• 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/

Suppression in ROHOS

True. You die a lot in cover, but I put that on two things: 1) destructible terrain and 2) 3D spotting. These two are a killer combination.

People can just fire at your marker even when you are out of sight and hit you through the wall. Not very realistic.

In ROHOS cover should, even at its worst (when all you have is high grass or foliage, or the laundry, to hide behind), provide concealment. At best (concealed bunker) it should provide both concealment and hard (in game terms: indestructible) cover.
 
Upvote 0
I dare you to admit that in BC2, each and every time you have taken cover that you think you are 100% safe, you haven't died at least half of the time :troll:

The reason you die in cover is horrendous hit reg, and an incorrect POV. One of the things I spoke with john about was being behind an object, you think your head (your supposed point of view) is covered, but to others your head is still visible. This is a general design failure they made in BC2. Luckily Tripwire is a group of good devs :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hockeywarrior
Upvote 0
REAL WARFARE

In real warfare, you try to gain the advantage of superior firepower over the enemy: the more enemies you manage to suppress, the less they are firing at you. Having more firepower means more mobility, more tactical options and less casualties to you - and more casualties to your enemy.

Isn't that more of Modern Warfare. I believe shooting range training in the military today contain a greater deal of delivering a lot of led at the enemy then being highly accurate which was more heavily focused on in the past.
 
Upvote 0
Isn't that more of Modern Warfare. I believe shooting range training in the military today contain a greater deal of delivering a lot of led at the enemy then being highly accurate which was more heavily focused on in the past.

Suppressive fire was already the basis for most infantry tactics during the time of the second world war. And this hasn't changed so far with modern warfare.

And exactly because its the foundation of infantry tactics, I would like to see it work in ROHOS. Once suppression works most real infantry tactics will work.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Suppressive fire was already the basis for most infantry tactics during the time of the second world war. And this hasn't changed so far with modern warfare.

And exactly because its the foundation of infantry tactics, I would like to see it work in ROHOS. Once suppression works most real infantry tactics will work.

I think LMG's in RO were too underpowered, mainly because they were too finicky with deploying on things, making it difficult and then you'd get shot in the face,
 
Upvote 0
I think LMG's in RO were too underpowered, mainly because they were too finicky with deploying on things, making it difficult and then you'd get shot in the face,
Nah, it's simply down to the unrealistic spread of MG's in RO.

DH reduced the spread, they are beasts there that can lock down entire parts of a map.
 
Upvote 0
Well, the Germans fielded a couple of "oversized" assault squads coming close to that size, but those generally had two lMg's per squad. Pretty similar with the Soviets.

Yeah but did every squad next to that have so many g43's and smg and assault rifles that a squad only had 3 rifleman? :p

If anything I'm a supporter of realistic weapon distributions, so I don't mind having a mg per group of say 8 players. But I hope that there will actually be some people as rifleman this time around.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nicholas
Upvote 0
I can accept blinking, but I cannot accept deteriorating vision as that is something that does not happen when bullets come close. The problem is that something mental is hard to represent in the vision of the player - it is just an instinct.

Cold War Crisis had no artificial suppression but surprisingly the campaign literally made me fumble and panick when I came under fire. It was because the MG usually opened up from about 200 metres and drawing a bead on the target was extremely hard.. especially as the incoming rounds get closer. It is strange but this game achieved the psychological effect without restricting your vision or accuracy.
 
Upvote 0
One of the reasons I felt the suppression effect needed to be so pronounced was that the MGer was so limited in there movement. Hopefully with the cover system you will be able to move around more while deployed. One thing I hope for is being able to duck down while reloading. Nothing was worse then starting a reload then having to hope you don
 
Upvote 0
Yeah but did every squad next to that have so many g43's and smg and assault rifles that a squad only had 3 rifleman? :p

If anything I'm a supporter of realistic weapon distributions, so I don't mind having a mg per group of say 8 players. But I hope that there will actually be some people as rifleman this time around.

I agree there were way to many semi's and smg's.
 
Upvote 0
I think that project reality has the best suppression that I've seen. It does a similar thing to ROOST but with a slightly longer effect and a greater range of effect. I haven't played DH, but i am completely against forcibly moving a players guntip.

In ROOST I found that I almost never encountered any suppression effect and could ignore a MG that was far away. Closer there would be an effect but only because so many bullets were being spit at me. In project reality, if a bullet came within a meter or so (Im just guessing at the range, could easily be further) I would be diving for cover or at the very least hitting the dirt, because trying to find the firer and draw a bead under fire was nearly impossible. However, if I knew where the firer was, I could try to suppress them in turn, making them less likely to hit me as well, and have a fair chance of killing them.

What I'm trying to say is that I think that there should be some suppressive effects, greater than in ROOST, but avoiding any non audio-visual effect. That, with bullet penetration and the cover system (with blindfire:)) should provide an effective balance. This effect should be the same or similar for every bullet, a close range PPSH firing at people in cover should have a similar effect to an MG, and a couple bolts should be able to suppress fairly easily also. Maybe morale could have a SLIGHT effect on this, as a person with higher morale is more likely to take risks than one with lower morale; not wanting to look bad in front of a hero, knowing that your possible sacrifice will not be in vain (if your side is winning/doing well).

Lastly, I think when rising out of cover, the aim on your rifle should be moved slightly so that a little bit of a re-aiming is necessary for the shot, instead of multiple rise-and-shoot-in-the-same-place shots.
 
Upvote 0
I agree, there should be a good Suppression system for RO2 close to that of DH, or this Project Reality subject.

I also think the layout should be 3 to 1 in favor of Rifles over SMGs or LMGs...I always hated the fact it was the opposite in RO:Ost.
To put it in perspective, a Regular Infanry squad should have roughly 5-6 rifles, 1-2 SMG, 1- lmg.
However, Russians started to employ SMG Companies in their Infantry Divisions in late 42' to sweep trenches and build-up areas. So, its not unusual to see SMG units & Rifle units mixed together in Stalingrad.

Joe
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
WWII Skirmish Firefight casualties are relatively light.

In general, it took about 1000 rounds or more of small arms ammo per casualty ( most from MGs ).
A Squad or Platoon in a 15 minute FireFight might loose upto 50% casualites before falling back...and usually double that if your Russian.

Basically, its the effects of Suppression and Moral lose ( not Casualties ) thats the number one reason to winning a firefight.

The above cant be simulated in RO:Ost or RO:HoS as weapons tend to be far to accurate, and just the way players throw themselves to the front over and over again with no regard to life preservation.
Alot of this is due to game mechanics ( less suppression, weapon aim, spawns, Aimbots, etc ), but also how players view this as just another Run & Gun game to have fun playing.
I could easily have just as much fun playing using tactics of manuever and fire w/out getting killed.

Unfortunatly, RO:Ost, RO:HoS are just PC games, and not a true WWII Realistic FPS Simulation Game.
You can atleast Join a "Realism League-Organization" ( like I will be doing ) in an attempt to get closer to what a WWII Realistic FPS Simulation Game should be like.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I've never been a fan of vision blurring standing in as a suppression effect, it's always seemed unnatural and weird to me. You can't see when you're scared? Really? PR does it because limitations of the engine didn't leave them with many options. I prefer a system like ARMA's where your adreneline/breathing/heartrate increase slightly with a slight increase of sway making it pretty impossible to pull off the long range, pop out of cover and take the single shot to nail the guy suppressing you maneuver. You need to either move, try to suppress him yourself or hope one of your teammates picks him off. At close range, like rounding a corner and walking into someone, the slight amount of sway is not an issue.
 
Upvote 0
Cold War Crisis had no artificial suppression but surprisingly the campaign literally made me fumble and panick when I came under fire.

True, very true. Flashpoint is probably the only game I was ever really scarred to die in.

You can atleast Join a "Realism League-Organization" ( like I will be doing ) in an attempt to get closer to what a WWII Realistic FPS Simulation Game should be like.

Or a realism unit.
 
Upvote 0
Honestly, anyone who claims they won't buy the game, just because of one feature that we haven't even seen yet, is a moron.

This is the reason they are going to allow a beta... so that we can see the features. If someone does not like them, then they can complain and ask for some type of change.. if enough people feel the same way, I am sure TWI will do something about it.

You're always welcome to rage quit the franchise, just don't whine about it afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0