Little suggestions about infantry warfare and tanking

[Ts4EVER]

I have been saying that for a while now.
- less damage over range
- slower iron sight time (except for pistols and machine pistols)
- more deviation for movement

The only concern for me is that sniper rifles would become even more useless, but meh. If rifles wounded more often over long range, bandages would become more useful too.

[mopskind]

I fully agree to Nattys points.

[ajappat]

The only concern for me is that sniper rifles would become even more useless, but meh.

Snipers could have their own bullet drop and damage. Realistic? Maybe not, but atleast then sniper would have actual advantage over regular rifle. Atm I hit better on that 3 pixel size enemy with regular rifle than scoped.

[Ts4EVER]

We could give them explosive ammo. To quote Austrian sniper ace Sepp Allerberger:

Here we were being asked to seek out and engage an infantry company that outnumbered us four-to-one and was occupying previously prepared positions, the locations of which we were not sure. I considered this to be a suicide mission and felt very bad about it. I went to the Waffen und Geraet Offizier or WuG (weapons and equipment officer) to exchange my Mauser carbine for a semi-automatic with optic and took another four magazines of explosive rounds with which I filled my tunic and trouser pockets.

[LuckyOne]

Wow wow wow... Hold on guys... Where is the famous "ZOMG TOO HISTORICALLY INACCURATE!1!!11"

You guys said true weapon sway is impossible in the engine... Well how about increasing the "fake" graphical sway? It will still keep a lot of people missing their targets... Of course a slight decrease in damage over range could help too. And a bit slower ironsights... But we can't turn this into BFH Reality.

[Ts4EVER]

Has nothing to do with historical accuracy, since everything is scaled already anyway.

[hyperanthropos]

Natty stated in his three points to add bulletdrop for regular rifles. Does this mean regular rifles have no bullet drop at all in FH 2.4 (and never had)?

But its true I think you shouldnt be able to shot enemys at such high ranges with regular rifles. Of course I dont want it to be impossible, but at least harder. They really have this laser feel.
 
About all other of Natty`s points I dont think "hardcoreness" is a category we should judge FH2 upon. It should be realistic and historical accurate, but still fun to play. All those three points are fulfilled to an extend I am satisfid about. But of course things can always be improved. Therefore yes for less laser-like rifles, no for all other points.



About the sniper rifles: I dont think they are useless they need some practise, sure. But in generel you can fight very effectifly over far bigger ranges than with a rifle. For example Mount Olympus with its big view distance, eventhough you need a Pattern 14. since the K89 ZF sights are useless at those ranges. Also you cant spot enemys when they are lying in a bush or a similar obstacles,most of the time.

By the way if you want to make sniper rifles to be more effective reduce the sway or delete it at all.

[Natty]

I mean more bullet-drop.. afaik there is drop now, but almost non existent since everyone reports of the same "laser feel" in the guns.

I also dont think sniper rifles need more drop than non scoped rifles. They could and should fill the role as sniper rifles.
Over all, what I think the weapons lack is a true identity, in real games most weapons are carefully designed as to have their own "thing", so players when they choose the weapon, is making an interesting choice so when the weapon performs well in the situation he planned for, he is rewarded - he played right.

We have that, to some degree, in FH2, but mostly the weapons are defined by the visual model only. SMGs suffers mostly as well as the LMGs. They lack role, whereas pistols work quite OK.
But on the topic of rifles, they could be way more interesting to use with the abovementioned tweaks, what it all boils down to, is putting players in to interesting firefights, where you win over your enemy by out-maneuvering him on the battlefield and take the right split-second decisions. When you are engaged in a player v player encounter, is when the real game play starts. We yank those moments away too abruptly I feel, leaving many players feeling unrewarded after killing an enemy. Or after being killed. Id say 7/10 times you get killed, you don't know what you could have done differently to change that outcome. That's poor player vs player interaction, and it's heavily based on the weapon designs.

This is why threads like these are so great It is important that the responsible devs get the feedback on how the guns handle and feel. I mean, that's what the game is about. How many shooters are there on the market? What makes the successful ones succesful? I would say it all starts with the guns. Make those right, and the rest will follow.

[hitm4k3r]

To my mind the weapons should stay as deadly as they are now. What always bothers me is the lack of a real sway. This made firefigths in RO very interesting, but in FH2 it's just very CoD'ish. The guy with the better ping and game performance wins. I played the BGF beta and they had the system of two shots for one kill with infantry rifles. At the end it felt off and not natural. Guns are deadly and should kill easily, but the way you can handle them ingame is just too much terminator style. Longer aiming animation could be indeed a big improvement and to increase the deviation while beeing in movement. Proper suppression effect would also be nice. I have this effect only, when I switch off my AA at all ingame.

[muratti]

you big nubs most maps you fight in are close combat at 50m or less. you want bullet drop at 50m? try shooting that same weapon over 2 grids and see if its still laser point.

[Yustax]

Prefer if the bolts were reduced for shorter range...people running around with bolts as shotguns isnt my point of fun.

[Cheesus Krighst]

Just slow down the ironsighting animations for the rifles, this "quickscoping" is quite ridiculous if done correctly by an experienced player.

[VonMudra]

Having used rifles at reenactments and gun ranges for years, I can say that the speed at which you sight in a rifle in FH2 is quite correct.

[Surfbird]

Also don't forget that you are even more dependend to hit within the first shot with a longer aiming animation, at least with the bolt action rifles, because you have to aim after every shot again.

That would give Germans equipped with the Kar98 a decent disadvantage against US guys with M1 Garand/Carbine, since they have to aim that long after evry shot.

This is fine the way it is right now, but with a longer aiming animation it might be a bit too hard for the Germans to keep up with the US guys in midrange combat. This might get the game out of balance on some maps.

The other thing is that a longer aiming makes people afraid of moving too much and not being able to aim in time to catch the enemy that is suddenly appearing right ahead, hiding in a bush in aiming position.

That leads to camping in a certain spot is favored since they can just stay in the aimed position and the enemy, who has to aim longer than usual, has even less of a chance to interact.

=> The gameplay might become more static and less fluently.

[muratti]

Having used rifles at reenactments and gun ranges for years, I can say that the speed at which you sight in a rifle in FH2 is quite correct.

so it doesnt take a year to aim and shoot? then I would like to know where this slow aiming idea came from