• 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?

I don't think you are accurately measuring 300m. What you are thinking is a 300 meter shot is probably more in the area of 50-100m. An easy way to see this is check if you have the (insert meter here) shot on your achievements. The longest I've ever gotten was 200m, and even that was a challenge (for me atleast).
 
Upvote 0
alright well Tl;dr on everything except the first 3 posts, this is where I interject my bit of experience on this subject.

My cousin and I were shooting at cinder blocks at a range of 70 Yards from prone. First we shot them once or twice to break them up, then piled up the pieces in piles. My pile was 5 blocks, with 1 in the middle, and 5 for my cousin. I was using a lee enfield no 4mk1 with hand loaded rounds, he was using mil surp 50's in his mosin. I picked off my pile of 5 pieces ( each about 3 cubic inches ish), the one in the middle and 2 of his, and he took 3 of his 5. ( he had just got the gun and was getting used to it ). Neither of us missed a shot either with the handloaded or mil surp. ( ironsights)

Second, I just bought a yugo m48BO. The back story on that gun is that it was made in Yugoslavia right after the second world war for egypt, the order was cancelled and they sat in storage until recently. When I got it, it was brand new still covered in that heavy grease ( cosmoline ?). We were firing at 200M with a guy sightin in his deer hunting rifle, and had no problem getting man sized groupings with ironsights.

Yes all guns should have some bullet deviation, but the majority of hit / miss chance should be based on he who aims the gun.

As an aside I should add that I watched some videos from a guy who takes old ww2 guns and makes em hit targets at 800-1000Meters. He did it with a scoped mosin that was modified ( glass bedded barrel ). He did it with an iron sights mauser k98k, which quite frankly blew my mind...


Edit: My longest shot was on berezinia, from the second trench, shooting an enemy just getting out of the first trench.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It's comments like this that make me think this community is delusional. Every game, every weapon, everything has to have values assigned to it. About half of them are interpretations at best.

Why doesnt the developer just push the REALISM button.... You guys are a riot.

the thing is that it doesn't really go by a traditional numerical systems. The damage system, for example, does not go by X/Y amount health, but an area system; if a knee, a chest, an arm, or a head was shot. So you can't really up/down damage (however, the bolt actions appear to do something tricky involving near always killing people, but most other guns don't follow that system)

As for accuracy, because there is an ingame equivalent to metres/yards, accuracy and such can be realistically determined.

So there already exist systems in place that allow for "realism" to be implemented. I'm not really saying anything on anyone's side, I'm just pointing out that there are these systems in place.
 
Upvote 0
This may be abit off topic:

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 & Moral Lose ( not Casualties ) thats the number one reason in defeating the other team, and winning a firefight.

All 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 ( no suppression, less weapon sway, 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, or help teammates win the objective 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.

Joe
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It's comments like this that make me think this community is delusional. Every game, every weapon, everything has to have values assigned to it. About half of them are interpretations at best.

Why doesnt the developer just push the REALISM button.... You guys are a riot.


Erm, yes they have values and those values shouldn't be altered to please balance cry babies :) Weapon effectiveness should be as close to reality as possible and if people are whining that the MG42 has them pinned, then it is doing it's job :)

Use tactics to win, not mess with weapon values or we may as well be playing laser tag.
 
Upvote 0
Erm, yes they have values and those values shouldn't be altered to please balance cry babies :) Weapon effectiveness should be as close to reality as possible and if people are whining that the MG42 has them pinned, then it is doing it's job :)

Use tactics to win, not mess with weapon values or we may as well be playing laser tag.

I could not agree more. Holy :IS2:.
 
Upvote 0
Concidering ranges that this game will be fought at, 0-100meters +++ i doubt it will matter much.

Though, bolt action rifles themself are supposed to be almost dead accurate.
Its all the other stuff that usually makes you miss, too hard on the trigger, damage to sights / barrel, blasted fear of recoil (something that probably caused most misses during WW2,t he large calibers kicks like mules) .. All those things together, makes you miss, not the rifle :3
 
Upvote 0
Gameplay wise, in ROOst they felt fine, mainly due to that FOV (field of view) "issue" where, apparently, (TWI did some real-life tests with measuring instruments on a football field) enemies on screen appear to be 2x smaller that they should "in real life" (thus making aiming harder).

With weapon sway (rifle not rested), it was fine; while resting your gun, the small breathing added that slight challenge, but yeah, they *could* get very accurate.

However, in RO2:HoS, they tackled the FOV issue with weapon zoom while holding the "control breathing" key.

So if you add in weapon zoom + controlled breathing (it's the same key, which is really fine and I support 110%), rifles may become really, really accurate while resting...

So I'm guessing either breathing effects will be more prominent (significant), say by misaligning your sights relative to your eye + moving the gun slightly up and down, or maybe they added extra "shakiness" to simulate stress/exertion/fatigue/hard-to-pull trigger,

or they revised the rifles' accuracy after some real life field tests (which seems to be the point people argue about the most).

Either way, I sincerely doubt they'd reduce a rifle's accuracy for the sake of balance if it's not realistic.

my 2
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I'm sorry, but no, not that...


When the german military originally chambered the 7.92x57 in a ~220 grain bullet there were complaints of the gun having excessive recoil from the soldiers ( ive fired mine with 195 grain tips and the recoil was stronger then a shotgun ). That being said, one can easily learn the gun and learn to shoot with the recoil. Thats like saying the PTRS/PTRD were innefective because people always missed due to recoil ( which could break your shoulder if fired inproperly ).
 
Upvote 0
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.

However, Its all the RL modifiers that get in the way, and producing on average a 10% chance to hit per shot.


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.
 
Upvote 0
Contrary to popular belief, you can hit targets with a Mosin:rolleyes:. It really is not as crappy as everyone makes it out to be, granted Kar98 is much better milled because you know the Germans always make good stuff. To the point, Rifles can be this accurate. However due to a lack of a suppression system and sense of no self preservation, players have better accuracy than their real life counter parts.

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). As for balancing, the way RO has been handled is by balancing the types/numbers of weapons in a map and giving them appropriate areas for use as opposed to balancing weapons to each other.

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. RO's rifles are good at longer ranges and can pick off advancing troops. But once those SMG's hit the trenches in close combat, Riflemen are screwed without backup no matter how good at melee they are, the SMG will have the upperhand. Machine guns have enormous firepower but they are not mobile and can be flanked/grenade bombed if they do not have backup.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
If you can't hit 150 meters with a weapon even after running a distance, you're a terrible shot. In FDF we had a test where you had to run 500 meters in battle gear, fill your clip, load the gun, fire from 150m five times from prone, then run 50 meters through almost a swamp-like area, fire 3 times from crouch (100m), evacuate another soldier in the same battle gear 50 meters, then fire 2 times while standing. Weapon being RK-62. The scoring was decided by adding up your hits, then dividing it by time used. IIRC I got 7 or 8 hits, and I'm not that good of a shot. (partly because of my semi-bad eyesight)

Rifles, ones that were also used as sniper rifles should be accurate, since they were accurate. As mentioned before, you can screw up your shot by either flinching when expecting recoil, holding your breath wrong, pulling the trigger wrong or even by holding the rifle in a wrong way. If you are a trained soldier and have been fighting a war for the last 3 years, you will be able to pick those enemies for distances farther than 100 meters, don't you think?
 
Upvote 0
I can tell you this, I have shot several 0.75 MOA 5 shot groups at 500 meters with my K98k, which is a 100% original byf 43. Only thing not original is the 12x S&B scope I got on it. Ammunition I use is 197.5 gr FMJBT PRVI Partizan.

FYI, 0.75 MOA at 500 meters is a circular group size of 13.2 cm in diameter, now consider that the average male human head is 15 cm wide and 22.5 cm long.

So much for WW2 rifles not being very accurate at long range, mine will do headshots at 500 meters...

And remember mine is just a regular infantry rifle, I can only imagine how accurate the extra accurate sniper versions were. They'd probably do 0.5 MOA 5 shot groups at 500 meters without too much trouble.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0