A case for vehicles.

  • 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

bobychan

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 21, 2016
2
0
0
24
I don't really keep up with these threads so I'm not aware of how deeply discussed ground vehicle implementation is, but I was recently listening to some q and a segment from tripwire about how ground vehicles would make the game feel more like Battlefield than Red Orchestra. While I think that's perfectly valid, I do want to suggest some ways in which ground vehicle implementation can work and be fun.

Remembering ground vehicle combat from Red Orchestra 2 (the only RO game I've played), I found that the vehicles worked well, operating mostly in urban environments, and as a historical design choice it made sense. While I don't think the hyper-detailed interiors were necessary, I liked the realistic multi-crew approach and the unique combat situation they created. They also expanded gameplay options for infantry by creating the need for an anti-tank class. This diversified gameplay and made the game feel more authentic and fun as a result (at least for me). The vehicles were balanced, so that they could mimic a realistic engagement while still allowing for a competitive-oriented shooter experience. Additionally, the historical prevalence of ground vehicles on the eastern front of WWII made vehicle respawns make sense. I'm proposing a completely unique system for RS2, which I'll get to.

There were only two issues they addressed when answering the question about ground vehicles. One was the lack of historical evidence for vehicle on vehicle combat. The other was the tentative Battlefield comparison. To start with, the understatement of ground vehicle prevalence (especially in urban engagements) is worrying because it seems to indicate that the developers might not be willing to really put the time and effort into a truly authentic experience. While you might say "that's a bit of an over-exaggeration", don't be so hasty to forget Rising Storm, which seemed to sacrifice authenticity for competitive shooter elements too often. To set up another straw man (sorry), you might say "but these guys aren't the same ones who did that, give them the benefit of the doubt". I do not intend to trust these people to deliver the experience I'm dreaming of because that's selfish, childish, and unrealistic, but keep in mind that these guys are people, and people seem to have a tendency to repeat the mistakes of the past. Now while it's true that vehicle on vehicle engagement was very rare, American forces did not shy away from using tanks, APCs, and other ground vehicles to combat the mostly infantry-based Vietnamese. The M60 Patton and the M113 APC are a couple of iconic ones that come to mind, but I'm not a degree-holding historian so I don't know the prevalence of those specifically. What I do know is that the unique combat situations and gameplay diversification that RO2 had based on its ground vehicles can only be amplified and in fact truly realized by the asymmetrical nature (the very nature of the war that the developers are eager to boast about) and purported authenticity of RS2. Vehicle inclusion could force the Vietnamese forces to use more guerrilla like tactics, hit and run attacks, and ambush attacks, much like they did in reality. With the current build, I have seen nothing but long, drawn out firefight-type head-on engagements in Vietnam-themed maps. I haven't played the game my self so I cannot attest to the accuracy of these claims, but think about this. If the update squad command system is as revolutionary to the series as they say, the added ability to organize properly and carry out realistic tactics could create an interesting meta game revolving around chess-like strategic gameplay between the Vietnamese and American commanders, much like in Squad (I'm sure you're sick of that comparison). However, the system that governed the deployment, usage, and damage models of the ground vehicles from RO2 would not work in RS2, largely because of its asymmetry. This means that the gameplay between the Vietnamese forces and the American forces would be almost completely different, and that the game would award players for becoming skilled as their faction, instead of simply arbitrarily change factions and be awarded for using the same play style, like most modern shooters.

The Battlefield comparison made against ground vehicle inclusion is a strong argument. Vehicles with big health bars, shoddy damage models, and poor driving mechanics would quickly devolve vehicular gameplay and destroy the case for vehicle inclusion. A big crux in this issue is that, even properly modeled and balanced to create authentic gameplay, without any weight to the vehicle crew roll the gameplay would devolve anyway. What I propose is that vehicles require at least some skill to operate as well as some serious vulnerability if left without support, that they are only allowed a certain number of spawns (with substantially less for heavier vehicle classes), that they leave immobile carcasses, and that they require a team leader call in to even spawn at all. Vehicles like jeeps would require comparatively little skill to operate and have a decent pool for responds, while an APC would be slow and vulnerable, have much fewer response, and require some skill to operate effectively, and something like a tank would be similarly slow, be vulnerable without proper infantry support, be comparatively difficult to operate effectively (in addition to requiring a dedicated crew to function at all), and only potential have a single call in. This system would place enormous weight on players to become serious about their roles as vehicle crewmen, and make vehicles both a supremely useful tool and a prime target. On the vietnamese side, the only vehicular equivalent might be a truck or small car of some sort. The Vietnamese would have a better anti-vehicle proficiency, and as I saw in another thread that I didn't really read, have access to recoilless rifles or something similarly heavy and anti-vehicle oriented. A properly crewed and supported vehicle could break up boring head-on firefights, keeping the Vietnamese on their toes and forcing them to use more historically accurate tactics, while the American forces are both blessed with vehicular support and cursed with having to protect the vulnerable and slow larger vehicles.

If anything in this thread is in other threads, or if I did;t make anything clear, please tell me. I really want to see authentic Vietnam War gameplay, and I personally feel that ground vehicles play a big role in that.
 

bobychan

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 21, 2016
2
0
0
24
To be clear, I don't expect ground vehicles to make it in to the game at this stage, but in later version and possible dlc (maybe even mods) I think it could be possible.
 

Lemonater47

Grizzled Veteran
Sep 25, 2014
2,370
144
63
25
American tactics meant the only vehicles they needed were helicopters. Search and destroy. Move in quickly, eliminate all threats and GTFO.

Armoured vehicles were used in a defensive role on the border with Laos. Usually quite far south. M113s were also not combat vehicles. Troop transport with a means to defend themselves while they do GFTO if they run into contact.
 

Thom430

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 18, 2014
64
0
0
Would it be nice to see ground vehicles? Sure, they were used.
Were they used anywhere near the extent of helicopters? Not that impression I have, so TWI has it pretty well covered with just helicopters.
 

Flashburn

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 13, 2013
723
9
0
Washington STATE
Late to the party.... again. But ground vehicles like M113 ACAV where standard in areas where it made sense. Not all of the country is one big jungle. Plus areas that got logged, along road routes, in cities, open areas that got there one way or another. Its far from ideal tank country. But the M113 was everywhere it could operate. Cav units used theirs vary aggressively armed usually with 2 M60's, 1 M2hb (all with gun shields), and usually a grenadier somewhere with an m79 grenade launcher. Some even traded one M60 for a 106mm recoiless M40. That made BIG booms. But tanks themselves where vary rare when the US was involved. The NVA had them, actually quite a lot of them. But waited till the US was out to unleash them. Which they totally used to good effect against the ARVN. Their light M41 tanks where not really up to fighting t54's and t55's.

And of course military convoys everywhere bringing beans and bullets.
 

Dziga Vertov

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 22, 2013
165
1
0
Flashburn;n2274560 said:
And of course military convoys everywhere bringing beans and bullets.

My dream would be to make a map/gamemode in which the Americans basically start at one end of a map and have to both protect a truck convoy, and also defend the base which they are driving towards. There would be a constant tension for helicopter pilots whether to go support the isolated firebase under attack, or guard the convoy as it approaches, and this would give the vietcong the ability to create complex diversions, feints, and counterstrokes. The Americans could be given overwhelming firepower, but the vietcong have the ability to define where the action will go down, like historically occured.

I think the good news is that if someone codes a normal wheeled vehicle for RO2 ever, the engine is the same so it would probably be relatively easy even for me to port over. But it remains to be seen whether this will ever occcur.
 

Flashburn

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 13, 2013
723
9
0
Washington STATE
Beskar Mando;n2274681 said:
In come the modders! I can say that myself or someone else will make the M113 APC, go Vrrrrrooooooom! ;)

I have an old mesh that could be undated and used for this. But like psycho-chicken said, sounds like later on. As to what? Who knows.
 

