Realistic suggestions!

[VonMudra]

Yeah, it just helps, it doesn't solve the issue. And we would indeed like to explore our options in CryEngine for allowing weapon support/bipod placement on objects.

 

[Aniallator]

It's possible, and they were used in Normandy, however it would need to be the updated 1920s era model, with the roller coaster sight removed and replaced with a traditional leaf sight. Another option is to use a Czech derivative, which were also common.

Glad to hear it

We will try to get the reload processes as accurate looking as possible, I imagine at a minimum showing the shell ejection and the recoiling of the tube.

For some reason, I'm just excited to see the reloading process. Even if it were just the recoil and the ejection of the shell - hopefully not - it'd be awesome to look at.

 

[LuckyOne]

We will try to get the reload processes as accurate looking as possible, I imagine at a minimum showing the shell ejection and the recoiling of the tube.

Not good enough, I want at least this level of detail!

Imagine the hilarity that would ensue on the server:
- "Hans, get that shell in, that Cromwell is closing fast"
- "Jawohl Werner, let me just slide it in the breech... Oops I dropped it. Oh wait's this is a HE shell"
- "Los, los, get the proper one!"
- "Sorry, don't you know I'm colorblind"
- "HANS!"
- *they get blown to pieces*

 

[Aniallator]

The PaK 40's loading process is quite short, so I wouldn't think it'd be hard to implement the whole process. I can't wait to see the animation of me loading the gun

 

[Platybelodon {TP}]

Personally, the whole manual bolting thing is jolly fun. Surely it's relatively easy to make it an option, as in RO2?

Just the ability to do so increases my engagement with my character, so I can choose to bolt it immediately ('realistically') or not. Having the option to control the character's animations is far more immersive than any number of 'set' animations, and lets me role-play the game. As in ARMA, the entirely unnecessary buttons to sit down, salute, lower weapon, freelook etc. all increase immersion without negatively affecting gameplay. One is free to use them or not, but like having an option for manual bolting they are very good effects to have available...

I'm a little concerned that the decisions on what is 'realistic' can remove valuable opportunities to engage with one's character and lose the chance to identify with them as their actions become removed from the player.

In RO, being able to fix one's bayonet was great - unnecessary, but more fun than RO2 where it's automatically attached after a certain level is attained.

 

[Aniallator]

Well, I guess we're in favor of manual bolting I hope we'll have an option for manual reloading as well. It's like manual bolting in that it's cosmetic, but realistic and immerses you with the character. It's satisfying to be able to toggle the animation yourself rather than to have it be automatic. You should be able to disable/enable it, of course.

And I guarantee we'll be able to fix and unfix bayonets Take a look at the news update A Touch of British Class, one of the featured classes is the grenadier. His equipment includes a bayonet and the No. 1 Mk. III Cup Discharger. He can't have both of these fixed on his rifle at once, can he? I would like to see decreased accuracy when your bayonet is fixed, it'd be a nice and realistic feature.

As far as stabilizing weapons without bipods/tripods goes, they have a decent system in America's Army where pressing Z when up against a usable surface will result in your resting the weapon on that surface, greatly reducing recoil. In TW, you could use the key that toggles bipods to do this with bipodless weapons.

Does the PaK 40 model have the safety switch in the on or off position?

 

[VonMudra]

Actually, several ballistics tests have shown that bayonets actually don't affect the accuracy of at least WW1 and WW2 era rifles, and in some rifles even improve it, as the rifles were zeroed with the bayonet fixed (Mosin Nagants are like this).

 

[friendlyfire]

1. Please make an animation of the loading process. The players should only select the ammunition, aim and shoot. Imagine, for playing an game with manual loading process you need for every weapon/vehicle an special instruction. (How to use the technic in which order).
People who want to become an professional tank driver or an gun loader, should join the army (not play an computer game).

2. Please make all weapons including tanks operatable for ONE player.
I´ve seen useless games in which you need an tankdriver, an main gunner and an commander to operate only one tank. On an good tank battle map you need for operating 40 tanks min 120 players... .

 

[Bones99]

But if we had local voice com than the multiple crew member option would be better and more fun. Take Battlefield 2 Project Reality as a prime example of how voice com and teamwork should be

 

[Platybelodon {TP}]

The players should only select the ammunition, aim and shoot. Imagine, for playing an game with manual loading process you need for every weapon/vehicle an special instruction. (How to use the technic in which order).
People who want to become an professional tank driver or an gun loader, should join the army (not play an computer game).

Have you played "Receiver"? It's interesting how this very mechanic is what makes that game great fun. Although it was made fast and with minimal graphics, that aspect alone makes it possible to role-play the character and drop rounds on the floor when the tension gets too much.

I wouldn't be too sad to see elements of that in a more normal FPS However, perhaps this game is not it! I think with modern engines the ability to strike a balance between aspects that make the game fun or tip over the edge into Life: The Game with a button press for each leg (now there's a thought - an FPS with the gunplay of Receiver and the movement of QWOP!) is what is marvellous, but also what is very difficult to do successfully, so that the player's involvement is more than just setting in motion on animation after another. Cinematic it may be, but probably totally lacking in immersion.

There has to be an aspect of the game's overall concept behind every decision - if the game is CoD, then reloading in half a second is a necessity. As long as our developers know what they're aiming at, we should be all right. In a way that's the danger of fora like this, as only they have the overview while everyone else has their own pet delights that they hope will be included, but none of us can see the conceptual whole that the developers are aware of.

 

[friendlyfire]

I agree, the project management have to make a decision, will the TW be an simulation or an game (with realistic animated mechanics/physics, realistic weapon reloading time, sound).
In my opinion:
- single fill up of every bullet in the magazin ("Receiver"), than command put magazin into gun, than prepare gun ready for fire,... , has nothing to do with an realistic gameplay, this are just useless repetitive mouse- or keyboard clicks
- the game should be an modern ww2 alternative for the majority of FPS gamers not for fringe groups who have too much time for play
If the game will be an simulation, me and all gamers who are searching for an new FH/RO-style game don't looking forward for it anymore.

greetings

friendlyfire

 

[Bones99]

I don't think that in order to make this game realistic and fun it must be a Pak 40 loading simulator... It all comes down to the players. Those who played Battlefield 2 Project Reality know what i'm talking about. In BF2 PR there are guys that will create a freaking TRANSPORT SQUAD just to drive the soldiers to their destinations on trucks... That's their "gameplay". But they have fun too because they know what they're doing and they know they are taking a part on something "more fun" like battling the enemy. In all i wanted to say is stop speculating about ridiculous game mechanics such as "quick time" reloads and so on. As long as we have Mumble (Local voice com) and players that didn't come to play shoot 'em up, the fun is guaranteed. xD

 

[Duke]

You really don't see the realism in letting the player decide? How? In real life you decide whether you want to bolt or not, this is realism. Freedom of decision. In Red Orchestra I use manual bolting mainly because for CQB. An enemy pops up, I fire, I miss, he is in melee range now:

1. I can wait until I bolt and fire again or stab.
2. I can stab immediately without bolting

Same applies to reloads, they should be manual.

Also forgetting that you should bolt, can also be realistic we are not all experienced veterans, I will never forget bolting but newbies, maybe.

 

[Platybelodon {TP}]

Also forgetting that you should bolt, can also be realistic we are not all experienced veterans, I will never forget bolting but newbies, maybe.

This is what's great in Receiver - if I am anxious it is possible to fumble reloading, drop the clip and die. The other extreme is CoD where one's character can reload while holding a gun out in front of himself AND jumping from a first floor window. With a 100% success rate. "Somewhere between the two for Traction Wars", he predicted accurately...

 

[friendlyfire]

Its an good idea to depend the reloading time on the secondary action: if you go or run the reloading time should be longer than if you still in a position.
By the way realistic and easy to control is to use an gun/pistol all time as an stick:
Realistic situation: If you will be attacked during reloading your weapon than you try to beat the enemy with the weapon instead of finishing reloading and its faster than changing to any other weapon (also knife).

But i repeat: all actions must be possible to initiate with one key or click not an procedure of keys and clicks. Reloading for example is one action!

 

[Aniallator]

1. Please make an animation of the loading process. The players should only select the ammunition, aim and shoot. Imagine, for playing an game with manual loading process you need for every weapon/vehicle an special instruction. (How to use the technic in which order).
People who want to become an professional tank driver or an gun loader, should join the army (not play an computer game).

As far as loading the PaK 40 goes, here's what you should have to do; go up to a shell crate and toggle whatever key to take out a shell. Walk over to the gun, and toggle whatever key to interact. Interacting will trigger the full loading animation. If you have a shell, but the gun is loaded, you shouldn't be able to interact. Likewise, if you don't have a shell, and the gun isn't loaded, you shouldn't be able to interact. Anyway, after the animation, walk up to the sights and toggle whatever key to use them. You should be able to use the sights at any time. Once you've aimed the gun, remove yourself from the sights and interact with the firing button. This fires the gun. The gun recoils and ejects the shell casing, and that's that.

There may be slight changes to this process depending on the gun. The Flak 38, for example, would require you to grab a magazine and insert it into the gun, then seat yourself and begin firing down the sights, pausing to renew your magazine after you have expended the current one.

2. Please make all weapons including tanks operatable for ONE player.
I´ve seen useless games in which you need an tankdriver, an main gunner and an commander to operate only one tank. On an good tank battle map you need for operating 40 tanks min 120 players... .

If the loading processes are somthing like what I just described, you wouldn't need more than one person, though in the case of some guns - the Flak 38, for example - two or more people would be ideal. As far as tanks go, NPCs should man the areas of the tank not occupied by a player, as in RO2. Then again, all this depends on whether or not we'll have tank interiors, which I really, really, really hope we do... at some point, anyway, maybe a few chapters after Overlord.

 

[friendlyfire]

This is one of the few things what i dont prefer in RO. To operate an tank by commanding NPC: left, right, fast... is nothing for me. I prefer the simple ForgottenHope control, Driver and Gunner is one unit = one player. More manned positions in one vehicle make it more just more dangerous.
Imagine to operate Battleships in the future of this game, you need maybe 500 players or you have an commanding mess with NPCs.
Anyways if TW do not have an simply game control and i can't operate all weapons/vehicles alone, all players who prefer ForgottenHope control including me wont play it.

greetings

friendlyfire

 

[Aniallator]

This is one of the few things what i dont prefer in RO. To operate an tank by commanding NPC: left, right, fast... is nothing for me. I prefer the simple ForgottenHope control, Driver and Gunner is one unit = one player. More manned positions in one vehicle make it more just more dangerous.
Imagine to operate Battleships in the future of this game, you need maybe 500 players or you have an commanding mess with NPCs.
Anyways if TW do not have an simply game control and i can't operate all weapons/vehicles alone, all players who prefer ForgottenHope control including me wont play it.

greetings

friendlyfire

If you choose not to play TW because you dislike something, then fine, that's your loss; but don't speak for other people. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to play TW just because something so minor were done in a way you disliked.

In my opinion, RO2's tank system goes unparalleled; the interiors are gorgeous, sounds are great. More of RO2's great voice acting, too. Having the AI crewmen makes you feel like you're a guy manning a tank, rather than feeling like you are the tank, as in games like FH2 and H&G. Being able to run-and-gun tanks as in almost all games seems arcadey compared to RO2's realism. I almost play RO2 just for the tanks. I love giving the AI crewmen orders. The immersion is great. In the end, whatever system the devs choose for TW is fine with me, but I'd far prefer a tank system just like RO2's. It has no comparison.

 

[friendlyfire]

I respect your opinion about RO control system. For myself i played RO1 and 2 as infantry only (becasue of the vehicle control). Then i moved back to ForgottenHope its faster, more fun and you have all weapon systems (i´ve never seen aircrafts or ships in RO). Maybe an solution for all would be to give the AI in vehicle directly by WASD the commands.
If a game have not a simple control then this is an major not an minor issue and the difference between game and simulation. In ARMA/IronFront all the nice and realistic graphics, sounds and possibilities give this games no atmosphere because of the cruel game control.
Watch the market statistics PC-market lose more and more players to playstation and Co. PC market is flooded with (war)simulations and role games. TW should not be a clown of this simulation mass ware.

greetings

ff

 

[Aniallator]

I don't see a problem with those commands; toggling A would order the driver to turn left, D to turn right, S to reverse, and W to accelerate. When going forward, toggling S once would order him to stop, toggling it again would order him to reverse; likewise, when in reverse, toggling W once would order him to stop, toggling it again would order him to accelerate.

All the same, there's nothing complicated about RO2's tank controls, at least not in my opinion.