How much realism?

[Instinct]

Tell us how much realism you want in a game like Men of War?

[u-51]

I want 100% realism, if my sherman gets hit and catches fire i want my computer to catch fire and explode also. :)

[Instinct]

So what do you do, when your crew gets hit? o_O
;)

[u-51]

So what do you do, when your crew gets hit? o_O
;)

Hmm, that's a though question :roll: , i guess i could put a hand grenade under my chair for such situations :)

On a serious note - if the addon have realistic ranges would be AWESOME!

[Instinct]

To be honest, real realistic ranges won't be possible for this Addon. The whole game would need redesign, not to talk about Singleplayer maps :)
But I don't say it's impossible for future updates, depends on the people wanting it. :shady: :baseball:

[u-51]

But I don't say it's impossible for future updates, depends on the people wanting it. :shady: :baseball:

Unfortunatelly that's true :| , but i guess you reccon the reason why so small group of players and modders is actve is because of the "exelent" and "outstanding" "inovations" FOW brought, both gameplay wise and mission design ("design" :baseball: ), while keeping all the "imoprtant" features of SHOWW2. That should've scared off alot of good folks for sure. Hopefully the devs will learn from their MISTAKES (both from SHOWW2 and FOW) and will make something set in ww2. But i'm not relying on this, as TOW and COI will come very soon and i'll be very busy :) .

[Instinct]

I think we all learned from the mistakes. The only difficulty is, not to make new ones.

[C0ntrol]

Speaking of the addon. I think the realism level set in Soldiers mods BTRH/SoE/Direct Engagement, would be just perfect! The ranges were perfect, units were realistic and there was NO possibility for a regular Sherman to knock out a Tiger or a heavier tank than that.

So maybe Bestway could look a bit these mods and pick some models/units/weapons etc. etc., armor settings and ranges.

[u-51]

I think we all learned from the mistakes.
That's correct.



The only difficulty is, not to make new ones.
That's also correct. But, it shouldn't be hard to remember the fundament of game development - "Never fix something if it's not broken". If you follow that rule you will make far less mistakes.

[Instinct]

I'm carefully watching the overall process of developement. A few times a week I hock up some coop games and have a look again at the original FoW missions.

I must say that I'm really happy with the current progress of Addon and it's gameplay. Our main focus is to give the player more time, more freedom and more interaction + adding even more cinematic feeling, but lowering the level of scripts in missions. That's a difficult mixture and a big challenge which will be mastered for sure.

How the gunranges will be changed, I can't say now. But I'm confident it will be the right direction.

[u-51]

Well, to be honest the gun ranges are not very important, as is the number of scripts. It is the overall feel of the game that have to be changed. It's a shame that such powerfull engine is not used to it's maximum :( . I've been playing with the editor since it was released and i'm having ALOT of fun with company level battles and i'm sure the engine could handle even battalion sized battles, if the map was large enough of cource. This is what FOW should've be - real war, not 3 vs 300+ sh|ty 3rd person arcade shooter.

ps: Well, maybe company/battalion would be too big for casual gamer to handle, but the player should have at least a platoon sized forces in most of the missions.

[Instinct]

Well the game is not made to be a company based RTS and I honestly must say I can't believe it ever will, atleast not with any Addon.
It's a squad based game and it will keep one, people didn't buy it to have a standart mass RTS.
And don't forget the multiplayer...

[Instinct]

The difficulty in it is, that you make 3 games out of one and all players want a fully working game. Instead of testing one map with one setting and 3 difficulties easy, medium, hard, you will test 3 settings with each 3 difficulties. You see the problem?

For Multiplayer only there could be a setting between standart and realistic, but on the other hand it would devide the community in 2 categories.

[Instinct]

Well we will see,
atleast the game offers the chance to everyone to make the game how he would like it :)

[kapulA]

100%
Also,bullet speeds need major speed-upping.
I did it myself,with good effect,but that was the kind of thing I expected vanilla FoW to have....
Guess I was wrong.

[TTorpedo]

From reading this post I like the way the add-on its pointing.
Personally i would like a realistic game, and definitely squad based. I don´re even want to control individual soldiers (but i guess this is one off the flags of the game)
I specially miss the emulating of the moral behaviour of soldiers, probably completely out of focus off the ad-on, but i would love to see it address in further follow ups.

At list downsizing the expertise of soldiers managing other weapons than there primary should be implemented on the "tactical" option if not completely forbidden like.. Normal soldiers (not) driving tanks...!

I guess theirs a game for each gamer, and the devs can only make one!
Keep the good work FOW its a fantastic engine, full with potential, keep it modable



PS: By the way COI is out (close combat 3 re-release) 8 years after of is debut! Why is still alive? One answers could be because is centered on realism and the gameplay is open not so much in graphics or scripting plots.

[Instinct]

I just want to add that a moral behaviour exists in FoW, but more or less only for AI.
A lot of people complained that they don't have enough control over their soldiers, adding a moral behaviour would decrease control a further time.

We will keep the game modable for sure ;)

[TTorpedo]

I just want to add that a moral behaviour exists in FoW, but more or less only for AI.
A lot of people complained that they don't have enough control over their soldiers, adding a moral behaviour would decrease control a further time.

We will keep the game modable for sure ;)



Ai moral! humm it would´t be to hard to extend it a bit... :?
I No. i no i´m in the wrong side of the barricade. For me is less control over individuals! just send out the orders and watch them work while i enjoy a fresh bear :realbig:

well of to see Porto -Chelsea! now thats a fight

[Inkompetent]

I'm definitely up for moral, but it could be pretty simplified (hopefully with room for some modification by us modders). Suppression alone is pretty fine to me, so that you can pin units with heavy enough small arms fire. Let the player be able to force them to shoot but with decreased accuracy and increased time between shots and it is sort'a done. This could of course be evolved to distance to command units, moral of nearby units and so on if wanted a lil' more advanced.

Oh, and add friendly fire to the game and let it be a server side setting for multiplayer and difficulty-based in singleplayer.

[Instinct]

ps: Well, maybe company/battalion would be too big for casual gamer to handle, but the player should have at least a platoon sized forces in most of the missions.
Some missions will have a larger force under the control of the player. (50-100 men)

[[lmsyhmic]]

I'd like to see saving private Ryan realism, as in Hollywood move type realism, but not to the point that no one ever gets hit (ie the current faces of war). Also please add sharpnel for grenades, AP round explosion, and building hits.

[wilhelm]

I like a little more realism as far as the armor goes I dont think that many t34 or M4 shermans knocked the turrets off a tiger at range and a tiger could most definatly kill either at much greater range than they could kill it . The panzerIV could out range a sherman but it was about an even gun range match with the t34 though the t34 frontal armor was more effective it was vunerable in the side like most every tank of the time. also when you shoot an IS_2 in the gas tanks it should burn but even the German 88 or the american 90mm just bounce off most times.

[Rayzor]

I think it would be best if there was a difficulty option selection. From "Arcade", "Action", and "Real". I mean they should improve "Arcade" etc not like the current "Tactics" and "Arcade" mode in the current FOW game.

It would be fun if it was real. But then the game would require bigger maps that would match the scale of realism. Say an 88 or Tiger having that extra punch power around 1600m - imagine that scale on a "real" map. The map would have to be really "BIG". As it wouldn't be that much fun if the maps were small and all the units in the game have accurate "real" firepower. It would be fun though to have battles at a "real" scale. Tanks, etc. the Machineguns, rifles, down to the sub-machine and assault rifles were made to be real. That would be fun. This then would employ a much more application of tactics and require the gamer to be knowledgeable of the units he has in order to exploit the strengths and weaknesses of each units. Say rush the T-34 to cover the long range and engage the Tiger in close range. Or suppressing fire using the MG34, or Brown .50Cal, etc using their maximum range to suppress infantry at long range. That would be fun to see and require the player to really think hard in order to solve the dilemma. Well if bestway decides to make it real, then it would be best if everything would be brought up to be "real" from the firing distance, maps etc.

[Instinct]

There will be easy, medium, hard and insane gamemodes.

[C0ntrol]

Insane difficulty is like real life? 1 shot and you're toast?

[Instinct]

No, but it's hard difficult mode + forced realistic fog of war :)
Remember you can toggle fog of war ingame aswell, except in insane.

[Rafo]

I would like when a tank gets hit, and the shell penetrates it could kill some but not all crew members. Like if it hit the hull it could kill the driver and the tank stops moving, and the rest of the crew would survive. Like in Theatre of War I believe that has it like that. I would like to see a Tiger killing a Sherman with one hit as in RL and burst in flames... Also about the tanks, i dont like how FoW does it cause u hit tank in hull and boom, its completely damaged even if u hit it at the front and the tank cant move! Then the crew bails out... I wish it would be like when shelll penetrates it doesnt insta kill the tank, maybe knock the entire crew out and u could then capture it or the shell kees going and hits engine and the tank burst in flames... Well i hope u understood what i said... :shady:

I chose the first one, the completely realistic option....

[Cpt Nixon]

Realistic as possible with a game.

One time in Close Combat I had my men bail out as my sherman came around the corner point blank to a Tigers gun. Thats AI! I also had a bazooka man tell me I was crazy as I clicked for him to run across an open field to attack a tiger with infantry. Whereas it was very annoying it was realistic and happened when it realistically would and it was very rare instance indead (didnt happen all the time at all but that little rarety added realism).

CHANGE. When your soldiers are running across the map like lemmings, that they will stop and actually fight back to a tank man shooting them all from behind as they run mindlessly! See Below 'Forced Cover'

ALSO CHANGE. Mines are indescriminate weapons - used for area denial, limiting advance, or blocking approaches, but in any case the mines cannot be crossed by anyone at all!! the mine situation as it is is very very very very unrealistic. Ex. mines should destroy friend or foe, this will solve the problems in MP with guys with no tactics mining every inch of the map.

AGREE - tanks get captured! All crew does not die.

ADD - Forced Cover, a pillar in combat tactic. A unit running mindless when engaged should take cover and engage back. It is called a 'chance encounter' or 'delaying action' and it is used often in war to stall reinforcements or occupy resources.


Loong time Soldiers and Faces of War player - from day 1, and Ex-military.
Cpt Nixon

[Sgt. Puente]

I agree with Cpt. Nixon on the A.I. of the your infantry when running across a field. I also agree with him on the AT & AP mines when laying them out. I would also like to see the rocket vehicles be less available in the game because having them available the whole time when playing a multiplayer session is just not realistic. :brickwall: I am hooked on this game though and have been playing FOW and SHOWW2 for a few years now. These two games have to be the best simulation games I have ever played. I was stoked when Company Of Heroes came out. I downloaded the demo before buying it. I am glad I did because the second I saw that tanks have "health bars?" over them I wanted to throw up. :wilting: That was the moment I realized just what gems SHOWW2 and FOW are. You guys really have something special here and even though there are things that I would like to see done I can't really complain about the game over all. Keep up the good work and just remember what kind of gamers you guys are catering to and don't change direction on us. In my opinion you guys are in a class all your own. This may not be the most popular game here in the U.S. but I wouldn't change it because of the quality of people I play with on game spy. I have played many shooter games online and some simulations and alot of the people playing those games look for loop holes and glitches to take advantage of. There is no strategy and to me that makes a game get boring real quick. With SHOWW2 and FOW there are no loop holes or glitches and no health bars. :realbig: I have used strategies that have helped me win and have been my demise. That's what is great about playing this online. It's always a new experience when I go online and it keeps me coming back for more when I can make time to play it. I know this is a long reply but I'm just showing my enthusiasm for the game and for the future game. Can't wait for it to come out.

[Cpt Nixon]

Hear Hear Puente! I agree the moment I see a health bar on a tank, it is time to move on. keep it real guys. Like Puente said there really isnt much to complain about as it stands but a few new additions will only help. Thanks DIGITALMINDSOFT for getting started on a new game for us. We do greatly appreciate it. And wil play it for as many years as it takes for the next to come out. :grandpa:

[Wasteland Warrior]

How much realism do I want - more than is currently in FoW, but NOT ultra-realism. Weapon AND visual ranges simply must be increased as they are ridiculously limitted currently. I'm not asking for actual weapon ranges, just ranges that aren't so freakin short. How about damage models - injured infantry and damaged armour that doesn't perform at 100% until that last hitpoint is destroyed and heavy canons that have been blown 10m into the sky and landed upside down that are completely undamaged. And a much more realistic hit/damage model for infantry would be greatly appreciated. It is currently set so that infantry stance effects damage done, which is entirely incorrect. Infantry stance and movement should ONLY effect chance to hit, they should NOT effect damage done when hit. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a prone enemy take 5 direct grenade hits to kill. How about realistic rotation speeds of AT canons - it's completely ridiculous that they can rotate and pick-off running infantry. How about realistic rotation ranges - tank turrets, canons, mounted MGs are all the time rotating thru walls, trenches, and sandbags. How about being able to throw a grenade while running? How about realistic vehicle travel paths? How about realistic vehicle movement? And finally - and this is the big one - ANY improvements to AI to make it better/more realistic would be great.

Again, I'm not asking for ultra-realism here. I know that completely realistic weapon ranges aren't possible in FoW. But there are a ton of things (undoubtedly more than that mentioned above) that need to be improved that will really help this game. Again, just my opinions......

[HANSPETER]

I think you should mixture realism with arcade, but it will be better to be more realism than arcade :) I was a big fan and player in Soldiers HOWWII, but FoW dissapointed me :( Some ideas were vry good, like squads and guns and a new graphic of course, but realism.... Penetration system was horrible! How Sherman can destroy Konigtiger! HE bullets destroying tanks, granades which be under sodliers' legs not killing them... It's only few problems. But as you said, you teach on your own mistakes.

But you changed so many things in BETA of Soldiers 3:
New penetration system is very good. Realism came back. No immortal soldiers.

I think it will be god to mix all good from Soldiers HOWWII + some news from FoW (like squads, guns etc.) + new graphic and it would a great game, which will be rather sequel of Soldiers HOWWII, not sequel of FoW :)

PS.

How much realism do I want - more than is currently in FoW, but NOT ultra-realism. Weapon AND visual ranges simply must be increased as they are ridiculously limitted currently. I'm not asking for actual weapon ranges, just ranges that aren't so freakin short. How about damage models - injured infantry and damaged armour that doesn't perform at 100% until that last hitpoint is destroyed and heavy canons that have been blown 10m into the sky and landed upside down that are completely undamaged. And a much more realistic hit/damage model for infantry would be greatly appreciated. It is currently set so that infantry stance effects damage done, which is entirely incorrect. Infantry stance and movement should ONLY effect chance to hit, they should NOT effect damage done when hit. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a prone enemy take 5 direct grenade hits to kill. How about realistic rotation speeds of AT canons - it's completely ridiculous that they can rotate and pick-off running infantry. How about realistic rotation ranges - tank turrets, canons, mounted MGs are all the time rotating thru walls, trenches, and sandbags. How about being able to throw a grenade while running? How about realistic vehicle travel paths? How about realistic vehicle movement? And finally - and this is the big one - ANY improvements to AI to make it better/more realistic would be great.

Again, I'm not asking for ultra-realism here. I know that completely realistic weapon ranges aren't possible in FoW. But there are a ton of things (undoubtedly more than that mentioned above) that need to be improved that will really help this game. Again, just my opinions......

I sign under this things :)

[Slapping Penguin]

I don't like the sound of the "CONE" of vision where troops see out of the fog of war. Sorry, soldiers to move their heads from side to side.
The vision cones need to be massively widened.

[Latdonine]

Realism is good atleast in the MP Beta I've played but I want to see Tiger blow u0p when u hit it's fuel place :baseball: I'm not sure if it's located in the back where the 2 barrel thingies r... :typing:

And u should also attract attention to STONES...I was Driving a truck and hitted huge stone and I pushed it away :!: How realistic is that?

well even though I find something uncomftarble I still enjoy the game :D Keep thge good work going ;)

[UsF]

I think it should be fun and realistic. That is what I liked most about Faces of War. I was able to play a more realistic way of game or use one soldier rambo-like running around and mowing down foes.
If it isnt any fun and just all realism, good luck trying to make it a huge public success. Games should be fun.
And fun is a subjective matter from everyones point of view.
Just make it versatile to suit anyones needs (the needs of alot of people) and tone it towards realism like you are currently doing. If you can add options to make it even more realistic, that is great, because I also like realism in games, but give people the option to have pure dramatic action and fun.

[wawaee]

I agreed with UsF , sequel should be realistic and fun
This is what i like Fow also :)

[Mad Cat]

As real as possible. Fuel consumption, ammo usages, the works. I think disabled vehicles should be left disabled but I don't think others would think the same.



I truly hope those totally annoying indicator triangles are going to be a thing of the past. I much prefer the old flashing dotted ring over the triangles because it was far less obvious. The triangles make the soldiers look like they are glowing in the dark and dressed as clowns in daylight. Throws the whole look of the battlefield off :P .

[s.pz.abt.503]

Games like SHoWW2 , Faces of War (and we hope Men of War ofcourse) are played by people who knows very much things about World War II and many of us we are not children anymore (including myself: age 30).
On the market are hundred of games with ww2 subject, but majority are so arcadely and pueril. In my opinion Men of War must to have a high level of realism . But on the other hand, are players who want much fun in game(close combat, bombastic explosions,etc.). So...one question apears! It is not posible for developers of the Men of War (DMS & Best Way) to make both things?? (realism & fun). My suggestion : an official Mod made by DMS & Best Way, somthing like BTRH (but much more objective, because in this mod BT-7a destroy a kingtiger with cumulative shells- cumulative shells in BT-7a... very lol, in rest is a very good mod) with the name "Historical Military Simulation" (HMS), included in game. To the next time... :toast:

[Migalex]

For me realism is all, For me realism its fun, that way, we can use real tactics, like most of german tank perfect at long ranges, things like that, use real tactics, like have a very cheap russian infantery for rush, and T-34s cheap too for rush too, (Same for Shermans)
I would like to have 100=100...1000=1000 Total realism, that would be the most fun, thats why I play Tow alot, (I play fow alot too, but tow is really cool beacause of the distances and realism)
hopefully, I think men of war will b awesome, but, not realistic in some things, thats why theres mods! I just hope theres someone enouf crazy to make a total realistic mod...And about balance, well for me balance would be in prices (Lets imagine that a tiger costs 100, shermans m4a2 will cost 20 and sherman with 76wmm will cost 35)
Realism foward! lol

[mp5_sd]

A combination of fun and realism will be great.....after all we will sit on a chair , in face of a glass screen...not in a tank on a field

[Defy_you]

99% realism :wow:

[Motaa]

100% :booyah:

[sgt_steiner]

uber realistic is the way to go without a doubt, the 2 games so far have gave me the game ive wanted and dreamed of playing since i first played "desert rats on" my 1st zx spectrum,(36years old :grandpa: ) yes the game isnt perfect with a few wee bumps and warts but its bloody great fun!!!
so as i said total realism would be the way to go :grandpa:

[readalert]

quote from stereoscopic 3d review (see wishlist topic) :

"More affecting, however, was seeing scenes from "bird's eye" RTS games like Age of Empires III in genuine 3D - the tiny protagonists becoming like claymation figures one could reach out and squish. It's the shiny meathook future we were promised decades ago."

realism fans check this :
http://www.forum.graviteam.com/viewtopic.php?t=319

[SS-Kommando]

It should be as realistic as possible, so we won't need to download and make realism mods as it currently is... In Faces of War you can have too few units at a time, which is a major problem in my opinion, so I want there to be more units on the battlefields. Other than that, I would like the squads to be more historically accurate when it comes to the equipment department. Also, make sure that there is variety -both in Co-op missions and when fighting other humans. The player should in battle-zones and combat be able to chose from a large selection of squads, artillery pieces, assault guns and panzers. And finally, you developers should make so that the battles play out in a historical manner. Infantrymen should be cheap, to ensure they make up the most of the player's armed forces.

Not much could be done when it comes to ranges of course, so that can be left as it is; if a tank can shot through the entire map as it was in reality, there would be no point for long-range artillery, and it would be an annoyance in general.

I hope my post will be read and hopefully answered.

/SS-Kommando

[Urwald-Korps]

Dont try to be smarter then Instinct. I share the view that 100% would be NOT good for the game and the funfactor. Alot of you guys see it out of fanview who doesnt really made themselfes a realistic overview how real battles has been made. Dont think just because you sah some documentations you would knew everything.

[SS-Kommando]

Dont try to be smarter then Instinct. I share the view that 100% would be NOT good for the game and the funfactor. Alot of you guys see it out of fanview who doesnt really made themselfes a realistic overview how real battles has been made. Dont think just because you sah some documentations you would knew everything.

So you think we should sit quietly and not express our opinions? And I know enough about World War 2 to conclude that Faces of War is far too unrealistic as it is in its original state. There doesn't have to be absolute realism, but there should be at least some realism. The developers are by no means powerless to make the game more realistic, and it would not create major unbalances in the game or reduce its fun-factor to do so.

/SS-Kommando

[Booler]

as long as the game entertains me from the visual aspect + the gameplay i am fine with it.

now theres this problem with the direct control wich sounds great...
but if you ever wanted to just run around with one of your soldiers from a fixed third person like view (thinks about gears of war) running into a bulding waiting for teh next victim.
this game wont give you this sort of entertainment, it ends up that if you choose to go with direct control your soldier wont survive 10 seconds..so it ends up that you just stick to the rts control because there the soldiers can atleast run for 7 seconds..
and its like that since showw2 the direct control never realy got improved...but why ? :huh:
i mean does the way the direct control works realy entertain you... it could be alot better :confused: (from my point of view)
atleast for infantery the direct control should be improved so it makes "fun" to use it.
for vehicles the direct control is OK, i think thats the cause why the game always end up in tank,artillery battles.
simple said it makes more fun to drive around with my slow tank then to give me the stress with direct controlling my robotic soldier.

but hey atleast it runs alot better since FOW....as long as theres no one who slows the game down. :whip:

forgot some things..
the buy menu should be more expanded so that its possible to buy inventory stuff i dont want to buy a extra supply car just for some things why cant i have already the stuff i need in my tank or soldier inventory who comes fresh out the production.. :huh: ofcourse the extra inventory stuff should cost something :hurray:
and why is it not possible to change his respawn point ?

[pelitys]

Some of my opinions here... To sum it up, I'd like Men of War to be seriously spiced up and facelifted Soldiers.

I'd like the game to keep it limited when it comes to amount of units, and nothing else :grin:
Thanks to direct control the game is really fun to play, and a large amount of units just doesn't fit, at all. In most missions I get several units at my disposal, be it tanks, infantry or whatever. I take the most powerful unit at my disposal and clear the map with just one unit. If I want more difficulty, I take the weakest one, or something in between. So adding units to my side is a bad thing, I never make use of them all unless the unit I control takes a direct hit and explodes (unless I got a recent savegame to go back to).

So unless the units will have very, very good AI adding more of them is just bad idea. In my books excellent AI would automatically take cover when ordered next to a brick fence for example, or I could order one unit to fire at tracks when ambushing and the other unit to fire at the weakest spot it can fire on. Otherwise ordering units to go there and do that is just adding to your list of casualties. I'd also like that the AI won't have x-ray vision, so ambushing in singleplayer is possible. So as long as I'm hiding my AT gun in a bush, it won't get destroyed from miles away by enemy tank that would have no chance of spotting it in real life. Also camo kits for tanks, infantry and guns would spice things up a bit quite lot.

Damage model. What makes Soldiers so awesome. Even for such an old game it beats all modern games hands down. Not much to improve there because the system is near perfect, since it takes distance, angle, armor sloping, thickness and ammo caliber into account. Though some mods like BTRH or SoE took it even further. So definitely keep total realism at this matter. Scale down distances and such because we can't have maps that are 10km across, but keep it otherwise as realistic as possible. If you get this thing wrong, it will probably ruin the game for me. And it will most likely be fixed by a mod later on.
Also have realistic bullet penetration for wrecking sheds, trucks and such by turning them into swiss cheese :yes:

Camera. It should be like the hacked-up camera in Soldiers. Totally free zoom and rotation, yes please! The only thing that should be fixed is when infantry enters buildings. There could be an universal switch that would always display the insides of 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th floor. No more cursing at the camera and easier time aiming with direct control on infantry in buildings.

Now that I'm done with big subjects, lets move onto fluff. There should be bridges, communications antennas, trees that I can fell onto roads to slow down enemies, explosive gas containers, real working railroad tracks and trains, all kinds of little stuff that I can interact with or blow them up. For example I can destroy a communications antenna to deny enemy AI reinforcements or capture it to call in my ground attack planes (why there are no 'call-in' planes in Soldiers?), or blow up bridges while enemy infantry reinforcement train is crossing it (and should I place too little explosives or in wrong places, the bridge would bend or shake a bit but wouldn't collapse).
Also relating to damage model, why not have damage and holes on tanks and vehicles appear exactly where the shot hit? In MP this is ofcourse not possible, but please, atleast in single player? I just LOVE everything that is damage-related. I'd love to collide a tank with a concrete wall and have my barrel bent, drive over a ditch and get stuck in mud, shoot off parts off vehicles and see an antitank rifle take out several soldiers as the round flies through the thin armor plating of a hanomag, and rip off some hands and other <insert gore here>. Nothing should be static or pre-determined, but dynamic. Like how euphoria engine creates animations on the fly in GTA 4, something like that but for damage model and physics as well.


Now obviously if all that was implemented for real, it would take decades to finish the game but if even one third makes it into the final game I will be an ecstatic bunny :wow:
And thumbs up for everybody who didn't think it was TLDR.

Oh and I almost forgot: FIRE. Why does a molotov cocktail only affect tanks when thrown over an engine? In WW2 it was enough to lob some on top of the tank so the thing heated up and the crew would be forced to exit the vehicle. It would make a very good way of capturing enemy tanks without banging them up into bad shape first. Also infantry should be able to sneak up on a tank and toss a grenade through a hatch. It could be avoided by buttoning up but then it would severely limit tank's LoS. None of this was in Soldiers and it would make an excellent addition. Please note I haven't played FoW or MoW beta yet so it might be possible in those two games. I consider MoW to be Soldiers' spiritual successor as I heard FoW was quite terrible and was much different from Soldiers.

[Mushroomcar]

I'd like the game to keep it limited when it comes to amount of units, and nothing else :grin:
Thanks to direct control the game is really fun to play, and a large amount of units just doesn't fit, at all. In most missions I get several units at my disposal, be it tanks, infantry or whatever. I take the most powerful unit at my disposal and clear the map with just one unit. If I want more difficulty, I take the weakest one, or something in between. So adding units to my side is a bad thing, I never make use of them all unless the unit I control takes a direct hit and explodes (unless I got a recent savegame to go back to).

Well i agree with you, but many uses a handfull of soldiers in their playing style. I guess you are talking about singleplayer since you mention you don't like many soldiers, i have to agree on that. I also prefer only to use one single soldier, you get such a thrill when a tank is hunting you and enemies rushing towards you and you are trying to flank them! But it's still nice to keep the others in, doesn't really hurt if you leave them at start? Some of my friends often uses a group of soldiers in close combat techniques which is harder but possible to do with one soldier too. Although with a group of soldiers they rapidly spray the rushing enemies down quickly and saves us others that might be healing or something else. I agree on your gaming style, but not to change the amount, since it doesn't hurt. (Notice that you can just remove the other in the editor if you only want one.)


So unless the units will have very, very good AI adding more of them is just bad idea. In my books excellent AI would automatically take cover when ordered next to a brick fence for example, or I could order one unit to fire at tracks when ambushing and the other unit to fire at the weakest spot it can fire on. Otherwise ordering units to go there and do that is just adding to your list of casualties. I'd also like that the AI won't have x-ray vision, so ambushing in singleplayer is possible. So as long as I'm hiding my AT gun in a bush, it won't get destroyed from miles away by enemy tank that would have no chance of spotting it in real life. Also camo kits for tanks, infantry and guns would spice things up a bit quite lot.

Yes AI is quite stupid some times, but just leave them in the start like i do and you won't have any problems with dumb allies. And the AI often have x-ray vision, like when they've discovered you the first time, they "somehow" see you behind the houses, they even follow you with their guns! But if you haven't been discovered and use knives, you can't be discovered! I also think they will fix the camos and skins for International beta or at least MoW.. otherwise that will surely come in some mod!


Camera. It should be like the hacked-up camera in Soldiers. Totally free zoom and rotation, yes please! The only thing that should be fixed is when infantry enters buildings. There could be an universal switch that would always display the insides of 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th floor. No more cursing at the camera and easier time aiming with direct control on infantry in buildings.

I don't have any problem with camera, but i'd like improvements like more zooming in for sure, and possibility to angle the camera so you can see your soldiers and vehicles from bellow so that you can get nicer screenshots!


Also relating to damage model, why not have damage and holes on tanks and vehicles appear exactly where the shot hit? In MP this is ofcourse not possible, but please, atleast in single player? I just LOVE everything that is damage-related. I'd love to collide a tank with a concrete wall and have my barrel bent, drive over a ditch and get stuck in mud, shoot off parts off vehicles and see an antitank rifle take out several soldiers as the round flies through the thin armor plating of a hanomag, and rip off some hands and other <insert gore here>. Nothing should be static or pre-determined, but dynamic. Like how euphoria engine creates animations on the fly in GTA 4, something like that but for damage model and physics as well.

I agree on this, why not also put blood stains or holes on soldiers aswell? Also tanks which get dirty when you drive in mud or sand to much would be nice.

Off-topic
Also please fix some things in the editor; such as you can't go under bridges or other items, couldn't an option which allows us to make the pieces we place on maps "invicible" or something like that? So that we could walk on them or under them. Since it would be nice when you build maps and place things on each other etc.

- Shroom

[lolich75]

If its supposed to be an WWII game doesen't it have to be 100% realistic to be like ''the real deal''?

[Koshiro]

I just want it to be really non-mainstream, If i wanted a health bar/medkit/regenerating health game i would download and play ANY other worldwar2 game on the market, But i want something different, i want that kind of game you make! i downloaded Faces of War but i went to the shop later and used my money on it! i could play online without a cd key but it was so awesome that i needed to buy it, The fact that the Germans were called Germans instead of "Nazis" and i could even play as Germans i almost started to cry! i was so happy! finally a game thats not developed by someone that plays Medal of honor!!!!!!!! I love your games! So what i am trying to say is that i want you to perfectionate the old and make new things thats good. 80 % realism, but make it playable and ....... well just make it historically right! :hurray: I dont cear if my shells just peels of the paint on the German tanks! Men of War! Its like rape, Only fun! :realbig: hehe.................... o_O

[andreher]

realism!!! the raw realism is my fuel to have fun

[alka]

talking about realism....why do the Germans have the MG-42 in the first russian mission (its 1941!)? :yes:

and why are so many soldiers equipped with mgs? quite unrealistic.
_______

back to the topic:

realism is the most important thing for me. but balance should not be sacrificed for it. because a realistic game which is not balanced is no fun :D

[Der_Landser]

I did vote for absolute realism but than I played some more and decided that reduced rancges 1000m=100m is just fine. I played close combat and it has pretty realistic ranges but its from top-down perspective and soldiers are really miniature. I think that you could easily get lost if you tried to control all unites in MoW on such large mapscale.

Term 'realism' does not equal from person to person. For example, you would have to increase tank repair time from few minutes to few hours, that means spending 10 hours on battlefield. Somehow I think it would take huge impact on your personal life :)

[jamestr234]

fun is the important feature.

i like tanks with short range guns that are weak, so 2 tanks shoot at each other many times at short range, before one tank is destroyed. watching that battle is fun.

spending 2 minutes moving your tank, then it gets destroyed from 1 shot, is not fun.

i dont like lots of tedious, rearm, repair, refuel work.

repair is cool but its too complicated.

[Alucard]

I'm all for realism in some respects but I'm also for fun.

You need balance and realism + fun to make a good game. If you go for 100% realism you may as well just go join the army or something. One think I hate is people want 100% realistic games and well realism isn't fun, Games are for fun not to be reminded how gray life is.

[Rebs]

fun is the important feature.

i like tanks with short range guns that are weak, so 2 tanks shoot at each other many times at short range, before one tank is destroyed. watching that battle is fun.

spending 2 minutes moving your tank, then it gets destroyed from 1 shot, is not fun.

i dont like lots of tedious, rearm, repair, refuel work.

repair is cool but its too complicated.

Ahem, thats pretty much like CoH... In repair you just click the damn button and tankman pops out and starts repairing. If you want low ranges go Play FoW or CoH, MoW is great as its so realistic, i can see enemy pnz IV moving down the road then take aim with my Sherman 76/W and blow it to kingdom come from long range and then retrat before the enemy knows where i hit him from :D

[Alucard]

@jamestr234

Your at the wrong game friend. and who says you cant have tanks shooting at each other taking multiple shots. :twisted: You just got to know how to ambush, use distance, and angles.

[Voltzen]

I have continued to follow this series of games because of the realism. I find the addition of the T29 for the americans in the new patch to take away from the games WWII historical theme and would like to see someway of selecting the year made for multiplayer battles in order to limit or not limit the vehicles used based on year they actually entered service.

[reciprocate]

I have continued to follow this series of games because of the realism. I find the addition of the T29 for the americans in the new patch to take away from the games WWII historical theme and would like to see someway of selecting the year made for multiplayer battles in order to limit or not limit the vehicles used based on year they actually entered service.

Oh no, not this again. Why don't I see you complaining about IS-3, Turtle, Centurion then if you're so upset about realism here? Save it, this issue has been discussed to death. Take it or leave it.

[Voltzen]

You are correct I should have included the centurion, turtle, IS-3 etc.... I don't really mind having them in the game it is just an issue of controlling the game as to what units players can use based on the time frame you want the map to take place.

[AnEvilGuy]

I would like realistic weapon ranges.... just half of their original values, kinda lame having to wait for enimees to get under 70m when you have a sniper rifle or waiting for a Stuart to get under 150m so your 88 can knock it out.

[pelitys]

I think the weapon ranges are fine as they are, it would be impossible to manage if any of the enemy guns could knock your tank out from miles away as soon as you revealed your ugly face. Keeping the ranges under wraps makes the game more manageable, for some it is already quite chaotic and double ranges would make it even worse.

Besides the maps work quite well at present ranges, long-range standoffs are at convenient places and the maps would have to be increased if you wanted to have any space outside enemy guns. Keeping penetration the same and increasing inaccuracy at ranges exceeding current ones would ofcourse mitigate this problem but why then increase range in the first place?

[DrakeD]

Realism???? You must be joking. If CoH is like counterstrike, then MoW is like battlefield2.
Slightly more realistic since you have bigger maps and more tools / options, but its still a spammy arcade game.

Only fanboys would call MoW realistic. Im coming from Project Reality mod for BF2 and Arma, so a few more options and more eye candy than CoH is not nearly enough to make me look at this as realistic.

[FFA702]

Realism???? You must be joking. If CoH is like counterstrike, then MoW is like battlefield2.
Slightly more realistic since you have bigger maps and more tools / options, but its still a spammy arcade game.

Only fanboys would call MoW realistic. Im coming from Project Reality mod for BF2 and Arma, so a few more options and more eye candy than CoH is not nearly enough to make me look at this as realistic.

Have you played mow or you just say tis cuz you love cho.You sund more like a child to me.
BF2 and ARMA are FPS, MOW is RTS.
:sick:

[pelitys]

Only fanboys would call MoW realistic. Im coming from Project Reality mod for BF2 and Arma, so a few more options and more eye candy than CoH is not nearly enough to make me look at this as realistic.
You are comparing shooters to a RTS? Let me lol at you, sir. Besides this is by a lightyear the most realistic RTS on the market today. Well, unless you count in Combat Mission, which is more like turn based tactics.

[Rafo]

Theatre of War is the most realistic RTS, hands down. MoW don't compare with such lame ranges...

[DrakeD]

You are comparing shooters to a RTS? Let me lol at you, sir. Besides this is by a lightyear the most realistic RTS on the market today. Well, unless you count in Combat Mission, which is more like turn based tactics.

I guess that explains why I havent played RTS games since dune 2. Thanks for letting me know I didnt miss anything. :lol:

Dont get me wrong, I love MoW. But when your coming from shooters like Red Orchestra, Project Reality and Arma, realism is not the first thing that strikes your mind after a game.

Even if your statement is true, I still think MoW is a spammy arcade game. What makes it great is the replay value. Countless different tactics can work.

edit. nothing wrong with the game itself, its the scale and the tiny maps that bugs me.

edit2: Is Combat missison any good or should I just stick to the ultimate turn-based war game? (feel smart if you know what game that is)

[pelitys]

edit2: Is Combat missison any good or should I just stick to the ultimate turn-based war game? (feel smart if you know what game that is)
Hearts of Iron 2?
Well I liked Combat missions very much, it's just that they're ugly with today's standards. But if you can get over the looks, it's a solid game.

MoW may not be realistic in shooting ranges or such, but crappy games such as COH don't have this level of physics, destructability or damage model. And COH, if anything, is a spammy arcade cluster****.

[Piotrburz]

CoH have better artillery. I love the sound of incoming barrage :)
Explosion and display shaking are far better than in MOW.

[foxforcefour]

But everything else is probably really dull compared to MoW?

Anyway, to answer the poll - I think the numbers speak for themselves. Look at it: 50% = Absolute Realism!

[LJF]

Absolutely realistic wouldn't work for a few reasons, firstly it'd detract from what makes MoW so fun, it would ruin the "cosy" feel of the game, and thirdly, I'm not sure the engine could handle it. If you want absolute realism play Theater of War Kursk .... except don't because the AI doesn't work :(

... I never thought I'd hear myself say that /\ but it's true.

I'd like it at the level of realism that GSM has achieved, that's really great: for Men of War it's achieved the perfect balance between "gameplay" and realism. So I'd say increase it a little to be on par with GSM ...

... another thing however, in AS, why are there "hero" units with "special abilities" .... that sounds awfully arcadey to me, I just hope they don't manage to ruin it ...

[Lloydyboy]

... another thing however, in AS, why are there "hero" units with "special abilities" .... that sounds awfully arcadey to me, I just hope they don't manage to ruin it ...

reminds me of Company of Heroes Tales of Valor with the Causeway Campaign, 2 squads vs tanks and lots of Infantry...

anyway for me i'd like mostly Realism but it has to be Fun and Balanced otherwise the Axis would always win with there Killing Machines of Death

[Operator]

Realism doesn't matter, balance does! My thoughts exactly! Gameplay first, realism and historical accuracy second. I really like the mixture of cinematic action and realism in Men of War. Something between a combat simulation and a traditional rts. After all warfare is about beeing as unfair as possible while a multiplayer game should be as balanced as possible.

The only "realistic" detail i would like to see is to sever the telepathic link of all units :realbig: Arty is very powerful because it immediatly sees what the spotter sees. Calling in arty should take time but i don't know how to implement that in an rts since the player hovers over the battlefield like a god 8O Implementing morale would be interesting too, but would further weaken the already underpowered infantry.

[Ulrek]

this is my point of view.

if you have played a game where so called "realism" beat you over the head and now hate it one people talk about it than you clearly got ripped off by the game company that made it.

"realism" done right is quite fun. its one it is done wrong crappy, just like all the other idiotic games that end up being pumped out each year. its just another type of crappy game that doesnt work in a different way.

men of war, and even soldiers:heroes of WW2 both have set the "realism" level at about where it should be with what we could do one these games were released, and with assault squad it is getting even better, and the "detail" level is going up, so as to boost up factions where it is needed, and give people more options to think outside the box with.

thats my point of view on this, and thats why i support realism in gameplay, what i don't support is people calling games that are crappy in that special "realistic way" a good example of "realism" in PC gaming.

as for the option i voted for, i voted for realism, but with a range downgrade, since if you want the detail men of war has to offer than long ranges get to be a problem, not to mention its been shown that anyone can boost the range of weapons in a mod and call it "realism" when its really not even close. after all, even if our day and age a PC will cry and throw a fit if you try to make it do to much at once, so you have to focus just a tiny bit.

-Ulrek-

[Kudos]

Ok I have had a fair few games on this

Here is a list of things I will compare to the most releastic game on the market (Theatre of War)

1) Tiger is Nerfed and some other tanks/SPGs- I feel it is not effective enough when penetrating Armour)

2) IS3 never was in WW2 apart from the very end against Japan

3) Too many heavy tanks can be purchased, it should be on a limit

4) Artillery of some nations namely the Russians is rediculously effective and accurate.

5) Ability to select on tanks available to a nation in a particular era

6) Ability to dig a trench would be nice as it is always nice to dig in, even sandbag your tanks, yes it would take time but it would also hamper the enemy once complete.

7) A Bit of airpower wouldnt go a miss, as I like the ability to turn a battle with a distraction

8) Maybe scale up the battles?? - not really sure on this


These are just ideas and by no means something you should implement

My opinion of realism is that they should be as strong as they were and you find a way to work round it, Russia had numbers, America had Airpower, Britain had Airpower and the yanks to rely on. I think a weather system would be good, where you would have weather fronts come in obscuring visabilty hampering both sides.

Thats my ten pennies worth

[LegionnaireFandragon]

I would like this game to be as realistic as it can possibly get. I am ooohhh so very tired of things like Tanks being flipped by rocks, Shermans bouncing 88mm rounds like bouncy balls, said Sherman killing Tigers in 1 shot because of a retarded weakpoint right smack on the front bumper. Id say, throw Play balance out the friggin window, bring in realistic values of penetration, range, accuracy, armor strength. Now it is just we have a 76mm and all 76mms are the same. Lets make different armor types, right now its 80mm of armor is 80mm of armor no matter what it is and the only thing that makes any difference is slope. Let us NOT follow World of Tanks in any way shape or form, save for maybe the models, they are nice looking, but the mechanics are screwballed so bad. They have weakpoints all over the place and in places that just make no sense, High Explosive will kill your tank despite it NOT even penetrating your armor...

This game is really a fun game and one of my favorite RTS but there are a few things I wish I could change or would change.