1 of 3 < >

Upcoming Forum Overhaul

We are starting the work to switch our forums, which have been based on a version of the Vbulletin forum software since their inception with the Red Orchestra mod (then VB 3 and currently VB 5.1) to an all new forum software called Xenforo. After researching it, we feel Xenforo is a better choice for the future as it has a vibrant modding and addon community that will allow us to extend the functions of these forums in ways players will enjoy.

As part of this, at some point in the near future these forums will be locked down so we cant merge over all of the existing content into the new forum database. It will likely then be a few more days as we work on the new forum and correct any issues from the merge.
2 of 3 < >

Privay Policy Update

We’ve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:

We’ve incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We’ve added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.

For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here:
3 of 3 < >

Forum Rules

  • Items changed, or highlighted for future attention, on 20 July 2013 are highlighted in yellow.

Global Rules
  • Forum moderators may or may not be Tripwire Interactive staff members, but either way, please respect them, as they are the authority of the forums. Speaking to them with intentional spite will not be tolerated and may result in the loss of your forum privileges.
  • Any decisions made by any member of staff or moderator are final and not subject to discussion. Doing so may result in a ban from the site. The owners of Tripwire Interactive Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason, as well as to remove access to the forums for any individuals with or without warning for breaches of the rules.
  • If you have a complaint regarding another user, PM the appropriate moderators, or if you have an administrative issue, [RO]schneidzekk.

General Behaviour
  • Use the search function before posting. Chances are your question has already been answered.
  • Use a title that describes the content of your post. Don't use all caps or special characters to draw attention either in the title or the body of the post.
  • Up to 10 emoticons are allowed in a post
  • Political discussions are prohibited.
  • Flaming - We do not tolerate abusive, malicious, personal attacks. You will be banned if you persist in this behavior.
  • Trolls - Anyone deliberately antagonizing other forum users by posting 'flame bait' type messages is not welcome. You will be banned (possibly without warning depending on the severity of the issue) if you persist in this behavior.
  • Personal insults (directed at anyone) will result in a ban. If the behavior is not corrected, it will be made more permanent.
  • Constructive criticism is welcome. However keep in mind we (and other forums goers) may not agree with you. If you can't keep the conversation civil, you will be removed from the forums.
  • The use of hyperbole, one liners, and images as part of a forum debate is likely to get you infracted. You have many ways to participate and be a constructive part of this community, even when you disagree.
  • To make the highlighted bits above 100% clear to everyone, the following WILL NOT BE TOLERATED:
    1. Personal attacks, insults, antagonism of any forum-goers, moderators or Tripwire Interactive staff.
    2. Name Shaming and Public "Witch Hunts" are also not allowed.
    3. Breaches of confidentiality and privacy of any sort.
    4. Any form of racism, bigotry or attacks on race, creed or color.
    5. Linking to posts on other forums related to ANY of the above, whether you are the originator or not, without exception.[/COLOR]
  • There has been too much in the way of abhorrent personal behaviors in the past. These will cease. It doesn't matter who started it or who reacted to it - it will all result in moderator action. If you have to indulge your hatreds, for whatever reason, go do it elsewhere - and do not try and drag our forum-goers over to enjoy your hatreds.
  • We understand that people have strong feelings about our games, what we do for a living and how we respond (or don't) to comments on the forums. We all aren't going to agree about everything. So, BE CIVIL in your disagreements!

  • DO NOT Transmit any message, information, data, text, software or graphic files, or other materials ("Content") that is unlawful (including illegal drug usage), harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful or racially, ethnically, sexually or otherwise objectionable. This includes publicizing private information, such as individual's real names, IP addresses and anything else that might be used to identify them to the freakier members of the internet. This also means you may NOT publically share private communications (PM, email or anything else) without the original poster's permission.
  • DO NOT Post or transmit any Content that contains a virus, Trojan horse or other mischievous Content.
  • DO NOT Post or transmit any unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail", "spam", "chain letters", "pyramid schemes" or any other form of solicitation.
  • DO NOT link to posts on any other forums, or any other form of media, that breaches our rules. It will be treated just the same as if you had posted it here.
  • DO NOT Double Post, cross Post, "necro post" or restart closed threads.
  • DO NOT Intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, rule or regulation.
  • DO NOT Upload or transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party.
  • DO NOT complain about being banned from a server and DO NOT complain about other players on servers - that is between you and the admin, no need to get the community involved.

