Just a Theory

[HellsJanitor]

Originally Posted by Cpt-Praxius

imply say that my experiences matched more with the mod and RO2.

There have also been others in these forums in the past who have been in the military and used similar WWII weapons who said RO2's physics with the weapons were pretty spot on.

I've been playing RO1 for a few days and I'm pretty damn upset with tanks in general.
How is it that a T34 is able to one-shot a Tiger tank from 2000 meters against it's frontal armor??
The same goes for the IS-2, which also gets 1-shotted from STuGs against it's frontal sloped armor.
Those are supposed to be the strong points against the tanks, i.e, almost impossible to penetrate. Yet, a shot to the rear leads to either a deflection or no damage, regardless of the tank.
I don't find that in the least bit realistic. It's simply ***-backwards when everyone is aiming for the front of my tank and my only chance of survival is to drive backwards.

On the topic of weapons, I can't say I like them. You can argue that they used hotter-loads in the ammunition (Though I'm not sure how you would compare them to current loads if you weren't in WW2), but the recoil really is ridiculous. I have to question why hip-firing a Kar98k puts you into orbit when shouldering it only raises your gun an inch or two.
When it comes to clip-reloads, I think RO2 is more realistic. The clips back then weren't pitted/rusted like they are today, which makes them PITA's to use. And if you really get skilled with them, it doesn't take so long to fiddle them into your gun.

On a side note, the RO1 SVT still has 7+ magazines and no clips, so I'm not sure how that is better than the RO2 SVT.

[katzcinsky]

Originally Posted by =GG= Mr Moe

And a personal belief of mine, that instead of a separate Classic mode, TWI should have created a Realism mode that was a blend of what is currently Classic and Realism now as ONE MODE. We did not need a separate mode to begin with. This combined mode should have been Realism and Relaxed Realism could have been the Action mode with progression and a bagillion MKBs for those lazy players.

This is what I struggle to understand with RO2 the most. For one thing, as a sequel to RO:OST, shouldn't realism - and tactical, hardcore, methodically-paced gameplay - been front and foremost when designing RO:HOS ? Why separate realism from what RO1 was ?

I think another reason why classic remains unpopular is because new features were removed from the mode.. like bandaging, etc.. Before it's release ROHOS looked like it was going to be ROOST with an updated graphics engine, and a slew of new and exciting features built on top of RO:OST's formula. Why would anyone want to play a mode that takes some of these away ? It's like choosing to play a game that you paid full price for with only 70% of the game available.

I desperately want RO2 to become to sequel we wanted it to be. I want to see the RO community thrive again .. and to have a new game that's just as great and maybe even better as the original. But if I had anything to say to TWI, it's that they really need to have more of a backbone. DON'T try to please everyone, make the game that BELONGS to the RO name. You will lose some of the playerbase, but those that stay around will stay forever. Until RO3 of course : P

on this note -i wanted to bring attention to some brainstorming i've started over on the modding forums. I'm hoping to generate some discussion on creating a mod for RO2 that successfully brings back the RO1 formula. Check it out here, add some thoughts, etc: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.co...ad.php?t=87871

[Mr._Kong]

Mudkipz.

[Gopblin]

Originally Posted by Cpt-Praxius

I was noting the differences between the two games.... and it wasn't a one hit to the "Correct" spot... it was one hit in just about any spot, with maybe a rare chance of taking two hits.

You'd still have one hits in the mod, but it wasn't as easy to do as it was in Ost.

I call BS, used to do a lot of tanking in RO. Yes there were a lot of oneshots, but that is because people learned ammo locations and got really good at hitting them. You'd also see occasional oneshots with 85-122-152 mm hits, but that it completely realistic. 76 or 45mm you'd need at least 2 hits in a non-vulnerable location.

Actually, from a realism standpoint, a penetration with anything above 45mm should put a tank out of action almost all the time (which is why RO2 tanking sucks a huge bag of dicks IMO).

I was mostly referring to the Nagant, K98, G41 & G43's in Ostfront.... when they loaded stripper clips, they'd stick it in, and then fiddle with the top round to jam it all in for a good few seconds.

