Why we are NOT getting a Japanese faction, and why it's stupid to add one.

[fattoler]

This has already been posted on the console forum but I feel that the PC Weeabos need to be nullifed as well.

Japan was one of the largest players of the Second World War, some may argue that WWII really begins in 1937 when Japan invaded China after consolidating their hold on Manchukuo. Japan would then enter the European War in December 1941 when they attack the American Naval Base Pearl Harbour, Hawaii and subsequently the British and Dutch colonies in South East Asia.

Japan was also an ally of Germany and a member of the Axis in the form of both the Anti-Comintern Pact and the Tripartite Pact (signed in 1936 & 1940 respectively). Despite this fact the co-operation between the two countries during the Global Conflict was minimal due to distance. (apart from the withdrawal of Alexander von Falkenhausen from China and a planned but never carried out invasion of Madagascar)

Japan would then fight against the Commonwealth in the South, the Chinese in the West, and the Americans to the East in a series of bloody engagements, finishing in the rout of Japanese forces from Burma and the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However due to diplomatic reasons and a unwritten mutual agreement that war would distract forces from more pressing fronts, the Japanese were not at war with Russia until the German Surrender in April 1945.

Now understandably many of us RUSE players would wish to have Japan in this game, alongside the serried ranks of the other nations in this game. After all it would complete the set of major players in WWII (if we count the UK as a representative of all Commonwealth nations) and give us some 'cool' units like Zero Fighters Val Bombers and Sendai Infantry.

HOWEVER

As I mentioned earlier the co-operation between the nations of the European Axis and the Co-Prosperity Sphere was minimal, why? Distance. Now if you look at a globe you might see how far apart Europe and North Africa is to Japan and the pacific in general, if you were to look a bit closer at a map which also showed the physical terrain or climate you will also notice that the climate and terrain of Europe and South-East Asia is also vastly different. The main difference is that in Europe the climate is temperate, and the terrain varying in extremes from deserts in North Africa to tundra in Russia, but overall the climate and terrain is moderate, hills, woods and arable land making up the majority, with several heavily populated or industrialised areas dotted all around, there is also far greater infrastructure with motorways and paved roads spreading all over the continent like a spider's web, some dating from the times of the Roman Republic.

Conversely the climate of South East Asia and the pacific is tropical, and the terrain is mostly, Jungle, mountainous, and hilly, with marsh-like rice paddies in more settled areas. Cities are few and far between, most of them being either ports or glorified towns with little to no industrialisation, and subsequently there is a huge lack of infrastructure in the region, most 'roads' are dirt paths and rail lines only beginning to appear.

Due to this fact the art of warfare and field craft differs greatly between the Western and Eastern Theatres. In the West, there is a emphasis on large scale battles covering many miles of land, with co-operation between a vast array of battlefield roles such as infantry, tanks, artillery, planes, and mechanised units. Strategically there is a greater emphasis on movement, which is allowed because the superior infrastructure allows troops and supplies to be moved more quickly.

In East, warfare has a much larger emphasis on dismounted infantry units, fighting though Jungle terrain where visibility and vehicle movement is restricted. Artillery is mostly light because the roads do not allow large field guns to be moved, likewise tanks are very much smaller, most of them being light tanks like the Stuart or the Type 95 Ha-Go, the heaviest being the Sherman or the Type 97 Chi-Ha. Due to the jungle terrain and paddy fields tank movement was minimal, and for the large part was used for infantry support. Planes could do very little to support ground troops due to the jungle limiting visibility. Overall, fighting was a much slower affair in the far east and strategically the lack of infrastructure in South East Asia made advances a ponderous business, in the pacific it was based on very risky beach landings and 'island hopping', with fleet trains keeping Marines in supply.

Finally the aesthetic and materiel make-up of the forces involved in the pacific theatre was very different to the European one. The American and Commonwealth forces in the East had very different equipment to their comrades in the West. For reasons which I mentioned earlier tanks and vehicles were on the lighter end of the spectrum, with things like the Cromwell, the 17 pdr. and the Pershing making a no-show for example, the fact that these weapons were needed more in Europe than in the pacific is also a important reason why they were not sent to fight the Japanese.

