• 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/

Squad RO Realism - Whats the story?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#42
My membership on the Revleft forums is purely for Anti-Fascist reasons. It should not cloud your view (as clouded as it already may be) on my political status. Obviously your view on soviet units as displayed by your reference to us being "leftists" shows that the reason you like Axis units is your political status? Which of course would mean that you being "Leader" of a SS Unit would mean that your political view is forced upon your rule of the unit?
Which breaches the rules of RO Realism units.

Also my various names as you so clearly stated Lyosha/Toma/Christie are with reference to the different names i chose for the various realism units i chose with relevance to thier representation.
 
Upvote 0
#43
lyosha said:
Which of course would mean that you being "Leader" of a SS Unit would mean that your political view is forced upon your rule of the unit?
Click to expand...

Hahaha the members of the 17.SS are all educated and intelligent individuals. They are free to think and express there views and opinions. If you think I ‘enforce’ my views on members of the unit then you are very mistaken. In fact in our unit we take particular care to avoid the subject of politics because it usally ends up in arguments/debates that last for hours. :p

As for RevLeft I was under the impression it was a forum for people who believe in anything from communism to anarchism or any left wing ideology that promotes the seizer of power by violent and revolutionary means. That’s why it is called Revolutionary Left! And more importantly I don’t have to be a national socialist to fundamentally disagree with these ideologies. And please don’t put this down to ignorance on my part my book shelf is wide and varied! :rolleyes:


Regards
Ernst Hoffmann
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#44
TodSky said:
I see you no longer wear your 3SA signature and put your 193rd one back on. Are you going to revive the 193rd again?
Click to expand...
I have not left the 3.SA. I have been a dual member even when 193rd was active. I've always allowed our members to be members in other groups for leagues or ladders that are not realism-related. However, for Xfire and forums, I always represent our realism unit first.

I had my last college final yesterday, returned home and had a discussion with some key members of the 193rd and we decided to re-open enlistment again. The reason we ceased activity is because of the realism community's lack of compromising and conflicting schedules. We believe that can be worked out now and even if we don't get off the ground quickly, we will leave our forums and lines of communication up.
 
Upvote 0
#45
Staroi said:
I had my last college final yesterday, returned home and had a discussion with some key members of the 193rd and we decided to re-open enlistment again. The reason we ceased activity is because of the realism community's lack of compromising and conflicting schedules. We believe that can be worked out now and even if we don't get off the ground quickly, we will leave our forums and lines of communication up.
Click to expand...
Excellent I am very happy for you, I hope things go well. By the looks of this thread and a few others there are quite a few old soviets. Maybe they might jump on board. When you are ready give me a shout I would love amatch with you guys. Something like the Kaukasus match we had, that was very fun.

Regards
Ernst Hoffmann

P.S. in the mean time if you need any help contact me (on here) or come on vent Deviant should have all the details.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#46
There is very little difference between National Socialism and International Socialism, and you all know that.

As for Fields of Fire, I place the entire failure on Haase. I respect him and think he is a great guy, however, his ambitions were to large. As basicly the XO of the project, I tried and tried to get him to tone down the scale of the project to something feesable for a alpha launch. But as soon as he got stuck on editing maps for every match, he got stuck on one map. He not only never finished it after several months, he got busy with Real life issues, which is of course, totaly understandable. I and along with all other members of the project lacked the computer skills to complete what he started and it effectivly died.

As far as the community being united, I disagree. I think at that point it was more divided then ever. The entire Soviet leadership was on board with ORC, and the entire German leadership was for FoF. Personaly over the stupidest things, such as limited respawns and Steel Beast or Iron beasts or whatever the hell its called.

The whole experience to me showed that people were to concerned with fairness and competition over realism and the experience that we were trying to create.

