours (~4.5 days) to reach Istanbul alone via the Straits of Gibraltar. Thun you have to disembark at Istanbul for a ~9hr train (5 trains) ride to Ankara. Total time = 125 hours (~5.2 days). Even if we used an alternative route using our Trade Access Treaty with Greece, the overland trains would still have it. This alternative route btw would see a container ship move from the port of Lisbon to the port of Piraeus (Athens, Greece) and then take a train from Piraeus to Ankara. This route would be 3296 km by sea, taking one container ship 89 hours (3.7 days), and 1540 km by train (32 hrs [1.5 days]) for a total journey of 4836 km and 129 hours (~5 days). Remember, 5 trains are needed to get to Ankara. All-overland Train route wins.

Example #2: Argentina sells 2K Agriculture to Uruguay

Argentina sells a lump sum of 2000 Agriculture to Uruguay. For those familiar with the geography of South America, you already know where this is going. All speeds and cargo capacities for trains and container ships are the same as in Example #1. The overland rail distance between Buenos Aires and Montevideo is 574 km and would take one of our trains nearly 12 hours (~0.5 days) to complete the journey. Overall it would take 14 hours to complete the transaction.

The distance by sea between Buenos Aires and Montevideo is ~239 km. It would take our 1 container ship half the time to complete the transaction (6.5 hrs [0.27 days]). Container ships have it this time.

Example #3: Portugal sells 10K Consumer Goods to Greece

Portugal sells 10000 Consumer Goods to Greece. All speeds and cargo capacities for trains and container ships are the same as in Example #1. The overland rail distance between Lisbon and Athens is 4236 km and Portugal uses its Trade Access treaties with EU and Schengen states, plus Serbia to accomplish this. By sea, Athens is 3296 km away from Lisbon. We will need either 1 container ship or 10 trains to complete the transaction.

The total time it takes to arrive by rail is a bit over 88 hrs (~3.67 days). To complete the transaction it takes 107 hours (~4.45 days) - figure 10 trains (18 hours added). Remember a new train spawns every tick (2hr intervals).

For our 1 container ship, it takes 89 hours (3.7 days). This completes the transaction. By sea is the most efficient route.

Interacting with On-Map Trade

I don't think you a player should be able to interact (and give an order to) trade moving between regions. You should only see the flag and the amount and type of cargo it carries. Maybe indicate this by the country flag plus symbol for X commodity with a number before or after the symbol. For example [Mexican flag, 1K *Agriculture symbol*].

Even though you can't give orders to a trade unit (container ship, freight train, cargo plane, etc), you should still be able to attack/damage it and you should be able to assign units to escort it. This would be ideal.

Lastly, if SR30 introduces a system of hex painting (let's say for trading land or creating new states), this tool would be handy to use in demarcating areas you want your trade units to avoid. Let's say an enemy fleet is patrolling or blockading an important chokepoint -- a strait or canal. I could paint hexes as "no-go" zones for trade units, and perhaps also the automatic merchant marine, and those units would route around. If I completely marked the hexes leading into the Straits of Gibraltar as "no-go" then trade would go all the way around the Cape of Good Hope to its destination.

If they can't take another route, then the units will follow the path until they get stuck on the barrier (the first "no-go" hex) or route around that barrier hex to the destination via the next quickest route. So if I marked a blob of "no-go" hexes in the North Atlantic (I know enemy units are active somewhere), the trade units would probably hug the border of that zone at times as they follow the next quickest path to their destination.

The options for using such a map painter tool should be "add", "delete"/"erase", and "clear all".

[evildari]

Thank you AVP for your thoughts (i had to read it a few times) (todo: read time in minutes)

dont know how to comment inline of your text so i wirte some short thoughts of mine.

(0). the general idea from you is a whole own game in itself without the war part -> supreme anno 2030

1. The economic game in current state is a centralised / planned / command economy ie . supreme china simulator - there are no visible (as in autonomous) entities that are engaging in the economic part to be used in an economic background simulation - something Distant Worlds:Universe does (or tries since it is difficult to do - but it works good enough that one can feel how annoying pircacy is, and the race for strategic goods is on)

2. Free or rather less planned economies would need to have a pure AI player that invests (FDI, "international capital") in any region they "see" as fit to generate profits. Politics (the player) would have to set right circumstances (taxes, market access treaties, domestic & internations stability & reliance) so that Investors could establish (for them) profitable business and supply chains.


