Doge

If there's one hard scenario for me in this game, it's the arrival as the Union. It annoys me that I can't find a good way to use skirmishers; is it me or the game? Generally, I have the skirmishers wait for the Confederate brigades to close it and attack. If I attack, they don't shoot at max range, even with the halt order, and get destroyed by Archer/Davis' explosive ammunition. Even then, the skirmishers take much more damage than they could ever inflict. Not helping is the fact that they will do virtually no morale damage to the brigades (Archer fought the skirmishers, fired at Doubleday, wavered, got charged by the 3000 men, routed 3000 men, general was helping Davis). Calef isn't enough to do any damage before Archer gets within charging distance, so I immediately send him back to the Seminary. I don't see any way to defeat the Confederates by 11:30 like in the historical battle (even if I only route them), and definitely not a way to hold them with Buford until 11:00. By the time the Iron Brigade and Cutler finally make it, the skirmishers are in a cycle of continuous routing (they stop routing, I try to move them to regroup by Buford to recover, they route from running too much).

I have an idea for stopping the dreaded back cap of Herr's Ridge because of a random brigade, or because of Videttes especially. Simply put, once you capture a major VP all those VP's behind it are locked from being captured. Let's use Phase 1 as an example. If you, the Confederate player, captures either Oak Ridge or the Seminary (not Oak Hill, as it is a minor VP) Herr's Ridge will be locked from being captured. The Union must hold both Oak Ridge and the Seminary to be able to assault Herr's Ridge. Here's another example. Phase 2 This one's a little more complicated. We still have Oak Ridge and the Seminary, but this time it leads down to the right of the map to Cemetery Hill. Now, historically, Rodes came from the north-east, threatening the Cemetery, so the Union has to keep the XI Corps back to defend the Hill so the I Corps is cut off. If we used the above logic, the player wouldn't have to defend the Hill at all, just fight for one of the other VP's with all they have. So in this case, there would be no locked VPs. I'm not sure of the required effort the system itself to be implemented, or the implications on the AI. I do know that this would stop odd continuity errors from taking place (eg. the Union and CS switching places on Phase 1), making the logic of the battle solid and keeping immersion more intact. What would you guys say?

I personally have no problem with artillery LoS, M key helps a lot. Haven't experienced any weird things so far. I think this problem would be easily solved if there was a way to just click on a point of ground on the map and see it's LoS.

More Civil War first, not sure which one though. NW should wait. When it does arrive, though, it should be something other than the most obvious battle (Waterloo).

Suprised nobody's said Barlow's/Scheerz (spelling?) divisions yet. XI Corps is the worst. Only thing they can do is defend Culp's and Cemetary Hill. Although this is for historical reasons. I find that Rodes' division isn't as bad coupled with Heth's Division. Rodes can take the heat and fire a few volleys, then Heth's division can be reservists, or the other way around with Rodes doing pursuit and pushing the front.

David Fair has it right. Skirmisher units need to be combined. I lowered all of them to >50% strength, but it took a lot more than it should've. A 1,000 man skirmisher brigade would be better. If this, then only Videttes should be disallowed from capturing VP's. Just today I played a battle as the CS. I was able to take both Oak Hill and the Ridge, but a Vidette ran around the entire army and captured Herr's Ridge, which is just plain gamey and ridiculous. Another issue I have is that capturing is too slow, only time I've had this problem. Cutler retreated through my lines (ugh) so I sent back Archer and Brockenbrough (weren't able to fight him alone). I easily routed him, but it took too long to capture back Herr's Ridge and I got another Crushing Defeat, even though I had everything except the Seminary.

Anyways... This issue is resolved. I was playing the CS today and Pettigrew was my best brigade out there, though Davis was the single brigade that took the most losses/killed the most. So, yeah. Pettigrew's in perfect balance right now. It doesn't take 3 brigades to break him or just a skirmisher and arty.

How in-depth will multiplayer be? Can we expect scenario battles? Team based Corps battles? Will there be servers? Random matches? Lotsa questions. You know if it's coming out... soon... no need to answer ;)

I think I'm going to put this link in my signature from now on http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/906-known-issues/

They said they plan on doing that. I remember it being here.

I personally use Steam's forum more since it's so much easier to go there then actually opening the web browser; at least in my opinion. Which do you use more? A more important question, does Game Labs looks at the Steam forum? It's quite obvious this forum will be used more, but will Steam be given any attention? PS: Yes, I do know this will be a biased poll.

I don't know why anyone would want to limit the player. I have a suggestion though, not sure if it's been requested yet. In most games, there's an 'Ironman' mode where you only have one save, so pretty much like now; just that it's an extra option. Just for the sake of content and achievements.

Yeah, my exact thinking.

You had to say... Ammo opens opportunities for supply implementation and other tactical aspects. Just to note. Who can vote against that?!

You'll hate it for sure when you first use it. Once you start learning about it and use it more often it'll grow on you

Thanks! That's nice to know. I just hear horror stories about publishers and these kinds of games a lot.

Hello; firstly, I'd like to say this games sounds amazing. Very few game devs really value quality these days - which brings me to my point. This game is obviously indie ATM, but, if you'd be so kind to tell, are your plans for the future? Will you ever become part of some evil corporation that will ruin games like this? It disgusts me when when people swallow anything that the creator obviously spent no effort on, but I guess nobody wants to stay hungry. Thanks in advance.

Though it looks nice, option 2 is definetly the worst besides option 3. The icons should let you quickly see and distinguish all troops on the battlefield; which both 1 and 4 do That'd be a good idea to just include them all, and the option for none. If I had to choose one, it'd be #4.

I'm guessing that the zooming will probably be somewhat similar to Total War, but I got a cooler idea. What if, when you zoom out far enough, you are in a war room (or for this game, a tent) and there are tiny little lines or icons on a table that the camera is focused on. For a more visual perspective, here. What do you guys think? EDIT: By the way, this game is called R.U.S.E.