PDA

View Full Version : Ideas for Ruse 2?



KILLER-ST
09-23-2010, 09:09 AM
Made this topic as i couldnt find one for this subject. Anyone any ideas for ruse 2. the zoom eugene engine would work preety well with any type of rts. So i guess its down to individual choice.
Another world war two story or a scfi rts using ruses engine and gameplay. or historical battles of different eras would be good.
my choice would be samurai. as it would look great with the zoom feature and the unit types are plentiful.
I know total war on pc covered this well. But nothing really available on consoles like this.
Ruses could be assasin strikes / invisble advance under cover of late afternoon fog and so on.
The possibilities are pretty much endless.

as zoom iris and ruse tactics could be put good use in any rpg.
So more worldwar2 or historical battles? for ruse2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ghoullio
09-23-2010, 10:48 AM
PACIFIC COMBAT!!!!!!!!

YEAH!!!

Imagine hordes with built in fanaticism rushing your puny defenses amid the hills and peaks of Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal!

Limited resources, constant attrition from the environment, serious recon issues, air support limitations. Think of the challenges! Then add some serious Naval assistance from Destroyers and Battleships.

Yeah, RUSE 2 is gonna be freakin sweet!

ElderForest
09-23-2010, 02:40 PM
There is lots of scope for additional DLC operation scenarios in the original version - exploring the interesting what-if's but it will come down to whether sales are sufficient (on each platform) to make DLC viable.

An obvious follow up with RUSE2 would be the Pacific Theatre with Russia, China, Japan, UK/India/Nepal, Australia/New Zealand and the USMC.

The theatre would probably require a bit more variety in the infantry/marine units and some amphibious units but could get away with less armoured units.

Maps would include island hopping and "close in" jungle scenarios rather than the wide open expanses of Europe and few obvious new/additional ruses's such as "Fake Amphibious Assault".

Lets hope the original sells well enough to make them consider it.

Axe99
09-23-2010, 04:05 PM
The Russian Front goes alright as well, although the Pacific had the US in it, which means it'd probably sell better, so that's likely a better option for a sequel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Warforger
09-23-2010, 08:39 PM
Get out of WWII? I mean whats the point of the globe during the loading screen if its just WWII in Europe?

Otherwise more races and less base building, as it stands the current system works good, but I'd prefer an option to play with a selected number of units that are selected before the actual mission and not giving me anymore besides aerial support like Ground Control.

More races like Brazil ( Like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Expeditionary_Force) ), maybe Thailand as well or Australia if we go into the Pacific. But personally I'd move from WWII and go into another war, maybe WWI or the Korean war, possibly a multiple set of wars like the Iran-Iraq war, or Russian Civil War, Six Day War (If of course Muslim Extremists don't get ****y, though I doubt they will since its a long time ago), as these are wars where there aren't as many guerilla aspects and more equal nation vs. equal nation. Or better yet, make up a new war.

Axe99
09-23-2010, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Warforger:
Otherwise more races and less base building, as it stands the current system works good, but I'd prefer an option to play with a selected number of units that are selected before the actual mission and not giving me anymore besides aerial support like Ground Control.

This is a great idea - a 'tactical mode', if you will, where you both started off with the same loadout and you had to capture a key point (hilltop or something, something that couldn't just be bombed or shelled out of existence) - there are plenty of examples of battles fought to take key pieces of geography, and it would give the game a very different dynamic.

All the assets for this are pretty much there, so hopefully it wouldn't take too much (although clearly a bit of) work to implement.

You could even have some attack/defend scenarios, although this would take a lot more work to balance and the like.

Top idea Warforger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

InfiniteStates
09-24-2010, 02:05 AM
A feudal Japan or Crusades RUSE 2 would be sweet...

I understand why games keep coming back to WW2 in terms of it having the most appropriate technology to make for great gameplay. Much the same reason why George Lucas chose it as a reference point for Star Wars...

While partiot missiles and cruise missiles are cool in and of themselves, they make for boring games. But man am I tired of the same old settings in the same old territories...

Feudal Japan or the Middle East during the Crusades would be a refreshing change.

TheVoice777
09-25-2010, 09:19 AM
would be cool if they combine "risk type" or like endwar game were you have a map of the world where you deside where to attack then zoom into the battle field, this would prob work best for MP.

Ghoullio
09-25-2010, 11:18 AM
An Napoleonic battlefield type setting for RUSE 2 would be interesting. Recon could work the same, calvary would be crucial, research advancements such as artillery and bored muskets could really tip the scales in combat.

Pretty interesting idea. I was thinking modern combat would be cool, but so would the Industrial Age...

TheVoice777
09-26-2010, 07:27 AM
vietnam or korea... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

rooneyboi08
09-27-2010, 03:31 PM
A conflict in russia during ww2 would be pretty sweet to an also da use of boats would open the options to use different ways to attack them and also in the pacific and da atlantic with uboats

cable_dawg602
09-27-2010, 11:25 PM
Two great ideas already posted

1 the Endwar type of interface for tournaments or a new campaign mode type in general. This mode could be called global supremacy or something. This would include a real time turn based war (may seem awkward with all the base building and such but if it was modern combat instead of base building maybe a couple of key field building such as barracks and motor pools so troops could get air dropped or something.

2 goes without saying make it a modern era. Even with the advanced weaponry now available to destroy I have every confidence that Eugen can still make a balanced game with military technology today.

3 create a whole new war even WWIII there are tons of hot spots and cool ways to interpret what spot is going to break out first. EndWar had excellent story telling I couldn't wait to see what type of current events were going on in the game. To make an actual campaign detailed enough to see the horror of modern war I imagine is a RTS fantasy

More Factions add in Arab nations, both freedom fighters and extremist maybe someone finally rose to power and organized an army with Russian support or something. What about Communist China or the Israelis. What about the African guerrillas maybe an event unified their armies of guerrillas

Maybe make cities a bit bigger not just one or two town squares not talking about making a whole map a city but open up different paths and different ambush points to include maybe even channeling your opponent down a path to an IED

How about we add flanks and a more detailed moral system what about suppressive fire and fields of fire and adding helicopters and mortars

cable_dawg602
09-28-2010, 10:42 PM
make cities mean more. Make them 50-60 percent larger with multiple entrances and roads and divide them up in sections where tanks and infantry have to hold to occupy to gain dominance. once a city is controlled then you could get bonuses like being able to set up automatically a HQ and being able to receive supplies there or grant the ability to hide units inside or fortify the city itself for defensive purposes.

r_u_se
09-29-2010, 03:09 AM
This is my first post here . I just got the game a couple of days earlier for ps3 and have been hooked onto it ever since.. I think this game reinvigorates the RTS genre which had been, of late, dulled down by predictable rush style play.. I'll reserve my appreciation of this game for another day. For now here are my ideas for RUSE2:

* Additional gameplay scenarios: Laying Mines, Tunnels, Weather Changes, Natural Disasters, Towns with leftover civilian population.
* RUSE Research ladder rather than all the Ruses available from the get go.
* Speeded up day-night cycle giving certain tanks/troops advantages/disadvantages at certain time of the day.
* PS3 Map Creator Tool - If Far Cry 2 can have it, then so can Ruse.
* Kane's Wrath style Global Domination mode, but with economic & political wartime tools.
* Keep the timed version, introduce the untimed version of game as another option.
* Battle Mode options, such as: Explore Sector, Attack Sector, Harass Sector, Hold Sector
* Aeroplanes with capability to provide lift up and drop off for tanks/artillery/infantry

..

Joppsta
09-29-2010, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by r_u_se:
This is my first post here . I just got the game a couple of days earlier for ps3 and have been hooked onto it ever since.. I think this game reinvigorates the RTS genre which had been, of late, dulled down by predictable rush style play.. I'll reserve my appreciation of this game for another day. For now here are my ideas for RUSE2:

* Additional gameplay scenarios: Laying Mines, Tunnels, Weather Changes, Natural Disasters, Towns with leftover civilian population.
* RUSE Research ladder rather than all the Ruses available from the get go.
* Speeded up day-night cycle giving certain tanks/troops advantages/disadvantages at certain time of the day.
* PS3 Map Creator Tool - If Far Cry 2 can have it, then so can Ruse. <= Xbox had it too, just sayin'.. so it isn't "PS3's"
* Kane's Wrath style Global Domination mode, but with economic & political wartime tools.
* Keep the timed version, introduce the untimed version of game as another option.
* Battle Mode options, such as: Explore Sector, Attack Sector, Harass Sector, Hold Sector
* Aeroplanes with capability to provide lift up and drop off for tanks/artillery/infantry

..