I personaly would love to see a campaign that is guided by history. For example, late war battle: Armored Beasts (tahts the name) on, with a 3,4 or even 5 to 1 Soviet to German tank ratio. Along with mass Soviet infantry and tank rushes and Hoorah charges. If I ever were to make a Soviet unit, I would love to implement these type of Soviet strategies, such as tank ramming, swarming tactics and lots and lots of hoorah charges.

I personaly reenact German and Soviet in real life and I am facinated with the Soviets disregard for all life in major conflicts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#47
The problem I have seen for the realism community is the fact that there is not enough maturity. This is on both sides. First you have arguments about what is realism verse historical. All everyone does is argue and never gets anything done. One argues political views from ones side - while the other side argues his. What you find is that in most cases neither knows the true history of either. Although both sides have people who really want to get a community together neither has the desire to just get one going and have fun with it. Although I do agree with the use of "Armored Beasts" - some are arguing they want a more realistic game play with regards to ballistics. The community as I see it is too small/lack desire - to support any kind of game play of this kind. It is a shame because I remember a time when it was fun. Now it has become more of a pain to deal with the same people over and over again that all want something for themselves and not the community. This is just my opinion and I am not trying to offend anyone here. What I am expressing I am talking about on both sides of the community. What is sad is that it has driven many of the people in this community that actually have the money to pay for servers away from the game. Now it seems that it is much more fun to just hop on a server and enjoy oneself and not have a "Drama Queen" session taking place constantly. These forums are proof of that drama. I have to admit that it does seem that the German clans have been harassed by the same people in this community or the same clans. Just look at the people posting causing all the trouble in clans forums on the RO forums. I wish people would realize that it is not helping the community but just driving it away. You still have the die hards left playing RO. You can see them on servers. I feel that the people who really have a desire for realism are still playing RO because in my opinion RO is the only game that represents that ability. I have tried other games through the years however, even the new games do not compare to RO in terms of feel and gameplay. Sure maybe the graphics are a little bit better but nothing compares to the imersion effect you have. Maybe one day when the next RO comes out there will be a larger community that will respect each persons desire of gameplay. Hopefully!!! Till then have fun with the game!!!! And realize that we all love the the same game for a reason. As someone posted a comment to me "I have a dream"!!!!

P.S. I know some of the die hard realism guys have a good realism community of people playing DOD Source. Why is it that in DOD:S you can have a realism community with no problems and not in RO. Could it be the people in RO or just the size of the community there? I was just wondering?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#48
compromise, compromise, compromise.

for ex. I personally hate armored beasts. I tried to setup a match with another clan that loves it.

So I requested that we do 1 round vanilla and 1 round with AB turned on.

The reply was basically .... Our panzers will go no where w/o AB.

Another example .... I hate doing 1 life/round matches where there is no time limit. The attackers usually just hide for half an hour and attack when the other side is bored and distracted.

I asked for a time limit of 30 minutes on a 15 minute map as a compromise.

They just replied with arguments about how there is no time limit in real life.

So if 2 sides can't agree on terms ... how the hell are you gonna have a campaign.

The smallness of the community is another issue because it becomes incestuous. Ppl leave one clan and join another many times over but they take their grudges and rivalries with them.
You end up with discussions like ....

PersonA: hey, we're playing a match against 1st NA
PersonB: oh' I was in that clan. they're all douches.
PersonA: yeah?
PersonB: yeah, super unrealistic too.
PersonA: they didn't want to play with [insert condition here].
PersonB: seee ... they're so immature. And we're so leet.
 
Upvote 0
#49
Well put Koba, I myself have to admit that in the grander times, I did not negotiate very well with others. Because at the time there were others to play and our arrogance justified the means. Now it is obviously very different.

And HerrPorsche, what is your name out of curiousity, Im sure I know you.

