Stimo Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 This post is about to be something like my two cents, as I really enjoy ToW2 and didn't had any disappointment with it. Really, I just didn't figured it would be so well thought and done. But I'd like to point two things a little disturbing, as I want my ToW as realistic as it can be. First, I think there should be a limitation in what a soldier can carry. When a man grabs an heavy weapon on the ground, such as an AT rifle, a MG or a bazooka, he should also drop some of its previous carriage, in order to avoid things like a wounded soldier carrying an MG42 plus 2 ammo belts, a bazooka and 26 grenades... I also would like to point something about indirect fire. As I understand that a bunch of regular soldiers could use an AT gun in direct fire against a threat, I can't believe that they could use a foreign gun in indirect fire and be so effective : In this test, british soldiers without any gunner skill performed really well, using a german 75mm IG18, targeting at 1000m, without spotter. I wish that in the future, soldiers that don't have really high gunner skill couldn't use arty guns in indirect fire. What do you think about that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knokke Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 that would be nice indeed, if unskilled soldiers could perform only direct fire with guns, if it's a gun taken from the ennemy. Using guns of their own side, I believe they should be allowed to perform indirect fire, but with a very great loss of accuracy (they would fire in the general direction of the ennemy, but almost blindly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arzok Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 without any feedback (visuel or per radio), I doubt that indirect fire is possible for unskilled soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prattboy9394 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Actually, I kinda like the RPG element mixed in. So much more fun with getting loot and being able to use it. Makes capturing enemy stuff more worthwhile than blowing it up. Unrealistic? yes. Fun? oh yah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavious Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 If you really like all the loot and capturing enemy stuff business, play Men of War. The criticisms are right -- this is totally unrealistic, and should not be hard to correct in a patch. We're not asking for some outlandish new feature...just set some tighter limits to help TOW2 realize its full potential as a real wargame. Otherwise, we might as well have these soldiers wearing rocket belts and riding to war on skateboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartari Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 yes, I agree but for the moment, there 's already a way to do it, just disable the auto-pick-up mode at the beginning of the play for all infantry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratdeath Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I agree, ToW2 should aim at being as realistic as possible but I wouldn't mind if they left the "superhuman" mode in through some gameplay options, it's already there in a way. The more who like this type of games the better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlenLivet4Me Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Realistically infantry can cross fences and small walls fairly easily. I'm guessing I'd get over them pretty fast if I was getting shot at... even with a heavy pack and weapons. Currently infantry has to move around walls and fences to find openings to pass through which very often needlessly exposes them to enemy fire. Obviously there would be times when you would go around instead of over... especially if the opening was only a few feet away... but to simplify the game pathing algorithms they should just go under/over by default... I leave that to the devs to decide. I would be willing to accept infantry simply "Passing thru" walls and fences... or perhaps giving them a short delay at the wall/fence to simulate the extra time to go over/under it. This should not affect their use of walls as cover. I'll leave climbing thru windows out of it... for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavious Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Just to say something positive: I very much like the health and morale systems, and the way soldiers can be wounded in different places of the body, affecting the way they move or fight. Although medics aren't in the game, we can assume they're abstracted and are treating/evacuating the casualties after the scenario is over. The morale system helps to keep soldiers from acting too superhuman, and it rightly penalizes players who treat them like cannon-fodder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimo Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 @GlenLivet4Me : no offense meant, but I guess none of us would jump a wall under fire. And I guess pro soldiers would find such an order pretty inconsistent. Good commanding tends to zero risk. At war such as in our lives, we'd rather walk -or crawl- 10 meter than jump a fence, especially when there are MGs on the other side. About soldiers behaviour in such situations, I insist on keeping flesh and blood soldiers using windows and doors. And anyone calling me a racist just because I strictly refuse to lead an army of zombies and ghosts taking on tons of bullets and passing through walls, would be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts