Infantry weapons that should be added for Red orchestra 2

[ross]

Oh come on! Lets take off the coloured glasses for a moment here:

1. Hurra! The Germans get an Mkb42 eventhough they shouldn't! Oh wait, even worse its just a massively underpowered version doing way too little damage compared to what it should, no doubt incorporated into the game to somehow make up for the PPSH bullet hose. The AVT40 (shouldn't be in either) on the other hand is a one shot one kill weapon with full auto capability for up close encounters, and the ability to mount a 4x scope.

You won't hear any arguments from me. I was horrified when I heard the AVT can get a scope, because not only was it not a historical thing, but it also turns it into a pseudo-sniper rifle and so you have assault classes wasted by some idiot who wants to sit up the back of the map with their level 50 AVT pretending they're a sniper.

Neither the MKb or AVT should be in the game, period, let alone in scoped variants.

2. Soviet PU scopes feature WAAY too wide a FOV compared to the real thing, whilst the German ZF4 which in reality had a wider FOV has an even lower FOV, heck its useless, but even worse it shouldn't even be there. That's another half assed attempt at balance for you.

What's the actual ingame FOV? Does anyone have a figure on it? I'm curious.

Again, though, the PU should not be in the game. It was in service at the time, but in quite limited numbers and I don't believe I have ever seen or heard of one at Stalingrad. Most of the photos I see up to the Don are top-mount PE rifles, and beyond that, side-mount PEM. Stalingrad photos I've seen are exclusively PEMs.

(It's worth noting that German unit armourers would occasionally mount captured PEs on Kar98ks to fill shortfalls in sniper rifles or replace damaged scopes - a interesting combination, and even seen in photos around Stalingrad. If you're going to have an unlock system, at least make it historical 'sidegrades' like this.)

3. Cosmetics: you forget about the 4x PEM scope Mosin WITH exterior 3D model, where'as there is no 3D model of the German Zielsechs.

I think this is better attributed to laziness than malice.

As for the pistols, it's ridiculous to even argue it seeing as they are all useless for anything but close quarters, but I guess the single shot stopper TT33 needed a counter, the M712, which aint even useful, just an ammo guzzler.

The C96 (even before the stock is unlocked) is actually scarily accurate compared to the other pistols. It's still akin to pissing in the wind, of course, but a friend and I occasionally jump on empty servers and play with pistols only for laughs and he could hit me with a noticeable degree of consistency at around 80-100m, while my TT made one or two lucky hits at similar range before deciding its job was done. I'd rather see the C96 removed altogether and replaced with the Luger, which is not only a better counterpart but also a lot more common historically.

As for the tanks:

How is the Pz.IV coded to be in anyway better than the T-34 ? One has a much better gun, just as the real thing, whilst the other has better armour, just as the real thing.

Anecdotal I know, but the T-34's better armour doesn't quite seem so superior ingame when you see AT rifles consistently knocking them out from the front (while pinging harmlessly off of the Pz.IV at almost all angles). Even if that's just sheer bad luck, the Pz.IV should absolutely not be the primary German tank in the game. That role should be filled with the Pz.III J, perhaps with a handful of APCR shells to give it a better chance of taking out a T-34 when commanded competently. StuGs need inclusion as well, so tanks can be removed from maps like Pavlov's house where they really don't belong. Right now that map is a complete massacre because the tanks will park with their hull MG facing a spawn exit, then engage each other with their main guns rather than lobbing HE through troublesome windows. Remove both tanks from that map and give the Germans a StuG III C or two, like in the Ostfront custom map (which was objectively a much better designed map, and puts the stock RO2 one to shame), and there is something a lot less likely to lock down the spawn exits and a lot more likely to actually help the infantry by clearing MG nests and snipers.

Where was the Pz.IV favored compared to the T-34 ?

When it was included as the T-34's direct counterpart.

In short: No side was favored, TWI screwed up with unrealistic additions to both sides and incorrect modelling of equipment from both sides.

Agreed. I doubt any of it was done as a result of malice, just poor design and poor implementation.

Unus Offa, Unus Nex
Your right perfectly right the realism is screwed in Red orchestra 2 all that could be done to restore more from the realism of the battle would be maybe estetic than game mechanic. Like locating easyer your squad.

We've been over this. Your squad is already easy to locate. You would have to be literally blind to have trouble finding them.

Or like I said earlier making the weapon loadouts realistic. Because we have documentation about what weapons were used in specific battles and how many were issued so why not make it a feature. Like adding for specific battles a specific amount of rifles and pistol for each nation. Because the way it is now it isn't anything from realistic.

Making classes and loadouts customisable for mappers - like in Ostfront - would solve this at a stroke.

The russian svt scope is overpowered I killed on Fallen fighters 30 soldiers in classic just from staying in a corner and sniping the enemy. The svt 40 scoped is too overpowered in my opinion on the small maps we have now the bolt action rifles become utterly pointless because the majority will opt for the semi auto sniper rifle. But like I said by issuing a realistic loadout by the specific battle each weapon took part it would make the game a lot more balanced in the historical context of the game.

I bet you any amount of money that an experienced player with a 91/30 sniper will out-score another player with an SVT sniper on that map any day. The semiautomatic sniper rifles do seem a little too accurate, but until I know exactly what kind of groups they would historically shoot at various ranges I won't be calling for a change. They were horrifically inaccurate in the first game to the point of uselessness, and I'd rather not go there again.

 

[[Mad_Murdock]]

Russian propoganda pictures

Always, always, no matter what it is...

Philistines

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Agreed. I doubt any of it was done as a result of malice, just poor design and poor implementation.

Exactly.

I cringe everytime someone starts talking about bias toward any side.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

Yes but the weapon quantity option would improve realism in-game.

 

[MeFirst]

No it would not.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

Dude an argument to your brilliant ideea before posting if you can, K?

 

[MeFirst]

You dont listen to arguments, you just keep posting stuff you want to see in the game. My sugegstion for you is.

Join a modding team and learn modding (If you dont know it already).
If you want "hyper realistic" gameplay with weapon restrictions depending on scenarios join a realism unit.

 

[Holy.Death]

You dont listen to arguments, you just keep posting stuff you want to see in the game. My sugegstion for you is.

Your suggestion is somewhat lacking. Nobody needs to join modding team or realism unit to want to see - and propose - a flamethrower or molotov coctail to be added into the game.

There is nothing wrong with suggestions, but they need to be thought through to be accurate enough to be implemented into the game. Give the man some justice - while he does not always think his ideas through this thread is a great read since people started discussing weapons in a more professional approach.

Keep up the good posting, people.

 

[ross]

Dude an argument to your brilliant ideea before posting if you can, K?

Wow, talk about the pot and the kettle...

x3ckid, you demonstrate with every post you make that you have no understanding of what would actually be historically accurate. Just 'guessing' based on half-cocked theories, Hollywood, and other games might be enough to make CoD players think a weapon should be added or a class be restricted, but it is not here. Many of the people who play this game are actual historians or have WWII history as one of their main interests. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you put down the keyboard for a few months and find some books. David Glantz and Anthony Beevor's books are good places to start. Or if you really want to be taken seriously, go out and do some original research yourself - if you think the PPSh was in short supply in Stalingrad, contact the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and ask them if they still have the documents from the 62nd Army's supply officers, then ask if you could see a copy.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

Ross I didn't meant historical accurate at the point of it beeing used in the exact number for each specific battle. I meant that the quantity of weapons should differ from side to side as a specific feature of the game. I said it would contribute to the historic realism as you could modify the specific quantity of weapons issued for soldiers on a specific map. Because I don't think the soldier loadouts wouldve been issued in same quantity for all the battles through-out the war.

In Ostfront why would people have 3 smg-s if no one uses the weakest the quantity feature which im proposing will make the a more realistic way that soldiers wouldve been supplied in world war 2. Because I don't think a soldier wouldn't have gotten his loadout by asking what specific weapon does he want to kill his enemy.

 

[ross]

The mappers need the ability to set up classes for their maps. That is all that is needed, nothing else.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

Yes but why do only that? I know you think "the producers don't have time, the producers are so busy" but instead of sparing the producers of work lets make suggetions that is why this part of the forum is for. So why wouldn't a quantity specific feature for each weapon work. I don't think it would be realistically to issue ppd 40 smg to all the soldiers and not limiting it for a specific quantity because like you said the ppsh was in a higher supply. What would stop people from all choosing the ppd40 which was in shorther supply than the ppsh 41.

And if the mappers will only set classes for the specific maps they will only copy the style of loadouts from Ostfront. Come on this is 2012 we expect more from a game made this year like having more features. Why not add specific quantity of weapons for each class. Because I played many games in which people often used only the weapons which were more powerful than the cassual ones. Like in Counter strike, what wouldve made people choose anything else rather than the M4 carabien and the Ak 47 if they had the money. Same for Red 2 why not add this feature to make people play with the less powerful guns.

 

[ross]

Yes but why do only that?

Because if RO1 was anything to go by, many mappers actually researched what the loadouts should be - unlike you.

I know you think "the producers don't have time, the producers are so busy" but instead of sparing the producers of work lets make suggetions that is why this part of the forum is for. So why wouldn't a quantity specific feature for each weapon work. I don't think it would be realistically to issue ppd 40 smg to all the soldiers and not limiting it for a specific quantity because like you said the ppsh was in a higher supply. What would stop people from all choosing the ppd40 which was in shorther supply than the ppsh 41.

If weapons are going to be limited, it should be done by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Not someone who makes stuff up as they go along.

And if the mappers will only set classes for the specific maps they will only copy the style of loadouts from Ostfront.

What on Earth are you talking about? Many RO maps had completely new classes, or different numbers of classes. Volkssturm classes, captured weapons in limited slots... did you actually play any custom maps from RO1?

Come on this is 2012 we expect more from a game made this year like having more features.

No, I expect it to look good, run well, and not be broken. I expect any new features it has to be sensible. I absolutely despise when developers add stupid crap to a game just so they can brag about how many 'new features' it has.

Why not add specific quantity of weapons for each class. Because I played many games in which people often used only the weapons which were more powerful than the cassual ones. Like in Counter strike, what wouldve made people choose anything else rather than the M4 carabien and the Ak 47 if they had the money. Same for Red 2 why not add this feature to make people play with the less powerful guns.

THIS CAN BE DONE BY MAPPERS IF THEY ARE GIVEN ACCESS TO CLASS EDITING, LIKE IT WAS IN OSTFRONT.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

I was refering to add weapon quantity for each class. Like for a elite riflemen class adding only 2 svt 40 and 4 bolt action rifles so that not every soldier who uses that class would choose the semi auto rifles. And don't worry about modders I know many modders which can implement such ideeas. I have spoken with them before posting these ideeas and they said they are achievable in Red orchestra.

Also for specific maps instead of adding class with premade slots which you have a pickable loadout why not only add the classes that wouldve been available and add the specific quantity for the weapon loadout to be modifiable by the map modder. Instead of adding every time a new class with a new quantity of weapons?

 

[Clowndoe]

For the last time; all elite riflemen should have semi-automatic rifles, they represent corporals after all. Assault is already limited to only basic submachineguns. Elite assault is limited in number because it is expected that they all take elite weapons. Squad leaders in real life had all sub-machineguns, except when they were in short supply in the opening year of the war for the Russians, which works out great because SL's already have only bolt-action rifles in-game. All other classes have access to only one primary weapon. Pistols are the only thing that could be limited, but then again, who really cares what pistol someone takes?

 

[ross]

Pistols are the only thing that could be limited, but then again, who really cares what pistol someone takes?

And on this note, assuming you replace the C96 with a Luger, even they become irrelevant. Both the TT/1895 and P38/P08 were roughly as common as each other, certainly enough that you wouldn't really notice it.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

Yes but for future weapons like the ppd 40 or the pps 42/43. Because if more weapons are added logically people would only use the weapons they like by issuing them in quantity per classes would be a lot more realsitcally. Why not add it wouldn't affect so much the gameplay it would only be realistic. Like for future maps where the G41 and G43 existed why not add the G41 in a much more lesser quantity than the G43? I can give you more examples but I think you get my point.

 

[ross]

...By allowing the mappers to edit classes themselves? Why not just say that in the first place?

 

[Victhor-ASH]

Because I meant to edit the classes specifically by also adding quantity for the weapons like a class only has 4 slots and it can choose 3 types of weapons make those weapons arive in a specific quantity. Heres an example: you have PPd40, PPsh41 and PPs 43. Make the PPd 40 only 1 in quantity for the class, the ppsh arive in 4 pieces for this class and the pps 43 in only 2. This way would be very cool to customise classes.

 

[ross]

That would be considerably harder than just having a separate class for the limited weapons. It would involve coding not only to get it to work, but also to make the UI fit the new system.