But with regard to dod:s, I know what you mean. The realism community is HUGE. But you have to remember it is over half filled with little kids that like the 1 life round competition then more the realistic aspect. Because we all know that in DoD there is no hope for any kind of realistic play ever. Its more competition with ranks and a chain of command. I myself am in a DoD:S unit the 9th SS, and I will admit I play because I like the competition style gameplay with a realism atmosphere. The 9th SS is a rarity in DoD:S that is littered with RO vets as well, and as a result have alot more RO realism style Unit then standard DoD:S units do. A great example would be the 29th ID that moved to DH, play one game with them and you will instantly tell they are from DoD:S by the way they talk and play the game.
 
Upvote 0
#50
and the fact that they decided to replicate a couple of DoD:S maps in DH which the gameplay is abosoloute crap.

I totally agree about the DoD:S community, they are huge, but quality not quantity is what counts.

But sometimes that can be taken to extremes of elitism where some units feel they are above the rest and call other units not as realisitic. This is highlighted in Koba's post.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#51
I have never understood why at times the issue of manpower in realism matches is an issue at all.

In all honesty, why couldn't the excess german players switch and play Russian/Allied to make up the shortfall. IE-for a TOC match, we have 4 german units and only 1-2 allied units. We always have an excess of german units wanting to participate, and not as many allied, although of late they have done well number wise.

I personally would have no problem playing allied in a match I could not participate in, and only an idiot would sabotage the effort of the opposing side just because it is not normally the side they play.

I believe the realism community should just come together, hash out a set of rules, if they aren't totally what you want, deal with it and play. (whether that be too realistic, or not enough). And if you occasionally need to suit up for the opposing side, so be it. Then people would never run of motivated enemies to fight.

I'll happily storm across the russian steppes towards moscow, or fight for the motherland and take not one more step backwards. To me, it's all in the fun of playing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#52
PeshmergaJ said:
I have never understood why at times the issue of manpower in realism matches is an issue at all.

In all honesty, why couldn't the excess german players switch and play Russian/Allied to make up the shortfall. IE-for a TOC match, we have 4 german units and only 1-2 allied units. We always have an excess of german units wanting to participate, and not as many allied, although of late they have done well number wise.

I personally would have no problem playing allied in a match I could not participate in, and only an idiot would sabotage the effort of the opposing side just because it is not normally the side they play.

I believe the realism community should just come together, hash out a set of rules, if they aren't totally what you want, deal with it and play. (whether that be too realistic, or not enough). And if you occasionally need to suit up for the opposing side, so be it. Then people would never run of motivated enemies to fight.

I'll happily storm across the russian steppes towards moscow, or fight for the motherland and take not one more step backwards. To me, it's all in the fun of playing.
Click to expand...

I'll attest to the desire to want to field manpower for whatever side is needed, but yet again this will plunge us into the nuances of what, and what isn't realism. Opponents supplying manpower is not entirely doable, in some aspects, because for one, I know many units who drill and prepare strategies well before the actual match. What if this person was the join the opposing team? This falls under the category of "sabotage", but you can't very well ignore the fact that you know where your kameraden are positioned.
 
Upvote 0
#53
I'm not so shure about supplying individual manpower, but for example if the 34th Infanterie Division wants to portray the 163rd Rifle division in an upcoming realism battle/campaign, as long as they fight together as a unit,that's cool by me.

It's a shame no one unit can step up and say, for the sake of realism, we will switch side.

But I guess the reason most people choose to join/fight as a certain side is becasue the favour that side, or have an attachment to it.

For me the point of being in a unit is the camraderie, and fighting together.
it really matters little to me what nation or side my unit is, as long as we are an active fighting unit.
 
Upvote 0
#54
The issue of having players from the same unit fighting on different sides would have to be a matter of honesty. But again for example with TOC, it would be easy to have say 17SS, and 11th PZ as german with 3AD and supporting infantry from say 12SS or 16 KP playing allied.

Also, if enough german units wanted a great realism campaign..why on earth couldn't they form one themselves, and every other match or so forth play allied?

