Ballancing
 

IHMO the game still need a lot of ballancing.

I know, all the *realism-fanatics* will start and cry "well the damages are how they really were* but making something *real* or even near that does not mean just giving weapons their real damages but goes beyond that.

One thing that cannot be done in this mod is give each side the *real* weaponry and make sure both sides have equal amount of them.
because that is NOT how it was in WW2.

In the invasion of france the german tanks were not as good as the french, yet they won because of better tactics.

Similarly with the latter east and west fronts.
To put it in plain english the allies won with numbers.
The russians would just throw entire corps onto the field wihtout weapons. They would use what the fallen left.

But this cannot be modeld in FH because you cannot say that the teams have to be ballanced, say, 3:1

So the sides have to be ballanced.

Now IMHO the biggest problem is with the rifles.
These suckers are way to powerfull.
Now concider the role they were used in.
These were standard issue
"at least they can defend themselves... theoreticaly"
weapons.
But as we can currently see (just like in DoD) these weapons, when compared to others are a lot more powerfull.
All you need is one hit...anywhere.
Reminds me of the old DoD type-a-gameplay.
Strafe out
shoot => kill
strafe back into cover.

But WW2 was not like this.
The hardest thing to overcome were the MG positions.
The MG42 would mow down hordes of opponents.
The only thing that could get them with minimal risk were grenades and snipers.

In FH?
Rifle:
Strafe out
shoot => kill
strafe back into cover.

Please FH-Team.
!!! --- Tone down the rifles. --- !!!

But still you will also need to ballance the other stuff.
Both teams should have equal chances of winning.
Without requiring that a sophisticated tactic.

As I sometimes use as an example:
"you can see if a weapon in a game needs ballancing... when most of the players use THAT weapon"
And when 18 out of 20 players use the rifles, you know there is a ballance problem.

Thanks for listening
Keep up the good work.
I look forward to the next patches.

Re: Ballancing
 

I think you don't have to worry about balancing too much. I bet ya the FH crew will play their mod so much they will figure out a good balance.

Re: Ballancing
 

mainy with rifles, just the bolt cycling time needs to be slowed down by quite a bit (to somewhere near what it is in normal bf) and they need to be less accurate when standing (not acurate at all when running)

Re: Ballancing
 

Well rifles easily could kill with one shot the main problem is they are too accuarte especailly while standing. Yes the allies won by numbers and yet on alot of maps they have similar number of tanks. The allies need 2 or 3 Shermans for one tiger.

Re: Ballancing
 

Agreed. Bolt cycle time (on the bolt rifles) needs increased, moving accuracy needs decreased and deviation time (time after going prone until your crosshairs center and have perfect accuracy) needs to be increased.

Re: Ballancing
 

You are SORELY misinformed.

The rifleman and his rifle are what win wars. Not the tanks, not the planes, not the ships. The rifleman takes the ground and holds it.

Therefore the rifle is the primary instrument of war for each side. It is an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon. And certainly not a "at least they can defend themselves... theoreticaly"
weapons."

And as for the modeling of the rifle in FH, yes the accuracy while moving needs a little work, but the damage and accuracy while standing still, kneeling or prone is just fine.

Re: Ballancing
 

That's right. It's infantry that wins a war. Not tanks, planes, ships or other things. All other things but infantry are 99% of the time too busy fighting eachother.

Infantry is always needed to hold a position, attack & defend,...

Re: Ballancing
 

maybe reduced accuracy and/or iron sights would solve this, without that "accuracy crosshair indicator"

Re: Ballancing
 

This could be cool and could be done. Every sodier spawns only with a pistol (and mayb a knive). Then they rush for the crates with the weapons. If you don't get a weapon, you just go with someone that does and either cover him with a pistol, or wait for him to dying to pick up his kit. Of course ... the Tkers..............

There is a server setting that allows that.... dunno if it can be a map setting though

Re: Ballancing
 

You want total realism? Then have tank crews..a loader, driver, gunner and commander, replace your keyboard and mouse with levers, wheels and pedals and with only a 6" x 10" slot to peer through. Have engine rooms in the Battleships or flight crews on the carriers. Have gun crews and MG ammo feeders and...and... well you see my point..realism is great but it's not possible to achieve total realism in a computer game.

Realism is a good thing but only to an extent....balance is key in any FPS. Realism has to come second. I totally agree FH needs to fix many balance issues.

Re: Ballancing
 

Uhm are you agreeing with the topic or not?
Sorry if I miss your meaning.

Re: Ballancing
 

"balance is key in any FPS. Realism has to come second. I totally agree FH needs to fix many balance issues."

Yes I am agreeing. :)

Re: Ballancing
 

The time to work the action of the .303 and K98 is correct.

I own a complete collection of both the .303 and G/K98 series (yes every representative version). In Rapid firing practices I can get 45 rounds per minute with the .303 (any model). The K98 is a bit slower at 40 rpm. This includes aiming with the rounds impacting within 10 inches of eachother @ 200 yards.

Honestly, all you are suggesting is a return to Vanilla.

Re: Ballancing
 

I don't think we are disputing the fact that the real life rifles can perform just as or if not better than the in game rifles. I own a few rifles including a M48 Czec version of the K98 and I agree with you.

The issue is that in the game...since the rifles are soooo accurate it makes the game out balanced. If you are running, walking, standing then there has to be a accuracy curve to were you are going to mostly likely miss your target. If you are crouched then your stablity and accuracy is curved up and if you are prone then it's raised even higher. But there still must be a 1% chance of missing...call it the heat of battle.

Also the current accuracy of the K98 and M1 Garand make the sniper rifles mute. I say make the sniper rifles as accurate as the standard rifles are now and just as deadly but the difference is you are looking through the scope and can't see what's coming up along side you, etc. Just tone down the standard rifles a bit and make the sniper rifles less accessable so you don't have a game full of snipers.

Just my opinion.

Re: Ballancing
 

Having browsed through this thread I don't really see what the issue is with rifle accuracy. Both teams have decent rifles, so whats the problem? So what if sniper rifles are crap, it's not like snipers contribute much to the game anyway. There are far greater inbalances in the game which should be addressed than a rifle. I would ramble on, but it's late, so I'll save it for another day.
:sleep:

Re: Ballancing
 

The one thing i hate about the rifles, is the cocking animation. Who the hell works the bolt on a rifle that way?

Either increase the bolt time, or lessen the acuracy when standing/running for balance sake, because right now, the rifle is making many other weapons obsolete. In close combat, an smg should OWN a rifle, unless the rifleman gets in a lucky shot. As it is now, they both have about equil chances because the rifleman can still manuvour, and fire accurate 1 hit kills in rapic sucsession.

If you have UT2k3, play red orchestra and youl see what i mean.

Re: Ballancing
 

[QUOTE=ReichwolffTBC]I say make the sniper rifles as accurate as the standard rifles are now and just as deadly but the difference is you are looking through the scope and can't see what's coming up along side you, etc. Just tone down the standard rifles a bit and make the sniper rifles less accessable so you don't have a game full of snipers.
[QUOTE]

I'm in accordance with that; but suggest the following:

Let the 'bullet spread' indicator come in a lot slower on non-sniper rifles. This will represent the time it takes to settle into a decent (read: stable) firing position, take a breath, time your shot with maximum accuracy... :D

1 shot kill is fine, and a soldier can get lucky with a snapshot from time to time, can't they?

Re: Ballancing
 

"1 shot kill is fine, and a soldier can get lucky with a snapshot from time to time, can't they?"

Yeah that would work well...If you kneel the wide crosshair slowly closes to a certain point but not a pin point. If you're prone it would continue to close to a pin point...I like that idea for simulating careful aim.

Very good.

Re: Ballancing
 

I agree the allies should have more tanks then germans, but especially for russian campains this is not because the T34 was a bad tank !

Maybe the image of allied tanks early in the war could be corrected by making more early war maps. I think it will produce quitte a number of upset posts "why did you make german tanks suck"

In 1940 when the war began many allied tanks were infantry fighting tanks. They had were terribly slow and had cannons that were built to kill infantry, not tanks. Nevertheless they often had very thick armour for their time, thick enough the 20 to 37 mm cannon of german tanks could not take them out. That is why mainly stuka's were flying in close support with the army groups.

In 1941 when germany launched it's attack on russia they first met little resistance and were practically standing at the gates of moskow, but soon they would come up against the T34 and the KV1 that no german tank could stand up against. At the german invasion of russia the german tank forces were made up of Panzer III with 50 mm cannon and the well known Panzer IV D with the infantry 75 mm short barrel cannon, aswell as numbers of totally outdated Panzer II and Chech 35T and 38 t.

That situation lasted for months if not untill germany was able to field the tigers and the panthers.

Fh as it is now focusses mainly on th later war years, but i heard ( hope) that will change. 1940/1941 were the decisive war years for the germans in conquering europe and invading russia. Also the desert campaingns were going on then.

I do still think the tigers armour is too strong ( not it's cannon, that is fine ) I posted it several times with the tigers own official manual as proof : the real T34 was could kill a tiger from 1500 m and less....in one shot to the flanks. Up front it could kill it from 500 m or less. And i mean the T34/76 in FH, not the stronger T34/85 ! In FH a T34 will not even damage a tiger if it fires at the front armour from 0 distance.....

I know the nOObs wil go insane if the tiger armour gets tuned down a little bit to realistic values but it does do the T34 justice. If they want realistic rolling fortresses, they have to wait for the Ferdinand or King tiger i guess.

I don't see issues in infantry combat......whatever supposed too strong weapon is fired it's operator will die from a single rifle type bullit. Moving under cover as much as possible is key there, real soldiers do it too, you will only find idiots charging in the open and then complaining about weapon strenght if they are mowed down in games :rolleyes:

Re: Ballancing
 

I don't really see no balance issues with rifles.. They don't differ all that much from other teams equals. I think you just suck and don't like to get owned. I agree the rifles could and even should be less accurate while running or standing, but I don't really see this as a problem as long as the rifles are almost each others counterparts. What does this have to do with balance? Or do you want FH to become vanilla BF where you need like two or three shots with rifle everytime? Lets just give every soldier HMGs to run around with, the vanilla BF style, so even you can hit. The other soldier with rifle always hits but I don't! This is unfair!


Sorry.

Re: Ballancing
 

Sorry but if you do not see the ballance problem then you are either blind (doubt that) or a rifle - lover (more likely).
The fact is is that in just about ALL circumstances the rifle will own anyone else.
Long or short distance, kill probability, spread.

Just imagine if the rifle WAS that good, why need MGs, SMGs. ect?
Ya think the axis on DD could have killed as many if they had rifles?
How come in WW2 2 men manning a MG could stop 20 men?
When in FH your lucky to get 1.

Re: Ballancing
 

That means you're having trouble using the machineguns. Not sure why. SMG's are great for close range, one burst to the chest is usually enough. I've seen plenty of people playing MG classes mowing down countless lines of people as they charge across a hill or bridge.

Maybe you just need to learn how to use concealment instead of rushing forward and firing from the hip with them. Or trying to fire on a group of people while you're lying in the middle of a road might be your problem.

I've been beaten tons of times at close range with a rifle by somebody with an SMG. The rifles could stand to be more inaccurate while running and standing, and they are pretty inaccurate while doing this now. You can get lucky of course, but how do you expect that to change?

Re: Ballancing
 

Ehm.. Im more of a SMG lover. They are very useful in for example Market Garden, when taking the allied bridgehead. MGs are also very powerful when in skillfull hands and good position. I've had situations where I haven't been able to get past certain point because MG'er was covering it... Got killed like 5 times, even tho I tried to peak around the corner with my rifle and blast him. Every gun is useful IMO, most maps just happen to be based on long to medium ranged combat, when SMG is only useful to like 150 meters. If there were decent close combat maps SMGs would show their teeth, but there really are none. I myself use SMG pretty often, maybe rifle a bit more often, but still love the SMG.

Well, In real life there are factors like the wind, weight of the gun, strenght of the person who's carrying it, stamina.. None of these are in BF. In real life the ground isn't completely flat either and provides cover, unlike in BF. Also makes aiming harder when moving. And last but not least, IN REAL LIFE YOU DON'T SEE ENEMY SOLDIERS NAME 500 METERS AWAY SHINING ABOVE HIS HEAD!

Please admins! Disabled tags would give so much more improved gaming experience! Thats just straight up stupid that every server has them enabled. It really takes out a huge part of the game, for example more useful machineguns, as your camouflage would actually give you some kind of advantage.. Not like now when you possibly can't see the enemy but can see his tag, even behind obstacles! Im begging you!

But I do agree with the point the rifles should be less accurate when moving.

Re: Ballancing
 

Agreed, the first group to come over is toast.
The next time they try that they will know, or guestimate, where you are and that will be your end.

I played a lot of MG in DoD and it was nice.
In FH the spread is way to high when fireing to work effectivly.

Besides when I can kill more people at long range with a rifle then a MG it seems a tad bit off.

In my deleated post I had said that just reducing the capabilities of one will not make it better.

If you reduce the power of the rifle it will make the MGs more powerfull, as they should be (imho), it will probably require other steps to ballance the new situation.

BTW: I love the game feeling.
On that one russian map with the river (I'm bad with names)
I was acutally hiding behind the tank, as an egi, to evade fire.
Great!!

It is just the damn "strafe out - kill - strafe in" rifles that piss me off.
IMHO that is what made DoD interresting for the CS kiddies and broke its back.
I'd hate to see that happen here.

I have found it to be less a mater of luck.
In any circumstanc the rifle will usually be better then a SMG.
If both are moving the Rifle needs just one hit.
That + the lesser spread of the rifle makes you kill probability a LOT higher then that of a rifle.
For a SMG it tends to be the elements of surprise, CQC and luck that will get you the victory.