Will you guys buy RO:HOS if there are no tanks?

[Sensemann]

There are 2 reasons and 2 reasons only for which I wouldn't buy RoHos:

1. no tanks
2. I hear anything about DLC possibilities in advance (and I mean DLC, not real addons)

Combined maps are the ones that keep me playing RO and DH, because it's the most intense experience in any FPS...

 

[slavek]

I would say yes.

RO was infantry only in a point in its life. However vehicles are the icing on the cake and tanks are the stripper that jumps out.

 

[doomis]

I will definitely buy it but the problem is, will my more arcady friends buy it when they find out that tanks are not there?

Because what persuaded them to buy the first RO was not watching me playing danzig but the possibility of entering a tank all together while communicating via skype or even better siting in the same net cafe.

Unless of course they make infantry battles unbelievably awesome and the graphics are great too, that will lure them for sure.

 

[dogbadger]

Despite loving the armour aspect of RO i would neither be surprised nor disappointed if tanks were not included - and i think it would probably be for the betterment of the game anyway, if resources are focused.
After all, if TWi nail the inf side perfectly, there would be nothing to stop armour inclusion in the future.
Better that than leave both aspects somewhat lacking.

I think some ppl fail to appreciate exactly how much work is required to implement tanks, and how appropriate this work is for a theatre that is inherently more inf based than before.
Not to mention the fact that expectations and demands would be far higher than a previous effort that has attracted, in my opinion, much unfair critisism.

I must have been one of the few ppl here that was satisfied with tanks, I think they worked fine with CA which was what i was most attracted too.
I guess they didn't work so well in all out tank maps - but this wasn't the design intention - and yet i still found this enjoyable.

Many inherently prefered infantry and didn't care for them -fair enough - and of course there are those who had so much to say about the selection and statistical abilities of those implemented in RO, seemingly with no grasp of the concept that the objective is to produce a reasonably balanced game.

Funny thing is, despite numerous complaints to the point of derision, i suspect this group would like to see tanks in HoS more than anyone.
Phaps they are hoping that RO do the hard work again, so some tank enthusiast 'modder' can tinker with some values and produce another german wank-fest.

 

[LemoN]

I don't care about tank only maps and I'd still buy it, but the game would lose a lot of depth if there are no CA maps.

 

[radix]

don't really give a damn about tanks.

if i can have a bolt action rifle with a bayo i'm more than happy

 

[SheepDip]

Just because the tank combat in RO was "arcady" what on earth makes you think that Tripwire would want to keep the same tank system in HOS?

RO started off as an infantry sim, and whilst tanks were added (and I do enjoy vehicle maps and combined arms maps) the fun of vehicle maps is severely diminished by lack of teamwork or people just being arseholes.

I'd really have liked to see CA maps based around early war tanks/armoured cars that rely on infantry support etc - the whole "mine is bigger than yours" tank combat is just dull.

And yes, you've chosen a rather poor choice for tank pics in the first post, the Panther was only introduced Mid '43 (Stalingrad was over by Spring of that year) and the IS2...well, keep dreaming

 

[fiftyone]

Voted Yes...

So much work went into implementing Tanks, pre & post release that No Tanks would more than surprise me.

 

[Zetsumei]

The tank combat in Roost didn't really float my boat, so I personally do not care that much for tanks. I hope to see some halftracks and trucks at the least though. However I would be surprised if TWI didn't add tanks to the game, as vehicles are usually a big thing for a games feature list. I just hope if they get added that there will be some additional depth to some of the tanking features.

 

[San_Dsk]

Who the hell said there where no tanks at stalingrad??
Take an extra lesson in history.
So TW will include tanks, just to satisfy their own standard of realism games!

God some of you people are just don't get it, Maybe there is a good chance that some of us play red orchestra for both experiences. TANKS AND INFANTRY. [...]

Your completely right! It

 

[SheepDip]

Who said there were "no tanks" in Stalingrad?
(Please don't say it was in response to Fed's humorous comment earlier in the thread)

It was merely pointed out that both the IS2 and the Panther did not feature in the battle for Stalingrad...and arguing that TWI have to implement everything that took part in Stalingrad is a little optimistic, as there are surely a few things like air and off-board support that played an absolutely crucial role in any assault that won't be implemented greatly either.

I personally expect RO:HOS to follow the same path that the mod did, infantry 1st, vehicles 2nd. Doesn't make a difference to me however!

 

[Major_Day]

God some of you people are just don't get it, Maybe there is a good chance that some of us play red orchestra for both experiences. TANKS AND INFANTRY. Why are you all saying one or the other, I don't get it. Have you never seen infantry and tank maps, why is there a need to have one over the other. Its far more immersive for both to be in. For instance, I like to blow up tanks with my panzershreck, so that means, no tanks, no bazookas, no ptrd, no panzerfaust, satchel charges, etc. and I mean in the way they were used and not for infantry. So that's some of the classes taken out. Infantry only maps are boring the same as tank only, when you combine them, the best times happen. Whether its small maps in a village with only 1 or 2 small tanks or even a big map with tanks and infantry, the immersion effects is phenomenal. I can understand the people that say they will buy it and be sad that there ain't any tanks, but the people that say get rid of them annoy me because why would you want less in a game? That is like saying "No I don't want the free heated seats, sunroof and air conditioning on the car". I don't get it, someone please enlighten me.

+1 Tanks are part of RO, whether you play them or not, and to leave them out would only alienate a lot of ppl who do like them.

 

[Mormegil]

I'm actually surprised people play RO strictly for the tanks. As has been stated before, why not get a tank sim? There are a few nice ones out there.

I play *mostly* for the tanks. I like infantry too, but CA is what really does it for me. That's the problem with dedicated tank sims, you don't have people playing as infantry in combined arms maps. There's nothing like slowly moving up supporting your infantry, as they support you, while lobbing HE rounds into enemy buildings to clear them out.

I personally expect RO:HOS to follow the same path that the mod did, infantry 1st, vehicles 2nd. Doesn't make a difference to me however!

I think you can get away with that strategy in a mod, but I don't think it works in retail. RO beta did it fine as a mod, but ROOST came out with tank support. I can't imagine that a retail game could be released with what many would consider a pretty big feature missing to be added on later. If you recall, RO beta initially put in vehicles (3.0?) to compete in the Make Something Unreal contest. That's why it came second, is my guess.

 

[Jono]

Tanks made the game in RO...

...it cant be that hard to include tanks,

​

Wrong.

 

[SheepDip]

RO:OST came out with tanks because RO:CA had tanks - there was no "starting from scratch" to get the tanks in there, the work had been done.

Implementing them all again (only better), on a new engine - whilst doing the same thing for infantry combat is a lot of work - especially if it's being done on multiple platforms. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[MEGADETHTHRETH]

Wrong.

No, you are wrong.

RO:OST came out with tanks because RO:CA had tanks - there was no "starting from scratch" to get the tanks in there, the work had been done.

Implementing them all again (only better), on a new engine - whilst doing the same thing for infantry combat is a lot of work - especially if it's being done on multiple platforms. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Wrong, its not that hard to implement tanks, and the proof is in Unreal Tournament 3. There is more vehicles in Unreal 3 than weapons, and that's fact. I know cause I have the game and its vehicles impressed me the most. And we are talking about walking beasts like out of the film, War of the Worlds, and far more complicated to make than a model on tracks. There is tanks and all. Watch this video that shows the complexity of these models and the way the move, compared to any tank or truck.
YouTube - A Look at all UT3 Vehicles
So there is no way anybody can say that this will be hard to implement, The proof is from a 3 year old game. Tripwire have to make new models and adjustments and I'm sure they can cope with that.

 

[fiftyone]

 

[SheepDip]

Thanks for having my back fiftyone!

Implimenting tanks in a realistic manner is considerably more difficult than throwing together some fancy looking tripod with a "health bar" for a damage model.

They aren't complicated to make - they are complicated to model accurately (armour thickness, angle of impact distance & location of impact & it's effect on the tank as a functioning machine, did it lose a track/wheel? Did it hit the ammo store? Did it hit the engine? etc) in an artificial environment - I can assure that the Unreal engine 3's vehicle properties are not this complex - TWI have to add/amend the engine source code in order to model tanks correctly.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

A double wasn't enough...

 

[Fedorov]

A double wasn't enough...