RUSE Multiplayer

[aznpwnerp]

What kind of multiplayer do you guys wanna see?
A world in Conflict style, where different people are assigned different units(Air player, Armored player, Infantry player) or like most RTS's where you can get all units?

[D3NNIS60]

Like most RTS's, you have your choice of units before the battle in the lobby, where you can discuss a good way of attacking with your teammates.

[Qonstant]

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
What kind of multiplayer do you guys wanna see?
A world in Conflict style, where different people are assigned different units(Air player, Armored player, Infantry player) or like most RTS's where you can get all units?
lets hope it works like world in conflict
every role 1 time in clanwars http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
my clan is thing of getting this game als replacement for wic is there are good tournaments for this game

[Winbyone]

I would like to see an amped up Endwar style Multiplayer. Persistent and intense war with some variations in objectives. Capitols ect. This would mean having two factions, Axis and Allies, with a choice between countries once you choose a faction. I personally think this is the most competitive and addicting manner with which I have seen a multiplayer RTS set up. If you haven't seen Endwar online it goes something like this: The factions get territories divided between them much like a risk board and everyday a few battles take place across the board and as people on each faction fight on those maps those victories and losses add up untill at the end of the day the faction with the most victories on the maps are awarded those territories and advance to the next.

I know this might not be possible as the scope of the maps being made surely limit the number they will make but if they could pull something like that off no other RTS would hold a candle to it.

[obliviondoll]

One of the problems with endwar is that while the TOW mode was "cool," players were left with a feeling that they didn't matter, because you could win all day and not make progress.

Being able to establish a TOW-style campaign with a group of friends commanding the various factions would be a nice plan though. Each player picks a faction to fight for and a nation to play as, and their forces start in an appropriate region on a zoomed-out TOW map. Each player can move his/her units two steps in the map per game turn (however long that may be) and fight in the selected battlefield or any adjacent to it during that turn. Players have a maximum and minimum limit to the number of battles they can fight (except if they're positioned out of reach of the enemy forces). And maybe you could throw in a TOW-scale deception layer to go with it....

[raydude2009]

One multiplayer mode which would be nice would be a "Chain of Command Mode".

Each team has an overall commander (lets call him the theater commander). He is in charge of supply and reinforcements for the other players (lets call them army commanders).

The army commanders can only see units under their command and enemy units that are in proximity. Therefore Commander Army group north cannot see what Commander Army group South is doing. Only theater command has the "big picture" and can see all armies everywhere.

In keeping with RUSE's theme of bluffing and deception, you no longer have to deceive the entire enemy team. You can break them down one by one:

(Play example)
Deceive and demoralize army commander A so he's screaming for reinforcements and help. Theater command then gets pressured into reinforcing him at the expense of the other army commanders B and C. Fight Army commander B to a standstill, but let Army Commander C think he's advancing against minimal enemy opposition.

Meanwhile, once Army Commander C is deep enough in enemy territory you unleash your main attack: a pincers move around Army C that envelops and surrounds him. The jig is up! Army A wasn't in too much trouble after all. But now he's too far from Army C to do any good. Army C gets annihilated.

One army down, 2 more to go.

[dEEpdenm]

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
What kind of multiplayer do you guys wanna see?
A world in Conflict style, where different people are assigned different units(Air player, Armored player, Infantry player) or like most RTS's where you can get all units?

I didn't have luxury to play EW, but play WiC.

WiC is relativly fast pace game, with small maps, no resources gathering, max 20 mins game length, rock-paper-scisors core game mechanics and as the result very teamplay dependent.

therefore, out of role units can be ordered to deverticify units set in 1vs1 or 2vs2 matches.

As far as I understood, RUSE has huge maps. Not sure how WiC gameplay in terms of units can be applied here.

[Winbyone]

RUSE, despite its scale is an RTS, albeit with a twist, and must still maintain combat chain related rules lest it fall prey to children spamming the panzer button. Also, Raydude, I like that idea a lot and hope to see it implemented. As far as ToW, it could make this game great but unless its already well into development I think they are pushing it for time in order to do it right.

[aznpwnerp]

Originally posted by Winbyone:
RUSE, despite its scale is an RTS, albeit with a twist, and must still maintain combat chain related rules lest it fall prey to children spamming the panzer button. Also, Raydude, I like that idea a lot and hope to see it implemented. As far as ToW, it could make this game great but unless its already well into development I think they are pushing it for time in order to do it right.

So you mean like PS3's M.A.G? The only problem I see with that system is when people don't listen to their commanders etc.

[Pieman13]

maybe they should turn Endwar into something like PS3's M.A.G... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

i have an idea now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[TaSniper]

I would love to sea the World in Conflict idea come about. I can sea one player focusing on armor while another player is the air force, with a third using airborne troops, ect. With the confirmed 4 v 4 in multiplayer I would like to think that this is a route similar to the one they'll be taking.

[obliviondoll]

Originally posted by TaSniper:
I would love to sea the World in Conflict idea come about. I can sea one player focusing on armor while another player is the air force, with a third using airborne troops, ect. With the confirmed 4 v 4 in multiplayer I would like to think that this is a route similar to the one they'll be taking.
I don't think this will be enforced in-game, personally, but I bet it'll be more practical/resource efficient if players run their forces this way. So each player has a cerain ability to produceany of their faction's units, but your production becomes more efficient if you focus on a limited number of unit types.

So, as an example, producing massive amounts of tanks and artillery, but nothing else, means in 1v1, a balanced force could hold back with their main force and wipe you out from the air. Then send in their own tanks and artillery.

But if you made the same tank/artillery army in a 3v3 game, and the other two focussed on their own preferred unit types, yo'dend up with a balanced force larger than you could build if you each balanced your own forces.

[aznpwnerp]

Originally posted by TaSniper:
I would love to sea the World in Conflict idea come about. I can sea one player focusing on armor while another player is the air force, with a third using airborne troops, ect. With the confirmed 4 v 4 in multiplayer I would like to think that this is a route similar to the one they'll be taking.

Exactly. With such a large scale it would be really hard to have "real intense tactical battles" with all the micromanaging you will have to do as a sole player.

[p.k.c.]

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
With such a large scale it would be really hard to have "real intense tactical battles" with all the micromanaging you will have to do as a sole player.

says who? the gameplay footage thus far shows a pretty damn slow game. more than enough time for 1 player to do everything.

[aznpwnerp]

Originally posted by p.k.c.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
With such a large scale it would be really hard to have "real intense tactical battles" with all the micromanaging you will have to do as a sole player.

says who? the gameplay footage thus far shows a pretty damn slow game. more than enough time for 1 player to do everything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly like you said, it seems slow w/ 1 player. But if it's divided up into multiplayer players more tactics can be involved making for some real gritty battles. Just my opinion, just offering both sides here.

[p.k.c.]

i dont understand why multiplayer battles would ensure any more tactics than are available to the lone player.

if the game mechanics really are (relatively) slow, there'd be no benefits to having team mates at all.

[Winbyone]

You don't seem to like this game very much Im not sure why your here trying to pick things apart but here goes...

Although the units may not seem to move quick battle becomes chaotic very quickly and when you are looking at 100 square kilometers for a battlefield the responsibilities could quite easily be split four ways.

Between trying to get an edge through micro management to maintaining the home base and economy, to overlooking the entire battlefield and trying to match your opponents overall battle strategy there will be plenty to do between 2, 3, or even 4 people.

[p.k.c.]

what's there to like? i haven't played it yet. im here because i was impressed by the gameplay videos. doesn't mean i have to be awed by the rank and file members who dont seem to know that much about, well, anything.

[Winbyone]

Yes, we are speculating but until they release more details thats all we can do...

And although it may be futile I think we all kinda like to think devs take a look on here once in awhile just to get a feel for where the community is at on things...

[obliviondoll]

Originally posted by Winbyone:
Yes, we are speculating but until they release more details thats all we can do...

And although it may be futile I think we all kinda like to think devs take a look on here once in awhile just to get a feel for where the community is at on things...
Yea. They're probably reading this thread and laughing at how wrong we are right now....