3. regions can setup up a state-funded investment corporation (similar to that norwegian or quatari oil funds) that act as Investors. And their earnings or losses goes into regions budget.
In the game Imperialism there was an "investor" unit which could enter other regions and buy land to be able to build production there - earnings were shared if i remember right.
It was doable in 1997...

4.
a) storage and pipelines - i miss those since the good old mechanized assault and exploration.
And while we are at it: for military purposes: Trucks: Fuel (for POL to get some Petrol, Oil, Lubricants), Supply (Military goods for ammo, Food for Rations)

b) electrical storage as with large batteries very ressource consuming - the old basic storage technology would be to use pump water to higher lake and when needed flow it down through generators (not very efficient - but if you have a surplus of very cheap energy)

c)But then to make it worthwhile you have to model windspeeds for wind turbines (weather patterns already in game) - and solar radiation intensity for things like photovoltaic generation - with the demand&supply curves per day and throughout the year depending on location.
If the game uses an yearly average generation (which for gaming reasons is ok) then you dont need electrical storage.
(Although a nice modeled Blackout disruption after a surgical strike would be nice to see)
Maybe the simple way would be to have an electric power transformation substation facility which powers an area x km around - automagically including long range powerlines (cause the are, compared to the substation, easy to replace).

d) Of course the automatic production adjustment that is currently hardcoded has to leave, else any way to make a stockpile will be severly crippled - and will also diminish your mega size industrial estates - or make deindustrialization a viable strategy if you have the larger "market share" or monopoly.
also - the infamous "world market" region has to be removed out of play since it currently generates a "market" with unlimited supply and demand - making storage not that needed.

5. I share your conclusion - more of the same would be just not good enough - for the old mechanics and issues we have the old game(s).

[AVP]

AVP, very good read. I think you have addressed many great ideas and would love to see most of these included to make the SR2030 feel like the ultimate geopolitical and economic simulator with lots of options and depth. Agree on not too many resources, but some more to flesh out economies of certain countries as described with the paragraph about the banana economy of Ecuador. A drug commodity would be interesting and open up a drug trade and wars. Being able to build in other countries would great too! Build up their infrastructure and production, swaying them into your sphere (Like what China is doing in Africa), maybe its cheaper to produce goods in another country, so that's just a good business model for making money, but now you are kind of protectorate of that country should greedy neighbors start taking interest. The tiers of ships yards! Yes! Supply Storage yes, target their supply hubs, cripple your enemy! Trade routes, although complex, but yes, great interdiction and piracy and a good reason to have a Navy. I would like to add Wi/Fi as an infrastructure and Microchips for reasons as noted in another 2030 suggestion thread.

Tnarg, thanks for the feedback and I'm glad you agree with these suggestions. As for wifi, it was taken into account when writing this, but for simplicity's sake I left it out as it would require a new system to implement a feature like that and I with the timeline BG is working off of (3 months to release), I just don't see them adding something like that for this iteration. If someone has a good idea for how to add telecommunication and internet access as infrastructure I'm all ears. For SR:30, I think researching 5G or 6G as tech, with the subsequent effects, works fine.

Thanks!

[MattTheDamon]

If I am not mistaken the wm is very much unknown. I believe it is completely behind the scenes in a magical sense. The best start to having a game with good economics is for everygood that the game handles is to be accounted for. So we would see the wm stores and every trade depletes or adds to it instead of it seemingly being infinite. X4 seems to do this resonably.

[Balthagor]

If I am not mistaken the wm is very much unknown. I believe it is completely behind the scenes in a magical sense. The best start to having a game with good economics is for everygood that the game handles is to be accounted for. So we would see the wm stores and every trade depletes or adds to it instead of it seemingly being infinite. X4 seems to do this resonably.

While the exact stock levels on the wm are not shown as a fixed value, they are tracked and they are finite. In the resource dept you can see for each resource the market as poor to excellent.

[AVP]

Addendum #2: UI Improvements to Trade

Commodity Price Graphs

I would like to see price graphs for each commodity in the game, showing the market price over durations of (1-, 6-, 12-, 60-, and 120-months). It would be helpful to players in determining broader market trends for each of the commodities.

Annual Trade Summary

I'd also like to receive an annual trade summary at the end of each year detailing the gross value ($) of my exports and imports, my trade balance, and who my top 3 largest (by $ value) import and export partners were.

These additions would not only be helpful tools for the players but also cool features. I mean, c'mon, who doesn't like a line graph?

[ImperiorIL]

I generally agree with this but personally I wouldn't expand the number of resources too much as it'll get complicated in my opinion.