Now R.U.S.E. is a WWII strategy game ostentatiously set in the European or Western theatre, therefore the factions involved are based on their appearance in the Western theatre, which for most of them (Italy, Russia, and Germany) was their only theatre. R.U.S.E. Also has all of it's maps based on European climate and location. Even the general mechanics of game favour the Western style of warfare which is based on grand battles, with much less emphasis on micromanagement.

Thus due to all of these factors the addition of a Japanese faction to the current game, or even the creation of a new game based in the pacific and the subsequent movement of the current factions intact would not work at all. The fighting styles do not fit together, nor do the mechanics.

tl;dr Version:

The pacific theatre was a very different place to the European Theatre; you didn't get half the units you see in the current game like Cromwells, Pershings, and Comets (oh wait those aren't in the game, how silly of me), the fighting style was different, with a greater emphasis on jungle fighting and beach landings, which is because of the terrain. So basically the armour base would be useless and poor old Japan would suck hard on a European map. With all those wide open spaces where it's Banzai charges and puny tankettes would be useless.

Conversely, Germany would have it tough on a Pacific map, no wide open spaces for Blizkreig, no breathing room for it's planes as they get shot down.

Long story short, Japan wouldn't fit into the current RUSE.

[Covert-141]

Japan doesn't fit, but neither does Nuclear War now does it? But its there. Its a vidyagame. At this point, its already imbalanced with no hope of being fixed so who gives if it ends up worse off? Mabye something will happen then :\

- Also don't lure console players over here we've already seen the disastrous effects of that.

[Alcarin21]

Fattoler thanks for that post, it shows clearly why japan would be fail indeed.

Nick yes you are right nuclear mode dont exist either but lets not encourage devs to do next silly moves like adding japan instead of balancing game.

If i had to choose for balance or Japan its balance all the way.

Hell i wouldnt even add japan even if everything is fixed. No need for japs kamikazes or silly crap UK tanks in their lines and more bunkering.

All that japs have other nations already have as perks save for kamikazes. And shot down planes do the kamikaze stuff *cought* depots *cough*

So any nation adding is fail

[Brahmanfire]

Naw... this game is Fail without the Swiss tbh.

[Warforger]

^ Of course remember, Swiss Army Tanks!

http://static2.cdn.ubi.com/gamesites/ruse/images/clip_image001_screen.jpg

Wow OP is taking things too seriously, using this logic France, Italy, Russia and America shouldn't be in the game because they weren't available in all the era's.

[KillaJules]

None of this matters at all. If Japan were added, of course Asian maps would be included, bu this doesn't necessarily have to be cramped Pacific-style maps. Mongolian, Manchurian, Japanese home island, Chinese and possibly Burmese maps would be fine for all factions.

Japan would not be underpowered. Look at Italy, they have rubbish tanks, but they are competitive in this game. I can see a great deal of ignorance regarding Japanese military tech during WWII. They had an extremely strong air-force and their ground forces were decent enough except for their tanks.

Despite the weakness of Japanese tanks, they were initially used successfully because nobody suspected that Japan could use its tanks in woods and swamps.

Many of the units are not portrayed in a way that is historically accurate, so Japan lacking very strong units wouldn't be a problem, in the same way that it is not a problem for Italy.

The real problem would be adding naval units. I have no idea how sea planes could be added and aircraft carriers would never work with the current design of the HUD.

Finally, there is no excuse for not adding Hungary and possibly Romania. Each of these nations had armies comparable to Italy's (stronger in some ways, weaker in others) they designed many of their own vehicles and aircraft and were in the war for longer.

[Alcarin21]

Finally, there is no excuse for not adding Hungary and possibly Romania. Each of these nations had armies comparable to Italy's (stronger in some ways, weaker in others) they designed many of their own vehicles and aircraft and were in the war for longer.

Oh but do tell us what did Hungary and Romania had that current RUSE nation do not have?

Its pointless to add a repainted nation with different flag and no unique perks in their army arsenal.

They had ****ty tanks, ****ty planes, ****ty infantry they had elite units and everything what they had all other nations already have, so they add nothing to the game except hungarian and Romanian flag.

Completley pointless just like Australian New Zealand, Dutch, Polish.

Well atleast polish can give us cavalry to laugh at.

[KillaJules]

If you want to know about unique units that Hungary and Romania would have, here are a few:

Toldi I and Toldi II light tanks, Turan I and Turan II medium tanks, 48M TAS tank (equal to the panther), Zrinyi assault guns, zrinyi tank destroyers, 40M Nimrod light tank destroyer/AA hybrid vehicle, WM-23 fighters, TACAM T-38 and T-60 and Vanatorul de Care R-35 tank destroyers, IAR-38 air recon, IAR-80 and IAR-81 fighters, JIS.79 and JRS.79 bombers and SM.79B fighter-bombers. There were also license-built German mmachines such as the Panzer III (T-3), Panzer IV (T-4), Tiger I and HS.129 fighter-bombers.

Theres a reason why they were not completely over-run by the Soviet Union as soon as they were attacked. They were in the war until the very end.

Of course these nations would have their own perks if added.

[fattoler]

Let's see, 'balance', quality, spamming, strength, air power, defence, not many perks left are there?

[Alcarin21]

Originally posted by KillaJules:
If you want to know about unique units that Hungary and Romania would have, here are a few:

Toldi I and Toldi II light tanks, Turan I and Turan II medium tanks, 48M TAS tank (equal to the panther), Zrinyi assault guns, zrinyi tank destroyers, 40M Nimrod light tank destroyer/AA hybrid vehicle, WM-23 fighters, TACAM T-38 and T-60 and Vanatorul de Care R-35 tank destroyers, IAR-38 air recon, IAR-80 and IAR-81 fighters, JIS.79 and JRS.79 bombers and SM.79B fighter-bombers.

Theres a reason why they were not completely over-run by the Soviet Union as soon as they were attacked. They in the war until the very end.

Of course these nations would have their own perks if added.

Well if a unit is equal to panther then its not unique unit...

Also if a name is different that does not make unit unique like sturmtigers for example they are unique, sahariana is unique, gvardya is unique, legionares are unique willys are unique(well arguable) 88/90 is unique, Jet Fighter/bomber is unique

What did hungary has as unique unit?

I never heared of any allthough i never learned Hungarian or romanian army.

EDIT: I checked for Toldi and it looks like a ****ty tank really far from anything unique about it it had 20mil gun 20mm armour and 35 for IIa and III tank and the only unique stat i can find its the fact only 202 were produced.

Turan tanks, everything they had Tigers and King tigers already have better and pershings and IS3 etc, nothing unique to add to game again.

40M Nimrod Ok thats the 1st potential unit i can say it might be unique to RUSE current armament, but i am not sure how to put it in ruse BECAUSE if it would actually be dual purpose armored tank it might be OP or it might be so costly noone in 1v1 would ever use it or it would have to be carefully balanced which would be extremley hard. But even then only explanation sounds unique after checking stats and seeing armament

40 mm Bofors/60 AA-gun

It looks nothing else but a bad clone of m19 experimenting with dual purpose and failing id say.

I cba to look over all units you listed though.

I might do it later.

However i think you dont really get the point of unique unit id say. You can go argue that a slightly modified gun and different name can be enough to claim unit being unique but in RUSE that is not the case. If you rename Carro M13 to Toldi I and Carro M15 to Toldi II that brings nothing to RUSE as RTS game imo.

Not to brag or anything but partisans from my country(Yugoslavia) or Poland are more unique than Hungarian and Romanian army together compared to the current RUSE nations but its hard to impliment that and balance it.

I just see these 2 nations as a bad clone of Italy thats all.

[fattoler]

Originally posted by KillaJules:
None of this matters at all. If Japan were added, of course Asian maps would be included, bu this doesn't necessarily have to be cramped Pacific-style maps. Mongolian, Manchurian, Japanese home island, Chinese and possibly Burmese maps would be fine for all factions.

Japan would not be underpowered. Look at Italy, they have rubbish tanks, but they are competitive in this game. I can see a great deal of ignorance regarding Japanese military tech during WWII. They had an extremely strong air-force and their ground forces were decent enough except for their tanks.

Despite the weakness of Japanese tanks, they were initially used successfully because nobody suspected that Japan could use its tanks in woods and swamps.

Many of the units are not portrayed in a way that is historically accurate, so Japan lacking very strong units wouldn't be a problem, in the same way that it is not a problem for Italy.

The real problem would be adding naval units. I have no idea how sea planes could be added and aircraft carriers would never work with the current design of the HUD.

Finally, there is no excuse for not adding Hungary and possibly Romania. Each of these nations had armies comparable to Italy's (stronger in some ways, weaker in others) they designed many of their own vehicles and aircraft and were in the war for longer.

So basically you're saying Japan should become 'Italy 2: Electric Boogaloo'

[Alcarin21]

Originally posted by fattoler:
Let's see, 'balance', quality, spamming, strength, air power, defence, not many perks left are there?

The only perk i see left of these its a support perk, but i have NO CLUE how to impliment that cos higher resource income would imbalance the game completley and i dont see anything else that they could have and be true to historical facts atleast to high extent

[KillaJules]

My point was that if Italy is considered strong and unique enough to be included then Romania and Hungary should also.

The 48M TAS although equal to the Panther could be represented as unique by giving it a different price, different research price or machine gun, adjusting the speed, putting it in the prototype base etc.

They would not be clones of Italy because their only similarities were weak tanks. Air power, artillery, tank destroyers, infantry etc. would all be totally different.

Also, existing units do not need to be clones. Instead of portraying the Turan II as an M15 clone, you could give it less firepower and less speed but more armour. Like a Panzer III with lvl 3 armour.

This game is not true to historical facts, so there are many ways to interpret various units. They are easy to make unique without just a different machine gun, but a few units would be clones (Zrinyi and M75, Toldi I or II and the M11 and thats it). This isn't a problem because this game already has clone units. Veltro and Mustang, Yak-3 and D520, Mitchell and He-111 many AT guns and some artillery.

Saying that the Nimrod would just a bad duel purpose M19 is unimaginative. It could be portrayed as a faster $20 Wolverine with a bofors gun or whatever. That is certainly unique, interesting and could be balanced.

And these nations also had some odd prototype vehicles totally unlike anything Italy ever had. The Buzoganyveto was an ultra-long range rocket launcher that could pierce any armour.

Also, I do not see how Yugoslavia or Poland could be more unique than these countries. My grand parents were from Yugoslavia so I'm not biased in this case.

[fattoler]

If we really want to see some Eastern theatre action, we'd need to make a whole new game from scratch, none of the old factions present. That way we'd be able to balance the new ones without having to just do re-runs of old factions.

[fattoler]

Originally posted by KillaJules:

They would not be clones of Italy because their only similarities were weak tanks. Air power, artillery, tank destroyers, infantry etc. would all be totally different.

Which is to say they are both the same. Sorry mate but Rumania and Hungary are pretty damn low on the 'Factions that could be implemented into R.U.S.E.' queue, but at least they are ahead of Brazil and Tanau Tuva.

[KillaJules]

How is that saying that they are the same? The UK has weak tanks but they are not an Italy clone.

They might not be high on the list of priority factions, but they are far higher than anyone else and they did more in the war than Italy (that isn't saying much lol, but that isn't the point).

Your reasoning against Hungary and Romania could be applied to Italy as well, but they are in the game. They were no less significant, only less well known.

[AverageSoldier]

Why do people want new factions? Isnt USA, Germ, France, British, Italy and USSR enough? The game is close to being balanced, we dont need new factions, new settings all we need is balance which is very close! Wish noobs would stop wanting new god damn ****ing factions or useless things for once.

[fattoler]

Three things.

1. The UK Has stronger tanks than Italy, they are just more expensive.
2. You need to think how Rumania would fit into the whole spectrum of R.U.S.E.
3. None of this even matters because we are never going to get a new faction added to R.U.S.E. as it is. Japanese, Rumaninan, Czechoslovakian, Yugoslavian, Canadian or Finnish. Nope, nothing at all.

[KillaJules]

AverageSoldier, you completely missed the point of what I was saying. What I was saying was that there is no reason that Italy should be added that cannot be applied to other nations.

Three things:
1. They could have medium tanks of strength in-between Italy and UK
2.If you mean would they have a unique play-style, then yes I think that they would. This is easy to do since the game already takes many liberties with historical accuracy. Only USA has unarmoured mobile flak? UK, France and Germany without mobile flak in 1939? Fast moving Pershings? Heavy bombers costing less than a Typhoon? This is all totally wrong among other things, but it works.
3. Yeah, I know you are right, but that isn't what we were discussing.

[Alcarin21]

My point was that if Italy is considered strong and unique enough to be included then Romania and Hungary should also.

Italy was considered a major problem as army and as nation political power

Big enough actually to open landing and overthrow fascism.

You said Hungary and Romania did more compared to Italy?

WTF

Italian low fighting morale might be something that looks like they didnt do anything but they used far more effort to supply Rommel in Africa than Romania and Hungary ever did combined to help support eastern armies.

You ever heared for battle of Keren? Divisions fighting amongside Rommels Africa corps, when led with right commanders liek Rommel Italians were not a bad enemy.

You KillaJules just keep saying something random but you havent EVER gave a constructive idea as what their perk should be?

Look unit is NOT UNIQUE if you change firepower by X DPS and cost for XY $

Theoretically you can claim its unique but practically it doesnt bring anything special to RUSE.

Hungary and Romania never even really fought their war they just sent troops to aid GERMAN OFFENSIVE while atleast Italians fought their own battles(doesnt matter how succesfull)

I think you dont understand the concept so better to not put ideas that are useless.

UNIQUE in RUSE for me is something that is either so much better than anything similar(Sturmtiger) or so much different (88/90, Sahariana)

Carro M15 for me is not unique just cos its drives 47kmph. Panther could be cos its the most powerfull medium tank in game.

Example

Carro M15 15$ 47kmph lvl4 armor dmg 5 MG42
Turan II 10$ 29kmph lvl4 armor dmg 4 MG34

Thats not something to bring new value to RUSE.

[Spacemanc]

Historically and game play wise, I think that Japan would be best suited to naval battles. You could have maps with series of islands, with maybe engineer boats to get supplies, fast attack boats, aircraft carriers etc. The problem is that each faction would need a full naval section added and it brings up all kinds of gameplay problems.

I think we'll probably get Japan as another land faction, with a couple of Eastern maps (Maybe Singapore for example) Nobody really complains about USSR and Italy playing on the French based maps, so why not Germany and Italy fighting in the Far East.

[Die_Happy_]

you could add japan
just take a look at men of war
they have japan as a faction besides, germany , russia,britain, and the usa.

of course they use a lot of prototype vehicles and weapons. also japan plays a bit different compared to the other faction in men of war but they are still a very viable option to play with.

considering RUSE uses FRANCE, which also uses quite a lot prototype weapons or very rare equipment i wouldn't mind seeing a Japanese faction.

problem would be the balancing. they would at least tank wise be VERY similar to italy, they infantry would be quite good i guess and also like italy they would be a lot focused on mobility and maybe artillery.

in reality one of the strong points was japans navy but this is a army branch not represented ingame.also pretty much using any realistic facts to create ingame stuff is just wrong since the game is simply not realistic in any way. it just uses WWII models you could easily replace them with any other era, vietnam or even sci-fi stuff.
so the problem would be generating a playstyle with strengths and weaknesses for japan. although possible it would be very hard to make it differ much from the italy faction.

[Abberon]

I'm going back more to the original post.

I pretty much disagree with all of fattoler's reasons for not including the Japanese faction.

Saying that it wouldn't work for RUSE because of terrain is complete balogna. The largest pitched battles the world has ever seen were in Asia. The battle of Badger Mouth Pass saw the Chinese lose half a million men in one da, including 150,000 cavalry.

If there's enough room for 150,000 cavalry to move around in formation on one battlefield, there's sure as hell room for tanks and artillery to as well.

The reason Japan wouldn't work as a faction is because they didn't really ever fight a real land war and didn't build equipment to do so. Their war effort was entirely dependant on their navy and their equipment on the ground never really progressed past mid-late 1930's tech. It didn't need to.

[Abberon]

Originally posted by Abberon:
I'm going back more to the original post.

I pretty much disagree with all of fattoler's reasons for not including the Japanese faction.

Saying that it wouldn't work for RUSE because of terrain is complete balogna. The largest pitched battles the world has ever seen were in Asia. The battle of Badger Mouth Pass saw the Chinese lose half a million men in one day, including 150,000 cavalry.

If there's enough room for 150,000 cavalry to move around in formation on one battlefield, there's sure as hell room for tanks and artillery to as well.

The reason Japan wouldn't work as a faction is because they didn't really ever fight a real land war and didn't build equipment to do so. Their war effort was entirely dependant on their navy and their equipment on the ground never really progressed past mid-late 1930's tech. It didn't need to.

[Spacemanc]

Originally posted by Die_Happy_:
also pretty much using any realistic facts to create ingame stuff is just wrong since the game is simply not realistic in any way. it just uses WWII models you could easily replace them with any other era, vietnam or even sci-fi stuff.

If you take out the proto units, the game is pretty realistic, though obviously game play is more important. The terrain problems in Italy and Japan was very similar (despite different climates,) so again I don't think that is worth considering.

Your point about replacing units with sci-fi units etc, is true for most RTS games. Is RUSE that different to Supreme Commander for example?

[Alcarin21]

Originally posted by Spacemanc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Die_Happy_:
also pretty much using any realistic facts to create ingame stuff is just wrong since the game is simply not realistic in any way. it just uses WWII models you could easily replace them with any other era, vietnam or even sci-fi stuff.

If you take out the proto units, the game is pretty realistic, though obviously game play is more important. The terrain problems in Italy and Japan was very similar (despite different climates,) so again I don't think that is worth considering.

Your point about replacing units with sci-fi units etc, is true for most RTS games. Is RUSE that different to Supreme Commander for example? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes it is.

If RUSE isnt different from supreme commander then NO RTS is different but all are the same.

/facepalm

RUSE is also definetly more realistic than if you would have star wars cloners running around with those big walkers and floating tanks.

Duh you guys fail indeed

[Abberon]

I'm going back more to the original post.

I pretty much disagree with all of fattoler's reasons for not including the Japanese faction.

Saying that it wouldn't work for RUSE because of terrain is complete balogna. The largest pitched battles the world has ever seen were in Asia. The battle of Badger Mouth Pass saw the Chinese lose half a million men in one day, including 150,000 cavalry.

If there's enough room for 150,000 cavalry to move around in formation on one battlefield, there's sure as hell room for tanks and artillery to as well.

The reason Japan wouldn't work as a faction is because they didn't really ever fight a real land war and didn't build equipment to do so. Their war effort was entirely dependant on their navy and their equipment on the ground never really progressed past mid-late 1930's tech. It didn't need to.

[Die_Happy_]

ahh so tank destroyers were never equipped with MG or had high explosive rounds in real like ?

and paks were never issues HE ammo ?

interesting, didnt know that. and the panther gun was weaker against tanks than the tiger gun, also a nice realistic thing we got ingame ...

artillery sucks vs tanks huh ? then why did german tankers fear the (i)su-152 that much. the list goes.

2pdr guns with 40mm ammo can take out maus tanks.

tanks all have the same armor all around, another nice realistic gameplay aspect we got here.

the list goes on...

/sarcasm /rant

do not call this game realistic, plz do not. because it is simply wrong and unrealistic on sooooo many levels.

so comparing it to anything real live is simply wrong.

of course you can use units inspired by their real life counterparts. thats all fine but plz dont draw conclusions between ingame and real live.

i like RUSE a lot, it uses my favorite theater, WWII and although not even close to realism it manages to get nice gameplay going with almost good balance.

and considering Sup Com, yes i would say RUSE is a lot different. this starts with the lack of certain controls like attack ground, patrol, follow, guard etc. then you have the "always visible" structures and units chips. and not to forget the whole RUSE card aspect.

however gameplay of ruse wouldnt change a bit if you would replace the WWII theater with vietnam or cold war or maybe a sci fi scenario.

[Alcarin21]

Originally posted by Die_Happy_:
ahh so tank destroyers were never equipped with MG or had high explosive rounds in real like ?

and paks were never issues HE ammo ?

interesting, didnt know that. and the panther gun was weaker against tanks than the tiger gun, also a nice realistic thing we got ingame ...

artillery sucks vs tanks huh ? then why did german tankers fear the (i)su-152 that much. the list goes.

2pdr guns with 40mm ammo can take out maus tanks.

tanks all have the same armor all around, another nice realistic gameplay aspect we got here.

the list goes on...

/sarcasm /rant

do not call this game realistic, plz do not. because it is simply wrong and unrealistic on sooooo many levels.

so comparing it to anything real live is simply wrong.

of course you can use units inspired by their real life counterparts. thats all fine but plz dont draw conclusions between ingame and real live.

i like RUSE a lot, it uses my favorite theater, WWII and although not even close to realism it manages to get nice gameplay going with almost good balance.

and considering Sup Com, yes i would say RUSE is a lot different. this starts with the lack of certain controls like attack ground, patrol, follow, guard etc. then you have the "always visible" structures and units chips. and not to forget the whole RUSE card aspect.

however gameplay of ruse wouldnt change a bit if you would replace the WWII theater with vietnam or cold war or maybe a sci fi scenario.

1st part is ok second is noobish. gz

So you're arguing that if youd change units of RUSE with sci-fi scenario wouldnt change a bit?

LOL

So lets take Star Wars... Death Star from prototype? 1 ends game?

Star Destroyers instead of planes LOL

It would look 10 times less realistic than it looks now.

Noone or only idiots claim ruse is realistic but compared to Starcraft II its a god of realism for them cos SC2 now thats unrealistic.

normal UK at guns can take out Maus still. l2p

Its funny because i bet all those who want another nation added cant even play all that are currently available, you just want more like little consumer idiots who want bigger more shiney etc.

I cant play all at the highest skill lvl, only 1 and rest i play semi good to semi average. So why want Japan if you didnt even play the full potential of the game yet?

[Spacemanc]

Originally posted by Alcarin21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Spacemanc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Die_Happy_:
also pretty much using any realistic facts to create ingame stuff is just wrong since the game is simply not realistic in any way. it just uses WWII models you could easily replace them with any other era, vietnam or even sci-fi stuff.

If you take out the proto units, the game is pretty realistic, though obviously game play is more important. The terrain problems in Italy and Japan was very similar (despite different climates,) so again I don't think that is worth considering.

Your point about replacing units with sci-fi units etc, is true for most RTS games. Is RUSE that different to Supreme Commander for example? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes it is.

If RUSE isnt different from supreme commander then NO RTS is different but all are the same.

/facepalm
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yeah at a basic level ruse isn't different to supreme commander - in what way is it? Supreme commander didn't have ruses, but it had units which replicated a lot of their effects. By their nature RTS games are not that different from each other.

[Alcarin21]

Well yeah at a basic level ruse isn't different to supreme commander - in what way is it? Supreme commander didn't have ruses, but it had units which replicated a lot of their effects. By their nature RTS games are not that different from each other.

Yep at basic lvls all FPS games are same aswell and all RPG games are same and all driving games and all sports games

So whats your point?

[Spacemanc]

Originally posted by Alcarin21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well yeah at a basic level ruse isn't different to supreme commander - in what way is it? Supreme commander didn't have ruses, but it had units which replicated a lot of their effects. By their nature RTS games are not that different from each other.

Yep at basic lvls all FPS games are same aswell and all RPG games are same and all driving games and all sports games

So whats your point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That most RTS games are very similar apart from the models, setting and art work. Gameplay and strategies are never that different by their nature! It was diehappy that said this:


Originally posted by Die_Happy_:
it just uses WWII models you could easily replace them with any other era, vietnam or even sci-fi stuff.

I was just pointing out that the same is true of most RTS games. Stop trolling.

[Abberon]

RUSE is about 100x more realistic than Supreme Commander. Supcom was a spammy joke and was some of the most boring strategy I've ever played. There was so little actual strategy in Supcom it wasn't even funny.

Starcraft, while laughingly unrealistic, was at least fun in how tactical it is.

[darthviadro501]

Originally posted by Abberon:
RUSE is about 100x more realistic than Supreme Commander. Supcom was a spammy joke and was some of the most boring strategy I've ever played. There was so little actual strategy in Supcom it wasn't even funny.

Starcraft, while laughingly unrealistic, was at least fun in how tactical it is.

Yep, infantry healing self by mitosis is totally realistic.
If you think SupCom is the spamming fest then youre total noob. Quit posting and l2p.

[Alcarin21]

Yep, infantry healing self by mitosis is totally realistic.

There is a difference between more realistic and absolutley realistic.

l2read.

[Abberon]

I didn't say Ruse was realistic. I said it was more realistic than giant walking death robots. It IS a spam fest.

RUSE can also be a spam fest, but usually only when you're playing noob team games.

As for L2P, that really has nothing to do with why I didn't like SupCom.

[Brahmanfire]

this whole thread is fail.

[kierentod12345]

This game has been 'dead' for quite some time, developer support wise (patches not dlc). Only thing we will see is DLC crap. The last dlc was probably the last. Ubisoft wont pay EUGEN to fix the game. Thats why i barely ever post on this forum as its rather pointless now. Also the developers dont seem to care or understand what we all want anyway. They dont talk to us and i highly doubt they read these forums. Would be funny if ubisoft threatened to sack them for talking to us. LACK OF SUPPORT FROM DEVELOPERS = Long term loss.

[fattoler]

Originally posted by Abberon:
I'm going back more to the original post.

I pretty much disagree with all of fattoler's reasons for not including the Japanese faction.

Saying that it wouldn't work for RUSE because of terrain is complete balogna. The largest pitched battles the world has ever seen were in Asia. The battle of Badger Mouth Pass saw the Chinese lose half a million men in one day, including 150,000 cavalry.

If there's enough room for 150,000 cavalry to move around in formation on one battlefield, there's sure as hell room for tanks and artillery to as well.

The reason Japan wouldn't work as a faction is because they didn't really ever fight a real land war and didn't build equipment to do so. Their war effort was entirely dependant on their navy and their equipment on the ground never really progressed past mid-late 1930's tech. It didn't need to.

Yeah, still no roads to move your supply trucks in an efficient way, not to mention the fact that that terrain would be for only 4 or 5 maps in the game, then what the hell do you do when you go into Burma? In a game like Company of Heroes, Japan would work wonders, but here? no.

[dan-1993uk]

Looks like your whole thread is wrong Japan is coming.

proof:http://img233.imageshack.us/i/40577732.png/

[fattoler]

Don't be silly...

*read's thread*

http://ragecomic.appspot.com/packs/cereal/images/CerealSpitting.png

NO F**KING CENTURION YOU BASTARDS!

[KillaJules]

Fattoler, Italy is well known in WWII because they fought against and alongside the Americans. Hungary and Romania did not and so they are less well known.

Romania invaded the USSR and fought at Stalingrad. Italy didn't do as much onm the Eastern Front, they fought alot in North Africa but that was a side-show. Romania was one of Germany's most important allies because they supplied them with oil.

You are not convinced that these natios would have perks or anything truly unique. This is easy to solve. Romania had 76 mm flak, portray that ingame as intermediate in strength and cost between light flak and the German 88 mm flak. That would be unlike any other unit. Medium bombers without research, the Nimrod, a tank destroyer with 450 m weapon range etc. as this game takes many liberties it is easy to make factions very unique.

[fattoler]

Originally posted by KillaJules:
Fattoler, Italy is well known in WWII because they fought against and alongside the Americans. Hungary and Romania did not and so they are less well known.

Romania invaded the USSR and fought at Stalingrad. Italy didn't do as much onm the Eastern Front, they fought alot in North Africa but that was a side-show. Romania was one of Germany's most important allies because they supplied them with oil.

You are not convinced that these natios would have perks or anything truly unique. This is easy to solve. Romania had 76 mm flak, portray that ingame as intermediate in strength and cost between light flak and the German 88 mm flak. That would be unlike any other unit. Medium bombers without research, the Nimrod, a tank destroyer with 450 m weapon range etc. as this game takes many liberties it is easy to make factions very unique.

What?

[KillaJules]

Italy was part of the Axis until 1943 after that the Italian co-belligerent force fought alongside the US on the side of the Allies.

[fattoler]

Actually Italy remained officially neutral after 1943, with fascist groups in the north like X-Mas fighting alongside the Germans.

You know what, screw it, this thread has become outdated, in 24 hours no less...

[FlipmodeSH]

At the point when the Allied forces overtook the fleeing Italians they were 'fighting alongside them'.

There were always some left wing guerrillas.

The rest of the war was spent knocking out as much Carbonara as the GIs could swallow.