Username, Avatar and Signature Rules
  • Multiple registrations result in a ban.
  • No offensive user names
  • Avatars:
    Avatars are disabled.
  • All signatures should not exceed the following size limits, you can have both text and images
  • - For text signatures: 4 lines normal size, 8 lines small size and up to 100 chars per line. Font sizes above 2 are not allowed. (Blank lines count as lines.)
  • - For images in signatures: 1 image up to 400 pixels wide, 150 pixels tall and 100kb in size plus 2 lines normal size text and up to 100 chars per line
Netiquette: Written text has no inflection, and, as such, you should be careful how you write your messages as interpretation will vary from person to person. Please take advantage of the built-in emoticons to add such expression to your words. Please remember the golden rule: to treat other forum users the way you would like to be treated. Please use common courtesy, and enjoy using Red Orchestra's forums
[COLOR=darkred]Offensive material
The following is a list of some things that MAY be considered "offensive" by the moderators and the team. This is NOT an exclusive list and it does depend very much on context.

Crossing the line into "offensive" territory is likely to get you asked to change your name, sig or avatar or to withdraw/delete posts. This will be done politely by the moderators. If you refuse to comply further action WILL be taken once started, ultimately leading to banning from the forums.

A key point: please attempt to use your brains. What is mild humour to you may well be deeply offensive to others. While we have no intention of acting as politically-correct "thought police", we are on the lookout for those things that can cause offense and, in some cases, are actually still illegal in some jurisdictions.
  1. Names recalling notorious war criminals or personalities.
  2. Names recalling atrocities and war crimes in general, or units with particularly odious histories.
  3. Use of obscenities and expletives.
  4. Blatant racism, mysogynism or many other "ism"s.
  5. Use of symbolism and regalia recalling Nazism or Fascism; this does not include pics of soldiers who happen to have such symbols on their uniform, unless we feel this has been done to provoke. Please note that many Nazi symbols (including the Swastika) are still illegal in Germany and other countries and considered deeply offensive by many Europeans.
  6. Use of symbolism and regalia recalling Stalinism.
  7. On both the previous two, the moderators' views on the intention and impact of use of such symbols will be final - not yours. Please be understanding if you are advised to change something.
  8. In general, if a sig/avatar represents your allegiances in-game and is clearly "in part", it is likely to be fine; if the moderators feel you are trying to demonstrate unpalatable political allegiances, or to use it in an attempt to ridicule or provoke others you WILL be asked to change it. RO is NOT the place to make any extremist political statements of any kind.

So people get the idea, some examples that would be considered offensive, numbered as above:
  1. "Hitler", "Beria"
  2. "NKVD Blocking Detachment", "Einsatzgruppen"
  3. This one should be pretty obvious...
  4. So should this - and it includes calling all Germans "Nazis" and all Soviets/Russians "Commies". It got boring 50 years ago, so stop it.
  5. Use of swastikas, fasces, SS-runes and so on for the Axis.
  6. There is actually very little overt symbolism from the Stalinist era; the hammer-and-sickle isn't offensive per se.

A simple rule-of-thumb: many Europeans find Nazi symbolism of any sort offensive; many Americans still find Soviet symbolism offensive. Engage your brain before using.

Final Note: this is NOT open to debate, so please do NOT start whining and moaning if a moderator asks you to change something. They will advise at first, giving reasons, then, if you take no notice, they will step up the pressure through to banning.
See more
See less

A case for vehicles.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A case for vehicles.

    I don't really keep up with these threads so I'm not aware of how deeply discussed ground vehicle implementation is, but I was recently listening to some q and a segment from tripwire about how ground vehicles would make the game feel more like Battlefield than Red Orchestra. While I think that's perfectly valid, I do want to suggest some ways in which ground vehicle implementation can work and be fun.

    Remembering ground vehicle combat from Red Orchestra 2 (the only RO game I've played), I found that the vehicles worked well, operating mostly in urban environments, and as a historical design choice it made sense. While I don't think the hyper-detailed interiors were necessary, I liked the realistic multi-crew approach and the unique combat situation they created. They also expanded gameplay options for infantry by creating the need for an anti-tank class. This diversified gameplay and made the game feel more authentic and fun as a result (at least for me). The vehicles were balanced, so that they could mimic a realistic engagement while still allowing for a competitive-oriented shooter experience. Additionally, the historical prevalence of ground vehicles on the eastern front of WWII made vehicle respawns make sense. I'm proposing a completely unique system for RS2, which I'll get to.

