PDA

View Full Version : R.U.S.E. Tactics



Winbyone
03-27-2009, 09:04 AM
I understand the idea behind the tactics in this game is that massing won't work so well as quick maneuvering and clever plotting but how do the developers plan to pull this off? Combat chain? Cap limits? I guess i understand the idea but not the means.

Winbyone
03-27-2009, 09:04 AM
I understand the idea behind the tactics in this game is that massing won't work so well as quick maneuvering and clever plotting but how do the developers plan to pull this off? Combat chain? Cap limits? I guess i understand the idea but not the means.

NaishotheNeko
03-27-2009, 09:26 AM
Well I think it would be along the lines of two games. The first being Axis and Allies, the second is a game most of you probable never heard of called "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." The games required massing on a front but trying to use a second movement to outflank. Difference is the ability ruse your enemy, those other games I mentioned are merely board games.

I think, the military units will cost a small fortune, and a cap will rarely be reached or not needed.

Commander672
03-27-2009, 09:35 AM
This game combines elements from a # of other games:

The Real time zoom from Supreme commander and sins of a solar empire.
The Table Map showing your armies as stacks from The total war series.
The Cover system from WIC, EW, and a plethora of Turn-based stratgy games.

As for the combate triangle, It will be (Assuming the bombers are buildable, contollable units) Tanks->AA Guns + Transports-> Bombers (for AA)->Tanks as well as ground instilations. As for infintry, they'll kill tanks, transports, AA guns, and other infintry, while in cover. Transports will either have no weapons or they'll be half-tracks with mounted mechine gun turrets.
(unless they want to use the more tanklike transports late in the war were the infintry squads basicly replace the turret. But thats unlikely.)

Cap limits will probably be based on the supply routes and thus how many units ou can create.

I have no Idea how the fake tank/infintry ruses work.

NaishotheNeko
03-27-2009, 09:47 AM
I was looking at the screen shots and I think this game will work one of two ways. Turn-based or same turn game meaning two players move on the same turn but the other player cannot see the others movements until end of turn.

D3NNIS60
03-27-2009, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NaishotheNeko:
I was looking at the screen shots and I think this game will work one of two ways. Turn-based or same turn game meaning two players move on the same turn but the other player cannot see the others movements until end of turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's all real-time (RTS), there are no turns.

raydude2009
03-27-2009, 11:47 AM
IGN had a preview for this that showed an example deception power - "Deciphering". The text says "all enemies orders are shown in this sector" and the graphic shows red arrows pointing from the unit to where it is going (I think).

Based on this I would assume that the game does not let you change the orders given to the unit faster than it can process it. For example, you click on the tank and tell it to "move here". The tank starts moving and you probably can't change its movement order for a short period of time.

If this is not the case and you can change orders as fast as you can click the mouse, then what good is the "deciphering" power? You'll get dizzy watching the red arrows change every single time the opposing player right clicks somewhere else on the map.

This would be a big thumbs up for me. It represents the simple fact that it takes time for orders to get sent down the chain of command and processed by the unit. Especially in WW2.

During the Battle of the Bulge Patton boasted that he could move his entire army from attacking east to attack north towards Bastogne in two days. And he did it. I'm guessing people nowadays wonder why that was such a big deal. It was a big deal because that "simple order", to stop moving east and move north, resulted in hundreds of orders to individual divisions, then to companies and platoons. Hundreds more orders to supply trucks to change their route to follow Patton's army.

Winbyone
03-27-2009, 01:42 PM
The answer about the combat chain was what i was looking for and I had assumed it would be something along those lines but is there any confirmation on this or do just have to wait? Also if Bombers are a part of the chain where are the fighters? Often times strafes were more devastating than anything simply because of the speed and precision.

skoolpunk22
03-27-2009, 05:50 PM
have you guys read anything on this game or even watched the game footage? if you did its all self explanatory, i think all of you are so used to typical rts's when you have to realize how differant it is. so theres no triangle, and no massing of armies just use of your brain and tactical knowledge in real military SOP

Winbyone
03-27-2009, 05:56 PM
I guess you have to expect kids on forums too... Yes I have watched the footage and yes the game is designed to be unique in its own way but if you are telling me that i can set up some AA guns and ambush some panzers with them I think maybe you should learn something real military . Also, I don't know how you seem to know so much about this game from whatching a few game videos...are you a dev? If so please go on telling us what the game will be like...its all we are wondering...

