Red Orchestra 1 Mode

[Spec.]

So what's the problem with adding "Classic" mode instead of replacing "Realism" with RO1 crap? Are you afraid that people would prefer "Realism" over "Classic" if it wasn't forced upon them and there would be not many servers for you yo play on?

Tbh, there isn't much in game that feels "realistic". Yesterday I took a look on my statistics after ~30hrs playtime (not that much i know). Numbers are telling me that i got an accuracy of 90% with the Kar98 - i mainly use this one. 1. Why should I ever take a sniper rifle? 2. That's far from realistic.. So either the statistics don't work properly yet or I'm the biggest mofo on the planet I would never consider myself a good rifleman.

Back to your comment.
I wouldn't replace anything but making the Hardcore-realism really hardcore. Which means that injuries have more influence, more sway and also add some things people have already mentioned before.
Hardcore-realism right now is more like a customized Normal-mode if you want so.
There's isn't a problem with adding a Classic-mode but wouldn't make Hardcore to Real-Hardcore make more sense?
(Don't get me wrong, I don't want a second ArmA. So no game breaking stuff.)

Nice pic btw.

 

[[PEH]Rab]

We have no fear of death in the game, thus no reason why we shouldn't poke our heads out to take a shot at the enemy.

Remember that many battles we have in this game involved 1000+ soldiers IRL instead of 64 ingame.

That's irrelevant. It's still not that easy to hit the target. You speak of the fear of death - can you imagine how even more scary it would be if you knew your opposition were that accurate?

 

[Verluste]

This would be a great idea for a serverside mutator. +1

 

[aop]

That's irrelevant. It's still not that easy to hit the target. You speak of the fear of death - can you imagine how even more scary it would be if you knew your opposition were that accurate?

In this game maps are made so that you are often forced to run in open and sometimes players even choose to run in open instead of trying to take more covered approach just to get to their objectives faster. This is because of map design and limitations as well as lack of fear of death. I just don't see how those "flaws" could be fixed by nerfing weapons. Engine limits the maps and fear of death can never be implemented in a game unless the player gets electric shocks or something similar for failing in the game.

 

[Volucris]

People are such crack shots because they didn't nerf the gunplay to make you feel retarded. I can stand up with a 91/30 and hit a man 300 yards away quite easily. My gun isn't swaying around like an unrestrained water hose like some of you think happens (go shoot some guns kids and stop trying to learn about it with youtube videos).


The ranges of combat in this game are so ridiculously small that there isn't a need for increased zoom as given with a scoped rifle. Scopes are for target identification and ranging.

 

[JoMac]

I agree with Rob.

I dont agree with aop and people that call for realism that ist the kind
of realism they know from Battlefield BC2 or MW.
Some things are not realistic at RO1, but i read the posts and think that
is not what the people want for RO2.
For me, it looks more like they want that things that was more realistic
at RO1 then in RO2, added to RO2.

Rifles are really very too accurate, also SMGs.
I think, its not caused by the weapon itself, then by aiming with
iron sights and how this is done at RO2.
In the real world, you got to mind parallaxe, canting, over- and
underholding while aiming, also movement in cause of breath and
more things.
At a game like RO you could not add aiming like in real, so at RO1
was the sway set to a level, that aiming alltogether was realistic.
YES, in real the sway is lower, but how would you add canting?
Should they reduce sway and add other realistic aiming?
So you first get your rifle up, bring the front sight up to the enemy,
then hold a button to get the rear sight to allign the front sight at
the vertical and horizontal axis, while turning your mouse at the
high axis to adjust the canting of the weapon?

Come on, at RO2 are the iron sights perfectly alligned and you only
have to get the front sight over the enemy.
The weapons, specially the rifles are as accurate and easy to aim
like a rifle with a modern holosight - that got mounted at modern
weapons, to solve the problems that you have while aiming with
iron sights - ironically.
High sway is only the result of compensating things, that could
not be added to a game, the resulting chance of getting a hit is
matching the chance of a real world rifle.

At RO2, you lift your head and every enemy that can only see the
top of your helmet can aim and place a headshoot in less the 1 second.
On maps like "fallen fighters", no one used the marksman class,
the rifle is as accurate and easier to aim.

I got to the same conviction like Rob, and wrote this things at a post
with suggestions. Before i wrote that, i used an original iron sight from
Heckler & Koch and watched a neighbours house.
Its less then 50 meters away, but the front sight (nearly the same size
used by any weapon) covered the half door.
And because i had to focus at the door, the iron sights got unsharp.
The smallest missallignment of the front and rear sight would make you
miss the target.
Thats why there are marksmans with scoped sights and MGs that
compensate the aiming troubles with more bullets.

Again, i agree to Rob and the others.
Aiming and aiming speed and as a result, the accuracy and quick aiming
at RO2 are VERY MUCH TOO HIGH and unrealistic.
Only causes everyone to camp behind walls, cause they fear to show up
their head, because they now they would got an instantly headshot

+1...Agree 100%, I will copy and past my previous post in same thread as I can't stress this enough.

Many people except 'Harcore Realism' players like ourselves, dont understand that several thousand rounds of ammo were expended per casualty in WWII ( for most Small Arms Warfare for that matter ).

The following examples can be considered the norm for a firefight. Other variables are to consider, but this gives you an idea.

Two opposing Infantry Platoons ( meeting engagement ) in a 5-15 minute firefight.
you might expect casualties anywhere from a few to a whole squad per side.

One defending Infantry Platoon against two Attaking Infantry Platoons in a 5-15 minute firefight
Defender loose half a squad, but attackers loose up to half a Platoon ( a whole Platoon if a Wave Assault ).

Two opposing squads encounter each other on patrol ( Recon ), after a brief 5 minute engagement The Kraut squad returns with one casualty..."Fritz was hit". The Ruskie squad returns with two casualties..."Pavlov & Temsky" were hit".

As it stands now, every other second in RO2 equates to a hit or death, and thats is simply unacceptably to high ( IRL there might be 1 hit or death every minute with two opposing Inf Platoons ).
Ofcourse, there are many aspects of RO1 that are not realistic resulting in high casualties. However, the game has that 'Realistic' and challenging flow to it...No Zoom, More Sway, More Fatigue, Normal Move Speed ( except up-down stairs & obstacles, etc ).

 

[Volucris]

Once you assume normal cheek weld on your stock you can assume the rear sight is aligned and simply focus on the front sight. Once again, scopes are for target identification and ranging for distance and the corresponding drop. People who have never shot guns much at all are plaguing this forum with ideas about guns they have acquired from video games and movies.

 

[billyboy]

People are such crack shots because they didn't nerf the gunplay to make you feel retarded. I can stand up with a 91/30 and hit a man 300 yards away quite easily. My gun isn't swaying around like an unrestrained water hose like some of you think happens (go shoot some guns kids and stop trying to learn about it with youtube videos).

Right. Try hitting a moving target that's 300 yards away when your starving, freezing and exhausted after making a full sprint across a battlefield while being fired at with rifles and bombs. You still think you could do that as easily as your character does in the game? Please.

 

[Spec.]

Ofcourse, there are many aspects of RO1 that are not realistic resulting in high casualties. However, the game has that 'Realistic' and challenging flow to it...No Zoom, More Sway, More Fatigue, Normal Move Speed ( except up-down stairs & obstacles, etc ).

+1
but..
1. More Fatique, in what way?
2. Normal Move Speed, there's another thread in which someone proved that the current running-speed is actually realistic.(Unfortunately; the thread is somewhere in "General Discussion").

 

[JoMac]

+1
but..
1. More Fatique, in what way?
2. Normal Move Speed, same question again plus there's another thread in which someone proved that the current running-speed is actually realistic.(Unfortunately; the thread is somewhere in "General Discussion").

RO1 has More Fatigue as in troops have a greater loss of Stamina when running as opposed to RO2, and end up covering less ground...Which I think is more realistic.

What I dont like about both games is that instant quick jerky 360 degree( turn in place, look up-down, etc ) robotic movement...Guess if the default mouse movement was permanetly reduced by half I would find it more realistic ( In RO1 I have it at 1.00 ). I also dont like that non-reduced movement over obstacles.

RO2 has the potential of being more realistic then RO1, but in its current state I am not so sure.
However, with Mods, Mutators, and such in the future RO2 will surpass RO1 gameplay wise.

 

[JoMac]

That's irrelevant. It's still not that easy to hit the target. You speak of the fear of death - can you imagine how even more scary it would be if you knew your opposition were that accurate?

Exactly...And, why there were several thousand rounds of ammo expended per casuatly. Half the time troops could not see what they were trying to shoot at, and simply stayed in cover taking quick pop shots half the day.

 

[[PEH]Rab]

In this game maps are made so that you are often forced to run in open and sometimes players even choose to run in open instead of trying to take more covered approach just to get to their objectives faster. This is because of map design and limitations as well as lack of fear of death. I just don't see how those "flaws" could be fixed by nerfing weapons. Engine limits the maps and fear of death can never be implemented in a game unless the player gets electric shocks or something similar for failing in the game.

Again, I fail to see what the fear of death has to do with the accuracy of which people are aiming. My whole issure here is that the aiming is effectively too CoD-like. What difference does it make to that if people are running out in the open with a sign saying 'shoot me' or not?

I would just like it to be a bit harder to halt my sprint, bring up my iron sights, zoom in on a helmet which is behind cover about 200 m away, and blow it off - all in, literally, under 2 seconds.

In RO1 I wouldn't even think about halting to shoot at someone who was in hard cover. Chances are you won't hit them and you will be a stationary sitting duck. Now, you might as well stop and try and shoot them - 2 related reasons:

1. If you keep running, they will simply shoot you because it's so easy.
2. Again, because it's so easy, your maximising your chances of survival by simply trying to shoot them.

I've had it done to me, I've dont it to other people and to be quite frank I find it a bit ridiculous and unrealistic.

 

[Josef Nader]

Right. Try hitting a moving target that's 300 yards away when your starving, freezing and exhausted after making a full sprint across a battlefield while being fired at with rifles and bombs. You still think you could do that as easily as your character does in the game? Please.

Psst, my character DOESN'T hit targets above 150m easily. I don't know what you're smoking. It may take me 2-3 shots to triangulate properly, and that's more than enough for even a starving, desperate soldier to get on target.

Honestly, you people must be human aimbots, cause I have to take a couple shots to get on target, and even then it's RARE that I get in a fight outside of 100m.

Once you assume normal cheek weld on your stock you can assume the rear sight is aligned and simply focus on the front sight. Once again, scopes are for target identification and ranging for distance and the corresponding drop. People who have never shot guns much at all are plaguing this forum with ideas about guns they have acquired from video games and movies.

+1. Seriously folks, go have some fun with the Second Amendment before you start telling me how guns work.

Again, I fail to see what the fear of death has to do with the accuracy of which people are aiming. My whole issure here is that the aiming is effectively too CoD-like. What difference does it make to that if people are running out in the open with a sign saying 'shoot me' or not?

I would just like it to be a bit harder to halt my sprint, bring up my iron sights, zoom in on a helmet which is behind cover about 200 m away, and blow it off - all in, literally, under 2 seconds.

In RO1 I wouldn't even think about halting to shoot at someone who was in hard cover. Chances are you won't hit them and you will be a stationary sitting duck. Now, you might as well stop and try and shoot them - 2 related reasons:

1. If you keep running, they will simply shoot you because it's so easy.
2. Again, because it's so easy, your maximising your chances of survival by simply trying to shoot them.

I've had it done to me, I've dont it to other people and to be quite frank I find it a bit ridiculous and unrealistic.

You can spot helmets 200m away after a hard sprint? You realize that is the distance from one end to the other long ways in Fallen Fighters, right? So you're telling me that you can spawn, sprint out into the open, spot an enemy helmet, and then kill him in one shot from ACROSS THE PLAZA LONGWAYS in Fallen Fighters? Jesus, you're pretty incredible.

Also, I had to laugh at your "trying to run through the open" example. Real life soldiers don't run through killzones. You know why? Because it's awfully easy to put a bullet in them! It's a good way to get killed, and even easier if you stop and look for an enemy like a pillock.

There's nothing unrealistic about getting insta-killed while trying to cross open spaces. What's unrealistic is your tactics. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Red Orchestra 2 is a realistic game. Unrealistic tactics aren't going to work.

 

[Leto Atreides]

When I first started playing RO1, I could barely ever hit anything over medium range with a bolt action rifle. Then I got better and there was always something really satisfying about landing a difficult long range shot on someone.

I could also count on most people not being able to land their first shot fired at me which always made it possible to run from cover to cover.

In RO2, everybody seems to be a born marksman. Medium and long range firefights last half a second because usually the first person to see the other shoots and kills right away.

Maybe the reduced sway in RO2 and the zoom are theoretically "realistic", but the result is not. I really doubt that everybody in WWII was a super soldier who could kill anyone at any range.

 

[teapot156]

(I tried to post earlier but it didn't go through)

Any range shooting of these rifles in no way simulates how effective they would be in a real combat situation. Some other guy posted in a thread some YouTube thing of him firing these rifles on 200 yd/m range and making good groups. He was doing this from a comfortable chair without any stress at all and great arm support.

If any of you guys think the ease of use of these weapons in game accurately represents their real life models, you are mistaken. It literally takes a moment in real life to acquire a target and line up the sights of a rifle even from a supported position. Presently in game all you have to do is right click and then left click on a target, there's little to no concentration required.

In RO1 a rested position was needed 9 times out of 10, and nobody would make shots after sprinting.

Now in RO2 I just spawn, hold down the sprint key, find a target, and click on a guy.

 

[Filo90]

infact zoom is ok, but sway not

 

[|Brothers|-ktabz]

hmm maybe those pining for RO1-like gameplay should you know... play RO1.

 

[aop]

Again, I fail to see what the fear of death has to do with the accuracy of which people are aiming. My whole issure here is that the aiming is effectively too CoD-like. What difference does it make to that if people are running out in the open with a sign saying 'shoot me' or not?

I would just like it to be a bit harder to halt my sprint, bring up my iron sights, zoom in on a helmet which is behind cover about 200 m away, and blow it off - all in, literally, under 2 seconds.

I haven't played new CoD series games so I have no idea how they work but I'm pretty sure they have stupid weapon damage things, cones of fire etc. that set it apart from RO2.

Are you really implying that happens ingame? Only map with such distances is Fallebn Fighters...

In RO1 I wouldn't even think about halting to shoot at someone who was in hard cover. Chances are you won't hit them and you will be a stationary sitting duck. Now, you might as well stop and try and shoot them - 2 related reasons:

1. If you keep running, they will simply shoot you because it's so easy.
2. Again, because it's so easy, your maximising your chances of survival by simply trying to shoot them.

I've had it done to me, I've dont it to other people and to be quite frank I find it a bit ridiculous and unrealistic.

Try your

 

[[PEH]Rab]

I haven't played new CoD series games so I have no idea how they work but I'm pretty sure they have stupid weapon damage things, cones of fire etc. that set it apart from RO2.

Are you really implying that happens ingame? Only map with such distances is Fallebn Fighters...

Try your

 

[[PEH]Rab]

hmm maybe those pining for RO1-like gameplay should you know... play RO1.

Or...

The devs could consider bringing it into the updated engine? it's alright for guys like you, you're satisfied with what you have. You's make it seem like we are asking for something radical and ridiculous, when really, what we want is the classic RO experience on an updated engine. Is that really so stupid of us? Does that mean we should just go back to RO1 and forget about it? Is it not even worth posting up the mere idea of it?

Sorry, didn't realize it was so blasphemous to suggest that the sequel to RO1 actually has a setting that plays more like it's predecessor in terms of weapon sway. How stupid of us vets who miss the old difficulty.