And, just because it HAS to be said....

I hope there's a CTF multiplayer mode! (No really....)

[raydude2009]

Originally posted by TaSniper:
I would love to sea the World in Conflict idea come about. I can sea one player focusing on armor while another player is the air force, with a third using airborne troops, ect. With the confirmed 4 v 4 in multiplayer I would like to think that this is a route similar to the one they'll be taking.

Personally I don't think the WIC division of forces would work in RUSE - especially if the scale of the maps are as big as I hope they would be. If the maps are truly epic sized and people had to choose between being an artillery, airborne, or tank commander, then they will have to scroll back and forth between different areas of the map to support different attacks. I.e. Scroll here to support the holding attack. Scroll there to support the flank attack.

It would be better - not to mention more realistic - to give each person an ability to control a combined arms group. The Germans called them Kampfgruppe (combined arms formations), the Americans called them combat teams, combat commands or task forces. Whatever they were called, they were efficient, regimental-sized mixes of infantry, artillery, and armor that a commander could use for any type of mission.

In RUSE, every person commanding a Kampfgruppe can attack along their own axis, support a teammates attack, or hold himself in reserve to exploit any holes in the front line.

[FrontlinerDelta]

While I love WiC and its system works very well for it, I have to agree with raydude2009. A map that large with that many units would better suited to everyone getting their own "task force" and then communicating and working together to hold specific towns or roads on the map.

[obliviondoll]

Considering the road/supply route system and bases, I think it'll be up to the players whether you want to specialise and spread your forces or command combined-arms units.

I think it'd be great if you could get some kind of advantage in efficiency or quality of production if a single player focused mainly (not exclusively) on a particular unit type, but had the conterbalance of having to rush all over the map to command their units.

And contrast with slightly smaller or less effective forces in a combined-arms setup, but with a more efficient command structure. Give players the choice of how to manage a team.

[beanoboy400]

This site is an interview between the senior producer of the game and an interviwer for a gamesite. The producer reveals loads including multiplayer. 4vs4, 1vs1 2vs2. Game modes everything.
http://www.totalvideogames.com...E/feature-13885.html (http://www.totalvideogames.com/RUSE/feature-13885.html)

[aznpwnerp]

Originally posted by beanoboy400:
This site is an interview between the senior producer of the game and an interviwer for a gamesite. The producer reveals loads including multiplayer. 4vs4, 1vs1 2vs2. Game modes everything.
http://www.totalvideogames.com...E/feature-13885.html (http://www.totalvideogames.com/RUSE/feature-13885.html)

Great find http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[DNAz5646]

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by beanoboy400:
This site is an interview between the senior producer of the game and an interviwer for a gamesite. The producer reveals loads including multiplayer. 4vs4, 1vs1 2vs2. Game modes everything.
http://www.totalvideogames.com...E/feature-13885.html (http://www.totalvideogames.com/RUSE/feature-13885.html)

Great find http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In the old days u would find things first impossibly fast lol

[Gypsy816]

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by beanoboy400:
This site is an interview between the senior producer of the game and an interviwer for a gamesite. The producer reveals loads including multiplayer. 4vs4, 1vs1 2vs2. Game modes everything.
http://www.totalvideogames.com...E/feature-13885.html (http://www.totalvideogames.com/RUSE/feature-13885.html)

Great find http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Thanks for the link!

[Winbyone]

That link has been posted on Kzarr's list of Reviews and Previews for a few weeks now...

[joker562008]

no voice command crap. and if you are going to have multiplayer plz dont make this game a teamwork game at least put a free for all in this game. (like 8 people against each other) im tired of 2x2 4x4 what if i have 3 people playing and its team only then its 2x1 and that suks. oh and what would be nice to see is a world map Like the usa, europe, china and russia kind of like the game risk. lets say usa attacks europe on the big map there will be a battle then it will go to game play (this is where it would to yor game engine) and who ever wins the battle either keep that land or loose it. also the map that you had a battle on would corinate with the world map example lets say usa attaks europe so they would have to attack on shores then the map would be half sea and land. also if theres building in this game put supply depots where a helicopter flys away and brings resources that would be nice but thats only for resources i would like to see barracks and tank factorys. oh and i would like to specials like world in conflict call for air strikes, nukes, so on and so on.right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

