So smoke has been forced onto all the maps then

[Ralfst3r]

In that case:

Would be nice if the gruppenfuhrer/komandir otdelenya could choose:

- 2 Smokies
- 1 Smokie and 1 Frag
- 2 Frags

 

[Lionel-RIchie]

I remember my first day with RO where I was the enemy who was never seen and doing the shooting. I'm not like everyone else, you see.

Ok, well meanwhile a lot of people had to adjust to the extreme learning curve of the game.

I remember being like "Holy crap, I just spent money on this?" and then here I am, a part of the IC campaign, with CoD2 uninstalled.

 

[Goetz]

Smokes are fine IMO.
Only 1 person on each team gets them so it's not like COD2 or DODS where every other person has an SMG and a smoke.

 

[Harry S. Truman]

The aspects of long range rifle fire fights. The aspect of marksmanship.

Again, after less than 24 hours you are sure that these smoke nades are the best thing to happen since Jesus was born.

It all boils down to you apparently being offended that I disagree with you. You have formed an opinion, as have I. Why is mine stupid and not worth considering; but the Devs MUST listen to you?

If I recall, YOU insisted that things must be changed. I said give them a chance. Now you accuse me of demanding the Devs listen to me? Huh????

Yes, this changes the aspects of long range rifle fire. We finally have somthing to give us some temporary cover from riflemen. It finally gives the Machine Gunner a chance to survive more than 2.3 seconds while he sets up.

Heck, add more smoke!!! Everyone should get 3 or 4 of them! Better yet, just make a smoke map where there's smoke everywhere from burning buildings! Yeah! That's the ticket....

 

[Droog]

If I recall, YOU insisted that things must be changed. I said give them a chance. Now you accuse me of demanding the Devs listen to me? Huh????

Yes, this changes the aspects of long range rifle fire. We finally have somthing to give us some temporary cover from riflemen. It finally gives the Machine Gunner a chance to survive more than 2.3 seconds while he sets up.

Heck, add more smoke!!! Everyone should get 3 or 4 of them! Better yet, just make a smoke map where there's smoke everywhere from burning buildings! Yeah! That's the ticket....

Can't calm down, can you, Truman?

 

[Harry S. Truman]

Can't calm down, can you, Truman?

I am calm. I didn't come to the boards screaming for change. Was that an angry post?

 

[krylosz]

just to add my 2 cents.

I like them, commanders should only get one and they could also be limited to one side.

but i can't hink of a map, where there shouldn't be one. krasnsy (or however it is spelled) might be the only one with the fighting oinside the construction hall. the space there is too confined.

but on kaukasus, kessel, k

 

[Rak]

People tend to adapt. The addition seems like it was wanted by a majority anyway.

If people don't want the smokes, there are other alternatives that can be devised.

Of course, people will just say "Smoke nades? COOL!" because majority doesn't think of it's effect on the gameplay and in historical accuracy aspect. For them It was cool in CS, DOD, COD, so it should be cool in RO. But RO is different and it has no relations with those games, gameplay wise and realism wise. It has it's own rules.

As someone said in that thread, they were hardly used in combat.

I aprreciate your reconsideration of smokes on certain maps.

 

[Coey]

"doesn't boil down to camping or hip-shooting contests."

-Except for that whole camping on the other side of the smoke and the rambos who charge into hip shooting. Or even the crazies who fire into it wildly.

Smoke should be used to blind an enemy position and flank it.
1.Most of the time smoke is used to blind an enemy position, giving the attackers the ability to advance or flank it. If you could already camp in sight of the enemy you would have already camped.
2. People do this regardless of a smoke screen
3. Suppression, inexperinced suppresion it may be, but it's a step in the right direction.

"all maps in the end apart from Arad degenerate into a CQB"

-far from it. Just because CQB takes place in an objective doesnt mean that is the entire map.

Wow, nowhere did I say that an entire map is one big CQB. I said at the end, or at the last objective, CQB is nearly always needed to take it. Smoke neither helps nor hiders this and I was replying to someone elses point about smoke turning maps into CQB battles anyway.

Your post made my day. Thanks

I feel so special now!

RAWR

 

[Harry S. Truman]

Of course, people will just say "Smoke nades? COOL!" because majority doesn't think of it's effect on the gameplay and in historical accuracy aspect. For them It was cool in CS, DOD, COD, so it should be cool in RO. But RO is different and it has no relations with those games, gameplay wise and realism wise. It has it's own rules.

As someone said in that thread, they were hardly used in combat.

I aprreciate your reconsideration of smokes on certain maps.

In all seriousness Rak. Can you show me something that said smoke grenades were not used in combat? Every source I've ever read talks about the liberal use of not only grenades (especially in urban combat) but of smoke barrages from artillery and smoke shells/cannisters on tanks. This is from the developments of World War I, where they had to give the poor riflemen SOME cover against entrenched machine guns. This is what I meant when I said our realities were different.....becaues not only was smoke used, it was very common.

 

[Phoenix-D]

They definitely aren't out of place on Kaukasas. Yeah, it makes it harder to defend- but that map was fairly nasty for the attacking team anyway. The other maps I haven't messed with them enough to get an opinion on yet.

 

[Droog]

smoke barrages from artillery and smoke shells/cannisters on tanks.

Why not cancel the nades and implement smoke barrages, one per map, and having the squad leader requesting it as regular artillery.

 

[Droog]

They definitely aren't out of place on Kaukasas. Yeah, it makes it harder to defend- but that map was fairly nasty for the attacking team anyway. The other maps I haven't messed with them enough to get an opinion on yet.

They will be used by germans to cover the passage from the BR to Tower, allowing for a quick capture of the Tower, you do understand that do you?

 

[Rak]

In all seriousness Rak. Can you show me something that said smoke grenades were not used in combat? Every source I've ever read talks about the liberal use of not only grenades (especially in urban combat) but of smoke barrages from artillery and smoke shells/cannisters on tanks. This is from the developments of World War I, where they had to give the poor riflemen SOME cover against entrenched machine guns. This is what I meant when I said our realities were different.....

I'm not saying they weren't used at all. BUT they weren't as frequent as they are currently modelled in RO. You are at war and supply is short. You have a game to balance too.

I haven't read anything about German smoke spam on Krasnyi Oktyabr and how easily they battled for it it that way. I haven't read anything about how the German army reached the mount Elbe through Kaukasus with their smoke nade spam. I haven't read anything on Russians spamming smokes to Rambo freely and capture Germans in Stalingrad. I haven't read anything about Russian smoke nade spam in the last decisive battle for the Reichstag.

Did you?

Of course, they abviously used it in those combats, but not as frequently,decisively and with devastating effect as we have it modelled in RO.

 

[Rak]

Why not cancel the nades and implement smoke barrages, one per map, and having the squad leader requesting it as regular artillery.

Now this is a better solution. One time, and should be precise and decisive. Not on all maps again though.

 

[Coey]

They will be used by germans to cover the passage from the BR to Tower, allowing for a quick capture of the Tower, you do understand that do you?

The Russians on the church walls hardly ever get a shot off at people going from BR to Tower. And what about Russians already at the Tower and the surrounding area? And Smoking them would be useless as the Germans would have to fight in the smoke aswell, you do understand that, don't you?

 

[Harry S. Truman]

They will be used by germans to cover the passage from the BR to Tower, allowing for a quick capture of the Tower, you do understand that do you?

Given equal teams, this map seems to be a cakewalk for the defenders. An aggressive Russian team can alsmost always win this map.

I haven't had the chance to play this one with smoke yet, but if it gives the Germans some advantage, it would be welcomed. In the same sense, you could use smoke to blind the riflemen in the shepards shack and help retake the tower out front.

Again, there just hasn't been enough play to discover what can and can not be done on most maps with smoke added. No one here has any amount of experience with aspect and making claims before you have is just reactionary.

 

[Nixon]

Only in todays A-stan/Iraq combat can un-obstructed combat be beneficial because of the difference in marksmanship and equipment between coalition and AIF.

But commanders during WW2 would generally not benefit from "marksmanship" matches, stagnant battle is counterproductive and only mounts losses and no gains in situation.

Smoke is one way too break up stagnation and i feel (as a rifleman) that this is not a bad thing, just adds more tactics and makes me displace if they are "screening" in my area.

Give it some time.

 

[Dcode]

Is this a joke? How dare the other team be given means to counter your tactics! Outrage, I say!

Instead of been a smart arse why didnt you think before you posted? Jesus anyone who has played since the patch knows how easy it is to attack and win a map now. [SIZE=-1]This rant is not just intended for you but for others that think like you. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]If you played the game properly then you would think differently.[/SIZE]

As for your comment, the way to counter tactics is in good squad [SIZE=-1]Coordination and discipline. The squad groups up around the objective, sniper shoots out MG hotspots and enemy sniper. SMG provide close range cover to allies doing their job, its about sending the right people in the right area, moving in sync with the reast of the team while keeping comms clear and concise. It works for us and after alot of hard work it pays off. This is what makes RO special, the reward after the hard training we put in and seeing our plan pull off. Same with defence. Now all you have to do is lob 2 smokes in the objective, rush in, lob a few nades and let the SMG's tear the place up. If we wanted this style of arcadeness and im sure this applies to most people playing RO they would just play DoD or CoD2?

Cant you see it turns the game into arcade run and gun. Its not tactical, not on maps with objectives so small. Whats so tactical about throwing 2 smoke nades in a area smaller than your bathroom? RO is supposed to be tactical, its hardcore and its bloody hard work but thats why we play it. Ive been playing most of this evening on our server and the urban maps were just a joke, i took commander and spammed the areas we was attacking with smoke nades, it was ridiculous, it made defence impossible for the allied team.

Please TW sort this out.
[/SIZE]

 

[Lionel-RIchie]

I'm not saying they weren't used at all. BUT they weren't as frequent as they are currently modelled in RO. You are at war and supply is short. You have a game to balance too.

I haven't read anything about German smoke spam on Krasnyi Oktyabr and how easily they battled for it it that way. I haven't read anything about how the German army reached the mount Elbe through Kaukasus with their smoke nade spam. I haven't read anything on Russians spamming smokes to Rambo freely and capture Germans in Stalingrad. I haven't read anything about Russian smoke nade spam in the last decisive battle for the Reichstag.

Did you?

Of course, they abviously used it in those combats, but not as frequently,decisively and with devastating effect as we have it modelled in RO.

If we're going to have realism based on supplies then the Russians should alway have many more reinforcements.