You said for the first few months you had troubles yourself, and I understand that.... but you'd think the soldiers in the game would have had a bit more experience with their weapons.... When I was using a Lee Enfield to train on firearms, it didn't take as long as it did in Ostfront to load those. Different rifle, but the principle was still the same.

I think you're overestimating how quickly you can load a rifle from strippers. Take your Enfield and try to reload it while jogging or crawling (or wounded, or covered in sand). I'd be surprised if you manage it faster than an RO avatar.

It kicks back and into your shoulder away from where the bullet is firing from and if it inclines, it's due to forcing away from the hand holding it due to the path of least resistance.... when you fire a weapon upside down or sideways, does it still go up into the sky or down to the ground or to one of the sides?

Actually, it totally does. This is why gangbangers can never hit anything while holding their guns sideways. The stock on almost all WWII long guns is not completely in line with the barrel, so the principle is the same for long guns too.

When I was talking about recoil bouncing around and not just up into the air, I was referring to the SMG's.... when you by default would be trying to control it with your hands and muscles.... it would still shake around your aim, but you wouldn't be letting it fly up into the sky like Ostfront did. RO2 & the Mod matches more to what one would expect. the recoil could be a bit more excessive than it is, but not in the way that it should shoot up into the air more and more as you fire, thus having to screw around with moving your mouse downwards to compensate. You're not holding the weapons with one hand, you're using two while tensing up muscles to control its positioning, thus the aim shaking around, not flying up into the sky.

You could make the same argument for having laser-accurate hipfire. It's totally possible with some specialized training, the question is whether the avatar should be that good.
You could also make the same argument for having target assist. If you want the avatar to do the recoil compensation for you, why not aiming as well?

And when you are actually firing a rifle in single shot, you already have the instinct to let the weight of the weapon along with your own muscles bring the weapon back to near where you originally had the weapon aimed in the first place.... you wouldn't keep the weapon aiming up in the air like you're some sort of stiff robot.... your aim would be a bit off still, but you wouldn't be looking higher and higher into the sky, ie: you should only have to move your aim a bit left/right/up/down to get back on sight, not constantly have to move downwards every single time.

See above.

Again, I was talking about about the differences between the Mod and Ostfront and basing it from my own experiences with a WWII rifle (along with other firearms I have used over the years).... you may think Ostfront matches closer to your own experiences and I will simply say that my experiences matched more with the mod and RO2.

There have also been others in these forums in the past who have been in the military and used similar WWII weapons who said RO2's physics with the weapons were pretty spot on.

If you're talking about an Enfield, its underpowered compared to other WWII bolts due to originally using blackpowder.

Also, even the Mosin ammo has been replaced with lighter loads after WWII. I've fired both (you can still get cases of 1945 surplus heavy ball for cheap!), the difference in recoil is maybe 30% more. Not sure on the 8mm ammo then vs now, not really into Kar98s.

Obviously all the SMG ammo would be much hotter as well, so all the vids of people keeping PPSH on target firing modern commercial stuff should be taken with a grain of salt.

That said, I don't have much of a problem with RO2s weapon handling, I liked RO-Ost better but RO2 is OK. It's the other things that I have problems with, like map design, tanks, bad game design decisions, etc.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

[Cpt-Praxius]

Originally Posted by HellsJanitor

I've been playing RO1 for a few days and I'm pretty damn upset with tanks in general.
How is it that a T34 is able to one-shot a Tiger tank from 2000 meters against it's frontal armor??
The same goes for the IS-2, which also gets 1-shotted from STuGs against it's frontal sloped armor.
Those are supposed to be the strong points against the tanks, i.e, almost impossible to penetrate. Yet, a shot to the rear leads to either a deflection or no damage, regardless of the tank.
I don't find that in the least bit realistic. It's simply ***-backwards when everyone is aiming for the front of my tank and my only chance of survival is to drive backwards.

Yeah, in the mod the Panther could be face on to everything but the IS2 and not worry about damage, with the exception of a very very small spot which was almost impossible to hit.

The IS2 when on an angle was basically indestructible from anything. It was still like this in Ostfront and the IS2 was perhaps the only tank that didn't change much from the mod, but in both, angling tanks against an incoming round was the thing to do in order to save yourself.... The problem was that P4's were in of the tanks that would still die even if angled.

On the topic of weapons, I can't say I like them. You can argue that they used hotter-loads in the ammunition (Though I'm not sure how you would compare them to current loads if you weren't in WW2), but the recoil really is ridiculous. I have to question why hip-firing a Kar98k puts you into orbit when shouldering it only raises your gun an inch or two.
When it comes to clip-reloads, I think RO2 is more realistic. The clips back then weren't pitted/rusted like they are today, which makes them PITA's to use. And if you really get skilled with them, it doesn't take so long to fiddle them into your gun.

Agreed

On a side note, the RO1 SVT still has 7+ magazines and no clips, so I'm not sure how that is better than the RO2 SVT.

I never understood the balance with the SVT getting clips and a quicker reload yet the G41 had to load stripper clips.... Yes it's more realistic, but why wouldn't you just pick the G43 instead?

[Gopblin]

Originally Posted by HellsJanitor

I've been playing RO1 for a few days and I'm pretty damn upset with tanks in general.
How is it that a T34 is able to one-shot a Tiger tank from 2000 meters against it's frontal armor??

AFAIK 34/76 couldn't do that, not to mention that it's really hard to hit a tank at 2000m, and at that range you're probably hitting the top armor. 34/85 is perfectly capable of oneshotting Tigers IRL.

The same goes for the IS-2, which also gets 1-shotted from STuGs against it's frontal sloped armor.

Yes, a lot of the tanks have lowered armor values to level the playing field a bit. IRL a P3/P4-short would have no chance against a KV for example.

You also have to remember engagement ranges in game are generally short, so that accounts for increased penetration as well - penetration probabilities are a lot higher up close than what most people think should be "realistic" WWII values, as those are generally given for 300-1000m ranges.

Basically these are gameplay decisions and engine limitations. I think it actually makes for better gameplay as e.g. then having a KV on the map does not mean sure win for USSR (cough... RO-Leningrad... cough).

Those are supposed to be the strong points against the tanks, i.e, almost impossible to penetrate. Yet, a shot to the rear leads to either a deflection or no damage, regardless of the tank.
I don't find that in the least bit realistic. It's simply ***-backwards when everyone is aiming for the front of my tank and my only chance of survival is to drive backwards.

This is straight BS, rear is the most vulnerable spot. You can have deflections on angled shots, and low damage if you manage not to hit an important hitbox, but by and large rear is the most reliable kill area.

On the topic of weapons, I can't say I like them. You can argue that they used hotter loads in the ammunition (Though I'm not sure how you would compare them to current loads if you weren't in WW2), but the recoil really is ridiculous. I have to question why hip-firing a Kar98k puts you into orbit when shouldering it only raises your gun an inch or two.

Again, basic Newtonian physics.

When shouldering the K98, you're bracing the stock against your entire body which weighs 170+ pounds, so really the only shift in POA comes from the recoil direction not being completely in line with the stock.

When hipfiring, you're only holding the weapon with your arms which are maybe 20 pounds. So yes, the weapon does jump a lot more in hipfire.

When it comes to clip-reloads, I think RO2 is more realistic. The clips back then weren't pitted/rusted like they are today, which makes them PITA's to use. And if you really get skilled with them, it doesn't take so long to fiddle them into your gun.

On a side note, the RO1 SVT still has 7+ magazines and no clips, so I'm not sure how that is better than the RO2 SVT.

? I just bought a case of clipped WWII ammo, still airtight, it's the exact clips in the exact same condition.
Just try to fiddle one in on the move and you'll see it's not exactly easy.
Heck, I can only reload as fast as RO1 soldier while leisurely standing at the range, and not crawling through mud in some Rzhev field.

My point about SVT just meant to point out that realistically reloads should be slower to account for the fact that most soldiers reloaded with clips. I suppose it's not really important.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

[HellsJanitor]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

This is straight BS, rear is the most vulnerable spot. You can have deflections on angled shots, and low damage if you manage not to hit an important hitbox, but by and large rear is the most reliable kill area.

I kid you not, I put shells all over the rear of a T34 tank and almost all of them deflected. I've only go a few hours so far in Ro1, but this is my basic impression from it.

If the rear is the most killable area, then the players sure don't acknowledge this. The vast majority of the deaths I had were from direct hits to the front of my tank, never the rear. If the oppurtunity did arise for a shot to my rear, no one took it, favoring the front direct hits (Some gentlemen were actually complaining about it in chat while I was playing). I tried this in the T34, IS-2, Tiger, Panther and Panzer. It sounds to me like we aren't playing the same game here.

Hip firing I will argue as being a more controlable method. You are able to pull your weapon down without having as much stress on your arms. Compare someone shoulder-firing a PKM to someone hip-firing, it's a big difference.

What kind of ammo did you buy? I haven't seen WW2 surplus ammo on the market in large quantities in awhile. The surplus 7.62x54r floating around is all post-war, and the 8mm Mauser is usually 50's onward. Regardless, I'm pretty sure the loads don't provide that that huge of a difference, especially military ones, which aren't loaded as hot as hand-loads.

[Gopblin]

Originally Posted by HellsJanitor

I kid you not, I put shells all over the rear of a T34 tank and almost all of them deflected. I've only go a few hours so far in Ro1, but this is my basic impression from it.

If the rear is the most killable area, then the players sure don't acknowledge this. The vast majority of the deaths I had were from direct hits to the front of my tank, never the rear. If the oppurtunity did arise for a shot to my rear, no one took it, favoring the front direct hits (Some gentlemen were actually complaining about it in chat while I was playing). I tried this in the T34, IS-2, Tiger, Panther and Panzer. It sounds to me like we aren't playing the same game here.

There are two possibilities then:
1) The game changed hugely in the last year. I do not believe there were any patches so that's out.
2) You're using angles incorrectly. Maybe you're firing at the engine compartments from the front? Yes, that hits the rear half of the tank, but the armor there is just as thick and due to the angle of attack the shell will almost always deflect.
When talking about rear shots, I mean <30 degree impact angles, shooting at the rear armor plate.

Hip firing I will argue as being a more controlable method. You are able to pull your weapon down without having as much stress on your arms. Compare someone shoulder-firing a PKM to someone hip-firing, it's a big difference.

This is actually sort of true, but only in some specific ways.

While the weapon will not "pull up" as much due to being braced more in line with the axis of recoil, and the recoil itself may be not as severe due to the weapon moving more and hence distributing the impart over time, the weapon will in fact move around more so it will be a lot harder to hit things at ranges beyond 15 yards or so, especially when firing anything other than an SMG.

Also, in all the vids of people hipfiring they generally brace, use a sling as third point of support, lean forward, stay stationary, etc. With that sort of preparation yes you can control even an MG42. Firing on the move, as most people in RO do? Not so much.

Here's a vid of a guy firing a VZ58 pretty professionally, but without serious bracing. You can see he stays relatively stable but the gun moves around somewhat. Even if he can point it perfectly the spread will make it impossible for him to hit a man-sized target beyond close range. Now imagine if he was jogging while firing.

Vz.58 from the Hip (Vzor 58 rifle 7,62x39mm) - YouTube

What kind of ammo did you buy? I haven't seen WW2 surplus ammo on the market in large quantities in awhile. The surplus 7.62x54r floating around is all post-war, and the 8mm Mauser is usually 50's onward.

I just picked up some strippered heavy ball at a gun show, but I've run through a few tins of 1945 surplus a year or so ago.

They're sporadically available but I would stay away from WWII stuff as it isn't as good as the later production, not sure if it's because of rushed manufacture or age.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure the loads don't provide that that huge of a difference, especially military ones, which aren't loaded as hot as hand-loads.

As I said, about 30% IIRC; for example, heavy ball is not to be used in modern semiauto rifles as they can't take the stress.

SMG rounds the difference is more AFAIK, although I haven't fired any of that.
The biggest difference is actually for Nagant revolver ammo, the commercial/sporting surplus loads are way way weaker than the military stuff.

Overall, I would say 30% difference in recoil is definitely very noticeable. A few people seem to agree:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_4_54/144217_.html

Best wishes,
Daniel.