Red Orchestra 2?
- Thread starter NoxNoctum
- Start date
RO hasn't even come near the end of it's life cycle, obviously, so apart from the drive to produce, produce, produce there really isn't any *reason* to try and supersede it with another game which would be, by default, 'more of the same'.
RO simply has too much potential to let it go at this point, from my point of view. The updates we've seen so far seem to be the proverbial 'tip of the iceberg' as to what's doable to keep RO fresh with new content. Even if future updates are 'for sale' I'm sure there are plenty who will agree that at some point TW- for sound business reasons- will be perfectly within their right to put out 'pay to play' updates as opposed to the free content we're blessed with now.
Future TW updates, along with the community-based add-ons, should serve to keep RO fresh and as entertaining as it always has been. Certainly there will always be its detractors, but I still contend that for WW2 ground combat RO is the current gold standard for it's mix of realism and playability and will continue to be just that for some time.
(I cite as an outside example the IL-2 series of combat sims- the IL-2 system has proven itself to be *the* WW2 flight sim on the market, but apart from its recent updating and repackaging as IL-2: 1946 it is unlikely to progress any further. Why? Because it's at the top of the combat flight sim food chain and unlikely to be unseated for a very, very long time.
Now...if an engine could be developed that could *integrate* IL-2 quality air combat with RO quality ground combat...THAT would be the ultimate, in my book--- can you close your eyes and imagine what Orel might be like if there were FLYABLE Stukas and/or Sturmoviks available in the force mix?)
RO simply has too much potential to let it go at this point, from my point of view. The updates we've seen so far seem to be the proverbial 'tip of the iceberg' as to what's doable to keep RO fresh with new content. Even if future updates are 'for sale' I'm sure there are plenty who will agree that at some point TW- for sound business reasons- will be perfectly within their right to put out 'pay to play' updates as opposed to the free content we're blessed with now.
Future TW updates, along with the community-based add-ons, should serve to keep RO fresh and as entertaining as it always has been. Certainly there will always be its detractors, but I still contend that for WW2 ground combat RO is the current gold standard for it's mix of realism and playability and will continue to be just that for some time.
(I cite as an outside example the IL-2 series of combat sims- the IL-2 system has proven itself to be *the* WW2 flight sim on the market, but apart from its recent updating and repackaging as IL-2: 1946 it is unlikely to progress any further. Why? Because it's at the top of the combat flight sim food chain and unlikely to be unseated for a very, very long time.
Now...if an engine could be developed that could *integrate* IL-2 quality air combat with RO quality ground combat...THAT would be the ultimate, in my book--- can you close your eyes and imagine what Orel might be like if there were FLYABLE Stukas and/or Sturmoviks available in the force mix?)
Upvote
0
The idea of IL2 air combat and RO ground combat in one huge online game makes me want to cry.
Running on a 500 player server...
We would need bot driven front line transport (to bring players from the spawn to the front line)
Airfields, baraks, command centers... maps 10 times the size of current ones, and a huge following to fill up the servers.
Also wed need sum way to organise sending groups of troops with BASIC orders for people to follow.
Can u imagine how imersed in the game you would be?
Doesnt mean we cant have standard RO gameplay servers...just can have a few MEGA servers which run the massive maps when u feel like being apart of a massive team
There was a WW2 online game thingy..but i doubt it was that good.
Running on a 500 player server...
We would need bot driven front line transport (to bring players from the spawn to the front line)
Airfields, baraks, command centers... maps 10 times the size of current ones, and a huge following to fill up the servers.
Also wed need sum way to organise sending groups of troops with BASIC orders for people to follow.
Can u imagine how imersed in the game you would be?
Doesnt mean we cant have standard RO gameplay servers...just can have a few MEGA servers which run the massive maps when u feel like being apart of a massive team
There was a WW2 online game thingy..but i doubt it was that good.
Upvote
0
Look this:
http://www.1944d-day.com/
Only 1 map with 25000 km2, view distance 32 km, players online 128 + bots, UE3. Ground and air combat.
Salu2
http://www.1944d-day.com/
Only 1 map with 25000 km2, view distance 32 km, players online 128 + bots, UE3. Ground and air combat.
Salu2
Upvote
0
After RO 2?
After RO 2?
Actually I will post about RO 3 (and did just a short search with ArmA)
RO as it is (based on Unreal 2 engine) is a really good War game (not just FPS shooter) and following Red Orchestra 2(?) will be based on unreal 3 engine , hopefully again Eastern front in even better form.
Imho unreal engines are only good enough. Although we have seen that skilled developers can push game engines to their limits. Unfortunately there are some limits not to be crossed i.e. player and map size limits. And that leads to discussions like favourite sniping and MG-spots and in urban maps you always look certain roofs and windows. In really large maps it is more likely that individual rounds don't go over and over again in a certain way.
Like tripwire has told things just before Steam contract was that they almost went bankcrupt. Hopefully after Red Orchestra 2 Tripwire is still motivated in game development and are also financially independent enough. What then? Unreal 3 engine might be so good (despite certain limits) that you can in fact build even another game on that. What comes to my mind is to cut ties for unreal stuff and buy rights either for ArmA2 or Operation Flashpoint 2 engines. And then there comes
Imo IL2 level for planes is not necessary, current RO tank level is good enough. I know many will argue that RO is not about air combat. Maybe planes could be added just to the Capture the Island-multiplayer mode. In RO-case that "island" could be Europe starting from Berlin and ending to Moscow. Game starts from the middle, say year 1942. Then as the fight moves either to east or west time changes and with respawns you get newer tank/hand gun options. To avoid planes all the time chasing poor infantry and tanks we need enough AA-placements and a special cap zone that is only in the air and that forces planes to fight against each other. Most multiplayer missions could be without planes but way bigger than current RO-maps. Of cource modders would do what ever they want.
RO is realistic and more freedom adds realism. Just keep weapons accurate. At first it surely will feel that "you are not home anymore" but as time passes some1 will make a good massive multiplayer game which has RO-feeling/level in infantry and tank combat.
After RO 2?
Actually I will post about RO 3 (and did just a short search with ArmA)
RO as it is (based on Unreal 2 engine) is a really good War game (not just FPS shooter) and following Red Orchestra 2(?) will be based on unreal 3 engine , hopefully again Eastern front in even better form.
Imho unreal engines are only good enough. Although we have seen that skilled developers can push game engines to their limits. Unfortunately there are some limits not to be crossed i.e. player and map size limits. And that leads to discussions like favourite sniping and MG-spots and in urban maps you always look certain roofs and windows. In really large maps it is more likely that individual rounds don't go over and over again in a certain way.
Like tripwire has told things just before Steam contract was that they almost went bankcrupt. Hopefully after Red Orchestra 2 Tripwire is still motivated in game development and are also financially independent enough. What then? Unreal 3 engine might be so good (despite certain limits) that you can in fact build even another game on that. What comes to my mind is to cut ties for unreal stuff and buy rights either for ArmA2 or Operation Flashpoint 2 engines. And then there comes
Imo IL2 level for planes is not necessary, current RO tank level is good enough. I know many will argue that RO is not about air combat. Maybe planes could be added just to the Capture the Island-multiplayer mode. In RO-case that "island" could be Europe starting from Berlin and ending to Moscow. Game starts from the middle, say year 1942. Then as the fight moves either to east or west time changes and with respawns you get newer tank/hand gun options. To avoid planes all the time chasing poor infantry and tanks we need enough AA-placements and a special cap zone that is only in the air and that forces planes to fight against each other. Most multiplayer missions could be without planes but way bigger than current RO-maps. Of cource modders would do what ever they want.
RO is realistic and more freedom adds realism. Just keep weapons accurate. At first it surely will feel that "you are not home anymore" but as time passes some1 will make a good massive multiplayer game which has RO-feeling/level in infantry and tank combat.
Upvote
0
I've been dreaming of a combined sim game for years. IL2 level flight, RO infantry and Steel Beasts (I think that's the one I'm thinking of) level tank combat. Chuck in Silent Hunter 3 and I'd be just about bursting through my pants.
The only way we'll conceivably see something like this though is for multiple development teams to get together and come up with a decent scaling engine that can handle ArmA-like terrain detail at ground level but scales to IL2-like detail at range. Then each would work on the individual facets of the game. They could even sell them seperately - flight, infantry, tanks and sea. It'd be insanely cool to have a player controlled tank platoon move out to take an enemy base, but be spotted by a roving infantry patrol (all players) who alert their team and then have a player controlled aircraft carrier change course and launch player controlled aircraft to bomb the tanks.
I'd be all over the infantry and aircraft ones like a rash.
The only way we'll conceivably see something like this though is for multiple development teams to get together and come up with a decent scaling engine that can handle ArmA-like terrain detail at ground level but scales to IL2-like detail at range. Then each would work on the individual facets of the game. They could even sell them seperately - flight, infantry, tanks and sea. It'd be insanely cool to have a player controlled tank platoon move out to take an enemy base, but be spotted by a roving infantry patrol (all players) who alert their team and then have a player controlled aircraft carrier change course and launch player controlled aircraft to bomb the tanks.
I'd be all over the infantry and aircraft ones like a rash.
Upvote
0
Could it be done not in an intergrated game, but an intergrated battlefield.
What i mean is that the server battlefield is there & depending on what you want to do rules what you buy. If you want to fly then you buy the Flightsim side of the battle & join through that. If you like tanks then buy the tank side & so on. Then when you log on with whichever version of the battle you bought you can see your objectives on the map. Below you as you skoot along in your IL2 is the guys who bought the infantry & tank side of it there for all to see. The infantry guys will be manning the AA guns & AT guns. Boy would that be awesome. With the ground commanders able to call in proper air & artillary support & clans able to develop a total combined offensive & try to co-ordinate the whole lot. Phew i can't wait for the future to get here. Being 37 i hope it doesn't take too long to get here & i miss it all
What i mean is that the server battlefield is there & depending on what you want to do rules what you buy. If you want to fly then you buy the Flightsim side of the battle & join through that. If you like tanks then buy the tank side & so on. Then when you log on with whichever version of the battle you bought you can see your objectives on the map. Below you as you skoot along in your IL2 is the guys who bought the infantry & tank side of it there for all to see. The infantry guys will be manning the AA guns & AT guns. Boy would that be awesome. With the ground commanders able to call in proper air & artillary support & clans able to develop a total combined offensive & try to co-ordinate the whole lot. Phew i can't wait for the future to get here. Being 37 i hope it doesn't take too long to get here & i miss it all
Upvote
0
I'm not so sure about these "mega" servers guys.
World War 2 Online has come closest to achieving what some of you are describing and I can tell you from experience... it really isn't all that fun, at least not with the map sizes they employ.
Often, it takes literally half an hour (of in-game time) to reach whatever objective you're after on foot (there's usually one or two transports around but of course someone will grab it and run off), then,when you finally arrive there (after doing literally nothing but holding down the "W" key for 30 minutes, the battle will have around 30 people involved (TOPS! usually it's less), so it feels more like a bunch of tiny skirmishes than one huge battle. Of course, that's if you actually REACH the main area of the skirmish, typically, you'll get picked off by someone camping just outside.
For the "massive battles" to be fun, maps would have to have (as someone) suggested, AI-driven transportation (picking up people and dropping them off at timed, regulated intervals) to prevent people from grabbing the only available transport and running off empty, and maps would I think have to be somewhat limited in size (i.e. not much bigger than Krivui Rog or however you spell it). Incorporate TOO many elements (not only tanks, infantry, and planes but ships also would be overkill I think), and the game will be VERY boring for some people... i.e. if you're in the wrong spot.
World War 2 Online has come closest to achieving what some of you are describing and I can tell you from experience... it really isn't all that fun, at least not with the map sizes they employ.
Often, it takes literally half an hour (of in-game time) to reach whatever objective you're after on foot (there's usually one or two transports around but of course someone will grab it and run off), then,when you finally arrive there (after doing literally nothing but holding down the "W" key for 30 minutes, the battle will have around 30 people involved (TOPS! usually it's less), so it feels more like a bunch of tiny skirmishes than one huge battle. Of course, that's if you actually REACH the main area of the skirmish, typically, you'll get picked off by someone camping just outside.
For the "massive battles" to be fun, maps would have to have (as someone) suggested, AI-driven transportation (picking up people and dropping them off at timed, regulated intervals) to prevent people from grabbing the only available transport and running off empty, and maps would I think have to be somewhat limited in size (i.e. not much bigger than Krivui Rog or however you spell it). Incorporate TOO many elements (not only tanks, infantry, and planes but ships also would be overkill I think), and the game will be VERY boring for some people... i.e. if you're in the wrong spot.
Upvote
0
That's why, for the sake of gameplay, you allow respawns in the same way as all these game types already do. i.e. If you hold an area, you can respawn in it, be it an airfield, a sector in a city, and so on and so forth, so that there's always a healthy supply of combatants. Also, by having seperate games for the different facets, you'd attract more people. Flight simmers would come for IL2 level aerial combat, especially when they could bomb real ground targets in the process. Infantry players would love the ability to actually win a "map" and have it mean something in the overall scale of things.
WWIIO had the right idea but they balls'd it up in the beginning and killed any chance of getting a big playerbase. For something like this to work, it'd have to be done right the first time to ensure that it pulled in players from all the sim backgrounds rather than chasing them away.
In any case, I don't see it happening soon. One day yes, but not for a while yet. I remember the developers of the Jane's titles tried it back in '98 or '99 and it worked, sort of. The problem was that because they were only one development team, by the time they finished the second game (naval combat) the engine was looking very dated and because they had no marketing, there weren't enough sales to justify continuing. There's a market for it, but you have to do it all at once and get the hype machine going to let the hardcore simmers know that you're there, otherwise they'll never know.
WWIIO had the right idea but they balls'd it up in the beginning and killed any chance of getting a big playerbase. For something like this to work, it'd have to be done right the first time to ensure that it pulled in players from all the sim backgrounds rather than chasing them away.
In any case, I don't see it happening soon. One day yes, but not for a while yet. I remember the developers of the Jane's titles tried it back in '98 or '99 and it worked, sort of. The problem was that because they were only one development team, by the time they finished the second game (naval combat) the engine was looking very dated and because they had no marketing, there weren't enough sales to justify continuing. There's a market for it, but you have to do it all at once and get the hype machine going to let the hardcore simmers know that you're there, otherwise they'll never know.
Upvote
0
I don't believe you have any position to talk about tripwire and their financial situations and or what they have been. They made a mod for free, which was RO, which then developed it into RO:O after the make something unreal contest. One can deduce that they may not have had a lot of money to begin with or whatever. Please, they may have said that they ran out of money but don't turn it into your own thoughts.
Upvote
0
Just a small question, in what sense you don't see current ArmA (or forthcoming ArmA2/OFP2) air/range properties as good enough?
Upvote
0
In a full flight sim your viewing range will need to go up to at least 50kms. At present, Poseidon (can't remember its actual name, just the codename) can only do 15kms and it's slow to increase the LOD. It's just not enough for a flight sim where you will often find yourself hurtling towards the ground at high speed but wouldn't see the detail increase until after you've flown through that tree (which turned out to be a whole lot bigger than the low poly mesh would have you believe).
Also, Poseidon turns off all detail at quite a close range, which is unacceptable for a flight sim (as in, forests, rivers, etc all disappear completely). Not to mention that it can't yet handle the high level of detail required for proper cockpits without a nasty performance hit. If you've seen the IL2 cockpits' detail level (i.e. insane) then you'll know what I mean. As for physics... well perhaps the next version for ArmA 2 will be more suitable, but we'll see.
Perhaps in the future Poseidon might be able to do it, but not yet. And you'd still need to get dedicated teams to craft each individual facet. I'd like to see it done, I just don't think it's going to happen on that engine.
Also, Poseidon turns off all detail at quite a close range, which is unacceptable for a flight sim (as in, forests, rivers, etc all disappear completely). Not to mention that it can't yet handle the high level of detail required for proper cockpits without a nasty performance hit. If you've seen the IL2 cockpits' detail level (i.e. insane) then you'll know what I mean. As for physics... well perhaps the next version for ArmA 2 will be more suitable, but we'll see.
Perhaps in the future Poseidon might be able to do it, but not yet. And you'd still need to get dedicated teams to craft each individual facet. I'd like to see it done, I just don't think it's going to happen on that engine.
Upvote
0
My wishlist for Game2 (RO UE3):
- Deformable Terrain: Craters from explotions
- Destroyable Buildings: Create alternative entries to buildings
- HMG's, Flammenwerfers and (proper) Static AT/AA Emplacements
- Material Dependant Penetration
- Slings, never seen a game implementing them (properly)
- Interactive Sandbags: Beeing able to setup defensive positions anywhere you want. Also they will react to explosions and such.
Thats about it for now...
- Deformable Terrain: Craters from explotions
- Destroyable Buildings: Create alternative entries to buildings
- HMG's, Flammenwerfers and (proper) Static AT/AA Emplacements
- Material Dependant Penetration
- Slings, never seen a game implementing them (properly)
- Interactive Sandbags: Beeing able to setup defensive positions anywhere you want. Also they will react to explosions and such.
Thats about it for now...
Upvote
0
What do you mean by sling? The thing that makes it so that you can carry the gun on your back or something?
Upvote
0
Yeah, but it's also used when you're shooting. You wrap your hand up in it to stabilize the rifle.
Upvote
0
Wrapping a sling around you hand does NOT make it more stable.
In fact when you fire a weapon the fwd stock is only resting on your hand. You don't actually grip it at all. You've been watching too many films mate. If you grip it tight then there's a tendency to pull it off centre & any movement from your left hand (in most cases military weapons are only right handed) will be transfered to the weapon. So you grip with the rear hand & just rest it on the front hand.
In fact when you fire a weapon the fwd stock is only resting on your hand. You don't actually grip it at all. You've been watching too many films mate. If you grip it tight then there's a tendency to pull it off centre & any movement from your left hand (in most cases military weapons are only right handed) will be transfered to the weapon. So you grip with the rear hand & just rest it on the front hand.
Upvote
0
Mmm-hm.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/shooting/article/0,19912,1181723,00.html
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/shooting_tips/sling_0612/
http://www.gunhuntermag.com/features/060428Sling.htm
http://www.hk94.com/hk/Hasty-and-Deliberate-Sling-Techniques-t12437.html
http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php?topic=620.0;wap2
http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php?topic=322.0;wap2
Etc., etc., etc.
Upvote
0
Guess the British forces are wrong then. These are hunting rifles not assault weapons. Meybe there's a difference but i've been taught by both the British Army & Air force to fire military weapons & the front hand is only used to support the weapon.
Upvote
0
My old G3, the one I mentioned in another thread ... I took it to the range one day a few years back. Met up with some Marines there from the local base's shooting team. They all used the sling in the same way, when shooting off-hand. Same deal with their own M14 / M16 derivatives.
Upvote
0