Guns Are Way Too Accurate

[Josef Nader]

The majority of fighting on the European front in world war two and even the wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan are primarily urban combat where suppression fire is even more important since troops lack cover and engagements take place in short distances.

[Source] [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1109/p01s01-usmi.html[/URL]

That's one battle, mate. I don't know if you've seen Iraq or Afghanistan, but they are almost entirely rural, and most of the combat takes place in isolated but strategically important chokepoints out in the countryside.

That's not to say there isn't a lot of urban combat, but your article merely discusses the new challenges it presents. The combat in the countrysides of Iraq and Afghanistan is nothing new. That's how we've been fighting for centuries. Urban combat presents a new beast, and that's what your article is talking about.

Get out from behind your computer monitor for a bit, mate. All these numbers and figures are well and good, but nothing beats first-hand experience.

 

[HLudwig]

I would love for these changes to happen, I just bought ro2 after seeing my buddy play ro1 ages ago but its so surprising to see iron sight zooming which makes it so so easy to snipe, like ridiculously easy I get way more kills as a rifleman than MG, which is the opposite from what I remember of RO1.
The Omaha beach landing, if it took place in ro2, would be Americans sniping the German machinegunners on the hill as soon as the boats hit the land and then telling the Germans to learn to aim.

Pixel hunting isn't realistic and it definitely isn't fun.

 

[HLudwig]

Unless you adjust your sights to compensate for this, giving the barrel a slight upward angle to increase your range.

Come on, guys. Shoot some real guns.

The bullet still doesn't rise.

 

[Keith Moons Liver]

Get out from behind your computer monitor for a bit, mate. All these numbers and figures are well and good, but nothing beats first-hand experience.

Golden- the guy who thinks that because someone can shoot a dime from 200m while sitting on a chair in complete safety and having all the time in the world to aim means we should be able to do the same in a split second in a wargame simulating one of the most intense battles in the history of the world is lecturing somebody else about first-hand experience. Just golden.

 

[Paas]

You wouldn't expect, especially with all the discussed hindering situations, to have your gun bang on with with no adjustment each time you raise it. I'm talking about lining up your 2 sights to the center of the screen so accurately.

Ex: your weapon raises to Iron Sights slightly crooked or off center, and automatically drifts into ideal firing position (lined up correctly). This on a small level may add a bit of natural preparedness before an accurate shot.

With a peep and post it takes me under a second to get sight alignment. With a notch and post you're maybe looking at a full second.

Now, I'm actually kind of open to this idea only because the weapons in game come from the HIP. My sidearm comes from just below the hip, and counting draw time it takes me about 3 seconds to get a solid sight alingment. I can start putting rounds downrange the second I bring the muzzle up though, and align my sights 2 rounds into the magazine.

Seems too complicated to get an accurate representation across stances. Standing would take about 1 second to sight in any two handed weapon. Sidearms would take about 3 seconds to properly sight in from standing. Crouching, everything would be near instantaneous because you're already in an alert carry on every weapon. Prone would be the same as crouching, you're already aligned properly behind your sights and simply need to bring your cheek to the butt stock. That's a lot of variables for sighting, but it would be awesome if implemented.

-Paas

 

[von luckner]

Accuracy is ok, but there needs to be a lot more sway while standing and crouching, and being suppressed or exhausted needs to effect sway a lot more as well.

If anyone thinks shooting a dime from a bench is somehow analogous to, or representative of the accuracy of a conscript on the Eastern Front, whos been given minimal training and tossed a rifle of unknown quality, they're delusional.

It's one thing to shoot match ammo from a bench at your leisure, it's another to march 30-40km, then be expected to shoot a 9lb rifle unsupported at targets that are ducking and weaving behind cover.

Personally, I shoot once or twice a week, and have been for about a year and a half. I have no illusions- I'm not an expert, BUT I do think I could probably outshoot a conscript that has maybe a couple hundred rounds in training tops, and I can shoot around 5-6 moa, standing, taking my time, on a good day with my SKS, and a little better with my SVT.

Really there should be two different 'types' of sway- lateral caused by muscle fatigue/injury, and a vertical caused by breathing. Realistically, controlling your breathing is intrinsic to accurate shooting, and vertical sway should be predictable enough that players can still shoot very accurately. Service rifle competitions around the world should be enough of an example that accurate shooting with military grade rifles from standing is possible.

A rifle round doesn't rise. It just keeps on going until it loses inertia and then begins to make it's classic arch down to the ground, or hitting something on its way down, which ever happens first.

Technically, all rifle rounds in game do rise to meet a zero of at least 100yds. Your sights sit ~1" above the bore, so if your point of aim is exactly horizontal, your rifle will be shooting just above horizontal so that point of aim meets point of impact @ 100yds naturally.

http://www.biggameinfo.com/index.aspx?page=/balcalc.ascx[url]http://www.biggameinfo.com/index.aspx?page=%2fbalcalc.ascx[/URL]

fun to play around with.

 

[LMAOser]

I just took one of my K98s, ran in place with it for two and a half minutes, then aimed at a doorknob fifteen yards away. The sights never left the doorknob. I guess that's not a very scientific test, though. lol

 

[sprinkles]

For game play and fun factor purposes, I agree with OP completely. People would definitely move out more in maps like fallen fighters if it wasn't so easy to hit most targets more than half way across the map.

I would say people claiming how realistic it is now would be pretty ignorant. I'm pretty sure at least 99% of the people playing red orchestra 2 never fought in the battle for stalingrad.

 

[Oldih]

The bullet still doesn't rise.

Neither does rifle bullet drop fast enough to mark the "lack of bullet drop" effect between 100 to ~200m if your rifle is already sighted at 100m and your target is the height of one feet or taller unless you're intensionally aiming at the lowest point of the mass.

 

[Al_Ka_Pwn]

That's one battle, mate. I don't know if you've seen Iraq or Afghanistan, but they are almost entirely rural, and most of the combat takes place in isolated but strategically important chokepoints out in the countryside.

That's not to say there isn't a lot of urban combat, but your article merely discusses the new challenges it presents. The combat in the countrysides of Iraq and Afghanistan is nothing new. That's how we've been fighting for centuries. Urban combat presents a new beast, and that's what your article is talking about.

Get out from behind your computer monitor for a bit, mate. All these numbers and figures are well and good, but nothing beats first-hand experience.

I guess you missed my addendum

The majority of fighting on the European front in world war two and even the wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan are primarily urban combat where suppression fire is even more important since troops lack cover and engagements take place in short distances.

[Source] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1109/p01s01-usmi.html

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/GWOT/modernmout.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mout.htm

http://www.northwestohio.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=94192#.TmUz3Y5ENPE

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_oregon_training_082708/

Also I say you're an arm chair/gun nut b/c you claim to know how things would work in a combat situation when all you have ever done is fire guns at a target in a controlled enviroment so you lack first hand combat experience. Despite evidence that it takes a **** TON of bullets to kill someone you go on saying how easy it is to shoot at another human being and kill them.

in b4 you claim to be in the military and say you fought in some obscure battle somewhere.

also how convenient that you suddenly can't produce any evidence.

Finally we're not claiming everyone has aimbot, we're claiming they have a modicum of skill that the people who play counterstrike

And actually evidence beats first hand expirience, FYI. If you want someone to believe you then it's kind of important.

and no the majority of fighting does take place in urban areas. The majority of the world population lives in urban ares and marines spend more time training in Urban areas than any other kind of conditions. Urban areas are the best staging places for insurgents as they are always at an advantage, the marines risk hitting civilians, and cities hold tactical importance. Even in so called "rural" areas insurgents will will fight in clusters of buildings forcing the marines to be in relatively close ranges. How dumb do you think they are that they would stand around in the desert getting shot from miles away? also how do you flank someone who is in cover when you're 500 yards away? do you propose to walk another 500 yards to get on their flank?

And what that article proves is that EVEN IN URBAN COMBAT YOU SPEND A CRAP TON OF BULLETS B/C OF SUPPRESSION FIRE. Even more so than long range combat. So this goes back to the heart of it that at close ranges it's hard to outright hit someone and you require a ton of bullets to suppress people and flank them.

 

[MadTommy]

The ingame accuracy has nothing to do with the actual weapon accuracy of the modelled weapons. It is the shooter who provides the accuracy. The whole argument over whether accuracy is realistic or not is a fallacy.

Some soldiers would have been good shoots some would have been terrible.

Personally i think if it was made a little more difficult to hit targets it would make the gamaplay more interesting. (this would be neither more or less realistic)

 

[Verluste]

I also think the thing is way too polarized.

I can believe a gun won't shake like the user has Parkinson, but I also very much believe that a gun won't be as steady under , exhaustion, fear and being in battle in general.

A little increase in sway or accuracy when exhausted or suppressed would already go a long way.

I agree.
RO2 needs more sway to simulate all those other factors that TWI did not or could not implement.

The ROOST sway wasnt that bad at all if you keep your argument in mind.

 

[Sgt Jigglebelly]

For game play and fun factor purposes, I agree with OP completely. People would definitely move out more in maps like fallen fighters if it wasn't so easy to hit most targets more than half way across the map.

I would say people claiming how realistic it is now would be pretty ignorant. I'm pretty sure at least 99% of the people playing red orchestra 2 never fought in the battle for stalingrad.

and Fallen Fighters is a good map to make this case for - it seems like a map that would be awesome if more players tried moving thru the middle and could get shot at, and of course sometimes hit and killed, but not instantly popped if any part of them was exposed, say, peeking over cover, for a split second like it seems to be now

i really feel like the both realism and gameplay/balance arguments will be in favor of having the guns be slightly less accurate overall than they are now - whether by sway or otherwise is up for debate. i'd say just let an algorithm similar to what places rounds in crosshairs on other games determine something similar when using sights in various conditions, rather than make it on-point and drop from there, with algorithms for various player conditions (tired, suppressed, stationary and steadying the weapon on a surface, etc.)

 

[Icey_Pain]

I agree.
RO2 needs more sway to simulate all those other factors that TWI did not or could not implement.

The ROOST sway wasnt that bad at all if you keep your argument in mind.

Yet you hear completely different stories from people that actually have been in war. The difficulty should not be in shooting the enemy, but rather the position of yourself compared to the enemy. That's what teamwork achieves, acces to superior positions.

 

[Verluste]

Maybe slightly offtopic, but I see negative reactions/thoughts in this topic that are all simular to what the topicstarter stated in his openingspost, the ''inb4''-things.

If people would only read the topic, would make things so much comfortable.

 

[tarquin]

"A game that combines the arcadey aim of Call of Duty with the instant hit and die realism of arma is combining the worst aspect of both games".

er...

those are the best aspect of both games.

anyway the issue with sway is that a person with a brain can counter the sway by moving their mouse. that defeats the purpose of sway. but the only way you could compensate is by making a relaxed stance behave like your guy is waving his rifle around like an

 

[Verluste]

Yet you hear completely different stories from people that actually have been in war. The difficulty should not be in shooting the enemy, but rather the position of yourself compared to the enemy. That's what teamwork achieves, acces to superior positions.

That's not relevant to the subject here I'm afraid. But that TOO.

 

[Paas]

And what that article proves is that EVEN IN URBAN COMBAT YOU SPEND A CRAP TON OF BULLETS B/C OF SUPPRESSION FIRE. Even more so than long range combat. So this goes back to the heart of it that at close ranges it's hard to outright hit someone and you require a ton of bullets to suppress people and flank them.

Ugh. No, it's not hard to hit someone. The reason we use suppression is so they don't hit us. Also, suppression really only comes into play if a firefight breaks out. A majority of the time, someone has spotted and relayed the information about the contact up to higher, higher gives the go, and we put the SOB down before he even knows where rounds are impacting from. Some recon Battalions take it a step further and have nutty officers monitoring UAVs and dropping ordinance on contacts before ground forces know they are spotted.

Suppression also isn't limited to shooting at a known target position. Sometimes you shoot at a potential target position. They enemy is always moving, but we cannot risk that he won't maintain his vantage point and NOT put rounds on where he was last spotted. There are so many variables that play into MOUT, when to use suppression, and etc.

None of these situations make it harder for the round to leave the muzzle and make contact with flesh.

-Paas

 

[slyder73]

The bullet still doesn't rise.

Well, the bullet does rise if your gun is zeroed for say...200 yards. The bullet leaves on an upward trajectory from the barrel and will fall to meet the target at 200 yards.
THe second the bullet leaves the barrel, gravity pulls it down. Fire a bullet on a flat trajectory and drop a similar bullet and they will both hit the ground at the same time, one of them just further forward due to all the gunpowder pushing; but no matter the feet per second speed the bullet is still subject to gravity.

If you want the bullet to hit a zero target at 200 or 300 yards, or even 100, you have to zero it in for that, meaning the bullet leaves the barrel travelling upwards.

 

[Al_Ka_Pwn]

Ugh. No, it's not hard to hit someone. The reason we use suppression is so they don't hit us. Also, suppression really only comes into play if a firefight breaks out. A majority of the time, someone has spotted and relayed the information about the contact up to higher, higher gives the go, and we put the SOB down before he even knows where rounds are impacting from. Some recon Battalions take it a step further and have nutty officers monitoring UAVs and dropping ordinance on contacts before ground forces know they are spotted.

Suppression also isn't limited to shooting at a known target position. Sometimes you shoot at a potential target position. They enemy is always moving, but we cannot risk that he won't maintain his vantage point and NOT put rounds on where he was last spotted. There are so many variables that play into MOUT, when to use suppression, and etc.

None of these situations make it harder for the round to leave the muzzle and make contact with flesh.

-Paas

Obviously this is referring to firefights and not ambushes where you shoot someone who doesn't know you're there. which brings me back to my question, if it's so easy to hit them why not wait until they pop up and shoot them then instead of wasting rounds suppressing in a fire fight?