Realism Suggestions and Wishes

[zeroethics]

One shot kills are important and the bullet accuracy too. From what I gathered in the bootleg E3 demo both of those things have already been incorporated. The weapon sway looks really nice now too, not as drastic.

The two things(coming from an interest in realism gameplay) that I really wish are:

better, more realistic iron sights perspective
(the popular conception being that the face is right up on the sight itself) IMHO the iron sights should show a perspective from further back on the rifle , showing at least the trigger hand and may be even a little of the stock. Aside from the fact that it's more realistic and is just how people shoulder rifles, it would also solve the short stunted feeling iron sights has now(in all games) otherwise you feel a loss of perspective sometimes and it just looks flat.

The other thing I'd like to see, is totally realistic bullet physics. The accuracy everyone's talking about but with precision, no cone hit fields. I'd like to see long range shots with the standard rifles(not scoped)

and I know...I said two but....as for the scoped rifles please don't just give us a 2d blackout screen with the scoped image. Please please give us 3d one where you can see the rest of the rifle and surroundings.

[shameful_larva]

Originally posted by zeroethics:
One shot kills are important and the bullet accuracy too. From what I gathered in the bootleg E3 demo both of those things have already been incorporated. The weapon sway looks really nice now too, not as drastic.

The two things(coming from an interest in realism gameplay) that I really wish are:

better, more realistic iron sights perspective
(the popular conception being that the face is right up on the sight itself) IMHO the iron sights should show a perspective from further back on the rifle , showing at least the trigger hand and may be even a little of the stock. Aside from the fact that it's more realistic and is just how people shoulder rifles, it would also solve the short stunted feeling iron sights has now(in all games) otherwise you feel a loss of perspective sometimes and it just looks flat.

The other thing I'd like to see, is totally realistic bullet physics. The accuracy everyone's talking about but with precision, no cone hit fields. I'd like to see long range shots with the standard rifles(not scoped)

and I know...I said two but....as for the scoped rifles please don't just give us a 2d blackout screen with the scoped image. Please please give us 3d one where you can see the rest of the rifle and surroundings.

I agree with the Iron sights thing, but I say to add to the realism, put a blur effect on the close things (i.e. the hand/rear sight/stock). This is what happens in real life and would up the realism. Also, add slings. Beautiful, beautiful slings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.

[zeroethics]

Originally posted by shameful_larva:
I agree with the Iron sights thing, but I say to add to the realism, put a blur effect on the close things (i.e. the hand/rear sight/stock). This is what happens in real life and would up the realism. Also, add slings. Beautiful, beautiful slings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.

I totally agree with the blur on closer things.
What do you mean by slings though?
line break
I have also been thinking about rifle sway. I think that rifle sway should *force* the player to actively "steady" the rifle by counterbalancing(moving the mouse in the opposite direction of the sway)and not just move back over the target and click but have to keep the motion going to actually steady it. I noticed in that bootleg vid from e3 that all you have to do is wait for the rifle to sway back over the target, and if that's how it is,it's not right because it's only forcing the player to wait for it not actively use a skill to aim. Ther's no point to it that way, aside from aesthetics.

Sorry for the long posts but i don't know how else to properly explain my ideas.

[hartsox]

once again i ask, whats a sling? the strap on the gun? PLEASE TELL ME!

[zeroethics]

Ya, I'm curious about the "sling" too, but I'd like to know what you think about my ideas. I'd like some feedback.

[Firefight700]

Yes, it`s the strap that you carry the gun with, the one that goes over your shoulder.

[Raccoon_2]

Yeah, I like the realsitc effects of one-shot kill. It looks more realistic now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

[BlueHawk_1]

Originally posted by zeroethics:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shameful_larva:
I agree with the Iron sights thing, but I say to add to the realism, put a blur effect on the close things (i.e. the hand/rear sight/stock). This is what happens in real life and would up the realism. Also, add slings. Beautiful, beautiful slings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.

I totally agree with the blur on closer things.
What do you mean by slings though?
line break
I have also been thinking about rifle sway. I think that rifle sway should *force* the player to actively "steady" the rifle by counterbalancing(moving the mouse in the opposite direction of the sway)and not just move back over the target and click but have to keep the motion going to actually steady it. I noticed in that bootleg vid from e3 that all you have to do is wait for the rifle to sway back over the target, and if that's how it is,it's not right because it's only forcing the player to wait for it not actively use a skill to aim. Ther's no point to it that way, aside from aesthetics.

Sorry for the long posts but i don't know how else to properly explain my ideas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That idea about moving the opposite direction of the sway isn't very good. That would just make aiming a huge pain, even more in medium range firefights when accuracy is very important. That's getting a bit to "into it" in my opinion.

[lukegoodwin]

I agree. It does look real, and I was talking to my friends the other day about more realism and incorporating one shot kills. This would make gameplay much more tactful. Also, weapon sway looks good when running but in real life, after you finished running your breath will sway your whole body, i think it would be cool if this was put into gameplay just a bit to make it a more immersive experience.

Anyone else agree???

[pvt_allen]

That idea about moving the opposite direction of the sway isn't very good. That would just make aiming a huge pain, even more in medium range firefights when accuracy is very important. That's getting a bit to "into it" in my opinion.[/QUOTE]Agree with U. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gifI want more Bro-Mo's,and lovely thing with carriyng a wounded fellow to a safer location or to a medic.For example,if Corrion(or others)gets wounded U can go at him press 'F' and carry him to a medic.Plus that is realistic,I bet in WW2 you could do that.I came with this idea since I played Medal of Honor:Pacific Assault,wich is the greatest MOh game.Srry for the off topic and for the long post

[Orezai856]

how bout you u just make aiming good and theres better forcing u to take cover

[BlueHawk_1]

I actually liked the accuracy, I hope they don't change it.

[Orezai856]

i dont know, i just wanna be forced to take advantage of cover, i definetly dont want it to be too easy and turn into Call Of Duty running around an gunning down a million germans since i can auto aim to his head

[rkdillinger]

After watching the in-game footage, I'm concerned that they've taken "recoil" out of the weapons. I noticed several long bursts from the .45 Thompson and the gun never moved. In real life, and also in Road to Hill 30 and Earned in Blood, a long burst would push the weapon up in the air. That's why short bursts were the only way to accurately fire those types of weapons. In addition, the rounds fired in any type of burst of an automatic weapon tend to spray due to recoil of the previous rounds, which was accurately modeled in the earlier BIA releases. Hell's Highway looked much less realistic, like when they shot through the hanging sheet. Bullets holes were in a nice line across the sheet. Not likely. More likely would be a close group of holes in a semi-circular pattern, spreading out further the longer the burst. Just my observation

[Goldgarand]

When the Germans surrender, I wonder if you can actually take them hostage. If so, I hope you can interegate them.

[gill.g]

Originally posted by Goldgarand:
When the Germans surrender, I wonder if you can actually take them hostage. If so, I hope you can interegate them.
it'd be great if the germans could surrender but it would be too complicated to interrogate them or to make them hostages.what would be cool is to be able to shoot'em even when they surrender. You may think im cruel but in fact the allies sometimes shot the germans even when they surrendered. Anyway, that was my opinion

[shameful_larva]

Originally posted by rkdillinger:
After watching the in-game footage, I'm concerned that they've taken "recoil" out of the weapons. I noticed several long bursts from the .45 Thompson and the gun never moved. In real life, and also in Road to Hill 30 and Earned in Blood, a long burst would push the weapon up in the air. That's why short bursts were the only way to accurately fire those types of weapons. In addition, the rounds fired in any type of burst of an automatic weapon tend to spray due to recoil of the previous rounds, which was accurately modeled in the earlier BIA releases. Hell's Highway looked much less realistic, like when they shot through the hanging sheet. Bullets holes were in a nice line across the sheet. Not likely. More likely would be a close group of holes in a semi-circular pattern, spreading out further the longer the burst. Just my observation

Remember, alot of things haven't been completed for the game. Blood, recoil, language are to name a few. The demonstration was to only show how things were coming along, and recoil would be added later, after the main part of the game was completed.

[Orezai856]

i saw some guy ( i think the developer or somthin) talk about Medal of Honor Airborne talkin about facial expressions an stuff, an he said he showed a death animation, with no blood and just facial expressions to some ppl an he said they told him it was too gritty even with no blood, just the facial expression, an then he went on sayin this is entertainment we dont want it to make our Players sad and and feel bad and we want to entertain them, so were trimming it a bit... And after that i was thinking, What the Hell is wrong with u? little girls arent playing the game...O wanna see an animation cry as if it were a real war, and i hope to god Brothers in arms doesnt whimp out, (there like the only war game that swears also, an that might be why i love it but idk)

[marrsz]

i hope it doesn't too.i would like to see more 'brother love'and guts.i know i sound abit gay but just more soldier care.like in eib when hartsox was watching desola's body after the stuka attack on purple heart lane that was good.

in cod2 on ps2 when a fellow soldier died we just left him and kept on running i didn't like that at all!.also the speed of our attack the allies would have finished the war in a week.
i know its off topic but i wanted to get off my chest!

[I_Like_Eggs1944]

It would be cool if a squadmate was hit and you could pick them up and put them over your shoulder.

[Orezai856]

yaaaa. that wood look awckward in 1st person, but if u saw sum1 else do it, or if u cood drag ur meanj to cover if theyr hit, or if u get knocked down by a grenade like in the other BIA games have ur own soldiers drag u to safety

[lukegoodwin]

Yea i agree with Marrsz and Orezai856, I have longed for a war game that showed the true bonding of soldiers and their reaction when their mate gets burned by a MG nest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif. It's sad and sick but I would like to get as close to war as i can without having to point a gun at a real man.

[Orezai856]

I think Brothers in arms is definetly already getting into the gritty reality of war, like when hartsock is holding the dead child.....saaad

[Orezai856]

also.... I hope, since the levels are 4x bigger that its more wide open and Varied on which route u want to take an hopee its not directed on one path an one position to flank... Basically id just like to be sent into a town an Told CLEAR IT OUT and then find my OWN way to overcome Obstacles

[Orezai856]

I would like a Shaving Mini-Game to shave Bakers rugged face http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

[M1_Maniac]

Use edit next time? Triple post, wow that's a record! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
ahh just givin' ya a hard time.

[Orezai856]

i just got a lot of suggestions an im tryn to keep these posts active

[Orezai856]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif i have another suggestion... how about a pre-mission load out? Like you could chose your weapons, amount of grenades, etc. But there would be restrictions. If you take a WHOLE lot of stuff, you go really slow and other stuff. Because i think i would take more than 7 magazines of thompson ammunition for a mission... i read that from some guy on xbox forums, i thought it was a good idea (sorry M1_Maniac i know how much u hate me double posting)

[PfcLopapa]

Originally posted by Orezai856:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif i have another suggestion... how about a pre-mission load out? Like you could chose your weapons, amount of grenades, etc. But there would be restrictions. If you take a WHOLE lot of stuff, you go really slow and other stuff. Because i think i would take more than 7 magazines of thompson ammunition for a mission... i read that from some guy on xbox forums, i thought it was a good idea (sorry M1_Maniac i know how much u hate me double posting)

I dont think that would be good...that would make it like a socom game or something.....also on the front lines soldiers didn't have time to pick and choose all that.....when they got resupplied they were lucky to get 3 to 5 clips.

[Orezai856]

ya thats a good point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

[M1_Maniac]

6 clips was all you got, 5 in your pouch and one in your gun. And no, your unit got supplied WAY more than that. 3 to five clips, no way.

P.S. I don't hate you at all, just givin' you a hard time there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[TyroneGrant]

Er, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Gather Ammo from dead GI's? Beg Borrow Steal! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

[Orezai856]

looks like their new ammo system Doesnt tell how many bullets you have but how many clips you have an a meter to show how full of bullets your clip is...

[Ewan_001]

hmmm the thing about the ammo seems really interesting. I think it would add more realness to the game since we can't really see how much bullets we have left in real life.

here's a topic no one has really talked about is the dailogue and voice acting.

I really hope to see good voice acting and realistic dialogue. There was some corny conversations in between missions that seemed scripted in the previous B.I.A games.

The interaction among soldiers and commands should also improve. For instance, when you give a command to a soldier why not have him stutter or hesistate? and when he's done giving the command why not have the soldier, given the command, say "what?" or "say again?" or "I can't hear you Baker!" depending on the situation that is.

In other situations why not have baker give some hand signals to position your men? because when you're coming near an enemy unit you don't always have to yell to get to a spot. and this could lead to an enemy being forced to engage in fire not only because they see you but because they heard you.

I don't know...but if you're going to create a realistic World War 2 game, the dialogue and voice acting should be more convincing.

[shameful_larva]

Originally posted by Ewan_001:
hmmm the thing about the ammo seems really interesting. I think it would add more realness to the game since we can't really see how much bullets we have left in real life.

here's a topic no one has really talked about is the dailogue and voice acting.

I really hope to see good voice acting and realistic dialogue. There was some corny conversations in between missions that seemed scripted in the previous B.I.A games.

The interaction among soldiers and commands should also improve. For instance, when you give a command to a soldier why not have him stutter or hesistate? and when he's done giving the command why not have the soldier, given the command, say "what?" or "say again?" or "I can't hear you Baker!" depending on the situation that is.

In other situations why not have baker give some hand signals to position your men? because when you're coming near an enemy unit you don't always have to yell to get to a spot. and this could lead to an enemy being forced to engage in fire not only because they see you but because they heard you.

I don't know...but if you're going to create a realistic World War 2 game, the dialogue and voice acting should be more convincing.

Pretty good ideas. Welcome to the forum Ewan...<span class="ev_code_RED">PREPARE TO DIE!!!</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

[Orezai856]

idk, if this is ripping off GRAW but the thing about yelling your comands couuld be fixed by telling your squad to quiet down when sneaking and tell em to open up when your about to engage in battle, prolly wont happen but ITS a suggestion

[Ewan_001]

Pretty good ideas. Welcome to the forum Ewan...PREPARE TO DIE!!! Demonic Demonic Demonic

Hey thanks Shameful_larva. It's good to be here = )

hey yeah good suggestion Orezai856!

[shameful_larva]

Why not have a random counter in the game. I.e. you open a door, you go into a house, a random counter goes "this is here," "civilian here," etc. It will make it possible for explorable houses and setup chances to recieve help from civilians.