Just corrected a minor detail on your list http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway.. I'd love to see a map tool as posted above and perhaps a crossover of platforms (PS3/Xbox/PC) in a special option.. so we can fight it out to prove that the lazy controller player is better than the PC'er !!

Imagine the tournies that could take place! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I must admit though, RUSE 2 better have some damn Kinect integration (even if i totally oppose gimmicky controllers .. Kinect does look and sound pretty sweet).

I'd love to see it remain in the same timeline but perhaps expand more and take a slightly more diverse route that could lead to battles that were longer than an hour. I mean, usually it takes about half an hour to really get set up and by that time you're like "Oh.. damn, i better get my finger out and start scoring points!!".

Also.. just because it's got WW2 tech.. don't mean it needs to be a WW2 story! It's much easier to construct a good story around fake events as opposed to real world events.

Oh and with regards to story, please make the main character less of a person you'd like to punch in the face and also make the main villian less obvious. Your twist wasn't much of a twist to most people with half a brain really ... i knew soon as i met that character that they were the bad guy.



I'd love to see an expansion into naval warfare and even a similar online component to Endwar's. Just make sure it doesn't suck like Endwar's did in a way...

This world lacks games like Endwar/Chromehounds.. with persistent worlds!

Axe99
09-29-2010, 03:25 PM
These are a bit geeky, but :

- have something for infantry 'dug in' - at the moment, surprise does this a bit, but historically, even if you knew they were there, dug in infantry in a defensible position (woods/hills/towns) were a pain to get out, usually requiring a good bashing with arty and then a fairly painful infantry attack.
- Damage by range - an AP shell loses energy (and hence armour-piercing power/damage dealing capability) over distance. From a distance, the Tiger pwned, but if it got 'bounced' at close range by medium tanks, they had a chance to take it out.
- Shorter distance arty, or no bases (or at least a mode for this) - I'd prefer if arty was used primarily for its battlefield purpose - it was very unusual for opposing armies to have their rearbases only a few kilometres apart.
- Weather cycles - bad weather shut down air cover, and would add an element of unpredictability to the game. Snow and the like could play havoc with mechanised or mobile units. Probs best not an option in ranked matches, but choosing a season could be fun in unranked matches http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Joppsta
09-29-2010, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Axe_99au:
These are a bit geeky, but :

- have something for infantry 'dug in' - at the moment, surprise does this a bit, but historically, even if you knew they were there, dug in infantry in a defensible position (woods/hills/towns) were a pain to get out, usually requiring a good bashing with arty and then a fairly painful infantry attack.
- Damage by range - an AP shell loses energy (and hence armour-piercing power/damage dealing capability) over distance. From a distance, the Tiger pwned, but if it got 'bounced' at close range by medium tanks, they had a chance to take it out.
- Shorter distance arty, or no bases (or at least a mode for this) - I'd prefer if arty was used primarily for its battlefield purpose - it was very unusual for opposing armies to have their rearbases only a few kilometres apart.
- Weather cycles - bad weather shut down air cover, and would add an element of unpredictability to the game. Snow and the like could play havoc with mechanised or mobile units. Probs best not an option in ranked matches, but choosing a season could be fun in unranked matches http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I think this could be great but very frustrating since the time constraint is a big problem. Even in ranked games.. i mean 25 minutes is hardly enough time to set up a HUGE vast army and conquer your foe.. at least with the most advanced units. In my opinion extending ranked by about 15 minutes (40 minutes per game) would be better.

Axe99
09-29-2010, 04:07 PM
Aye - agreed. 25 minutes is alright for 1939 and 1942, where people aren't racing to develop advanced units, but for 1945, where it costs 280 to put together a stack of five Tigers (compared with 180 for a stack of five Panzer IVs), 25 minutes doesn't give you much to work with.

You could even have the 'quick' and 'long' leagues, or leagues for different time periods (with one meta-league ranking, maybe), so that everyone can enjoy the game in the way they like it (I enjoy 1939 and 1942 games, for instance, but you've gotta play them unranked).

Joppsta
09-29-2010, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Axe_99au:
Aye - agreed. 25 minutes is alright for 1939 and 1942, where people aren't racing to develop advanced units, but for 1945, where it costs 280 to put together a stack of five Tigers (compared with 180 for a stack of five Panzer IVs), 25 minutes doesn't give you much to work with.

You could even have the 'quick' and 'long' leagues, or leagues for different time periods (with one meta-league ranking, maybe), so that everyone can enjoy the game in the way they like it (I enjoy 1939 and 1942 games, for instance, but you've gotta play them unranked). I am not a fan of limited tech but i guess that's why they have multiple time periods ... not everyone wants the king tiger breathing down their neck! xD

cable_dawg602
09-29-2010, 11:25 PM
I like the game speed but don't like it at the same time I'm kinda torn. I like how the action is slowed down to keep it sim and not spam but if ranked matches are going to stay at what 25 minutes than maybe the game in general should have less base buliding Or maybe you could start out with a particular division that has specified buildings already built for you I.E. Mechanized could have an armor base and barracks already built for you or you could go Ground and Pound which starts you off with an artillery foundary. and maybe an airstrip etc.

Joppsta
10-01-2010, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by cable_dawg602:
I like the game speed but don't like it at the same time I'm kinda torn. I like how the action is slowed down to keep it sim and not spam but if ranked matches are going to stay at what 25 minutes than maybe the game in general should have less base buliding Or maybe you could start out with a particular division that has specified buildings already built for you I.E. Mechanized could have an armor base and barracks already built for you or you could go Ground and Pound which starts you off with an artillery foundary. and maybe an airstrip etc. This would suck, they should just extend and remove time limits, look into adding saving unranked MP games also.

Similar to how Sins of a Solar Empire works

STeven923
10-03-2010, 11:39 PM
Alright I got some pretty cool ideas.

1. Stronger Infantry- Infantry is the base of every army. They should be better than just for ambushes. Give them more range and the ability to dig in.

2. New Infantry classes- Mortar teams and machine gunners. Add some veriety to infantry.

3. Sea Battles- Add a new front with sea battles. Have maps with a little water or a full blown island hopping map. Transport units over the water and flank enemies.

4. Transportation- Capture railroads which can move troops quickly or destroy them to deny them to your enemy. Get rid of bridges to lock off routes.

5. New Factions- Japan would be a great faction to accel in sea combat. Seeing lesser familiar factions like China could be a great addition.

These are just a few ideas i came up with to improve the game. Hope you like em.

InfiniteStates
10-04-2010, 03:47 AM
While I can understand the desire for longer ranked matches, I can also see why the games have been kept relatively short... With all games like RUSE, EndWar, Civilisation Revolution and IL2 Sturmovik, where you can't join mid-game (and for good reason), the time spent waiting for a game is directly proportional to the game length when you are actually playing. And it's made especially worse by the niche nature of these games, meaning the online community is not as large as mainstream titles.

I really like the idea of choosing a starting profile to get a couple of buildings from the word go. But I would take it one step further and allow customisation, so you could spend up to X amount of money on starting buildings, then any left over money gets added to your starting funds.

Then people who like to build forward bases straight away aren't penalised and it leaves strategic options open without making it unfair for any particular choice.

More on topic, the RUSE engine is so great that it could be applied to pretty much any period of war. Although I'm not sure how well naval battles would work...

My preference would definitely be for Feudal Japan or Medieval settings though, preferably with seige engines.

Painthreshold
10-05-2010, 07:39 AM
I would prefer another WW2 game but on the other front, perhaps Germany v Russia, Japan v USA etc.... These fronts could allow Britain in Burma, China Etc, French colonies, China, Australia that would be cool.

Axe99
10-05-2010, 03:25 PM
Bring on the Aussies! Best light infantry in the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Not that I'm biased http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

InfiniteStates
10-05-2010, 04:52 PM
That's cos they're carrying so many cans of Fosters they're essentially bullet proof...

Sorry mate - crass stereotype joke, but I know you can take it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Joppsta
10-05-2010, 07:16 PM
I am completely against any form of starter buildings altogether, it takes away a layer of RUSE that you can't find anywhere else.. I think constructing your buildings is part of the experience and having them automatically built for you would be a bit counter-productive. Also, you have to wait for about 20 seconds for a building to deploy off the bat at the start of a game if you deploy it right next to your base, you should have to wait that alotted time to have it deploy, playing with a "profile" or not.


