Some crippling problems in Supreme Ruler Cold War

[Namkar]

I want to preface this by saying that I bought all the previous titles Ruler Supreme (2010 through the global crisis), and although I have some enjoyment of each one, each had some overwhelming problems that prevented them from becoming a great game.

AI: First and worst is probably the AI. I've seen other threads commenting on this, and although I admit he has improved since the expansion of the expansion, has a long way to go. While the AI can do much more now than I could in the past (such as naval invasions), is still not the point at which human beings are nothing more than identifying and exploiting weaknesses.

Micromanagement: Some love it. Some hate it. Both parties are always at war with each other. Whether you love or odium it, to make the game playable is to be able to efficiently manage their resources, even if you are microing. Supreme Ruler, the level at which control is political, and armed control (Battalion level) definite that things will be greatly unmanageable by the player and AI.


Territory: The territory is easy to conquer, but it is difficult to control. The U.S. Army is extremely effective to attack and destroy the enemy army, but when it comes to holding land that is in distress. The same can be said that the Israeli army. The Soviets easily moved to Afghanistan, but had a hard time staying there.

[Common]

Yes I also find any problem in this game. It seems a problem of economy and nuclear weapons.

Economy: Supreme Ruler series the player, as the country's leader, has a significant degree of control over the economy, the construction of almost all independent private sector improvements. Short of outright communism (and arguably even then), the government does not control its economy with an iron hand. Both Victoria Distant Worlds 2 and has an excellent way to model the development of the private sector, and while it is very difficult to do things develop the way they are supposed to, it's worth.

Nuclear weapons: nuclear war was an area of serious study for both sides, with numerous plans in place for both tactical and strategic use in connection with chemical weapons. There was a lot of different purposes and objectives that nuclear weapons could be used for and against, but one of the main objectives was tactical C2 (command and control) nodes and supply centers.

[veGANor]

Your argument is correct, but slightly the wrong thing, but as long as they do not suggest something like: "Remove the light tank units and maintain simple, medium tank, heavy tank" I'm fine, the only reason the game is to build army units along with realistic names. Also you agree that there should be a way, no matter what the method of a country to buy weapons to its allies? As we say I'm from Israel, go to my U.S. ally and propose the purchase of 500 tanks of them, or 10 units in the game. They accept and send me the 10 units after its arsenal, or no one will build some and then send them after they are built.

[desilva]

You are almost trying to destroy the concept of the game. Battalion-sized units give the game a more tactical. While I agree that if we wanted we could come together and create squads and uniting the brigades that would create divisions, and so on. But that would be an option. This would simplify the management of large bodies of troops, but we would still have the same complexity. HOI3 is too simple for me, and I think SR who plays what I think. Divisions clash in battle, while sitting there watching the fight is too boring.

[RyanInt]

I disagree with over poster and agree with original poster. I think HOI 3 is not easy and has more complexities of SR at the time of combat. With coatings, stacking leadership characteristics, etc. But the question of op is to air some of his views on what would make the "set" better. I always feel sorry for people who tell others not like it, leave. A very good idea and I'm sure BG agrees with you. God forbid a paying customer provides information on what led them to continue purchasing product iterations.

[AZUL]

I see the sign telling you not too soft, it really does not like people to stop treating hoi turn him sr. Hoi already exists, what is the point of making a different game on another version. If you like Hoi therefore, is already there, but you can go and play. If you do not like sr, do not have to play, can play a different game. As a paying customer, both posters have the "right" to express the lack of significant changes. But hardly be called to convert the chess checkers to be useful for chess.

[RockOn]

About C2 I think it could be much better than it is portrait. But we cannot ask for a perfect game. So what I propose is to the morale of a more important role in the game. Allied with efficiency, leadership and other things would be to recreate the concept C2. When you have a leader in command of a unit and this leader has several features that can recreate a large part of the chain of command. He also gives some characteristics of some technologies that are not used unless you create new units.