Side Note #1: Shipyards

OK, so on the topic of facilities and scaling, certain production facilities should have stratified production scaling. In this case, shipyards should have three tiers to them; Let's call them Tier 1 (the largest, most capable yards [builds every ship classification under the sun]), Tier 2 (medium-sized yards, capable on building multiple small to mid-sized vessels simultaneously [if the devs keep the same mission classifications, this would be your transport, patrol, and escort craft, think anything up to 550 ft. in length]), Tier 3 (Small, single yard facilities, capable of building transport/cargo ships or OPVs [transport or patrol]).

If this is possible, I think it would be smart to also add production slots to a facility to represent size. So for instance, a tier-one shipyard would have 1 production slot capable of producing any ship (these facilities are extremely large and are the most expensive to build and maintain), a tier-two shipyard would have 2-3 productions slots capable of producing transport, patrol, and escort classes of ships (representing expansive yards with significant capabilities) and a tier-three shipyard would have 1 production slot for transport and patrol classes of ships.

These tiers do not correspond to any industry or military system of classification, however, I did borrow the professional model of classification for shipyards in determining what a tiered system could look like in the game.

I think this needs a thread of its own as some other variants of this idea have been discussed over the years (such as limiting by weight).

The S16 wouldn't necessarily add much complexity depending on how it's implemented, because the supply chains wouldn't be any longer. There would just be a bit more variety, but most importantly, separating oil from gas would allow a viable competitor to coal for electricity, and separating common ore from precious metal would add a little reward for capturing precious metal regions while still keeping the same supply chain for the game. Water is also a fan favorite from back in the day, and honestly, if agriculture facilities consumed water (which would be extremely realistic) it would add a nice dynamic of resources in which water limits food production. As well as fixing the way agriculture is trivial, you can feed many billions in a tiny area using agricultural facilities. It honestly, would immensely enrich gameplay and lore and give a lot more reason for trading/expanding.

[ImperiorIL]

If I am not mistaken the wm is very much unknown. I believe it is completely behind the scenes in a magical sense. The best start to having a game with good economics is for everygood that the game handles is to be accounted for. So we would see the wm stores and every trade depletes or adds to it instead of it seemingly being infinite. X4 seems to do this resonably.

While the exact stock levels on the wm are not shown as a fixed value, they are tracked and they are finite. In the resource dept you can see for each resource the market as poor to excellent.

That's actually amazingly useful info, I suspected as much, but confirmation is awesome!
Wish there was a tracker though, if anything to dissuade the understandable and persistent myth that it is infinite.

[AVP]

The S16 wouldn't necessarily add much complexity depending on how it's implemented, because the supply chains wouldn't be any longer. There would just be a bit more variety, but most importantly, separating oil from gas would allow a viable competitor to coal for electricity, and separating common ore from precious metal would add a little reward for capturing precious metal regions while still keeping the same supply chain for the game. Water is also a fan favorite from back in the day, and honestly, if agriculture facilities consumed water (which would be extremely realistic) it would add a nice dynamic of resources in which water limits food production. As well as fixing the way agriculture is trivial, you can feed many billions in a tiny area using agricultural facilities. It honestly, would immensely enrich gameplay and lore and give a lot more reason for trading/expanding.

ImperiorIL, thanks for the feedback and support for these ideas. You're 100% correct. The set of 16 resources (S2), would not address the issues laid out above. That's why what we really need is an S4 list (45+ resources). No one has asked for me to post that list, as it's the least likely to be considered, however, I should post an update since the release of Victoria 3, which was released after this post was written. That game, while not a war game at heart like SR, includes 52 resources by my count and I have had no trouble managing or keeping track of the supply chains in that game. I think Supreme Ruler could take some inspiration and lessons from Victoria 3 and implement them into SR2040(?). The cap of 70 resources I mention, probably could be expanded to a hard cap of 100. The developers would probably add new resources that would fall short of that cap, but it would allow modders the ability to add resources as they see necessary for their mods.

[smygsork]

Big fan of increasing the number of resources in the future if possible. It would give countries a bit more of a unique identity. Bringing back water has huge potential along with the complex versions of goods and their requirements.

[Zuikaku]

It's a shame that increasing commodities was never really considered. These basic resources we have just make game economy oversimplified. I consider 40 to be barely minimum for serious geopolitical simulator.

Also we need ability to deny certain goods to our enemies on the world market. it is an absurd situation when we can be at war with someone while in the same time this country can easily obtain our goods from the world market.