• 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

Mixed feelings about bullet penetration?

Nenjin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 30, 2009
3,878
480
0
Sub-Level 12
It's been said already, but what really unbalances penetration in other games is knowing where the enemy is and just running bullets through their cover until you register a hit. (Looking at you BC2.)

With no spotting and no hit indicators, people will have to shoot far more to guarantee they're hitting someone through cover....exposing themselves in the process.

Personally I can't play without bullet penetration and destructible cover anymore. It gives you reasons to move and prevents games devolving into 12 guys humping each other in the back on the same piece of cover.
 

wahoo4

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 29, 2010
286
290
0
NE, USA
That's part of the point on an MG: to cover an area in such a way that direct counterattack is difficult if not impossible. That way the MG denies an area to the enemy, hopefully providing some cover for friendly forces to operate under. The way to deal with an MG in RO (Ostfront or HoS) is the same as IRL; flank it and neutralize it from outside its arc of fire.
As long as it don't stalemate the infantry I don't care.
 

timur

FNG / Fresh Meat
I think that MGs, with all their major setbacks (like ammo, having to set up, and extreme limits) shouldn't be taken one on one when set up. And a team can easily gang up on any lone MG because he can only fire one direction, and he himself is now in the open. And if the MG is on the front lines, with a team and a large enemy force, he will be as he is in Roost; a prime target, powerful but obvious. And with penetration, he ought to be very careful before he reveals himself.
 

WinTurkey

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2011
136
85
0
We really have to consider 2 things regarding penetration here: will the penetration behave like a gradient or be binary, and will it affect bullet trajectory.

I don't know about COD and BC2, but I think in it it's a case of "either materials allow bullets to pass through like a knife through butter or they're invincible force-fields". In real life of course it doesn't work like that, while both wood and concrete may allow bullets to pass through those that pass through concrete will end up losing most of their stopping power and be a lot less dangerous than those which pass through wood. Of course, this is rudimentary and I'm sure TWI took it into account, I'm just pointing out that even if the MG can pierce any material hiding behind a brick wall will still make all the difference than standing out in the open.

Another point to consider is whether the bullet gets deflected when it passes through a material and how much, as this basically determines whether or not it's viable to shoot at someone through a wall if they're not propped up to it from the other side to begin with. This may be more difficult to code than power loss due to penetration, but I'd say using an approximated model similar to Snell's Law they'd be able to get a good result.
 

ductape3

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 13, 2011
280
60
0
We really have to consider 2 things regarding penetration here: will the penetration behave like a gradient or be binary, and will it affect bullet trajectory.

I don't know about COD and BC2, but I think in it it's a case of "either materials allow bullets to pass through like a knife through butter or they're invincible force-fields". In real life of course it doesn't work like that, while both wood and concrete may allow bullets to pass through those that pass through concrete will end up losing most of their stopping power and be a lot less dangerous than those which pass through wood. Of course, this is rudimentary and I'm sure TWI took it into account, I'm just pointing out that even if the MG can pierce any material hiding behind a brick wall will still make all the difference than standing out in the open.

Another point to consider is whether the bullet gets deflected when it passes through a material and how much, as this basically determines whether or not it's viable to shoot at someone through a wall if they're not propped up to it from the other side to begin with. This may be more difficult to code than power loss due to penetration, but I'd say using an approximated model similar to Snell's Law they'd be able to get a good result.
I feel confident that they will include ricochet angles, I mean they have it on the tanks already in ROOST, and if they don't, then there will probably be angles that the bullet simply wont penetrate certain materials.
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
0
61
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
We really have to consider 2 things regarding penetration here: will the penetration behave like a gradient or be binary, and will it affect bullet trajectory.

I don't know about COD and BC2, but I think in it it's a case of "either materials allow bullets to pass through like a knife through butter or they're invincible force-fields". In real life of course it doesn't work like that, while both wood and concrete may allow bullets to pass through those that pass through concrete will end up losing most of their stopping power and be a lot less dangerous than those which pass through wood. Of course, this is rudimentary and I'm sure TWI took it into account, I'm just pointing out that even if the MG can pierce any material hiding behind a brick wall will still make all the difference than standing out in the open.

Another point to consider is whether the bullet gets deflected when it passes through a material and how much, as this basically determines whether or not it's viable to shoot at someone through a wall if they're not propped up to it from the other side to begin with. This may be more difficult to code than power loss due to penetration, but I'd say using an approximated model similar to Snell's Law they'd be able to get a good result.
Couple of points...

1. Yes, material thickness matters. Think we said that before...

2. Snell's law is related to the refraction due to the WAVE nature of light - it has precious little to with the deflection of a particulate body. And you'll find that high velocity projectiles tend to pass through in a relatively straight line, although they may shatter or start to tumble on the way through. Any deflection is relatively random due to contact with differing materials as it passes through - which is also what causes tumbling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hockeywarrior

wahoo4

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 29, 2010
286
290
0
NE, USA
Well I hope we have lots of rubble piles and etc. I would bet most buildings from that time only had at the most two layers of brick. A MG will eat through that for sure, but as someone mentioned, no hit indicator should even that out.

I'm starting to pick off a lot of MGs with my bolt in RO1 so I'm sure it's a matter of learning the maps as well. I think I have some sort of disorder now because of TWI. Redorchestraism...thanks guys! lol :D I should have never got involved. lol
 
Last edited:

Nebfer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 23, 2006
384
11
0
I would suspect that with Suppression and Penetration, your going to see more emphasis on flanking the tough obstacles, like that MG team, and hit them from the side with a squad of men. I also can see if it works out this way, more emphasis on getting a good MG gunner and having rifleman protecting him from flank attacks (not to mention providing ammo).
 
H

HeyCarnut

Guest
2. Snell's law is related to the refraction due to the WAVE nature of light...
Someone that knows what they're talking about. Tingly.

In the punctilious spirit of these forums, it also deals with reflection (critical angle), and can be derived using a photon stream (particle model) just as easily as waves.
 

Actin

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 19, 2009
1,453
250
0
Netherlands
What everybody forgets is that when there is bullet penetration, ppl run out of ammo much quicker.
So stay safe for 3 seconds longer and you can even bayonet the mg gunner:D
 

wahoo4

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 29, 2010
286
290
0
NE, USA
That's been my point. I hope they balance enough non-penetrating objects to allow people to press forward. I'm sure TWI will do this so I'm not worried. With faster run speed this should help as well.

I just hope that's enough. Can you imagine Danzig with bullet penetration? The Russians would never make it out of spawn, whether they were seen or not.
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
0
61
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
In the punctilious spirit of these forums, it also deals with reflection (critical angle), and can be derived using a photon stream (particle model) just as easily as waves.
Smartass :p I am NOT going to try to revive my A-Level Physics enough to discuss the wave-particle duality of light...

Well I hope we have lots of rubble piles and etc. I would bet most buildings from that time only had at the most two layers of brick. A MG will eat through that for sure, but as someone mentioned, no hit indicator should even that out.
Actually, the buildings of the period in Russia can be divided into a few categories:

1. Wooden peasant crap. Popping up and down behind a window in one of those to shoot at an MG will be a BAD idea.

2. Pre-revolutionary/Tsarist architecture. Built of brick and stone, fairly massive construction. Outer walls constructed of multiple layers of brick, with air-gap for insulation. Thick enough to stop most projectiles, but more prone to "crumbling" from bombing and sustained artillery fire.

3. Soviet-era architecture - apartments. Massive brick construction, multiple layers of heavy-duty brick (NOT cinder block crap). Tended to withstand bombing/shelling better - a good number survived well enough to be rebuilt after the war. We've been in some in the upper and lower settlements of Traktorniy.

4. Soviet-era "big buildings". They made a lot of use of reinforced concrete by this point - thick slab, unsubtle. Often faced with stone or brick. Very solid.

Take "Danzig" - most of the buildings are Soviet-era apartments. Very soldily built. Most walls will withstand most bullets. The penetration that does occur will need the bullet hitting face-on - and even then the round will end up losing most of its energy.
 

wahoo4

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 29, 2010
286
290
0
NE, USA
Thank you for clearing that up Wilsonam, interesting stuff, and that makes me feel a lot better. :D I imagined cheaply made building construction.

Smartass :p I am NOT going to try to revive my A-Level Physics enough to discuss the wave-particle duality of light...


Actually, the buildings of the period in Russia can be divided into a few categories:

1. Wooden peasant crap. Popping up and down behind a window in one of those to shoot at an MG will be a BAD idea.

2. Pre-revolutionary/Tsarist architecture. Built of brick and stone, fairly massive construction. Outer walls constructed of multiple layers of brick, with air-gap for insulation. Thick enough to stop most projectiles, but more prone to "crumbling" from bombing and sustained artillery fire.

3. Soviet-era architecture - apartments. Massive brick construction, multiple layers of heavy-duty brick (NOT cinder block crap). Tended to withstand bombing/shelling better - a good number survived well enough to be rebuilt after the war. We've been in some in the upper and lower settlements of Traktorniy.

4. Soviet-era "big buildings". They made a lot of use of reinforced concrete by this point - thick slab, unsubtle. Often faced with stone or brick. Very solid.

Take "Danzig" - most of the buildings are Soviet-era apartments. Very soldily built. Most walls will withstand most bullets. The penetration that does occur will need the bullet hitting face-on - and even then the round will end up losing most of its energy.