Yet we have completely arcade-like mechanics, and that was the only mention of the game being simulation, while the rest always refers to the game as realistic.
the term “arcade like mechanics” is too vague to be any sort of useful measure.
there are some features that are definitely not mil-sim - healing for example, although the prevalence of OHK and killing the wounded means it’s not THAT important IMO), but there’s also essentially no markers, no saves, no “lives” as such, no “power ups”, so I think it is a lot closer than some others do.
2 Likes
Tank markers (markers you claim the game basically doesn’t have)
Magic weapon upgrades (powerups you claim the game doesn’t have)
Magic soldier perks (powerups)
AI soldiers and respawning on them (saves/lives)
Healing
Tank repair (too fast) and extinguishing (using a toolkit?)
Engineer buildings (pulled an AA out of their behind?)
Do I have to go on?
And just because they mentioned milsim ONCE doesn’t give you or anyone else an excuse to force through milsim changes when the game clearly is designed to be “realistic”, which means that it is between arcade and milsim, and goes for neither extremes
Arcade - favoring fun and balance over realism. Example: WoT
Realistic - going as realistic as possible without introducing mechanics specifically ment to enhance realism at the hard cost of enjoyment (like not being able to heal unless you are a medic, and/or not being able to repair). Example: War Thunder
Milsim - going full realism, fun be damned. Example: Steel Beasts
Tank markers are only ther when reported by people - which I do not see as particularly arcady at all, especially given there’s not much of a chat system
Magic weapon upgrades are not - they follow a perfectly do-able system for repair and refurbishment of weapons that is done int real life
Magic soldier are often (but not all) skills that can be trained
And no -0 you don’t have to go on - you’ve gone on more than enough - to you everything you don’t like get’s labelled as “magic” - what a pathetic way to argue.
others sometimes accuse me of wanting too much realism but I’m not so stupid as to think that a game can be perfectly realistic and I’m willing to accept some things that might be accelerated from real life processes as being acceptable for gameplay.
I’m not “forcing” milsim on anyone - FFS - get a freakin’ life and stop putting words into people’s mouths.
In the context of discussion and using your own terms a bit of suppression and neutralization are well within the bounds of “realistic”. If it was “milsim” (by your own version AFAIK) they would last minutes - even half an hour for neutralization (as per studies of axis soldiers bombed in Normady for example) - in this game they might list 10 seconds to a minute.
Be nice is people could hold a meaningful discussion and explore ideas a bit before hitting the pejorative and disdainful rejection
3 Likes
I’m talking about the armor penetration marker when you aim at another tank, lol
Except in real life the gun wouldn’t magically do 15% more damage
Aka arcade
No. They are just not realistic.
If you took apart a gun and you’d get a random part, let’s say a barrel, and you could install that into another gun for extra accuracy, that would work. But then the origional gun you disassembled would need to have that extra accuracy to begin with, which it doesnt. So it is suddenly turned into a better barrel that is more accurate. Hence, magic. And two soldiers having the exact same body, exact same physical features, suddenly run at different speeds? Take different amounts of damage? If the body turned bulkier when you get the vitality perk it would be okay, but now, it is magic
I said you or anyone else getting the excuse to do it. Did not specify that you did it.
Depends. Do you randomly lose the ability to fight because some shots fly overhead? That’s milsim, not realism anymore, as it takes away playability in favor of realism. note I am not saying that immediately makes it bad. Just that it is milsim
And the issue with milsim is that it isn’t intended to be fun - it is indended to be realistic. Meanwhile arcade is the other way around. So there needs to be a balance between the two.
Ah - right - you mention that now… those would be “penetration markers”, not “tank markers”… but ok fair enough… .
Personally I don’t care for the markers - but it is an unrealistic battlefield in all respect (except the quality of the scenery) so expecting “people” to fight on it in a highly realistic manner is a disconnect.
Actually if you get a better gas fit in the breach and barrel you you can get higher velocity and hence more damage. Maybe only 5% perhaps - but the principle remains valid.
aka - not all of them like you claim - you could try the middle ground some time - not all perks are “magic” so stop claiming they all are.
More like 2%. These guns do have to pass certain quality tests. Either way, 15% is magic as it can never be reached realistically.
