Just played a bit of RO1...WOW

[Divinity]

What the hell, guys. What exactly do you think all that combat training is for? And don't give me that "LOL THIS IS MODERN STUFF THEY DIDN'T DO THIS DURING WWII," because they most certainly did. This is basic stuff.

Actually it is modern stuff. Back in WW2 soldiers were trained to engage enemies on more or less open terrain and capture ground or why do you think most soldiers were carrying a rifle? Urban warfare was something very new for that time period. And as far as I know having the weapon always shouldered is also a modern military doctrine. Soldiers would generally fire from the hip in CQC.

 

[Yarden]

Room Clearing - YouTube
BattleDrill6 - Live house clearing in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne, 1-319th AFAR - YouTube
ROOM CLEARING - YouTube
Tactical shooting: Room clearing drill - YouTube
Room Cleaning procedures - YouTube

Why yes, I do believe that every single military force under the sun teaches real soldiers move and aim like that. I also believe that real soldiers NEVER LOWER THE GUN FROM THEIR SHOULDER WHILE IN A COMBAT SITUATION, EXCEPT FOR A HARD SPRINT. This is precisely so that they can quickly ADS in response to a target.

What the hell, guys. What exactly do you think all that combat training is for? And don't give me that "LOL THIS IS MODERN STUFF THEY DIDN'T DO THIS DURING WWII," because they most certainly did. This is basic stuff.

you,sir, just won the internet.

/thread

 

[Luckless]

Actually it is modern stuff. Back in WW2 soldiers were trained to engage enemies on more or less open terrain and capture ground or why do you think that most soldiers were carrying a rifle. Urban warfare was something very new for that time period.

Except trench/room cleaning techniques were developed during the First World War, and in the Post War Era, thus the whole SMG being brought into inventories for these very reasons.

 

[Divinity]

Except trench/room cleaning techniques were developed during the First World War, and in the Post War Era, thus the whole SMG being brought into inventories for these very reasons.

There's a significant difference between clearing a trench or a bunker and house to house urban warfare.

 

[Josef Nader]

Actually it is modern stuff. Back in WW2 soldiers were trained to engage enemies on more or less open terrain and capture ground or why do you think most soldiers were carrying a rifle? Urban warfare was something very new for that time period. And as far as I know having the weapon always shouldered is also a modern military doctrine. Soldiers would generally fire from the hip in CQC.

No soldier in the history of the world has ever been trained to fire from the hip, unless they're Imperial Stormtroopers or James Bond Villians.

There's a significant difference between clearing a trench or a bunker and house to house urban warfare.

There is? Narrow, winding close quarters that the enemy knows intimately but you don't? What exactly is the difference?

 

[wake_up]

No soldier in the history of the world has ever been trained to fire from the hip, unless they're Imperial Stormtroopers or James Bond Villians.

That are villians, the good guys everytime hits perfectly when they
shoot from the hip, you never seen a Eastwood Movie?
Chuck Norris only shoots from the hips, he is to beautiful to hide his
face behind an ugly gun.

 

[Yellonet]

Why yes, I do believe that every single military force under the sun teaches real soldiers move and aim like that. I also believe that real soldiers NEVER LOWER THE GUN FROM THEIR SHOULDER WHILE IN A COMBAT SITUATION, EXCEPT FOR A HARD SPRINT. This is precisely so that they can quickly ADS in response to a target.

What the hell, guys. What exactly do you think all that combat training is for? And don't give me that "LOL THIS IS MODERN STUFF THEY DIDN'T DO THIS DURING WWII," because they most certainly did. This is basic stuff.

*sigh*
It's an entirely different thing walking with your weapon already steadied against the shoulder compared to running with your weapon beside you in one hand or both hands not readied.
In the first case all you have to do is raise the front end of the weapon up a bit - of course this can be done fast!
In the second case (which is the one that is what happens in game) you have to first change your grip to hold the weapon correctly, then align it with your body, stabilize it against the shoulder, align the sight with your eye and with the target, all this takes just a fraction of a second which is wrong, it's not possible to do all this so fast.

Also, in the game you can run full speed, stop, aim down sights and headshot someone at long range in the blink of an eye.

Those real soldiers would not pull that off in nearly the same time even when walking. They're able to get the weapon up fast, but they're not going to be very accurate that fast, but then again it's not needed when you only have to hit someone 5-10 meters away.

 

[Cyper]

Quite interesting videos. Notice the weapon sway and the non-robotic movements. To bad you can't walk in RO2.

 

[Luckless]

I've seen at least one printed manual on the Thompson M1 that included directions on how to properly fire 'from the hip'. Sadly the dude wanted a few hundred for it so I just flipped through a few pages. I remember something about the point being a more comfortable position for shooting on the move while clearing rooms/trenches.

Basically, how to aim when you didn't have time to properly aim.

 

[Josef Nader]

*sigh*
It's an entirely different thing walking with your weapon already steadied against the shoulder compared to running with your weapon beside you in one hand or both hands not readied.
In the first case all you have to do is raise the front end of the weapon up a bit - of course this can be done fast!

And this is how it should be animated in-game. This is how every soldier, police officer, and gun enthusiast I've ever talked to has been trained, and it's pretty obvious why. It's lightning fast, and very accurate.

In the second case (which is the one that is what happens in game) you have to first change your grip to hold the weapon correctly, then align it with your body, stabilize it against the shoulder, align the sight with your eye and with the target, all this takes just a fraction of a second which is wrong, it's not possible to do all this so fast.

I agree that this is next to impossible, but I also think that the animations in the game do a pretty bad job of relaying how the actual soldiers used their firearms. Even if the Axis soldiers were trained to carry their guns in one hand (for reasons that are mystifying to me), the Soviet soldiers all carry their guns in two hands, meaning they could easily snap to ADS without changing their grip or shifting the gun. I understand why the avatars in game are modeled to carry their guns in one hand (long range IFF, predominantly), but it is kind of an immersion breaker.

Also, in the game you can run full speed, stop, aim down sights and headshot someone at long range in the blink of an eye.

Not with any sort of consistency. Sure, it may happen once in a while against an exposed or immobile target, but it's hardly the norm. More often than not I sprint for one reason and one reason only; to get to cover. I never let go of the shift key until I feel I have reached a safe location, and then I set up and return fire. The reason for this is simple. It takes a lot longer for me to stop, turn, find my target, aim, and shoot someone than it does for them to line up their shots and shoot me. Holding still only makes their lives easier.

As I've said before, there's no accounting for player skill. If the other guy shoots at you three times, misses all three times, and you manage to stop and shoot him on the first try, well then he just sucks/you're just good. Any decent player would have put you down before you even had time to ADS.

Those real soldiers would not pull that off in nearly the same time even when walking. They're able to get the weapon up fast, but they're not going to be very accurate that fast, but then again it's not needed when you only have to hit someone 5-10 meters away.

Again, not from one-handed carry, but real soldiers in CQC wouldn't drop the weapon down to one-handed carry. If I had to guess, TWI animated the Axis soldiers to one-handed carry so they would be identifiable at range, not because it was realistic. Shame on them, but I see why they did it. Silhouette is the most easily identifiable thing in a video game, and it's important to give the Allies and the Axis different silhouettes so you can identify them from range.

 

[Mootis]

And this is how it should be animated in-game. This is how every soldier, police officer, and gun enthusiast I've ever talked to has been trained, and it's pretty obvious why. It's lightning fast, and very accurate.

I agree that this is next to impossible, but I also think that the animations in the game do a pretty bad job of relaying how the actual soldiers used their firearms. Even if the Axis soldiers were trained to carry their guns in one hand (for reasons that are mystifying to me), the Soviet soldiers all carry their guns in two hands, meaning they could easily snap to ADS without changing their grip or shifting the gun. I understand why the avatars in game are modeled to carry their guns in one hand (long range IFF, predominantly), but it is kind of an immersion breaker.

It's easier to move when you're carrying your weapon in one hand. When you're sprinting you're not expecting immediate enemy contact, It's about getting from A to B in the shortest amount of time and carrying your weapon in one hand allows you to do that. If you grab your weapon near the trigger you can ADS reasonably fast. Of course carrying it in two hands is probably slightly faster then the one handed method but it's probably harder to sprint.

Not with any sort of consistency. Sure, it may happen once in a while against an exposed or immobile target, but it's hardly the norm. More often than not I sprint for one reason and one reason only; to get to cover. I never let go of the shift key until I feel I have reached a safe location, and then I set up and return fire. The reason for this is simple. It takes a lot longer for me to stop, turn, find my target, aim, and shoot someone than it does for them to line up their shots and shoot me. Holding still only makes their lives easier.

As I've said before, there's no accounting for player skill. If the other guy shoots at you three times, misses all three times, and you manage to stop and shoot him on the first try, well then he just sucks/you're just good. Any decent player would have put you down before you even had time to ADS.

Again, not from one-handed carry, but real soldiers in CQC wouldn't drop the weapon down to one-handed carry. If I had to guess, TWI animated the Axis soldiers to one-handed carry so they would be identifiable at range, not because it was realistic. Shame on them, but I see why they did it. Silhouette is the most easily identifiable thing in a video game, and it's important to give the Allies and the Axis different silhouettes so you can identify them from range.

That's point about the ADS speed. It's simply to fast and accurate when the player is on the move. Look at all the videos Yarden posted, those soldiers are moving at a fast walking pace at the most and there's good reason behind that. If they move any faster they won't be able to aim properly.

 

[Josef Nader]

It's easier to move when you're carrying your weapon in one hand. When you're sprinting you're not expecting immediate enemy contact, It's about getting from A to B in the shortest amount of time and carrying your weapon in one hand allows you to do that. If you grab your weapon near the trigger you can ADS reasonably fast. Of course carrying it in two hands is probably slightly faster then the one handed method but it's probably harder to sprint.

I see what you're saying. However, they didn't animate the 1h/2h sprints because they were easier for one party, but so that you could have long-range IFF based on how the target is moving.

That's point about the ADS speed. It's simply to fast and accurate when the player is on the move. Look at all the videos Yarden posted, those soldiers are moving at a fast walking pace at the most and there's good reason behind that. If they move any faster they won't be able to aim properly.

I posted those videos. ._.

I may not have posted some of the vids I watched, as a lot of them had ****ty music behind them, but I saw plenty of situations where a soldier would spring hard across open ground and be ADS in a snap.

Look at:

BattleDrill6 - Live house clearing in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne, 1-319th AFAR - YouTube

For example. The first few seconds they stack up, throw smoke, and then sprint across the open ground to get to cover. By the time the camera man has swung around the point man is already ADS and ready to engage threats. How long do you think it took him to do that? All of his buddies had their rifles shouldered as soon as they entered cover. They're fast, fluid motions. The rifle is a tool designed with human physiology in mind, and with a lot of attention paid to exactly the kind of situations it's going to run into in the field. It's easy to use, comfortable, light-weight, fast, and accurate. It has to be.

 

[Grimreapo]

Axis soldiers were trained to carry their guns in one hand (for reasons that are mystifying to me)

So they could carry MG ammo in the other hand, the Germans were all about using MG for combat...

 

[Herr Leutnant]

Before I reply, let me just say that I love both games. RO1 gave me a new outlook on PC gaming and realistic shooters, and I feel RO2 tried to follow that while opening to a larger audience. RO1 and RO2 are different games. One is focused on long distance battles of the Ostfront, and one is focused on the close quarters battles of Stalingrad. Both games have there strengths and weaknesses, and in some cases, RO1 was the better game. However I feel like people are trying to pick out EVERYTHING wrong with RO2. I am not really a hardcore gamer, I'll play Battlefield 3 and MW 3, because I think both will be fun games in there own right, and I play RO1 and RO2. I play games that I find fun, and on that count, RO2 delivered.

 

[Yellonet]

For example. The first few seconds they stack up, throw smoke, and then sprint across the open ground to get to cover.

First, they know the situation and they know it's not for real. Would then have jogged like that over open ground if they suspected a MG nest to cover that street corridor?

By the time the camera man has swung around the point man is already ADS and ready to engage threats.

The point man already had his weapon up, and he was in "camera shadow" 4 seconds.

How long do you think it took him to do that? All of his buddies had their rifles shouldered as soon as they entered cover.

Video from modern training doesn't relate to a game set in WW2, especially not as the soldiers in the game doesn't even hold their weapons that way.
Covering unsafe ground is done as fast as possible and that means running as fast as you can and you can't do that while aiming a weapon.
There's just no comparison between combat in an all out world war and the asymmetrical warfare of today.

 

[Josef Nader]

First, they know the situation and they know it's not for real. Would then have jogged like that over open ground if they suspected a MG nest to cover that street corridor?

Then they wouldn't have tried to cross the street, and the mission would have changed to eliminating the MG. They can't do anything about an ambush. They have to get across the street. They did the best they could, putting down smoke and dividing the group up so that one half could cover the other half while crossing.

The point man already had his weapon up, and he was in "camera shadow" 4 seconds.

Right, and you don't think that WWII soldiers storming a building would have kept their weapons up?

Video from modern training doesn't relate to a game set in WW2, especially not as the soldiers in the game doesn't even hold their weapons that way.

I explained why that is above. Silhouettes for easy IFF. Rifles functioned more or less the same way during WWII, why would the behaviors used to use them effectively have changed?

Covering unsafe ground is done as fast as possible and that means running as fast as you can and you can't do that while aiming a weapon.

Absolutely, but the only time the ADS snap makes any difference is in CQC, which is fundamentally devoid of open ground. If you have time to stop, turn, aim, and shoot at a target who is in cover with his weapon up before he shoots you, that guy was simply a bad player. Stuff like that isn't impossible in real life, just a phenomenally bad idea, as the other guy will more often than not shoot you first.

There's just no comparison between combat in an all out world war and the asymmetrical warfare of today.

War. War never changes.

But seriously, the close quarters fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad, and the like doesn't look that much different than the CQC I've seen in old WWII footage. A lot of running and gunning, checking corners, and generally trying to hit as hard and fast as possible.

EDIT: Guys, go back and watch all of my videos. You'll see why when someone catches it. ;D

 

[CaptHawkeye]

Actually it is modern stuff. Back in WW2 soldiers were trained to engage enemies on more or less open terrain and capture ground or why do you think most soldiers were carrying a rifle? Urban warfare was something very new for that time period. And as far as I know having the weapon always shouldered is also a modern military doctrine. Soldiers would generally fire from the hip in CQC.

Trained to, but learned otherwise. Capturing ground requires you to close to CQC with an enemy so urban warfare was not a totally off the wall concept. I don't know where you even get off saying urban warfare was something "totally new". Urban sieges have been a staple of war since the Romans.

 

[shadowmoses]

Jus wait on the mods if ya want that experience, I'm sure someone will be on top of making one for Ro1 game style.

When RO1 came out there were many issues too. After a while patching the game its get better but RO1 and RO2 have something very different about their launch besides all the bells and whistles of RO2.....The core gameplay mechanics.

RO1 launched with very good gameplay mechanics and really (once the game was patched and things were tweeked) all modders had to do was build maps. RO1's longevity was due to the community building mods for a game that had pretty decent gameplay features but (for the most part) hit or miss maps.

If you want new maps, well then that only takes a bit of time from a good mapper and a few versions to get it right... But things like changing sprint speed but making the sprint longer, or the fact that your character does not automatically crouch when you tell him to whist leaning around cover (instead he does this slow animation of coming out of lean and still standing to crouch with out leaning), perhaps you want to see range dialing and bullet trajectory tweeked because bullets actually keep flying pretty straight after 100/200 meters... there is a lot there that RO1 had down pretty darn well right out of the box with no alterations but that RO2 missed because of cut corners, crummy design schedule, bad design choices or what have you (I don't know, I wasnt there and I can only assume).

It's these little things that bug me the most.

 

[SucculentHeadCrab]

Keep in mind guys that RO1 didn't get to how it is now until years later and with an "experienced" community and player base.

I'm sure a lot you you guys weren't around when RO1 initially released. Now think about this before getting all on RO2, it's gotten overwhelmed with new players so the pacing is just "off".

I myself put a lot more time into Darkest Hour and not so much RO1 so I guess it's safe to say that "Rising Storm" mod should be the turning point when it drops next year.

 

[Mootis]

I see what you're saying. However, they didn't animate the 1h/2h sprints because they were easier for one party, but so that you could have long-range IFF based on how the target is moving.

It's also how the germans and Russian carried their rifles when they wanted to get somewhere ASAP.
Look at this movie:
Stalingrad (Oct 1942) - YouTube

Clearly these soldiers want to get across that open space ASAP and they're not expecting the enemy.
Look at the guy running at 1.34 he's trying to move as fast as he can and he isn't expecting immediate enemy contact.

I posted those videos. ._.

I may not have posted some of the vids I watched, as a lot of them had ****ty music behind them, but I saw plenty of situations where a soldier would spring hard across open ground and be ADS in a snap.

Look at:

BattleDrill6 - Live house clearing in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne, 1-319th AFAR - YouTube

For example. The first few seconds they stack up, throw smoke, and then sprint across the open ground to get to cover. By the time the camera man has swung around the point man is already ADS and ready to engage threats. How long do you think it took him to do that? All of his buddies had their rifles shouldered as soon as they entered cover. They're fast, fluid motions. The rifle is a tool designed with human physiology in mind, and with a lot of attention paid to exactly the kind of situations it's going to run into in the field. It's easy to use, comfortable, light-weight, fast, and accurate. It has to be.

I watched that whole movie and it took them about 6 seconds to cross that street so I don't think they're sprinting. They're moving as fast as possible but it isn't a all out sprint to get to cover or to get out of a sticky situation. Those guys are clearly expecting enemy contact and I think their movement speed is similar to the running speed we have in RO2 which is fine. I think when you their movement speed isn't that different from the running speed we have in RO2

When you're running in RO2 your weapon is pointing forwards and you're ready to aim which is good. You're expecting the enemy to appear at anytime just like those guys in the video you linked to. When sprinting this simply isn't the case and I think RO2 should reflect that. The same goes for reloading weapons it should take longer when you're on the move. Your weapon is moving all over the place, you've got to get that mag or clip out and insert it. It would just take longer because you'd probably fumble around getting the mag out and inserting it.