Hmm very tempted to buy RO2 even though I'm very shit at it, I haven't gotten 10 kills altogether while playing this weekend and did plenty of friendly fire. I died a lot to unseen assailants. Classic only because fuck unlocks. If only the community kept up after the weekend would it be worth it for me. Are there enough players usually on EU servers?
Seems now the main problems seem to be sorted it may have some kind of following though.
Tried the Free Weekend and i simply do not get all the Fuss about RO 2, its pretty much Run,shoot dude with Rifle,take cover,Shoot dude with Rifle,get shot,respawn,rinse and repeat.
Not many vehicle Types,Maps are small and have little Variety,no Mumble support afaik,close to zero TW on Pubs,Game Modes have been seen a thousand times in other Shooters.
For Example Forgotten Hope 2 is better in many ways,and thats free and ancient.
And why is Zoom realistic? Last time i aimed along my Grandfathers 98k i did not develop temporary sharper Eyesight.
Great Search Engine for Game bargains:
Because games cannot accurately recreate what the eye sees. In other words the scale of everything is incorrect and the zoom feature puts things in the correct scale. If they had everything in the correct scale at all times you would have a very poor FOV. This is why seeing a target at 100M is difficult in RO2 classic mode while in reality it should be very easy to see a man sized target at 100M.
Also FH2 isn't free. It requires BF2 to play, and both games play pretty differently. I personally feel like RO1 and 2 do a much better job at making interesting infantry based combat. While FH2 has a lot of the arcade trappings of Battlefield still attached.
Pre patch there was a small but relatively strong community. I think there were 3 servers that were almost constantly full. At least one in the US and another somewhere in Europe if I recall. Hearing some comments while playing the game I'm betting on a bigger community after this patch.
In regards to classic mode. Yes zoom is a realism feature however having the characters be slower and the lack of zoom artificially creates more realistic engagements. Firefights last longer, maneuver is easier, and lethality drops quite a bit.
I play a bunch of Arma 2 and at ranges of 200M or less I feel almost terminator like in my ability to accurately drop targets. Suppressive fire is non existent because you are always hitting the target, long range firefights rarely occur because first shot accuracy is so high.
Sometimes realisim features can make the game feel less realistic.
I will also say they did work on the tanks for this patch and they seem much better. Although you still don't see many servers running the all tank map. Personally I think its because it's a bit boring. Giant map that has relatively in interesting terrain features. I think a big combined arms map would be played a lot more often.
Last edited by Wengart; 26-05-2012 at 08:51 PM.
Anyone played Iron Front,looks fantastic.
... I take the lives of a few to protect the lives of many. I commit acts of war to preserve the greater peace. I take no joy in killing, but make no mistake; I'll do what needs to be done. Because it's my job. It's my duty. My name is Sam Fisher, and I am a Splinter Cell.
This just look like an other expandalone for ARMA 2. That's alright since I see that it is priced as such.
But for this exact reason no game store here is willing to stock due to extremely low profit margin. sigh.
And why Amazon.com doesn't stock this? Only UK branch of Amazon is offering. Weird
There's been a dramatic increase in players in RO2, even now after the end of the free weekend.
RO2 feels like a very different game now, in a good way. Having playing classic for a while I find it a lot more immersive and rewarding. Despite the name gameplay in classic differs quite a lot from RO1, most importantly it's much easier to hit stuff, which I like.
An example of that is the extra level of zoom for MGs in classic mode. Obviously there's no reason why machine gunners would have better vision than riflemen so you could make the case that it's unrealistic. But you could also say that features like that are acceptable if it improves gameplay.
A helpful post about how the armor works in Red Orchestra 2, including hit locations etc.:
Basically, the game uses the same form of ballistics calculations for large projectiles as for small arms. This means that we are tracking the actual flight-path downrange.
2. Armor locations
[Layouts now in the media section of the website]
T-34 consists of 21 plates, plus the driver hatch and gun mantlet. The mantlet and turret are cast steel, while the rest is RHA (rolled homogenous armor). The Soviets tended to use very high hardness steel, which is a good thing against lighter rounds, but lacks ductility and actually makes it more vulnerable against heavier rounds (such as the Panzer IV's 75mm). In addition, there are the turret vision slits as potential targets.
Panzer IV is a more complex shape, totaling 45 plates. The Germans used mostly RHA, with some of the key plates in the 30-50mm range being faced hardened (FHA) to a depth of about 5mm. The intention with FHA was to provide a harder outer face, to defeat smaller projectiles, while the remainder of the plate provided more ductility to defeat larger rounds. Also modeled are areas like the vision slits, with the armored glass behind them.
In game, each plate is modeled in its correct place and angle. Using the ballistics calcs, we can work out the actual velocity and angle the projectile hits the plate at.
3. Key hit locations
- Crew - Gunner/Commander, Loader, Driver, Hull gunner
- Ammo - MG ammo in the back of the turret and beside the hull gunner, while the main gun rounds are stored in the hull floor, with a small number of rounds in clamps on the hull side
- Fuel - tanks are in the hull sides; diesel fuel, so less prone to fires
- Engine & transmission - the T-34 has the transmission/gearbox at the rear, as the drive sprocket is at the back of the tank
- Gunnery & optics
- Crew - Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Hull gunner
- Ammo - MG ammo beside the hull gunner and in the hull behind the loader, main gun rounds stored in multiple bins around the hull, with the largest right behind the driver
- Fuel - tank is in the hull floor; gasoline
- Engine & transmission - rear engine, drive shaft down the center of the hull floor, with the transmission front and center, gearing front sides
- Gunnery & optics
4. Penetration calculation
This gets complicated!
KEY POINT: here is a thing that most people don't realize about armor penetration... it is all probabilistic at core. People rush off and hunt down "penetration tables", but you need to go back to the actual data measurements to understand what is going on. For instance, the Germans look for the "limit velocity" at which 3 out of 5 (or 5 out of 7, depending on caliber) rounds penetrate a test plate. They then took that number and created all those nice penetration tables from them, not the other way around! They do that to give their gunners a ready-reference guide, but it is NOT absolute.
For simplicity, we generate a Penetration:Resistance ratio and plot the results as a bell curve. We take anything below a certain point as an "undermatch", which will never penetrate and any result above a certain point as an "overmatch" which will always penetrate. Anything in between will generate a PROBABILTY that the round will penetrate - and we compare to a random number for those cases. Probability theory at work. It is NOT absolute - even in German testing, they were looking for the point where the "majority" of rounds penetrate.
So, about how it works... we hold/calculate a whole bunch of data on the incoming round and the plate that is hit:
For the round/projectile:
- Muzzle velocity
- Hardness (BHN)
- Caliber (actually "d", the size of the projectile - SUB-caliber projectile for APCR/HVAP)
- Max RHA (take from the ever-friendly bollox tables on the internet)
- Actual RHA (This one is tricky: it is basically the theoretical 50% probability thickness penetrated at point-blank)
- Test plate hardness (BHN) (i.e. what was this round normally tested against?)
- Slope effect modifier - largely dependent on the ogive shape/effect
- Shatter number & Shatter T/d - dictates when a round is likely to shatter
- Shatter penetration effectiveness - the effect that shattering has on penetration capability [a round that shatters is perfectly capable of penetrating - and the effects are messy]
For the armor plate:
- Angle to vertical
- Type (FHA, RHA, Cast)
- Face hardness
- Depth hardness
- Calculate overall hardness on 5mm of Face hardness, remainder at Depth hardness
- Flaw multiplier (100% for "perfect", 90% for badly flawed armor)
- High hardness plate (Y/N) (Usually "Y" for thin plate)
- Plate strength (starts at 100% - may degrade with repeated hits)
And the calculations:
- Calc T/d (Thickness of plate/diameter of projectile)
- Resistance calculation for the plate: allows for high hardness plate effects, the difference between the target plate and the normal test plate and the angle of incidence with the armor (including the slope coefficient)
- Possible projectile shatter - if T/d > the round's Shatter T/d, the round may shatter
- Penetration calculation for the round: modify the Actual RHA figure for the impact velocity of the round
- Pen:Res is Penetration:Resistance ratio
- Final projectile shatter is dependent on Pen:Res, accounting for the impact velocity; if the round shatters, the Penetration is adjusted, also Pen:Res
- - If the final Pen:Res < 0.89, then the round is under-matched and will FAIL to penetrate
- - If the final Pen:Res > 1.12, then the round over-matches the plate and penetrates intact
- - For anything in between, we generate a random number for comparison. If Pen:Res = 1.0, for example, there is a 50% chance the round will penetrate (see where "Actual RHA" comes from now?)
- - If the round remains intact, but fails to penetrate, it has a chance of generating spalling
- Deflection: if the round stays intact, but fails to penetrate, we degrade the velocity and track its progress, just in case it manages to hit a weak spot!
A couple of worked examples:
T-34 round impacting Panzer IV upper front hull plate (beside the driver's front view slit) at 300 meters: The round is a 76mm round, impacting at 603m/s, actual angle of impact 33 degrees (plate is at 5 degrees off the vertical, flat ground, tank angled at about 30 degrees). The plate is 50mm FHA, overall hardness BHN 357.
- T/d = 0.66
- Final resistance of the plate is 63.6mm - slight increase for the plate being harder than Russian test plate (BHN 300), plus the effects of the angle, against the Soviet BR-253A projectile
- Penetration for the round is now 78.9mm, but the impact means that the round DOES shatter
- Final penetration capability of the projectile, allowing for the shatter is 63.1mm, giving a final Pen:Res ratio of 0.9919
- No overmatch or undermatch - and the bell curve gives us a 46.9% chance of penetration
- On this occasion, random number generator says it fails to penetrate: the round deflects at 97 m/s - which doesn't matter anyway, as the round has shattered
Panzer IV impacting T-34, left side, between road-wheels 2 and 3, actual angle of impact 43 degrees (plate is vertical, tank moving at an angle across the Panzer's front). The plate is 45mm RHA, hardness BHN 400 - high hardness plate.
- T/d = 0.60
- Final plate resistance is 60.7mm - it would be higher if it wasn't high hardness plate
- Penetration for the round is 104mm in this case and it doesn't shatter, leaving the penetration unchanged, giving a Pen:Res ratio of 1.7187
- This is an immediate Overmatch - that side plate is no match for the incoming 75mm round, even when angled and at 500m range
- The round penetrates - clipping through the forward left fuel tank and into the main ammo storage in the hull. Scratch one T-34.
5. Behind-armor effects
Any projectile that penetrates intact is tracked to see what it hits inside the tank, through the key hit locations. If a round shatters as it penetrates, then it will enter the tank as shrapnel. A round that almost penetrates may also spall pieces of steel off the inside face of the armor, which is also treated as shrapnel. Interior components can all be damaged or destroyed (depending on server settings). A level of "general damage" is also applied, which goes towards a general starting of fires - and usually guarantees that a tank can't take more than 3 or 4 penetrating hits without blowing up. Assuming that an earlier penetrating hit hasn't lit up the fuel or engine, or set off an explosion in the ammo stores...
6. Sources & References
Before all the "debates" start about what is "right" and "wrong", we'll just explain a little about some of the rationale and the sources.
First question: "Why not just use the equations given by DeMarre/Krupp/Nathan Okun/Someone else?" Because most of those people created equations (some around 140 years ago) to handle specific naval gunnery problems. There is actually only a relatively brief period of about 8-10 years when people were researching the effects of AP projectiles against RHA targets. There wasn't much research being done prior to about the mid-1930s - and after 1945 almost everything changes gear and starts to deal with APCR/HVAP projectiles, that become "long rod penetrators", and HEAT/SCW rounds impacting modern steel armors, then composites and reactives. Willi Odermatt largely owns that - and should we do a modern version, his equations will be at the top of my list!
So, given that we also need math that will cope with every single impact, varying angles, plate and round types, ogive shape and all the rest of it, we had to derive our own.
A lot of thanks go to people on our own forums, as well as on Tanknet, who's brains we have picked over the years. These include people like Paul Lakowski, Jeff Duquette and many others. It is a tortuous process, as we have to deal with all possible impacts, but keep the calcs to something manageable within a game. We think we have a decent compromise this time!
One of the key works is "World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery", by Lorin Rexford Bird and Robert Livingston (private publication, long since out of print). But there are plenty of debates about flaws in that work - and pretty much any other, so you have to try and work it out for yourself a good chunk! Add in sometimes-defunct websites like Guns vs Armor and other sources of data - Jentz oft-quoted. The full list of sources used we can show separately - it is long! But some key pieces:
- AT 285/4: 6 pdr, 17 pdr APCBC and APDS Shot Versus Stored Ammunition and Fuel Tanks, Fighting Vehicles Proving Establishment, ~1944, Classified “Secret”
- Auler, H, Shape of Armor Piercing Projectiles [tr. From German], Rheinmetall-Borsig AG, Berlin, tr. March 1948 [Originally Classified “Restricted”, DoD and Contractors only]
- Bethe, H A, Attempt of a Theory of Armor Penetration, Cornell University, May 1941 [Originally Classified “Confidential”, DoD and Contractors only]
- Bird, Lorrin, ASL Armor Studies: Exceptions to the Rule, The General
- Bird, Lorrin Rexford & Livingston, Robert D, World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery [Second Edition, with Errata], Overmatch Press, 2001
- German Steel Armour Piercing Projectiles and Theory of Penetration, British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee (BIOS), Final Report No. 1343, September 1945, Classified “Secret”
- German Tank Armour, British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee (BIOS), Final Report No. 653, Undated – probably late 1945, Classified “Secret”
- German Tank Armour, Final Report No. 653, Item No. 18, British Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee (BIOS), ~1946, Classified “Secret”
- Lakowski, Paul, Notes on APFSDS, Private release, ~2007
- Lakowski, Paul, Notes on effects of Hardness on penetration, Private release, ~2003
- Penetration Figures for Ammunition at Various Angles of Armour, Unknown original source, RAC Tank Museum, 1947, Classified “Secret”
- Rolled Armor, Ballistic Properties of Rolled Face Hardened Armor and Rolle Homogenous Armor of Various Hardnesses at Normal Incidence and at Various Obliquities, Watertown Arsenal Labs, Sep 1942, Classified “Restricted”
- Stockdale, Maj D, The Perforation of Armour by AP Projectiles, Armour Section, School of Tank Technology, January 1944, Classified “Secret”
- Unkovskiy, V A, Теория Стрельбы И Ее Приложение К Стрельбе Корабельной Артиллерии [The Theory of Ballistics and Appendix on Artillery Calculations], Voenizdat, 1939
7. My favorite target spots
Just for fun - where do I aim for?
If it is a front-on shot at either tank, I'll look for the ground angle to help me out. Catch either coming down a slope at you and the Pz IV's front hull roof armor is exposed, while the T-34's glacis is suddenly at a less acute angle. Alternative is lower hull plates if I can get at them. After that, the gunner's side of the mantlet on either tank, if the range is relatively close. Failing any of those, I'll be backing off!
If you get a shot at the T-34 from the side, I go low, between the second and third road-wheels, for the ammo storage in the hull floor. Pretty much the same for the Pz IV, aiming for the main fuel tank (gasoline, more likely to brew it).
Either you could take all this into account. Or get a grenade launcher and be done with it.
So having wasted an extensive part of the day looking at videos of IFL44 gameplay and taking into account the RO2 update, it is clear that two offer a very different experience.
The feeling of immersion in IFL44 reminds me of early Darkest Hour in that the animations are far from polished, and there are various gameplay elements that need to be further balanced. For example, it easy to run and gun with an Axis mg. Combined operations with aircraft is working, but there are bugs that cause frustration.
It does not have the emphasis on immersion that RO2 has in that character animations are merely perfunctory. A shell impacting on a human displaces the entire body intact.
Multiplayer is improving with servers starting to populate, though there have been problems with getting (beta) patches to the Steam users, thereby diminishing what relatively few players there.
By all accounts, tanking is very good in this game, and certainly in advance of RO2 though it is not comparing like with like, for we are still waiting on comparable maps in RO2. Gumrak is tank only and limited in strategy.
The new patch corrects most of the annoying things we have complained about:
1. Tank gunner AI setting is server-side.
2. Clipping is a server-side option, and by default is half for friendlies and full for enemies, though many servers still run no clipping for players.
3. Plenty of full servers after the free weekend.
4. New custom maps are appearing on TWB servers, at least (coldsteel and arad).
I am not sure about changes to armour on the T34 with AT rifles. That may come later. Lacking still is new content. There are still no APCs and few new maps, so gameplay is still on the same old maps fighting at close quarters save for Gumrak and Mamayev Kurgan (which was there on the beta channel before anyway).
IFL44 is still probably worth an investment if you have the time and money to spare, as it may pick up a player base given the extensive potential of the game. Nevertheless, it may need a couple of months or longer before it runs stable and balanced. I mentioned the Invasion 44 mod. Looking at the forum, games are ad hoc and organised by clans rather than being something you can just log on to and go.
RO2 is fairly polished now for new time players, but for those who got in at the beginning, and have sunk many many hours into RO1 and DH, it is short on content but strong on gameplay. I feel that in terms of raw experience and immersion RO2 plus open maps and more vehicles will win over IFL44, while the latter will obviously be strong in customisation and simulation aspects.
Yes, Rising Storm, which is a full Pacific theater conversion and has support from Tripwire.
Last edited by Giaddon; 31-05-2012 at 07:30 PM.
Here's another one, In Country Vietnam: