StG44 in 1942?

  • 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
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lucan946

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 12, 2009
636
84
0
I've been playing RO since 1.2, 6 years ago. I've seen how the RO devs operate even before Tripwire existed. They are not known for putting weapons/vehicles in their game that did not exist in the right time period. Considering the amount of research they have done on Stalingrad I doubt they would add something that wasn't there for the hell of it.

The MP-41 comes to mind.
 

Witzig

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 16, 2006
2,189
52
0
Germany
I've been playing RO since 1.2, 6 years ago. I've seen how the RO devs operate even before Tripwire existed. They are not known for putting weapons/vehicles in their game that did not exist in the right time period. Considering the amount of research they have done on Stalingrad I doubt they would add something that wasn't there for the hell of it.

I just want to add something (i agree with the Quoted Post btw)


Sure for the sake of complete staying to the Past Equipment Loadouts, one could argue if there is no 100% Proof it should stay out. Though than we'd go that routeneed people manning the Loader Position on Tanks...

Perhaps People critizing TWI for what they perceive as a Mistake, that TWI is very dedicated to stay true to Realism Gaming. IF there are things in the Game that aren't histroically correct, it won't be HUGE things. There are lots of things that have gotten improved upon Ostfront, some people really should take that into Account when nitpicking.
Thats not to say historical Inaccuracies shouldn't be pointed out, but one should voice critic in the right way.

Adding the King Tiger to Stalingrad Maps would be huge imho :D.


@to Majority cares or not:
Even if we say 100 People strongly favor the MKb42 not making it into the Game, thats only 0.02% of all People who bought RO:Ostfront.
 

Hans Ludwig

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 13, 2010
255
567
0
I've been playing RO since 1.2, 6 years ago. I've seen how the RO devs operate even before Tripwire existed. They are not known for putting weapons/vehicles in their game that did not exist in the right time period. Considering the amount of research they have done on Stalingrad I doubt they would add something that wasn't there for the hell of it.

That's just the point that I, even Lemon and a few others mentioned: Mkb 42 never saw action other than field testing on a very small scale. If you named this game RO2: 1943, then yes, the Mkb 42 would make sense and be historically accurate. Or if you added a Cholm map to RO2, but Lemon pointed out some information that suggest that Mkb 42s never even saw action in that area.
 

CopperHead

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 9, 2010
408
226
0
That's just the point that I, even Lemon and a few others mentioned: Mkb 42 never saw action other than field testing on a very small scale. If you named this game RO2: 1943, then yes, the Mkb 42 would make sense and be historically accurate. Or if you added a Cholm map to RO2, but Lemon pointed out some information that suggest that Mkb 42s never even saw action in that area.


I think we understand your point, completely. So you don't have to continue saying the same thing over and over again.

You disagree with it being in the game. Noted.
 

Lucan946

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 12, 2009
636
84
0
That's just the point that I, even Lemon and a few others mentioned: Mkb 42 never saw action other than field testing on a very small scale. If you named this game RO2: 1943, then yes, the Mkb 42 would make sense and be historically accurate. Or if you added a Cholm map to RO2, but Lemon pointed out some information that suggest that Mkb 42s never even saw action in that area.

Those aren't grounds to call a game unrealistic (that word being used relative to gaming, of course.) ArmA II features a Russian army in 2011 or somesuch date that has adopted AK-107s. Sure, not the most realistic, but that doesn't make the rest of the game an unrealistic CoD knockoff as a result, does it now?
 

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,293
2,346
0
33
Prussotroll's Bridge
Could we please stop discussing if it should be in the game or not?

Everyone has acknowledged that it is in the game and is going to stay in the game. What people here were and should be discussing is if it was there at that time.

This thread has brought up a lot of information to a lot of people who find this topic interesting. Don't let it die because of stupid trolling (Hans Ludwig, I think everyone has gotten your point. You don't have to repeat it all the time) or flaming (many others who try to turn this thread into a flame fest to lock it down).

IMO this thread should be cleaned up a little and should be moved into the history section. That way people who are interested can continue to discuss that topic without some jerks jumping in every second post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -[SiN]-bswearer

doomis

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 18, 2009
570
98
0
I agree with LemoN, I never even knew about the Cholm pocket, let alone all the other details about the weapon's history. Keep those info coming plx :D
 

[TW]Ramm-Jaeger

Tripwire Interactive President
Oct 11, 2005
1,884
3,097
0
www.redorchestragame.com
And finally, when I introduced myself to you at the recent PAX show you acted like a complete jerk. I handed my business card to you; introduced myself and said I have some very special Stalingrad items to show you; and your reply was basically be there, done that, and turned away and started to talk to some other man. I was upset, No, I was pissed!

I was told we contacted you multiple times officially and through the forums. What we got back was that the information you had wouldn't be shared or even sold. Internet communication is a funny thing, and sometimes things can get misconstrued. If we ended up with the wrong impression of you, I apologize. We obviously both have a passion for the battle of Stalingrad, so we should try to make amends.

We've got a great relationship with a lot of the Stalingrad researchers, including Jason Mark. It is kind of a tight knit group and most of us have friendly arrangements where we share information with each other as long as our business ventures don't step on each others toes.

Regarding meeting you at PAX, if it is actually me you are talking about I can guarantee that didn't happen. I just looked through the stack of business cards I got at PAX and there wasn't one from a Russ Schulke. I was showing Heroes of Stalingrad to the press almost the entire time, and most days didn't get lunch or more than a couple minutes out of the press room. But any RO fan that came up and talked to me I gave my full attention to, even if I only had a couple of minutes. You can ask BSwearer, who I skipped a press interview for to talk to him at PAX. If you had walked up to me and said "I have some very special Stalingrad items to show you", I would have certainly talked to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: husbert

Hans Ludwig

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 13, 2010
255
567
0
Those aren't grounds to call a game unrealistic (that word being used relative to gaming, of course.) ArmA II features a Russian army in 2011 or somesuch date that has adopted AK-107s. Sure, not the most realistic, but that doesn't make the rest of the game an unrealistic CoD knockoff as a result, does it now?

Arma2 set in 2011. This means there is a lot of room for speculating and telling the story from a what if perspective versus a game that has set itself - locked itself - in 1942. Yeah, totally the same thing.

Like I have said previously, if TWI did their home work, or reallyyyyy wanted the Mkb 42 in the game (nothing wrong with that), then why not tell the story from a 1943 perspective? Why limit yourself to a specific date in WW2?

I thought finding information about Cholm would solve everything. But Lemon proved that it was neither in Stalingrad, which we all knew, and was not in Cholm either from his sources. So that sort of pissed on the parade of finding some type of middle ground which to work with.
 

Reise

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
2,689
851
0
Maine, US
If you think Heroes of Stalingrad is exclusively about the battle of Stalingrad itself you're sorely mistaken.

From what we've seen it at least covers events and battles before and following Stalingrad.
 

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,293
2,346
0
33
Prussotroll's Bridge
If you think Heroes of Stalingrad is exclusively about the battle of Stalingrad itself you're sorely mistaken.

From what we've seen it at least covers events and battles before and following Stalingrad.

We all know that the game depicts the whole Stalingrad campaign from fall Blau to Wintergewitter.

But even then the fact stays that the first large scale field test of the Mkb. 42 was in April 1943. (Wiki says Nov 1942, but only around 90-120 Mkb's have been produced by that time. We all know you can't trust wiki with that kind of stuff)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: husbert

hockeywarrior

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,229
1,982
0
The RO Elitist's piano bar
www.youtube.com
I thought finding information about Cholm would solve everything. But Lemon proved that it was neither in Stalingrad, which we all knew, and was not in Cholm either from his sources. So that sort of pissed on the parade of finding some type of middle ground which to work with.
See there you go again, supposing that we know everything. As others have stated many times, saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

And if it is hypothetically true that the rifles were not used at Cholm, that doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't used at Stalingrad. Jumping to conclusions that don't conclusively exist is definitely one of your favorite pass times.

I'm not saying that the rifles WERE in Stalingrad for sure either -- but clearly we can't utterly disprove them being there based on the evidence so far.

My ultimate conclusion on this matter can be summed up in the following photo, labeled for our historical discussion, Exhibit A.

beating_a_dead_horse.jpg


And your ludicrous claims that somehow the inclusion of a gun that existed at the time of Stalingrad but *MAYBE* wasn't in the battle somehow makes this game an arcadey run and gun commercialized shooter? Are you serious? I can guarantee you that the vast majority of game developers don't even KNOW that the MP44 had several variants, let alone that this gun existed.

Hell, I bet if you search the inclusions of games that pride themselves on getting everything right, you'll find mistakes that amount to being more serious than the inclusion of this gun in RO:HOS. In other words, you're overreacting to the max.
 
Last edited:

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,293
2,346
0
33
Prussotroll's Bridge
And if it is hypothetically true that the rifles were not used at Cholm, that doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't used at Stalingrad. Jumping to conclusions that don't conclusively exist is definitely one of your favorite pass times.

I'm not saying that the rifles WERE in Stalingrad for sure either -- but clearly we can't utterly disprove them being there based on the evidence so far.

History doesn't work that way.
You have to prove something was there, unless it's a given that it was there.
You can't prove that something doesn't exist (see Religion discussions for this).

What would be the needed evidence:

Some official reports of it being used or fielded (like the lMG 42 Stalingrad report for instance)

Some sort of Photo that is clearly identifiable as being in Stalingrad or around Stalingrad
A photo with a Mkb42 labelled Stalingrad 1942 won't do. See the previous "evidence" (labelled Stalingrad 1942 and has a MP43 or MP44 in it).
 
Last edited:

Tank!

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 9, 2007
207
353
0
But like I've said before, if even 1 of these weapons made it into the time frame of our game, its good enough for me
The King Tiger wasn't in Ostfront just because it was so late war it could have only been able to be used in 1 or 2 maps. Which is the same reason you never saw an IS-3.
And as we've said before, the standard for TWI is could a weapon possibly be there, or could someone prove it wasn't there.



You are as worse as a politician. Go buy several books on King Tiger deployment on the eastern front or defense of Germany.
dhm1109.jpg




They are not known for putting weapons/vehicles in their game that did not exist in the right time period. Considering the amount of research they have done on Stalingrad I doubt they would add something that wasn't there for the hell of it.
Where was research on Rakowice (25th January 1945 according to map description) and other 1944 - 1945 maps (Ogledow) in RO which have rare early Panzer 4 F2's and Stug 3 F8's?



On the Mkb42 assault rifle the only obvious reason they are including it in this new RO is to counter the overpowerful laser PPSh-41 smg with its 71 round jamming drum. The Mp-40 smg on the other hand will be a muzzle climbing dispersing irrelevant cap gun as in RO1 instead of realistic shooting dynamics.
 
Last edited:

Witzig

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 16, 2006
2,189
52
0
Germany
Arma2 set in 2011. This means there is a lot of room for speculating and telling the story from a what if perspective versus a game that has set itself - locked itself - in 1942. Yeah, totally the same thing.

Every WWII Shooter has to operate from a what if perspective. Otherwise the outcome of all MP Maps would have to be written in stone....

Just for the record, i personally don't care if the MKb was in Stalingrad or not. There are more important Features/stuff i care about.
 

-[SiN]-bswearer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 3, 2008
3,460
1,942
0
You can ask BSwearer, who I skipped a press interview for to talk to him at PAX. If you had walked up to me and said "I have some very special Stalingrad items to show you", I would have certainly talked to you.

i remember how tired john and alan both seemed from countless hours in press interviews and presentations, but despite all that they still went out of their way to give me some of their time and were really hospitable and nice the whole time.....no way in hell i could believe they would ever "shun" somebody the way Russ described. :rolleyes:

i'll be able to call myself a "historian" when i get my degree in about 6 months.....but even being a "historian" doesn't give people the right to act like douches, which is what i've seen a lot of in this thread. like whoever said it earlier, i'm also happy to have learned a lot of historical information in this thread and to see it locked (again) would be lame.

the mkb42 will be in the game.....FACT
the mkb42 was used in stalingrad......disputable

for that, i also agree that the history section would be more appropriate for discussing the history of the gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Witzig

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,293
2,346
0
33
Prussotroll's Bridge
Like LemoN said it earlier, i'm also happy to have learned a lot of historical information in this thread and to see it locked (again) would be lame.

That would be me. :p

I still think that this thread should be cleaned up (delete some of the troll/flame posts like Tank's post above) and moved to the History section.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.