These solutions seem blatantly obvious to me, I am sure there are enough people like myself and von mauser who want to play the game, regardless of side played if the other option is no matches, even if there is one side we prefer.
 
Upvote 0
#56
I am working with a few others on the new T.O.C. site and we will have the Russian Front involved along with the Western front. Hopefully the new site and campaigns will be up by the end of this month. The rules will be simplified and each map will have consquences for the next map.

The Allied units will play both fronts as Allies to keep the numbers up. I do wish the 29thID would join up, but that may never happen. So I would like to know if any of the Russian units would sign up for this. You may be called to play as American and British units as well (basicly all Allies and Axis players play the side, not the individual units). We have to do this because there are no other Allied units at the strength that the 3rdAD/{SHD} is at atm.

We really could use one more good size Allied unit for us to fight along side with. We are part of the RO League so we try to work around that schedule, but we found it hard in the last campaign to always juggle both TOC and RO League.
 
Upvote 0
#57
finally! i would really love to see this large scale mutlifront campaign be a go. we worked on getting that going in what metal, june? :D i know that if you guys can handle non-realism clans sign up to play as a unit, or reinforcements, some of the regular clans might be able to sign up. we've got some guys that might be interested in having -[SiN]- sign up as maybe a "reserve" type of unit. the more players, the more fun. :)
 
Upvote 0
#59
playing realism is always a nice break from the norm......it just sucks sometimes depending on the rules/maps etc....like when a few of us played that realism on cagny with tanks....shermans vs. tigers/panthers wasnt too much fun for the americans :D me and leo just drove our tank into some barn to make a last stand....epic fail...infantry is much more fun...combined is nice as well, or at least balanced tanks only.
 
Upvote 0
#60
Yeah bswearer, I think it was back in June. It would be nice to try to get this setup, perhaps even with the RO Leagues help. If we do a multi-front campaign correctly, and support it, I think it would be really popular. The servers shouldn't be a issue for DH, but it would be nice if perhaps we could borrow a RO server from the RO League for this, SHD has a 30 slot server if need be. We might be able to even do MN as well. I feel like the Burning Sands didn't do to well due to lack of support, but we have a small group now of admins that could keep up on it to make it work.

I keep going back to the "Army Group" idea I had back when we first talked about it. Basicly it works like this,

The Western (when they land in Normandy) and the Eastern fronts both get 2 Army groups each both for the Allies and Axis armies. Only 1 Army Group for each side in North Africa. Each Army Group has a pre-determind number of Infantry, Half Tracks and Tanks and can receive more once they take maps. Each Army Group has a overall Commander and can steer his Army Group to attack different sectors. Clans and Realism Units have the choice to fight either for only one Army Group or for any of the Army groups of their side. (Example: SHD can Fight as the Americans/British, Russians and British in MN, but must follow under the AG Commander). Each Sector on the overall War map has different values of reinforcements making the commanders able to choose if they wish to attack a bigger valued sector then others.

The Campaign will be on a time line of turns. Example: The Germans wouldn't get to use the Panther until Turn 10, Allies land in Normandy on Turn 12 and so on, this makes early maps useful again and North Africa needs to be won before the Allies land in Europe or suffer reinforcements from North Africa.

Rules, we would use the standard "Realism rules" but with some changes. We found that no matter how many more Allied tanks the Allies started with in the division, in game the Germans could always beat them one on one which is going to happen in most battles, but the Allies stand a better chance 2 to 1, so I like the idea of the Allies single tanking vs the Germans double tanking. This also still makes the Germans better 1 vs 1, but the Allies get more help in numbers. The 1 life rule would still be the norm, but also thinking of ways to track perhaps re-inforcements (so if the commander wanted to push a map, he could devote say 40 men instead of 20 men, so that side gets 2 lives per man to live for that map), this would have to be re-inforced by reffs.

The basic idea is to play a WW2 campaign using all of the mods to make it like WW2 Online: Battleground Europe.
 
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