• 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/

Best and worst of suggestion - Look here before posting

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#141
As much valid as the question about everyone being able to man an AT gun, I could just say in this case it's more gameplay decision than making things too complex for the sake of realism.

Yes, simulating something realistic can be very complex by nature but if we really go that far what purpose would it make in the game to have 4x AT crewmen in the game that has special ability to drag their AT gun and operate it when normal infantryman would not be able to do that? They would just be regular riflemen with the ability to use AT guns for direct fire support or for AT operations. As neat as it sounds, now how many players we are probably going to have on RO online? 32? 50+? If it were 32 player server 4x guys taking some odd class for the sake of being capable to operate AT gun would be odd. If they would be only armed with sidearms, having four soldiers running around with handguns out of 16 player team would be rather stupid, don't you think?

It's actually same with the hypothetical idea if medics were added in the game (presuming someone can make a good system to answer 'how'), if they were made for sake of gameplay they would just be silly class to fool around, yet if done realistically (atleast for the germans) they would be just regular riflemen with just one or two extra functions.
 
Upvote 0
#142
like Oldih said the game can't perfectly mimic complete realism. is one man using an AT gun realistic? no. is like zets said having gunners running from spawn to man an AT gun at the front that realistic? not really. however is the inclusion of AT guns in the game realistic? sure. can you attempt to keep some aspect of realism preserved? yes. in this case at least by labeling a specialty class and restricting a weapon to only be used by that class gives it a small sense of accuracy.

there is no issue with specialty roles doing a task "beneath" their specialty, the issue is with basic roles being able to do a task "above" their qualifications. which is why infantry can't man tanks, why regular riflemen can't call in arty, why smgs don't get smoke grenades etc....in the same way, the standard infantryman should not be able to opperate an AT gun.

now mobile arty would be too complicated which is why imo for the sake of gameplay, they should not be added. fixed guns like we saw in ROOST, DH, and MN could be featured sure, but this time around to reduce the ammount of "spam" towards an infantryman being able to man them, if the map has an AT gun, it should have have designated arty gunners to use them. as for gameplay issues with that, in pub play with ROOST, are the SL, mg, sniper, tanker, combat egineer, or at-soldier classes always properly utilized? not always. could that be an issue with players taking the "arty gunner" role then not using the guns? sure. thing is i don't see that as a problem from the structural standpoint. the classes are setup on the assumption that players will know how to use specialty roles correctly. i see the issue as the system allowing unqualified players to fill important/speciality roles. to counter that, i do hope there will be a training/requirements portion to the progression system in HOS so that people know must actually learn how to use roles/weapons before they can hop into multiplayer and be allowed to use them.
 
Upvote 0
#143
Oldih said:
It's actually same with the hypothetical idea if medics were added in the game (presuming someone can make a good system to answer 'how'), if they were made for sake of gameplay they would just be silly class to fool around, yet if done realistically (atleast for the germans) they would be just regular riflemen with just one or two extra functions.
Click to expand...

Since bandaging is in, basically medics could carry some more bandages and apply them a bit quicker. They didn't wear big white patches with a red cross either so it would probably look just like any rifleman.

Medics were shot on first sight, in the eastern front. And tbh I've never seen any game where players didn't try to shoot the medics at first sight either. So I don't think that when bandaging is in the game anyway that the addition of a medic class would hurt anyone.

If its worth it to implement would be another thing though. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile if only medics could bandage, but every soldier probably had some basic first aid kit with them and knew how to use it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#144
Zetsumei said:
Medics were shot on first sight, in the eastern front.
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of all the details in the eastern front and how germans applied some medics. To them, they were basically combatant personel that were trained well in first aid among other things and they rarely - if ever - wore anything else than very small armband because we all know that russians didn't exactly follow Geneve conventions - and since there is nothing stating that medic must be non-combatant personel, german medics throughout the war were generally speaking applied as specialist riflemen.

As interesting sidenote, due bad experiences on eastern front americans often shot german medics because they thought they were using false impression to hide under the red cross as they were armed and often protected with MG company or so.
 
Upvote 0
#148
-[SiN]-bswearer said:
NOBODY really ever completely followed the Geneva Convention. the russians, germans, british, french, pols, italians, japanese, americans; they all had their moments.....sadly, war is hell and people do evil things during them :(
Click to expand...

True, but atleast for other countries we can say they tried to be fair about it rather than just shoot everything in sight compared to the russians :p
 
Upvote 0
#149
well the germans were just as bad. label everyone a patisan or a saboteur so they could just execute them, extermination camps for russian pows, execute american pows like during the BoB etc.....

point is every nation violated the geneva convention and it's not smart to single out just one side.....that's just going to make citizens of that nation feel insulted and begin arguing. i'm not russian, but if i could see a russian reading that statement as offenseive. best to just not mention war crimes, geneva voilations etc... ;)
 
Upvote 0
#150
-[SiN]-bswearer said:
point is every nation violated the geneva convention and it's not smart to single out just one side.....that's just going to make citizens of that nation feel insulted and begin arguing. i'm not russian, but if i could see a russian reading that statement as offenseive. best to just not mention war crimes, geneva voilations etc... ;)
Click to expand...

-[SiN]-bswearer said:
well the germans were just as bad. label everyone a patisan or a saboteur so they could just execute them, extermination camps for russian pows, execute american pows like during the BoB etc.....
Click to expand...

Uh, hypocrisy much?
 
Upvote 0
#151
-[SiN]-bswearer said:
well the germans were just as bad
Click to expand...

If we really go down to that, every part of a conflict always does something that's rather questionable. We're not here to argue about that, the point was mainly that even if it wasn't always applicapble (regardless was it german, american, russian, british, italian etc), we can atleast make safe presumption that they attempted to avoid most of the unnecessary bull**** involved in that and E.G. in Arnhem, several unffocial cease-fires (against commanders' orders among other things) were made so they could get some of the wounded out from some of the more ****tier places.

Now let's put an end for this potentially borderlining debate of this and that, no need to lock this thread because of that. :)
 
Upvote 0
#152
SturmSS said:
Uh, hypocrisy much?
Click to expand...

don't take things out of context. it appears that in your quote, you intentionally switched the order of my original two statements. in the way you crafted your quote, you are trying to make me look like an jerk by showing me singling out the germans after i rebuked a person for singling out the russians. however, when taken into context with the correct order of my two statments, the first statement i made was used to examplify the teaching point i was making following that example. there is nothing hypocritical about that. it's called using an example to make a point.

so lets review the discussion, in proper order:

Oldih singles out russians for violation the rules of war. i reply with a general consensus that all militaries violated the rules of war at some point, implying that his statement was ill-advised. his reply to that was (paraphrasing) "yes, but other countries were fair about it unlike the russians who shot on sight", which took his orginal statement even further down a road that should not be taken. to that i replied, using the germans as an example (since we're already using the eastern front), that no, the russians were not the only ones who acted inappropriately during the war. using that example helped set up my final statement which was that it is not a good idea to single out one nation's actions because it could start arguements. and look what eventually happened, an arguement. thus the teaching point that singling out one nation for their behavior is not a good idea. ;)

Oldih, sorry i had continue with another stament, but i had to respond to that subtle attack from mr. SS :rolleyes: but yes, i agree with you that there is no reason to have to discuss this issue anymore.

this is a great thread, back on task
 
Upvote 0
#153
Out of context or not, it is still ironic that although you are trying to take the moral high ground your initial comment doesnt really aide your argument as you end up refuting it down the line. Acknowledging the theme of "pointing fingers is wrong" obviously was neglected by yourself due to your initial stance. Hint: you need a much better contructed argument that is consistent from start to finish. Something that could have been quite easily corrected to make you look less than
-[SiN]-bswearer said:
an jerk
Click to expand...
Hey after all, two wrongs dont make a right?

I would have much respected your response if you said only the latter of that comment as it would have made you the "bigger man" so to speak.
But hey I think we need to be reminded of how heartlessly evil every last German was during this time period, its something I think that Hollywood hasnt reiterated enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krieger
Upvote 0
#154
I will tell you a story:
In 1944, with the Nazi army fastly retreating out of Soviet territory, 2 times Hero of Soviet Union Alexander Pokrishkin was looking for a new field to deploy his squadron closer to the west front. He saw an square of recently removed and flatted earth near a burned out village, about 200m long and 6m wide. he understood it was some kind of airstrip and tried to land his fighter on it. His surprise was tha the landing gear buried almost completelly in soft, removed earth... he outed the plane and found that it was no landing strip, but an enormous mass grave!!! hundreds of villagers were buried there!!!
Taken from Pokrishkin memories.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#155
Paratroopers

Paratroopers

On very large maps with player limit of 32+, the attackers should be able to paradrop behind the main line of defence.

It can work by half of the team joining as paratroopers and their leader deciding where to drop on the map. When drop location is selected, a transport plane will spawn in the sky and drop everybody off at that point. This will help to capture zones behind enemy lines.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#156
Tiger2 said:
On very large maps with player limit of 32+, the attackers should be able to paradrop behind the main line of defence.

It can work by half of the team joining as paratroopers and their leader deciding where to drop on the map. When drop location is selected, a transport plane will spawn in the sky and drop everybody off at that point. This will help to capture zones behind enemy lines.
Click to expand...

Unless the troops represented are paratroopers And they are suppossed to airdrop, I have to say No! Sounds very gamey and COD'ish!
 
Upvote 0
#159
Tiger2 said:
But on the other hand, consider game experience. Nobody wants a game to be only about weapon skill and cap zones. I remember in RO 3.3 there was a map where everybody paradropped at the start of the match.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but idea to widen up the gameplay experience should be based on somewhat believable and historically realistic background.


I wouldn
 
Upvote 0
#160
Tiger2 said:
I remember in RO 3.3 there was a map where everybody paradropped at the start of the match.
Click to expand...

Custom mappers can do almost whatever they want, and it's same with game modifications that they can be very hardcore about few things if they want. Unfortunately for official content for a paid product it doesn't really cut it.

As RedGuardist put it, a paradrop in beginning of the mission could work somewhat but in middle of a game it just begs for some rather odd stuff. Yes, it might be fun for the sake of gameplay but how about calling airplanes just with a press of a button? Extra ammunition supplies by paradrop planes with a press of a button? Putting minefields with just a single order? Considering RO has atleast attempted to be quite credible with some basics, if you think realistically how some organisation works and the access to fire support\such in low level scale, RO:HoS could be renamed as Wolfenstein : Himmler's Offense in Saimaa and make it a proper multiplayer sequel to RTCW with typical suggestions like that.

The real exception is that RTCW was quite good as it was not pretending to be that realistic at all, it was Quake\UT style game with good mechanics. They could go and do silly things without being punished or someone going too Y SO SERIOUSSS about it.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu