Then I feel that your view of how WWII combat was is terribly skewed. The war was not fought by idiots running senselessly in to enemy fire which clutching or throwing grenades. Furthermore, 50 players depict the rifle as a minority weapon putting greater emphasis on SMGs and Semi-Automatic rifles. Such just simply was not the case in the war.
I did not make one mention of the weapons in the game, nor did I seek to denigrate fellow players.
I am on record as saying that reinforcements should depict realistic weapon mixes in plattoons and battalions. When a certain number of support weapons (read MG, Semis, and SMGs) are depleted, only rifles are left. The argument against was that it would affect gameplay. I didn't see you pitch in on that dialogue.
Again, I cannot make it much more clear. WW2 Comabt, especially the romantic type of Eastern Front combat that appeals to *this* gamer, is division level, not half-squad level.
Melipone brings up an excellent point, if I am reading him right. The irony on online "realism FPS" games is that the fire and hit ratios are FAR higher than real life. The SA is also vastly higher. Coupled with memorized maps, the gameplay relative to realism is certain to take a dive.
Now to disagree with him- the number of players does nothing to help these things, but more players certainly makes the arena much more deadly.
Having played online games for more than 15 years, I can tell you I'm looking for challenge in the most deadly environment possible, while feeling immersed in my romantic notion of WW2 combat. RO with 50 (and hopefully more) players pulls it off quite nicely.
I wonder if the folks who are so vehemently against larger servers have found themselves in a brand new challenge that they can't quite figure out?
Easy to attack "gameplay" when it isn't an environment that lets you succeed.
One day, game developers will find a way to represent real life fire and hit ratios. Until then, most talk of realistic gameplay amongst the players is somewhat of a moot point.