• 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/

Will bolt actions be perfectly accurate like RO:OST?

You all may be very right that the FOV has really thrown me off. I'd like to test it by pacing out a distance and shooting, but I am in Germany this semester with nothing but a netbook.

To those of you saying the k98 or mosin are actually quite accurate, that may be so with glass bedding, recrowning, handloaded ammo, etc. At the rate guns were being produced during the war it's not like these weapons were all fine tuned at a custom shop. I highly doubt the rifle/ammo combination available to the soldier at Stalingrad was very good. Still, ~150m should definitely be doable with these weapons, and like I said the FOV may be throwing me off a lot.

150 meters is still much too short. I've pulled off 200-300 meter shots with a battlefield pick up 91/30 with not too much effort, and I am by no means a great marksman. That is with dirty surplus ammunition and a not-too-clean bore. So someone with military training and a much more serious mentality should be able to do atleast that. I think people are forgetting that these are large caliber, bolt action rifles with a pretty decent length barrel and passable sights. Just because it was mass produced does not mean it is some stamped metal POS.

If your only worried about 100 meter shots, you should be able to do this standing up or in just about any position you choose, not strictly sand bagged and prone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Felix Ostheim
Upvote 0
25-50% , 10%. Where exactly are you getting these numbers from? If these are personal numbers then I suggest you are a bad shot, sitting at a bench / prone and only hitting 1/4 shots is par for a peashooter or just a bad shooter.

Actually, the percentages I have given are for the average RO player, in RL these percentages would be much lower.
 
Upvote 0
25-50% , 10%. Where exactly are you getting these numbers from? If these are personal numbers then I suggest you are a bad shot, sitting at a bench / prone and only hitting 1/4 shots is par for a peashooter or just a bad shooter.

It's mostly related to the simple fact shooting while you are being shot at greatly reduces your accuracy for diffrent reasons. There's plenty of examples of this brought up in the numerous suppression threads, one of the more memorable is common performance of US soldier with M16 on firing range. Only after 500m there was a noticable cutaway that people were starting to miss (alot), while under simulated combat conditions it occurred somewhere between at 25-50m range.

150 meters is still much too short. I've pulled off 200-300 meter shots with a battlefield pick up 91/30 with not too much effort, and I am by no means a great marksman.

Which reminds me that my only real shooting experience with 91\30 to 200m range I was able to hit repeatedly to a mansized target... with misaligned sights. Factory defect. Only thing I had to do was to use a piece of wire to see which area of the sight is 'aligned' and aim that way, even though it was pretty weird experience. :p
 
Upvote 0
25-50% , 10%. Where exactly are you getting these numbers from? If these are personal numbers then I suggest you are a bad shot, sitting at a bench / prone and only hitting 1/4 shots is par for a peashooter or just a bad shooter.

I agree with Oldh, RL battlefield conditions ( suppression, movement, cover, blind-fire, Dark, etc ) would bring those percentage figure down even more so...10% at best would be the norm.

Listen Colt, In WWII Thousands of rounds of Small Arms were fired per casualty.
Now, Get your head out of your azz, and get with the program...Kid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Which reminds me that my only real shooting experience with 91\30 to 200m range I was able to hit repeatedly to a mansized target... with misaligned sights. Factory defect. Only thing I had to do was to use a piece of wire to see which area of the sight is 'aligned' and aim that way, even though it was pretty weird experience. :p

That's what I'm saying, people really don't give credit too these old war rifles. There is a reason that the sights go up to 800m+, it's not just for show. :rolleyes:
I swear a decent amount of the people posting in this thread are thinking of assault rifle/ intermediate cartridge range.

I agree with Oldh, RL battlefield conditions ( suppression, movement, cover, blind-fire, Dark, etc ) would bring those percentage figure down even more so...10% at best would be the norm.

Listen Colt, In WWII Thousands of rounds of Small Arms were fired per casualty.
Now, Get your head out of your azz, and get with the program...Kid.

No reason to get nasty. I think that you should remember that this isn't real life, even if it is trying to be somewhat simulated. There is no fear of death involved. Sure someone may be swaying their rifle and quaking in fear on a real battlefield, but most people playing HOS will be calm as a cucumber even while going against a MG42. People don't find it nearly as necessary to spray rounds down range popping in and out of cover if they can simple respawn in a few seconds. Hell, most people I play with in ROST have half there body exposed even when in cover, and rarely even take cover at that. I'd say in the original game I get a kill (as a riflemen at least) around every 4 or 5 rounds.

On a side note those statistic more then likely include everyone from a Heavy Machine gun team too a Designated Marksmen, so obviously not everybody is simply shooting to kill (as you stated with the suppression comment).
 
Upvote 0
Actually, the percentages I have given are for the average RO player, in RL these percentages would be much lower.

You gave the percentages based on real world "conditions" at a "firing range"

quote: "Yes, Rifles in themselves are fairly accurate for the most part out to 250 meters under ideal conditions ( firing ranges, etc ) producing 25-50% chance to hit per shot. "


I swear, half of your posts on this forum make no sense at all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Colt .45 killer
Upvote 0
Actually DT, I was being sarcastic to Colt when he commented on my post...but anyways.

To put it simply;
In RL at a firing range, you may get upto 50% chance to hit per shot out to 250 meters.
When playing RO, you may get upwards of 25% to hit per shot ( average player ). In a RL Combat Enviroment you may only get upto 10% to hit per shot.

Now, what part of this do you not understand ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I agree with Oldh, RL battlefield conditions ( suppression, movement, cover, blind-fire, Dark, etc ) would bring those percentage figure down even more so...10% at best would be the norm.

It still presents the inevitable problem how to simulate such conditions, as it's suppressing player vs suppressing player's avatar ingame, both which can become very problematic and nearly impossible unless you're willing to live with something that might be more or less over the top about it. It's been discussed to death in the numerous suppression threads, feel free to use the search function ;)
 
Upvote 0
Actually DT, I was being sarcastic to Colt when he commented on my post...but anyways.

To put it simply;
In RL at a firing range, you may get upto 50% chance to hit per shot out to 250 meters.
When playing RO, you may get upwards of 25% to hit per shot ( average player ). In a RL Combat Enviroment you may only get upto 10% to hit per shot.

Now, what part of this do you not understand ?

I was never arguing the numbers, I just mentioned how you have a problem with consistency and clarity.

Now I'll argue the numbers

And 50% hit rate is iffy. Are we talking about iron sights, or any rifle, and what size target? On a good day I can hit over 75% at that range on a torso sized target.

and what do you mean 25% in game, 25% overall, or 25% on a non moving object/man? On a moving/active man I'd say 1 out of 4 shots hitting target would be about right, but I wouldn't use that as a gauge for players accuracy skill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Felix Ostheim
Upvote 0
This is the sort of accuracy that would be available in say, a custom Remington 700. I am sure many of you have shot a mosin or a k98 (or at least you should have) and know that this is far from true. The mosin has a long, gritty trigger pull and the action has poor contact with the stock. Coupled with military ammo and wartime barrels, and you end up with a rifle that isn't exactly a precision weapon. From a bench and with a good trigger pull, 5-6 inch groups at 100 yards are common.

While your thoughts are sound, I don't think a Mosin back then would have been that inaccurate, seeing as modern shooters with surplus munitions and rifles from that period....which are going on about 70 years old at this point, manage to sometimes pull tighter groups than that under ideal shooting conditions. I think 3-4 MoA wouldn't be an unreasonable target for a wartime surplus rifle shooting surplus munitions.

Back then, freshly issued weapons would have been better and the munitions wouldn't have been sitting on the shelf for the better half of the century, so you could presumably expect better shooting.

Granted, if you're talking about shooter error, I'm sure somebody could draw the bead out another several inches with such a rifle, so if that's what you meant never mind.

I agree that some additional deviation is a sound concept to simulate wartime production conditions, though certainly a Mosin shouldn't be shooting 5 inch groups at 100 yards just in and of itself, being held in a vicegrip.
 
Upvote 0
It's mostly related to the simple fact shooting while you are being shot at greatly reduces your accuracy for diffrent reasons. There's plenty of examples of this brought up in the numerous suppression threads, one of the more memorable is common performance of US soldier with M16 on firing range. Only after 500m there was a noticable cutaway that people were starting to miss (alot), while under simulated combat conditions it occurred somewhere between at 25-50m range.

As the antagonist in many of those suppression threads, I request that data you referenced with hit percentages of US soldiers in calm/combat conditions.
 
Upvote 0
Also if you look in the game's code, rifles do have a slight spread that is only noticeable at long ranges(Berezina/Tula Outskirts).
What spread?

The importance here is tuning the spread, not just making sure it exists.

K98/Mosic or MP40/Ppsh should not have drastically different damages in the sense that COD has different damages for each weapon. Bullets are bullets and bullets kill/incapacitate.

There is very little need to assume that a 9mm is more devastating than a 8mm Mauser when we can assure ourselves that that is not the case by looking at the differences in muzzle energy and the simulated wound profiles in ballistics gel.

Based on what I know about terminal ballistics, I say that it is not true that "bullets are bullets and bullets kill/incapacitate," but rather that "JHP kill incapacitate, FMJ is another story."

For instance, this is a 7.62x39mm FMJ profile in a substantive length of ballistics gelatin, apparently at close range. Note that an AK-47 round carries substantively more energy at the muzzle than a 9x19mm pistol round.

YouTube - ballistic gelatin test 7.62x39 fmj brown bear part 2 of 12

Alternately, this is the smaller and less powerful 5.56x45mm FMJ:

YouTube - ballistic gelatin test .223 5.56 part 9 of 12

5.56 produced a larger profile. Not all shots kill instantaneously, even people shot with Minie balls have survived limb shots.

Caution: disgusting, gangrenous arm picture

Comparatively, even a .22 JHP will make a big hole.

RO doesn't need to give every round an arbitrary amount of "stopping power" like developers with caveman technology need to do. Tripwire made a full internal ballistics model which means they can simulate shot placement, and with a displacement model simulating wound expansion they could make it so accurate that they dispense entirely with hit points and simply make it based on how much tissue you displace/what you hit.

A 9mm FMJ displaces comparatively little tissue compared to a full powered rifle round, but with a heart, head, or in some cases a shot striking bone will be near instantly fatal. Even still, there are people walking around today that have been shot with multiple 9mm rounds.

In the same way that penetration models changed tank combat, internal ballistics sims in tanks and infantry will change gun combat.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
What spread?


Example:

Spoiler!


The importance here is tuning the spread, not just making sure it exists.


There is very little need to assume that a 9mm is more devastating than a 8mm Mauser when we can assure ourselves that that is not the case by looking at the differences in muzzle energy and the simulated wound profiles in ballistics gel.
Spoiler!

I was was not trying to compare pistol caliber with full rifle caliber bullets. I was trying to refer to how weapons of similar caliber should not have drastically different damage like for example in COD. M4/M16 use the same caliber bullet but their damage is completely different in COD. I prefer it to how it is in RO where most rounds no matter what gun(save for those pistol/smg rounds hitting legs/arms) should be potentially lethal. Balance the guns to the environment/enviroment to guns as opposed to their damage.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I was was not trying to compare pistol caliber with full rifle caliber bullets. I was trying to refer to how weapons of similar caliber should not have drastically different damage like for example in COD. M4/M16 use the same caliber bullet but their damage is completely different in COD. I prefer it to how it is in RO where most rounds no matter what gun(save for those pistol/smg rounds hitting legs/arms) should be potentially lethal. Balance the guns to the environment/enviroment to guns as opposed to their damage.
Agrd,

One of the things that most annoyed me about BC2....

a 9mm pistol did more damage than an MG3!!

I think that given what we know about internal ballistics each gun is gonna have to have an amount of damage dealt to a lifebar with modifiers based on whether or not the round's trajectory leads it through a vital organ, which modifies whether it's instant death, for instance heart versus stomach leading to instagib or slow bleedout.

Pistol rounds should have low enough damage as to not cause instant death short of striking a vital area like heart/brain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brozex and slavek
Upvote 0
As the antagonist in many of those suppression threads, I request that data you referenced with hit percentages of US soldiers in calm/combat conditions.

It was provided for you once in the threads but since apparently the original reference to that gives invalid forum link, let's spell it out again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Com...iology_of_Deadly_Conflict_in_War_and_in_Peace

table2c.jpg
table3x.jpg
 
Upvote 0
It was provided for you once in the threads but since apparently the original reference to that gives invalid forum link, let's spell it out again:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Combat:_The_Psychology_and_Physiology_of_Deadly_Conflict_in_War_and_in_Peace[/URL]

Before people start to completely flip their s$#t, remember that this is with a M16(Alpha #) shooting the 5.56x45, and obviously is going to suffer much shorter range and worse bullet drop. There is a massive difference between this, and say a 7.62x54mmR. But other then that it is very helpful. Would be nice to see some data on maybe a larger caliber rifle (m14?) or maybe a bolt action which would be much harder to empty the entire magazine in fear. I can pretty easily see a soldier unloading a smaller caliber rifle (or assault rifle) in terror when recoil is pretty much non existent, as it is with the m16. This graph seems to show the hit rate per pull of the trigger, so this could be skewed compared to WWII era data.
 
Upvote 0
This graph seems to show the hit rate per pull of the trigger, so this could be skewed compared to WWII era data.

It's basically a fundamental problem when doing any kind of research about subject like this, as basically the latter graph is from simulated combat conditions from some military exercise as far as I understood it. It's pretty much impossible to pull perfectly accurate data from any kind of war about soldiers' average performance, other than some rough basis which is open to variation. Who knows how well (or poorly) they would perform during a real firefight.

]Would be nice to see some data on maybe a larger caliber rifle (m14?) or maybe a bolt action which would be much harder to empty the entire magazine in fear.

Yes it would be quite nice, but unfortunately since bolt action rifles (or M14) aren't exactly standard issue weapons for your average Joe on the front (unless he happens to be a sniper\marksman, which probably makes him less average) there's no real reason why any military would study individual effect as the biological basis for reactions is there and has been there always, and the data - like the graphs - are only meant for rough guidelines how things work on paper, and how well they actually translate into real life is up to variation and even up to some 'debate' for diffrent reasons. It's one of the reasons why modeling a suppression system in your standard FPS always ends up being odd in one way or another, depending what they were going for.

Just to throw in one odd example while I can't recall the exact source, there was a comparasion done of few US infantry divisions during WW2 against some Waffen-SS divisions, and on divisional scale their performance diffrence were marginal at best, on lower scale there was notable diffrence found. I am aware that's pretty ambiguous, but unless I can recall where it's from there's not much I can say. Stuff like this tends to be very colourful on terms of possibilities and probabilities when asking "how" and "why"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Before people start to completely flip their s$#t, remember that this is with a M16(Alpha #) shooting the 5.56x45, and obviously is going to suffer much shorter range and worse bullet drop. There is a massive difference between this, and say a 7.62x54mmR. But other then that it is very helpful. Would be nice to see some data on maybe a larger caliber rifle (m14?) or maybe a bolt action which would be much harder to empty the entire magazine in fear. I can pretty easily see a soldier unloading a smaller caliber rifle (or assault rifle) in terror when recoil is pretty much non existent, as it is with the m16. This graph seems to show the hit rate per pull of the trigger, so this could be skewed compared to WWII era data.
Not really a massive difference.
Even at 500 yards there's only a difference of 12 inches in drop (65 versus 53),
And the .223 has less bullet drop out to 250 meters, and retains greater velocity out nearly to 400 yards
Keep in mind this is a modern .223, with improved propellant, so the difference between a modern .223 and an ancient 7.62x54mmR in terms of velocity at each range interval and bullet drop up to 300 yards would probably be virtually nonexistent.

This is with a 55gr .223 Rem.

The 62gr .223 Rem actually retains less bullet drop all the way out to 500 yards, as well as higher velocity out past 350 yards. So with a higher weight bullet the .223 actually outperforms the 7.62x54R at the ranges we're talking about, even with about half the ballistics coefficient.
http://ballisticscalculator.winchester.com/

The 55gr Winchester 5.56 retains greater velocity out past 350 yards, and less drop out past 500 yards.

Notably, however, the 5.56 has a really nasty susceptibility to wind drift compared to 7.62x54R, predictable considering its light weight and not-so-aerodynamic shape. That would affect accuracy more than anything else you brought up I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Anyway, in RO:OST the mosin and the k98 were both perfectly accurate. You could see an enemy several hundred meters away, even if he was just a few pixels, and reliably shoot him dead. Wherever you put your sights, the bullet would travel there with no deviation.

This is the sort of accuracy that would be available in say, a custom Remington 700. I am sure many of you have shot a mosin or a k98 (or at least you should have) and know that this is far from true. The mosin has a long, gritty trigger pull and the action has poor contact with the stock. Coupled with military ammo and wartime barrels, and you end up with a rifle that isn't exactly a precision weapon. From a bench and with a good trigger pull, 5-6 inch groups at 100 yards are common.

HOS seems to be mostly urban combat, and this will not play much of a factor at such close ranges. There are a few areas I have seen with some longer ranges, however. I think it is pretty absurd to be able to reliably hit a man at 300 yards with a military bolt action rifle. In RO:OST it was pretty annoying to run across seemingly open ground only to be picked off by some guy with custom rifle shooting handloads. Will HOS have some sort of cone of fire for rifles?

Your way off the mark in a couple of ways. First off, the rifles in RO1 were not perfectly accurate. They had a realistic deviation based off of real world data, and first hand experience by me personally shooting most of the weapons. As other people have mentioned, your probably don't quite have a proper perception of the in-game distances. Picking someone off at 300 meters is darn near a miracle shot in RO1. If you look at the RO1 Steam stats you will see only 0.8% of RO1 players ever even got a kill over 200 meters with a rifle! That is the "Excellent Marksman Bronze" achievement: http://steamcommunity.com/stats/RedOrchestra/achievements/

Secondly, the mosin nagant 91/30 is a sub MOA rifle at 100 yards. I really good shooter can put 5 bullet holes touching each other at 100 yards. I'm not that good, but I can put 5 bullets within a couple of inches at that range. My Kar98 can do similar groupings. Both rifles are WWII vintage, and 70 years old. Heck I can get a 6 inch grouping at that range with my AK47, and its not nearly as accurate as the mosin or the kar.

The new game features similar accuracy in the weapon to the first game, although it is refined a bit from further hands on experience with these weapons. Also the other factors such as breathing, sway, recoil, etc work way differently in RO2. So longer range shots are now realistically easier than the first game was.
 
Upvote 0