The armored car makes for very "gamey" tactics

[Tsoman]

Maybe if you have an unarmored truck for the soviets, since there is no armor, the soldiers could shoot from it.

 

[Kalashnikov Slamdunk]

id also rather they including truck vehicles.
the game just needs more different vehicles added to it.

 

[Heinz]

the little russian armored car falls prey to what I call the "lowest common denominator" effect. which is, no matter what features you have in a game, some human player will find some spastic and un-realistic way to use it because it makes him L33t.

then we all (players and devs alike) have to react to eliminate the dumb behaviour(s). Bunny hopping is the classic example.

 

[|MP44|FritZFretZ]

RO definately needs embarkment/disembarkment animations and damage modeling for players that disembark from moving vehicles. I feel this is the single largest "realism" issue in the game. The momentum of the player in the moving vehicle needs to be preveserved when he gets out. That'd make'em think twice before leaping out at 20km/h! (Perhaps a tumbling effect? )

I wouldn't look for this to happen too soon though, as TW needs to get everyone up and running first and foremost. Once this is done, and the SDK is released, I can but hope that either TW or one of the talented modders in the community will fix this. *Fingers crossed *

 

[[TW]DrGuppy]

I already plan to not include halftracks or BA64 Scout Cars for my first Combined Arms map because of these issues. I would love to see a delay of a few seconds (even without animations) or at the very least a maximum speed in which players can exit the vehicles.

 

[DucusSumus]

Vehicles in RO are just plain unrealisitc. Having an armored buggy isn't a problem, but the fact that you can enter and exit instantaneously is. Also, satchles really shouldn't do anything to a tank unless they are placed underneath it.

Stick with infantry only maps. That's where the game really shines.

 

[Byte Me]

I would actually prefer CA a map with only the half track and BA. That would truly show their strengths and weaknesses. Of course to do that, the germans would have to spawn far away from the objective, so they will think twice before hoofing it.

 

[sappo]

Lets call out certain people on this one

I am sure some of you have played on the same servers I have, and run into a certain 'clan' using the tag (POT).

Their one and ONLY 'tactical' rule it seems is it...

#1 aquire an empty BA.
#2 have the 2nd person go prone ontop of it
#3 drive around top speed in and out of the enemy hotpoints, either capping them and then spinning off to the next point / OR simply jumping off behind the enemy tank lines and ripping into them with satchels.

I have had the unfortunate experience of being in the same server a few games... and you see it over and over.

The scoutcar gets wacked, then it see it 5 seconds later wheeling out from the spawn across an open field, rinse repeat OVER and OVER again.

What a waste of resources for the russian team... not to mention if you manage to have them dismount from the scoutcar they are almost utterly defenceless (having relied on such gamey tactics since day 1 prob)

Ugh... the next time I see one of those scoutcars with an enemy soldier either prone or STANDING on top of it ... I am going to throw a fit.

 

[Heinz]

Vehicles in RO are just plain unrealisitc. Having an armored buggy isn't a problem, but the fact that you can enter and exit instantaneously is. Also, satchles really shouldn't do anything to a tank unless they are placed underneath it.

Stick with infantry only maps. That's where the game really shines.

nah, not at all. the tank and CA maps are great. having an armoured buggy IS the problem.

 

[DucusSumus]

nah, not at all. the tank and CA maps are great. having an armoured buggy IS the problem.

To each his own, but the armored buggy isn't realisitcally modeled in RO. That's why the "gamey" tactics to which the original poster were referring are possible. If the buggy was realisitcally modeled, then this thread never would have been started. You wouldn't be able to drive up to a tank, jump out, and place a satchel because it would be impossible to get out of the buggy instantaneously or moving at full speed. Even if you did, placing a ten pound bag of explosives next to a tank would be completely ineffective if the tank damage model was realisitc.

I hate the tank maps. It feels like I'm playing an arcade game with the current damage model. The ballistics modeling, tank mobility, and gun control are excellent, but the damage model totally ruins the whole experience for me.

 

[LukeFF]

I don't think the BA is nearly as big a deal as it is being made out to be. It is easily destroyed. However, there is no doubt that you should be badly injured and many times killed if you jump out at high speeds like many people do. If they would just fix that I think it would be fine.

Agreed. The Combat Mission games have this feature (in that units can't exit moving vehicles or tanks above a certain speed). Penalizing players that jump off fast-moving vehicles and disallowing them to ride on the hood would do much for better game play.

