PDA

View Full Version : RED ORCHESTRA vs WWII: online



CaptainGelo
04-30-2006, 11:00 PM
have any1 tried both? whats better for tank driving and stuff, I havnt tried RO, only ww2http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gifnline..

CaptainGelo
04-30-2006, 11:00 PM
have any1 tried both? whats better for tank driving and stuff, I havnt tried RO, only ww2http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gifnline..

Stigler_9_JG52
04-30-2006, 11:05 PM
Isn't Red Orchestra modern?

CaptainGelo
04-30-2006, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Isn't Red Orchestra modern? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
no

panzerd18
04-30-2006, 11:27 PM
No its based on the Eastern Front during WW2

Xiolablu3
04-30-2006, 11:44 PM
I tried Red Orchestra in Single player for a short while at a friends house.

The bots are useless, but I reckon it would be great online, its done in the most realistic way possible for a computer game, while still making it fun.

4 plaers are needed to control a tank well, otherwise you have to keep jumping thru positions and you cant drive and shoot at the same time obviously. The views out of tanks are terrible (as they should be), unless you stick your head out of the top (asking to be sniped in mulitplayer). When driving from inside you get a tiny letterbox to look thru.

Looks good, especially for the very cheap price of $19.99 (about 12)

No good for Stigler tho, as you have to buy it over steam, and we all know what a fuss he made of boonty box (even tho he never even bought the PE2 addon)

Cant use Steam then as its exactly the same thing, runs in the background of all games you play on it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I will be buying it, tooo good to miss at that price. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

danjama
05-01-2006, 07:07 AM
The Red Orchestra forums give you loads of info on what the game is like, and also there are picture thereads and also some cool videos....

You should visit: now. (http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/)

As for me, ill be buying RO asap! It looks fantastic. You should also try Day of Defeat Source if you like online FPS's, the maps are smaller but its great fun when you learn the ways of the game. Iv never tried WW2OL sorry.

CaptainGelo
05-01-2006, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
The Red Orchestra forums give you loads of info on what the game is like, and also there are picture thereads and also some cool videos....

You should visit: now. (http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/)

As for me, ill be buying RO asap! It looks fantastic. You should also try Day of Defeat Source if you like online FPS's, the maps are smaller but its great fun when you learn the ways of the game. Iv never tried WW2OL sorry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea I got DOD: CS, but kinde getting tired of brainless slaughters:P


wwii online have great gameplay, one huge world (euope atm) and loads and loads of players
you can drive, ´walk, fly or sail...but again, graphik is BIg minus..

A.K.Davis
05-01-2006, 09:13 AM
WWIIOnline has more realistic tank combat, but overall RO is a smoother, more enjoyable experience. WWIIOnline absolutely demands some level of teamwork, but you can jump right into RO no problem.

All that being said, there is a special joy to making a 2k kill against an enemy tank in WWIIOnline and knowing that it was a human player. There is also a special frustration to be killed from 2k away with no warning.

Stigler_9_JG52
05-01-2006, 09:58 AM
What is it that makes WWIIOL's combat "more realistic" than RO? Does RO not get the numbers right? Or do they dumb down the optics, or the detail on armor slope and thickness?

Also, does anyone have experience with this title and with Panzer Elite, and care to compare the two?

CaptainGelo
05-01-2006, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
What is it that makes WWIIOL's combat "more realistic" than RO? Does RO not get the numbers right? Or do they dumb down the optics, or the detail on armor slope and thickness?

Also, does anyone have experience with this title and with Panzer Elite, and care to compare the two? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

damage modeling (calculations) is best then in any game by far, it takes into account everything, like in RL, plus I hear that tanks in RO is like gocars?..

Von_Rat
05-01-2006, 11:33 AM
ive played both.

as far as tanks go ww2ol is more realistic,and by a good margin. tanks do seem like go carts in ro. theres a few things with tanks in ro i like better than ww2ol, but overall ro tanks seem simplified compared to ww2ol.

ro"s infrantry play is much better.
ro's graphics are much better to.

Mjollnir111675
05-01-2006, 11:57 AM
Stigler,


I have both Panzer Elite and R.O. Have enjoyed the former since '98. Picked up the latter a few weeks ago @ Best Buy. Only because I have been jonesin', fiendin', or whatever for an up to date WW II armor sim. Forget fire on the move!

I'd say there a few differences between the two aside from being player controlled infantry.
As far as the armor goes, there are a few improvements.

First, I would say they have Time of flight for the shells modelled more correctly than in P.E. The armor pen. values I am not so sure of.
It really is tits to see an A.P. round richochet into the air after hitting sloped armor. But I dont believe they modelled different hit locations as P.E. did. In P.E. you could aim at different parts of the tanks and say knock out tracks, tranny, cooling systems, optics etc. I do NOT see this modelled in R.O. I have aimed at roadwheels, rear decks, all over really and I have found ZERO evidence that any particular systems of an A.F.V. are modelled. It seems that 2 or 3 hits is the magical number no matter where you hit an enemy. Which is a bit of a hippo nipple twister for someone who comes from P.E. as a first armor sim because I always liked aiming at the known weak spots and destroying enemies using knowledge not a fast reload time. So I wouldn't say it is a full on armor sim. There isnt any single player mode worth mentioning so crew attributes aren't needed. Nor is repair or time needed to repair anything damaged.

Also to R.O.'s disadvantage is NO Brit or Ami armor. And I foresee Ami & brit armor like I foresee an Avenger's COCKPIT in this sim. Just drawin' a paralel not looking for trouble. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

The poster above likened the the tanks mobility to that of a go cart. I would say he is RIGHT ON! I cannot disagree at all. They have tremendous take off speed, top speed & can turn on a dime (w/o throwing a track on pavement no less!?).

I will not compare graphics. That would be a pitched battle of words against P.E. But I will say this, if it weren't for the whole Sony/Psygnosis can o' worms I would without one doubt in my mind say that Teut and the gang @ Wings could've definately by now produced a more pleasing title. But while on the topic of graphics the tank interiors are well modelled. You actually see through your crewmens eyes as you switch from buttoned to unbuttoned.

My only teeth shattering moment was/is when I get an error that "R.O. is not available at this time". I will report back when I get a response as to why its happening. So to that end I have played quite a bit but not HALF as many as I would like because of said error.

But in light of the difference in time between their release dates it is a good game. But not an armor SIMULATION. Atleast not in my mind.

Edit: P.E. is still king in my book! And who doesn't just adore sprite infantry! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

S!

"Whoever claims he has never perceived an oppressive feeling of fear has certainly never been to the front. The prerequisite for bravery is fear,just as the fear of dying and the uncertainty of what follows this earthly existence are the prerequisites for the origin and existence of every religion." Otto Carius

Xiolablu3
05-01-2006, 12:09 PM
Red Orchestra isnt a simulation, its a game.

But its a game with some realism built in.

Bullets drop over distance, Guns have correct rates of fire, even the MG42.

But there is some balancing in there to ensure a good game. (If you have ever played COD2 Multiplayer with the Russians PPSH I think you will realise this is a good thing. That thing is so unbalanced as to be a map winner)

Stigler_9_JG52
05-01-2006, 12:19 PM
Thanks for the heads up.

Based on what you've written, I'd say it isn't for me, at least not right now.

I loved Panzer Elite; their mortal sins were:

1) Not being able to carry the combined arms fight (tanks + infantry + AI vehicles) ONLINE
2) The system not being able to easily be moddable and integrated

by the way, I do NOT feel PE's graphics were a weakpoint, then or now. They were just fine for what they were trying to simulate

WWIIOL was fun in vehicles. But...

1) The whole spawning/supply/persistent environment was never workable
2) They blew off historical accuracy for playbalancing

*Sigh*.... can never understand why nobody can hit the sweetspot for an armor title...

Closter
05-01-2006, 12:55 PM
And as for the map sizes? WWII Online has the biggest map I've seen so far...

Stigler_9_JG52
05-01-2006, 12:58 PM
It's still not full-sized, though. Which kills a lot of the realism in the air game...

Mjollnir111675
05-01-2006, 01:02 PM
Stigler,

I agree about the combined arms point.

I threw in the graphics point so you would know. But comparing a newer game to a 1998 release sim I am sure most would know. But its always better to include it so noone gets any ideas. And for the record the graphics suit me just fine as well. The King may be getting old but there fails to be a prince on the horizon.

And I also &lt;sigh&gt; at the apparently difficult nature of hitting the sweetspot for an armor sim. I always wondered what or why in Hades it is so d@mn3d difficult. Is it truly lack of interest? I like to believe otherwise but its possible.

S!

"Whoever claims he has never perceived an oppressive feeling of fear has certainly never been to the front. The prerequisite for bravery is fear,just as the fear of dying and the uncertainty of what follows this earthly existence are the prerequisites for the origin and existence of every religion." Otto Carius

Aaron_GT
05-01-2006, 01:56 PM
Whilst not full size, the size of the maps in WW2 Online is an improvement over most games/sims of this type.

The persistent world idea was a nice idea, but as Stigler says, it doesn't really work, and partly because the maps are so big and you end up with a defuse, badly coordinated mess all too often and attacks peter out as people have to go and do other things and it ends up in a general to-and-fro. Better would be a larger map than the average FPS (e.g. 10 miles by 10 miles), with proper scenarios with lots of players with the scenarios to be played on the basis of a higher level strategic wargame. E.g. the commanders play something like Rowan's Battle of Britain, and the grunts get to play the resulting scenarios. It would also allow things like artillery to be brought into play, and aircraft would be like strikes ordered in from off board like various other RTS games.

Also the supply/spawn system should be changed so you spawn in squads, maybe taking over AI, not semi-randomly.

I found the graphics a bit of a negative point for immersion in WW2OL too. I can see why they are relatively simple, to allow long view distances, but they are so simple they make it hard to feel immersed.

Stigler_9_JG52
05-01-2006, 03:00 PM
As I always say, I find it much easier to stomach the virtual world not "fooling me into thinking it's real" than for ridiculous things like "ueber weaponry", badly modeled physics, and good tactics being rewarded with bullsh@t results.

Immersion is in the whole package, and there are NO sims anywhere that are so graphically lifelike as to be confused with a "hologram" or a "photo".

Said another way, graphics are overrated. No, we don't have to go back to 256 colors and single colored polys.... but eye candy is no substitute for good, solid accurate simulation.