Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You're discussing the whole issue of "acceptable losses". So how many millions have to die before it's unacceptable?

I can't guarantee we won't do the "you loose" popup, that idea is still on the table. Many people believe that the moment you have a nuclear "exchange" (multiple launches, both sides) there is no winner to the war. That is in fact the entire premise of a cold war, that it is waged without direct attacks.

This isn't Supreme Ruler - war of varying temperatures :)

As we get this more clearly defined, we will discuss it. There will likely be a dev diary on it at some point.
 
It would still be interesting to have to rebuild your economy and nation after a nuclear war. No other game has that, I think.

I think you should let the game run on even after nearly everybody is dead.
 
Balthagor said:
You're discussing the whole issue of "acceptable losses". So how many millions have to die before it's unacceptable?

I can't guarantee we won't do the "you loose" popup, that idea is still on the table. Many people believe that the moment you have a nuclear "exchange" (multiple launches, both sides) there is no winner to the war. That is in fact the entire premise of a cold war, that it is waged without direct attacks.

This isn't Supreme Ruler - war of varying temperatures :)

As we get this more clearly defined, we will discuss it. There will likely be a dev diary on it at some point.
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to be thinking of a massive NATO-WARPAC exchange, what if there is a nuclear exchange between say India and Pakistan, or if Israel is about to be destroyed and uses its nuclear weopans to vaporize cairo? how would the game andle this (or fallout)
 
Projekt 919 said:
Everyone seems to be thinking of a massive NATO-WARPAC exchange, what if there is a nuclear exchange between say India and Pakistan, or if Israel is about to be destroyed and uses its nuclear weopans to vaporize cairo? how would the game andle this (or fallout)
Click to expand...

They didn't have nuclear weapons at the time of the Cold War (well India did test a couple of devices in the 70:ies, but didn't get a capable stockpile and the means to use them until much later). Israel might have had nukes for a few years before the end of Cold War, but certainly not for a large portion of it.

The game should definitely not forget that other nations might actually obtain nuclear weapons and want to use them, and they should be able to do so without necessarily triggering a global nuclear war or completely destroying international relations, because there may sometimes be more or less valid reasons to use them (such as self-defence or if it is in the interest of some other nations).
 
Balthagor said:
You're discussing the whole issue of "acceptable losses". So how many millions have to die before it's unacceptable?
Click to expand...

This may be true about the Western nations but not for the Communist ones. I think the likes of Stalin and Mao could probably care less if half of the world were to be destroyed if meant they would get to rule the other half.

Balthagor said:
I can't guarantee we won't do the "you loose" popup, that idea is still on the table.
Click to expand...

I utterly despise those kind of pop-ups regardless of the type of game I am playing so I really hope that it won't make it into the final game. The player should be punished for mistakes with negative in-game effects and not simple scripts/events that basically say "Ops! You screwed up, better luck next time!"

Balthagor said:
Many people believe that the moment you have a nuclear "exchange" (multiple launches, both sides) there is no winner to the war.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, the player should be able to avoid a lose-lose scenario if he holds his cards correctly prior to the war going hot (having advanced tech, having anti-nuke defenses, having already made most of the world join his faction prior to the outbreak of war etc). Like I already said earlier, there should be no way for the player to enter a nuclear confrontation and just walk away with only minor damage inflicted too him, but it should still be at least survivable so long as the player plays smart.

Also, don't forget that MAD wasn't really the reality of the cold war right away. While Stalin was still alive he was gearing the USSR towards a third world war (many believe that he was murdered because the Soviet leadership did not want to fight another world war so soon after the last one) because he believed that the Soviet Union could withstand a "first strike" from the allies and even went as far as trying to calculate how many A-bombs were needed to compare to the German Invasion. After all, ICBM'S had not been invented in 1947 yet, and the allies own documents from the era state that in the case of a war at the time they would not be able to cripple the Soviet army with nukes alone as their aircraft lacked the range to take out all Soviet targets.

That means that within the time frame of 1947-1953, it should still be very possible to wage a third world war that involves nukes without bringing about the end of the world.

Balthagor said:
This isn't Supreme Ruler - war of varying temperatures :)
Click to expand...

I know, but I still think there should be a middle ground. But then again I suppose that if don't want to deal with the limitations of the main campaigns I could just play Sandbox mode (I am assuming that Sandbox mode fallows different rules then the campaigns. Speaking of which how will the AI behave in Sandbox?).

Also, how will Sandbox be different from the main campaign? How will the AI in the superpowers behave differently? Will the US and the USSR still be actively working against each other just like in the main campaign? Or will none of the nations have any real goals in the sandbox mode?

Also, how are nuclear weapons handled? Are they under the player's direct control, or is their usage limited to a simple big red launch button?

Also, historically the US and the USSR maintained thousands of nukes, how many nukes can be considered "a lot" in game terms? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?
 
Last edited:
I dont kow if this has been asked yet or not but, How moddable is the game?

I recently learned about a movie called "C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America" and i think it would be awesome to set up a world situation were the Confederate states of America and The United Kingdom were the two super powers in the cold war, course this could be set up by modding
 
Twichy_boy said:
I dont kow if this has been asked yet or not but, How moddable is the game?

I recently learned about a movie called "C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America"...
Click to expand...
Kind of like This Mod?

Obviously I can't say what the modability of SR-CW will be, it's not done yet, but we're starting from the same engine so most of the moddability of the previous version remains intact. We have a good record for supporting our modders.

@Hardcore_gamer, saw the questions but can't comment on those yet.
 
What about the ones I had on the previous page?
 
I think it is important to have the opportunity for lesser nations to develop nuclear weapons. Thinking of Sweden, we actually had a quite some extensive nuclear research during the 1950 but was ultimately scraped due to costs and the possible increase in threat it would cause in the soviet union.

Smaller states, such as Sweden, have no hopes for winning a war with a gigant such as the Soviets but the strategy is to make the cost of victory very high and that itself a deterrent. NBC weapons could be a part of that strategy.

Sweden grand strategy was to quickly strike at a possible soviet fleet with it´s entire airforce and give time for the army to assemble, this required a extensive road and railroad network which would be under heavy pressure during the estimated 24 h timeframe.

It would be nice to see:
1. The possibility to have nbc weapons and develop them in the dark or in plain view. One gives you a deterrant but increases threat levels, the other a strategic resource but the possiblity of a extrem threat increase (why were you developing in the dark?!)

2. The possibility to make up pre-defined plans before an attack. Calling them "battlePlan A" etc were you tell ie First Army to assemble here, 2nd here etc and navy to go here and intercept every enemy units. I´m sure this idea could be extended.
Why? As this is a cold war (mostley) arm-chair-generals can sit around making plans for a war which may or may not come during the game and respond to situations without acctually having to decleare war.
This could also, of course, make the espionage game even more interesting (ie, find 1st army´s plan of battle accourding to Plan R)

3. I´m unsure about how to implement this, but the effect on infrastructure during a mobilization would be interesting, having clogged roads and railways under heavy attack of enemy air makes defending these vital.

Looking forward to see the end product! All the best,
 
I agree with Nooki. Researching and building nuclear weapons should have positive, not negative effects, at the start of this game period. Nuclear weapons didn't become demonized until much later.

It would be a bit strange if the game mechanics from SR2020 regarding this were kept, and by 1952 everybody is at war with France and the UK for developing nuclear weapons. :)

Many other nations besides Sweden hat nuclear weapons programmes, or political ambitions to obtain them. The list includes West Germany, Switzerland, Brazil and Argentina.
 
i agree with the point of view that the minute that either side goes nuclear is the minute you lose.

the goal should be to up the 'ante' of a specific hot spot in the world where both superpowers have a vented interest in. such as cuba and kennedy. the soviets backed down and kennedy was seen as a hero of the free world in history books. but most history books, although mention the bay of pigs, dont mention that kennedy had to stand his ground for multiple reasons.

the goal is to flex your politcal and nuclear muscle, internationally, while ensuring you have the most amount of sattelite countries in your sphere-through intimidation, coups and counter coups, revolutions and counter insurgencies, destablization, propping up countries and dictators that are friendly to your sphere (such as the west had in south america). all this while not firing a single nuke and ensuring a destroyed planet.

i dont buy that talk about the soviets not caring about firing off a missile and taking it hot. they were people in power and most people in power dont like giving that power up. the minute that they go hot, is the minute they've lost control not just of the warsaw pact, but that of the soviet union itself. the amount of destruction inflicted onto the soviets by the west would ensure that the soviet union would have imploded into itself because of the different ethnicities, let alone a grueling conventional war. of course the same could be said of the united states. although i would think it would be less like to implode like the soviets.
 
I think that everyone can agree that when a nuclear war goes off, that we all lose in a "well your country has been annihilated and it would have been better to avoid the war" kind of way,

but the reason we want to play during and after the war is to see what happens, to "continue" the war until one side literally gives up, this gives a sense of accomplishment to the player and some interesting gameplay even though most of his/her nation has been reduced to rubble, maybe someone wants to play the game specifically to start WW3, just for the fighting, not because he thinks that there such thing as acceptable losses in nuclear war.

Not that i want to see the game be completely combat based, its main focus should definitely be the political side. it just be fun to start up a game when i'm bored and fight ww3 with the soviets,
 
Balthagor said:
We generally read everything on the forum. If we don't answer it that is because there is no clear answer to give at this time.

If you're concerned about following up on an idea later, I suggesting checking that it's mentioned in a thread on our Dev forum.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, thanks :)
 
The more i come to think about it the more sure i become, for a cold war game to truly work there needs to be pre-defined warplans (and a reason to use them).

Any possibility to have it included into the game?
 
Samilou said:
Israel might have had nukes for a few years before the end of Cold War
Click to expand...

Actually most experts now agree that by the six day war israel had a one or two bombs and by the mid to late 70's had a few dozen, also it would be possible for a player controlled country in sandbox to develop nukes of thier own, say a player controlled india or pakistan or even a player controlled medium sized country like spain, turkey, etc.

and on the "you lose' mechanic, maybe make it a function of global population, like if global population decreases by say 40% in one year you lose
 
I loved to play SR2020. It's a great and extensive game :)

Just two little Questions/Suggestions on SR-Cold War:

a) Will there be any modifications of the Casus Belli compared to SR2020? Because in SR2020 the CB was a little bit annoying after some time. Will there be some kind of "option" to influence the CB in SR-Cold War? Especially when playing a smaller Country the player had almost no options to influence the CB. After a while the game resultet in "building up economy & military-only". But i had no heart to declare war on somebody because half of the world would attack me immediatly after that :(

b) How about the Troop Management? Will it be the same as in SR2020? Because i can imagine that playing as USSR with many hundreds of Units can become very confusing after a while. In SR2020 it happend many times that i simply lost any control and overview over my Units.
 
Delor said:
But i had no heart to declare war on somebody because half of the world would attack me immediatly after that
Click to expand...

The solution to that was to declare war on somebody who was already evil, and preferably far away. Of course, you and they both needed a coastline for that.
 
Especially when playing a smaller Country the player had almost no options to influence the CB.
Click to expand...

If you have SRGC or SR Gold and the 6.7.63 update theres ways you can influence CB.

One is by the use of spies.

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=15246

- When a spy is caught, the region that caught the spy will have decreased relations and increased Causus Belli against the spying nation. There is also a hit to M.A.R. ("unit" captured) and to UN opinion.
Click to expand...

The other is by 3rd party relationships.

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=16698

Declarations of war are subject to similar effects and some Causus Belli can be generated with some of these effects.
Click to expand...

3rd party relations is a hidden gem of a feature. I highly recommend that unofficial update with all the features they included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back