The best thing they could do for RUSE 2 is just add more units, add more locations and hell, just lose the "historical accuracy" part of the game perhaps. They could of course, explore another front of the war (Asia/Pacific) but i think that dwelling in the realms of history is somewhat boring.

The discovery channel does WW2 history to death. If people don't know about the history of WW2 enough to be bored of it yet, y'know, i think there's something wrong. Anyway, I can't really think of what they could do but an interesting twist to RUSE could be modern warfare, although it does pose it's own problems. Depends how far into the technology of nowadays you want to go, since naturally Europe/USA/Russia/China are the big players nowadays.


Certainly not saying it's impossible.. but it would be a lot of the same units showing face depending on which factions you chose to put in AND I SWEAR TO **** IF THE CHALLENGER 2 (aka best tank in the world) IS GIMPED I WILL STAB SOMEBODY.

Now that that's out of my system.. (here comes the "our tank is better" debate rofl) I think the problem would be (with modern setting) that all factions would have strengths everywhere.. and there is no real "weaknesses" in todays fighting forces. They are the jack of all trades for the most part.

I suppose, China/Russia would probably have cheaper units perhaps? But that's my thoughts on the next RUSE anyways.. besides they could do a lot of DLC for the current RUSE and improve it vastly.

Axe99
10-05-2010, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by BP_Charlie:
That's cos they're carrying so many cans of Fosters they're essentially bullet proof...

Sorry mate - crass stereotype joke, but I know you can take it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

:lol:

Pffft.....VB, Carlton Draught or XXXX - Foster's is the leftover rubbish we ship overseas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I like the idea of a modern RUSE, but it would be tough integrating missiles and planes into the gameplay. Most attack jets would be away and back from an attack run before people had time to blink, and from memory either the F-111 or the F-18 can drop a sizeable bomb from a number of km away.

Toddcefai
01-22-2011, 06:50 AM
Befroe WW2 wont work because RUSE is about infomation warfare, that didn't exist until WW2. What are you going to do for feudal ages, radio silence = ? is just one example. I dont usuallly like to be too critical but medieval wont work.

Modern would be great and expand on the RUSEs.

THink of this, you send decoy tanks on the enemy left flank, while doing this you send in (under radio silence) elite infantry in helicopters (that coudl drop of and pick up beign a unit in themselves, maybe even provide cover fire) and you (still under radio silence) moe your infantry in marking AA for artillary allowing your apaches to fly in and destroy their tanks/fortifictions). Then using your real tank force go in and eliminate their base.

I also think that instead of reasearching and buildig units in factories (the most ridiculously UNrealisitic thing ever) you have various facilities (like maintenance areas) and you must build and upgrade these in order to build better units (tanks for example would require a level 3 maintenance shop and level 2 food supply). Then when you had the facilities you would be able to call in your units (come in from off map (obviously cost supplies). This is because its stupid that you should be able to produce king tigers in a tiny little factory in the middle of no-where that is cut off from the rest of the world, it just doesnt work.

Instead of admin buildings you would have supply units that go off map (presumedly to the main supply dump/HQ) and return with supplies.

Things like AWACS planes could act as recon against planes while UAVs could spot ground units.

rossocool
01-22-2011, 07:50 AM
Personally I don't expect Ubisoft to actually make R.U.S.E. 2 but I would love it if they did.

I would really like:
More factions, Japan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Australia, Canada etc. (obviously the only two realistic ones being Australia and Japan)
More POVs (Playing as various factions through the campaigns). Each campaign could be quite short but its the variety that counts.
Naval Units, info on my plans here: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...331071998#8331071998 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7471016188/m/3341031898?r=8331071998#8331071998)
More unit variety rather than just light tank, medium tank, heavy tank.

weedbazooka
01-22-2011, 08:09 AM
I say go back about a 1000 years for the next ruse. Maybe the mideval times with England, Scotland, Ireland, Norweigans(vikings), Greeks, Egyptians, Barbarians(east asia), and the Persians. HQ would be a castle where u build defenses kinda like Ages of empires. Each nation would have a specific and historically accurate armies. E.G. the english would have a fine heavy calvary with shields, horses, and weapons of that time. the persians would have less armor but elephants, black magic(gunpowder)...etc. The Egyptians would have a tech edge as far as buildings, the vikings could master the sea, the scottish maybe masters of deception and surprise attacks but no real heavy calvary, the greeks armored infantry and tactics, barbarians speed and stealth(radio silence)...etc and so on... I think it would be very successful with no army being that OP that the problem is with the current ruse.

Warforger
01-22-2011, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Todda468:
Befroe WW2 wont work because RUSE is about infomation warfare, that didn't exist until WW2. What are you going to do for feudal ages, radio silence = ? is just one example. I dont usuallly like to be too critical but medieval wont work.

Modern would be great and expand on the RUSEs.

THink of this, you send decoy tanks on the enemy left flank, while doing this you send in (under radio silence) elite infantry in helicopters (that coudl drop of and pick up beign a unit in themselves, maybe even provide cover fire) and you (still under radio silence) moe your infantry in marking AA for artillary allowing your apaches to fly in and destroy their tanks/fortifictions). Then using your real tank force go in and eliminate their base.

I also think that instead of reasearching and buildig units in factories (the most ridiculously UNrealisitic thing ever) you have various facilities (like maintenance areas) and you must build and upgrade these in order to build better units (tanks for example would require a level 3 maintenance shop and level 2 food supply). Then when you had the facilities you would be able to call in your units (come in from off map (obviously cost supplies). This is because its stupid that you should be able to produce king tigers in a tiny little factory in the middle of no-where that is cut off from the rest of the world, it just doesnt work.

Instead of admin buildings you would have supply units that go off map (presumedly to the main supply dump/HQ) and return with supplies.

Things like AWACS planes could act as recon against planes while UAVs could spot ground units.

You....You're....kidding right? You think all war before WWII had absolutely no deception and creative idea's? Go read up on Napoleon's battles especially the one in Bavaria when he was fighting Austria and Russia, that was all information war.

belunimo2011
04-29-2011, 02:48 PM
1: mortarman can go in the woods it will be cool. 2: and big maps. 3: and nuke bombers in nuke war. 4: longer distance for shooting for infantry on 200m. 5: take helis on 6: and take ships on

belunimo2011
04-30-2011, 09:26 AM
7: take suply boots on.8: take suply ships on. The suply boots will come from the suply ships.

maikkelis95
05-02-2011, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by weedbazooka:
I say go back about a 1000 years for the next ruse. Maybe the mideval times with England, Scotland, Ireland, Norweigans(vikings), Greeks, Egyptians, Barbarians(east asia), and the Persians. HQ would be a castle where u build defenses kinda like Ages of empires. Each nation would have a specific and historically accurate armies. E.G. the english would have a fine heavy calvary with shields, horses, and weapons of that time. the persians would have less armor but elephants, black magic(gunpowder)...etc. The Egyptians would have a tech edge as far as buildings, the vikings could master the sea, the scottish maybe masters of deception and surprise attacks but no real heavy calvary, the greeks armored infantry and tactics, barbarians speed and stealth(radio silence)...etc and so on... I think it would be very successful with no army being that OP that the problem is with the current ruse.
play age of empires

Sandy170
05-10-2011, 08:01 AM
(spoilers)

Ok for Ruse 2 i think they should come up with an altrenative Ending for the WW2 and continue on from their. Such as the Russians striking Back after 3 weeks of peace in Europe. This would change the outcome of the War in the Pasific. U could have the USSR joining forces with Japan which would Stop the US from dropping the bomb for fear of it being done to them by the USSR. To make the Campaign more intresting and to keep it fresh it could be told from both sides. The player wouldn't play Sheriden (spell) at least to start with. the player would being as a Major in the US forces in the Pacific and would work this way up till he reaches some lofty Rank. By this time Sheriden nukes Kate r new character is preparing to Attack Japan itself.

So Russian Attacks wiping out most of the Allied Forces who were not ready. The Story may move Back over to Sheriden as he tries to fight of the Russians.

Thats wt i think would be a gd idea but personally i just want to play as a German General Fighting the Russians.

maikkelis95
05-10-2011, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Sandy170:
(spoilers)

Ok for Ruse 2 i think they should come up with an altrenative Ending for the WW2 and continue on from their. Such as the Russians striking Back after 3 weeks of peace in Europe. This would change the outcome of the War in the Pasific. U could have the USSR joining forces with Japan which would Stop the US from dropping the bomb for fear of it being done to them by the USSR. To make the Campaign more intresting and to keep it fresh it could be told from both sides. The player wouldn't play Sheriden (spell) at least to start with. the player would being as a Major in the US forces in the Pacific and would work this way up till he reaches some lofty Rank. By this time Sheriden nukes Kate r new character is preparing to Attack Japan itself.

So Russian Attacks wiping out most of the Allied Forces who were not ready. The Story may move Back over to Sheriden as he tries to fight of the Russians.

Thats wt i think would be a gd idea but personally i just want to play as a German General Fighting the Russians.

Lol hell no.

Wartactics
05-10-2011, 10:16 AM
I would love to see Ruse 2 as a hypothetical take on WWIII. What would have happened if World War 3 would have occured. The US, NATO, Russia, Japan, China, Europe, all involved. The setting could be the 1980's. I really think the maps should have real places in them. I'd also like to see objectives in multiplayer. Defending depots or key bridges. You also get points for completing and defending objectives. Real life capital cities on the maps. Naval units should be implemented, but only on maps where they would be available. I really like the idea of naval units, if not just for artillary and air craft carriers for air units. I also agree with people who said infantry should play a larger role. Digging in should be implemented, like in "A bridge too far". The scale of the maps may be a little off too. I think the landscape needs to be less open field and mountains and have a little more square footage for cities instead of one road. If the game were scaled differently, infantry would play a larger role in the cities.

maikkelis95
05-10-2011, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Wartactics:
I would love to see Ruse 2 as a hypothetical take on WWIII. What would have happened if World War 3 would have occured. The US, NATO, Russia, Japan, China, Europe, all involved. The setting could be the 1980's. I really think the maps should have real places in them. I'd also like to see objectives in multiplayer. Defending depots or key bridges. You also get points for completing and defending objectives. Real life capital cities on the maps. Naval units should be implemented, but only on maps where they would be available. I really like the idea of naval units, if not just for artillary and air craft carriers for air units. I also agree with people who said infantry should play a larger role. Digging in should be implemented, like in "A bridge too far". The scale of the maps may be a little off too. I think the landscape needs to be less open field and mountains and have a little more square footage for cities instead of one road. If the game were scaled differently, infantry would play a larger role in the cities.

id prefer 1960's

Redbanana27
05-11-2011, 03:46 PM
Modern day.
This is theonly thi g i would want from ruse 2.

Possible nations:
USA
Russia
China
Britain/ The Commonwealth
France
Middle East
Libya (Possibility with other african nations)
Argentina

Tell me what you think

tristen326
05-22-2011, 04:17 PM
nukes that u can buy and upgraed
ocean combat
new ruses
new people
new counties
new planes
new tankes
new land unites

Warforger
05-22-2011, 07:31 PM
Too late really they're making a new one that's basically RUSE 2 but without RUSE 2 in the title.

jpnelson82
05-24-2011, 12:18 PM
If the game were going to be just for consoles, I'd love to see a Napoleonic era RTS, it just doesn't exist on the console. PC has several games in this period, but the console does not.

belunimo2011
05-28-2011, 05:18 AM
9: the grups for indfanty most be on ten men 10: we most have air ships to send paratopers,bombers,friter bombers and friters

AeroForceOne203
05-30-2011, 03:57 PM
I wouldn't mind if they made the second RUSE World War II again. I love the World War II theme. They would have to change it up, offer water combat and more.

The second idea I think would be cool is a modern combat style. Make it be as if its world war III and have it take place around the entire world.

Darknight399
07-02-2011, 07:11 PM
Just thought of an idea for DLC for R.U.S.E.!
We could have a carrier war such as the war between the yorktown and whoever it was they fought in the Midway theatre. I think this would be a great idea, what do you guys think. You could have subs, sub-hunters, destroyers, torpedo-boats, aircraft carriers, frigates, aircraft, flak boats, supply ships, mobile HQs (Aircraft carriers could act as these), torpedo planes, fighters, bombers, suicide (JPN only) and you could also include other naval battes such as the one against the grossadler. ~TheDarknight399~

Redbanana27
07-02-2011, 07:30 PM
So this would be only america and japan... Whats the point

rasco400
07-02-2011, 07:50 PM
i think that ships will ruin the game as there r very few maps that will allow you to field them also it will require a major rework of the game as it is all about land based fighting.

Redbanana27
07-02-2011, 08:28 PM
Some maps would be fine for naval battles... E.g. DDAY. You have the god damn english channel right there.

Bronsenzola
07-03-2011, 01:39 PM
Better Infantry.

Redbanana27
07-03-2011, 05:17 PM
Bronzeola (ithink) play as USSR and re-post afterwards... Thank you.

Bronsenzola
07-03-2011, 05:47 PM
Yes Russia has cheap effective infantry but they are easily countered.

Redbanana27
07-03-2011, 05:54 PM
Right ok... But everything can be easily countered... So your point being?

Bronsenzola
07-03-2011, 08:23 PM
My point being is that the other units have advantages, tanks have armor, planes can't be engaged by ground units (except AA) Artillery can hit at long range, anti tank units have mobility (AT guns can hide in the woods. The only real advantage the Infantry has is they can capture buildings.

Redbanana27
07-03-2011, 08:28 PM
And go in woods and towns... And surprise attaxk... And do the most damage to any unit if gotten close enough. Again point, infantry is good!

Bronsenzola
07-03-2011, 08:33 PM
IF they get close enough. And if the enemy is smart and uses recon those ambushes aren't going to happen. I'm not saying I don't like Infantry. I just wish they had more use then just laying ambushes and capturing buildings.

Redbanana27
07-03-2011, 08:35 PM
Thats why you be smart and take out the refon, and o viously you wouldnt get all infantry... Infantry has the most multi purpose role in this game... They do not to be improved as they are very good

Bronsenzola
07-03-2011, 08:40 PM
Yes, infantry play a support role. They are good when pared with other units. I just wish they were a more stand alone unit.

FlatTom
12-14-2011, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Wartactics:
I would love to see Ruse 2 as a hypothetical take on WWIII. What would have happened if World War 3 would have occured. The US, NATO, Russia, Japan, China, Europe, all involved. The setting could be the 1980's. I really think the maps should have real places in them. I'd also like to see objectives in multiplayer. Defending depots or key bridges. You also get points for completing and defending objectives. Real life capital cities on the maps. Naval units should be implemented, but only on maps where they would be available. I really like the idea of naval units, if not just for artillary and air craft carriers for air units. I also agree with people who said infantry should play a larger role. Digging in should be implemented, like in "A bridge too far". The scale of the maps may be a little off too. I think the landscape needs to be less open field and mountains and have a little more square footage for cities instead of one road. If the game were scaled differently, infantry would play a larger role in the cities.

Already done games called world in conflict look it up

Warforger
12-15-2011, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Bronsenzola:
Yes, infantry play a support role. They are good when pared with other units. I just wish they were a more stand alone unit.

You need to know how to use them. Infantry are perhaps the best unit in the game seeing as they can just overwhelm the vast majority of enemies they encounter and with microing they can get through artillery and bombers quite easily.

The thing though is that they're often unstoppable when in a huge stack and you'd need to escalate your firepower more and more, usually in the form of bombers seeing as they're the most effective unit against stacks of infantry.

AaronMcfarland
12-16-2011, 07:42 AM
Is there acc gonna b a RUSE 2????? hope so

the thing i want the most is a higher unit cap cause on 2v2 50 isnt enough

Also unlimited time

AvolitionFTW
03-17-2012, 04:11 AM
maybe they could do something in modern day... just a suggestion

killatanker
03-27-2012, 12:50 AM
enough with the ww2 , lets go modern , apaches , a10's , kiowa's , abrams vs t 90 , ya it would be alot like battlefield 3 or mw3 but u could add uav's , jdams , ieds etc , so many better vehicles out there now with more power and show and awe to them , now for naval , limit it to subs , cruise missiles , eod bots etc , see how much more fun it would be , and a little bit more better detail on terrain destruction and vehicle destruction... and a working fire system , things stay on fire until u put it out ..

killojoy
03-30-2012, 10:04 PM
There should be a modern day R.U.S.E