Things RO actually does need to be final

[Sichartshofen]

1. Bayonet for the G41 and fix it so it uses K98 ammo poaches

2. Ability to fold the bayonet for the M44

3. Ability to fire the MG42 from the hip. There's no excuse for not having it.

4. Not losing your ammo when your weapon is shot out of your hand. If this is another "engine limitation" then this feature would be better off removed.

5. PzIII armor increased to it's proper amount. The T60 is coded with more armor then it. The PzIII is a Ausf L not a Ausf F that just came from Poland.

6. PzIV F2, H and StuG cannon shells should not bounce off an angled T34. KwK/StuK40 was capable of penetrating a T34 at all angles out to 1200 meters. The "Mighty T34 Tank" was not so mighty against a 15 pound APCBC projectile.

7. Half track MG shield should actually shield you from bullets.

8. Half track MGer should be able to look around the MG shield.

9. Get the impact effect working when a Panzerfaust explodes on a tank/vehicle.

 

[Oldih]

1. Bayonet for the G41 and fix it so it uses K98 ammo poaches

2. Ability to fold the bayonet for the M44

3. Ability to fire the MG42 from the hip. There's no excuse for not having it.

4. Not losing your ammo when your weapon is shot out of your hand. If this is another "engine limitation" then this feature would be better off removed.

5. PzIII armor increased to it's proper amount. The T60 is coded with more armor then it. The PzIII is a Ausf L not a Ausf F that just came from Poland.

6. PzIV F2, H and StuG cannon shells should not bounce off an angled T34. KwK/StuK40 was capable of penetrating a T34 at all angles out to 1200 meters. The "Mighty T34 Tank" was not so mighty against a 15 pound APCBC projectile.

7. Half track MG shield should actually shield you from bullets.

8. Half track MGer should be able to look around the MG shield.

9. Get the impact effect working when a Panzerfaust explodes on a tank/vehicle.

1. I doubt it could hold bayonet. Not sure though.

2. M44 had fixed bayonet. You could always remove it, but I doubt it; who would remove a bayonet from a rifle in close area? Besides, you can always use good 'ol M91 instead of M44 if you hate the fixed bayonet.

3. Kind of agree, but not that high priority.

4. There's lots of engine limitations. This one is just one small among the others but since the ammo is now very easy to pick up (compared to some ancient versions), there's really nothing wrong with it (with the expection it is annoying).

5. Same **** being talked all over again; sure fixing armour would be great, but since it would reguire major overhau andl your best shot would be to play AB mutator servers.

6. Goes by the thing called balance. And still, fixing armour system would be great, but it WOULD reguire major overhaul and still your best shot would be to play AB mutator servers. Doubled this. Second, AFAIK APCBC was Soviet type of shell, not German. Oh and edit - we still can see IS-2 shells bouncing off from Tiger and vice versa. Goes by the name of balance - fixing it would go by the name of major overhaul. Not just like "fix the damm penetrations"

7. Well at close range considering how 'thick' the armour is it would barely offer any protection. At longer ranges it would.

8. Agreed.

9. You mean tank shouldn't just blow up when it gets hit by Pfaust?

 

[Kaneohe]

Number 2...probably not. I mean, if you can just put away the M44 bayonet, what's the point of the M38?

I would disagree with 3. The MG42 in-game is fired from a belt rather than a drum, making hipshooting difficult and impractical. I would say this is an acceptable excuse for not having MG42 hipshooting. In any event, how often do you hipshoot an MG anyway?

5 and 6 - References?

 

[Nyu]

1. I doubt it could hold bayonet

 

[Roman Elite]

I'd second such additions, perhaps when running with an MG42 one would hear the clanging sounds of the rounds hitting each other in the belt (if that's how it would happen-which seems it would).

 

[Murphy]

Same old same old.

The only new suggestion I see is that the halftrackers should be able to look around the shield (allow leaning?). Sounds good to me, but for me even the loading bar has a higher priority.

 

[I. Kant]

Number 2...probably not. I mean, if you can just put away the M44 bayonet, what's the point of the M38?

A little variety. And I prefer the M38. I always thought that more features is more fun, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Sichartshofen]

5. Same **** being talked all over again; sure fixing armour would be great, but since it would reguire major overhau andl your best shot would be to play AB mutator servers.

To fix the PzIII armor all that is required is to change 3 numbers in the PanzerIIITank class. This would take a total of 5 seconds.

Stock armor
FrontArmorFactor=3
    SideArmorFactor=3
    RearArmorFactor=2

Fixed armor
FrontArmorFactor=7
    SideArmorFactor=3
    RearArmorFactor=5

T60 for comparison
FrontArmorFactor=5
    SideArmorFactor=2
    RearArmorFactor=1

There's a reason why the PzIII in IC was nicknamed Paperkampfwagen Ausf S**t by the Axis team.

6. Goes by the thing called balance. And still, fixing armour system would be great, but it WOULD reguire major overhaul and still your best shot would be to play AB mutator servers. Doubled this. Oh and edit - we still can see IS-2 shells bouncing off from Tiger and vice versa. Goes by the name of balance - fixing it would go by the name of major overhaul. Not just like "fix the damm penetrations"

Stating that RO stock tanks are balanced is ludicrous. Explain how this is balanced. A T34 can deflect a PzIV round when angled, while a PzIV can't deflect a T34's round when angled or penetrate the T34 when it is angled. IS-2 shells bouncing off an angled Tiger is realistic BTW.

Second, AFAIK APCBC was Soviet type of shell, not German.

Russians didn't develop APC/APCBC rounds until after the war.

9. You mean tank shouldn't just blow up when it gets hit by Pfaust?

I mean there should be an explosion when the warhead explodes on the tank.

 

[Heinz]

not fixing the PzIII, by this point in time, has to be intentional and just for the dumb "play balance" issues. look how long it took for us to some level of historical accuracy (and proper historical balancing) with the armor.

 

[[Mad_Murdock]]

Hmmm, as for #6, if that were true, wonder why ive read so much about axis tank crewmen fearing t34s, although i agree the angling is overdone, but still, and a 122mm tank shell bouncing off a tiger, although theoretically possible, i just dont see it happening, not with that armor, if that were to be implemented or "fixed" then you might as well say goodbye to any damage to an IS-2 from anything smaller than a panther, ever.

 

[Sichartshofen]

It was only when the Germans were stuck using the weak 37mm and short 50mm guns did they fear the T34's. Once the KwK/StuK/PaK40 showed up in 1942 the T34's reign of terror was over.

 

[Oldih]

IS-2 shells bouncing off an angled Tiger is realistic BTW.

Depends.

At less than 1000m range in 30 degree angle one IS-2 shell = Very high chances of penetrating. And if it doesn't the crew would be extremely shocked by the hit and for short time they would be unable to do anything 'right'. And plausibly the shell would cause enough damage to give a reason to abandon the tank, considering the fact late war german armours didn't have that great armour quality compared to early war and second, the fact quite a many tanks might have been repaired, reinforced and such from earlier battles and therefore it is weaker than it used to be. And not to forget the fact the tank might have been rushed to the front, so it might have flaws already before it had seen or is going to see any combat.

In 60 degree angle Tiger would be safe. But 30 or less = Klonk. And let's presume the crew is lucky and it doesn't penetrate, either crew is shocked, panicking, tank might have suffred serious damage and their only options are either to shoot back or try to find cover, and the latter one is more realistic idea, since if Tiger is in LoS of some other enemy tank, T-34\85 M44 E.G. it would take only an eyeblink that you are under fire again. And this time it might be for good.

To fix the PzIII armor all that is required is to change 3 numbers in the PanzerIIITank class. This would take a total of 5 seconds.

Might be, but tell that to devs. I can't help the fact if they are just lazy. But then, it is very hard work to change some numbers, and therefore not recommended to do. I find it already hard and weary to write a post again.

Stating that RO stock tanks are balanced is ludicrous. Explain how this is balanced. A T34 can deflect a PzIV round when angled, while a PzIV can't deflect a T34's round when angled or penetrate the T34 when it is angled.

I cannot explain properly, but considering that RO is already balanced E.G. by infantry weapons (rifles = ultimate weapons, SMGs = inaccurate close combat weapons and so on and so on), I presume the tank system is similiar.

Sure it is ridiculous, but I beleive this has been argued from point to the another and we are still grinding the same thing. Nitpicking more than necessary and such. It is not that simple as just "just fix the damm penetration values." as pointed millions of times before.

 

[Rak]

2. M44 had fixed bayonet. You could always remove it, but I doubt it; who would remove a bayonet from a rifle in close area? Besides, you can always use good 'ol M91 instead of M44 if you hate the fixed bayonet.

Even devs said when they introduced it; "We will add bayonet attach/detach animations in a later patch.". 3 Patches and still no good.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

I mean there should be an explosion when the warhead explodes on the tank.

I thought panzerfausts were made to penetrate, not blow up on the outside? Correct me if i'm wrong though.

 

[Rak]

It penetrates by blowing up on the armor plate outside? That's how shaped charges work.

 

[Solo4114]

They were, yes.

The M44 had a permanently ATTACHED bayonet, but you can fold it back. I hear it screws up the aim point of the rifle, though, which is why the folding animation has probably never been dealt with. Historically, anyone using one would've had the bayonet out anyway.


As for the tank issues, there's so many problems with the tank system that even changing one thing to actually make it realistic might create a butterfly effect that screws up the overall balance of the game.

And right now, I do think it's balanced overall. The problem, as I see it, is that most people are crappy tankers, and/or they're playing on crappy tanking maps. Which would be most of the maps out there, actually. As I've said over and over, most of the tank maps we have are close range maps. Orel's scale is probably closest to a real tank engagement, and yet everyone HATES driving all that distance. Never mind the fact that driving, maneuver, and positioning are a MAJOR element of armored warfare.

Granted, the balance we have isn't REALISTIC balance (IE: T-34s shrugging of otherwise penetrating shots, IS-2s not penetrating tigers at realistic ranges, etc.), but it does balance out most of the stock maps at least. But, as stated, most of the stock maps are just close combat for tanks. Most of the time you get hit twice and die and that's that. The odd "WTF??" moment happens, but in my experience, most of the time I can kill what I'm aiming for, assuming I actually spot it and hit it first and he doesn't get a lucky one-shot on me. And that goes for both sides of the game.


There are some real glaring problems with the armor system. Unfortunately, fixing one won't fix the system as a whole. Instead, you're going to end up drawing more attention to whatever remaining problems there are. And there'd be plenty.


Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to see a fully-realized realistic armored combat system integrated into an FPS game. I just don't think that's really possible for THIS game.


On the rest of the points, mostly I agree, although the various changes (IE: MG42 from hip, looking over/around the MG shield on the halftrak) would need to be done properly (IE: MG42 from hip is WILDLY inaccurate and a ***** to control).

 

[Plaid13]

ppsh41 selective fire

Mg system needs to be totaly reworked. Mgs didnt always use a bipod. they would rest the gun on window sills or sandbags or tables or whatever was handy.just so they could keep there head down as low as they could behind cover. It shouldnt take a few seconds to set up a mg should be just as fast as any other gun to rest it on something and fire it. This would make the MGs the true terror weapons that they were. They shouldnt be locked to the ground by the bipod. Thats just dumb.

Tanks that can drive up and over objects such as rocks rail road ties and 2-3 foot stone walls. All the stuff a tank could normaly drive over. hitting a one foot bump in the road should never be a tank stopper. i dont care how crappy of a tank it is. Thats one of the huge benifits of having tracks on a tank.

Seperate knives for players that dont have a bayonette.

Replace the magic landmines that only blow up the bad guys with something more realistic. Maybe npc machine gunners or snipers or something. With the sniper they wouldnt even need to be modeled in just have a random shot from the distance kill them as they walked to close to spawn.

ppsh with selective fire.

Realistic weapon recoil for the smgs not the out of control stuff they have now. These are small caliber weapons that didnt have much of any recoil.

ppsh with selective fire.

 

[EvilHobo]

Replace the magic landmines that only blow up the bad guys with something more realistic. Maybe npc machine gunners or snipers or something. With the sniper they wouldnt even need to be modeled in just have a random shot from the distance kill them as they walked to close to spawn.

Certainly would make more sense than a guy in front of me going up in smoke and then just a torso remaining.

 

[Kipper]

Don't nitpick at spawn protection. That's just stupid. In this case, it doesn't matter how it happens just that it actually does.

RO isn't a damned tank sim. It's about infantry. Tanks take a backseat to us ground pounders. There are plenty of things that we can do with infantry that would make the game beyond polished.

-Elimination of "pop-up" riflemen, i.e. we make movement slower so you can't just pop up, fire and disappear at random.
-Leaning made less advantageous, especially when leaning to the oppossite of your normal weapon stance and fix the clipping issues
-Ability to to pivot around a bipod deployed weapons bipod.
-Ability to look over the sights on MGs.
-Mantling
-Variable crouch height -- especially helpful for deploying MGs on window sills.
-SMGs given realistic recoil and accuracy.
-German grenade fuse returned to mod standard
-Disorientation when stabbed or hit by a weapon's butt
-Dropped items may no longer be piled on top of eachother. This will make it easy to pick up any item.
-Add PTRS.
-PTRD brought back to realistic penetration.
-Add AT mines and grenades to replace satchels as AT weapon of choice.
-Impair ability to fire back when being shot ala America's Army. It is not realistic to be shot and not even flinch.
-Add "request class" feature ala America's Army.

 

[Solo4114]

No, it's not a tank sim, but it's not an infantry sim either. Regardless, modelling realistic infantry combat is a lot easier than modeling realistic tank combat. But I dont' think that means RO is "only for the ground pounders." It's for everyone who wants to play.