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.
Also make it so that nations that are defeated in the game don't just magically cease to exist. Its really immersion braking in SR: 2020 when fallowing a successful war you get a RTS style "player (insert country) has been eliminated".

Not to mention that it makes war diplomacy extremely limited. I want the ability to bring defeated nations back into the game in the form of puppet states. I should not be forced to manage the land of nations that I don't want simply because there is no way to control how much you will actually control after the war is over.
 
Agreed on Puppet States

How will the game handle Personality Cults like the one in the DPRK in relation to politics?
 
RedRalphWiggum said:
I'd be surprised if the game simulated such things... very intangible and hard to see how it should impact gameplay.
Click to expand...


This.

Rather then similating personality cults it would make more sense to simply give dictatorships bonuses towards production and make them less effected (if at all) by what the general public thinks of the player's actions.
 
Will capitalist still have to build factories by player? It does make no sense. I love the Victoria Style, they are built by capitalists.And Cap. government cannot build factories.
 
Punderland said:
Will capitalist still have to build factories by player? It does make no sense. I love the Victoria Style, they are built by capitalists.And Cap. government cannot build factories.
Click to expand...

I completely hated the Victoria 2 system. Besides the fact that the capitalist AI in that game is horrible compared to what a human player can do by himself there is also the fact that this is a game, and as a game the player has to play it. This is the unwritten rule of game making, even if you are aiming at making a realistic game there are some things that still have to be unrealistic simply so that the player can have something to do in the game. In real life a single person doesn't handle everything from diplomacy to waging wars to conducting trades to building factories even in a planned Communist economy, does that mean the player should simply let the AI do all of those things since anything else is "unrealistic"?

You have the option of letting the AI ministers run things for you if you want to, but those who want to control things by them self's should be allowed to do so. If a Victoria 2 style system (which never worked well in the first place) were adopted it would insta-kill my interest in the game.
 
Punderland said:
Will capitalist still have to build factories by player? It does make no sense. I love the Victoria Style, they are built by capitalists.And Cap. government cannot build factories.
Click to expand...

As you can see from H_G's post, allowing the player to "bulid it themselves" is a fairly recognized charactreristic of Supreme Ruler games. I don't forsee that changing. Although we do want to expand the AI's ability to build, both for itself and when the player uses the "build one for me" option.
 
I know, I'll do some poking again.

I'd write one but I work on stuff that isn't overly exciting; country inventories, equipment lists, tech tree entries. Plus, I'm the middle man for lots of stuff. Our Graphic Artist makes the 2d/3d stuff, I just put it into the game.

I'll at least try and pick up my mini blogs again. (of course, my home system dying last night didn't help any :()
 
A nice economic feature would be a "don't build more than you can afford" option. This would be a check-box on the build order screen which would cause the building to only proceed at the rate you can afford. Imagine placing a coal power plant, 80 days build time, but due to your nation's low income, it takes 240 days to build and doesn't drive you into the red in the mean time. As opposed to the current model, which builds as fast as it possibly can until you run out of money and available credit and your economy crashes, which finally slows the production.
 
I would like to have an economic system at least as complex as in Victoria. I am actually not interested in playing one of the superpowers, but I would really like to simulate the economic rise of some Asian tiger states. Taiwan, Korea, Singapore. In this way it would also be interesting to have a 1990 scenario where you play as one of the former communist countries (Eastern Europe) and try to rebuild them.
 
opag78 said:
I would like to have an economic system at least as complex as in Victoria. I am actually not interested in playing one of the superpowers, but I would really like to simulate the economic rise of some Asian tiger states. Taiwan, Korea, Singapore. In this way it would also be interesting to have a 1990 scenario where you play as one of the former communist countries (Eastern Europe) and try to rebuild them.
Click to expand...

SR: 2020 already had a good economic system. And like I said before I would personally loose all interest in the game if it adopted a Victoria 2 style "limited control only" economic system.
 
Yea it would be awesome to have a tutorial that has a speaker, so if you played a communist country you would hear Spetnaz from COD Black Ops, and if you played as a Democratic country you would hear John F Kennedy. Making the voices a little stereotypical would be funny, like vodka jokes (I'm Polish and wouldn't mind this). Yea, maybe some funny stereotypical objects in the game, like a vodka factory. I would build my entire economy off of that.
 
As a strong British patriot I would not want to see the United Kingdom to become completely submerged under the US sphere of influence. Although possibly the US's most important ally, you cannot say the United Kingdom was a satellite state of the USA. The UK was more than capable of operating by itself (for example the Fawkland's War, which had no superpower, UN or international assistance), and becoming a nuclear power in 1952 resulted in it having a much more important say in international affairs. Additionally, at the beggining of the cold war the British Empire was still mighty, which would have meant the UK would still have had a huge influence on not just her colonies but neighbouring and foreign nations, including both superpowers, despite decolonisation later on. The UK also became a member of the United Nations Security Council, allowing it to have a VETO, which could overule any decision made - including one made by either of the two superpowers. All of this to me sounds like the UK had an extremely influencial position on the world stage, which should result in increased influence in the game.

This does not just include the United Kingdom however, France, as many people have mentioned, should have similar powers and influences, along with China. Therefore all members of the United Nations Security Council (UK, USSR, USA, France and China) should have the choice to have their own sphere of influence, or be part of another. We must not forget that the USA and USSR weren't the only two players in the Cold War.

The beauty of the previous Supreme Ruler titles let the player take full control of the nation, and steer it to whatever end the player wished - which leads to more exciting gameplay. Who knows, it could even result in previous allies becoming rival emerging superpowers, adding to the 'what if' factor of this potentially brilliant game!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back