What Would You Like to See Most in Supreme Ruler Cold War?

[Antonin1957]

Put the focus on diplomatics, politics, intelligence agendas/espionage rather than warfare.

I would like to see a much greater focus on economics, and less on warfare. The first 2 Supreme Ruler games, to me, were little more than RTS wargames. There was little diplomacy, little economics. Just build up your military and go to war. Boring [to me]. Other games did this much better.

 

[Arizal]

I would like to add something at what I was proposing before. That would be great if the different political regims could be more modelized. You modelized the other think, but not that. Also, I'm daydreaming, but seeing Quebec as a country in SR2020 is reminding me that I really would want to have a form of simulation for a federal system. That would be great if the interior policy could be improved, and for some reason I think this is maybe no more impossible.

 

[Fire and Ash]

Fore the love of all that is good and great in this world a simpler interface. Barring that a more detailed tutorial.

 

[Balthagor]

Legend is indeed a member of our development team. Not sure what argument he presented.

We are aware that for some of our users game speed was obstacle to them playing the game how they would like and we are looking into this but I can't say more at this stage. It should be noted that we have lots of players who have no problems with the pace of the game and we don't limit the pace in the engine, the only limit is how fast a user's hardware can process all the calculations that go into the game.

Frederic's point is key to why this issue is under review, we do want to create that feeling of a tense stand-off that can go on for some time. We'd like to make that work over periods of time SR2020 was not intended to simulate so specifically. We'll discuss this more as we get further into the development process.

 

[Romtos]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Omega124]

There are two things I would like to see:

1. Since this game is starting in 1949 (Januray 1st, am I correct?), the ROC is on its last knees. I would like a chance to play as the KMT and turn the war around. I think a democratic China would be a severe change of the Balance of Power (One simulator said the USSR would had fell in the 50s had that happened).

2. Ho Chi Minh was orgionally democratic, and in fact requested America's help when they were rebelling from the French, as America valued France more than a rebellion. America's refusal made him seek the USSR, whom had no relationship with France. I would love to see an option for America to help Ho Chi Minh, with a huge backlash from France. This could lead to France leaving NATO, or America following a similar pattern in other revolts.

 

[Balthagor]

Actually we start late 1949, after the Chinese issue has been settled.

 

[Barkhauer]

Actually we start late 1949, after the Chinese issue has been settled.

Will intervening to help the Nationalists retake the mainland be possible, or do you have to "own" it yourself as USA?

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Actually we start late 1949, after the Chinese issue has been settled.

By 1950, there were still large areas controlled/loyal to KMT, like the whole Islamic part of China and the island of Hainan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang_Islamic_Insurgency_in_China_(1950-1958)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Operation_on_Hainan_Island

 

[Balthagor]

True, though we may simply avoid this issue. We don't have a final decision on this stuff yet.

Taiwan will be there for diplomatic interaction and other options.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Will there be a way of gauging how people in another country feel about your nation?

 

[Projekt 919]

Will there be a way of gauging how people in another country feel about your nation?

There was in SR2020 so I'd bet there is in this one

Will the Game be able to simulate Civil Wars?

 

[unmerged(128965)]

Only thing that prevented me from buying the previous titles was the combat ai. So if they could improve that im pretty much locked.

 

[unmerged(71436)]

I would probably most like a different combat AI, but I guess this has been in a lot of posts. The AI should be able to assemble division formations with support arms and send these into combat in a co-ordinated fashion. Right now, the AI only reacts, it never acts, and it spams tanks and infantry until it runs out. Then comes the siege of individual strongpoints which are fortified with artillery and garrisons and AA. If the enemy army is depleted, there should not be many troops to defend the capital, either.

So, what I think is needed, is a formation AI. The AI should be able to form and use combat formations that are relatively evenly spread, and build realistic armies.

 

[Hardcore_gamer]

Actually we start late 1949, after the Chinese issue has been settled.

1949? Does that mean Stalin is still in charge of the USSR at the start of the scenario? And will he automatically die historically every time? Because there are a lot of things that suggest he was murdered and could have lived longer. I think there should be an event where he either lives or dies, so if he lives then the Soviet Union remains under his leadership for a while longer and maintains a more "aggressive" policy then the Soviet Union did historically after his death.

Also, please tell me that you are planning on changing how armies work. One of the things that turned me off while playing the demo for SR 2020 was that armies and wars were a complete mess. Watching the armies drive/march across the map felt like watching a swarming horde of ants with no sense of knowing what was going on. Trying to control your armies was just painful compared to province based games like Hearts of Iron 2 or 3.

I am keeping a close eye on this game, but unless its become easier to manage and move armies around I will probably loose my interest in it.

 

[Balthagor]

We have not announced anything about how "leaders" will play in game or even if they have a specific role.

Unit control is something we have ideas for, you'll like need to wait for the demo to see if you like our solution or not.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

We have not announced anything about how "leaders" will play in game or even if they have a specific role.

I really hope they have a big effect on the game

 

[Hardcore_gamer]

Unit control is something we have ideas for, you'll like need to wait for the demo to see if you like our solution or not.

So you are thinking about changing the mechanics? I hope we get a Dev Diary about that sometime

 

[unmerged(71436)]

1949? Does that mean Stalin is still in charge of the USSR at the start of the scenario? And will he automatically die historically every time? Because there are a lot of things that suggest he was murdered and could have lived longer. I think there should be an event where he either lives or dies, so if he lives then the Soviet Union remains under his leadership for a while longer and maintains a more "aggressive" policy then the Soviet Union did historically after his death.

Interesting question indeed. It also gives rise to questions about other "events" that could fire, such as the Stalin Note. I.e. would a West German player get the opportunity to re-form a neutral unified Germany in the 1937 borders.

 

[Balthagor]

Without committing to anything...

The Supreme Ruler series lends itself less well to ongoing events. Our system is so free form that it's hard to recreate all the required steps for many of the events past the first few game months. For example, if the Korean war never happens it's harder to lead up to Vietnam. Or if the soviet player influences Iran early in the game, the revolution may happen in a much different way.

This is still on our "Large Game Concepts" document as something we're looking at but it presents challenges to for how much we represent and in what way.