    There were only two issues they addressed when answering the question about ground vehicles. One was the lack of historical evidence for vehicle on vehicle combat. The other was the tentative Battlefield comparison. To start with, the understatement of ground vehicle prevalence (especially in urban engagements) is worrying because it seems to indicate that the developers might not be willing to really put the time and effort into a truly authentic experience. While you might say "that's a bit of an over-exaggeration", don't be so hasty to forget Rising Storm, which seemed to sacrifice authenticity for competitive shooter elements too often. To set up another straw man (sorry), you might say "but these guys aren't the same ones who did that, give them the benefit of the doubt". I do not intend to trust these people to deliver the experience I'm dreaming of because that's selfish, childish, and unrealistic, but keep in mind that these guys are people, and people seem to have a tendency to repeat the mistakes of the past. Now while it's true that vehicle on vehicle engagement was very rare, American forces did not shy away from using tanks, APCs, and other ground vehicles to combat the mostly infantry-based Vietnamese. The M60 Patton and the M113 APC are a couple of iconic ones that come to mind, but I'm not a degree-holding historian so I don't know the prevalence of those specifically. What I do know is that the unique combat situations and gameplay diversification that RO2 had based on its ground vehicles can only be amplified and in fact truly realized by the asymmetrical nature (the very nature of the war that the developers are eager to boast about) and purported authenticity of RS2. Vehicle inclusion could force the Vietnamese forces to use more guerrilla like tactics, hit and run attacks, and ambush attacks, much like they did in reality. With the current build, I have seen nothing but long, drawn out firefight-type head-on engagements in Vietnam-themed maps. I haven't played the game my self so I cannot attest to the accuracy of these claims, but think about this. If the update squad command system is as revolutionary to the series as they say, the added ability to organize properly and carry out realistic tactics could create an interesting meta game revolving around chess-like strategic gameplay between the Vietnamese and American commanders, much like in Squad (I'm sure you're sick of that comparison). However, the system that governed the deployment, usage, and damage models of the ground vehicles from RO2 would not work in RS2, largely because of its asymmetry. This means that the gameplay between the Vietnamese forces and the American forces would be almost completely different, and that the game would award players for becoming skilled as their faction, instead of simply arbitrarily change factions and be awarded for using the same play style, like most modern shooters.

    The Battlefield comparison made against ground vehicle inclusion is a strong argument. Vehicles with big health bars, shoddy damage models, and poor driving mechanics would quickly devolve vehicular gameplay and destroy the case for vehicle inclusion. A big crux in this issue is that, even properly modeled and balanced to create authentic gameplay, without any weight to the vehicle crew roll the gameplay would devolve anyway. What I propose is that vehicles require at least some skill to operate as well as some serious vulnerability if left without support, that they are only allowed a certain number of spawns (with substantially less for heavier vehicle classes), that they leave immobile carcasses, and that they require a team leader call in to even spawn at all. Vehicles like jeeps would require comparatively little skill to operate and have a decent pool for responds, while an APC would be slow and vulnerable, have much fewer response, and require some skill to operate effectively, and something like a tank would be similarly slow, be vulnerable without proper infantry support, be comparatively difficult to operate effectively (in addition to requiring a dedicated crew to function at all), and only potential have a single call in. This system would place enormous weight on players to become serious about their roles as vehicle crewmen, and make vehicles both a supremely useful tool and a prime target. On the vietnamese side, the only vehicular equivalent might be a truck or small car of some sort. The Vietnamese would have a better anti-vehicle proficiency, and as I saw in another thread that I didn't really read, have access to recoilless rifles or something similarly heavy and anti-vehicle oriented. A properly crewed and supported vehicle could break up boring head-on firefights, keeping the Vietnamese on their toes and forcing them to use more historically accurate tactics, while the American forces are both blessed with vehicular support and cursed with having to protect the vulnerable and slow larger vehicles.

    If anything in this thread is in other threads, or if I did;t make anything clear, please tell me. I really want to see authentic Vietnam War gameplay, and I personally feel that ground vehicles play a big role in that.

  • #2
    To be clear, I don't expect ground vehicles to make it in to the game at this stage, but in later version and possible dlc (maybe even mods) I think it could be possible.


    • #3
      American tactics meant the only vehicles they needed were helicopters. Search and destroy. Move in quickly, eliminate all threats and GTFO.

      Armoured vehicles were used in a defensive role on the border with Laos. Usually quite far south. M113s were also not combat vehicles. Troop transport with a means to defend themselves while they do GFTO if they run into contact.


      • #4
        In terms of vehicles AMG already got air covered, and now it's up to us to put in land and sea!


        • #5
          Would it be nice to see ground vehicles? Sure, they were used.
          Were they used anywhere near the extent of helicopters? Not that impression I have, so TWI has it pretty well covered with just helicopters.


          • #6
            Late to the party.... again. But ground vehicles like M113 ACAV where standard in areas where it made sense. Not all of the country is one big jungle. Plus areas that got logged, along road routes, in cities, open areas that got there one way or another. Its far from ideal tank country. But the M113 was everywhere it could operate. Cav units used theirs vary aggressively armed usually with 2 M60's, 1 M2hb (all with gun shields), and usually a grenadier somewhere with an m79 grenade launcher. Some even traded one M60 for a 106mm recoiless M40. That made BIG booms. But tanks themselves where vary rare when the US was involved. The NVA had them, actually quite a lot of them. But waited till the US was out to unleash them. Which they totally used to good effect against the ARVN. Their light M41 tanks where not really up to fighting t54's and t55's.

            And of course military convoys everywhere bringing beans and bullets.
            Mr. Fanatical Pants:eek:


            • #7
              Never say never for ground vehicles in the future, but there won't be any for release (and it's unlikely that there will be tanks ever).

              Current Project: Rising Storm 2: Vietnam
              Former Projects: Darkest Hour, Rising Storm
              Programming Lead, Antimatter Games


              • #8
                In come the modders! I can say that myself or someone else will make the M113 APC, go Vrrrrrooooooom!
                --------------------------Beskar Mando-------------------------


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Flashburn View Post
                  And of course military convoys everywhere bringing beans and bullets.
                  My dream would be to make a map/gamemode in which the Americans basically start at one end of a map and have to both protect a truck convoy, and also defend the base which they are driving towards. There would be a constant tension for helicopter pilots whether to go support the isolated firebase under attack, or guard the convoy as it approaches, and this would give the vietcong the ability to create complex diversions, feints, and counterstrokes. The Americans could be given overwhelming firepower, but the vietcong have the ability to define where the action will go down, like historically occured.

                  I think the good news is that if someone codes a normal wheeled vehicle for RO2 ever, the engine is the same so it would probably be relatively easy even for me to port over. But it remains to be seen whether this will ever occcur.


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Beskar Mando View Post
                    In come the modders! I can say that myself or someone else will make the M113 APC, go Vrrrrrooooooom!
                    I have an old mesh that could be undated and used for this. But like psycho-chicken said, sounds like later on. As to what? Who knows.

                    Mr. Fanatical Pants:eek:


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Flashburn View Post

                      I have an old mesh that could be undated and used for this. But like psycho-chicken said, sounds like later on. As to what? Who knows.

                      are you the same Flashburn that modded SABOW?

                      "Shilko, wars are not won by the most competent army


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN View Post
                        Never say never for ground vehicles in the future, but there won't be any for release (and it's unlikely that there will be tanks ever).
                        If/when the ARVN are added, that would actually be a good time to introduce tanks on BOTH sides. That is assuming such an expansion would introduce late-era battles after U.S. ground forces mostly withdrew and South Vietnam fell after another invasion.

                        Would also make for a great selling point when advertising the expansion. Are you listening AWG? Potential $$$ here.
                        Last edited by Bane5; 10-14-2016, 12:43 PM.


                        • #13
                          I think it wouldnt. According to the way how tanks were treated by players in RO2, there is no actual reason to make tanks.


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NorthDumpling View Post
                            I think it wouldnt. According to the way how tanks were treated by players in RO2, there is no actual reason to make tanks.
                            If you're worried about how vehicles will be used by players why would they even bother adding helicopters in the first place?


                            • #15
                              Because this is Nam baby. And helucopters were used in a wide range and multiple variations, which made them universal.
                              Tanks is a whole another thing and I can still imagine Vietnam game without them.