PDA

View Full Version : sea battle



aa61094
10-06-2010, 04:39 PM
hear me out the game is great but it would be better if you where able to play on a small island where you can build all the buildings and a sea port because there is no land between the two bases no way but air and sea you can bulid transports for the sea and paratroopers load the transports with tanks infantry and anti-tank units but not only transports for the sea but also subs,destroyers,crusers,and battle ships for all out sea battles what do you think if you like it reply

Axe99
10-06-2010, 06:02 PM
It's a great idea, but would involve a lot more work in terms of balancing and maps and the like (map sizes would need to be larger as well). Suspect it'd go very nicely in a sequel, were one to happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

InfiniteStates
10-06-2010, 06:17 PM
I personally don't get why a lot of people seem so hung up on this sea warfare thing... Sure, battleships firing big guns is cool, and the game caters for that in the odd cut scene.

But that's it. Beyond that, it is dull. The sea is dull and featureless. It's like the combat equivalent of naughts and crosses (tic tac toe). The only way sea warfare is any kind of fun is in support of land warfare (and the same can be said for air warfare as well).

But to accommodate ships, the maps would need to be much bigger, taking the focus away from the land.

Can you tell I'm not a fan? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wartactics
10-06-2010, 09:09 PM
Adding sea warfare would be great, as long as it was only part of the overall land battle. It would be great to use aircraft carriers to spawn your airplanes, you could use transports to bring in tanks and infantry, even cargo planes to drop artillery and anti tank guns. You could add torpedo bombers to take out ships. It would definitely ad a greater scope to the game and would be much harder to command all the troops.

airborneguy
10-10-2010, 01:35 AM
If they implemented sea units, there would be alot more air to have to deal with. and people would concentrate too much on the sea and would lose all their bases to the enemy. Enough said!
If you want sea battles, buy battlestations pacific.

fattoler
10-10-2010, 04:01 AM
The problem with sea is that the only nations worth using at sea would be the US and the UK. Yes Germany had the Bismark and the wolf packs but everyone who played Red Alert will know how Submarines are only a counter against naval ships and have no help in shore bombardment, whilst the old fashioned battleships like Bismark and Tirpiz were sunk after they sunk only one ship between them because of Air Superiority.

As for Russia, that would be no fun at all, the Red Navy didn't really have any significant number of ships until the Cold War, whilst France and Italy only had average navies (both of which were sunk by the British).

InfiniteStates
10-10-2010, 08:27 AM
Yeah, living on an island makes you kinda precious about the sea (and sky) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Still couldn't give two hoots about sea battles though. I think it would massively change the dynamic of the game in a bad direction.

DW_Khan
10-10-2010, 10:44 AM
If they ever made a sequel or DLC that took place in the Pacific featuring Japan and the US then Naval Conflict would be necessary and I would probably love it. Island/Air Craft Carrier combat a la Midway would be awesome.

I don't miss a navy in the current version of R.U.S.E. though. Ships did not play a significant role in the European theater of WWII other than Transportation and Logistics. The most important vessels in the Atlantic were picking up troops at Dunkirk, or dropping them off on D-Day. Or else transporting war materials and household goods from North America to Britain. Not to downplay Das Boots, but their main roll was to harass said shipments of goods. Overall European navies weren't the significant powerful armadas of Japan and the US Pacific fleet.

I feel it best they left Sea Warfare out of this version of R.U.S.E. It helps the realism of the game. However, if they create future games set in different areas/time periods, then navies could play a important roll. I would love them to use this engine for a Napoleonic Wars game or so many other time periods.

Axe99
10-10-2010, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by DW_Khan:
Not to downplay Das Boots, but their main roll was to harass said shipments of goods. Overall European navies weren't the significant powerful armadas of Japan and the US Pacific fleet.


The battle of the Atlantic was actually one of the more important struggles of the European theatre, and caused the UK and US a _lot_ of trouble. It was far more than harrassment, and from Churchill's perspective it was (after the Battle of Britain had been won) Germany's best chance of defeating the western powers.

However, it would also make no sense at all in a game primarily about tactics, such as RUSE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. More a mechanic for Hearts of Iron 3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

DW_Khan
10-10-2010, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Axe_99au:
The battle of the Atlantic was actually one of the more important struggles of the European theatre, and caused the UK and US a _lot_ of trouble. It was far more than harrassment, and from Churchill's perspective it was (after the Battle of Britain had been won) Germany's best chance of defeating the western powers.

It was important because of the disruption to logistics and blockage of transportation of necessary goods. It was not important because of the battles or combat, as it was in the pacific. I acknowledge the battle of the atlantic was important, and did not say otherwise before. But, I do not think it was important in a way that is relevant(in a fun way) to the game of ruse.

Axe99
10-10-2010, 04:12 PM
All good - sorry, must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Agree totally it wouldn't work with RUSE, but there were plenty of 'battles' in the battle of the Atlantic, they just didn't involve any land.

There were a few reasonable-sized confrontations in the Mediterranean as well, between the Brits and the Italians, but after the Italians got the worst of it repeatedly, they headed back to port and pretty much stayed there for the rest of the war.

Totally agree that the big naval battles were in the Pacific though - from Midway to the Coral Sea to Leyte, there were some pretty big and important clashes.

fattoler
10-10-2010, 04:20 PM
Hearts of Iron, now THATs a game, unbalanced, but fun as hell.

MendedFlesh
10-10-2010, 04:45 PM
That would be awesome they also need to make modes such as, an only ground war so you cant build any airports or only an air battle.