PDA

View Full Version : Planes are overpowered



MendedFlesh
10-10-2010, 04:50 PM
I had around 10 wirbelwinds armored anti aircraft guns and they had like 7 planes and they killed my guys, it doesnt make sense to me.

DW_Khan
10-10-2010, 05:09 PM
It sorta makes sense if you had your wirbelwinds massed together in a tight group. If they are all together, it only takes one of the bombers getting through and the whole group of AA is toast. If you spread out anti aircraft guns they are much more effective. That way opponents have to target each AA individually and can't take out an entire group.

InfiniteStates
10-10-2010, 05:22 PM
PMSL "planes are over powered"

I think I've heard it all now...

If you seriously think this, play as the UK - they'll be the most over powered nation going http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fattoler
10-10-2010, 05:58 PM
I wish.

MendedFlesh
10-10-2010, 06:12 PM
No ok listen if I have 1 wirbelwind and they have 1 plane and they will kill my unit before I kill them that doesnt make any sense at all. And it wasnt even bombers that were attacking my guys it was planes with machine guns so they were attacking my guys individually.

DW_Khan
10-10-2010, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by MendedFlesh:
No ok listen if I have 1 wirbelwind and they have 1 plane and they will kill my unit before I kill them that doesnt make any sense at all.

That doesn't seem right at all.
Are you sure it works out that way?
I always have more than one AA spread around so I am not sure. I would think the aircraft would start retreating before killing the wirbelwind in a 1on1 matchup. Assuming no ruses are being used that is.

MendedFlesh
10-10-2010, 06:31 PM
Yeah because they will kill my unit in one sweep with the plane and my wirbelwind wont have enough range to attack them before they kill them. They should give anti aircraft more range then because thats not realistic at all that planes can kill AA like that.

ChilledLJ
10-10-2010, 08:26 PM
That might be because you dont have recon on the plane and they have recon? and it pretty much depends on the plane attackingy ou aswell. I would never expect a wirbelwind to take down a fighter bomber one on one anyway because planes can just fly off when they take damage

Kohler794
10-10-2010, 08:44 PM
Personally i think that it's pretty balanced at the moment except that planes might have a little too much health. I mean I've had (more then once) my planes coming back with their engines on fire. Now in real life if your engine is on fire something is seriously wrong and unless you're in an action movie your probably ****ed. On top of that planes seem to take a lot of damage even after they're already on fire. It's like once they're engines bust into flames they become more evasive.

A great example of this is the other I was playing a game with a friend and my bomber made it back with ALL four engines on fire and i was like "WOW! That's awesome for me yet ****ed up at the same time".

Warforger
10-10-2010, 09:10 PM
Why did you build armored AA? Build the cheap AA and hide it in a forest.

Personally I like the system, in Ground Control aircraft were useless for the most part, AA guns took them out like paper and only attack planes were useful bombers were ok and fighters were useless, here all the of the plane types are useful, fighters have a use, fighter-bombers are useful and bombers are useful.

Like was said in a I made before thread, armored AA are pretty useless, there needs to be a patch to at least increase damage done by armored AA, so that it isn't too hard for ground forces to kill but enough to kill airplanes fast enough to stop them from getting destroyed.

MendedFlesh
10-10-2010, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by ChilledLJ:
That might be because you dont have recon on the plane and they have recon? and it pretty much depends on the plane attackingy ou aswell. I would never expect a wirbelwind to take down a fighter bomber one on one anyway because planes can just fly off when they take damage

I understood like every 5th word you said. Why would any plane win against any anti aircraft gun? Its called anti aircraft for a reason because its effective against aircraft. Thats like saying infantry vs tank infantry wins.

InfiniteStates
10-11-2010, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by MendedFlesh:
Why would any plane win against any anti aircraft gun? Its called anti aircraft for a reason because its effective against aircraft. Thats like saying infantry vs tank infantry wins.
AA fire is not accurate - it relies on rate of fire spam, not sniping. And this is totally in keeping with most other things in RUSE. For instance, if you take one tank destroyer against one tank you will probably lose, depending on the tank.

And also - infantry vs tank: infantry does win in the right situations. Or in sufficient numbers.

Don't just go off the name - play around, see what works. AA does kill planes, but you need to get the balance right.

But planes are certainly not over powered else you would see them all the time. I see them now and then and that's it.

Axe99
10-11-2010, 05:02 AM
Aye, planes are deffo not overpowered - the example of 10 Whirbelwinds and 7 bombers I find a little hard to believe - I successfully defended against a stack of 10 or so Italian F-Bs with 6 Skinks (I lost a few of the Skinks, of course, but the Italians copped it far worse than I did). And I just had 'em sitting in one big stack as well. I've never, ever needed 10 Whirbelwinds in one spot, and would shudder to think at the destruction they'd cause - you'd need planes coming in at all angles (ie, four or five approaching at once from different directions), or the fire from that many WW's would destroy the planes one-by-one before they did any damage at all.

You can overwhelm people with planes, but I play as the Brits a bit (although about to move onto the Italians - eek!), and as soon as they get serious air defences up you need to try something else - I've had 15-odd Lancaster (with recon support) bombing run on a base, blitzed to speed it up, decimated by well placed and not overly numerous AA.

Deton_van_Zan
10-11-2010, 05:02 AM
aa is really a deterrent fight air with air

VVidar
10-11-2010, 01:16 PM
To see how powerful aircraft can be in RUSE play the 2-player coop operation "Tobruk 1945" and only defend with hidden AT batteries combined with Wirbelwind and light 20 mm Flak batteries. Eventually waves and waves of fighter bombers will decimate you AAA and then the AT batteries.

To be sure, that is not the way to win the Tobruk 1945 operation, but it is a good way to test out AAA effectiveness in RUSE.

In WWII light AAA did not shoot down many aircraft just by firing at them, but instead intimidated enemy pilots by filling the sky with tracer fire and black puffs of smoke around their aircraft. This intimidation combined with fear let many enemy pilots break off their low level attack runs. Of course the AAA also shot down aircraft, but never in staggeringly huge numbers. The accuracy of aircraft in RUSE is exaggerated though, they never (seem to) miss any target they attack.

GunnersMate07
10-11-2010, 01:31 PM
Why does it always have to be repeated.

Gameplay and balance >>>>> Realism

Also on that note, ground AA is a counter to planes, but not a very hard counter. Using just ground AA, especially static AA to counter air rushes, is like using bunkers to counter tanks. Its not very effective, and its really just a deterrent that the enemy can easily avoid.

If you really want to hard counter planes, use fighters and advanced fighters.

Also note that when you build fighters and take control of the skies, your fighters don't become useless after you shoot down the enemy's planes. Two fighters from any faction will destroy any unit with vehicle armor. The way ruse' damage and hp system works, all units with vehicle armor are pretty much the same. So a jeep has the exact same hitpoints as an M-16, or even the italian breda. Therefore it only takes two fighters to destroy all units with vehicle armor.

Build more fighters.

VVidar
10-11-2010, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by GunnersMate07:

Gameplay and balance >>>>> Realism



Nothing new here in that statement, BUT this is only an opinion and not one of nature's laws or even game design laws. Evidently and sadly however it seems to be exactly what the RUSE developers had in mind when they made up the aircraft and AAA effectiveness as well as the overpowered American side in RUSE for instance. This last thing in particular, among other things, unbalances/mistreats the sides involved in RUSE and negates your statement in RUSE terms.

Being a long year veteran of dozens and dozens of strategy and tactics board games and even the first generation strategy and tactics PC games (Talonsoft ring a bell?), it is easy to conclude that it is also fun and challenging to play a realistic game that is balanced by historical facts factored into the game (design).

Unfortunately RUSE does not offer this on console, which I had hoped. RUSE however is fun in its own right and still easily the best game in its genre on the Xbox 360, which one could argue is not saying much.

In the land of the blind, one-eye is king.

ghosty10
10-11-2010, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by MendedFlesh:
No ok listen if I have 1 wirbelwind and they have 1 plane and they will kill my unit before I kill them that doesnt make any sense at all.

it makes perfect sense to me

Axe99
10-11-2010, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by VVidar:
Being a long year veteran of dozens and dozens of strategy and tactics board games and even the first generation strategy and tactics PC games (Talonsoft ring a bell?), it is easy to conclude that it is also fun and challenging to play a realistic game that is balanced by historical facts factored into the game (design).

Unfortunately RUSE does not offer this on console, which I had hoped. RUSE however is fun in its own right and still easily the best game in its genre on the Xbox 360, which one could argue is not saying much.

In the land of the blind, one-eye is king.

I'm also a vet of wargaming, since before it was on computer (World in Flames is my fave grand-stratetgy game, Aussie-made too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), and enjoy games that are realistic, but strategy games will have to be far more 'entrenched' on console before they can release realistic games to the market without many players getting confused and/or frustrated.

But anyways, since when were RTS 'realistic' - the fact that units only move when ordered by some 'uber-commander', and have no mind of their own, means that you could make the unit stats as realistic as you like and it'd still play pretty unrealistically. If you want realism, turn-based strategy is where it's at (or games with very small numbers of units - squad based tactical games in particular - or Paradox interactives 'pausable RTS' - which is probably the best of the lot, particularly for larger-scale encounters).

As for RUSE - it's the best RTS I've played, period, and I've been playing RTS since Dune 2. Sure, it'll never beat Panzer General or Allied General for realism, but it's still heaps fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

VVidar
10-11-2010, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Axe_99au:

I'm also a vet of wargaming, since before it was on computer (World in Flames is my fave grand-stratetgy game, Aussie-made too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), and enjoy games that are realistic, but strategy games will have to be far more 'entrenched' on console before they can release realistic games to the market without many players getting confused and/or frustrated.

But anyways, since when were RTS 'realistic' - the fact that units only move when ordered by some 'uber-commander', and have no mind of their own, means that you could make the unit stats as realistic as you like and it'd still play pretty unrealistically. If you want realism, turn-based strategy is where it's at (or games with very small numbers of units - squad based tactical games in particular - or Paradox interactives 'pausable RTS' - which is probably the best of the lot, particularly for larger-scale encounters).

As for RUSE - it's the best RTS I've played, period, and I've been playing RTS since Dune 2. Sure, it'll never beat Panzer General or Allied General for realism, but it's still heaps fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Never played "World in Flames" alas, but board games were sure a great pasttime in the student days. Even designed a few myself.

The first two Boardgames I ever bought were the sixties/seventies-era tactical games Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz. Simple rules but all in all both playable and abstractly realistic. The closest thing I have seen on PC to that genre is Battlefront's "Combat Mission", although it is in many ways closer to AH's ASL.

There are many great tactical and strategic titles on PC, but nowadays who doesn't love playing a console game on a couch in front of their big TV screen instead of in the study and without having to spend a lot of time on getting PC and software updates before being able to play a game?

We will probably not see any realistic games (dare I say simulations) on console until we start asking for them on forums like these. Ubisoft is one of the few companies that tries to innovate on consoles, like with EndWar's voice command RTS for instance. Sadly EndWar was even more badly balanced then RUSE is.

Although rushed through production "Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising" was a step in the more realistic direction, as can be said to a lesser extent for "IL-2: Birds of Prey". So there is a modest movement in the more realistic direction on console.

As console gamers are gettig older we will hopefully get more adult (and I do not XXX) oriented strategy and tactics games on console in the future. Asking for them on these sort of forums does not hurt.

Axe99
10-11-2010, 04:06 PM
Totally agree VVidar, sorry if I sounded a bit rough earlier, a bit crook today, and it might come through in my typing. Deffo hoping that they bring more 'strategic' strategy games to console as, like you, I much prefer playing on console with these days, and with the mouse-like ability of the Move, there's little reason not to.

I think the key is to make low-cost titles. Strategy was never a huge genre on PC (big, but it never got the sales of the 'huge' games on console) - one of the big mistakes a lot of devs make in trying to bring strategy to console is to try and make 'hit' games, and then they blow their budget on a game that's never going to recoup it.

I think the genre will really start to grow through PSN/XBLA titles that are relatively low cost to produce, so can survive on a fanbase of tens of thousands rather than millions, and then gain traction through there.

On that note ,if you're on the PS3, there's a real-time tactics title, 'Under Siege', due out on Nov 2 or 3 - it's fantasy styled, and real-time, but it looks like it could be a lot of fun as well. And then there's Military Madness (limited, but there's not much like it), and you can still play the PSOne Panzer General and Allied General on PS3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

VVidar
10-11-2010, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Axe_99au:
Totally agree VVidar, sorry if I sounded a bit rough earlier, a bit crook today, and it might come through in my typing. Deffo hoping that they bring more 'strategic' strategy games to console as, like you, I much prefer playing on console with these days, and with the mouse-like ability of the Move, there's little reason not to.

I think the key is to make low-cost titles. Strategy was never a huge genre on PC (big, but it never got the sales of the 'huge' games on console) - one of the big mistakes a lot of devs make in trying to bring strategy to console is to try and make 'hit' games, and then they blow their budget on a game that's never going to recoup it.

I think the genre will really start to grow through PSN/XBLA titles that are relatively low cost to produce, so can survive on a fanbase of tens of thousands rather than millions, and then gain traction through there.

On that note ,if you're on the PS3, there's a real-time tactics title, 'Under Siege', due out on Nov 2 or 3 - it's fantasy styled, and real-time, but it looks like it could be a lot of fun as well. And then there's Military Madness (limited, but there's not much like it), and you can still play the PSOne Panzer General and Allied General on PS3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

No offense taken, it is always nice to see other veteran wargamers on consoles! I am sorry to say that I do not own a PS3, I play on the 360. I hope that PSN/XBLA titles will also lead to more complex games on the consoles, we will see!

It seems that there are roughly three types of electronic game design philosophies. I really would like to have access to accurate and real sales figures on these types, but they are hard to come by.

1.) There are shallow rollercoaster thrill type games that sell fast for a short period of time and are generally only played in numbers until the next instalment comes out, like the vaunted COD series for example. These games may be shallow, but they offer a special addictive kind of thrill and fun, which I do not mean in a derogatory manner. Their fans are loyal until something more thrilling comes out, which will happen every six+ months.

Simply put: make money fast for a short period of time. Fanbase: loyal to the thrill.

2.) There are detailed, more complex thinking man type strategy/tactics games that sell slowly over a long period of time and they are generally played in numbers for as long as the series can be supported. These can be mostly found on PC since that platform supports player mods. These games may be detailed, more complex and require more strategy/tactics thought, but this allows for a longer term challenge that is based more on the competitive skill of the fanbase. Their fans are loyal without end as long as the game can be supported and/or modded.

Simply put: make money slowly over a long period of time. Fanbase: loyal to the game system and game mechanics.

3.) Then there are games that are somewhere in between these game types 1.) and 2.)

Simply put: make decent money for a medium period of time.

Now to me, it seems that most of the important Electronic Entertainment publishers seem to think that only category 1.) and 3.) are interesting on console financially. Or they might think that most people buying console games peak slightly above ******ed level. Either way, I think that it is up to us as customers to use the game forums to let publishers and developers know what sort of customers buy their product and what they would like to see. The good and the bad.

I own a great many 360 games but I still only play a select few of these and find myself buying less of the new titles, since most new titles that come out fall into category 1.) and 3.) and these offer less and less thrill (their main selling point) with each new instalment. And I have noticed on my friends list that this is happening more and more.

So to combine this with the thread topic: Ubisoft and EUGEN please make the Airpower vs AAA a little more realistic in RUSE. Airpower missing its target and AAA being more effective at forcing Airpower to break off their attack for instance. And give each nationality an early (1939+) and/or accessible (affordable) non-prototype self-propelled AAA option when it was there historically.

Here is an entry from the official RUSE site FAQ:

Q: Will each faction have its own characteristics?
A: There are 6 factions in the game: US, UK, GERMANY, USSR, ITALIA and FRANCE. Of course each of them has its own units…and its own specificities based on those they really had during WWII.

Brenbed
10-14-2010, 02:57 AM
As console gamers are gettig older we will hopefully get more adult (and I do not XXX) oriented strategy and tactics games on console in the future.

Damn it!! That sucks....and here I was looking forward to having some Tactical Porn action for the consoles....****!! Oh well..guess we have to stick with RUSE for now...LMAO...

Axe99
10-14-2010, 08:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ROFL Brenbed! You can always start up a group of people to get behind what I'm sure is an up-and-coming genre, lol!

Joppsta
10-14-2010, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Axe_99au:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ROFL Brenbed! You can always start up a group of people to get behind what I'm sure is an up-and-cuming genre, lol! fix'd

Axe99
10-15-2010, 03:25 PM
lol! I wonder how far off-topic this thread can go? Best not make that a challenge.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Joppsta
10-15-2010, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Axe_99au:
lol! I wonder how far off-topic this thread can go? Best not make that a challenge.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif About as far off as the OP is about the strength of aircraft?

InfiniteStates
10-15-2010, 07:25 PM
The guys at the top of the 1v1 leaderboard are overpowered http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Please nerf them devs...

Axe99
10-16-2010, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by BP_Charlie:
The guys at the top of the 1v1 leaderboard are overpowered http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Please nerf them devs...

lol, good luck States http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lostnite66
08-01-2011, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Axe_99au:

On that note ,if you're on the PS3, there's a real-time tactics title, 'Under Siege', due out on Nov 2 or 3 - it's fantasy styled, and real-time, but it looks like it could be a lot of fun as well. And then there's Military Madness (limited, but there's not much like it), and you can still play the PSOne Panzer General and Allied General on PS3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Do you know for sure if Panzer General and Allied General work on a PS3? I have both but can't get them to work on my PS2. I don't have a PS3. Just this week I tried to play Panzer General on my old PSone, and it won't load anymore. So I was thinking about getting a new PSone, but maybe a PS3 would be better in the long run if it will play all those old games. Plus, I could then play Gran Turismo 5.

kozlov36
08-02-2011, 02:40 PM
True, but in the seccond World War, planes were overpowerd. I know during gameplay having your force of 10 ARL-44's strafed to dirt by fighterbombers can get annoying

Gamedude107
08-02-2011, 06:05 PM
trying to counter planes with aa is like trying to Counter Tanks with more Tanks instead of AT or TDs...

use Fighters

P47ace
08-02-2011, 06:21 PM
Planes are OP
Japan is OP
USA is OP
O-I's are OP

that Whole game is OP and unfair

I've heard it before, and will hear it agian

Planes vs Planes=lose
AA vs Planes=lose

Tanks vs Tanks=lose
AT/TD vs tank=lose

the only way to effectively counter any mass force is to mix its counter

i always run my tanks with some TD's

always defend from Planes with Planes and AA mix

mix your forces and you will be difficlut to beat, simple as that

But Japan is still OP