• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Red orchestra 2 Flamethrower .

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
Problem is not everyone agrees with sacrificing quality for quantity, especially since now it would require a roll-back where half the vehicles look good and half look not so good. Also, my understanding is that a lot of the vehicles were community-made, and just because there were more weapons on the front at the time doesn't mean they're worth putting in, especially since a lot of the time they were quite rare. Off the top of my head you have the MG 26 (Czech origin), which would be pointless compared to the MG 34, a couple of outdated submachine guns like the MP 38 (who can tell the difference?), the MP's 18, 28, bla bla... - outdated and only issued to second-line and security troops. Also I hope you realize that 100 tanks and guns is a huge exaggeration.

The only weapons that would make sense to me are:
- Luger P08
- MG 42
- PPS 43 (debatable I believe)
- M38, the carbine M1890 (Please)
- PPD 40

The reason they didn't give the Germans their own anti-tank rifle is that it was single-shot, and that would put them at a severe disadvantage compared to the PTRS.

Men of War isn't a good example because it's an RTS, you'd have to be pretty cocky to zoom in during a game enough to check out the details on the weapons, and they all behave the same to the rest of the weapons in their "class".

Oh yeah, and Killing Floor's flamethrower will not suffice for me, It's basically just a machine gun that sets enemies on fire. I would much prefer decent flame modelling.

Edit: See next post - Thanks Ross
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#23
Clowndoe said:
The reason they didn't give the Germans their own anti-tank rifle is that it was single-shot, and that would put them at a severe disadvantage compared to the PTRS.
Click to expand...


I believe the PTRD saw more use than the PTRS due to many reasons. I think it would have made more sense to introduce the PTRD and whatever the German equivalent was that you are referring to, rather than give both teams the same semi-automatic AT rifle.

As for a flame-thrower, I'm sure there are things with a much higher priority at the moment, but even so I think it would be received with the same criticism the MKB has. Sure they were there, but the amount of usage they'd see in RO2 would just be overkill.

:)
 
Upvote 0
#25
Considering the amount of work it would take to make flamethrowers anything other than an automatic shotgun with special graphics, I don't think it would be worth the time and effort when compared to other, more notable issues for the game.

For that matter, new weapons in general should be a relatively low priority, too. Nice to have, but not the kind of things that would have significant impact on gameplay.
 
Upvote 0
#26
We should stop complaining about what the game producers can do or not , they can do all of this , they aren't such a small company ,Bohemia Interactive wich released Arma 2 released a high number of weapons and units without complaining and anything like that and we sympathize the producers for what for beeing lazy .

I know its hard work but lets face it they choose to make the game so graphicaly demanding and also very hard to mode it , wich I don't really see the reason why , if we still think that the producers can't do anything we ask them to then why is there on a forum Ideeas and suggestions ?
 
Upvote 0
#27
Um... again, not everyone has weapons as their top priority, especially given the small number of weapons that would acceptable to add. My list isn't all that great but one theme you'll notice is that all of them would be sidegrades to guns we already have. Also if the developers aren't making guns, it's not because it's so much harder than in ArmA, but because they're busy with things that actively make the game 'better' and not just 'bigger'. Things we've been asking for since launch far more often, things like bug fixes (so people can actually use the guns already there), better functionality, bigger maps, etc.

And finally, you say that the devs are being 'lazy'. Lazy by doing what exactly? Anybody capable of coding, texturing and mapping is doing the above chores. If there's people not doing weapons and not doing the above, then logically they aren't working. That's super smart, have people on the company's payroll not working. The only other thing that's possible would be having them working on another game, but I don't think so.

And in-case you needed a final nail for the coffin, they released software for making all sorts of things. People have made maps, tweaks (they've changed tank behavior and stuff) and look at this:
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=78225

People are already modding the game with a half-done SDK, it can't be that hard.
 
Upvote 0
#28
Clowndoe said:
And finally, you say that the devs are being 'lazy'. Lazy by doing what exactly? Anybody capable of coding, texturing and mapping is doing the above chores. If there's people not doing weapons and not doing the above, then logically they aren't working. That's super smart, have people on the company's payroll not working. The only other thing that's possible would be having them working on another game, but I don't think so.
Click to expand...


Yea I understand that are doing work , but the "lazy" term wich I was refering was that they make changes and coding ,but why didn't they put the Original mode at first instead of all the leveling and things like that ?

They made the game so complicated that it has an enormous ammount of bugs , wich sometimes makes it very stresful to play because of the lag. If they are working so hard, why do we have to wait so much for the realease of a few vehicles ? wich they modified the mechanics so much that everybody complains .In my opinion this game was made to satisfy the efemere American masses not the Red orchestra fans ,they did the same thing with Mass Effect 3 and they made the worst game in the series because of that .

I know that Tripwire is trying to repair , but at least give us something definite
about what the future updates and things will be done , I don't really see the reason for keeping them secret .I don't know how hard they work so thats why I call them lazy is a specific expresion used in my language(Romanian) ,sorry because i'm colocvial about the specific terms I use to express myself , but I definetly don't have any problem with Tripwires workflow.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#30
Clowndoe said:
The only weapons that would make sense to me are:
- Luger P08
- MG 42
- PPS 43 (debatable I believe)
- M38, the carbine M1890 (Please)
- PPD 40
Click to expand...

The only weapons that would make sense to me are:
- Luger P08 (remove mauser c96 by this luger for equilibrate)
- MG 42
because RO 2 need to stay equilibrate. It s a good thing to see same weapons nearly the same on each side.

pps43 was created in 1943...I think it was not present in stalingrad.
m38 and ppd40 we don't need it. pssh 41 and mosin nagan are already here. Use ppsh41 and mosin nagan.

luciferintears said:
the last time TWI said "even Call of duty had it" was when they decided to tack on the moronic unlock system.

granted, a flamethrower would be pretty cool, but i dont think the teamwork or mechanics exist in game to make it worth while
Click to expand...

A flamethrower will change the way of figth in close combat. Remenber RO 1 didn't a flamethrower and worked very well.

"the last time TWI said "even Call of duty had it" was when they decided to tack on the moronic unlock system." Luciferintears has ritgh, i think.

Everything in COD and BF is not good. It s not why COD or BF have something that RO 2 MUST have it.
If you want RO 2 copy COD...it s not a good way for RO 2 to being a RO game. RO 2 have already so many things and way of gaming than BF and COD don't want to have. Let's RO 2 working as a RO serie game, not as a new COD or a new BF inside RO serie.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#31
This game isnt supposed to respect exactly the time period is a game we play it for fun . Why is there a reason to respect the battles wich this weapons were used , at Stalingrad the german had divisions equiped with beretta and mg 26 light mgs , I know there were obsolete but war isn't fair so many of the soldiers should be equipped with obsolete weapons like the russians wich majority had only mosin nagants . And why not add more weapon variants Red orchestra 2 is concentrated mostly on close quarter fights.
 
Upvote 0
#32
I'd love to see a flamethrower added. If modelled accurately it would add a great deal to gameplay without screwing the balance up. And it certainly would have seen much use in Stalingrad (and the eastern front in general).

Really, the only downside is how much effort it would take to add. It would take a lot of time to do it well and keep performance decent. Remember that irl flamethrowers fired burning liquid that would flow around objects like a liquid. That's a great deal more complicated than any implementation of flamethrowers I've ever seen before.
 
Upvote 0
#34
Because its about as close to a real flamethrower as a beaver is to a duck.

IRL a flamethrower fires burning liquid like the above poster mentioned, to model this correctly you would need to essentially program the physics for liquid in mid air, on slopes, and in any other feasible situation. The UT3 flamethrower is an auto shotgun with a fancy graphic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#35
Yes but for a test I really don't think we would need the latest model of a flamethrower an imitation is good enough.I don't think the liquid model would be so hard to made they made same thing in Call of duty it worked very well.And also I don't see any point why we should respect so much the timeline when the weapons were introduced ,the timeline was broken when they first introduced the Mkb , so I don't see any point why not introducing other weapons . Such as maybe the G43 , Mg 42 , PPd many others . Because I don't think it will upset anyone if we don't respect the timeline this is a game . We don't need to have the preestablished time features. If it was by me I would've put on Gumrak Tiger tanks to fight against Is tanks .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#36
x3ckid said:
Yes but for a test I really don't think we would need the latest model of a flamethrower an imitation is good enough.I don't think the liquid model would be so hard to made they made same thing in Call of duty it worked very well.
Click to expand...

You are creating a new COD...

x3ckid said:
And also I don't see any point why we should respect so much the timeline when the weapons were introduced
Click to expand...

Come back to Cod, no ?

x3ckid said:
,the timeline was broken when they first introduced the Mkb , so I don't see any point why not introducing other weapons . Such as maybe the G43 , Mg 42 , PPd many others . Because I don't think it will upset anyone if we don't respect the timeline this is a game . If it was by me I would've put on Gumrak Tiger tanks to fight against Is tanks .
Click to expand...

G43...Tiger...Is2..."We don't need to have the preestablished time features." you said ? Really ??...Have you understand RO 2 really ? You are playing RO 2 but you are thinking to COD. Again, RO serie game are not BF or COD serie. Try to understand well the objective of Tripwire.

You need really to respect timeline, i am so sorry to said it to you. Don't make RO 2 a new COD or another BF...

X3ckid, MG 42 is good idea - but anothers ideas are not good.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#38
ro2player said:
You are creating a new COD...



Come back to Cod, no ?



G43...Tiger...Is2..."We don't need to have the preestablished time features." you said ? Really ??...Have you understand RO 2 really ? You are playing RO 2 but you are thinking to COD. Again, RO serie game are not BF or COD serie. Try to understand well the objective of Tripwire.

You need really to respect timeline, i am so sorry to said it to you. Don't make RO 2 a new COD or another BF...

X3ckid, MG 42 is good idea - but anothers ideas are not good.
Click to expand...

The game is out from the Stalingrad timemark , at Stalingrad weren't used Mkb-s and Avt-s , the game wouldve respected the timeline if maybe foreign weapons were used . Also why is such a problem with the timeline ,it doesn't affect so much the gameplay it makes it much more fun , people will enjoy the game better if they wouldve had more tanks and more weapons . You overexagerate when you think all must respect the timeline ,it makes no sense for an Fps , its not a Call of duty I agree , but why do we need to respect so much the timeline the historical accuracy is busted when they added the Mkb with bayonet and scope or the sniper rifles with bayonets .
 
Upvote 0
#39
With the creation of the Mamayev map, TWI appears to continue on placing the fighting in Stalingrad. It'll be interesting if the next 2 maps that are in development continue along with this theme.

If people really want to get historical for Stalingrad, then get rid of the MKB and AVT from the available weapons. However, the Germans did use flamethrowers in the battle. The engineer should have the option of carrying it as a primary weapon.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu