Store Page
RUNNING WITH RIFLES
All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos Workshop News Guides Reviews

RUNNING WITH RIFLES

Store Page
RUNNING WITH RIFLES >  Workshop > Anzac Joe's Workshop > **SOLDIERS AT WAR - HEAVY** 1.8 > Discussions
**SOLDIERS AT WAR - HEAVY** 1.8
Description Discussions5 Comments727 Change Notes
 This topic has been pinned, so it's probably important
Anzac Joe  [developer] 9 Oct, 2017 @ 2:44pm
Player Feedback and Ideas - Realistic Combat Mechanics
Use this discussion thread to provide feedback and ideas regarding realistic combat mechanics.

All feedback is welcome.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anzac's Project Development Directives:

-Enlarge the possiblity space for players to explore new areas of gameplay
-Develop gameplay to facilitate a rewarding online multiplayer co-op experience

Anzac's Additional Project Developments:

-Advance the possiblity space into the after battle

Community Feedback Collected:

-Sergeant in command of a 10 man squad
-Napalm as a support call
-Faction strengths and weaknesses
-Grenade Launchers for each faction
-More exotic support calls, gun runs, gunship support
-Sandbags? More engineering options?
-Ability to carry more items in your backpack
-Layered explosive area damage {death/wound/stun}
-Review small arm weapon arsenal
-Heavy machineguns to damage light vehicles?
-A.I text chatter {combat/tactical}


Community Feedback Applied to Game:

-Real world faction identities {update 1.52b}
-More AT rounds carried by a soldier {update 1.53}
-Vehicles lasting longer, specially in A.I control {update 1.53}
-HE rounds for AT Launchers {update 1.54}
-Too much handheld AT {update 1.54}
-More lethality from heavy calibre weapons {update 1.55}
-Vehicles having a larger presence on the battlefield {update 1.55}
-Not enough medics {update 1.55}
-Stronger A.I group presence and cohesion {update 1.56}
-Review weapon zoom values and engagement ranges {update 1.56}
-Stand-off capability for sniper rifles {update 1.57}
-More improvements to Medic system {update 1.57} Medic A.I requires further testing
-More improvements to soldier A.I engagement ranges {update 1.57}
-Ability for APC's & IFV's to damage each other {update 1.58}
-Faction strengths and weaknesses - T-80 tank with ERA, better protection {update 1.58}
-Vehicles having a larger presence on the battlefield + {update 1.59}
-Is it possible for fighting vehicles to react to incoming rocket fire? A.I settings?
Infantry Fighting Vehicles made stronger {update 1.60}
-British forces faction {update 1.61}
-Redesign support call & resource system {update 1.63}
-A.I can use carbines too {update 1.63}
-Special Forces support call, with special weapons and camouflage {update 1.63}
-Deployable heavy weapons? {update 1.64}
-Officers who also call in support calls {1.73}
Last edited by Anzac Joe; 8 Apr, 2018 @ 8:17pm
< >
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
Ghost993514 17 Oct, 2017 @ 10:12am 
A more defined suppression system, to simulate flinching and the like, and even narrowing FOV, but I'm not sure that's possible.
But, the main thing will be an accuracy reduction immediately following getting shot at to simulate flinching, but it can recover quickly, as long as you're not taking repeated hits.

And a screen indicator, to so you know you're being fired at when you're aiming at a hostile.

Combat Search and Rescue/Pararescuemen being armed with only marksman (scoped rifles, essentially) rifles would be great, and even accurate. The US, in particular, currently use the MK. 17 (SCAR H) battle rifle for their teams. The reason being, these teams aren't supposed to engage in combat, so much the actual rescue part, so the increased effectiveness at range allows for more efficient use of small team tactics.

EDIT: Whatever happened to the mine deploying arty?
Last edited by Ghost993514; 17 Oct, 2017 @ 10:12am
#1
Shagrix 29 Oct, 2017 @ 6:12am 
Could use more guns in general
#2
Flux 25 Dec, 2017 @ 2:12pm 
i agree with shagrix.
#3
PigeonMan 8 Apr, 2018 @ 9:23am 
I don't think this is a bug so I didn't put it in the bug report, but whenever I start a campaign, I am always a staff sergeant, no matter what difficulty setting I am on. Is there a reason for this?
#4
Anzac Joe  [developer] 8 Apr, 2018 @ 7:58pm 
This is an intended feature, having the player start the campaign as a staff sergeant with a four man team including a medic opens up the player to more tactical possibilities from the start of the campaign rather than starting as a private.

It is also the first rank that is available for an RP supplied by time, which is how the RP & support call system is designed for the mod.

-Higher rank to pull crew members to a combat vehicle from the start of a campaign
-More combat power and survivability afforded by the four man team including a medic
-Opportunity to attack lightly defended secondary objectives from the start of the campaign

Now that you got me thinking about the mechanic again, a sergeant is in command of a squad of around 10 men, modifying the rank values to afford a sergeant a 10 man squad in game will open up more opportunies and combat potential for the player at the start of a campaign.
Last edited by Anzac Joe; 8 Apr, 2018 @ 8:13pm
#5
PigeonMan 9 Apr, 2018 @ 4:58pm 
Originally posted by Anzac Joe:
This is an intended feature, having the player start the campaign as a staff sergeant with a four man team including a medic opens up the player to more tactical possibilities from the start of the campaign rather than starting as a private.

It is also the first rank that is available for an RP supplied by time, which is how the RP & support call system is designed for the mod.

-Higher rank to pull crew members to a combat vehicle from the start of a campaign
-More combat power and survivability afforded by the four man team including a medic
-Opportunity to attack lightly defended secondary objectives from the start of the campaign

Now that you got me thinking about the mechanic again, a sergeant is in command of a squad of around 10 men, modifying the rank values to afford a sergeant a 10 man squad in game will open up more opportunies and combat potential for the player at the start of a campaign.
Thanks for clearing that up mate.
#6
Anzac Joe  [developer] 9 Apr, 2018 @ 8:19pm 
no worries
#7
Ghost993514 2 May, 2018 @ 7:07am 
With the new encumbrancy (is that even a word?) design in RWR, I think that allows for a lot more in terms of realism and backpack usage.
I think that a 'full' load should be a little encumbered, enough to lower movement speed but not accuracy. A 'full load' should be your base kit (rifle, secondary, nades) and a 'full load' could be considered an extra, say, AT weapon, in terms of this game and lack of actual ammo.

An ammunition system would also be a nice addition.

Question: If I were to modify the weights of all the items, do you think you'd implement it? Or at least test it, I feel that this is a fairly important mechanic that should be in more milsim styled games, and it's often overlooked, e.g. SQUAD, Post Scriptum, Hell Let Loose, etc. It lets the player design their own, individualized kit, with various negatives and positives depending on their choice.
#8
Anzac Joe  [developer] 3 May, 2018 @ 1:27am 
i haven't experienced the new backpack system that 1.65 introduced just yet,

Just reading over the backpack encumbrance, it might be possible to isolate the backpack encumbrance from the movement speed reduction of the currently equipped weapon, so that the movement speed is effected by backpack encumbrance only and not by weapon eqquiped.

doing so will prevent a machinegunner from running faster by simply equiping a lighter weapon such as a pistol while still carrying 12 kilograms of machinegun in his backpack
Last edited by Anzac Joe; 3 May, 2018 @ 1:36am
#9
Ghost993514 3 May, 2018 @ 6:21am 
I think that ideally, EVERYTHING would be adding to a total of weight, to prevent your autorifleman from carrying an AT weapon, a medic from (also) carrying AT, or people just holding a LOT of stuff.

I think, though, that the way it works is actually just a speed penalty to whatever you're carrying, not solely backpack weight. Backpack weight is merely a modifier, and it stops somewhere (which still allows for infinite bags) and base speed is still based on your currently equipped weapon. So, a machinegunner with a pistol secondary can still simply switch to his sidearm and instantly be sprinting.

Speaking of loadout, I think that making spawns with an MG not spawn with a medkit/AT or just anything else heavy, would probably be a nice addition.
#10
Cl44 6 Dec, 2019 @ 9:20am 
Originally posted by Anzac Joe:
Use this discussion thread to provide feedback and ideas regarding realistic combat mechanics.

All feedback is welcome.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anzac's Project Development Directives:

-Enlarge the possiblity space for players to explore new areas of gameplay
-Develop gameplay to facilitate a rewarding online multiplayer co-op experience

Anzac's Additional Project Developments:

-Advance the possiblity space into the after battle

Community Feedback Collected:

-Sergeant in command of a 10 man squad
-Napalm as a support call
-Faction strengths and weaknesses
-Grenade Launchers for each faction
-More exotic support calls, gun runs, gunship support
-Sandbags? More engineering options?
-Ability to carry more items in your backpack
-Layered explosive area damage {death/wound/stun}
-Review small arm weapon arsenal
-Heavy machineguns to damage light vehicles?
-A.I text chatter {combat/tactical}


Community Feedback Applied to Game:

-Real world faction identities {update 1.52b}
-More AT rounds carried by a soldier {update 1.53}
-Vehicles lasting longer, specially in A.I control {update 1.53}
-HE rounds for AT Launchers {update 1.54}
-Too much handheld AT {update 1.54}
-More lethality from heavy calibre weapons {update 1.55}
-Vehicles having a larger presence on the battlefield {update 1.55}
-Not enough medics {update 1.55}
-Stronger A.I group presence and cohesion {update 1.56}
-Review weapon zoom values and engagement ranges {update 1.56}
-Stand-off capability for sniper rifles {update 1.57}
-More improvements to Medic system {update 1.57} Medic A.I requires further testing
-More improvements to soldier A.I engagement ranges {update 1.57}
-Ability for APC's & IFV's to damage each other {update 1.58}
-Faction strengths and weaknesses - T-80 tank with ERA, better protection {update 1.58}
-Vehicles having a larger presence on the battlefield + {update 1.59}
-Is it possible for fighting vehicles to react to incoming rocket fire? A.I settings?
Infantry Fighting Vehicles made stronger {update 1.60}
-British forces faction {update 1.61}
-Redesign support call & resource system {update 1.63}
-A.I can use carbines too {update 1.63}
-Special Forces support call, with special weapons and camouflage {update 1.63}
-Deployable heavy weapons? {update 1.64}
-Officers who also call in support calls {1.73}
Russian have a bloody humvee! what in the name of god is that
#11
< >
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
Per page: 1530 50