Bane5

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 27, 2012
278
5
0
PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN;n2274638 said:
Never say never for ground vehicles in the future, but there won't be any for release (and it's unlikely that there will be tanks ever).

If/when the ARVN are added, that would actually be a good time to introduce tanks on BOTH sides. That is assuming such an expansion would introduce late-era battles after U.S. ground forces mostly withdrew and South Vietnam fell after another invasion.

Would also make for a great selling point when advertising the expansion. Are you listening AWG? Potential $$$ here. :p
 
Last edited:

Jagdwyre

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 2, 2011
564
69
0
NorthDumpling;n2275949 said:
I think it wouldnt. According to the way how tanks were treated by players in RO2, there is no actual reason to make tanks.
If you're worried about how vehicles will be used by players why would they even bother adding helicopters in the first place?
 

NorthDumpling

Grizzled Veteran
Jul 13, 2013
1,064
41
48
23
Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Because this is Nam baby. And helucopters were used in a wide range and multiple variations, which made them universal.
Tanks is a whole another thing and I can still imagine Vietnam game without them.
 

Thrashaero

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 15, 2016
5
0
0
38
PT boats would be nice.
Have a nice bigass map for them to snake through a long river and ambushes along the way. get some apocalypse now up mm hyah.
 
Last edited:

kev2go

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 10, 2016
17
2
0
People need to pick up a book before the say tanks had no role in a Vietnam game. Sure it was predominantly a Guerrilla war, but there were also quite a bit of larger scale conventional encounters taking place against North Vietnamese Regulars.

Armored vehicles were used quite often as convoy escorts. During the Siege of Ben Het special Forces camp in 1966 the Vietnamese threw PT76 Tanks at the camp which had M48A3 tanks supporting its defenders. and those tanks had came from the HO chi minh trail. and crossed through jungle to get to get to the camps perimeter.


THe Tet Offensive also saw the usage of armored vehicles from both sides.

The Sieges of Khe Sanh also involved the USe of tanks. as both infantry support, Defense, and anti tank. M48 pattons face against Pt 76s .

In 1972 SOuth Vietnamese M48 Crews fought many skirmishes agianst North Vietnamese crewed T54 & Chinese Type 59 tanks which are actually contemporaries to the patton.


There is no reason why we can't have different maps and scenarios. Theres no reason we have to be stuck with strickly small sclae gurril warfare. Having a variation of battle types would offer diverityand more flavour. SO there is room for armored vehicles to be implemented like it was IN RO2, and there are battles in Vietnam that allow for such warfare. Even as asuch Tanks are used for Infantry support, not strucly for busting other tanks. Frankly 1960s tech is interesting because it allows for newer technologies. i would be interesting being able to play a M48, and be able to use IR illumintation to see at night, throughthe Night vision sights, or getting accurate distance with a optical Rangefinder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morticore

NorthDumpling

Grizzled Veteran
Jul 13, 2013
1,064
41
48
23
Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Its a talk not much about if there were any armored vehicle battles at all, but more about how were they useful and how players treated them in RO2(Gumrak,Comissars House, Barashka, Demyansk).
And I'm not gonna take Myshkova with Bridges in account , because theese are custom maps essentially.
From what I've seen, people dont really need tanks or APCs, as a lot of people will be busy with helicopters anyway.
 

Tabbot

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 19, 2016
6
0
0
25
The big problem with tanks in Red Orchestra 2 was a lack of polish in the important areas..

basically I mostly remember RO2 tanks getting stuck on minor terrain features, Heroes of the West has a similar problem in this regard.. perhaps it's due to map-makers not having said terrain features be destructible, but it really makes it awkward when one is used to something like War Thunder (where you can uproot small trees and knock over/crush most objects you may come across)..

if we could have tanks that could reliably navigate/drive through rough terrain (knocking aside or destroying obstacles), and an SDK that could more easily allow for destructible-objects then I think things might be slightly better. Though I'm pretty sure it's far more complicated than I'm making it sound.