Make the game fun!

[auxiliary606]

I often play military sims, as opposed to FPS, RTS etc, as I like the historical accuracy. However I think we all need to realise that this game is not realistic. What we have is a hybrid, part sim, part FPS, and as long as people are trying to drive the game forward in both categories, its doomed to fall down the cracks between the two.

For example I see the true to life ballistics - simulator, yet a miracle bandage heals me in a second - FPS. Bolt action rifles - sim, weapons in use - FPS.

To be historically accurate, then I accept there should be an inherrent inbalance in firepower favouring the germans, yet that should be countered by the numerical superiority of the Russians. As long as the teams are equally balanced (I didnt know that historically the Axis and Allies arranged this to keep things fair...) then historical accuracy goes out the window. A 16 v 16 assault sound fair, but would a commander really attack without building a strength advantage, especially if Russian? No, its FPS again.

And as a final point, the Multiplayer learning curve is simply too high to be fun for new players. I have served in the military, and from my days in basic training I can promise that nearly everyone is an awful shot for the first few months of getting used to it. Coupled with a historical variation in ammunition quality, this would translate to a poor level of marksmanship on both sides at Stalingrad (although more pronounced on the Russian side, and again not reflected in the rifle headshots acheived over iron sights by new recruits.) This needs to come down in order to attract new players who are the lifeblood of a game.

In all honesty as players, would we not rather have more sustained and intense firefights, as opposed to crawling round a corner to see the respawn screen just a little bit too regularly?...

I do love the game, and am only making suggestions as I see it. But in order to be a history based war sim, a lot needs to change, and similarly to be a fun FPS experience likewise.

Like I said these are only suggestions so please feel free to comment, just dont go crazy, some people get way too intense on forums lol!

 

[Sufyan]

It is actually not 16vs16 or even 32vs32, it is more like company vs company that trickles into a confined landmark shoot out (respawn being called "reinforcements"). It is not that far off from being an actual WWII infantry assault.

It is not very thought out to say that there should be a numerical disparity between the two teams. Most battles in the game represent minor pockets of Soviet resistence preventing the Germans from crossing the river Volga. While I love assymmetrical game design I don't think the teams need to be balanced in number of players, but the amount of reinforcements can be varied to represent different stages of the war (ie late Stalingrad would see large Soviet reserves being deployed just behind the front line). In the end though, every single battle was not affected or representative of the German and Soviet war effort, just because the Soviets were able to mass large reserves does not mean that they only ever engaged in battalion strength infantry assaults.

Particularly Stalingrad is an example of small(er) unit action where understrength Soviet platoons were fortifying positions (Pavlov's house being the most iconic) and even committing to assaults on the initiative of their platoon commander. The stereotype of whole Soviet companies fatalistically following the orders of the Battalion Commissar and never taking initiative is an era that was going out of fashion late 1942. The Red Orchestra games are both very fair representations of the Red Army, just as they fairly represent the German soldiers.

As for the accuracy in the game, yes, gamers are able to do twitchy and accurate shooting that is beyond the skill level and courage of a typical German or Russian soldier. I don't see how you can change this without taking away control and immersion from the players. If the game arbitrarily makes you miss or if the weapons are sluggish and kick too hard you are only going to make the game feel less responsive and fair.

It is a common misconception that the harder it is to shoot the more drawn out fire fights you will see. It isn't true. If it is hard to shoot, people just shoot more and the efficiency of fully automatic weapons only become more significant. A real life soldier might have to mind his ammunition but a gamer can just die and respawn with a fully loaded kit once more, he doesnt not need to worry about the hours after the battle he has to survive without supplies.

RO2 being a simulator or a shooter is not very important. In the end, the game is designed to be entertaining RIGHT NOW, a game you can pick up and play at any time. It won't be simulating real time campaigns with varying supply levels that affect combat down to the microscopic level seen in the game. It is 'just' a shooter with a historical theme. Much of the actual combat mechanics err on the side of realism, but the setup is strictly a game with score related goals.

 

[teapot156]

As many have said before:

Going to iron sights is too fast, and there is barely any sway right out of sprint.

 

[C_Gibby]

I agree, RO2 just can't decide what it wants to be. All it takes is a selectable mode for the FPS players, and another for the sim players, which is all we want, really. As fans of TWI and indie companies in general, we'd like to see them succeed by catering to the majority audience, but we as the niche audience that helped the game become successful want to see what we were promised and attracted with, not this odd hybrid we have now.

 

[DAT]

@Auxillary: Did you play RO1? it was preety good at historical authenticity. RO2 compared to any other FPS game out there is closer to historical authenticity than any other competitor will know. Currently I think RO2 has it right. I do agree in RO1 the rifle sway and iron sights were harder to use and that made for a more hardcore crowd. But I enjoy opening up this game to others who may have not liked the ultimate hardcore play.

 

[Machete234]

To be historically accurate, then I accept there should be an inherrent inbalance in firepower favouring the germans, yet that should be countered by the numerical superiority of the Russians. As long as the teams are equally balanced (I didnt know that historically the Axis and Allies arranged this to keep things fair...) then historical accuracy goes out the window

I agree to that, I always thought when the germans get the better weapons then the teams sould be made 7-10 or 8-10 in favor of the russians.

There is historical reason enough for the realism guys and it would balance the game. --> more fun

Or they could have more reinforcements but that is not very balancing since the germans can just mow down x enemies more with their better weapons.
The only thing that would help to conquer objectives are really more people on the team.

As many have said before:

Going to iron sights is too fast, and there is barely any sway right out of sprint.

yawn

 

[Machete234]

Why are we in the Ro1 section?