Guns Are Way Too Accurate

[Oook!]

Accuracy in a shooting range = accuracy whilst in combat with people shooting at you?

Something about that logic just doesn't seem right. I would be ****ting myself if I was forced into real combat.

 

[ViiKumi]

as evidenced by the fact that it takes 250,000 bullets to kill an insurgent even with today's modern weapons.

Source [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...se-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html]

In world war 2 there were firefights, exchanges of fire, battles lasted for hours with only hundreds of men. The fact is people are not that accurate with weapons in battlefield conditions.

A couple of things here:

Fighting insurgents is quite different from fighting soldiers of an army. When there are 20 troops held up by 2 men, they tend to use more bullets per every killed insurgent than when there are 100 men fighting 200 other people. Also, by saying "even with today's modern weapons" you're probably implying that today's weapons would use less bullets per killed people, while you probably would have to agree that having a weapon that fires 600 shots per minute probably uses more bullets to kill an enemy than a bolt-action weapon that has 8 bullets in a cartridge.

Bullet-usage depends on nationality (different armies train differently), era and weapons.

(BTW: I would like to have more sway, especially after stamina is low, when suppressed and when wounded)

(Edit: Also, want to add that the 250 000 bullets / killed insurgent does not count the amount of bullets that actually killed civilians, and may I add that the ratio of killed civilians to killed insurgents is not as low as it should be)

 

[dweeb]

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)

This is it exacxtly. The guns in the game are as close as they could make them to their real life counterparts. What is probably a bit exaggerated is the skills of the soldiers themselves. This is a very difficult thing to get perfect - I don't think any game has perfected it. And it brings up the weird issue of there being essentially 2 people - the simulated one and the one controlling him, both with their own skill level. In a competitive game this is just frankly a confusing concept. The most realistic thing would perhaps to randomly spawn soldiers across the entire spectrum but everyone would complain when they actually had to spawn as the diseased, limping guy with poor concentration.

Also, the "in real life a battle will go on for 15 minutes and a million bullets will fly and only one guy will get wounded" thing has nothing to do with gun accuracy. It has everything to do with everyone involved not wanting to die. I Garuntee you that if soldiers went into battle in real life with as little regard for their life as we do here battles would play out 95 percent as quickly and decisively.

 

[Paas]

Obviously this is referring to firefights and not ambushes on targets 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 in a fire fight?

I answered your question. We suppress to limit their ability to hit us. The enemy does the same thing to us, they just aren't as coordinated. Not to mention we have a firepower advantage.

You can find released videos, and helmet cam footage, that shows insurgents running away while firing on full auto. Their intent is to keep our heads down while they make their escape. It's usually met with a 5.56, .50, or a 40mm. Can't knock their ambition though.

I have a wife and a child, do you think I'm seriously going to sit in an over watch position in the thick of a firefight and wait for the ONE target I'm sighting in on to expose himself? I mean, SGLI pays put it ain't that much.

-Paas

 

[tarquin]

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?

i guess because he could potentially pop up and shoot your friend in the face if he's lucky or more skilled... why take that chance?

 

[Josef Nader]

The bullet still doesn't rise.

Er, yes it does. You're firing it at an upward angle. Read your graph. It's says "Horizontal Rifle Trajectory"

How sights work in real life. By lining them up, you raise the barrel ever so slightly so that the bullet arcs in it's trajectory and hits at the distance you want to hit. Ballistics 101.

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.

Way to strawman my argument and totally miss my point in the same sentence.

I'm NOT saying that he would be able to pull off that shot under stress. I'm saying that if he missed, it would be HIS fault, not the gun's. The rifle is a very accurate weapon, capable (in low-stress conditions) of putting a bullet through a dime-sized spot on a target from 200m. There is no bullet spread. Recoil doesn't factor into it. It's a very accurate, efficient weapon. I'm telling you that I'VE pulled off shots like that in low-stress environments.

Now, I've never been in combat, or even had military training before, but I seem to be under the impression that it is supposed to prepare you for the stresses of combat so you don't turn into a quaking mess when the bullets start flying. I've seen newsreel footage of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as old newsreels of WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc. and those guys seem to be holding up pretty well even with bullets zipping around them. They're hustling from place to place, they aren't shaking like they have Parkinson's, and they seem to be trading fire with the enemy by making controlled, accurate shots. You know, like they were trained to do.

German combat footage - WW2 - YouTube

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

[url]http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/Web_specials/GWOT/modernmout.htm[/URL]

[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mout.htm[/URL]

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

[url]http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_oregon_training_082708/[/URL]

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.

Chill, hoss. I'm not claiming to have any sort of experience in combat. I'm merely saying (as I said above) that if you miss, it's YOUR fault, not the fault of the weapon. This thread, need I remind you, is complaining about the accuracy of the guns. The guns are accurate, both figuratively and literally. You're trying to go off topic with all this **** about urban combat and whatnot, and that's not what we're talking about. I've never been in urban combat, nor do I ever wish to. However, I have handled and fired a Mauser K98, an M1 Garand, and a Springfield rifle, among many others, and I can tell you guys from firsthand experience that RO2 captures the feeling of firing these weapons perfectly. The accuracy is spot on, and they handle just like their real life counterparts. I can't speak for firing under the stresses of combat, but I am totally against artificially nerfing the guns, especially after they have done such a good job in capturing their feel.

 

[Al_Ka_Pwn]

I answered your question. We suppress to limit their ability to hit us. The enemy does the same thing to us, they just aren't as coordinated. Not to mention we have a firepower advantage.

You can find released videos, and helmet cam footage, that shows insurgents running away while firing on full auto. Their intent is to keep our heads down while they make their escape. It's usually met with a 5.56, .50, or a 40mm. Can't knock their ambition though.

I have a wife and a child, do you think I'm seriously going to sit in an over watch position in the thick of a firefight and wait for the ONE target I'm sighting in on to expose himself? I mean, SGLI pays put it ain't that much.

-Paas

that doesn't really answer the question tho. if you are worried they will hit you then by extension hitting them before they can fire isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

This is a binary choice. Either A: hitting insurgents is easy so waiting until they expose themselves is a non issue since they can be shot so easily.

or B: when they pop up there's a good chance you will miss before they can fire and hitting them isn't as easy as you say it is.

if your position is that the warfare in red orchestra 2 is realistic where it consists of waiting until someone exposes themselves to pop them in the head instead of suppressing and flanking then why is warfare not conducted in this way?

If it is realistic then warfare is conducted in this way, if it is not realistic then warfare is not conducted in this way.

So is warfare conducted the same way it is in red orchestra 2?

 

[LMAOser]

Accuracy in a shooting range = accuracy whilst in combat with people shooting at you?

Something about that logic just doesn't seem right. I would be ****ting myself if I was forced into real combat.

I would be, too. But how could we accurately simulate that? Individuals handle stress and fear differently. One person might be relatively able to function, while someone else might not even be able to shoulder the rifle. There's really no way of knowing what affect that would have on someone's accuracy unless we took them out to a range and shot at them while they shot at a target. But even then, some people would perform better than others.

 

[Paas]

that doesn't really answer the question tho. if you are worried they will hit you then by extension hitting them before they can fire isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

This is a binary choice. Either A: hitting insurgents is easy so waiting until they expose themselves is a non issue since they can be shot so easily.

or B: when they pop up there's a good chance you will miss before they can fire and hitting them isn't as easy as you say it is.

if your position is that the warfare in red orchestra 2 is realistic where it consists of waiting until someone exposes themselves to pop them in the head instead of suppressing and flanking then why is warfare not conducted in this way?

If it is realistic then warfare is conducted in this way, if it is not realistic then warfare is not conducted in this way.

So is warfare conducted the same way it is in red orchestra 2?

I answered your question twice now. It seems like you just want the answer you want.

I'll humor you though. Yes, it's very easy to hit the target I want. It's also very easy for the target I don't know about, has not been identified yet, and who might have a scoped hunting rifle, to put one through my Kevlar. I'm not willing to risk my wig getting split, my command is not willing to risk losing a man, so we show overwhelming fire superiority. While this is going on we have another element get to the enemies blind spot, where it's relatively safe, and put them down.

All of this does not change my ability as a expert on the service rifle. I can **** rip they guys head off.

-Paas

 

[Reise]

If you ask me, all we really need is a slight sway at first, then let it smooth out to where it is now.

That way people can't immediately bring up their rifle and have a perfect sight picture.

 

[Josef Nader]

I answered your question twice now. It seems like you just want the answer you want.

I'll humor you though. Yes, it's very easy to hit the target I want. It's also very easy for the target I don't know about, has not been identified yet, and who might have a scoped hunting rifle, to put one through my Kevlar. I'm not willing to risk my wig getting split, my command is not willing to risk losing a man, so we show overwhelming fire superiority. While this is going on we have another element get to the enemies blind spot, where it's relatively safe, and put them down.

All of this does not change my ability as a expert on the service rifle. I can **** rip they guys head off.

-Paas

THANK YOU

Do you know what suppression means? We're being shot at by one or more fellows from a general direction. We don't know HOW MANY there are, or WHERE they are. Suppressive fire keeps them SUPPRESSED, their heads down, unable to move or shoot back, while infantry moves into position and kills them. The actual killing is done with a single bullet (maybe 1 or 2 more), but the massive volume of fire put out by the .30 and .50 cals is meant to keep their heads down and their positions fixed so they aren't maneuvering around to kill OUR guys. It has nothing to do with the guns having **** accuracy and everything to do with the fact that they can't see the attackers. That doesn't stop them from pinging bullets NEAR attackers so their infantry can close in and drop them like a bad habit.

 

[Josef Nader]

If you ask me, all we really need is a slight sway at first, then let it smooth out to where it is now.

That way people can't immediately bring up their rifle and have a perfect sight picture.

Imokaywiththis.jpeg

And as I've said before, more sway after you finish a sprint until you get your breathing under control. Not retarded parkinson's sway, just a slight heaving.

 

[vyyye]

If you ask me, all we really need is a slight sway at first, then let it smooth out to where it is now.

That way people can't immediately bring up their rifle and have a perfect sight picture.

I like this, don't really care if a very trained rifleman could fire as accurately and as quickly as you can in RO2 either, I'm sure there were plenty who couldn't in the battle.

If anything it would make using machine guns in anything that isn't a narrow choke less suicidal. I'd love to spray bullets making a bunch of folks keep their head down and proceed with care, instead of the current two burst into death (any time where you're exposed at all).

Not for invincibility, but I'm sure machine gun nests didn't always lead to a quick death.

 

[MarioBava]

I just think players need to learn and develop sound tactics when the enemy is as deadly as he is in RO2. Squad tactics especially. Is it an easy game or a difficult one? It's difficult when you get killed easy, easy when you kill easily.

 

[GigBuddy]

Op + 1

 

[hockeywarrior]

The biggest problem is that hitting Shift magically makes all the sway of your weapon go away, which is completely unrealistic. The general lack of sway is a problem, but the shift zoom which magically makes your gun a railgun enhances the issue.

 

[Paas]

If you ask me, all we really need is a slight sway at first, then let it smooth out to where it is now.

That way people can't immediately bring up their rifle and have a perfect sight picture.

I mentioned this. Just not in the form of sway. Have an animation for the sights aligning even after the weapon is brought up. You just to need to still be able to fire accurately out to about 25m even without sight alignment.

I just don't know how practical it is to implement at this point, but I still like it.

-Paas

 

[LordKhaine]

How quickly everyone polarises and starts to scream n00b/CoD player/etc etc etc. Whatever happened to moderation? Discussion?

My personal opinion is that many things have been added to RO2 that make it easier to kill. More realistic recoil and bullet penetration are two such examples that I don't think anyone is too bothered about. The ppsh41 was pretty insane in RO1 for recoil...

On the other hand, there are the debatable changes. The ones that polarise opinion. Zoom, suppression, weapon sway and stamina affecting aiming. I personally would like to see a little reduction in zoom, a little increase in suppression, a little more (non-random) weapon sway and have stamina affect aiming a little. Perhaps a DH approach to suppression. But I stress the word little. What this problem needs is (potentially very) small changes in a few areas.

And I certainly don't think ANYONE is suggesting or even desiring a random element such as cone of fire, like some people are insinuating.

 

[Paas]

The biggest problem is that hitting Shift magically makes all the sway of your weapon go away, which is completely unrealistic. The general lack of sway is a problem, but the shift zoom which magically makes your gun a railgun enhances the issue.

Well if you hold your breath that's what happens. Much like if you continue to hold shift your sight picture becomes sporadic when your body need oxygen.

-Paas

 

[Etienne.S]

So, for information's sake, and though it's technically on the subject of sway rather than the actual accuracy of the rifles - here's a video I just recorded. Demonstrates unrested and rested sway at zero stamina and my attempt to shoot a buddy at 160m unrested with no stamina. Also notice the ironsights coming up screwy when I was rested, leaning out of cover.

RO2 rifle sway - YouTube

Sway is small and tight when you first pull up sights, then magnifies greatly as (apparently) the soldier relaxes some and tries to catch his breath. Very nearly impossible to hit someone standing at range after the first couple moments. In the video, I got off the kill shot a hair before the breathing started slowing down and I lost all semblance of control.

Seems logical and realistic to me.