Tiger Tank VS. T-34
- Thread starter ROFancyPants
- Start date
I shall try to explain a difference between a http://www.tarrif.net/ and a http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php...=category§ionid=6&id=33&Itemid=49&lang=en.
Data on a http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php...=category§ionid=6&id=33&Itemid=49&lang=en , are received to shooting on standard distance of 100 m. But shells have different speed. Loading of gunpowder varies. The angle of penetration does not vary!!. Always precisely 90 or 60 degrees .
Data on a http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=168 are received at shooting on a changing distance, a charge of gunpowder constant. Initial speed of a shell is constant. The angle varies, it depends on a distance.
Different technique .
Upvote
0
If you are talking about retail WW2 games this might be true but other than that it definitively is not.
Upvote
0
I guess he thinks RO is not a retail game, it's a God that creates rules for any other upcoming game no matter what genre.
As Solo said, what else would WE be talking about? This post of yours just does not compute (with all the respect)
Upvote
0
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. If you mean "There are other games out there that compute ballistics" or "that compute armor penetration better", I'd love to hear about them. Most of the games I know that do this are either flight sims like IL-2 or turn-based strategy games like Steel Panthers and such.
I don't know how, for example, ArmA or OFP handles ballistics and armor. My hunch is bullet ballistics are tracked, but I've yet to see any FPS game out there that doesn't just use a standard hitpoint model for armored combat.
Now, if you're referring to the Armored Beasts mutator, I'll refer you to my posts in the recent thread in this forum on making AB standard. Short version: bad idea, better as a mutator, not yet ready for prime time, and still much more to do than simply alter the penetration model.
I don't know how, for example, ArmA or OFP handles ballistics and armor. My hunch is bullet ballistics are tracked, but I've yet to see any FPS game out there that doesn't just use a standard hitpoint model for armored combat.
Now, if you're referring to the Armored Beasts mutator, I'll refer you to my posts in the recent thread in this forum on making AB standard. Short version: bad idea, better as a mutator, not yet ready for prime time, and still much more to do than simply alter the penetration model.
Upvote
0
Thanks for guessing what I think Oldih ...
You're my new favourite troll.
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Plato (428 BC-348 BC)
Edit: Not worth the hassle - too OT anyway - but try to look over the edge of a plate, there is more than some seem to see.
You're my new favourite troll.
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Plato (428 BC-348 BC)
Edit: Not worth the hassle - too OT anyway - but try to look over the edge of a plate, there is more than some seem to see.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well, personally, I'm not trying to troll here. I'm actually trying to understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that there's other FPS games out there that have a better penetration model (or one at all, for that matter)? If so, I'd honestly love to hear about them and give them a try.
Or are you just referring to the AB mutator? I'd like to understand what you're suggesting here.
Or are you just referring to the AB mutator? I'd like to understand what you're suggesting here.
Upvote
0
Theater of War (see thread in gaming section). Real time game, awesome tank action. it's a man's game.
Upvote
0
I just read a review of Theater of War and am seriously considering picking it up. Heinz please PM me about it. I'm curious as to what theaters and timeframes it actually lets you play (IE: North Africa? Poland 1939? France 1940?). I play Steel Panthers: World at War off and on, and love the "full war campaign" mode that you can play (where you take your troops from whenever your country starts the war all the way through).
And yes, TBS and RTS games played at the tactical level often include penetration models. SPWAW has one, and that game is (in its original form) from something like 1992. But, the game is also a turn-based strategy game modeled off of old table-top gaming.
But as stated, I'm more curious about FPS games out there. If there ARE FPS games that model more realistic tank combat, I'd love to get my hands on 'em. There actually seems to be a real lack of tank sims, too, sadly.
And yes, TBS and RTS games played at the tactical level often include penetration models. SPWAW has one, and that game is (in its original form) from something like 1992. But, the game is also a turn-based strategy game modeled off of old table-top gaming.
But as stated, I'm more curious about FPS games out there. If there ARE FPS games that model more realistic tank combat, I'd love to get my hands on 'em. There actually seems to be a real lack of tank sims, too, sadly.
Upvote
0
I never thought that you were trolling. I just wanted to be (definitely) sure if you exclude mods in your equation.
Psychmorph of the BU-Forum made a distinction between "individual realism" and "squad realism" I'll use here. The first means the weapons, movement ... everything individual based, the second means if realistic tactics are rewarded etc.
I think on the "individual realism" part RO is one of the most realistic retail games, it still has its flaws like the over exagerated bullet drop (Amizaur pointed out in one of his posts that it is twice as much as in reality), "interesting" tracer rounds ... - OFP makes something better here and something worse imo, at least I actually used the sights the way they are supposed to be used, and the tracers are not so visible ...
Comparing RO with mods one can see that it is still one of the most realistic "mods", yet there is at least one mod with bullet penetration.
The main problem I have in RO is the "squad realism". Unrealistic tactics are often better than their real counterparts. RO also makes it hard for the commander to "manage" his team as often it is very hard to locate your team members and to locate the one that is talking atm. Some other games offer way more means of communication - be it icons over the heads etc - yet often their complete lack of "individual realism" spoils then the "squad realism" --> if you can't use weapons (supressing of the MG eg.) the way they are supposed to be used than the overall outcome hardly will be realistic.
I think games that have a coop mode shine in the "squad realism" part. Raven Shield (or watch that ARMA video) for example is not very realistic if you play TDM, but if you play coop you can have some pretty realistic - at least what I define as realistic - matches. If you look at RO or any other "TDM" game you'll see that the action is not very realistic.
You know that if you sprint like a maniac the enemy can't be there before you.
Edit: A thing RO does not shine is the sound area there games like Arma are way better, but I guess that has a lot to do with the UT2K4 engine.
And the enemy is allways prepared, contrary to Coop games where you actually have to be carefull - as the enemy could be anywhere - and often are rewared if you are silent.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
if that is really true, then its over for me, and ROO has nothing to do with realism anymore.
But thats my point o view.
But thats my point o view.
Upvote
0
Amizaur thinks that it could be changed easily and I'm sure it can, looking at INFPenetration and other mutators:
Upvote
0
yes, but a mutator would "again" mean, that the game gets split in 2 ways ... and while I like Armoured Beast (even when its not perfect), it would be the same problem. Some servers (Probably the most of them) would have a usual RO runing and others some mutator, that changes the weapons.
As much as I want this game realistic, I also prever a somewhat "standaridzed" gamefeeling, as said, I like Armored Beast ... but its not like you always find a server, and compared to other games, like DoD or CS, the Playerbase is not that big that you can have there 2 seperate "main games" runing, which would be anyway a bit strange. I think a reason many dont play it that often, is cause as soon you get in a server without it, you have to "change" again your style of playing and get used with another system. Its like a map change from Arad or Ogledow to Orel, where you can not just drive straight to the enemy and have after 10 sec. something inyour sight, and no need with the IS2 or Panther to even care about something like a "angle" when you shoot, as Orel demands a bit "more" if you want to get more then 1 or 2 kills.
Anyway ... also if things could be changed so easily, then you have to wonder why it isnt in the game already ... but now, I think its a bit to much to expect any major changes in either tank or infantry combat, at least not with, like you said a different balistic or penetration for tanks. Maybe the tracks will get changed in future, that they are much more vulnerable, which would be already a large help, as exactly that would give a real disadvantage to angling and you would always have to try to "hide" your tracks some way, which you would do in real live anyway! The intelligent tanker, try to be a as small as possible shape for the enemy.
As much as I want this game realistic, I also prever a somewhat "standaridzed" gamefeeling, as said, I like Armored Beast ... but its not like you always find a server, and compared to other games, like DoD or CS, the Playerbase is not that big that you can have there 2 seperate "main games" runing, which would be anyway a bit strange. I think a reason many dont play it that often, is cause as soon you get in a server without it, you have to "change" again your style of playing and get used with another system. Its like a map change from Arad or Ogledow to Orel, where you can not just drive straight to the enemy and have after 10 sec. something inyour sight, and no need with the IS2 or Panther to even care about something like a "angle" when you shoot, as Orel demands a bit "more" if you want to get more then 1 or 2 kills.
