Future development ideas

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
medic911
Major
Posts: 165
Joined: Dec 03 2008
Location: Avondale, AZ, USA
Contact:

Future development ideas

Post by medic911 »

Here are some thoughts about things that could be helpful in future versions of the game.

I’ll put everything in sub headers so you can skip to only what you want to read about. enjoy


Quick bullets on things I know have been discussed to death:

• A new regions system (preferably one you can custom draw borders in like cities skylines) to make land trades and concessions easier
• Ai that doesn’t strand itself in Siberia or path into canals where they die undefended because of proxy wars or something

New dynamic in-game “editor” like ARMA 3’s “Zeus Mode”
Key concept: One player has access to all AI nations (in multiplayer or single player) when this mode is enabled. The goal of that player is to live-script a scenario on the fly, reacting to player decisions and skill levels to alter the scenario and keep the game moving along.
How it can work in gameplay: Generally, the AI does most of the opposing of the other players, but the “God” player can make trades between the AI, artificially advance their tech level, or infuse them with cash in order to help them become a credible threat to the player. They could also have access to some new “rebel” or “dissident citizen” values and cause loyalty, worker strike, or revolution issues on the home front as well.
Another way to look at it: I loved being able to create my own scenarios I SR by playing a MP game LAN by myself and setting up certain blocs and technology situations and simulating random events by dice rolling and then changing events in the game to match the roll. . . With a dynamic editor/Zeus Mode style of play, I could save hours of going back and forth between menus and enjoy the game more creating my own, infinitely repayable and different scenarios.

New unit R&D
Key concept: Instead of being locked into certain unit designs & knowing exactly which one you are designing, we could instead have technology unlock different maximum/minimum values for a military unit & then order your designers to put together a unit using certain technologies (the most advanced available if you want the best, most cutting-edge, but are fine with it taking longer and/or more $ to research—or a mix of current and next gen for cost savings and quick turn around) A system like this would even allow for unit upgrades, since you could simply add new technologies to an existing unit design to upgrade it, and then order a retrofit of any vehicles in reserve (though this should cost $ and take repair time.)
How it can work in gameplay: Lets say for example, we have technologies “improved monoplane designs,” “Tactical bomber (or multirole fighter, etc etc) Doctrine” and recently unlocked “First generation Jet Engines . . . ” We could either have A. a database of designs matching that criteria (ME 262, etc) or totally new designs in some cases which you then have a chance of unlocking. These units could be as they are now, grouped by region/country, or it could be totally open-ended (or an option for either). Additionally, after your researchers follow your orders and unlock a unit, if you develop “basic aircraft radar” or “first generation countermeasures” or something else small enough & technologically compatible enough with the design, you can then order a retrofit of the old design to include the new technology—this creating the ME262 B or something, a new design that is dynamically created/numbered depending on the player’s decision for what technologies go into it. At a certain point, the size, weight, or tech level of the new tech makes it “incompatible” to be added, so things cant just be constantly upgraded until the ME 262 is a stealth space bomber.
Another way to look at it: Instead of replacing the current system, we could augment it with the option to create a new unit design. If, for example, we are playing as a smaller country that doesn’t have many good designs in the list, then we could use this system to create a new one.

Custom, Dynamic Diplomacy Blocks & multinational treaties/organizations
Key concept: Multinational treaties (add nation to treaty), Start international organization/treaty/SoI (even if, for now, it is only yourself), and brokered peace deals.
How it can work in gameplay:
• Multinational treaties could simply exist as the current system does, but adds multiple signatories to either side. We can then set the option for treaty ratification to require “All” “Some” or “X number” or “Y name” of the participants agreeing on either side.
• Starting or joining an organization could add certain benefits. For example, a research partnership could grant a % research efficiency bonus; a cultural exchange like the Olympics or something could benefit your DAR; and a “limitation treaty” could “ban” the participants from certain activities or research or construction or require a concession within X amount of time. The latter example wouldn’t be like the annoying CIV 5 un “Hard Ban” which you couldn’t subvert, but a reminder warning when you try to do something against the treaty . . . if discovered while underway (automatically discovered when completed), whatever you did will cause large international penalties—and possibly DAR effects. Being able to set the minimum number of signatories required to take effect means that you won’t be bound by the treaty you propose unless enough of the nations you wanted to participate also do. Similarly, you could use this type of treaty/agreement structure to allow players to start their own spheres of influence & invite neutral nations to join—others would then join as they normally would.
• Brokered peace deals allows the player or a third party AI to offer something to one or more member nations of a war to bribe them to accept peace. This could include demanding both sides concede something the other wants & guaranteeing the agreement for X months/years by agreeing to DoW on whoever breaks the agreement first (again, all of this should be non-binding, because automatic triggers SUCK—see civ 5 again).
Another way to look at it:
• By adding different kinds of multinational agreements and organizations (research cooperative, international space project, international peacekeeping treaty, international free trade bloc, new SoI, cultural partnerships/exchanges like the Olympics or something), we expand the power of diplomacy and the different ways and means you can influence other nations (and your own) by taking part in these agreements which have different effects.
• I also think we could add a “recognize nation” option, to allow diplomacy with anyone who recognizes a dead nation, rebel group, or region within an existing country that has an independence movement in it (either through low DAR, non-loyalty to the owning nation, or covert operation funding resistance). This would be a great too for subversion in the cold war and late game as well as a way to help get decolonization to occur in a non-scripted way in the early game (which would be a cool option to add to early scenarios—an option at game start to take away automatic decolonization).
• It is worth noting that Ive also mentioned new mechanics of “independence movement” “rebels” and “regions.” Ill elaborate a bit on those:
o Rebels: when, for a long enough time, DAR is low, loyalty isn’t native, and youth unemployment is high (or education is either very low or very high) it can influence the chance of rebel groups occurring
 Once a rebel group occurs, they show up like a dead nation, unrecognized as an official entity, but able to spawn rebel units in certain circumstances. Rebels can eventually be recognized by other nations, which gains them trade/aid/confidence and causes more spawning of rebels
o Independence movement
 Kind of like a nonviolent version of rebels. If DAR and the region’s economic conditions are low enough for long enough (even if they have native loyalty—if low enough for long enough) then the region gains an independent movement. All colonies should also have them automatically
 These movements can be supported by covert or overt means, just like rebels. The end result could be a referendum or something—and if the region votes to leave, then you have a choice to either let it & maintain good diplomatic relations, or threaten war—if you have enough military power & they have no allies, then the threat could keep them in your country for a while longer.
Regions would be like states or provinces. I would suggest having hard-coded/mapped regions under one name (like provinces), but then allowing players to create their own custom ‘administrative districts’ or something, so they could trade/colonize/liberate only a part of a territory, rather than all of it.
• Similarly, it would be good if we could create a new country (as a colony or a liberated state) through the same means—like what Europe did when it decolonized the Ottoman Empire & southwest Asia.

Some changes to the loyalty/DAR system
Key concept: Allow an option for local (by province) DAR to cause bonuses/penalties to production, garrison effectiveness, resupply rate, and LOS etc instead of original loyalty (preferably also a third option—in addition to original loyalty).
How it can work in gameplay: This local DAR would be based multiple values—such as social spending, technology, covert operations, ongoing wars with other nations who share the regions demographics (religion, original loyalty, & nations which recognize the region if it is seeking independence/rebellion). I also think that adding a local layer to the economy is good too. Regional unemployment, regional wealth & infrastructure levels . . . even different social spending per region could be possible.

Resource Storage Facilities & spoilage
Key concept: Gives the humans/ai something to do “strategic bombing” on & limit the hoarding of goods outside the market skewing supply and demand.
How it can work in gameplay: Agricultural goods, lumber, and different goods should have a decay rate representing spoilage and/or obsolescence over time (industrial and military goods should have a very low rate compared to food and consumer goods should be in the middle). ALL Resources should also require storage facilities (small, medium, and regular) to keep resources in storage beyond a certain % cap of total production (representing that, at any time, the points of manufacture, sale, and distribution have product on hand or in transit). Say 2-10% of a resource or good can be stored “in the system,” but strategic petrol, resource, or goods reserves require storage facilities to increase the cap. These would make great targets for attacks and sabotage.
Another way it could work: I also suggest that petrol & metal ores should require processing facilities to create end-user materials required to build things or operate units that require processed metals and fuel. Similarly, this adds a new avenue of attack/covert ops and provide a stronger economic model.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”