Game not scary enough.

Discussion on Supreme Ruler 2010 Scenarios

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

The Khan
General
Posts: 1839
Joined: Nov 06 2007

Game not scary enough.

Post by The Khan »

I think that the story does not show with what can be described as a global collapse, more like an excuse to divide and let the world duke it out in Modern combat,minus ICBMS.

*Race war in Europe
*Gulf Stream being slowly strangled by Global heating
*Crashing stock markets
*Global Heating going worse
*Oil Peak

I can't see any. When playing France Scenario, the people don't mind immigrants, whereas they should go batshit insane when I enabled ANY immigrants inside.

About Foodstuff. No food riots? No famines? Just build another tiny food factory with a tiny payment.

Global Heating is nonexistent. I switched my power to petrol power which should be as good as raping the environment. Agricultural production does not suffer, no disasters, no droughts and snow storms.

Oil countries extract and sell oil to limitlessness. They raise it to thousands of dollars per barrel, and noone nukes them for this.


This game needs a grimmer, deadlier setting.
SoB
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 734
Joined: Sep 19 2007
Location: south of the banna rebublic

helo

Post by SoB »

alot of what you say is true but whear efacts are not coverd in 2010(so hold your breath for 2020)

in the france campain how say the imgrant are africa they could be from france spain potgal

yes nuk the oil naition then what all the field on fir or raidoi active and the ruskis are now a oil power (who in there sain mind nuks the bigist holder of nuks


but alot of what you said should be adresd in spr2020 you posted in rong place
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Re: Game not scary enough.

Post by Feltan »

The Khan wrote: ...Global Heating is nonexistent. I switched my power to petrol power which should be as good as raping the environment. Agricultural production does not suffer, no disasters, no droughts and snow storms...
Let me guess, you attend Government run schools? :lol:

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

SR2010 does not include any environmental effects. It is being reconsidered for inclusion in SR2020.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
The Khan
General
Posts: 1839
Joined: Nov 06 2007

Re: Game not scary enough.

Post by The Khan »

Feltan wrote:
The Khan wrote: ...Global Heating is nonexistent. I switched my power to petrol power which should be as good as raping the environment. Agricultural production does not suffer, no disasters, no droughts and snow storms...
Let me guess, you attend Government run schools? :lol:

Regards,
Feltan
Um, yes? But I'm from Turkey, recently managed to go to Denmark. Plus this scenario is fictitious, yet speaks of heating enough to strangle the gulf stream. If I am not mistaken, this amount of heating should ruin a few things. Plus the disasters to gie Al Gore a hardon.
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Re: Game not scary enough.

Post by Feltan »

The Khan wrote: Um, yes? But I'm from Turkey, recently managed to go to Denmark. Plus this scenario is fictitious, yet speaks of heating enough to strangle the gulf stream. If I am not mistaken, this amount of heating should ruin a few things. Plus the disasters to gie Al Gore a hardon.
I couldn't get the link to work; however, here is a cut&paste of an interesting story about global warming from the founder of the Weather Channel.

Regards,
Feltan
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[...]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
ETA Five Minutes ......
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Post by red »

Wow, Feltan, that sounds like something only a fascist, pants-wearing free-market nut who wants to kill babies would post.



I think Khan is correct in saying that 2010 was unrealistically optimistic, but I really don't see the need to correct that if the game is fun; actually, I think the more profound changes that would occur would be much more difficult to model and make the game much more difficult to play if they were. Best to just stick with something interesting enough...
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

red wrote:Wow, Feltan, that sounds like something only a fascist, pants-wearing free-market nut who wants to kill babies would post.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

We MUST have read different stories :P

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog ... l_warming/

http://www.icecap.us/
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Post by red »

The big problem is that he's making folky attacks against scientists as people and abusing his name as founder of the Weather Channel (okay?) to make himself somehow more authoritative than the body of peer-reviewed science. It's junk, no reason to pay any attention to it. That's not to say global warming is or isn't happening, but he's useless.
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Post by red »

...not to be divisive about it. :o Yeah, oops, but I mean it's funny that lately all these threads come around to arguing for or against climate change.
User avatar
Legend
General
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sep 08 2002
Human: Yes
Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by Legend »

There many things we did model in SR2010 and others we did not. Just like a political campaign platform... :wink: where some political parties care about different issues.

Just because our story mentions global problems does not mean we have to continue with that problem as something we model in the game. Same goes for anything else, like presidents being killed off because we didn't allow players to kill other presidents either. If you look through many of our stories we mentioned and eluded to so many factors that aren't represented in the game.

It's great to say that this should be in the game and this shouldn't be in the game but the reality is that everyone's expectations cannot be met.
The Khan
General
Posts: 1839
Joined: Nov 06 2007

Post by The Khan »

Legend wrote:There many things we did model in SR2010 and others we did not. Just like a political campaign platform... :wink: where some political parties care about different issues.

Just because our story mentions global problems does not mean we have to continue with that problem as something we model in the game. Same goes for anything else, like presidents being killed off because we didn't allow players to kill other presidents either. If you look through many of our stories we mentioned and eluded to so many factors that aren't represented in the game.

It's great to say that this should be in the game and this shouldn't be in the game but the reality is that everyone's expectations cannot be met.
Thanks for this great game. Even so, remember a few of my posts, and make some settings "a bit" tougher.For example, French governments should be a bit sweating to suppress a few race riots now and then which might be deciphered into the game as rebelling cities and Foreign Legion units.

And Oil must be more and more expensive to dig up. This is a critical issue in real life EVEN NOW: oil peak.

And PLEASE, add some electronical warfare. The states could have an "internet force" measure as well like money, by investing subsidies in attracting hackers which could reduce infrastructure and supply deliveries of enemies. This is done even now, and has been done, like US mails bing sent to Iraqi cell phones before the war.
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Post by BigStone »

The Khan wrote: And Oil must be more and more expensive to dig up. This is a critical issue in real life EVEN NOW: oil peak.
Not only that .. but i think it would be a nice addition to the game
if you're be able to -explore- new oil/gas fields (or other recources) .... :wink:
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
The Khan
General
Posts: 1839
Joined: Nov 06 2007

Post by The Khan »

BigStone wrote:
The Khan wrote: And Oil must be more and more expensive to dig up. This is a critical issue in real life EVEN NOW: oil peak.
Not only that .. but i think it would be a nice addition to the game
if you're be able to -explore- new oil/gas fields (or other recources) .... :wink:
A campaign about a newly discovered huge Alaska reserve, or battling about the huge oil reserves of Caspian Sea would be a nice naval and air challenge.
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

The Khan wrote:
...And Oil must be more and more expensive to dig up. This is a critical issue in real life EVEN NOW: oil peak...
I'll agree that oil shold be more expensive to drill for, but we are far from an oil peak.

The potential drilling areas that are under consideration when calculating an oil peak are all based on extraction costs of less than $20 (US) per barrel. That may have made sense when oil was bouncing between $10 and $30 per barrel; however, with prices hovering around $100 the calculation no longer makes sense.

If one ups the extraction costs to, say, $75 per barrel -- the tipping point of the peak is over a thousand years away.

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
Post Reply

Return to “Scenarios”