Anyway ... also if things could be changed so easily, then you have to wonder why it isnt in the game already ... but now, I think its a bit to much to expect any major changes in either tank or infantry combat, at least not with, like you said a different balistic or penetration for tanks. Maybe the tracks will get changed in future, that they are much more vulnerable, which would be already a large help, as exactly that would give a real disadvantage to angling and you would always have to try to "hide" your tracks some way, which you would do in real live anyway! The intelligent tanker, try to be a as small as possible shape for the enemy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Again, though, you have to take into account considerations of scale. I'm not saying it's necessarily the best approach, but my hunch is that either (a) Tripwire disagrees with Amizaur's assessment of things like bullet drop and MOA measurements, and think their results are more realistic, or (b) they made these changes knowingly because of the scale of the maps and people's perceptions.
I don't know if you played the original RO mutator, but I remember people complaining A LOT about the incredible accuracy of the PPSh, for example. The thing was described as a "sniper SMG", and indeed it was pretty accurate out to a fairly long distance (something like 150-200m). Most of our urban engagements are at this range, so the PPSh could dominate on pretty much any map.
In order to maintain the balance between rifles and SMGs, maps would have to be made considerably larger, which would, I suspect, piss a lot of people off because they'd have to run a lot further and it seems no one likes the art of maneuver. You'd also need increased view distances, better resolution, etc.
So, maybe RO's infantry approach IS accurate, albeit not on a 1:1 scale. I don't know. All I'm saying is that (1) Amizaur's word is not the be-all/end-all of the discussion, and (2) there's a lot of different considerations that go into making a game. I think RO does a great job at creating verisimilitude, if not necessarily 100% accurate realism. The thing is, I think a lot of gamers don't know what "verisimilitude" means, so it'd be tough to market that to them.
I don't know if you played the original RO mutator, but I remember people complaining A LOT about the incredible accuracy of the PPSh, for example. The thing was described as a "sniper SMG", and indeed it was pretty accurate out to a fairly long distance (something like 150-200m). Most of our urban engagements are at this range, so the PPSh could dominate on pretty much any map.
In order to maintain the balance between rifles and SMGs, maps would have to be made considerably larger, which would, I suspect, piss a lot of people off because they'd have to run a lot further and it seems no one likes the art of maneuver. You'd also need increased view distances, better resolution, etc.
So, maybe RO's infantry approach IS accurate, albeit not on a 1:1 scale. I don't know. All I'm saying is that (1) Amizaur's word is not the be-all/end-all of the discussion, and (2) there's a lot of different considerations that go into making a game. I think RO does a great job at creating verisimilitude, if not necessarily 100% accurate realism. The thing is, I think a lot of gamers don't know what "verisimilitude" means, so it'd be tough to market that to them.
Upvote
0
In fact "Amizaur's word is not the be-all/end-all" of a discussion, yet he has a point. It is the RO Tactical guide that mentions half the bullet drop that actually (according to Amizaur) is there.
Maybe if I've some spare time - not any time soon - I'll contact Amizaur if he can send me the test mutators he made, so that I could work on the "weapon realism mod" he mentions.
Still Amizaur offered everybody to send them these test muts, to see it themselves.
What I'm talking about is that RO is not so "realistic" as many believe it is, like the unbelievable recoil of the PPSH - according to a forum poster whose name I forgot.
Edit: Realistic bullet and projectile ballistics will make you duck for cover
Maybe if I've some spare time - not any time soon - I'll contact Amizaur if he can send me the test mutators he made, so that I could work on the "weapon realism mod" he mentions.
Still Amizaur offered everybody to send them these test muts, to see it themselves.
What I'm talking about is that RO is not so "realistic" as many believe it is, like the unbelievable recoil of the PPSH - according to a forum poster whose name I forgot.
Edit: Realistic bullet and projectile ballistics will make you duck for cover
Upvote
0