My brother's been in combat and he thinks Ro1 feels more realistic...
Does that make my opinion valid? please?
Does that make my opinion valid? please?
Ro2
- Thread starter Jeremy Foote
- Start date
While i dont have any combat experience (i hope i soon will) my brother was in combat (Fallujah 2004, Lima/3/1 ), he said this game has no semblance to actual combat or infantry tactics.
granted he was not in stalingrad, but fallujah was one of the most intense urban fighting faced by the marines; average engagement range was around 100-200m (as opposed to 300-5000m normally).
One of the "unrealistic" features of RO2 is its lack of sustained firefights; a skirmish is over in about 3-5 seconds, whereas realistically it would take 3-5min (at the basic fireteam level).
Real Engagement:
-enemy contact
-deploy
-engage
-apply offensive/defensive maneuvers
-evaluate
-reapply
-continue until threat is neutralized.
RO2 Engagement:
-enemy contact
-engage
-threat neutralized.
RO1's gameplay was more in line with the first.
granted he was not in stalingrad, but fallujah was one of the most intense urban fighting faced by the marines; average engagement range was around 100-200m (as opposed to 300-5000m normally).
One of the "unrealistic" features of RO2 is its lack of sustained firefights; a skirmish is over in about 3-5 seconds, whereas realistically it would take 3-5min (at the basic fireteam level).
Real Engagement:
-enemy contact
-deploy
-engage
-apply offensive/defensive maneuvers
-evaluate
-reapply
-continue until threat is neutralized.
RO2 Engagement:
-enemy contact
-engage
-threat neutralized.
RO1's gameplay was more in line with the first.
Last edited:
Ill take that with a grain of salt.
Most of the combatants in the enemy side where not Iraqis fighting for there country to begin with, especially considering the US where taking prisoners and would be considerate of prisoners.
They where opurtunists (the insurgents)... especially against a well armed attacking opposition in numbers like the US with good tech.
No one in there right mind would attack the US head on unless they had equal too or stronger forces.
There for you are comparing apples with oranges.
In stalingrad the germans where losing 1000 men a day... the numbers of troops where much much higher than that of fallujah and compressed in to one city. much more that the entire US army sent to iraq.
I have no doubt battles where fought at fever pitch where they where not sit back and take shots like the US does and move in slowly when it is safe to do so.....superiour force allows this.
It was never a case of the US to go over there and kill everything, time is of the essence.
If RO2 was a 1 life game with no reinforcements.... it would be quite realistic.
Problem is people play like they have unlimitied life.
so if you want to compare any game with realism....first thing to do is go in with only one life to begin with, before making comparisons to real life.
Thats just lack of command structure being implemented by the community.
Its hard to do the middle four when you have a lot of rambos and sniper campers in game.
A clan would do it as above.
Of course there is a game mode that nobody likes that tripwire implimented for this purpose
WW2 Combat is so far removed from modern combat there is no comparison other than the loss of life.
Mainly, in WW2.. you knew who the enemy was/is as BOTH sides wore uniforms, vehicle and equipment differences were easily recognizable, battle lines were drawn and the conflict ensued.
Today, the enemy wears no uniform, is not confined by or agreed to any international laws, drives consumer vehicles, wantonly kills anyone (IED's & vehicle bombs) and mostly ambushes and snipes.
Claiming to be "in the know" due to a friend or relative's exposure to contemporary military operations against an unrecognizable enemy is ludicrous.Today, the enemy wears no uniform, is not confined by or agreed to any international laws, drives consumer vehicles, wantonly kills anyone (IED's & vehicle bombs) and mostly ambushes and snipes.
Last edited:
Making it as real as possible doesn't neccessary have to do with ''one life'' and the game is over. Because It's a videogame. Arma 2 simulate real-life combat to the maximum extent any game have ever done at the moment but if the game was over after you died no one would buy it. The military wouldn't buy VBS2 for training purposes either.
I think that some discussions about the realism aspect in RO2 sometimes gets boring.
It's a fact that RO2 isn't the most realistic game out there and this is not an opinion - It's a fact - because all this can be looked up. It's a fact that RO2 is more realistic than RO OST in some aspects and more unrealistic in other aspects.
Regarding realism, it isn't just about proper modelling of weapons, ballistics, sound etc. It's about the gameplay. The reason why you wont see people run and gun in arma is because the game do everything in it's power to hinder people to do this BECAUSE the purpose of it is to have players to play the game a certain way - and no OTHER way. While this do hinders many people to enjoy the game because it forces you to play it a certain way which is BASED on tactical combat with focus on realism. So there isn't much aids. No radar, lack of HUD elements, no perks, no skillpoints, achievements, and the weaponhandling requires you to invest time in order to learn to use it efficienty or you can go home.
You're not really dependent on quick reflexes either. The only thing that really matters is your approach. The game itself has a learning curve of months because the game doesn't help you to play it. You're on your own and every mistake is your own fault. Lack of attention may mean instant death and instant death doesn't just mean respawn and rush - boom back in the action. It's means that you may lose 40 minutes of progress and ten or 15 minutes of getting to the objective.
I think many people believe that the more fun the game is the more realistic it is. In that way battlefield 3 would be very realistic but it isn't. Still some people praise it as a ''military simulation'' and one of the most realistic games when it in fact is the opposite.
RO2 is developed to be fast paced, to keep you in the action, for fast kills and entertainment. When you increase the majority's view on ''entertainment'' in a game it will automaticly lack in realism. If you want to have more realism you have to remove some of it's entertainment. Because entertainment leave some aspects out such as the ability to lose 40mins of progress.
So there is really no need to go and come up with dilusional reasons why RO2 is realistic as a game. RO2 is simply more realistic in some ways but less realistic in others. SOME - not all - but some- was removed to make the game MORE about entertainment. So slow paced gameplay, learning curve for the weaponhandling, no award for playing it (not you get skillpoints, perks etc), lack of HUD elements, no ability for quick bandaging.. all this was removed for the sake of increasing the entertainment because the MAJORITY dont see this as entertainment. Entertaintment is COD and BF for the majority.
I think that some discussions about the realism aspect in RO2 sometimes gets boring.
It's a fact that RO2 isn't the most realistic game out there and this is not an opinion - It's a fact - because all this can be looked up. It's a fact that RO2 is more realistic than RO OST in some aspects and more unrealistic in other aspects.
Regarding realism, it isn't just about proper modelling of weapons, ballistics, sound etc. It's about the gameplay. The reason why you wont see people run and gun in arma is because the game do everything in it's power to hinder people to do this BECAUSE the purpose of it is to have players to play the game a certain way - and no OTHER way. While this do hinders many people to enjoy the game because it forces you to play it a certain way which is BASED on tactical combat with focus on realism. So there isn't much aids. No radar, lack of HUD elements, no perks, no skillpoints, achievements, and the weaponhandling requires you to invest time in order to learn to use it efficienty or you can go home.
You're not really dependent on quick reflexes either. The only thing that really matters is your approach. The game itself has a learning curve of months because the game doesn't help you to play it. You're on your own and every mistake is your own fault. Lack of attention may mean instant death and instant death doesn't just mean respawn and rush - boom back in the action. It's means that you may lose 40 minutes of progress and ten or 15 minutes of getting to the objective.
I think many people believe that the more fun the game is the more realistic it is. In that way battlefield 3 would be very realistic but it isn't. Still some people praise it as a ''military simulation'' and one of the most realistic games when it in fact is the opposite.
RO2 is developed to be fast paced, to keep you in the action, for fast kills and entertainment. When you increase the majority's view on ''entertainment'' in a game it will automaticly lack in realism. If you want to have more realism you have to remove some of it's entertainment. Because entertainment leave some aspects out such as the ability to lose 40mins of progress.
So there is really no need to go and come up with dilusional reasons why RO2 is realistic as a game. RO2 is simply more realistic in some ways but less realistic in others. SOME - not all - but some- was removed to make the game MORE about entertainment. So slow paced gameplay, learning curve for the weaponhandling, no award for playing it (not you get skillpoints, perks etc), lack of HUD elements, no ability for quick bandaging.. all this was removed for the sake of increasing the entertainment because the MAJORITY dont see this as entertainment. Entertaintment is COD and BF for the majority.
Of course there is a game mode that nobody likes that tripwire implimented for this purpose
I liked it... unfortunately people stilled played it like it was territory.
shame they dont have a 3 life only per player Territory mode.
Current US military operations are characterized as Stability Operations. We have not seen Offensive Operations since Korea.
One mechanic I think is very poorly implemented is the 'shift to steady' while holding a rifle unsupported. I can only go on my own experiences, but using a far lighter rifle, I can only hold it steady enough for mid-long range accurate shooting for a few seconds at a time. In game it feels like you can camp and be in focus mode like this without any support for the weapon for as long as you like. To put it into perspective, COD's version of this mechanic is far less forgiving (for snipers at least).
Many accounts of Stalingrad 'rattenkrieg' talk about furious close-quarters fighting. However, I also read an account by an Iraq veteran saying how people back at home would be surprised just how close-quarters much of the fighting they were engaged in was. He said they needed to fall back on their bayonets fairly regularly. No doubt this was with regards to urban fighting with an enemy who were difficult to distinguish from non-combatants.
A game like Arma models medium-long range fire-fights well. That's not to say that we should immediately dismiss any attempts to model combat at closer ranges as being 'unrealistic'.
Many accounts of Stalingrad 'rattenkrieg' talk about furious close-quarters fighting. However, I also read an account by an Iraq veteran saying how people back at home would be surprised just how close-quarters much of the fighting they were engaged in was. He said they needed to fall back on their bayonets fairly regularly. No doubt this was with regards to urban fighting with an enemy who were difficult to distinguish from non-combatants.
A game like Arma models medium-long range fire-fights well. That's not to say that we should immediately dismiss any attempts to model combat at closer ranges as being 'unrealistic'.
OP, one bit of advice. Stop thinking that typing in red emphasizes anything. I can honestly say that it almost made me skip the thread and neg rep you for it as it is too annoying to read.
The whole idea behind realism is mostly tied to immersion, ideally you get sucked into the game and start acting like you are really there. If you expect realism, you will get sucked in by proper realism.
Where RO2 fails in this aspect is that instead of making realism purely more accessible, they also have arcade features that this game really does not need.
The constant question of "Why is this feature(*ahem*annoyance*ahem*) in this game?" doesn't escape the mind, and thus breaks the immersion. While it may be very clear to developers why lockdown is in the game, or why bandaging is in the game. The consumer is barely notified what those features are actually for. They don't really feel like they contribute to the game other than being there.
That's why people have a lot of different reasons for what they consider to be realistic, because everyone has it's own opinion on what breaks immersion for them.
The whole idea behind realism is mostly tied to immersion, ideally you get sucked into the game and start acting like you are really there. If you expect realism, you will get sucked in by proper realism.
Where RO2 fails in this aspect is that instead of making realism purely more accessible, they also have arcade features that this game really does not need.
The constant question of "Why is this feature(*ahem*annoyance*ahem*) in this game?" doesn't escape the mind, and thus breaks the immersion. While it may be very clear to developers why lockdown is in the game, or why bandaging is in the game. The consumer is barely notified what those features are actually for. They don't really feel like they contribute to the game other than being there.
That's why people have a lot of different reasons for what they consider to be realistic, because everyone has it's own opinion on what breaks immersion for them.
you can take it with a grain of whatever you like, i understand people are doubtful of the validity of statements made online; i dont blame you. thats not the point though.
Yes, most were Libyans and even Chechens. They were very experienced as they were vertrans of prior engements with other countries.
That is incorrect. The insurgents in fallujah were very brash and aggressive; more so than what was assumed. That is why there were 2 battles for fallujah with the first being a decisive insurgent victory, pushing the marines to a full route, where they had to reorganize and attack a few months later.
They knew the city inside and out. falujah's architecture consists of high 4-6ft walls separating the backyards, so the insurgents would break small holes in them as to allow them quick access. They had various "safe points" where they would fire from and if the marines would push forward, they would drop their weapons and run to their secondary point (putting as many walls and obstructions between them); there they had weapons prepared and ready for them to continue engaging.
in fact, the streets and the open were so locked down by this tactic, that the marines were forced to blow holes in houses with explosives so they could go house to house without going into the streets.
While my brothers units never faced such an encounter, various outfits had engagements as close as 50m; they would be shooting at each other from across the street.
Now im not trying ot equate this with stalingrad, as stalingrad was horrific compared to any other engagement ever, but am saying that fallujah was tough urban fight with a "pace" much faster than what is normal in the current wars.
engagments at the squad level would take anywhere from 5-30min, before one side would fallback. occasionally my brother was tasked with clearing only 3-5 houses per day, because they would take a long time to clear. you're in the kitchen and the enemy is in the bedroom; that close.
plus the fact that armor assets were limited to only the LAV's as the Abrams were too large to manuver through the narrow streets. (at least until we moved south into the industrial district).
anyway my pont is engagements should last much longer in RO2, not how it should be super realistic with 1 life or whatever. i was just pointing to real life examples and then extrapolating that to the game.
Last edited:
F
Field Marshal Rommel
Guest
Yes because realism = combat simulators, and soldiers were never taught to run faster than 3 miles per hour.
this thread is funny. I have been deployed numerous times (dont want to tell you lest I give my age away lol!! and still active duty) and have seen combat and dont care to ever again. I will say this though, you cannot run around and not be winded, most of combat is mad dashes with stopping, waiting, then all hell breaks loose for 30 secs or 30 mins. Both RO1 and RO2 never captured the same feel for combat. I loved RO1/DH and played the snot out of it. I really like RO2 and see the potential in it. They are both great combat FPS and rightly so. And this whole fallujah comparison thing is silly too, I was there in 04.