Just tried it and... is it just me who's annoyed by the 2 zoom levels for the binocs? Just makes the control system a bit more fiddly for very little gain.
Upvote
0
Make armored beasts mutator standard
- Thread starter Fungwu
- Start date
- Status
*Seinfeld voice* "Oh there's gain". You know on the 2nd zoom level you can fire the main gun or MG and spectate where the round(s) hit. Also the main gain is you can identify your target at extreme range easier.
Upvote
0
Which would be great if we ever actually fought at extreme range...
When is someone gonna make a 4000m visibility map??
Anyway, yes, AB is a nice change, but it's not ready for prime time yet (in the sense of being MANDATORY to play and part of the main game), and it's best as a mutator. The really popular mutators will eventually be adopted. The unpopular ones won't. That's the beauty of mutators and the Unreal engine in general.
When is someone gonna make a 4000m visibility map??
Anyway, yes, AB is a nice change, but it's not ready for prime time yet (in the sense of being MANDATORY to play and part of the main game), and it's best as a mutator. The really popular mutators will eventually be adopted. The unpopular ones won't. That's the beauty of mutators and the Unreal engine in general.
Upvote
0
Solo 4114 this is absolutely impossible, I took out PZIVH by 76.2mm in AB 20-30 times and never happens to me. Maybe you just got earlier version of AB beacuse there was a bug. Often there was a penetration, but it showed as a ricochet.
Upvote
0
The map would have to be extremely sparse for that or else most peoples framerate would be terrible (Uber PCs exempt).Which would be great if we ever actually fought at extreme range...
When is someone gonna make a 4000m visibility map??
Upvote
0
Umm.... I would have to disagree. Because Historically the germans had minor tactical victories all the way until the final days of the Battle of Berlin. On the tactical level of egagment that RO has, historically the Germans were able to hand the allies their butts a few times on the battle field.
Yet... Historically, the Allies (both American and Soviet) won more tactical battles than the Germans in the end.
To say that you can't be historical because you can't win doesn't make sense... There is no campaign concept in RO... You can still infer the Germans still lost the Battle of Berlin, but you can have fun at least making the Soviet pay for it by winning a round or two.
Of course if there was a campaign feature it would be really annoying to always win or loose as one side, but even if you had pure realism, each side still has the ability to win small engagments.
[Edit]
I would also like to say that even games that you can't win strategically are still fun... Example: Close Combat III even if you were the Germans and one every single combat engagment, the Germans still lost the war. It was hard coded, but didn't make the game not fun.
Upvote
0
I dunno, that did crimp the fun quite a bit. But not as much as the fact the third close combat game was based mainly around tank combat. And the CC games never did tank combat that well imho (the movement was clunky. I much prefered CC5 with it's better blend of infantry and tanks, as well as the ability to affect the final outcome
Upvote
0
Actually, that incident is under regular RO, not the AB mutator.
As for the map viewdistance, I thought they changed the visibility limits so that we actually can run much larger maps. It's just that no one has made any such maps yet.
Upvote
0
Yeah they have. Slashbot427s 2nd version of Orel (Road to Orel) has like 2000 meter view range I think.
Upvote
0
OMFG TWI CONSPIRACY! THEY WANT TO MAKE OUR GAME LIKE BATTLEFIELD ONOES NOOBS WILL COME AND MORE 13 YEAR OLDS WITH THEIR SQUEEKY VOICES!!1211112
Come on guys..
Come on guys..
Upvote
0
What I mean by this, is that to play a game that represents real combat in a realistic way is not entertaining. It's like playing Smolensk_Stalemate as an axis player (in my experience) constantly. If a battle was being presented with total historical accuracy the team on the receiving end would not stand a chance.
There's a map floating around that has the Germans attacking Russian positions on the other side of a frozen-ish river. The German side have no artillery, 1 sniper, no cover, and no real support. I'm certain attacks liked this happened in real life, but putting it into a game is not fun.
Just like real tank combat in say...1941 would involve a German spotting a tank or a fortified position, staying back halting the maneuver and then calling in a Stuka or an 88 to eliminate them. How much fun would it be playing the Russians in this situation? There's no point in even portraying it.
I'm not saying that losing isn't fun, I've lost plenty of games and they've still been good games, and I've finished CC3 as Axis before (and it's a hoot).
The battles need to be portrayed in a way that makes them enjoyable from both perspectives, and both people need a chance. It's like always running into a Tiger I on a hill on Orel.
Complete historical accuracy removes fun because it becomes just like real war. Maps would either be short, swift and complete, or a horrid stalemate that drains the players and frustrates the hell out of them.
Upvote
0
The map you're talking about is Tula Outskirts, I believe, and it is indeed a drag for the axis team and a turkey shoot for the Russians.
There's one way up the hill (the far right flank) that has some minimal cover, but a frontal assault is basically guaranteed death.
Put simply, I think what folks are trying to say is that TRUE historical accuracy means that the map is a foregone conclusion. You can't have historical accuracy and have the outcome NOT be pre-determined. Why? Because we know how history ended up.
When people complain about how this or that isn't represented in the game (usually things like "German superiority of [blah]" or "Russian numerical superiority in [blah]"), they're missing the point about this being a game and not a reenactment.
In a game, the outcome is NOT predetermined. In a reenactment, it is.
So, while it's important to make the equipment perform like it did in real life, doing so may sometimes mean sacrificing the fun aspect of the game where you don't know how the map ends. It's the trick of finding the balance between reenactment and game.
There's one way up the hill (the far right flank) that has some minimal cover, but a frontal assault is basically guaranteed death.
Put simply, I think what folks are trying to say is that TRUE historical accuracy means that the map is a foregone conclusion. You can't have historical accuracy and have the outcome NOT be pre-determined. Why? Because we know how history ended up.
When people complain about how this or that isn't represented in the game (usually things like "German superiority of [blah]" or "Russian numerical superiority in [blah]"), they're missing the point about this being a game and not a reenactment.
In a game, the outcome is NOT predetermined. In a reenactment, it is.
So, while it's important to make the equipment perform like it did in real life, doing so may sometimes mean sacrificing the fun aspect of the game where you don't know how the map ends. It's the trick of finding the balance between reenactment and game.
Upvote
0
I know that its possible to penetrate... but in many inverviews with russian tankers they said that. It was allmost bloody impossible to hit anything effectivly at 500-1000 meter (with the t34 both versions).. due to the lack of accuracy. something that did not happen at aarad that day. you know that spot where the 2. russian tanks spawn? and west around the trees. there they where some tanks camping the german spawn. how the deuce is the realism shown when we know that IRL tigers ruled the battlefield due to the fact that they could hit enemy tanks at about 1km? im just wondering. and yea, it was AB.
And I didnt say that the tiger was worse.. it was just as crap as allways.
Ok, it might have been IS2s but still..
Yes... It is possible if they actually are so luck to hit. but the accuracy is crap at 1km. Just like its been discussed. the jerries had better optics...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Your point is?
@SheepDip
I completly agree to what you said.
Yet all this still works on some maps if you play with AB. It's not like TWI found the holy grail. There are a ****load of ways to make a funny game beside their approach. And some are more realistic.
Upvote
0
Holy spit! I didn't know I'd raise such emotion with this suggestion. I think I'll explain myself a little more fully. The most salient points of Armored beasts are the following:
The hull and turret are considered seperate in the damage model, in the current model if the hull is facing toward you at an angle, the whole tank is, it doesnt matter if the turret is turned to the side and at no angle, you still will never penetrate, there is absolutely no reason why TW can't fix this. One poster mentioned that I just wanted to force people to play AB, yes I want to force people to play with tanks that actually have a turret in the damage model. I highly doubt that it makes the the game less fun to shoot a tank in the turret and actually have the game calculate the effects of the shot against the turret, instead of against the hull where you didn't shoot.
Also AB calculates the effect of angling on the planet earth, which is to say parking a tank at 60 degrees doesnt immediately make it nigh invincible, AB actually tries to use historical values for armor penetration instead of made up ones.
The hull and turret are considered seperate in the damage model, in the current model if the hull is facing toward you at an angle, the whole tank is, it doesnt matter if the turret is turned to the side and at no angle, you still will never penetrate, there is absolutely no reason why TW can't fix this. One poster mentioned that I just wanted to force people to play AB, yes I want to force people to play with tanks that actually have a turret in the damage model. I highly doubt that it makes the the game less fun to shoot a tank in the turret and actually have the game calculate the effects of the shot against the turret, instead of against the hull where you didn't shoot.
Also AB calculates the effect of angling on the planet earth, which is to say parking a tank at 60 degrees doesnt immediately make it nigh invincible, AB actually tries to use historical values for armor penetration instead of made up ones.
Upvote
0
I rather doubt the RO original values are "made up." They might be tweaked to make maps more enjoyable, but also bear in mind that ALL RO stock maps with tanks are close-combat. We don't have ANY maps where engagement ranges are, on average, anything over about 500-600m. You CAN still engage at 750-800m on Arad in maybe one or two spots, but for the most part, we're engaging around 300-500m.
Thus, ALL the tanks were, I think, made a bit more survivable, and the angling was overmodelled. With the original version of RO:Ost, there was no need to do otherwise. Once the engagement ranges were increased, and we started seeing custom maps AND the mappers were able to make visual distances greater than 800m or so, the need for a more sophisticated system started to arise.
Anyway, while I agree that many of the things AB has done are things tread-heads have been begging RO for, and are changes that would absolutely be welcomed in stock RO armored combat (IE: the turret /= hull issue), AB as a whole should remain a mutator (especially since it's still in flux).
I think you can also debate the "historical vs made up" armor values, and take into account some gameplay considerations as necessitating not 100% accurate values. But that's a matter of debate, and I think it depends largely on the map and the totality of the armor system (IE: just what exactly is being modelled).
Even though it's inaccurate in many ways, RO's stock system is still the best commercially available model in any FPS out there. So, yeah, it could be better, but it's a damnsight better than, say, the Battlefield series of games.
Thus, ALL the tanks were, I think, made a bit more survivable, and the angling was overmodelled. With the original version of RO:Ost, there was no need to do otherwise. Once the engagement ranges were increased, and we started seeing custom maps AND the mappers were able to make visual distances greater than 800m or so, the need for a more sophisticated system started to arise.
Anyway, while I agree that many of the things AB has done are things tread-heads have been begging RO for, and are changes that would absolutely be welcomed in stock RO armored combat (IE: the turret /= hull issue), AB as a whole should remain a mutator (especially since it's still in flux).
I think you can also debate the "historical vs made up" armor values, and take into account some gameplay considerations as necessitating not 100% accurate values. But that's a matter of debate, and I think it depends largely on the map and the totality of the armor system (IE: just what exactly is being modelled).
Even though it's inaccurate in many ways, RO's stock system is still the best commercially available model in any FPS out there. So, yeah, it could be better, but it's a damnsight better than, say, the Battlefield series of games.
Upvote
0
isn't the reason why most of us play ro, the fact that other games alter/neglect realism to increase the fun?
if you are in favor of evening out the different tank caracteristics, to make tank combats more a 50/50 lottery.
then i dont see why you arent asking that the rate of fire of the mg 42/34 would be reduced to even it out with the russian MG. or why the PPSH fire rate shouldn't be lower to give the MP40 a better chance.
or that the STG44 (kingtiger of weapons) should be removed(or give russians a AK47?).
my point is that both armies had
if you are in favor of evening out the different tank caracteristics, to make tank combats more a 50/50 lottery.
then i dont see why you arent asking that the rate of fire of the mg 42/34 would be reduced to even it out with the russian MG. or why the PPSH fire rate shouldn't be lower to give the MP40 a better chance.
or that the STG44 (kingtiger of weapons) should be removed(or give russians a AK47?).
my point is that both armies had
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's right, some people might don't like AB beacuse they just don't know so much about tanks. they don't know whats depend on of that it is a tank destroyed. They are too accustomed that almost always to destroy the tank need hit 2-3 times. And they are frustrated when are in a Panther and getting killed by T34/85 frontally and they think then thats something is wrong.
Now with AB you must be more carefuly, its very helpful now riding somewhere with teammates beacuse if someone kill your teammate, you'll have then time to turn a turret and shoot at enemy tank. Thats why also every ambushes are much more effectives (besides like it was in real). I love now to hide somewhere in for example SU76 look at those screens what it can do if you hide in good place.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/daj5zl/Shot00024.jpg
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/daj5zl/Shot00025.jpg
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/daj5zl/Shot00026.jpg
Now with AB you must be more carefuly, its very helpful now riding somewhere with teammates beacuse if someone kill your teammate, you'll have then time to turn a turret and shoot at enemy tank. Thats why also every ambushes are much more effectives (besides like it was in real). I love now to hide somewhere in for example SU76 look at those screens what it can do if you hide in good place.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/daj5zl/Shot00024.jpg
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/daj5zl/Shot00025.jpg
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/daj5zl/Shot00026.jpg
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What some computer game and history nitpicker nerds know about tanks eh? That's cruel fact - we know only theoretical info and possibly some common possibilities, but we are still lacking any true knowledge.
Besides, it is very sad fact that USUALLY one single penetration is enough to cause the tank to be abandoned. Let's say partitial turret penetration -> we have almost a hole, possibly gun damaged, optics damaged, possibly turret not turning anymore and in general barely functioning at all, so what's the point standing in it as nice target, since it takes max. ten seconds to get shot again and this time it is really penetrated, usually killing one-two crewmen along the way due the AP shell piercing their chest\stomach (or nuts if we're really having bad luck, that might hurt), presuming if they are close together and bailing out via turret.
Hull penetrations are much more easier to handle (few of them), if it does it in such a good spot that nothing really gets damaged,then it is possible to keep using it.
However, let's say the shell penetrates our hull frontally, kills one crewman inside (let's say it kills loader), possibly hits the engine 'til it stops. Now, our tank does have a nice hole that's easily visible at any 'shorter' range, our tank is not moving anywhere since our engine got broken, so what's the point staying inside the tank (again) since in next 10 seconds we are going to get another hole to the tank and if it's a lucky hit it might damage the shells and if **** happens - ignite them. At this point if they do ignite -> kabum and if you survive the explosion you're burning to death.
Besides, most of the time if tank is 'destroyed' it is more likely abandoned due having too much functional damages which prevents it functioning properly or actually having any use. It's not like they magically blow up every time and leave black marks.
Yeah indeed very realistic. You can get shot like 2-3 times in the head with SMG\pistol at 100m range and still not die. And also you can take like 4-5 pistol bullets in your leg, hand and stomach combined and you're still not incapacitated or wounded, but instead still rushing towards the enemy MG nest even though we are bleeding almost to death... sorry, I forgot it's not featured in game
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status