Top positive review
4 people found this helpful
A vast number of tactical opportunities
on 21 September 2012
This game is already pretty well reviewed, so I'll try to explain something new.
To build anything you need $.
Some people observe in negative reviews that this game is "slow" paced. I guess they mean the simple fact that to recruit units you must first build the appropriate kind of base (if you have enough $ to spend). To build it, a truck is sent from your HQ, which actually drives across the map to the site you chose, and then construction can begin, this last bit only takes about 5 seconds to complete. Other "slow" aspects are, the rate that you gain $ is proportional to the number of supply dumps you capture, and again trucks feature by carrying supplies from these dumps to your HQ, but only when they actually arrive at your HQ do you get the $.
This "slow" physical transport of supplies, means that the enemy can harass your supply lines, and destroy your supply trucks (and you can do this to the enemy) to choke off the flow of $. Ah, so it's not just "slow" there is a tactical element here? Oh yes there is, and a good player will harass in this way, just for fun and to provoke an attack into a trap.
What other "slow" aspects are there? Well your ground units have to move across this large landscape roughly in real-time. The range of fire for the units is broadly to scale (artillery is probably scaled down) - this is really only obvious when you zoom right down to see things at ground level, up close and personal. So in this way we have more simulation aspects coming into play, just like with supply. In fact you can think of this game as being like the Total war series when you play zoomed in, similarly there is a Rock-paper-scissors approach to battlefield tactics but R.U.S.E uses the historic attributes of WWII units. e.g. anti tank guns fire Armour piecing rounds and are good against armored vehicles but are inefficient when used against infantry (the blighters lay down don't they).
Is this a simulation? It doesn't look like one, and it's too much fun. I would say it has the best bits of simulation useful for tactical game-play.
So to criticize the critics (a bad move of course), I would say that too many seem to have played RTS's and lost sight of war-games. You really don't need to invent unrealistic RTS mechanisms when the highest strategy and tactics come from managing distance, time, and resources against an enemy, with a fair number of ruse's thrown in to modify the situation on the ground (and indeed in the air) at the opportune moment.