[N3V30]

Originally posted by joker562008:
no voice command crap. and if you are going to have multiplayer plz dont make this game a teamwork game at least put a free for all in this game. (like 8 people against each other) im tired of 2x2 4x4 what if i have 3 people playing and its team only then its 2x1 and that suks. oh and what would be nice to see is a world map Like the usa, europe, china and russia kind of like the game risk. lets say usa attacks europe on the big map there will be a battle then it will go to game play (this is where it would to yor game engine) and who ever wins the battle either keep that land or loose it. also the map that you had a battle on would corinate with the world map example lets say usa attaks europe so they would have to attack on shores then the map would be half sea and land. also if theres building in this game put supply depots where a helicopter flys away and brings resources that would be nice but thats only for resources i would like to see barracks and tank factorys. oh and i would like to specials like world in conflict call for air strikes, nukes, so on and so on.right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

You don't have to post that in every topic. Also prepare to have your hopes smashed cause Nukes = EPIC FAIL!

[ADIS1971]

I prefer like most RTS's where you can get all units.
But most of all i want to see a multiplayer campaign (meaning H.I vs H.I).Imagine playing, some parts at least, of the Operation Barbarossa (maybe a Stalingrad or Leningrad campaign?).That would be great!!!!

[dragonfire61968]

Please NOT like Act of War thats kind a stupid, because you loose troops and you respawn again....dead is dead and could not be respawned.

We need Base Building and a kind of research and an income like say as many towns you control you higher is your income and more and better troops you can order.

Anything else is kiddy game. Make it complicated and units historical correct then it will be fun, cause on this hughe wide maps you can´t control every meter wich allows you to find weak points of your enemy and attack then there.

[Pieman191]

Originally posted by dragonfire61968:
Please NOT like Act of War thats kind a stupid, because you loose troops and you respawn again....dead is dead and could not be respawned.

We need Base Building and a kind of research and an income like say as many towns you control you higher is your income and more and better troops you can order.

Anything else is kiddy game. Make it complicated and units historical correct then it will be fun, cause on this hughe wide maps you can´t control every meter wich allows you to find weak points of your enemy and attack then there.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> Where to begin...

<LI> AoW did have base building
You get income from gold mines.
<LI> Transport Trucks must drive to the mine and drive back, during this time they can be shot and destroyed.
[/list] I'm done. Correct me if I said something wrong.

[ADIS1971]

I agree with ""dragonfire61968""

[peakfs_HUN]

I have some suggestions about multiplayer modes which will add to the game's multiplayer mode really much. So let's see what have I brought before you :

Hold the line : This is a simple mode, where the opposing teams should capture and hold one or more cities at a time. When they captured them the "frontline" moves towards the enemy bases. When the "frontline" reach the enemy bases, the game is over, and the winning team successfully forced the opposing team to leave the combat area. But with every successful attack, the actual team longens their supply lines, so they get money at a lower rate, than the actual defending team.(Yeah this pretty much like sounds World in Conflict's Tug of War gamemode Smile )

Real strategist : In this game mode, the player should setup his/her army before the match. So the players should fight only with that army what they had set up before. Players can get support after capturing strategic locations. For example : If a player captures a hilltop, then he/she can call in off-map artillery strike.
Furthermore, capturing cities give the players the ability to request reinforcements, so they can call in their "reserve" units. The player wins when he/she destroyed the enemy completely.

Dunkerque: In this mode, the Allies's team should denfed themselves against the Axis's teams attacks until evacuation arrives. The Axis has fixed amount of resources and combat units. The Allies has no base to build. Each team gets points for certaion actions. Allied forces gain points for surviving and defending themselves. Axis forces acquire points for destroying allied forces. Allied forces win if they can successfully evacuate one third of their army. Axis forces win if they reach certain amount of points.

I think these modes can keep the multiplayer for a looong time. What do you think?

[Pieman13]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif