PDA

View Full Version : Underpowered Brits, overpowered USA?



Axe99
09-21-2010, 07:09 PM
I've been playing a bit online now, mixing up the factions to get a feel for how they play differently, and I've played the US, Soviets and Brits so far (and the Germans in the campaign), and the Brits seem to have got the short end of the stick by some margin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

- Weakest infantry
- Average standard production tanks, average recon cars
- expensive and relatively weak standard arty, that's unarmoured (so much more vulnerable in an 'arty war' to the long-range armoured arty of the US). Even the upgraded arty is below average compared with the US and Germans, and the Soviets get their 155mm arty bunkers.
- lowest-common denominator AAA
- Prototype units give them the equivalent of standard US/Russian mobile AAA and not even the equivalent of the standard US, German or Russian heavy tank! The Brit equivalent of the Pershing (A34 Comet) is replaced in game by the Matilda! Germans = Tiger, US = Pershing, Soviets = KV-1/IS2, British = Matilda - for those not up on their tanks, the Matilda had ceased production before all of those bar the KV-1 had even started production. The historical British equivalent of the Tiger/Pershing would be the Firefly or the Comet).
- Standard AT. Not weak here, but not strong either. Cheap Archers is a plus.
- Above-average aircraft, but still not quite as good as the Germans and only slightly better than the US (on account of the Lancaster, which is strangely cheaper to produce than a Typhoon).

Really, the only three above-average units I can find are the Lancaster, Spitfire and the Typhoon (but the Lancaster's the only standout), and given the over-powered nature of AAA relative to aircraft (given Lancs generally flew relatively high-altitude, it was the fighters that really caused them grief), it's virtually useless without strong (in the case of the Brits, non-existent) artillery, or mobile AAA to support a strike-force of short-range artillery - and with a spend of $180 required before you can even build the $45/pop Skink - what about a Crusader III AAA Mk II/III, to even the odds a little? And the Spitfire's nice and all, but given it's a lot cheaper and safer to ward off enemy planes with the Bofors, they're a very expensive way to get a job done.

To me, it feels like the Brits have been given a bunch of their early-war kit, but almost none of their later-war stuff, and when they do get it, they have to pay twice as much as the other factions to access it. I'd understand this if the Brit early-war kit was good enough that including the late-war stuff would unbalance things, but the Matilda II vs the Tiger or Pershing is hardly a fair fight.

And while the Lancaster is phenomenal, it can be knocked out of the sky by a couple of $10/pop standard US AAA (which are based on exactly the same models that cost the Brits $15 to produce!) No skin off my nose, no-one's forcing me to play 'em, but I'm not sure why they seem to have been left so apparently under-powered.

Anyways, am off to play 'em a bit more and see if I can't find the secret factor that brings them up to speed.....

Axe99
09-21-2010, 07:09 PM
I've been playing a bit online now, mixing up the factions to get a feel for how they play differently, and I've played the US, Soviets and Brits so far (and the Germans in the campaign), and the Brits seem to have got the short end of the stick by some margin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

- Weakest infantry
- Average standard production tanks, average recon cars
- expensive and relatively weak standard arty, that's unarmoured (so much more vulnerable in an 'arty war' to the long-range armoured arty of the US). Even the upgraded arty is below average compared with the US and Germans, and the Soviets get their 155mm arty bunkers.
- lowest-common denominator AAA
- Prototype units give them the equivalent of standard US/Russian mobile AAA and not even the equivalent of the standard US, German or Russian heavy tank! The Brit equivalent of the Pershing (A34 Comet) is replaced in game by the Matilda! Germans = Tiger, US = Pershing, Soviets = KV-1/IS2, British = Matilda - for those not up on their tanks, the Matilda had ceased production before all of those bar the KV-1 had even started production. The historical British equivalent of the Tiger/Pershing would be the Firefly or the Comet).
- Standard AT. Not weak here, but not strong either. Cheap Archers is a plus.
- Above-average aircraft, but still not quite as good as the Germans and only slightly better than the US (on account of the Lancaster, which is strangely cheaper to produce than a Typhoon).

Really, the only three above-average units I can find are the Lancaster, Spitfire and the Typhoon (but the Lancaster's the only standout), and given the over-powered nature of AAA relative to aircraft (given Lancs generally flew relatively high-altitude, it was the fighters that really caused them grief), it's virtually useless without strong (in the case of the Brits, non-existent) artillery, or mobile AAA to support a strike-force of short-range artillery - and with a spend of $180 required before you can even build the $45/pop Skink - what about a Crusader III AAA Mk II/III, to even the odds a little? And the Spitfire's nice and all, but given it's a lot cheaper and safer to ward off enemy planes with the Bofors, they're a very expensive way to get a job done.

To me, it feels like the Brits have been given a bunch of their early-war kit, but almost none of their later-war stuff, and when they do get it, they have to pay twice as much as the other factions to access it. I'd understand this if the Brit early-war kit was good enough that including the late-war stuff would unbalance things, but the Matilda II vs the Tiger or Pershing is hardly a fair fight.

And while the Lancaster is phenomenal, it can be knocked out of the sky by a couple of $10/pop standard US AAA (which are based on exactly the same models that cost the Brits $15 to produce!) No skin off my nose, no-one's forcing me to play 'em, but I'm not sure why they seem to have been left so apparently under-powered.

Anyways, am off to play 'em a bit more and see if I can't find the secret factor that brings them up to speed.....

dan-1993uk
09-21-2010, 08:12 PM
really the priest and the sexton are the exact same thing but yeh they need to inculde more battle tanks for the UK

Axe99
09-21-2010, 09:17 PM
Aye, but the M40 is a best, and lacking an equivalent Brit gun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Just played the Brits again, and I've gone from a record of 12 wins and one loss, to a record of 1 win and 3 losses - and I'm playing to the Brits strengths - if I tried to play my US strategies (I did it in one of my games for larks) and the UK's short-range mobile AT (the Soviets had far longer range mobile AT) and lacklustre tanks meant they got soundly walloped.

On the by, what's with the Firefly's (sorry, hadn't seen it int he AT section) 'very long' AT range - it's shorter than the 4-pounder, and the same as the Archer's 'long' range AT gun (which again isn't very long).

Will keep looking to see if I haven't missed something, and then try out the Germans this arvo to make sure I'm not missing anything, but it looks like the Brits are a class below the best factions, for no real reason (as they had plenty of good kit historically, it just doesn't show up in-game).

Axe99
09-21-2010, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Axe_99au:
Aye, but the M40 is a beast, and lacking an equivalent Brit gun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Just played the Brits again, and I've gone from a record of 12 wins and one loss, to a record of 1 win and 3 losses - and I'm playing to the Brits strengths - if I tried to play my US strategies (I did it in one of my games for larks) and the UK's short-range mobile AT (the Soviets had far longer range mobile AT) and lacklustre tanks meant they got soundly walloped.

On the by, what's with the Firefly's (sorry, hadn't seen it int he AT section) 'very long' AT range - it's shorter than the 4-pounder, and the same as the Archer's 'long' range AT gun (which again isn't very long).

Will keep looking to see if I haven't missed something, and then try out the Germans this arvo to make sure I'm not missing anything, but it looks like the Brits are a class below the best factions, for no real reason (as they had plenty of good kit historically, it just doesn't show up in-game). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

aod125
09-21-2010, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Axe_99au:
I've been playing a bit online now, mixing up the factions to get a feel for how they play differently, and I've played the US, Soviets and Brits so far (and the Germans in the campaign), and the Brits seem to have got the short end of the stick by some margin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

u are wrong

- Weakest infantry
aganist infantry they are as strong as most nations heavy infantry, the only nations that have stronger infantry are russia and france

- Average standard production tanks,

tanks are not uks strong point, but they do have the cromwell which is as strong as a sherman. it is also faster.

average recon cars

the coventry does cost more than most recons, but it will beat any recon that is not from a proto base.

- expensive and relatively weak standard arty, that's unarmoured (so much more vulnerable in an 'arty war' to the long-range armoured arty of the US).

the starting arty they have is as strong as a priest,. it is also cheaper for the unarmored and armored ones

Even the upgraded arty is below average compared with the US and Germans, and the Soviets get their 155mm arty bunkers.

the only nation that has heavy armored arty is the usa so it is the best, but the uk heavy arty has the same stats as all nations heavy arty. when u compare it to the germans arty the germans arty cost 10 more $ than the uk heavy arty.

- lowest-common denominator AAA

it may cost 15$ but is stronger than every other nations light aa but the usa, which they do the same amout of damage

- Prototype units give them the equivalent of standard US/Russian mobile AAA

the russian mobile is very weak and is only as strong as a bofors, the usa m16 and m19 are both stronger than it. the uk has the skink which is stronger than both the russian and usa mobile aa.

and not even the equivalent of the standard US, German or Russian heavy tank! The Brit equivalent of the Pershing (A34 Comet) is replaced in game by the Matilda! Germans = Tiger, US = Pershing, Soviets = KV-1/IS2, British = Matilda - for those not up on their tanks, the Matilda had ceased production before all of those bar the KV-1 had even started production.

as stated tanks are not a strong point for them. but guess what they have a firefly which cost less than all ofr those tanks but is stronger and will beat them all 1v1
The historical British equivalent of the Tiger/Pershing would be the Firefly or the Comet).

they have fireflys

- Standard AT. Not weak here, but not strong either.

they 2 pdr is as strong as any other nation on adv at gun, and they same for the 17 pdr which is adv

Cheap Archers is a plus.

- Above-average aircraft

best air nation is the game

, but still not quite as good as the Germans and only slightly better than the US

the spitfire is only slightly weaker than the me 262, but is cheaper
(on account of the Lancaster, which is strangely cheaper to produce than a Typhoon).

typhoon is the best divebomer in the game, and the lancaster is the fastest heavy bomber

Really, the only three above-average units I can find are the Lancaster, Spitfire and the Typhoon (but the Lancaster's the only standout)

best air nation

, and given the over-powered nature of AAA relative to aircraft (given Lancs generally flew relatively high-altitude, it was the fighters that really caused them grief), it's virtually useless without strong (in the case of the Brits, non-existent) artillery, or mobile AAA to support a strike-force of short-range artillery - and with a spend of $180 required before you can even build the $45/pop Skink - what about a Crusader III AAA Mk II/III, to even the odds a little?
And the Spitfire's nice and all, but given it's a lot cheaper and safer to ward off enemy planes with the Bofors, they're a very expensive way to get a job done.

bofors can be rushed by or infantry and can be bombed. spitfires are better because they do about the same damage as 2 bofors

To me, it feels like the Brits have been given a bunch of their early-war kit, but almost none of their later-war stuff, and when they do get it, they have to pay twice as much as the other factions to access it. I'd understand this if the Brit early-war kit was good enough that including the late-war stuff would unbalance things, but the Matilda II vs the Tiger or Pershing is hardly a fair fight.

use fireflys

And while the Lancaster is phenomenal, it can be knocked out of the sky by a couple of $10/pop standard US AAA

it only has short range fly around it
(which are based on exactly the same models that cost the Brits $15 to produce!) No skin off my nose, no-one's forcing me to play 'em, but I'm not sure why they seem to have been left so apparently under-powered.

Anyways, am off to play 'em a bit more and see if I can't find the secret factor that brings them up to speed..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> also if au want to get better then u need to go herehttp://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7471016188/m/8301066188

Axe99
09-22-2010, 12:32 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aod125:
- Weakest infantry
aganist infantry they are as strong as most nations heavy infantry, the only nations that have stronger infantry are russia and france

Actually, no - check out Henzy's post - UK standard infantry are amongst the weakest in the game, and even their heavy's are below average (standard heavy vs inf, very weak against tanks).

- Average standard production tanks,

tanks are not uks strong point, but they do have the cromwell which is as strong as a sherman. it is also faster.

average recon cars

the coventry does cost more than most recons, but it will beat any recon that is not from a proto base.

Except the US Greyhound http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

- expensive and relatively weak standard arty, that's unarmoured (so much more vulnerable in an 'arty war' to the long-range armoured arty of the US).

the starting arty they have is as strong as a priest,. it is also cheaper for the unarmored and armored ones

Hang about - so the US can build Priests without research, but the Brits have to research it first, and the US can research the M-40 and you think it's even?

Even the upgraded arty is below average compared with the US and Germans, and the Soviets get their 155mm arty bunkers.

the only nation that has heavy armored arty is the usa so it is the best, but the uk heavy arty has the same stats as all nations heavy arty. when u compare it to the germans arty the germans arty cost 10 more $ than the uk heavy arty.

- lowest-common denominator AAA

it may cost 15$ but is stronger than every other nations light aa but the usa, which they do the same amout of damage

And the US get it for 33% less, if they're not spamming M-16s and M-19s (the M-19 being pretty close to a Skink, with only $50 research, whereas the Brits have to spend $180 just to get the right to produce Skinks at $10 more/pop) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

- Prototype units give them the equivalent of standard US/Russian mobile AAA - Yup and you have to pay $130 for a prototype base and then $50 to research something that the US get access to for $50 and Soviets get access to for $25.

the russian mobile is very weak and is only as strong as a bofors, the usa m16 and m19 are both stronger than it. the uk has the skink which is stronger than both the russian and usa mobile aa.

Is that the same Bofors that you talked up earlier as being the best light AAA in the game? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

they have fireflys

Aye, my bad here, but Fireflys with recon are useless against Pershings with recon, as Fireflys have shorter range. US armoured recon means it's pretty tough to knock out with arty.

- Standard AT. Not weak here, but not strong either.

they 2 pdr is as strong as any other nation on adv at gun, and they same for the 17 pdr which is adv

best air nation is the game

Germans have the Arado and the ME262, and can build the ME109 without actually researching anything - I think this is debatable, and that the Germans air is at the very least, very, very close to the Brits. The US P-51's no slouch either, and the P-47 is very sharp indeed.

typhoon is the best divebomer in the game, and the lancaster is the fastest heavy bomber

Haven't looked at the stats, but the Sturmovik should be pretty damn close as well.

bofors can be rushed by or infantry and can be bombed. spitfires are better because they do about the same damage as 2 bofors

Not if there's a wall of tanks between the Bofors and my troops, lol! Bombing's the only way, and generally I'm facing off against M-19s, not Bofors - try bombing a group of 6 M-19s and see how you go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

use fireflys

Strangely enough, I've tried it, with pretty poor results. Their effecctive range is insufficent to match a massed formation of Tigers/Pershings.

And while the Lancaster is phenomenal, it can be knocked out of the sky by a couple of $10/pop standard US AAA

it only has short range fly around it

Because most experienced RUSE players leave holes in their AAA net.....

Seriously, I've gone from my initial win/loss of 12-1, to 1-4 with the Brits. And I've tried a bunch of different tactics. The only win I got was against someone who didn't use recon (ie, wasn't that cluey). I'll pull the detailed stats from the game if ya like, but the Brits, relative to the US/Soviets/Germans, have worse and more expensive kit.

Axe99
09-22-2010, 01:07 AM
Sorry for the double post, just played another game and this dawned on me. Another issue you have with the Brits is tactical inflexibility. If you're playing someone with half a clue, and you've gone Brits, they know:

- You'll be using planes, or
- you'll be using underpowered tanks/arty

And can buff up their AAA, and still have plenty of zip left over to deal with the Brits rather lacklustre land forces. On the other hand, if I play as the US, Soviets or Germans, I can play a strong air card, strong tank card or (except for the Soviets) a strong Arty card.

aod125
09-22-2010, 01:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Axe_99au:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aod125:
- Weakest infantry
aganist infantry they are as strong as most nations heavy infantry, the only nations that have stronger infantry are russia and france

Actually, no - check out Henzy's post - UK standard infantry are amongst the weakest in the game, and even their heavy's are below average (standard heavy vs inf, very weak against tanks).

learn to read i said nothing about them vs tanks
- Average standard production tanks,

tanks are not uks strong point, but they do have the cromwell which is as strong as a sherman. it is also faster.

average recon cars

the coventry does cost more than most recons, but it will beat any recon that is not from a proto base.

Except the US Greyhound http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
wrong again the coventry is still stronger, it is as strong as a sherman with lvl 2 armor

- expensive and relatively weak standard arty, that's unarmoured (so much more vulnerable in an 'arty war' to the long-range armoured arty of the US).

the starting arty they have is as strong as a priest,. it is also cheaper for the unarmored and armored ones

Hang about - so the US can build Priests without research, but the Brits have to research it first, and the US can research the M-40 and you think it's even?
yes why would u fight armored arty with unarmored arty use tanks or assault gunsor bombers

Even the upgraded arty is below average compared with the US and Germans, and the Soviets get their 155mm arty bunkers.

the only nation that has heavy armored arty is the usa so it is the best, but the uk heavy arty has the same stats as all nations heavy arty. when u compare it to the germans arty the germans arty cost 10 more $ than the uk heavy arty.

- lowest-common denominator AAA

it may cost 15$ but is stronger than every other nations light aa but the usa, which they do the same amout of damage

And the US get it for 33% less, if they're not spamming M-16s and M-19s (the M-19 being pretty close to a Skink, with only $50 research, whereas the Brits have to spend $180 just to get the right to produce Skinks at $10 more/pop) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

- Prototype units give them the equivalent of standard US/Russian mobile AAA - Yup and you have to pay $130 for a prototype base and then $50 to research something that the US get access to for $50 and Soviets get access to for $25.
that is why u have spitfires, and as i said athe russian mobile is only as strong as bofors
the russian mobile is very weak and is only as strong as a bofors, the usa m16 and m19 are both stronger than it. the uk has the skink which is stronger than both the russian and usa mobile aa.

Is that the same Bofors that you talked up earlier as being the best light AAA in the game? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
yes
they have fireflys

Aye, my bad here, but Fireflys with recon are useless against Pershings with recon, as Fireflys have shorter range
wrong again they have the same range and cost less and do more damage
. US armoured recon means it's pretty tough to knock out with arty.
dont use arty to kill armored units
- Standard AT. Not weak here, but not strong either.

they 2 pdr is as strong as any other nation on adv at gun, and they same for the 17 pdr which is adv

best air nation is the game

Germans have the Arado
the blitz is fast but is only a med bomber and the bombs spread more than any other bomber, and costs 50 $. the lancaster is a heavy bomber which does more damage, and only costs 30 $
and the ME262
only does 4 more damge than the spitfire and costs 10 more $, and can build the ME109 without actually researching anything - I think this is debatable, and that the Germans air is at the very least, very, very close to the Brits.
uk has a cheaper fighter and better dive bomber , and stronger bomber The US P-51's no slouch either, and the P-47 is very sharp indeed.
the spitfire does the same damage but is chaeper, and the typhoon is just as good in the air as the p47, and is better vs armored units
typhoon is the best divebomer in the game, and the lancaster is the fastest heavy bomber

Haven't looked at the stats, but the Sturmovik should be pretty damn close as well.
the typhoon is better in the air
bofors can be rushed by or infantry and can be bombed. spitfires are better because they do about the same damage as 2 bofors

Not if there's a wall of tanks between the Bofors and my troops, lol! Bombing's the only way, and generally I'm facing off against M-19s, not Bofors - try bombing a group of 6 M-19s and see how you go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
its call use dive bomer typhoons will 1 shot m19s

use fireflys

Strangely enough, I've tried it, with pretty poor results. Their effecctive range is insufficent to match a massed formation of Tigers/Pershings.

And while the Lancaster is phenomenal, it can be knocked out of the sky by a couple of $10/pop standard US AAA

it only has short range fly around it

Because most experienced RUSE players leave holes in their AAA net.....seen it happen

Seriously, I've gone from my initial win/loss of 12-1, to 1-4 with the Brits. And I've tried a bunch of different tactics. The only win I got was against someone who didn't use recon (ie, wasn't that cluey).
because u dont know how to play them
I'll pull the detailed stats from the game if ya like
go aheadi look at them every day so i know what im talking, im the # 1 player on 360 who does not boost for a reason
, but the Brits, relative to the US/Soviets/Germans, have worse and more expensive kit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>germany costs more

Axe99
09-22-2010, 03:11 AM
Good on ya for not boosting - you've got my respect for that - and nice work on #1. But you haven't addressed the most important issue, which is tactical inflexibility. If the only options the Brits have is air, then anyone playing can shut them down with little effort. Tactical flexibility is very important (particularly for factions with significant weaknesses in particular areas).

I'll keep playing with the Brits for a bit longer, as I've got a few more ideas to try, but so far the only time I've won is against inexperienced players (like your comment about the holes in the AAA umbrella - it does happen, but not with experienced players), and having to rely on running into noobs to win with a faction is hardly balanced. If someone with any clue sees someone playing the Brits, they've got AAA behind every tree and tank, and it makes it pretty hard going.

Painthreshold
10-05-2010, 08:03 AM
The USA isn't so much that it is overpowered it just doesn't have any significant weaknesses, but then you could argue it doesn't have real strengths either. Every other faction could most likely defeat USA in a aspect of the game....

GunnersMate07
10-05-2010, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Painthreshold:
The USA isn't so much that it is overpowered it just doesn't have any significant weaknesses, but then you could argue it doesn't have real strengths either. Every other faction could most likely defeat USA in a aspect of the game.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you cannot argue that it doesn't have real strengths. That's why the top players all say that USA is overpowered.

Reasons why the US is overpowered :
#1 - Best early game AA options. The M-16 does more damage then the Russian shilka, requires no research, and actually costs $5 less. Its the only unit in the game I can think of where the unresearched unit actually costs less than the researchable varieties, and is still BETTER than the units that need research. Usually if a unit doesnt need research, it costs $5 more then units that do (like French foreign legion, brit paratroopers, brit air recon, etc).

This means that the US is the safest nation from early air starts, because you can get away with not building an airstrip (whereas most other nations need to either pump out tons of static AA or build fighters to effectively counter good air starts).

#2 Best recon in the game. The $5 jeep is the fastest ground recon in the game tied with the German equivalent. The german recon however costs $10. Therefore the US player can spam recon's and its never detrimental if they get sniped (as opposed to factions whose only ground recon are expensive or slow armored recon).

#3 Best armored artillery. The US and britain are the only nations with armored artillery (not talking assault guns). The priest and brit sexton are equal. The US however also get an upgrade to the M40. The M40 has longer range and more damage. If you try getting into an arty war with the US and they have M40's, you will lose because their arty is armored, while your arty is not. Therefore US wins counter-arty battles.

#4 Second best TD's in the game. The Jackson because it is turreted is the second best TD in the game next to the firefly. Its actually $5 cheaper than the firefly however, and more importantly, the US starts with wolverines already researched (every other nation but France has to research their first TD). And the Jackson upgrade only costs $50. Therefore the US can get its top of the line TD way way earlier then every other nation. Because of the turret, the jackson is much more useful like the firefly on the move. All the other TD's do not have turrets and will only be at an advantage standing still (except they all cost more then the jackson so the US should have numerical superiority in a TD vs TD battle).

#5 The Pershing. If the first 4 categories don't show you why its a myth that the US is a jack-of-all trades but master of none, just look at the Super Pershing. It has better damage then the tiger, its similar to a king tiger except for armor 4. But most importantly it goes 36km/h! A freaking advanced heavy that moves faster then other nations light tanks! To put it into perspective, the tiger moves at 27 km/h, the king tiger moves at 28 km/h, the russian light tank moves at 34 km/h.

The point is, the US has absolutely zero weaknesses. And on top of that, its units are not simply middle of the road. In numerous categories, the US actually has cheaper and even better units then every other nation (M16, M40, Jackson). Or Super Pershings that match up with King Tigers.

This game is all about counters. The US with its cost structure is the absolute easiest nation to get counters up for every threat. And with the excellent jeep recons, the US player should always know what counter is needed next.

esiex3
10-05-2010, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This game is all about counters. The US with its cost structure is the absolute easiest nation to get counters up for every threat. And with the excellent jeep recons, the US player should always know what counter is needed next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This.

I doubt Eugen is listening to us on that though. PC beta players have complained about it for a while but it seems like Eugen doesn't want to change anything about them. When I read over the balance changes, I was surprised that there were barely any nerfs for the US - and it shows in the new metagame. There was fairly strong evidence in my previous tournaments that the US is still the dominant power in 1v1 matches.

Axe99
10-05-2010, 03:20 PM
Not having to research the Storch or the Mitchell at the start of the game also means the US can make a fairly good fist of air starts as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Another point is that the Pershing or Super Pershing costs $40, and that the T-95 is also greased lightning for a Super-heavy, at 31km/hr.

Joppsta
10-05-2010, 06:10 PM
The US is by far the most forgiving nation to play as. I can attest to that and the heavy armoured artillery is just icing on the cake really.

"Artillery is the god of war"

Not so much true in RUSE, but when it comes down to a standoff situation and searching for "that opening" .. being pounded by artillery and returning just as much can make the difference.

Deton_van_Zan
10-07-2010, 03:00 AM
us is the best nation in the whole game dont matter what era

fattoler
10-07-2010, 05:51 PM
The thing about the Brits is that their main trope is their superior Airforce, which on it's own is fine. But when you consider that all the other factions have generalised strengths, such as balance, defence, and offence, having good units from one category isn't really fair...

It's just not cricket.

VVidar
10-08-2010, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GunnersMate07:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Painthreshold:
The USA isn't so much that it is overpowered it just doesn't have any significant weaknesses, but then you could argue it doesn't have real strengths either. Every other faction could most likely defeat USA in a aspect of the game.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you cannot argue that it doesn't have real strengths. That's why the top players all say that USA is overpowered.

Reasons why the US is overpowered :
#1 - Best early game AA options. The M-16 does more damage then the Russian shilka, requires no research, and actually costs $5 less. Its the only unit in the game I can think of where the unresearched unit actually costs less than the researchable varieties, and is still BETTER than the units that need research. Usually if a unit doesnt need research, it costs $5 more then units that do (like French foreign legion, brit paratroopers, brit air recon, etc).

This means that the US is the safest nation from early air starts, because you can get away with not building an airstrip (whereas most other nations need to either pump out tons of static AA or build fighters to effectively counter good air starts).

#2 Best recon in the game. The $5 jeep is the fastest ground recon in the game tied with the German equivalent. The german recon however costs $10. Therefore the US player can spam recon's and its never detrimental if they get sniped (as opposed to factions whose only ground recon are expensive or slow armored recon).

#3 Best armored artillery. The US and britain are the only nations with armored artillery (not talking assault guns). The priest and brit sexton are equal. The US however also get an upgrade to the M40. The M40 has longer range and more damage. If you try getting into an arty war with the US and they have M40's, you will lose because their arty is armored, while your arty is not. Therefore US wins counter-arty battles.

#4 Second best TD's in the game. The Jackson because it is turreted is the second best TD in the game next to the firefly. Its actually $5 cheaper than the firefly however, and more importantly, the US starts with wolverines already researched (every other nation but France has to research their first TD). And the Jackson upgrade only costs $50. Therefore the US can get its top of the line TD way way earlier then every other nation. Because of the turret, the jackson is much more useful like the firefly on the move. All the other TD's do not have turrets and will only be at an advantage standing still (except they all cost more then the jackson so the US should have numerical superiority in a TD vs TD battle).

#5 The Pershing. If the first 4 categories don't show you why its a myth that the US is a jack-of-all trades but master of none, just look at the Super Pershing. It has better damage then the tiger, its similar to a king tiger except for armor 4. But most importantly it goes 36km/h! A freaking advanced heavy that moves faster then other nations light tanks! To put it into perspective, the tiger moves at 27 km/h, the king tiger moves at 28 km/h, the russian light tank moves at 34 km/h.

The point is, the US has absolutely zero weaknesses. And on top of that, its units are not simply middle of the road. In numerous categories, the US actually has cheaper and even better units then every other nation (M16, M40, Jackson). Or Super Pershings that match up with King Tigers.

This game is all about counters. The US with its cost structure is the absolute easiest nation to get counters up for every threat. And with the excellent jeep recons, the US player should always know what counter is needed next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very, very good analysis and post.

The question is: why do so many game developers implement this preferential treatment of the USA? This is not the only game where this preferential treatment is evident (i.e. EndWar, various FPS US weapons etc. etc. etc.).

USA Sales numbers cannot be the real argument. The EU alone has over 450 million inhabitents and the UK, ITA, GER, Benelux and France sales figures are pretty high with many higher income inhabitents constantly buying the brand new games in those countries. And that is not even counting other parts of the world where games are also bought.

Historically the introduction period and performance in-game of the RUSE USA units is also not correct when compared to the other nationalities, even when staying in RUSE game terms.

I for one would like someone from EUGEN or Ubisoft to explain why giving the UK, ITA, GER, FRA and Russian forces a less preferential treatment than the USA in RUSE helps sales figures.

With things as they are now, they might as well have introduced the USA as the only playable faction in RUSE online Multi-Player.

Brenbed
10-08-2010, 05:13 PM
Well at least it's realistic...I doubt there is any country in Real Life that can beat the USA in an all out war..where every weapon can be used..And no I am not talking about Guerrilla wars where they have to exercise restraint due to civilians...I mean in an all out battle where civilians don't matter...I think the good ol US-of-A can beat any other country in the world, Hands down. And it's been that way for a while now...

I guess that's why I don't play with them...because they are spammed by all of the Newbs...lol..

Any scrub can win with the USA, but it takes skill to win with less powerful countries...

Joppsta
10-08-2010, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brenbed:
Well at least it's realistic...I doubt there is any country in Real Life that can beat the USA in an all out war..where every weapon can be used..And no I am not talking about Guerrilla wars where they have to exercise restraint due to civilians...I mean in an all out battle where civilians don't matter...I think the good ol US-of-A can beat any other country in the world, Hands down. And it's been that way for a while now...

I guess that's why I don't play with them...because they are spammed by all of the Newbs...lol..

Any scrub can win with the USA, but it takes skill to win with less powerful countries... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Typical American ignorance. We're talking World War 2.. when the US used inferior, mass produced equipment.. you know, before they brought Britain to their knees with the "lend lease" agreements.

WW2 basically knocked Britain out of the #1 for military power, still, it was fun .. we owned over half the world's landmass for a while almost.. showed we were the best and then made the USA essentially. I say we "made it".. i believe it was ex-UK'ers that revolted against the crown (understandable, i would be questioning why i was answering to a King/Queen i never saw).

Anyway, long story short.. America wasn't exactly the best technology you could get in WW2. A Super Pershing should be way more expensive than a tiger in my opinion, if we want to reflect accuracy.. since they were a rare sight on the battlefield, when compared with the German's tanks, if my history isn't mistaken. They were introduced very late into the war.

Also, the fact that the SP seems to be Superman in tank form also gives reason to question what the hell Eugen was smoking...


All i pose is this question.


Where can i get that sh!t and how much of it does it take to make such terrible balance decisions?



I think if every nation had a $5 recon jeep option the game would be that little bit closer to balancing. But no. The thing that gets me is the UK also used Willy jeeps. Hell, the UK used Bofors too and apparently we paid more for them. What was that? Shipping through submarine wolf packs tax?

fattoler
10-08-2010, 07:23 PM
I've already said this in the tank thread, but I'll say it again, ALL the other factions get genuine prototype tanks and the British get the Churchill, an Infantry support tank that was common as muck and was around from 1941, wha...? The Churchill should have been the Advanced Heavy Tank for the Brits, and the Prototype should have been either:

The Tortoise
http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/97/a39_tortoise_1945_closeup.jpg


The Black Prince

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Black_Prince_tank.jpg


Or even the first MBT, The Centurion

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t158/KurtSteiner/centurion1.png

Axe99
10-08-2010, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brenbed:
Well at least it's realistic...I doubt there is any country in Real Life that can beat the USA in an all out war..where every weapon can be used..And no I am not talking about Guerrilla wars where they have to exercise restraint due to civilians...I mean in an all out battle where civilians don't matter...I think the good ol US-of-A can beat any other country in the world, Hands down. And it's been that way for a while now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, you're showing a lack of history here Brenbed. Right now, you're spot on, but back then it was a very different story. While the US-dominated movie industry tells a rather one-eyed story of WW2, the Brits had some of the best kit available (not all, but some - their main problem early in the war was tactics, not material, and their tanks were often (again, early on - although later on they were pretty good), pound-for-pound, better than the German equivalents), and the only reason the P-51D Mustang was it and a bit was because it had a Brit engine powering it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Brenbed
10-08-2010, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Axe_99au:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brenbed:
Well at least it's realistic...I doubt there is any country in Real Life that can beat the USA in an all out war..where every weapon can be used..And no I am not talking about Guerrilla wars where they have to exercise restraint due to civilians...I mean in an all out battle where civilians don't matter...I think the good ol US-of-A can beat any other country in the world, Hands down. And it's been that way for a while now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, you're showing a lack of history here Brenbed. Right now, you're spot on, but back then it was a very different story. While the US-dominated movie industry tells a rather one-eyed story of WW2, the Brits had some of the best kit available (not all, but some - their main problem early in the war was tactics, not material, and their tanks were often (again, early on - although later on they were pretty good), pound-for-pound, better than the German equivalents), and the only reason the P-51D Mustang was it and a bit was because it had a Brit engine powering it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't begin to pretend I know my WWII history because I don't lol...but how did the Brits back them up?? From what I know they have usually only been strong with Air Support...

Joppsta
10-08-2010, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brenbed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Axe_99au:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brenbed:
Well at least it's realistic...I doubt there is any country in Real Life that can beat the USA in an all out war..where every weapon can be used..And no I am not talking about Guerrilla wars where they have to exercise restraint due to civilians...I mean in an all out battle where civilians don't matter...I think the good ol US-of-A can beat any other country in the world, Hands down. And it's been that way for a while now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, you're showing a lack of history here Brenbed. Right now, you're spot on, but back then it was a very different story. While the US-dominated movie industry tells a rather one-eyed story of WW2, the Brits had some of the best kit available (not all, but some - their main problem early in the war was tactics, not material, and their tanks were often (again, early on - although later on they were pretty good), pound-for-pound, better than the German equivalents), and the only reason the P-51D Mustang was it and a bit was because it had a Brit engine powering it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't begin to pretend I know my WWII history because I don't lol...but how did the Brits back them up?? From what I know they have usually only been strong with Air Support... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The brits were the ones that slugged it out in North Africa, in that see-saw campaign. If North Africa had been lost, I'd happily say the war would have been lost.

Sure, the Americans made them torch landings.. but in all honesty i don't see what them landings did... i mean... I know all about El Alamein and Monty's great final victory, Malta's persiverance contributing greatly by harassing German shipping.

So far as i'm concerned, the Maltese won Africa. A British subject at the time..


I think Americans get brain washed with their propoganda-like war films.. i mean.. there is easily over 1000+ of them... clutterring hollywood. It's like 'em cowboy films.. John Wayne plastering his face over everything.

Axe99
10-09-2010, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brenbed:
I won't begin to pretend I know my WWII history because I don't lol...but how did the Brits back them up?? From what I know they have usually only been strong with Air Support... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for a start, there were more Commonwealth troops at the landing on Sicily than there were US, and the D-Day landings were carried out by 57,500 American and 75,215 British and Canadian troops - yup, D-Day as Hollywood sees it was the US with a few British planes overhead, but the Commonwealth actually had more troops there than the US.

Similarly, everyone hears about the 82nd and 101st Airborne on D-Day, but there's nary a mention of the 23,000 British paratroopers that also went in.

While Hollywood would never let on, the British did a lot of the heavy lifting in the Second World War, and there's no doubt that the combined Commonwealth forces (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Malta, and probably a few others I've forgotten) were more important in Europe than the US (and not just for starting two years earlier http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

fattoler
10-09-2010, 03:52 AM
Calm down people, let's not turn this into a "Who won WWII more?" thread. This thread is about how IN THE GAME Britain is underpowered and America is overpowered.

Brenbed
10-09-2010, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fattoler:
Calm down people, let's not turn this into a "Who won WWII more?" thread. This thread is about how IN THE GAME Britain is underpowered and America is overpowered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but it is educational...because I never knew any of this...I always thought the USA did all the work..while most all of the other countries kind of sat back and played more of a support role...Never really knew a lot of this info...

So it is productive and the game is about WWII http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thanks guys for schooling me a bit...

The Brit had more troops at D-Day Than the USA did...LOL...

Never knew that...Yeah it seems the USA war videos really only show the side they want us to see and not really the whole story...

And you know what they say about those who don't know their history...SOON DOOMED TO REPEAT IT...

InfiniteStates
10-09-2010, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brenbed:
True but it is educational...because I never knew any of this...I always thought the USA did all the work..while most all of the other countries kind of sat back and played more of a support role...Never really knew a lot of this info... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh my...

LOL I can't talk - this is where I learn all my history (skip to half way through if you have no patience http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE

Axe99
10-09-2010, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fattoler:
Calm down people, let's not turn this into a "Who won WWII more?" thread. This thread is about how IN THE GAME Britain is underpowered and America is overpowered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, wasn't meaning to sound fired up, just trying to share some info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. The US did to a tonne of work in WW2, and had the second-largest peak military size of the Allies (after the USSR) - don't forget that the Pacific Theatre was very much US-dominated, with some support by the Aussies and Kiwis.

No one country 'won' WW2, but the country that probably made the largest contribution to the war in Europe (albeit very much involuntarily) would have been the USSR, which easily accounted for the largest part of the German war machine from 1941 through 1945, as well as most of the German casualties. But it was very much an allied effort, and every contribution was important.

On topic, I still think the US is overpowered, and the Brits (as well as French and to some degree the Italians) tactically limited. Not hugely, but enough so that in a game with top players the Brit/Italian/French player will need to be marginally better to win, all else being equal. I don't mind it, as I enjoy a good challenge, but it would be fairly straightforward to increase the cost of some of the US uber-units (the Super Pershing comes to mind) to balance it a bit.

Brenbed
10-09-2010, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Axe_99au:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fattoler:
Calm down people, let's not turn this into a "Who won WWII more?" thread. This thread is about how IN THE GAME Britain is underpowered and America is overpowered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, wasn't meaning to sound fired up, just trying to share some info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. The US did to a tonne of work in WW2, and had the second-largest peak military size of the Allies (after the USSR) - don't forget that the Pacific Theatre was very much US-dominated, with some support by the Aussies and Kiwis.

No one country 'won' WW2, but the country that probably made the largest contribution to the war in Europe (albeit very much involuntarily) would have been the USSR, which easily accounted for the largest part of the German war machine from 1941 through 1945, as well as most of the German casualties. But it was very much an allied effort, and every contribution was important.

On topic, I still think the US is overpowered, and the Brits (as well as French and to some degree the Italians) tactically limited. Not hugely, but enough so that in a game with top players the Brit/Italian/French player will need to be marginally better to win, all else being equal. I don't mind it, as I enjoy a good challenge, but it would be fairly straightforward to increase the cost of some of the US uber-units (the Super Pershing comes to mind) to balance it a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Italians have some cheap tanks...so at least they can go out in numbers..but the crazy thing is..their Heavy Infantry only has Satchels ... lol .. I guess Italy never had much along the lines of AT.....

But I love France....I will defend them to the end

VVidar
10-09-2010, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brenbed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fattoler:
Calm down people, let's not turn this into a "Who won WWII more?" thread. This thread is about how IN THE GAME Britain is underpowered and America is overpowered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but it is educational...because I never knew any of this...I always thought the USA did all the work..while most all of the other countries kind of sat back and played more of a support role...Never really knew a lot of this info...

So it is productive and the game is about WWII http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thanks guys for schooling me a bit...

The Brit had more troops at D-Day Than the USA did...LOL...

Never knew that...Yeah it seems the USA war videos really only show the side they want us to see and not really the whole story...

And you know what they say about those who don't know their history...SOON DOOMED TO REPEAT IT... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The German Wehrmacht (= German Armed Forces) even in 1945 still had over 75% of its total resources on the Eastern front. From 1941 to 1945 this Eastern Front number fluctuated from between 87% to 75%. If I remember correctly the lowest number in the East was 73% in the time frame from December 1942 to early 1943 because a lot of units were either being rebuilt or newly formed in Western Europe. They were soon transferred to the Eastern Front forever after the Stalingrad battle though.

Most of the elite German units after 1941 never left the Eastern Front, and if so only for a short period of time. Mostly to be rebuilt in Western Europe, which was a practice that of course ended in the summer of 1944.

The German High Command (OKW) purposely committed only enough troops to North Africa to prevent a total collapse of the Italian Army there. The much vaunted Afrika Korps was just a small Corps of three understrength divisions for most of the war for instance, fighting the bulk of the British Army. The few German divisions committed to Italy were purposely just enough to prevent a total collapse and allow a fighting withdrawl up the "boot" of Italy.

All of the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier divisions in France in the summer of 1944 were still understrength and/or rebuilding from very heavy losses on the eastern front, even the elite ones were understrength and not fully equipped. Only one single Panzer Division was at full manpower strength and fully equipped in the summer of 1944 in France.

Most of the German Infantry Divisions in the West were Static, especially those in Normandy, meaning they had less and lighter equipment and they were mostly stripped of their combat and supply train transport. These Infantry Divisions also had fewer support and fighting elements, for instance only six small Infantry battalions instead of nine and they used obsolescent and/or captured equipment.

fattoler
10-09-2010, 06:25 PM
Yes we are all very good military historians and we could go on an analyse every single possible "What if?" and number of troops available here and there but this is NOT the topic in question. Just drop it, we all know what the various arguments are and I I wanted to read the same stuff I read in every Youtube WWII video comments section I would go there, at least you get to listen to some funky Prussian Marching bands...

InfiniteStates
10-09-2010, 07:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE

LOL I'm just gonna go ahead and shamelessly spam this link again, because it's an accurate portrayal of what really happened :P

fattoler
10-09-2010, 08:03 PM
That made me smile, Izzard is a genius.

Axe99
10-09-2010, 09:37 PM
That is an epic link States http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Some very funny stuff there - haven't heard of that Izzard bloke before, he's got some talent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

InfiniteStates
10-10-2010, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Axe_99au:
That is an epic link States http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Some very funny stuff there - haven't heard of that Izzard bloke before, he's got some talent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL yeah, his old stuff is great. He seems to lack new ideas as he gets older though.

But check out this one too. If you watched the last all the way through, you'll see how he's great at linking back into previous jokes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjC3R6jOtUo

Axe99
10-10-2010, 03:21 PM
"My God man, do they want tea?"
"No, I think there after something more than that sir. I don't know what it is, but they've brought a flag"

Classic, absolute classic - comedy gold http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Thanks for the link http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

ghosty10
10-11-2010, 01:57 PM
UK units are so bad im only on a 70 win streak with them.........but i guess that does not count since its not ranked match...........i wounder what ill be called for getting a high win streak(cheater, hacker, or noob) in ranked 2v2 if they let us search with a friend lol

Axe99
10-11-2010, 02:38 PM
It's a little more complex than that Ghosty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. The UK aren't utterly hopeless, by any stretch - I got a 9 win streak in 1v1 ranked with 'em over the last few days - but they are tactically limited, which can make it challenging when facing better players. And in terms of the 70-win streak, does your partner play the UK as well? And if you're on a 70-win streak with the UK, how much experience have you had with the other factions?

Joppsta
10-11-2010, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
UK units are so bad im only on a 70 win streak with them.........but i guess that does not count since its not ranked match...........i wounder what ill be called for getting a high win streak(cheater, hacker, or noob) in ranked 2v2 if they let us search with a friend lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You'll be playing players that play ranked 1v1 and play 2v2 together occassionally. I think you're going to realise that the chip on your shoulder is pretty irrelevant.

Can already guess your strategies if you're playing UK.. i'm guessing your partner plays US? That or Germany.

Could almost guarantee you'd never get a 70 streak on ranked leaderboards... least when you're up in the top flight (if you ever make it that is)

ghosty10
10-11-2010, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
UK units are so bad im only on a 70 win streak with them.........but i guess that does not count since its not ranked match...........i wounder what ill be called for getting a high win streak(cheater, hacker, or noob) in ranked 2v2 if they let us search with a friend lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You'll be playing players that play ranked 1v1 and play 2v2 together occassionally. I think you're going to realise that the chip on your shoulder is pretty irrelevant.

Can already guess your strategies if you're playing UK.. i'm guessing your partner plays US? That or Germany.

Could almost guarantee you'd never get a 70 streak on ranked leaderboards... least when you're up in the top flight (if you ever make it that is) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well he plays France.....sometimes Germany........even Italy every now-and-then. but anyway im just saying that uk units are not bad if you know what your doing.

GunnersMate07
10-11-2010, 03:27 PM
In a 2v2 brits one strength is magnified because of the large maps. Air power is always strong on large maps no matter what faction you use. Also in a 2v2, the weaknesses of the brits (expensive recon, limited mobile options beyond firefly+avre) can be covered up by your teammate.

Try getting that streak in 1v1. Thats really where the brits struggle. Airpower isnt as strong on smaller maps, and the fact that its just you and the limited resources inherent in 1v1's prevent getting the brits best counters up in a timely manner (the $100 to research a firefly is just daunting in a 1v1 where the distance between bases is much much smaller then a 2v2).

Axe99
10-11-2010, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
well he plays France.....sometimes Germany........even Italy every now-and-then. but anyway im just saying that uk units are not bad if you know what your doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're playing the UK with France and Germany in a 2v2 that's a good setup - France and Germany's strength on the ground work well with the UK in a 2v2 (particularly as the UK can cover for France's woeful air units, and France can cover for the UK's woeful tanks). And agree they're not too bad if you know what you're doing, but compared with the US, the UK are still tactically limited.

fattoler
10-11-2010, 04:20 PM
Those are all good points, but your all missing the elephant in the room, Britain sucks on the ground, hard. And despite what Herman Goering may say you can't win a war though air power alone. Air-planes are glass cannons; they hit hard but can't take any damage themselves, AA is cheap as chips and because it can be deployed in woods means that it's hidden from your aircraft which in turn means all your planes go down the tubes along with the $300 investment into them.

The worst part is that the British recon is rubbish so exposing ambushing AA is nearly impossible, spies only works for a minute, and the Anderson is so slow it can be shot down in seconds. Then the enemy rolls into your base because your land units are beyond the pale and your defences are utter rubbish.

As I said, Air-power is a rubbish hat for the British to wear as it's main selling point, just play against the Americans and watch their M-16's shoot down those Hurricanes while their Mitchells pound your base which is defended by a lonesome Bofors (oh yeah, you also have NO AA defence positions).

VVidar
10-11-2010, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fattoler:
Those are all good points, but your all missing the elephant in the room, Britain sucks on the ground, hard. And despite what Herman Goering may say you can't win a war though air power alone. Air-planes are glass cannons; they hit hard but can't take any damage themselves, AA is cheap as chips and because it can be deployed in woods means that it's hidden from your aircraft which in turn means all your planes go down the tubes along with the $300 investment into them.

The worst part is that the British recon is rubbish so exposing ambushing AA is nearly impossible, spies only works for a minute, and the Anderson is so slow it can be shot down in seconds. Then the enemy rolls into your base because your land units are beyond the pale and your defences are utter rubbish.

As I said, Air-power is a rubbish hat for the British to wear as it's main selling point, just play against the Americans and watch their M-16's shoot down those Hurricanes while their Mitchells pound your base which is defended by a lonesome Bofors (oh yeah, you also have NO AA defence positions). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A gloomy but decent summary of certain UK nationality capabilities in RUSE. I kind of like the: hide you light AAA deep in the forest where they can take a good shot at aircraft RUSE design philosophy. If that would only work in real life...

On a more postive note, how would you like Ubisoft/EUGEN to redesign the UK nationality? Based on UK historical units, their introduction dates, unit characteristics etc.

Categories:
===========
1.) Fixed positions
2.) Infantry
3.) Armour
4.) Anti-Tank
5.) Artillery
6.) Aircraft/airfield
7.) Prototype

Joppsta
10-11-2010, 05:30 PM
It sort of doesn't make sense for the UK not to have a building based static AA and good AA units.. i mean we sort of had to fend off the blitz for the best part of the war... and i think you learn a thing or two about AA when you're using it on a daily basis.

Joppsta
10-11-2010, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
UK units are so bad im only on a 70 win streak with them.........but i guess that does not count since its not ranked match...........i wounder what ill be called for getting a high win streak(cheater, hacker, or noob) in ranked 2v2 if they let us search with a friend lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You'll be playing players that play ranked 1v1 and play 2v2 together occassionally. I think you're going to realise that the chip on your shoulder is pretty irrelevant.

Can already guess your strategies if you're playing UK.. i'm guessing your partner plays US? That or Germany.

Could almost guarantee you'd never get a 70 streak on ranked leaderboards... least when you're up in the top flight (if you ever make it that is) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well he plays France.....sometimes Germany........even Italy every now-and-then. but anyway im just saying that uk units are not bad if you know what your doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, if you know what you're doing or your team mate covers your asscheeks to get out your powerhouse units. The brits with fireflies and churchills are a mean ground nation, make no mistake about it... but it's only when they have control of the air also due to sucktacular AA units.

I guarantee you'd never beat me with UK 1v1. Ever.

Not unless you played outside your comfort zone, which i bet you're locked up inside. I get destroyed by AOD because i do exactly what i bet you do. 1v1 he destroys me.. 2v2 we make a good team, funny that eh? I suppose it's easy to sit back and let him do the work though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Actually beat Prinz or something, one of the elite league 1v1'ers a couple days ago.. he did an air rush tactic, really smart... but me and my team mate held him to a minor victory. Sure, it was minor, but you should have seen what we had to fend against. The early air attacks screwed us up royally.

In the end we won by pure italian power against France and US i think it was. With only one set of ruse cards as i had to go for dinner.

Sorta says it all really, your win streak means nothing. I bet you're one of 'em folks that dashboard to save your streak too!

ghosty10
10-11-2010, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
UK units are so bad im only on a 70 win streak with them.........but i guess that does not count since its not ranked match...........i wounder what ill be called for getting a high win streak(cheater, hacker, or noob) in ranked 2v2 if they let us search with a friend lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You'll be playing players that play ranked 1v1 and play 2v2 together occassionally. I think you're going to realise that the chip on your shoulder is pretty irrelevant.

Can already guess your strategies if you're playing UK.. i'm guessing your partner plays US? That or Germany.

Could almost guarantee you'd never get a 70 streak on ranked leaderboards... least when you're up in the top flight (if you ever make it that is) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well he plays France.....sometimes Germany........even Italy every now-and-then. but anyway im just saying that uk units are not bad if you know what your doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, if you know what you're doing or your team mate covers your asscheeks to get out your powerhouse units. The brits with fireflies and churchills are a mean ground nation, make no mistake about it... but it's only when they have control of the air also due to sucktacular AA units.

I guarantee you'd never beat me with UK 1v1. Ever.

Not unless you played outside your comfort zone, which i bet you're locked up inside. I get destroyed by AOD because i do exactly what i bet you do. 1v1 he destroys me.. 2v2 we make a good team, funny that eh? I suppose it's easy to sit back and let him do the work though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Actually beat Prinz or something, one of the elite league 1v1'ers a couple days ago.. he did an air rush tactic, really smart... but me and my team mate held him to a minor victory. Sure, it was minor, but you should have seen what we had to fend against. The early air attacks screwed us up royally.

In the end we won by pure italian power against France and US i think it was. With only one set of ruse cards as i had to go for dinner.

Sorta says it all really, your win streak means nothing. I bet you're one of 'em folks that dashboard to save your streak too! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



im the one that strikes first so he can get his army ready to move in then i flank them

Joppsta
10-12-2010, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
UK units are so bad im only on a 70 win streak with them.........but i guess that does not count since its not ranked match...........i wounder what ill be called for getting a high win streak(cheater, hacker, or noob) in ranked 2v2 if they let us search with a friend lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You'll be playing players that play ranked 1v1 and play 2v2 together occassionally. I think you're going to realise that the chip on your shoulder is pretty irrelevant.

Can already guess your strategies if you're playing UK.. i'm guessing your partner plays US? That or Germany.

Could almost guarantee you'd never get a 70 streak on ranked leaderboards... least when you're up in the top flight (if you ever make it that is) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well he plays France.....sometimes Germany........even Italy every now-and-then. but anyway im just saying that uk units are not bad if you know what your doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, if you know what you're doing or your team mate covers your asscheeks to get out your powerhouse units. The brits with fireflies and churchills are a mean ground nation, make no mistake about it... but it's only when they have control of the air also due to sucktacular AA units.

I guarantee you'd never beat me with UK 1v1. Ever.

Not unless you played outside your comfort zone, which i bet you're locked up inside. I get destroyed by AOD because i do exactly what i bet you do. 1v1 he destroys me.. 2v2 we make a good team, funny that eh? I suppose it's easy to sit back and let him do the work though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Actually beat Prinz or something, one of the elite league 1v1'ers a couple days ago.. he did an air rush tactic, really smart... but me and my team mate held him to a minor victory. Sure, it was minor, but you should have seen what we had to fend against. The early air attacks screwed us up royally.

In the end we won by pure italian power against France and US i think it was. With only one set of ruse cards as i had to go for dinner.

Sorta says it all really, your win streak means nothing. I bet you're one of 'em folks that dashboard to save your streak too! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



im the one that strikes first so he can get his army ready to move in then i flank them </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Genius, absolutely genius! It may work against turtling noobs but i bet that you play any pair-up with a semblance of quality and you'll lose.

ghosty10
10-12-2010, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joppsta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ghosty10:
UK units are so bad im only on a 70 win streak with them.........but i guess that does not count since its not ranked match...........i wounder what ill be called for getting a high win streak(cheater, hacker, or noob) in ranked 2v2 if they let us search with a friend lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You'll be playing players that play ranked 1v1 and play 2v2 together occassionally. I think you're going to realise that the chip on your shoulder is pretty irrelevant.

Can already guess your strategies if you're playing UK.. i'm guessing your partner plays US? That or Germany.

Could almost guarantee you'd never get a 70 streak on ranked leaderboards... least when you're up in the top flight (if you ever make it that is) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well he plays France.....sometimes Germany........even Italy every now-and-then. but anyway im just saying that uk units are not bad if you know what your doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, if you know what you're doing or your team mate covers your asscheeks to get out your powerhouse units. The brits with fireflies and churchills are a mean ground nation, make no mistake about it... but it's only when they have control of the air also due to sucktacular AA units.

I guarantee you'd never beat me with UK 1v1. Ever.

Not unless you played outside your comfort zone, which i bet you're locked up inside. I get destroyed by AOD because i do exactly what i bet you do. 1v1 he destroys me.. 2v2 we make a good team, funny that eh? I suppose it's easy to sit back and let him do the work though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Actually beat Prinz or something, one of the elite league 1v1'ers a couple days ago.. he did an air rush tactic, really smart... but me and my team mate held him to a minor victory. Sure, it was minor, but you should have seen what we had to fend against. The early air attacks screwed us up royally.

In the end we won by pure italian power against France and US i think it was. With only one set of ruse cards as i had to go for dinner.

Sorta says it all really, your win streak means nothing. I bet you're one of 'em folks that dashboard to save your streak too! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



im the one that strikes first so he can get his army ready to move in then i flank them </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Genius, absolutely genius! It may work against turtling noobs but i bet that you play any pair-up with a semblance of quality and you'll lose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



ok if you think that but i have beat people that rush at the start and i have beat people that just sit back........no im not saying that if i played the top people i would win every time but i am saying that i beat most people.



so say what you want but till you play me you dont know anything about how i play



o and just wondering when you are in a match and most of you engineer trucks get killed before they make it out of your starting place how do you feel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brenbed
10-19-2010, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fattoler:
Those are all good points, but your all missing the elephant in the room, Britain sucks on the ground, hard. And despite what Herman Goering may say you can't win a war though air power alone. Air-planes are glass cannons; they hit hard but can't take any damage themselves, AA is cheap as chips and because it can be deployed in woods means that it's hidden from your aircraft which in turn means all your planes go down the tubes along with the $300 investment into them.

The worst part is that the British recon is rubbish so exposing ambushing AA is nearly impossible, spies only works for a minute, and the Anderson is so slow it can be shot down in seconds. Then the enemy rolls into your base because your land units are beyond the pale and your defences are utter rubbish.

As I said, Air-power is a rubbish hat for the British to wear as it's main selling point, just play against the Americans and watch their M-16's shoot down those Hurricanes while their Mitchells pound your base which is defended by a lonesome Bofors (oh yeah, you also have NO AA defence positions). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree but I also disagree..... one 15 dollar M16 will do a ton of damage. Not to mention the M19 which is a beast when it come to Anti Air.

Germany and Italy also have some very powerful AA 90s and Flak 88s which can cause most planes to go into ROUTE mode with one hit. Back them up with a few cheap AA units and you can basically control the sky.

But there is also a balance when it comes to war. If you are spending tons of money on AA defense then you probably don't have a lot of attacking power, which means the brits won't need the most powerful tanks and infantry to defend themselves on the ground. AA along with the bases that produce them cost MONEY. And also, remember that a smart player will use the fanaticism Ruse and attack specific targets such as your heaviest and most expensive tanks. Since Ruse is a game of economics...it might be worth losing a 20 dollar plane in order to take out an expensive 30 or 40 dollar tank.

Even when planes get shot down, they are usually fast enough to destroy at least one unit before going down in flames when they have the blitz ruse and fanaticism ruse...so keep that in mind also...

If they attack a recon vehicle it can leave your tanks vulnerable to being ambushed...so at the very least using one plane to hit recon units can be enough to slow you down, unless you don't care about being ambushed...which at that point will hurt you in the pocket because anytime a 5 dollar unit can destroy a 20 dollar tank, you re losing the battle economically. Even if you have taken more depots, you will run out of money faster...

Besides if you are worried about Air raids, then it can be hard to focus on what is happening on the ground....

After spending some time playing with the Brits I have seen that their Air power can be deadly when used correctly to support weaker units

And don't forget that paratroopers can be used to steal depots which will force you to reroute a few of your tanks and infantry or produce and dispatch more units to take them back...either way...some trucks will make back to my HQ with extra money and you will be hurt financially...

Bombers can use Radio silence to get in and bomb your bases which again...will cost you economically...

If I used the Brits more often, I already know that I would be a nightmare for any country and any opponent who would dare to cross paths with me.

All countries have strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited...

But from a financial stand point..the brits can attack your pockets...and the way I see it...whoever runs out of money first..will be the loser in most cases...not all..but most

P.S. Planes don't cost 300 dollars...they are no more expensive than other units...the only major cost is building an airfield...

Axe99
10-19-2010, 02:48 PM
The big issue here, as I see it, is relative tactical inflexibility combined with planes only going in 2-3 at a time. It's possible to put up a pretty meaty AA umbrella against the Brits, which will shred the planes as they come in, and unlike a tank rush, when 20 tanks hit at once (and can more easily overwhelm AT), a plane rush goes on in dribs and drabs. And once you hit a certain critical mass of AAA, the enemies planes are almost useless.

When I play the Brits against better players, I actually try and fake them out - build an airfield, Anson and a few Hurris early, and use them to harrass and cause trouble, then go nuts on admin buildings, get 5-8, build a prototype, AT and armour base, and develop a rolling stack of Fireflys, Cov Mk 2s, AVREs and Churchills under radio silence, and then roll it forward. It's a pretty powerful stack, but takes a lot of money to build.

Obviously, this only works if the Hurris were successful in getting the other player to pull his head in, but I can usually get the stack happening while building counters to whatever's coming my way as well.

However, whenever I just go airpower, against someone who knows the game, I'm generally flattened. It's just too easy to concentrate AAA and too hard to get all the planes to come in at once (you _can_ set up a few groups of circling FBs across the base of the map, then order them all in at once, and that works fairly well, but it's pretty painful micromanagement, and both unnecessary and unrealistic).

The Firefly and AVRE together, with the Churchill to defend against infantry and the like, is a pretty powerful stack (add in a couple of Skinks if the other guy is using air as well, although you shouldn't need too many if you've got some Spitties up) - it's just that the many of the other factions can put together a similar stack far more cheaply, _and_ have an airforce nearly equal to the Brits at the same time, while having better AAA defence. And that's the issue - it's not that good players can't win with the Brits, but I have _never_ been beaten by a good player with the Brits, because they're just too easy to counter.

And this is obviously only in 1v1 ranked matches. 2v2 you can use your partner to cover for you.

Brenbed
10-19-2010, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Axe_99au:
The big issue here, as I see it, is relative tactical inflexibility combined with planes only going in 2-3 at a time. It's possible to put up a pretty meaty AA umbrella against the Brits, which will shred the planes as they come in, and unlike a tank rush, when 20 tanks hit at once (and can more easily overwhelm AT), a plane rush goes on in dribs and drabs. And once you hit a certain critical mass of AAA, the enemies planes are almost useless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1.) You telling me you can build a meaty AA defense, Armor base, Tanks, Barracks, recon, infantry and pay for depots
all in the beginning of the match, with limited amount of money??

Unless you have a money glitch I dont see that as being possible

2.) Since I am looking to strike early, I always build an Armor base along with my airfield...so how will you defend against an early tank assault with only AA?? For 50 bucks I can have two Matildas breathing down your neck in no time while you are watching for planes

3.) I don't have to fly my planes anywhere near that AA and it will take time to spread them out. So Good luck on preventing Paras from taking your Depots..lol...which means you can say goodbye to all of the good money that will now be in my pocket. You will be broke in the first few minutes...waiting for your money to build back up while I am sitting back and massing tanks, infantry and recon to come after that AA

4.) How do you plan on retaking those depots with only AA once they have been taken by the Paras?

5.) I plan on Bombing you with a medium bomber within the first few minutes...which means you will only have one blitz available because the other ruse will be needed for cammo to prevent that. If any of your depot trucks are coming from a different sector then you will have a slower build up because cash won't come as fast while I will be using two blitz ruses...so my trucks will be moving a bit quicker..

Besides if I have already given the target to the bomber then cammo won't help you after the order has been given because they will still drop bombs on that area even if they can't see the buildings, which will definitely destroy your bases..and you can bet your bottom dollar that I will target your Artillery base.

You can't have everything all at once. Think rock, paper, scissors....it is impossible defend equally against two things at once early in the game...to have defense in one area means giving it up in other areas...Sure, as the game goes on you will be able to cover more areas of defense, but at the beginning...when I like to strike...it will be hard to prevent an early attack using a a lot of AA


What will happen is that you will more than likely start playing defensive because you will have no early attack game and I will have built up to many forces for you to come after me....which is cool because after I bring out a few Artys, they will begin to pound those AA.... oh and those depots I took in the beginning....you won't be able to keep watching them...so they will definitely be retaken again...

Like I said before...it will cost a lot of money to defend against the Brits..

Planes may be in dribs and drabs...as you say..but remember...even my weakest tanks will have a fighting chance when I destabilize you in the beginning..

I guess it comes down to strategy...and who is playing...but you underestimate the brits...


To be honest I can play with the Brits and not even have to use many tanks...because I won't need them..hahahaha..I will use a few but not many..

Axe99
10-19-2010, 04:48 PM
Don't forget the Germans and Italians can build dual AA/AT - but anyways:

- One $5/$10, 400m range AT hidden in a forest will account for two 250m range Matildas. AT is often under-appreciated in RUSE, and I get a lot of points from AT in forests.
- Unless I'm playing as the US (in which case I'll use M16s as defense) I'll also have an airfield in play early. Best defense vs air is fighters and AA in combination. And the UK needs to research both spitfires and the Wellington - whereas if I play the US, I can pump out a P40 _and_ a Mitchell for the price of two Hurris. Not to mention the cheaper Grasshopper.

I'm not saying the UK can't be powerful - I've got a 9-win streak in 1v1 ranked with them (while I was around level 30, so against competent players). But I can do everything the UK can and more with most other factions. The UK is my favourite faction, but in 1v1 ranked games, where there's a 25 minute limit, it's also not up to snuff relative to the Germans and US.

However, _all_ of the factions are pretty close - a good player who is familiar with the faction they're using has a good chance of winning any which way. However, it's just a little tougher with the factions that are less tactically flexible (Italy, France, UK), because they don't have the same range of options available at the same price. I'm not saying the UK is terrible, I'm just saying that, compared with the US, it doesn't have the same range of tactical options at the same price. For a game that is primarily about tactics, this puts them at a disadvantage.