I only claimed that there were perks that were magic. Not that all of them were. I am perfectly fine with like half of them actually. My issue lies with the magic ones like +35% health and -recoil perks. And yes -recoil is magic, +recoil recovery would not be. The difference is one magically reducing the physics forces, while the other one simulates someone being more used to a gun and being able to compensate better
You used the phrase in a reply to me quoting my post - if you want to apologize for it then please do - wriggling about semantics and shifting goal posts just looks whiney.
No one mentioned " randomly lose the ability to fight because some shots fly overhead" - again stop making stuff up!
The principles of suppression and neutralisation are tolerably well understood - you can read Royal Artillery treatises from between the wars on why they chose the 25pdr as their standard artillery that discuss the effects of fire on troops in great detail, but for a simple explanation see wiki -
For examples how it might be used see
http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/SOH/SOH_Content/SupportByFire/SupportbyFirePosition.htm
For neutralization see
http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/SOH/SOH_Content/Neutralize/Neutralize.htm
In the context of Enlisted “suppression” might be making troops stay prone - so inhibiting movement, with perhaps some small negative effect on return fire volume and accuracy. In enlisted it might be a couple fof accurate MG bursts that hit someone in the squad - but not isolated rifle shots. Or a couple of mortar rounds that land close enough to hit someone.
Neutralization would mean prone and not even looking to shoot back. Historically Neutralization means artillery or bombs over some time period - so in Enlisted it might be a concentrated burst of MG fire - a gunner concentrating on a small area - or a whole magazine of 50mm mortar rounds landing in (more or less) the same spot. Or an artillery strike that lands among the squad and hits more than 1 member
Both Suppression and Neutralization should be repeatable - so if you can keep fire on the target then they stay kept down.
2 Likes
The wider point is - if this is something that does occurs “in real life” - can the “feel” of it - the essence - be replicated in a limited game like Enlisted?
No we don’t want to ruin a 25 minute game by neutralizing squads for 30 minutes - but if you are looking for some realism you should include something that produces a similar effect or feeling, scaled to fit the game.
IMO 
And actually if you do have suppression/neutralization you can make some interesting “morale” processes… basically from “green” to “veteran” and a few grades in between.
And it is not always “veterans are braver” - an example of “veteran” behavior I read somewhere was British army veterans from the Desert/Italy theaters would hit the deck on the first incoming round of artillery - whereas some American troops straight out of training did not do so - not recognizing what comes next!
But that’s probably a step too far - I don’t see any sort of provision for it in the current system so it would have to be brand new.
2 Likes
Suppression is a different topic (as you probably know) but I like your arguments.
That’s kinda hard to implement
Because to bring the morale up, we have to add morale bringing soldiers (with record players and instruments) which most players don’t want
1 Like
first of all,
where.
i have been here long enough to actually remember the previous site.
and neither that one, or this one mention the word " milsim "
and devs are not gonna say anything about anything.
and i don’t blain them.
so i don’t know where you heard that.
second,
i don’t know what’s hard to you understand that, because it’s preatty much what it is. if you are too blind to see it, i don’t think you should judge or capable to define what useful measures are.
which you contradict your self right after saying:
exept, not in ww2? they had standard rilfles with some of them having some field modification and or smaller upgrades. but guess what, they actually changed the whole rifle for improving it. not having 5/6 bullshits levels.
i don’t think you know much about ww2. i wish to be wrong, but watching your comments, you don’t " disappoint " me in that regard.
because once again, it is preatty magic and no sense in the first place, the only pathetic thing here, is the way you try to climb the mirrors by defending such dumb “”"“features”"""".
ironic. i haven’t seen many from you.
since you keep having a stick up your sorry ass being disrespectfull towards anyone that does not share your way of thinking. not to mention, your bad attitude.
oh, yeah, you were the same one saying:
a very " nice behavior " from you.
oh, i’m sorry mister king of da world.
like people sometimes say to me when i’m getting unreasanable: " calm ya tits ".
i mean, i could say the same, exept you don’t have tits, but you got the main point.
i’m not even gonna address what @5762269 already answered to you. as me and him preatty much agree on the majority of ideas and we actually know what we want to see in the game. and judging by the likes of our post, looks like we ain’t the only fools thinking like that.
thinkin in a game that is supposted to be realistic.
exept, the only thing that manages to do, it’s getting it’s community fightin each other weather what is right and what is not. ( without giving many answers in return as we already mentioned trillions of time )
although, i’m not gonna lie that i’ll enjoy a bit of flames. so…
and before you’ll call me the " black witch " or any other kind words.
the only thing i agree with you in your whole gibbering around:
we can all agree in something. if made with the correct use of words.
Josephs_Piano
case apart,
on the main topic i think it’s a good feature. i would really love it. but at the same time, i do understand that many people might not like that so, i’m perfectly fine.
so perhaps in a new gamemode?
if this is gonna be a thing, i’m in it.
if not, it’s ok. we’ll have to live without it.
cheers^^
1 Like
This may be a good idea.
1 Like
I never said you said that. That was an example of how suppression would be a milsim mechanic and how that would not be fun.
Meanwhile you suggest forced prone. Except that does exactly what I said wouldn’t work, as on most locations your squad would be in on these maps you would become useless/incapable of fighting back. In a trench? You’re useless. In a house? You’re useless. In a crater or other deeper part of the terrain? You’re useless. The only position where you aren’t useless is the position where you will die instantly when shots start flying your way as you go prone and then cannot move, then just get shot after the shooter adjusts downwards.
Instead of forcing people down in the cases where the user would become useless, the game should reward their reaction time when they go prone by themselves to not die, without punishing them by staying stuck there, unable to reposition, or do anything about the guy shooting them.
You also forget that in games, people shoot to kill. While in real life, about 4000 shots were fired per dead soldier. Meaning that soldiers IRL fired randomly in the direction of the enemy to keep their heads down. That stuff just doesn’t happen in a game. You only shoot when you see someone, as you do not wish to give your position away. Engagement ranges are also way shorter.
The result is that this system simply doesn’t translate well into games. And unlike you, it seems, I did put all of the required thought into it to decide whether it will positively affect player experience, and whether it would be worth the development time.
Some mechanics simply do not translate over into games.
Some realism ≠ all of the realism
Morale is very similar. What would happen if morale goes too low? You permanently lose the soldier and its progression? Or does he just refuse to fight for the rest of the match or specified time? That’s just not fun. And unless you add useless, unfun soldiers that are just there to raise morale, there is no way to replenish morale. And funny enough morale would go down faster if you get shot at but don’t die than when you just die, meaning you will punish the better players for not dying, lowering the skill ceiling. Again, this mechanic does not translate well into a game.
1 Like
why were you so harsh?
Because sometimes people need to think about the ramifications of adding a feature, instead of hyping themselves about it and saying “we want this”
1 Like
honestly, that’s not even that harsh.
i could have gone worse, but it’s not worthed.
i just limit my self described him.
and his attitude is not welcome here.
1 Like
Not up to you to say what is and is not welcome here - and just as well, since this place desperately needs some diverse thinking and less “same ol’ mechanism” stuff.
Funny how I’m berated for saying too much “we want this” - I don’s say “we” at all - these are things that I want. I’m well enough grown up to know that my wishes do not comport with those of many others.
Someone said:
This is an excellent example of someone not thinking through an idea (while all the time saying they have done so and I have not!!) - you are right that this is how it would be IF YOU JUST ADDED SUPPRESSION TO THE GAME AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW. But “forced prone” is my starting point for a discussion, not necessarily the end point of developing a suppression system.
So here’s a challenge - rather than dissing the idea out of hand because the current game mechanics don’t support it (as you see things) - why don’t you explore what would it take to make it useable in the game?
BTW we do of course have suppression in a form in the game already - we have the shaken/blurred vision effects of nearby explosions…
this is why not many people agrees with you.
you only think for your self, and not the others.
like, in order to make an enjoyable game, everyone has too think and please at least the majority of the same people on a same level.
it’s unrelated i’m afraid.
it’s not " dissing ". it’s preatty much giving my opinion.
which you don’t respect, i mean, you did not respected the OTHERS. without actually thinking on it.
yes, that is correct.