• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Citadell's suggestions! Really good according to Citadell.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
C

Citadell

Member
Feb 6, 2010
24
12
#1
Hi guys! Citadell here, and I have some suggestions.

1. Aircrafts. The German Junkers Ju 87, also known as Stuka & the Soviet Russian Lavochkin La-5. Both equipped with automatic cannons/machine guns and bombs. They should have the "health" of a Halftrack and should be able to be shot down by small arms fire. It will take its time but eventually it will collapse, just like the Haltrack does in RO:OST.

I was thinking of like, 2-3 planes on each side. Not to many, not to few.
Crewable only by Tankers, or if there is another class, Pilots.

2. AT-guns. Like in RO:OST, but moveble, if there were 2 positions, one gunner and one "driver". Crewable by any.

3. AA-guns, such as the Flakerwing. Imobile. Crew of one? The automatic cannon can be found in a Soviet light tank in RO:OST, the map Hedgehog. Not only for shooting down Aircraft but also against Infantry and Light vehicles. Crewable by any.

4. Ableing the MG42 to be fired in "Rambo-mode", meaning that you can fire it without deploying the bipods, and yes, this might not be very realistic but I have seen, both old and modern footage that prooves it.
I just hate the feeling of beeing an MG-gunner in RO:OST and meeting an enemy and not beeing able to defend yourself. I think it will enhance the gameplay, but thats my oppinion.

Thanks for me! And I apologuise if these suggestions already have been posted!

 
#2
Player controlled aircrafts are totally out of the question (I think). This is NOT Battlefield: Stalindgrad, this is RedOrchestra.

BUT AI controlled aircrafts who bomb targets the commander selects (like the arty) would be a great addition.

moveable AT guns could be interesting, but what its good for? If you wanna move a gun take a tank! :D
(Alternative idea: the commander can select different spawn locations of the AT gun at the start of the round!)

If you move as a machinegunner, select the pistol for defense.
BTW, the MG34 can already hipshot.
 
Upvote 0
#4
Player controllable planes would be near impossible to implement realistically in Heroes of Stalingrad. The maps would have huge to allow for them to take off and land, as well as allowing space to gain/lose altitude. AFAIK there weren't "on demand" strafing runs available to squad leaders either.

AT guns are cool, but were they regularly transported by hand?

The MG-42 should be fireable from the hip like the 34 is. And the MGer in Ostront can defend himself; he has a pistol.
 
Upvote 0
#5
.:CM'].[Diablo said:
out limits -> mines (similar others infantery/vehicles when left the battle...)

for control it's the real challenge!
"SPACE" to gain or lose altittude it's not the solution I think... (ideal for helicopters, but not for planes)

Just an exemple :
(for AZERTY keyboard)
"Z" to gain altitude but need acceleration or a good speed (why not with "SPACE")
"S" to lose altitude or no the good speed

Planes no need to speed at 200Km/h for sure...
It's fast and will be unplayable same on huges maps... must 90Km/h can be OK for exemple

I know It's easy say... this is a real code problem and a real challenge!
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#7
1.) As others have said, controllable aircraft, or even called-in close air support, doesn't fit with the RO model. The only way they'd fit would be to have them as random, or timed events, and not player-controlled.

2. I like the idea of moveable AT guns. However, I think only the German PaK 35/36 could really be moved by manpower. What I would like to see is potentially this: Using a teammate to help, an AT gun could be turned. During this time, the gun can't be fired untill it's re-set up. The ability for jeeps/trucks/halftracks to transport them would be interesting on larger-scale maps. Failing that, the commander, or even randomly placed guns as they exist in RO now, might suffice.

3. Since we're not dealing with aicraft, AA guns wouldn't have a huge place in the game. However, if you implement them into the light anti-vehicle roll, or even anti-infantry (with HE/flak rounds) that would be interesting.

4. Hip-firing the MG-42 is an old request, and one I'd like to see implemented.
 
Upvote 0
#10
I like Capt. Cool's idea. IF we had aircraft I think it should be a random instance "controlled" by an AI - similar to the random instances of artillery that hits the map in baksanvalley. It would be great to hear the roar of the Stuka or whatever plane (preferably dive bomber) come down and drop a small load. It would be also good to actually see the plane overhead - a good aesthetic addition (similar to the plane flying over in Day of Defeat Source, Argentan)
 
Upvote 0
#11
.:CM'].[Diablo said:
out limits -> mines (similar others infantery/vehicles when left the battle...)

for control it's the real challenge!
"SPACE" to gain or lose altittude it's not the solution I think... (ideal for helicopters, but not for planes)

Just an exemple :
(for AZERTY keyboard)
"Z" to gain altitude but need acceleration or a good speed (why not with "SPACE")
"S" to lose altitude or no the good speed

Planes no need to speed at 200Km/h for sure...
It's fast and will be unplayable same on huges maps... must 90Km/h can be OK for exemple

I know It's easy say... this is a real code problem and a real challenge!
Click to expand...


1) RO is RO, not BF:CoD.

2) Can we have playable battleships and submarines?

It would be totally cool.
 
Upvote 0
#12
ba-baracus-originale-a-team.jpg


i ain't getting on no plane.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Stukas were used quite close to friendlies... that was kinda of their point... flying arty... one 250kg and 4 90kg bombs... i am not saying you should be able to call them in... but i think you should be able to mark targets with smoke or something... anything near that would get blown up or almost blown up... stukas would be sent in to soften up a target or attack an assault... the way i can see them work the best... lets say... on a map... u have 15 before stukas arrive... then... only a few minutes to mark the target...

example:

Smolensk Stalemate:

beginning of map: no Stukas b/c it take or 10-15 for the stukas to get on the scene... then they must be called in on whatever the SL wishes during that allot time the Stukas are on the scene lets say the German are doing well and have almost one the map... the he can call it on the destroyed village... or on the other hand... if the Germans are failing... then he can call it no the ridge or the town in front of the ridge.. it must in the time limit though... if he doesn't then they drop there bombs randomly

... simply put... in a grander scale than RO... (u don't see or play or hear this part)
-Stukas get mission attack marked target at BLAH BLAH...
-Stukas arrive on scene
- (ingame) SL marks target
-(ingame) target gets bomber
-Stukas go home after mission


... it is late and i am tired... if that didn't make sense... say so and i will try to say it again more clearly
 
Upvote 0
#14
Napoleon is completly right about the Stuka. Stukas were the kind of "airborne arty".

"It was heavily used as a ground-attack and CLOSE SUPPORT aircraft, and the well trained crews knew how to hit their target."
quoted from here.

So if arty is in the game, also Stuka air support as arty-equivalent should be in it, too. (just my 2cents)
But not as player controlled planes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#15
Capt.Cool said:
Napoleon is completly right about the Stuka. Stukas were the kind of "airborne arty".

"It was heavily used as a ground-attack and CLOSE SUPPORT aircraft, and the well trained crews knew how to hit their target."
quoted from here.

So if arty is in the game, also Stuka air support as arty-equivalent should be in it, too. (just my 2cents)
But not as player controlled planes.
Click to expand...

Close air support in WWII was not the same thing as close air support today. The aircraft typically took off with a predetermined target in mind (ie. a tank column or point of stiff resistance), performed one bombing run, and then flew back home. The target didn't change halfway and the planes had little to no contact with ground forces. Later in the war the Americans had some kind of air cover flying over battlefields that could be called in, but to my knowledge the Germans or Russians never developed it that way. Since this game is focusing on early-mid war and on the Eastern Front, there no real room for close-air-support serving as a substitute for arty.
 
Upvote 0
#16
And why would there be dive bombers attacking anything but armor?

Unless we're talking about adding these planes to tank maps. Can't say I agree there, either. You wouldn't be able to call targets in, because they would be on their way anyway. So basically you would have a tank map where a squadron of dive bombers randomly kills one side's tanks for a few minutes, and then leaves and never comes back for the remainder of the battle.
 
Upvote 0
#18
I think planes could work in some maps. I honestly don't see the big deal, and the idea that planes "just aren't RO" or somehow can only be implemented in a silly or COD kind of way, I think, is a bit short sighted. Most of the arguments here could probably be applied to tanks if they hadn't put them in RO:OST.

