Suppression in ROHOS

[Tiger2]

If the weapon does not automatically recentre after sprinting, then the rifleman will find that he still has to line up the target after popping up from cover. Also, as someone else said machine gunners can penetrate light cover which reduces the options for riflemen in this game.

In the end TWI will know best how to deal with this matter.

 

[Zetsumei]

If the weapon does not automatically recentre after sprinting, then the rifleman will find that he still has to line up the target after popping up from cover. Also, as someone else said machine gunners can penetrate light cover which reduces the options for riflemen in this game.

In the end TWI will know best how to deal with this matter.

The question is not if he got to recenter after sprinting but does he have to recenter after changing stance or leaning. Otherwise you can just as well look for a split second go down, use your mental image to place the gun in pretty much the right position of the enemy mg and popout with your gun 1 or 2 millimeter from the target, do a small minor tweak and poof the head.

I don't see however what this got to do with supression

 

[SchutzeSepp]

And it would also affect terribly game balance and give MG's something they don't need to have over other players. They have a gun that fires a high caliber round over long distances at a cyclic rate of 1200 RPM....do you REALLY need it set up so that all you have to do is shoot near a player to disable them? Does anyone else see how this is practically ridiculous?

yes, suppression is a rediculous and unrealistic thing. it's not like all the armies of the world have been using it as their No1 infantry tactic since ww2 or anything


the reality is that battles are won/lost based mostly on who can pin down the other most, not based on who kills all their enemies first. if you want your men to advance toward the enemy safely, then you need to pin them down. the effectiveness of suppression itself explains the succes of MG's, semi's and then assault rifle designs. it's a much more effective tactic to suppress an enemy, rather than trying to kill him. otherwise all soldiers would be using sniper rifles now.
in DH it might be overdone to force it on the player, but the result is there. mg's take their place again as kings of the battlefield, and when 1 is firing to kill you, then you simply can't return fire effectively even if you would want to.

 

[Dumba [cro]]

Sepp for president!

 

[husbert]

play darkest hour

suppression is the coolest thing on earth
suppression with mg42 is the coolest thing in universe
suppression with mg42 in hos will be the coolest thing in our universe and every parallel universe

 

[Apos]

play darkest hour

suppression is the coolest thing on earth
suppression with mg42 is the coolest thing in universe
suppression with mg42 in hos will be the coolest thing in our universe and every parallel universe

Agree, suppression in DH is great. Really force players to stay in trenches, keep head down and think about flanking enemy MG. In RO:O, MG is more about: "Oh, there is MG, shoot him!), DH is: "Omg, there is MG! Take cover!"

I'd like to see in RO:HoS same suppression system or slighty fixed with cool graphic effects.

 

[Flanker15]

PR mod for BF2 showed that to implement suppression right you have to force it onto the players and the firefights are now much more realistic thanks to it.
Making people nearly blind and almost useless when they're shot at is basically the only way to suppress someone in a game. When someone is confronted by this in the game they'll go straight to cover (unless they want to die) to try and recover their sight, if you continue pouring led into their cover they'll remain suppressed and won't leave the cover (unless they want to die).

 

[SchutzeSepp]

if only 1 in over 12 000 bullets fired in ww2 actually hit someone, it's because they were just real bad shooters

before someone quotes me on that lol, i finally remembered where i found that number. it's actually the amount of bullets fired by bombers for each enemy aircraft downed ... pardon me for that!

about suppression,
players are not affraid to die, but players absolutely hate loosing controll.
the suppression in DH makes you loose control off your character, wich is extremely annoying because everybody hates getting killed while not being able to do anything back. so you do anything to get out of the suppression effect: wich is actually the same reaction of someone who is afraid to die.

 

[Mr Milkman]

After playing RO and DH with the new effects, I feel that DH has a superior suppression effect when it comes to MGs. They should scare/suppress you. However, I feel when it comes to weapons that fire less bullets (bolts for example), that RO's effects are better. I have been noticing in DH that my player is just flinching too much when fired upon with less rounds, almost to the point of where it is annoying. I feel like a green recruit in his first battle.

I totally agree with you Moe...

 

[Mr Milkman]

before someone quotes me on that lol, i finally remembered where i found that number. it's actually the amount of bullets fired by bombers for each enemy aircraft downed ... pardon me for that!

about suppression,
players are not affraid to die, but players absolutely hate loosing controll.
the suppression in DH makes you loose control off your character, wich is extremely annoying because everybody hates getting killed while not being able to do anything back. so you do anything to get out of the suppression effect: wich is actually the same reaction of someone who is afraid to die.

I agree, and also I've been pinned by MG's plenty in DH and managed to pop him off a few times while under suppression. there are slight breaks in the suppression, enough to spit out a well aimed shot imo.

I understand the "forced upon player = bad" concept, but it does account for the lack of fear of death aspect in the game, as it makes you run for cover... plus I've never had an MG34 slamming its wrath upon me, but I'm pretty sure I'd experience something similar to suppression... in my pants at the very least!

 

[VariousNames]

This is exactly the issue for me, of all weapons the mg should probably be the most fearfull weapon. Even with supressive effects an mg cannot cover anything, so someone thats not being supressed can always kill him.

If you get 20 rounds per second fired in your general direction you should just not want to get up at all. What i want personally is not the DH movement but more something like a heavy sway (even when rested), so with skill you can still hit someone at a distance while under fire, but it makes it harder than when not fired upon.

A screen darkening especially with a good mental image before it darkened is enough to put an instantanious pop in the head of an mg.

Suppressive fire was one of things the main base for tactics afaik in ww2 (afaik atleast), and atm in ro its already better than the mod but i still see 100% fine when im being shot at. Only artillery currently really blocks my view.

This is absurd. When you're playing the machinegunner class and you see a rifleman or a sniper, you HIT THE DECK.

You do not expose yourself to a sniper, period.

The point is, highly accurate fire from a minimally exposed target is more devastating than throwing bullets in someone's general direction. Where's the suppression effects from the well-concealed sniper? Every time I see a war movie, they yell "SNIPER!" and scramble like rats to the nearest cover and start shivering like scared little girls.

Machineguns are only effective when you're running into them. This is testified by many users' experience on Red Orchestra. So why would you try to make them into god-weapons that they are obviously not? What do you do, as a squad or as an individual, when you see a machinegunner? SNIPER! MACHINEGUNNER, LEFT WINDOW! Ping, he's down. No one in their right mind sets up a machinegun that is exposed to riflemen or sniper sniping locations.

That's the way it is. Bolt action rifles are more effective than machineguns and thus their suppressive effect should be more substantial.

Y'know, I really think there should be a suppression effect for machinegunners. They're always shooting their random bullets all over the place, I think that riflemen, due to their deadly nature in instantly disabling machinegunners ragespamming bullets all over the place (and trolling forums with requests for god-mode suppression effects), RO needs to more realistically simulate the devastating effect of highly accurate small arms fire and make machinegunners crap their pants, cry, and curl up in the fetal position whenever they see a sniper. It should be completely arbitrary and not up to the player, of course. They should just instantly be rendered useless whenever they see a sniper.

 

[VariousNames]

Agree, suppression in DH is great. Really force players to stay in trenches, keep head down and think about flanking enemy MG. In RO:O, MG is more about: "Oh, there is MG, shoot him!), DH is: "Omg, there is MG! Take cover!"

I'd like to see in RO:HoS same suppression system or slighty fixed with cool graphic effects.

You know what, I think machinegunners should just have god-mode and invulnerability and that bolt-action riflemen should be forced to fire beanbags.

That'd be really balanced.

 

[REZ]

There are several reasons the MG's arent as scary as they should be in RO.

For one, the tracers are like the lasers beams in Star Wars regardless of environmental conditions. This allows people to find the exact spot of the MG instantly upon the first volley. Evil Hobo (bless him) tweaked this in Kriegstadt and it became very hard to pinpoint the position of the MG. It's not uncommon to see the defensive MG at the top of the scoreboard now because of how effective the weapon is.

Distances and spread. Most of the distances in stock RO are relatively short, yet the spread on the bullets coming out of the MG's is pretty wide. At these shorter distances the grouping should be much tighter imo. This would allow the MG to use small, deadly accurate bursts on pop-up riflemen. Grouping at short/medium distances could be tighter.

Pop-up riflemen. You shouldnt be able to get a split second view and lineup of the enemy MG and crouch behind cover, then quickly stand up and have the rifle at the exact same point in which it was when you crouched. This is the reason popping up is so effective against MG's... or anyone for that matter. Adjusting this slightly would give the MG'er a moment to at least fire a volley upon seeing someone's head pop-up.

Penetration in and of itself is a suppression factor, so that should help things as well.

I think if all of this stuff was tweaked a bit, then there wouldnt be any need to force the players weapons to swing around when they are fired upon. What will happen instead is the effectiveness of the actual MG as a weapon will cause people to take cover and suppress themselves. Suppression is causing the enemy to take cover and stay there, it isnt about making their guns fly around uncontrollably.

I think with the grouping at short to medium distances made tighter, the inability to immediately identify the position of the MG (ala laser beam tracers), disallowing quick lean and crouching movements to retain the exact aim point, aaand the penetration factor all combined will act in conjunction as enough of a reason for a person to suppress themselves.

 

[VariousNames]

There are several reasons the MG's arent as scary as they should be in RO.

For one, the tracers are like the lasers beams in Star Wars regardless of environmental conditions. This allows people to find the exact spot of the MG instantly upon the first volley. Evil Hobo (bless him) tweaked this in Kriegstadt and it became very hard to pinpoint the position of the MG. It's not uncommon to see the defensive MG at the top of the scoreboard now because of how effective the weapon is.

Agreed. Probably already being fixed though.

Distances and spread. Most of the distances in stock RO are relatively short, yet the spread on the bullets coming out of the MG's is pretty wide. At these shorter distances the grouping should be much tighter imo. This would allow the MG to use small, deadly accurate bursts on pop-up riflemen. Grouping at short/medium distances could be tighter.

Dependent on reality. If the MG42 is more accurate IRL than it is in RO, fix it. If it's as accurate, keep it. Realism is key, and that's my only concern.

Pop-up riflemen. You shouldnt be able to get a split second view and lineup of the enemy MG and crouch behind cover, then quickly stand up and have the rifle at the exact same point in which it was when you crouched. This is the reason popping up is so effective against MG's... or anyone for that matter. Adjusting this slightly would give the MG'er a moment to at least fire a volley upon seeing someone's head pop-up.

I think that adding sway on crouch/uncrouch would help mitigate this, and so will weapon collision.

Penetration in and of itself is a suppression factor, so that should help things as well.

Bullet penetration will help everything, most of all those people hiding behind two planks of wood and the people lean and peaking and dominating everyone because the only person who can kill them is a godly sniper. It will really help the machineguns. That thing should chew through cover, unquestionably.

I think if all of this stuff was tweaked a bit, then there wouldnt be any need to force the players weapons to swing around when they are fired upon. What will happen instead is the effectiveness of the actual MG as a weapon will cause people to take cover and suppress themselves. Suppression is causing the enemy to take cover and stay there, it isnt about making their guns fly around uncontrollably.

I think with the grouping at short to medium distances made tighter, the inability to immediately identify the position of the MG (ala laser beam tracers), disallowing quick lean and crouching movements to retain the exact aim point, aaand the penetration factor all combined will act in conjunction as enough of a reason for a person to suppress themselves.

I completely and totally agree with this.

As long as there's a good reason to duck and cover, people will. As it stands in Ost Front, people's first inclination is to find cover. Their second inclination is to slowly lean and clip their rifle out a window and pick off the MG. That or it's to pop up. Any of the factors this poster (REZ) suggested would not only be realistic, but effective. They would also allow you to bypass taking control away from players, implementing a blanket suppression system that wouldn't make any sense and would not facilitate game balance. An artificial balancing system that destroys balance (suppression "flinch" simulations) is something I oppose and something I dread in games (I despise DH).

If riflemen are deadly, machinegunners will hide from them. If machinegunners are deadly, riflemen will hide from them. There is no need for a faux system that simulates the psychological effects that would not even reasonably be there....if no threat exists from an object, you would be reasonable in confronting it, particularly if you have the upper hand (as riflemen/snipers often currently do).

 

[Flanker15]

If riflemen are deadly, machinegunners will hide from them. If machinegunners are deadly, riflemen will hide from them.

Works in real life, rarely works in games though. People will happilly march to their deaths over and over in a game.

 

[Mormegil]

The point is, highly accurate fire from a minimally exposed target is more devastating than throwing bullets in someone's general direction.

World War I would disagree with you on this.

Where's the suppression effects from the well-concealed sniper? Every time I see a war movie, they yell "SNIPER!" and scramble like rats to the nearest cover and start shivering like scared little girls.

That's because they don't make movies about machine gunners. Besides it's a movie, not real life - not a good gauge of reality.

Machineguns are only effective when you're running into them. This is testified by many users' experience on Red Orchestra.

Your evidence for reality is a video game. That argument doesn't hold water. I could argue that tanks in DH aren't realistic because it's proven in stock RO that optics never get destroyed.

That's the way it is. Bolt action rifles are more effective than machineguns and thus their suppressive effect should be more substantial.

If bolt action rifles are more effective in war than machine guns and smgs, and assault rifles as you have been pushing, then modern armies would be equipped with only bolt action rifles.

 

[BlackLabel]

You guys forget that a experienced MGer in the game is ****ing deadly. In DH even more so due to the supression effect. BUT you need flanksupport to be that effective. In clamatches where you someties are on your own, knowing when to move/reload or/and pulling out the luger is substantial too.

And for the forced flinching in DH. With some practice you can kill the MGers easy with the bolt. Just takes some more planning.

 

[SchutzeSepp]

That's the way it is. Bolt action rifles are more effective than machineguns and thus their suppressive effect should be more substantial.

i don't think you even understand the concept of suppression, we are not talking about the accuracy of the weapons. we are talking about what happens when the bullets pass close to you.
if i follow your logic than 1 rifle shot in your direction is supposed to be more suppressive than 200 rifles shots fired in your direction in 5 seconds time like an MG would do.
a bullet is a bullet, a bullet will not suppress more when it comes from a sniper rifle, than when it comes from an MG. though the effect may possibly variate depending on the bullet type.
what creates suppression has nothing to do with the type of weapon that is used, what matters is:
-bullet type, larger bullets may make a stronger shock wave/sound when they pass you
-distance at wich the bullet passes you, the closer to you, the more you feel it
-amount of bullets, high fire-power means you have more suppressive effect

that is what matters, so yes an MG 42 burst will have a much larger suppressive effect than 1 rifle shot.

something you may understand better lol, is that in movies they oftenly scream "pin them down!" or "suppressive fire!", in your logic the sniper and bolters then start shooting while the MG's storm the building?
the use of the MG is that 1 person with a large amount of fire power can use that fire-power to "shoot for the others" while they are advancing and not able to fire. his goal is never to kill the enemy, but to pin them down so they won't shoot at his squad members as they expose themselves to advance.

 

[särnhagen]

True. The accuracy of a weapon isnt the most important thing in combat, especially not in close or semi close combat. There are always 3 elements of surviving/succeed in combat. that is, and has always been 1. movement, 2. firepower and 3. cover. One has to fulfill 2 of these elements in order to succeed. If you have only 1 element, you are history quick enough. Therefore, a MG34 or 42 is THE weapon a squad uses in order to establish 1 of the 3 elements. No accuracy is really needed, just suppression. One can really say that other weapons are more for your own protection, while MG:s, Panzerfaust/Shreck and other heavy weapons are the one you use to gain ground.


2 squads can also work together. One is surpressing while other squad is advancing. Then all weapons are used to surpress, but you will selldom se the running soldier shoot IRL....

Tactical tip
When I have a MG in RO I usually has less points than others because I use the MG to surpress and scare opponents. It works very well -for the team, not for me points.

/Kuno

 

[RedGuardist]

his goal is never to kill the enemy, but to pin them down so they won't shoot at his squad members as they expose themselves to advance.

Well, this is really not true. Ofcourse machinegunner tries to hit to the enemy and kill him. That