 

[Theodrake]

I will have to remember this. Time after time, I've been in the armoured buggy only to have the stupid driver flip it. As the gunner I jump out and instantly both my legs go red from jumping from the flipped buggy??? So what you are saying is that as soon as the idiot starts losing control I should jump

 

[Eater1]

I doubt adding an animation for disembarking would really do much about this - so they would need to come to a full stop before getting out, big freaking deal. As for riding on the hood of the car, how is that different from riding in the MG? In fact, it should be explicitly allowed and modeled, just like riding on top of tanks. Not so sure about the chances of staying on the car at high speeds, but if you can pull it off, why not - the T34 even had special handles on the outside just for this. There is nothing wrong with riding up behind the tank and placing statchel charges - if tankers are so convinced they have no threat from anything other than other tanks, they deserve to get blown up. In the war, far more than just a statchel charge could hurt a tank at close range - various incidiary bombs could overheat the engine, hatches could be opened, all sorts of **** can be done to a tank with infantry at close range. Hell, the Afghanis fought Taliban tanks on horseback!

 

[Muddy_May]

I will have to remember this. Time after time, I've been in the armoured buggy only to have the stupid driver flip it. As the gunner I jump out and instantly both my legs go red from jumping from the flipped buggy??? So what you are saying is that as soon as the idiot starts losing control I should jump

Kinda, yea. I break my legs getting out of the stationary BA almost every time, whether it is tipped over or upright. When I get out I shoot like 20 ft in the air for whatever reason, and the legs break when I get back to Earth.

However, when I disembark from a moving car, even at full speed, I usually get out from it unscathed. Weird. I used to always stop to get out, but since I noticed that there is a much higher probability of injury exiting a stationary car, I always disembark at top speed. It's lame and I dont like it, but its better than broken legs :/

 

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN]

It's because it doesn't disembark youo on the ground. It actually relocates you a few metres to the side. The problem is, if you've managed to flip your car onto its side, then the exit spawn point is midair and you break your legs falling the 3 metres to the ground (why oh why haven't they fixed the falling damage yet?). I have to admit though, I was also pretty surprised that you no longer take damage jumping from a moving vehicle, as that was in previous versions. In fact, it was so much so, that if you weren't completely stationary, you'd either break both legs or die.

A bit of damage for exiting fast moving vehicles and a delay in both switching positions and entering/exiting vehicles would solve all these problems.

 

[Phoenix-D]

I doubt adding an animation for disembarking would really do much about this - so they would need to come to a full stop before getting out, big freaking deal.

It is a big deal because slowing down to stop makes the attacker MUCH more vulnerable.

 

[Reddog]

The way the BA64 is being used is really unrealistic, and a shear immersion breaker.

Last night I was in a server where a particular player would repeatedly drive madly at tanks, exit, or what I really should say is insta-teleport out of it, while it was at full tilt and then satchel your tank.

He would do it over and over again and it was really hard to combat, especially because you have 1 shot to take him out and if you miss or if a ****ing AP shell ricochets of of his paper-mache armour (which is complete and utter bollocks IMHO no matter how you cut it) then you're screwed. Not to mention that if you're in a Tiger then you have a hard time even tracking him if he's moving in any direction but straight at you.

I know people will say, "Oh you can just take him out with one shot, stop crying!" and that may work when he approaches you from a long distance. But try making that 1 shot when the prick charges you while you're engaged with his sides tanks, or comes flying out of cover at short range zig-zagging like a mad man. The bottom line is if the ****** doing this sort of thing has any smarts at all he'll get you more than you'll get him.

And to top it all off when you do take the prick out he's back in another 30 seconds...

I'm not saying the BA-64 should be removed, but seriously IMPROVE THE BLOODY EXITING CODE. Having some sort of realistic delay to exit a vehicle, as well as some damage enducement when you dive out of a bloody armoured car moving at top speed would be nice and REALISITC. **** I'd expect something like this would have been more of a priority than something as trivial as 'pretty interiors'

Not happy.

 

[Maschine Pistole-38]

You all talk like as if the Dev's didn't think of adding in delayed entering/exiting vehicles. But I would more of less guess the Dev's saw this is as 'Should we wait a few more weeks to get this working and further annoy our fan base with delayed release' or 'Yeah we know its unrealistic but it can be changed in a patch and the fans would rather have that than nothing at all'

Ok, it is unrealisitc. But unless you were all gifted with the vision of foresight have you seen a game/game engine that can be 100% realistic? The Dev's have done a tremendous job since last June when they started working on RO:O and I wish more people would appreciate the work done rather than the work you would like to see done.

 

[Drude]

I havent called anyone smacktards, i just say that it is plain unrealistic to drive against a tiger in a car, and jump out behind it dropping satchels on it.

It is a tactic that was supercool in bf1942, but it doesnt suit ro.

Also, it is SUPERUNBALANCED! The allies already have arguably superior tanks. Why do they get AT-soldiers that can drive 3 times as fast as a german at-soldier in a lumbering half-track on top of that??

Superior tanks, lol - now thats not right.

But anyway, I see your point. BA-64 is used in unrealistic way, to rush forward.

 

[Ghad]

Arguably, not definetly

It is definetly easier for an unexperienced player to use the sovjet tanks


Anyway, I am sure the Devs see this problem with the Car themselves, and it will be tweaked in the course of the next weeks or months.