less movies, more real life.
play the game and even a super soldier can't aim point blank after a nice sprint because he has to rise arms and whatnot. it was well made in RO and its abit to fast now in RO2
The Effectiveness of Weapons in WW2.
- Thread starter Lost Cipher
- Start date
play the game and even a super soldier can't aim point blank after a nice sprint because he has to rise arms and whatnot. it was well made in RO and its abit to fast now in RO2
Weird, I found out that cats are made of poptarts and they fly in space using rainbows.
That aside ;P
It is still a game, some people request some very silly things in the name of realism but in the end should be happy and what was made (so far!)
Am I the only one who found that quote to be ironic?
The guy can hardly form a coherent thought. I have a hard time taking him seriously. He continually misuses more advanced vocabulary and admits to being...particular (arrogant?) about firearms. Personally sounds to me like he is trying to erm...make himself appear smarter in order to bolster his opinion. Personally, I don't like people being fake and I don't like people who aren't comfortable voicing their opinion on the opinions own merit (not on the merit of "I'm smarter than you so take heed of my opinion!")
If he admits English isn't his native language, I'd have to totally redact my statements and apologize.
/rant
I don't remember how much training the various countries' soldiers had on average during WWII, but I think it's safe to say the average Soviet soldier in Stalingrad hadn't seen anything close to a modern basic training regime. When your losses approach 7 million in 6 months (Barbarossa), the treshold for "physical shape for combat duty" tends to get lowered... I wouldn't be surprised if some of them had less weapons training than even I do, and I can just about manage to put 5 rounds inside a 30cm static target at 100m with a scoped kar98k. While prone, relaxed and taking my time. If I was asked to shoot standing without anything to rest the rifle against, well, just don't be surprised if I hit the neighbouring target instead...
That aside, I don't think there's any developer out there more dedicated to obtaining correct historical weapon characteristics than Tripwire. [url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=46802[/URL] has some interesting insights in that regard, although that's more about bullet ballistics than weapon spread.
Keep in mind that 'effective range' can mean a multitude of different things when refering to firearms, especially when dealing with Russian numbers.
I don't understand your point, you think the weapons are not accurate enough in this game? wtf? The people right now are complaining that they are too accurate, there's not enough recoil or sway. Your first post describe well the fact that a weapon is deadly and accurate, but I don't understand your point.
And sorry for you but yes. I point a freaking barrel at a target, it will shoot there, not 30 meters away.
Yes, but the bullet will still go where the barrel is pointing, but anyway, all of that is hard to represent in a game.
ad hominem much?
I find the OP perfectly understandable, maybe the problem is yours.
Have you heard about ballistics?
Weapon won't shoot where the barrel is directed. Weapon's sights are usually set to hit a target from some distance. Sights line is not directed to where barrel is directed. There is a bullet drop and bullet can go to the left or to the right.
Last edited: