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.
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.
