Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Supreme Ruler Cold War - Developer Diary #1

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.
elryacko said:
Uh. The wallpaper with the map attached to the dev diary? Why does it show a map that includes Kazahkstan? Outdated world maps are plentiful enough to have one of a united soviet union...
Click to expand...
I have to admint I didn't actually notice this before, I suppose our artist selected the map for artistic merit rather than historical merit :)

It would be useful to make it possible to upgrade existing units to next level , for example M60 to M60A1 or M60A3, this will reduce the number of units and you will be able improve your army and put the factorys into operation without building new units
Click to expand...
We do plan to have unit upgrade paths be a part of the overall military equipment system.

Also, regarding the earlier question about ending dates, there will be different considerations for the Campaign game (US vs Soviet Cold War), individual Scenarios, and the "Sandbox" modes. I would anticipate that, when playing the Campaign game, one side or the other would become increasingly unstable if the cold war drags on into the 1990s and beyond, so even if the campaign doesn't have a "fixed" end date, there could be some factors that would prevent it from going on forever.
 
battlefella said:
I have to admint I didn't actually notice this before, I suppose our artist selected the map for artistic merit rather than historical merit :)


We do plan to have unit upgrade paths be a part of the overall military equipment system.

Also, regarding the earlier question about ending dates, there will be different considerations for the Campaign game (US vs Soviet Cold War), individual Scenarios, and the "Sandbox" modes. I would anticipate that, when playing the Campaign game, one side or the other would become increasingly unstable if the cold war drags on into the 1990s and beyond, so even if the campaign doesn't have a "fixed" end date, there could be some factors that would prevent it from going on forever.
Click to expand...

I would rather want to go on if I have played for such a long time. I think post-cold war should be included as well, although I can understand if you won't add much or any content to it.
 
Balthagor said:
The map got some work this week, we're still testing different systems to handle situations like SSRs, colonies, overseas territories, etc.
Click to expand...

Including the ability to define a new colony, territory or SSR? Or revoke such a status?
 
At the very least we always include new content in our updates. With our style of game there's always more you can cover.

Defining new colonies is a secondary priority, by 1950 decolonization already has critical momentum. If our final system makes it possible all the better but we've got other requirements for this area. We'll have more to report on as the development... well, develops :)
 
Balthagor said:
At the very least we always include new content in our updates. With our style of game there's always more you can cover.

Defining new colonies is a secondary priority, by 1950 decolonization already has critical momentum. If our final system makes it possible all the better but we've got other requirements for this area. We'll have more to report on as the development... well, develops :)
Click to expand...

I was mostly referring to defining new Soviet Socialist Republics, and changing their borders, merging or splitting them. This should have some pros and cons, making sure that it is not worth combing all of them or making a fantasy-revamp of them all, but it should always be worth creating one out of newly conquered territory or merging them with a bordering SSR that exists, and occassionally make border adjustments according to culture, loyalty or religion, and maybe even economical reasons. Then you can have local government represented, define the roles and powers of these local governments and decide to fund them off your budget, or allow them to tax their population.

A simulation of constitution and general law system could be a cool and useful feature.
 
Last edited:
battlefella said:
I have to admint I didn't actually notice this before, I suppose our artist selected the map for artistic merit rather than historical merit :)


We do plan to have unit upgrade paths be a part of the overall military equipment system.

Also, regarding the earlier question about ending dates, there will be different considerations for the Campaign game (US vs Soviet Cold War), individual Scenarios, and the "Sandbox" modes. I would anticipate that, when playing the Campaign game, one side or the other would become increasingly unstable if the cold war drags on into the 1990s and beyond, so even if the campaign doesn't have a "fixed" end date, there could be some factors that would prevent it from going on forever.
Click to expand...


Well. I just want to note that the US experienced large amounts of unemployment and unrest in the 70s due to the burdens of the Vietnam War, and OPEC's decision to cut oil production. This unrest resulted in riots, the Symbionese Liberation Army, Weathermen, mailboxes being blown up, banks being burned down.... (just read any newspaper from 1970 or 1972).

Collapse should be able to occur as determined by the game engine.
 
Last edited:
If they make local governments in Soviet Socialist Republics then they would have to do this in all federal states like USA,Yugoslavia even United Kingdom so it would be interesting to do this but it would brought many problems, though I must say it is original idea
 
josip128 said:
If they make local governments in Soviet Socialist Republics then they would have to do this in all federal states like USA,Yugoslavia even United Kingdom...
Click to expand...
well, we don't actually have to do anything, but we'll take the suggestion under advisement :)

The SSRs where not the same as the states. The states are part of a federation, the SSRs where not in the USSR by choice AFAIK.
 
Balthagor said:
well, we don't actually have to do anything, but we'll take the suggestion under advisement :)

The SSRs where not the same as the states. The states are part of a federation, the SSRs where not in the USSR by choice AFAIK.
Click to expand...

When the SSRs decided to leave the USSR, they were allowed to do so... remind me what happened the last time States tried to leave the USA?
 
RedRalphWiggum said:
When the SSRs decided to leave the USSR, they were allowed to do so... remind me what happened the last time States tried to leave the USA?
Click to expand...

actually, they were 'allowed to' because of gorbachev's reforms and only from that time on never before. they were also allowed to due to the weaking influence central control from moscow had on the baltic SSRs. the baltics were recognized as sessionists only 3 months prior to the final dissolution the soviet union. and only 1 month after the aborted coup against gorbachev.

its kind awkard to compare one country on the up with another country on the down.
 
bluepoo said:
actually, they were 'allowed to' because of gorbachev's reforms and only from that time on never before. they were also allowed to due to the weaking influence central control from moscow had on the baltic SSRs. the baltics were recognized as sessionists only 3 months prior to the final dissolution the soviet union. and only 1 month after the aborted coup against gorbachev.

its kind awkard to compare one country on the up with another country on the down.
Click to expand...

Still worth pointing out that states are not allowed to leave the US, just as SSRs were not allowed to leave the USSR for most of its existence. To all intents and purposes the two should be analogous.
 
RedRalphWiggum said:
Still worth pointing out that states are not allowed to leave the US, just as SSRs were not allowed to leave the USSR for most of its existence. To all intents and purposes the two should be analogous.
Click to expand...

technically, states have the right to secede from the union at any time they see the federal government as unfit. as far as how historical the devs want to take this aspect of both u.s. and soviet constitutions is at their discretion. more than likely, they would have to find a breaking point that would warrant such actions taking place in game.

as far as i can tell, the u.s. constitution is a contract between the federal government and the states and not the federal government and the individual person. the bill of rights is something else where certain 'unalienable rights' are guaranteed to the individual of those states that decide to be a part of the union. other than that, any state that sees the federal government running counter to their own state creeds, can secede. whereas during the cold war, you rightly pointed out that SSRs would be in violation of the ruling communist party and would trigger a crackdown on the separtists. this brings us the to late 80's when gorbachev began his reforms and during those reforms, SSRs had the right to remove moscow's yoke.

so they arent that similar.
 
Thing that they had technically right to do this don't actually mean much because technically Yugoslav republic had this right too and you know what happened when they actually tried to do this, what important is state stability and unity in such situations
 
Some good points here although keep in mind, this is a game of the Cold War. US vs Soviet. If one of them collapses, the other side wins. We don't need to focus that much on how they would break apart. While that might be nice for the Sandbox mode, we have to assign it's priority accordingly.

Now independence of colonies is a higher priority since that sort of even occurred so many times.
 
Balthagor said:
Some good points here although keep in mind, this is a game of the Cold War. US vs Soviet. If one of them collapses, the other side wins. We don't need to focus that much on how they would break apart. While that might be nice for the Sandbox mode, we have to assign it's priority accordingly.

Now independence of colonies is a higher priority since that sort of even occurred so many times.
Click to expand...

I agree... it'd be cool as the USSR, playing like a hawk hovering over the corpse of the colonial empires, hoping to pick up allies in Africa, the ME etc
 
Balthagor said:
Some good points here although keep in mind, this is a game of the Cold War. US vs Soviet. If one of them collapses, the other side wins. We don't need to focus that much on how they would break apart. While that might be nice for the Sandbox mode, we have to assign it's priority accordingly.

Now independence of colonies is a higher priority since that sort of even occurred so many times.
Click to expand...

of course its a high on the list, those independence movements like you said gained serious momentum :)

i agree with ralph. africa should be an amazing playground for the cold war rivals; gaining allies, supporting coups and rebels and come to think of it central and south america is going to be just as nuts, albeit a bit more developed in political movements.
 
Holy Mary.

Can this be true? (presses refresh button several times)... yes it seems so.
Since I played Balance of Power back in 1989, I have been waiting for a good Cold War strategy game. Did not find any for 20 years now, either.
And now there comes a goat around the corner and talks about making my wildest dreams come true?

Somebody has heard my prayers after all.
 
battlefella said:
The Non-Aligned Movement ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement ) will have a role in the game. (Even though it raises the funny question, "if you align yourself with the Non-Aligned Movement, does that mean you no longer qualify?")

The UN will also play a role, though the extent of that role is still under some thought.

-- George.
Click to expand...

you can send the un if theres a cease-fire agreement with a penalty to the countries that were a part of the war and indirectly to the either the soviets or the americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back