[Paratroopa644]

I'm new to this forum, but not BIA. What i would like to suggest is that u can select one of your two teams, then select a sigle person and have him do something. Like have your assault team suppress the enemy with your fire team but take one of them with u to flank.

[Orezai856]

yaaa or just 1 person thats follow u all the time as prt of ur lil fire tem

[Paratroopa644]

Also it would be cool if u could swap weapons with your squad mates. like if u hav a M1 Garand and your teamate has a BAR u could swap with eachother.

[shameful_larva]

Originally posted by Paratroopa644:
Also it would be cool if u could swap weapons with your squad mates. like if u hav a M1 Garand and your teamate has a BAR u could swap with eachother.

Wait- What paratrooper would readily give up their beast of a BAR at the push of a button? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Paratroopa644]

True. lol

[Orezai856]

ya on BIA road to hill 30 red would always have an unexpected... "accident" and his BAR would always end up in my hands http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[bangerlot]

From what I gathered in the bootleg E3 demo both of those things have already been incorporated.
ZEROETHICS, ZEROETHICS, ZEROETHICS

Wheres the demo?

[J_F_K1982]

hmmm the thing about the ammo seems really interesting. I think it would add more realness to the game since we can't really see how much bullets we have left in real life.

here's a topic no one has really talked about is the dailogue and voice acting.

I really hope to see good voice acting and realistic dialogue. There was some corny conversations in between missions that seemed scripted in the previous B.I.A games.

The interaction among soldiers and commands should also improve. For instance, when you give a command to a soldier why not have him stutter or hesistate? and when he's done giving the command why not have the soldier, given the command, say "what?" or "say again?" or "I can't hear you Baker!" depending on the situation that is.

In other situations why not have baker give some hand signals to position your men? because when you're coming near an enemy unit you don't always have to yell to get to a spot. and this could lead to an enemy being forced to engage in fire not only because they see you but because they heard you.

I don't know...but if you're going to create a realistic World War 2 game, the dialogue and voice acting should be more convincing.
Ewan, you're really clever. Do you make your own SDK maps with all that good software? Wow, you write beautifully. I couldn't have said it better if I was David Letterman. Do you come here often?

[tigertank1983]

the more realistic the better

[advertisingking]

I'm going to agree to disagree with the original poster on the whole sight thing. The reason it's called a "ghost ring" sight is because you're so close to the rear apeture that it actually "ghosts" out of view. To use it properly, you need to be right up in there.

Proper use of ghost ring sights -
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/steve--oh/shooting173.jpg

[zeroethics]

In response to advertisingking's post:

This is the first time I've heard the term "ghost ring" and I can see what you are saying but just a few thoughts on the matter......for the rear sight to "ghost" out of view or go out of focus you don't need to have your face right up on the sight, the same effect would still occur at the distance from resting your cheak on the rifle stock and you would still be able to use the sight properly. I'm sure some rifles are designed to be held that way, like the one in the pic you posted but older guns of the era wouldn't have been, but I'm not an expert. Traditional ones, like the M1 and KAR98, were definately designed to have the posture I am talking about, underhand trigger style ones like an stg44 might not have been but I'm not sure.

[hartsox]

put in gun shot wounds, if you get nailed in the arm, I WANNA SEE IT! like wise with the germans, i wanna see where they were hit.

[advertisingking]

M1A in use

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j6/steve__oh/aug021.jpg



But don't take my word for it. Here's some random joes I pulled off the internet. Camp Perry Ohio, where people know how to shoot better than I ever could
http://www.arringtonaccuracy.com/images/camperry4/camp%20perry%202004%20jhw%20039.jpg

http://www.cmmginc.com/cmmg_images/tbl_images/misc_images/MODCC_April_2004/Gary_Garand.jpg



Sorry for the huge pictures. I guess gun nuts haven't yet discovered the art of the re-size.

And I hope I'm not coming across as an ***. I don't want to. But I would hate for a developer to come across this and get the wrong idea.

[pvt_allen]

Btw has any1 mentioned about the ability to hold yer breath for a better aim?This is also realistic.Guess so.

[Raccoon_2]

Great! As long as you don't hold it intirely. In the Belgium army I learned that you shouldn't hold it like in COD 2. You should breath, breath, and then while breathing out you hold somewhere in the middle. And it's realy better that way .

[lieut.Campos]

hey advertisingking, this garand is your, Right??, Is new or old(i reffers if is of the world war 2 or is new).
I think that I_Like_Eggs1944â´s idea is very interesting. Or that you can take this soldier by his shoulder and throw(i donâ´t know other word to express that) he to a safety place.

[pvt_allen]

Originally posted by Raccoon_2:
Great! As long as you don't hold it intirely. In the Belgium army I learned that you shouldn't hold it like in COD 2. You should breath, breath, and then while breathing out you hold somewhere in the middle. And it's realy better that way . I was thikin about holdin yer breath for a limited time.8-10 secs or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Raccoon_2]

can also be done with this technique... except after some exercice.

[ratsofftoya]

I think it would be more realistic if Baker didn't carry both a M1 and a Thompson. Two firearms makes it seem like an arcade kind of game like Counter Strike. In my opion Baker should just have a primary weapon like a M1 or Thompson and maybe a sidearm like a Colt. Just my 2 cents. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Orezai856]

i think we've talked about that b4, but u know what! thats why baker runs so slow!

[ratsofftoya]

Sure he walks slow but I don't think it's realistic for a Sgt. to have a rifle and a submachine gun. You're lucky even if you have a pistol, but a submachine gun, come on.

[Goldgarand]

When you run around, you can hear the gear moving up and down. But i also think you should be able to hear yourself panting as you run. If it's a long run, then once you stop, you should hear some deep breathing as you get your breathe back.
I also would like to go to a fallen sodlier and help him out. Whether it's calling for a medic or taking out a bullet with your bloody hands, I think it would be really cool if the wounded soldier would actually react and scream. Not like some games where they do the same motion over and over again (roll to the side, moan, roal to the side, moan, roll to the side. etc)

[M1_Maniac]

Originally posted by ratsofftoya:
Sure he walks slow but I don't think it's realistic for a Sgt. to have a rifle and a submachine gun. You're lucky even if you have a pistol, but a submachine gun, come on.

He's the squad leader, he has a better chance of acquiring a machine gun.

[Raccoon_2]

Squad leaders were given an Smg! Smg's cannot be used for long range fire, that way the squad leader will not fight in long range fights.

In the German army squad leader were only given a pistol, but that changed to the Mp40 and STG44 since may 1940.

Another reason why only leader where given automatic guns: those are most of the time harder to clean and only squad leader where in the amry long enough to handle such a weapon. That's why the Russians gave their squad leader the simonov rifle, the rest were given these simple Mosin Nagant or Ppsh.

[zeroethics]

Well, it wasn't unusual for a squad leader to have a thompson, but regardless of what weapon, carrying two would be out of the question IRL. Just imagine trying to sprint in the heat of combat with a second rifle flopping around on a shoulder strap. I would so much rather see leaning to the side of realism than to the side of arcadia, with gay balancing techniques like making him slower. IRL people carry one rifle, jog sprint and have generally have dynamic motions and don't move at one speed. LEt alone do they not sprint at times. For all of the cool things this game is going to have they better includea sprint function, because the "jog theory" just does not cut it, especially with multiplayer that would make it sooooo lame arcade style.

[Raccoon_2]

I'm also against that two-weapon thingy. When I saw the demo of RBS Vegas I was disapointed because you could have a AR and a SMG at the same time, on the other hand I was glad you could finally use supressors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[M1_Maniac]

I am against it too, but in a sense, not all gamers want it that way. Remember, most of the people who play BIA aren't accustomed to having less than 3 guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

[marrsz]

i like having 2 weapons a k98 and a mp40 go good together.if u only wanna use 1 weapon then dont witch

i see ur point if u want the game more historical accurate I agree but then it just gets well 2 boring

I reckon we should be able to have the M1911A1 colt handgun at ready all the time
Like a 3rd weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911

[shameful_larva]

What if you had 1 primary weapon, like a rifle, grenades, a pistol, and one weapon that was easy to just sling around your back na dnot pose a problem. This would be like the M1 Carbine+Scabbard. The MP40 and unique sling. The bazooka (but you have a team for that). Maybe you could get a bag, kinda like an extra thing later in the game that you could use to carry a third weapon (Heck, I'd do this). It would be good and more realistic, seeing as how Baker "magically" get's full ammo on all his weapons between missions. When you run out of M1 ammo, without a restock in the future, you can just take out that ol' KAR and keep blastin' away. And I want <span class="ev_code_RED">SLINGS!!!</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

[zeroethics]

I can deal with two weapons, but sprint function is a whole lot more important to me. I'm from the Red Orchestra school of thought, and I know that isn't going to appeal to a lot of gamers, until they play it..... seriously realism makes gameplay better, more dynamic and interesting, oh and more intense. BEsides how could you make a game like this without being concerned with realism, and I don't mean authenticity or historical accuracy. I hope that difference is clear. I'm not talking about whether or not squad leaders were issued thompsons or how many windows this building actually had in 1944. I'm talking about player movement, bullet physics, one hit kills, that kind of thing. Basically anything that is going to pull it away from being another run and gun, bullet spraying, arcade shooter.

[lieut.Campos]

Yeah sounds very well, Do you played to the Dark Mesiah of Might and Magic??
I think that stay very well that could be a button to fall down the doors of the houses or to hit the germans,(i said that in thisFri July 07 2006 post (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2751085444/m/3271058354/p/3))
As happened in this game(Dark Mesiah of Might and Magic).

And a button to catch the enemy grenades and send back to his owners.

[ratsofftoya]

No man can go throughout the whole war with a rifle and submachine gun, it's a waste of ammo. I guess in BiA your some ubersoldier.

[M1_Maniac]

That had no constructive thought put into your response, if you want to state an opinion, be educated.

[bangerlot]

Bah, Bah, Bah...Hrm, humma-madee...Bah, Bah, Bah

[advertisingking]

How's this:
I know of no soldier in WWII who carried 2 primary weapons into combat. Logistically, it would be impossible.
The sheer weight and bulkiness of 2 rifles alone is enough to incapacitate someone in combat. Can you imagine a soldier, a PARATROOPER nonetheless, carrying - in addition to his food, canteen, shovel, grenades, medical kit, - seperate bandoliers for each rifle and a second slinged firearm?
Sometimes bazooka crews would carry an M1 carbine. And that was sometimes. In Ambrose's book "DDay" and in "Goodbye Darkness" by Manchester there are accounts of soldiers not being able to carry the BAR for a full day in combat, and having to trade with other members of the squad. That's just one firearm.
I think it's too bad that we, the gamers, drive the market in such a way that developers of promising games like Brothers in Arms, feel the need make such a glaring exception for their claims of realism by allowing the players to carry 2 firearms.

[M1_Maniac]

I agree to the I don't want 2 guns part, but not to the statement about the weapons. The thing about no soldier being able to do it, that isn't true if you consider all the variables. Imagine, a soldier in combat. Most of the time there is an HQ and/or a place for them to stay at when not fighting or on patrols. Most soldiers did not carry all of their equipment with them on said patrols, it is unnecessary. So with most of their heavy gear back at their little sleeping area, they have enough energy to carry 2 weapons on a patrol. Except, you must consider that that is a soldier with a good nights sleep and a full belly. Most of the time that wasn't the case.
So what I am trying to say, it isn't impossible, but it happened way too rarely to be implemented into BIA.

[Funkasoar]

I'll disagree slightly with you lot. We are all thinking in terms of offense and patrolling. But a soldier who is dug into a position, especially one which sees intense combat could easily have had a few guns lying around. Should one jam he could just pick up another. Of course carrying them all would be out of the question but to have a few at hand while defending would be quite plausible.

As for my hopes for realism I do really like what has been said about Red Orchestra. It is true that realism in terms of bullet accuracy and one shot kills and such makes for very intense combat. I have never experienced more intense combat than Red Orchestra. CoD is like a cartoon in comparison. Part of what makes a game experience so good is the suspension of disbelief. For me CoD fails miserably to suspend my disbelief most of the time. However BiA and definately RO make combat intense and shocking.

For realism in BiA:HH I'd like to see somnewhat larger encounters. I'd like to feel as if I'm operating in a unit larger than just my squad. BiA always makes you cut off or operating alone. To be able to operate alongside a few squads on your side against an enemy of similar size would make for very intense combat.

The otehr thing that would be cool is having to follow specific orders from superiors in the field. "Baker, take 2nd squad and flank that MG42" Being part of a larger operation that you can witness would be nice. But only to an extent consistent with Market Garden.

[bangerlot]

Well when y'all run out of ammo and youre pinned by heavy enemy suppressing fire... Don't whine when you have to assault that position and run down the Hun. Mellee attacks are meant for close quarter fighting and not 50 yard charges. An extra weapon can mean life or death in situations where extra ammunition is major plus benefit. Whine whine whine...here it comes! lol

[zeroethics]

Ya I have been playing Red ORchestra for years, since way back in the mod. It rocks. Which brings to mind a couple of other points. One is the free aim. BIA HH has the rifle swaynot in IRon sights but I mean when you turn to one side th4e rifle has a delqay in motion like it's catching up. THis is excellent but I also hope to see a fair amount of free aim before you start to turn. IT may already have this, it's hard to tell from video, it kind of like like it does. But to have the rifle turn a bit within a range before the camera turns as with the body. THe other thing is the prone animations the one I've seen in the vids looks ok but Red orchestra does it better IMHO. They show the arms cradleing the rifle and shifting one elbow forward at a time. Loooks really nice and realistic. Give me an updated Iron sights animation with a little better perspective, these other things I mentioned and a tyhe sprinting I'll be happy.

[M1_Maniac]

Red Orchestra does indeed has stuff that could be passed on the Hells Highway, which IMO would make it a far better game. Such as the realistic ballistics and rifle animations. And I still think we can use bayonets, they had them, so why not use them?
And COD, that is far behind in the thought of realism, it is a different league.

[Funkasoar]

I'm commenting on the whole 1 or 2 main weapons debate. I think that given the high level of realism that BiA is applying to the gameplay it only makes sense that the weapons used by the squad leader match those of his squad's. I mean if I can have a BAR and a Grease Gun why can't everyone else have dual weapon capacity and therefore eliminate the distinctions between Assault and Fire Team.

The fact remains that in reality the squad leader was intentiuonally given the Thompson because of a few reasons. Firstly it eliminated the impulse to actively engage in the long range fire fight and so kept the squad leader focused on the tactical situation. Secondly the squad leader was intended to lead the assault himself so the Thompson was the ideal weapon for that role.

That said it would require an alteration of gameplay, if only a slight one. IOn previous BiA titles you were often leading the assault as well as providing additional suppression fire for your teams as they moved because your squad wasn't really a squad so much as half of one. In that circumstance you needed a BAR or a Garand in addition to a Tommy or a Carbine or a Grease Gun.

However given the look of HH I think that only one gun would be fine. I say this because of the addition of the Heavy Weapons Team which will deploy Mortars, MGs, and Bazookas, all of which should easily add enough suppression potential to make the single close quarter weapon viable.

[Slimjim12]

I hope though that if you pick up a weapon you can keep it level by level because I myself prefer the M1 to the thompson. And wouldn't be much fun having to use the same weapon the whole game however I think that you should be only able to have 1 weapon. 1 weapon will also make you rely on your squad more for example if you have a thompson you cant lie down much cover from further ranges making you rely on your fireteam or if you have an M1 your fireteam would be more helpful up close.

[tsl_mac]

Back to the E3 thing---

Look at the E3 video for Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30.

Its totally different from the normal game.

Dont go by the E3 video of how its going to turn out. E3 is just to give you an idea of what to watch for. They ALWAYS make the game better. So just be patient, expect good, realistic, fun things to come out of HH.

Now, for Realism.

I Strongly think that they should add a LOT more animations with Matt Baker. They already have animations like when he gets on a MG or sets some satchels (Wheres the First Person?) but they need more. According to that E3 video, they did add more (like at the beginning where the piece of glass gets shot into his arm, and he breaks down the door). Like picking up a weapon. It should show bakers hands throw the gun, and pick the gun up off the ground(just to make the player feel more like he IS Matt Baker). Plus i think they should make reload times longer, just a bit. Dont know if anyone else has tried it, but holding a gun in one hand, trying to take out another clip with the other isnt the easiest thing, and it takes longer.

And as you guys have said before, we need more animations that have the characters interact with each other. If you watch the old BIA:RTH30 E3 video, it shows after one of your soldiers dies, another one of your men move over to him and check if hes dead or not. I never saw that. BIA needs to show more "Brotherhood" between the soldiers. So if one of your men dies, one of the other characters (Such as Allen and Garnett) who likes him more will kind of go into a shell shock, not very effective in following your orders. (Like in Saving Private Ryan at some part in the movie...) At least as what i have seen and heard, its not the easiest thing to see one of your good buds laying in the dirt bleeding to death, or ripped in half. I did like how Red sat by the guy on the bridge in RTH30, but it should have been harder for Red to take and forget. or atleast not think about.

As far as you probably can see, im think a big part of Realism is how your soldiers react to different situations. For a good Realistic game, Good voice acting, emotion, and real human "gestures" (i guess will work) have to be used or there wont be the same effect in a game as if you were watching in Saving Private Ryan. Cause hey, i admit it, at parts of Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, i caught myself tear-y eye'd. Just something you cant really hold back...

(BTW, sorry for long post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

[tsl_mac]

Also, for the other characters.

If they have some heavy fire over them (Tank shooting at them, MG-42 shooting at them , or generally just a lot of gunfire over them) They should grow impatient with Baker. They should also be scared, kind of cowering down and just demanding on what baker wants them to do.

Because think about it, if you have a tank sittin gthere shooting at you, i dont think you would be patient and let Baker take his time to give you his orders. You would want to get the orders, and get away from the danger, or destroy the danger as soon as possible. Somethings a human cant take to long of.. and thats sitting under cover when a Panzer IV-D is shelling the **** out of you.

[NanoFlak]

helmets need to also provide protection. In the previous games the enemy's head didnt even exist above their forehead. Your shots would just go through their helmet.

[mattfro]

Originally posted by NanoFlak:
helmets need to also provide protection. In the previous games the enemy's head didnt even exist above their forehead. Your shots would just go through their helmet.
I hated that so much! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

[Tanker1988]

just so everyone knows....the game is not coming out until Q4 of 2007 so i am sure they will easily address all these things in the game. I would be disapointed if they didnt having a whole two years to work on them, just puting in my two cents...you cant miss anything if you spend two years on a game like that.

[NanoFlak]

it'll be helpful if ubisoft reads this whole forum.

[NanoFlak]

hundreds of different german character models and faces would be pretty cool, non-disapearing bodies(unless moved by other comrades/medics) too.

[mattfro]

Originally posted by NanoFlak:
hundreds of different german character models and faces would be pretty cool, non-disapearing bodies(unless moved by other comrades/medics) too. That would be awesome. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

[NanoFlak]

will your squad have infinite ammo? If this game really wants to be the most realistic, it should. But then again that would be very hard to handle...

[skipper22]

dude. the hundreds of germans would take quite a bit of hard drive space i'm sure... but the variety would be cool. and finite ammo? i don't think that would end well. Suppressing the enemy took tons of ammo, and (if the missions are about the same length as they are in EiB, that would end with everyone out of ammo and dead infantrymen.

[mattfro]

You run out of ammo,then go pick up a German weapon.

[skipper22]

you make a point, but it doesn't really make sense. Your entire squad with all german weapons? i could understand a few guys doing it, but an entire squad? Finite ammo just wouldn't work out with the amount of cover and suppressive fire that you and your squad lay out. the german weapons aren't even all that great if you have a BAR...

[mattfro]

It should be like the other games.You have a certain amount of ammo but your team has infinite.Your squad is the one laying down suppressing fire.You just go in for the kill.

[advertisingking]

Originally posted by mattfro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NanoFlak:
helmets need to also provide protection. In the previous games the enemy's head didnt even exist above their forehead. Your shots would just go through their helmet.
I hated that so much! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do realize that there's not a helmet in the world that will stop a 30.06 or an 8mm, right?
Helmets in WWII protected against shrapnel. And in rare, RARE occassions, a bullet would hit at an extreme angle and glance off.

I just want them to make it like it already is, but please drop the 3rd person view, so I don't have to buy medal of honor airborne instead.

[mattfro]

It was the same thing when you shot a German in the head who had one of those hats on.Are those made to deflect bullets also?

[M1_Maniac]

No the German M43 field cap was not plated to protect against bullets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

[mattfro]

Sarcasm!

[sgt.craft]

how bout being able to use heavy equiptment (ie mortars artillery.ect)one shot kills for certan places like the chestif you get shiotn the foot you aint gonna die instantly and more weapons call in airstrikes and what not
this would be nice.

[mattfro]

I would like the die in one shot in certain places idea.I hate having two shots to the head be equal in damage to two shots in the foot.

[NanoFlak]

Originally posted by mattfro:
I would like the die in one shot in certain places idea.
hit 'em where it hurts, if you know what I mean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ... (ThAt GoTtA hUrT!)

[skipper22]

Originally posted by advertisingking:
I just want them to make it like it already is, but please drop the 3rd person view, so I don't have to buy medal of honor airborne instead.
First of all, they are gonna keep the third person view thing, so if you don't like it, stop whining and just don't use it.

Secondly, realistic location damage is a must. A shot to the foot or leg should, at the most, inhibit movement, not kill a guy.

And also, while we're talking about MoH:A, what's the deal with them using the 101st airbourne division too? i'm not complaining, but now i'm just waiting for call of duty to do a paratrooper-themed game. i'm probably still going to buy medal of honor. that looks good too.

[Orezai856]

MOH A is the 82nd Airborne...not 101st

[skipper22]

it's the 101st dude. they talk about the "101st Airborne unit" and "the Screaming Eagles". Either my source is wrong or yours is.

[Orezai856]

Medal of honor Airborne is the 82nd airborne, it goes through every drop the 82nd made, HERE this is straight from IGN and Gameinformer says the same,


'''Step into the boots of Boyd Travers, Private First Class of the 82nd Airborne Division and engage in battles throughout Europe. From rocky beginnings in Sicily to war-winning triumphs in Germany, each mission begins behind enemy lines, with an intense and fully interactive airdrop. Your ability to determine your own starting point dramatically changes the way each mission plays out. View the entire operation from the air, and then control your parachute to choose your landing spot. On the ground, gather your senses and assess the terrain. A wide variety of authentic, customizable weapons are at your disposal, each with distinct characteristics. Choose your path in this free roaming FPS environment. The producers sought counsel from numerous expert sources to make certain the game is historically accurate and as true to the WWII Airborne experience as possible.'''

BIA is 101st MOHA is 82nd

[skipper22]

WTF! Gamespot lied!

[Admir91]

Heres my say into this. I have a rifle and when I aim...the only thing you see is your thumb for your trigger hand because you are fucosing on the aimer insted. It should be a little back but not too back as you described. A little would be good because right now it looks like your sticking your eye into the sight. The blur thing would also be good like medal of honor.

[Tanker1988]

Originally posted by Orezai856:
also.... I hope, since the levels are 4x bigger that its more wide open and Varied on which route u want to take an hopee its not directed on one path an one position to flank... Basically id just like to be sent into a town an Told CLEAR IT OUT and then find my OWN way to overcome Obstacles

this was already confirmed in the demo you have to play the game on clues from your environment like in the demo the clue was flak.