skoolpunk22
03-27-2009, 06:55 PM
oh so you feel as though your a person of consequence now? well im not really one for flame wars of any sort, but id like to add something in here, if you took offense it wasnt my aim, but here i go. see back in WWII the flak 88 as it was called, a flak anti air cannon, was adapted for anti tank combat during the battles of northern africa and this is all due in part to the thinking of the desert fox rommel. the afrika corps took the 88's rapid fire and made it into a very powerful anti-tank weapon... just to let you know. so anyway, i was assuming that they are eliminating the static whole rock paper scissors scheem like in EW and creating a new more realistic way the battle could ensue, especially from what was said above with the whole infantry can take out tanks in cities, and depending on certain situations some units have a fighting chance. anyway no need to be hostile, that wasn't my intention

Winbyone
03-27-2009, 09:04 PM
Your tone came across the wrong way and my point is this. There has to be a combat structure, otherwise why would you build anything other than flak if they can take care of 80% of the enemy on the field? A combat chain is essential to any game period, and not just RTS. Variation is key and to have variation there must be incentive to not mass any one type of unit.

skoolpunk22
03-27-2009, 09:52 PM
aight as long as we come to an understanding. and i definatly agree but i do hope that unit type doesnt overly effect the battlefield as much as other games like the one sided rock paper scissors, of EW and all that but something a little more complex and differant

Winbyone
03-27-2009, 10:50 PM
I appreciated the RPS of Endwar because it forced the Commander to use and think of tactics most games can't compare with. However, it is my understanding that RUSE will rely much more on strategy than tactics Meaning the bigger picture rather than smaller conflicts. I see this as both good and bad, I like to throw my hand into the smaller conflicts to give the units an edge but I also like the idea of the advanced over commanding spectrum. I only hope they are able to blend the two together into a balanced game.

NaishotheNeko
03-29-2009, 12:41 AM
Well I have been exploring all the reviews and vids and here is how I understand you can place yourself in about 4 different positions. Base building, Over-commander, Division commander, and economy command.

To rephrase a interview answer "You can macro, micro or both."

If that is the case that means you can have AI helping you with your tasks which will help a gamer like me because I hate micro management.

Winbyone
03-29-2009, 01:24 AM
HHmm this is news to me...not sure I like the idea but haven't really ever heard of it so I will reserve judgment...I don't usually trust the AI with anything let alone such things as my economy or soldiers...

obliviondoll
03-29-2009, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raydude2009:
IGN had a preview for this that showed an example deception power - "Deciphering". The text says "all enemies orders are shown in this sector" and the graphic shows red arrows pointing from the unit to where it is going (I think).

Based on this I would assume that the game does not let you change the orders given to the unit faster than it can process it. For example, you click on the tank and tell it to "move here". The tank starts moving and you probably can't change its movement order for a short period of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if you read the article, it explains how the "decipher" ability works. The "deception layer" of the game means that your opponent can have what appears to be an army moving in at you, and you won't know until you attack them whether they're real or decoys.

If you use "decipher," it shows what orders have been given to enemy units in that area. Which means that if you see an army, but no red arrows when you use "decipher," decoys revealed.

Alternatively, if you suspect there to be enemies in an area, but don't see anything (there's meant to be abilites to mask your real force's position) - then a "decipher" order in that sector will reveal them.

raydude2009
03-29-2009, 08:47 AM
Then I propose that if all decipher does is tell you whether an army is a decoy then its not really useful at all.

The really bad thing about decoys is - it only takes one real unit to expose them as decoys. So, send a single recon unit, probably a vehicle that can move really fast, on a probe mission to see if those units are real or not.

If they're decoys then they disappear. If not, then all I lost was a recon unit. No, I have to believe decipher is more than just a simple counter to decoys.

obliviondoll
03-29-2009, 10:03 AM
It DOES also tell you the current orders of all the units in the area, but its MAIN use is to reeal decoys. And the other part of my post, where I mentioned that it would unveil hidden units, is probably a more important point anyway...

FrontlinerDelta
04-04-2009, 01:35 AM
Well here's an idea, if your opponent seems to know where you're moving your units all the time and you assume he is using decipher then couldn't you use radio silence to counter it?

Because if your units aren't communicating then there is nothing to decipher.

If ruses actually interact realistically like this, then this game will completely dominate all WWII RTS games and most other RTS games for that matter.

Mencor
04-04-2009, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FrontlinerDelta:
Well here's an idea, if your opponent seems to know where you're moving your units all the time and you assume he is using decipher then couldn't you use radio silence to counter it?

Because if your units aren't communicating then there is nothing to decipher.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite since radio silence only prevent units from sending not reciving. Decipher reveals the orders the unit recives from high command thus there position. So decipher neutralises decoy and radiosilence.
However there could be a card that gives a set of decoy orders and thus neutralises decipher.

Nicorius
04-04-2009, 09:20 AM
Heres the most well known German Tactic in History

The Blitzkreig

FrontlinerDelta
04-04-2009, 10:25 AM
@Mencor: I didn't think of it that way, and I like the "fake orders" idea. Kind of like how the Japanese flooded the radio with stuff right before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

sulgore
04-04-2009, 08:56 PM
no combat triangle! lol EndWar had it and you could pretty much win with 3 units.. it destroyed the strategy in the game.

It isn't the soldier that makes the difference it should be the gun. I.e mg42 is obviously going to mow down your infantry, however if you have a bunch of guys shooting at the mg team, obviously the mg42 team is going to get shot. a m1 garand is going to be somewhat more accurate than the Thompson at long range. the m1 might hit the target 2 out of the 4 times it shoots, the thompson will hit the target (at long range) 2 out of the 5 times it shoots.. On the other hand, the thompson will be mroe efficient at taking down larget groups of soldiers because if its fire rate.

FrontlinerDelta
04-04-2009, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sulgore:
no combat triangle! lol EndWar had it and you could pretty much win with 3 units.. it destroyed the strategy in the game.

It isn't the soldier that makes the difference it should be the gun. I.e mg42 is obviously going to mow down your infantry, however if you have a bunch of guys shooting at the mg team, obviously the mg42 team is going to get shot. a m1 garand is going to be somewhat more accurate than the Thompson at long range. the m1 might hit the target 2 out of the 4 times it shoots, the thompson will hit the target (at long range) 2 out of the 5 times it shoots.. On the other hand, the thompson will be mroe efficient at taking down larget groups of soldiers because if its fire rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, there should be units that are better suited to a certain task but not be doomed to fail if they go up against someone who is a counter to them.

Like the MG example, depending on where the MG is and and terrain around results should vary. It shouldn't be just the unit but how the unit is employed that wins the battle.

beanoboy400
04-07-2009, 03:43 AM
on this site which is a interview with the senior producer of ruse he reveals loads about the game. stuff you didn't know and stuff you did. It is well worth a read.
http://www.totalvideogames.com...E/feature-13885.html (http://www.totalvideogames.com/RUSE/feature-13885.html)

Commander672
04-08-2009, 07:19 PM
'sigh' I guess it's time we settled this whole combat thing once and for all.
Bomber&gt;Tank
Bomber&gt;Infintry
Bomber&gt;Transport/light vehicle
Bomber&gt;Artillery
Bomber&gt;Anti-tank gun/Anti-Infintry/Light Bunker
Bomber-Bomber? That'd be stupid
AA&gt;Bomber
Fighter&gt;Bomber
Fighter&gt;Infintry
Fighter&gt;Transport/light vehicle
Fighter&gt;Artillery
Fighter&gt;Anti-tank gun/Anti-Infintry/Light bunker
Fighter=Fighter (situational)
AA&gt;Fighter
Infintry&gt;AA
Tanks&gt;AA
Transport/light vehicle&gt;AA
Artillery&gt;AA
Tanks=Infintry (situational)
Infintry=Infintry (Situational)
Infantry=Transport/Light Infintry vehicle (Rocket Ability? Type of Transport? Ect.)
Infantry=Bunker (Situational)
Artillery&gt;Tanks
Artillery&gt;Infantry
Artillery&gt;Transport/light vehicle
Artillery=Artillery (situational)
Artillery&gt;Bunker
Tanks=Tanks (conditional)
Tanks&gt;Transport/Light Vehicle
Light vehicle Units function as infintry support, transport, and suppression.

Now Water Units
Battleship&gt;Cruiser
Battleship&gt;Frigate
Battleship&gt;Destroyer
Battleship&gt;Landing Craft
BattleShip&gt;PT Boat
Battleship=Battleship
Battleship&gt;Carrier
Battleship&gt;Land Units
Artillery=Battleship (conditional)
Submarine&gt;Battleship
Aircraft&gt;Battleship
Cruiser&gt;Aircraft
Destroyer&gt;Submarine
Frigate&gt;PT Boat
Destroyer&gt;Frigate
Destroyer&gt;PT Boat
Cruiser&gt;Destroyer
Cruiser&gt;Frigate
Cruiser&gt;PT Boat
Aircraft: Any ship on it's own and other situational issues.
Everything&gt;Carrier
Ships&gt;Tanks
Ships&gt;Infantry
Ships&gt;Transports/Light vehicles
Tanks&gt;Landing Craft
Artillery&gt;Landing Craft
Bunkers&gt;Landing Craft
Ships&gt;Landing Craft
Aircraft&gt;Landing Craft
PT Boats can act as anti everything but any direct hits can kill.
Traps&gt;All land units, subs, landing craft, ships moving into harbor

Their you have it, its not a combat chain, it's not a combat triangle, and it's not a combat web! It is an entire ecosystem of interconnecting relationships that no amount of video game simplification could possible hope to bring down. Supreme Commander was one of my first RTS's, and I learned from that that no game, especailly endwar, can effectivly use a triangle to represent the essance of war. And what you see above doesn't even show faction-specific units! That above is oversimplified becouse it doesn't account for each sides' weapon effectiveness. Nor does it take lucky hits and certain modifications (like AA turrets on some light vehicles) or special units (snipers) into account. Nor does it take terrain into account as mentioned in the ost above.

The only way to master combat on the Unit vs Unit scale is with commen sense and an understanding of every kind of unit in modern (or ancient) combat. The only way to master all combat is to essentailly find every single element of combat in existance.

Edit: Battleship&gt;Carrior becouse a battleship's guns will tear them to shreds, aircraft that come from a carrior are consitered their own unit (Aircraft&gt;Battleship), becouse a battleship thats within firing distance and a battleship that's several miles away are two TOTALY diffrent combat scenarioes.

How long do you think a carrior would survive direct confrentation, especaily if it lacks ample escort.

Pieman13
04-08-2009, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Commander672:

Battleship&gt;Carrier

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


WTF??

DNAz5646
04-09-2009, 01:22 AM
Yamato&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;Carrier!

Winbyone
04-09-2009, 03:27 PM
First of all, Pie and DNA, lets not fill threads up with wasted responses.

Second, Well thought out for the most part Commander. I agree this is an over simplification...when one is zoomed in on the battle...However, When one is at the highest tier of command looking upon an entire unrolling campaign they only need to know a few things.

Aircraft &gt; Everything except Anti-Air

Tanks &gt; Light Vehicles

Light Vechiles/ AA &gt; Aircraft

Infantry In Cover (i.e. A bunker or building)&gt; Everything except bombers

Artillery, Vulnerable at close range to everything but destroys anything but Aircraft

Ships &gt; Everything except subs

Subs Vulnerable to Aircraft and Destroyers only effective against ships

When looking down at the battle and huge numbers of units are moving across the map extremely small variances matter little in the over all scheme of things. However, if a particular battle is critical one might zoom in and micro manage, in this situation the rules listed by commander become life savers.

KyuubiDemon
04-10-2009, 08:17 PM
I hope this game goes all well THIS game will be the replacement for endwar...

Commander672
04-14-2009, 06:38 PM
Well, Well, Winbyone you've clearly simplified my web-but our diffrence is that your's is based off weaknesses where as mine is based off of every single advantage in the game. Your's is far eisier and overall better than mine, but the point of my chart is to get a point accross to fans of a combat triangle.

One thing I like about SupCom is that they didn't wast time on a combat triangle: They just paid attention to each units indivisual stats and weaponry and let the players form combat chains on their own. Example: The Cybran Destroyer has torpedoes, cannons and anti-air, and all-rounder that's weak in every area as well as able to cover every area. Thus, they never modified the desroyer to be WEAK to a particular enemy, they just gave the destroyer it's natural properties, and let the player decide weather surface, air, or submarines were the overall best-Normally though players are smart enough to skip it bring out Battleships and defeat the support boat with a big *** gun.

Pieman13
04-14-2009, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Winbyone:
First of all, Pie and DNA, lets not fill threads up with wasted responses.

Second, Well thought out for the most part Commander. I agree this is an over simplification...when one is zoomed in on the battle...However, When one is at the highest tier of command looking upon an entire unrolling campaign they only need to know a few things.

Aircraft &gt; Everything except Anti-Air

Tanks &gt; Light Vehicles

Light Vechiles/ AA &gt; Aircraft

Infantry In Cover (i.e. A bunker or building)&gt; Everything except bombers

Artillery, Vulnerable at close range to everything but destroys anything but Aircraft

Ships &gt; Everything except subs

Subs Vulnerable to Aircraft and Destroyers only effective against ships

When looking down at the battle and huge numbers of units are moving across the map extremely small variances matter little in the over all scheme of things. However, if a particular battle is critical one might zoom in and micro manage, in this situation the rules listed by commander become life savers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

battleship WILL NOT beat a carrier.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LOW_59
04-15-2009, 05:03 AM
I prefer the Comander672's one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mencor
04-15-2009, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pieman13:
battleship WILL NOT beat a carrier.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh considering a Carrier is only an glorified armed transport i think a battle ship will do quite well in a ship vs ship battle. Sure it's AIRCRAFT will be a problem but without those...

N3V30
04-15-2009, 10:41 AM
Every RTS since the dawn of RTS gaming has had a combat chain in one form of another, whether it be Cavalry &gt; Archers or Aircraft &gt; Tanks. The reason everyone hates the combat chain idea is because Endwar made a big deal of it and dumbed it down so much that a 4 year old could play.

And like Commander said, no combat chain/web/triangle can accurately represent war, and thats because war is entirely conditional.

A soilder with a rifle could pick of one with a submachine gun as he walks down a road, but if the guy with the smg came up behind the guy with the rifle he doesn't really stand a chance, but you never know....

Pieman13
04-15-2009, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mencor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pieman13:
battleship WILL NOT beat a carrier.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh considering a Carrier is only an glorified armed transport i think a battle ship will do quite well in a ship vs ship battle. Sure it's AIRCRAFT will be a problem but without those... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

battleships have only a certain amount of range for their guns....

Aircraft have a larger range and when are you really going to find an aircraft carrier without some kind of escort ship or aircraft?

the only time i can think of is when in its in port and even then it should have some aircraft available.

The battleship had its day but when the HMS Ark Royal (first real aircraft carrier) was commissioned....it died... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Mencor
04-16-2009, 03:29 AM
in that list aircraft is accounted for, they beat battleships and the battleship beats carriers wich you oppose.

Of course the situation were a carrier is opposed by battleship alone is unlikley as they both travel in groups. However if a carrier sends its airplanes on a mission and a battleship takes this opportunity to strike wich way does it go battleship &gt; carrier or carrier &gt; battleship?

If i put it like this battle ship vs carriers airplane is a likely scenario and the aircraft will win.

battleship vs carrier, unlikely scenario battleship will win

battleship vs carrier + aircraft, battleship or both could sink.

Pieman13
04-16-2009, 05:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

The Japanese were fighting with 9 battleships...

and they were pushed back by a small bunch of escort carriers,destroyers and cruisers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Mencor
04-17-2009, 01:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pieman13:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

The Japanese were fighting with 9 battleships...

and they were pushed back by a small bunch of escort carriers,destroyers and cruisers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

read the edit it in commanders post and by the way you seem to have forgotten about the 12 battleships in the allied navy.

Pieman13
04-17-2009, 05:02 PM
he spelled carrier wrong...

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll259/blue-eyed-vampiress/facepalm.gif

N3V30
04-18-2009, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pieman13:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

The Japanese were fighting with 9 battleships...

and they were pushed back by a small bunch of escort carriers,destroyers and cruisers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't really use that battle to compare a battleship to a carrier, mainly because it involved fleets.

OCHRISIUS
04-19-2009, 11:48 AM
I think were ALL right when it comes to the discussion of battleship vs carrier. If the BS can get in range with its guns then YES it would demolish a carrier but, if the carrier has bombers/torpedo planes up then it goes to the carrier provided its not destroyed and the planes have somewhere to land. Remember what happened to the Hornet? Plus the whole combat chain with EW was terrible.