First of all, I don't think that under any circumstances planes should be put into maps where they weren't actually implemented in the respective battles. That being said, the absence of planes from battles where they were present in real life is just as unrealistic.

So if a plane was used to attack troops during battle X, then put one in there. I also don't see any major problems with making such a plane piloted by a player. Like with tanks on some maps I would limit the number of respawned aircraft severely, say 3 respawns for one plane, that wouldn't be so bad.

And people, don't be silly. You don't have to have an airbase in the map just because you have an airplane. The plane doesn't have to take off or land; it's just there for the fight. Just like infantry doesn't spawn in their respective barracks' 10 miles away and ride or march to the battle. The planes can start out in the air with the pilots already inside. If there are different planes to choose from or more than one position to fill they can be selected like a weapon from the same menu.

With respect to space in maps, gosh, some RO maps are collosol! Maps could certainly be made large enough to support the area a plane would need to dive and turn. If really necessary they could make the 'sky' area of a map much larger than the rest of the map area to give the plane more room to maneuver in the air.

Now I'm not going to cry and scream into my pillow if TWI doesn't put planes in. But it's almost offensive that people act like it's such an insane idea to consider. These aren't bombers we're talking about. I don't think anyone suggested having a Heinkel He 177 as a playable aircraft. We're talking about Junkers or Focke-Wulfs here, whose entire purpose was to be close air support for armor and infantry.

Having airplanes in the game isn't going to make RO suddenly silly and broken. If TWI put them in, I'm sure they'd do a good job at making them feel real to the pilot and to the ground troops it would be interacting with.
 
Upvote 0
#19
It is silly for the following reasons:

1) Map size. You will fly across the biggest maps in a few seconds. Dogfights will often span distances bigger than any map in RO OST. And I doubt HoS will have maps much bigger.

And that is for dog fights.

Strafing or bomb runs will take up the entire space of some of the smaller maps.

Constantly turning around in a tiny box of a map will not be fun.

2) Will be hard to add in. To date, no game has ever added both ground vehicles and somewhat realistic flying. The amount of work it takes to add in an aircraft is far more than it is to make a soldier and infantry weapons.

3) It does not make sense for them to spawn so close to the battle. With infantry and tanks, it is different. For one, they can park or sit. Planes don't just land in the middle of nowhere. They will generally be much further from the front lines... so they won't readily be there.

This is the opposite of infantry and tanks, which generally held the front lines.

4) Complexity. Flying planes just might be too complex for your average RO player.

5) Just does not go well with infantry, gameplay wise. Even in arcadey games like BF2, the aircraft generally do not fit into the game.

6) Lack of realism. Due to the limited map sizes and infantry priorities, I doubt they will have the resources and time to properly add them in.

I'd rather have the game be consistent: realistic infantry with somewhat realistic tank combat, and not throw in arcadey flying.

7) You would have to add in realistic AAA/flak, as well as other units.

8) It is probably too much for TWI to make all at once.

And many more reasons.


There is a reason why there are not many realistic flying games. Because they are damn hard to make.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#20
real quick about planes... i know it might sounds kinda dumb... but what about a Storch? its slow... and used for recon... it would be amazing if you could updates about enemy tanks/arty/trucks (i don't mean real time but like the SL/tank commander would get the info as the pilot reports it and then have to deal with it... not every player can get it) ... i think it would add realism and you only get one... so if it gets shot down... well... u lose ur eyes.. just an idea i had...

check out 41sec on this video:
YouTube - June 1941 Operation Barbarossa

here is a little blurb off wiki... i need to double check the numbers outta my books but this is good enough for now:


  • Fi 156 - prototypes with Versuchs numbers. The V1 first prototype flew in the spring of 1936. It was powered by an air-cooled 180 kW (240 hp) inverted-vee Argus As 10C V8 engine, which gave the plane a top speed of only 175 km/h (109 mph), enabling the Storch to fly as slow as 50 km/h (32 mph), take off into a light wind in less than 45 m (150 ft), and land in 18 m (60 ft). It was followed up by the second V2 prototype and third V3 prototypes, the ski-equipped V4, plus one V5
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu