17 replies to this topic

[Elbu]

I played quite alot of RO 2 but a thing i have always been wondering is: were smoke grenades really standard equipment in ww2? In RO2 it is a pretty good tool in attacks, but without knowing anything about the use of them in the war, it seems to me that smoke grenades were not standard equipment and primarily used to mark drop zones and rarely in fight. So from my knowledge smoke grenades are only used in RO2 to balance attackers vs defenders and not because it is historical correct, or am i wrong? I certainly do hope FE will equip smoke greandes so they can be used the way they were in the war, which i think will give a totally different way of deciding how to attack positions instead of throwing a smoke and rushing through it.

[Hans Ludwig]

It's not that smoke grenades didn't exist during this time (depending on a lot of historical factors, however), but how most games introduce this piece of kit allows for unrealistic use of them: spawn, throw two smokes grenades, die, spawn and rinse and repeat again and again on a server that has 32 or 64 players with X amount other players at any given time doing the same.

Rest assured that this game play mechanic will not be forgotten and rigorously tested. Once a team member with more information than I gets a chance to respond to this thread when time allows, they will.

Thanks for starting a thread on this topic. Conversations such as these only makes a game better with community input.

[Elbu]

E.g using a MG as support in an attack in RO2 is mostly useless, when the battlefield is full of smoke. Reducing the use of smoke grenades would force players to use other tactics (instead of the same tactic every time), which in my opinion is what RO 2 lacks.

[Sgt.Elly {1st ID}]

Using an MG as support in an attack in RO2 is mostly useless because most of the maps force you into death gauntlets so you don't have an adequate field of fire or are able to effectively set up a firing position on the flanks. Then when you do deploy and start firing you're usually dome shotted cause weapons are crazy accurate in RO2.

I don't really know about the historical usage of smoke grenades during the war but I would like to see a lot more general "smoke" during a battle, from artillery barrages, tank shells (debris,dust), burning vehicles, etc

[Elbu]

Yes i totally agree with ellybean. My point is just that smoke grenades is used too much and often ruin gameplay in RO2

[Serathis]

One way would be using an energy system like in Brink. Throwing smoke would start a cooldown that does not reset between spawns so the suicide smoke rearming tactic would not be viable.

[Dietrich Landrik]

Smoke grenades were used in the tactical environment and had many different uses in the tactical situation. Throw a smoke away from your forces and the enemy thinks you'll attack through it so you can sneak around. Simple stuff like that including much more.

[SilentAssassin]

RO2 used 2D smoke effects right? I hope that FE ends up using a 3D smoke particle effect instead. It tends to be more immersive and it looks a lot better.

[Serathis]

Volumetric smoke would be nice. Smoke being affected by air pressure (nades, tanks firing) would be nice.

[Nixod321]

Volumetric smoke would be nice. Smoke being affected by air pressure (nades, tanks firing) would be nice.

As well as terrain/objects, of course. Ground-contacting exhaust looks really nice when it also collides with the ground.

[Novusordo]

Agreed smoke is an overlooked aspect of war games when really it should be given major attention. Volumetric and dynamic smoke that is affected by wind, shockwaves, ect would be great, as would lingering smoke from various artillery/munitions that can float across the battlefield and linger around for realistic amounts of time.

[Elbu]

Furthermore the smoke from a smoke grenade in most games, also RO2, is very unrealistic. The smoke is very easily affected by wind (see this video: ), and would form a trail of smoke, and probably not the round circular smoke cloud seen in RO2. Because the smoke is very easily affected by wind i do not think is was very often used as screening, and especially not as often as e.g. RO2. Well i could be wrong though i havent read anything about smoke during WW2 =)

[Dietrich Landrik]

They'd for sure throw a load of them to screen something proper. Much like the smoke discharges from a tank, there's roughly six on a lot of tanks.

[Mike_Nomad]

One key ITEM to always bear in mind with smoke and its implementation....

RESOURCES

Smoke, in all its incarnations, is very demanding of the system and client resources. If overdone, lagging is the nasty by-product. For both the clients and servers.

Also, its the most abused item in many servers. One or two knuckleheads can ruin a match with its overuse.

[Porsche]

I would like to see mortar crews be able to lay down smoke. This would enhance the ability to coordinate larger scale attacks.

[CptFoley101]

They already can.Mortarman has a couple of smoke shells.
Edit:nvm what i posted.Didnt bother to read title of topic xD.

[Schneller]

Several comments on this thread:

 

Pyrotechnics were used IRL far more than ever reflected in DH.  Flare pistols being a good example. Absent from DH but, very commonly carried by combat leaders on both sides.

 

We did see misuse/overuse of the SIGNAL (colored) grenades. This is, as one person pointed out, because leaders were killed and respawned so often thus bringing an unrealistic amount of the grenades onto the battlefield.  The misuse came IMHO from leaders failing to tie a voice message to the smoke signal.  A great opportunity for team play was lost here. Commands like "Attack on my smoke", "Withdraw to my smoke", "Enemy tank location1" marked by smoke;  were all things that could have made them more useful. Instead, because of the common "attack, attack, attack" style of RO/DH the signal smoke quickly evolved to "Break through HERE! Or, Enemy breaking through here.  Certainly a limited range of instructions compared to voice commands.

 

The goal in FE is to have far more teamwork and voice communication.  This will reduce the need for colored signals while also making them more useful when they are employed.

 

Regarding the unrealistic  shape of the smoke column....this was dictated by the limitations of the engine and a need to get the smoke plume high enough to be seen over trees and houses. I'm sure our artists (using the new engine) can get a better look. I would not mind seeing a map where wind effects were so strong that it made smoke ineffective, dispersing it too fast to be really useful. 

 

On to concealment smoke.  A different animal but WIDELY used IRL.  Ordering a smoke mission from mortar teams or for a friendly tank to put a couple of smoke rounds on a location is extremely common now as it was in 1944. The new engine will allow these to look "Better" just like everything else.

 

So, the future...it is possible that you may eventually see flare or smoke cartridge launching pistols come into the game. And a subsequent reduction in the signal smoke grenades being used (for example a platoon leader may only have the pistol and no grenades or vice versa). Whichever pyrotechnic is used, I hope a voice command is issued describing WHAT action it is signalling!

['DeadlyDad' Olson]

We need weather effects, for more than being able to smoke a long front with a couple of strategically placed smoke grenades and the upwind side of it.  (Just a thought; could volumetric smoke 'drift' just by scaling it along the X/Y axes?)  For example, wind should effect mortar rounds.  As I recall, a round that lands half a click away has travelled 1.4km through the air, where the wind would be affecting it every second.  Pretty much any projectile travelling long distances will see at least some change in trajectory because of wind.  Also, as vehicles (and men) travel along a dry road/etc., a cloud of dust would be created that would act (somewhat) like smoke, and would give them away.