The Future of Supreme Ruler Development / SR Next Generation

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Rosalis
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 233
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by Rosalis »

m04sWYEGzS wrote:
Jun 22 2020
Building queues:
If I pause the game and build a whole lot of stuff, my economy will be destroyed. The game tries to build everything at the same time. Therefore there should be a way that buildings are automatically queued if a defined threshold of strain on the economy is reached. I also should be able to mange this queue to get some buildings done with higher or lower priority.
Yeah maybe people cant handle the freedom. Who could have thought you cant double your production or research capacity in 1 year. 90% of the cost are just the few days. After that you are able to build more. Some regions need to build more, some less. Dont know why you want to limit this when you take over 1+ billion people.
dax1
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 508
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

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

Post by dax1 »

Rosalis wrote:
Jun 23 2020
m04sWYEGzS wrote:
Jun 22 2020
Building queues:
If I pause the game and build a whole lot of stuff, my economy will be destroyed. The game tries to build everything at the same time. Therefore there should be a way that buildings are automatically queued if a defined threshold of strain on the economy is reached. I also should be able to mange this queue to get some buildings done with higher or lower priority.
Yeah maybe people cant handle the freedom. Who could have thought you cant double your production or research capacity in 1 year. 90% of the cost are just the few days. After that you are able to build more. Some regions need to build more, some less. Dont know why you want to limit this when you take over 1+ billion people.
I don't see limits in what m04sWYEGzS say!! :roll:
Con forza ed ardimento
Rosalis
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 233
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by Rosalis »

queue:

BRITISH
a line or sequence of people or vehicles awaiting their turn to be attended to or to proceed.

COMPUTING
a list of data items, commands, etc., stored so as to be retrievable in a definite order, usually the order of insertion.

Building queue would mean as i understand you limit the things you can build by descisions of the AI or limitations devs give, when can you build more, how much can you build, to force this on all players, thats a big change.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

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

Post by Balthagor »

To me it sounds more like he's requesting a way to throttle the processing of your queue up/down based on your rate of spending, not a hard limit on the queue. At least, that's what I'm making notes about.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1985
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

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

Post by SGTscuba »

Balthagor wrote:
Jun 23 2020
To me it sounds more like he's requesting a way to throttle the processing of your queue up/down based on your rate of spending, not a hard limit on the queue. At least, that's what I'm making notes about.
Would actually be a good idea, maybe same with techs being able to be queued up to what I want and not what the game wants.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
m04sWYEGzS
Corporal
Posts: 6
Joined: Jun 19 2020
Human: Yes

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

Post by m04sWYEGzS »

Balthagor wrote:
Jun 22 2020
A 3D map is not something we have the resources to create. SRNG will use a cylinder map again based on the same projection.
I don't know how you wan't to fund this project but there has to be a way to implement it, and I'm definitely willing to pay extra for this, in my opinion, necessary feature. If you ever played on a 3D map, a cylindrical map becomes a large negative aspect. Not only is the current map buggy and units are frequently gone missing at the poles, your 8000km nuclear missile from Washington D.C. could reach Moskau while on the cylindrical map it has to travel 9400km. Russia, Canada and Greenland would no longer be extremely oversized desolated places, where you have to travel months to the last Inuit settlement that has been declared as the new capital. Planes, missiles and satellites could have visible altitudes and no longer practically crash inside one hex. The spherical concept is definitely the easier and cheaper one, but it is also the much inferior one and comes way back from the past. I thought you wanted to make a new modern game and not 64 bit port of the old one?
Balthagor wrote:
Jun 23 2020
To me it sounds more like he's requesting a way to throttle the processing of your queue up/down based on your rate of spending, not a hard limit on the queue. At least, that's what I'm making notes about.
A slider of some kind that says "building can only consume as much as ###% of your economy" was my idea. If I set it to 100%, nothing would change to the old system. If I set it to 50%, the max resources building could consume would be 50% of my economy surplus. In addition some kind of priority to tell the AI he has to put more effort in resupplying this area or the building costs are increased but the time it takes to completion gets reduced. So some kind of high, normal and low priority/speed in addition to the paused building status.
sulley
Sergeant
Posts: 13
Joined: Nov 18 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by sulley »

Balthagor wrote:
May 26 2020
Here's a question - we currently allow you to be allied to two regions at war with each other. I remember in Total War games were you were force to make a choice and stay allied with only one. Would that be more realistic for our games? Better for gameplay? It's been considered before but I think it will get discussed again.
The conflict on Cyprus in 1974 is an example of a scenario where two countries with similar alliances have fought a war against each other, albeit indirectly. Both parties remained in NATO and NATO members did not sever alliances with either country. In the backdrop of an aggressive USSR, this was clearly a strategic decision; NATO could not afford to isolate Turkey or Greece. It was of course extremely awkward for NATO, and the diplomatic consequences survive to this day.

Turning to the point about realism: choosing between allies is a simplistic approach and if it isn't inevitable in real life, it shouldn't be inevitable in-game. This is a strategic and political decision for the player to make, not the developers. There does have to be diplomatic consequences, though, and maybe it is only this aspect that needs to be developed further.

I wouldn't ever want to see mechanics that force a course of action in an SR game, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. 'Freedom of choice' is also 'freedom from choice' and this is what makes your games so damn good.
Rosalis
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 233
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by Rosalis »

I agree, but if it can help fix all issues in proxy wars, then Cyprus is a very small player in this game. I rather help my allies without getting sunk by neutral regions.
sulley
Sergeant
Posts: 13
Joined: Nov 18 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by sulley »

Rosalis wrote:
Jun 25 2020
I agree, but if it can help fix all issues in proxy wars, then Cyprus is a very small player in this game. I rather help my allies without getting sunk by neutral regions.
My example was one from real life, incidentally.

It may well be the AI is forced to choose, which would fix the issue you speak of, but it is quite another matter forcing the player to choose. The simple premise is that this is a strategic and political matter for you, the player to decide, and not the developers.

I would go further and say that player freedom is the overriding goal and if it causes some casualties by way of minor bugs and annoyances, then so be it. This really goes to the core of what an SR game is, in my view.
Last edited by sulley on Jun 25 2020, edited 1 time in total.
Rosalis
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 233
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by Rosalis »

You can always claim neutrality an keep out of the war in my proposition. And it isnt minor, ever tried to help out an ally when you had to send merchant marines?
sulley
Sergeant
Posts: 13
Joined: Nov 18 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by sulley »

Rosalis wrote:
Jun 25 2020
You can always claim neutrality an keep out of the war in my proposition. And it isnt minor, ever tried to help out an ally when you had to send merchant marines?
Neutrality isn't a claim or declaration so much as it is an action. You can be neutral in conflicts with allies by not engaging in the conflict, and you have achieved the neutrality you speak of.

I'm not familiar with your issue with merchant marines.

I can endorse most propositions that do not force player choice. I am a puritan on this point.
dax1
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 508
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

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

Post by dax1 »

sulley wrote:
Jun 25 2020


[...] the player to decide, and not the developers.[...]
what u mean??
Con forza ed ardimento
Rosalis
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 233
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by Rosalis »

Yeah i dont know what people mean, but i dont think we will see him anytime soon. Too bad i like to see feedback with a programming background.

Same with building, people talk about it like there is a queue now, there is not! Low/normal priority are useless, why would you want a building to finish slower?

The only thing i can agree on is high priority, you could give every region 2 building slots, and ai or player descide which will be finished with a 10% bonus. If you actually want to give features a meaning like paradox does. Else the feature is useless.
sulley
Sergeant
Posts: 13
Joined: Nov 18 2019
Human: Yes

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

Post by sulley »

dax1 wrote:
Jun 26 2020
sulley wrote:
Jun 25 2020


[...] the player to decide, and not the developers.[...]
what u mean??
Simply this: the player should have autonomy and the developers should therefore limit, where possible, game mechanisms that infringe on that autonomy unnecessarily. This is something they have nailed throughout their games and in my opinion, forms the core of what an SR game is.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”