Ask the (WW2-DEVS) a question ?

[AfterDune]

Actually, there was a front-page news post from December 2017 with a status update;

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-p ... 017-a.html

[HellRanger2558]

AfterDune;2183245']Actually, there was a front-page news post from December 2017 with a status update;

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-p ... 017-a.html

Rekt

Thanks for all your hard work devs!

[Filamu]

Having a bow MG as a separate seat will just be a way to safely sound check. No one is gonna ride around in a seat that is worse than the 3rd seat. How often do you really see the 50cal on tanks being used by a third crew?
Then the question is more, should it be possible to safely turn off the engine?

[agus92]

Good point, sadly.

[robert357]

Well, why not? Because it would be more frightening? For me that was always dumb that you need expose yourself to turn off the engine. Hull MG is something different from PR:BF2.

Also saying "nobody will do that" is dumb. It depends of map layout, squad leader, how many people want to be in tank squad and how many tanks are on map. On Omaha usually Shermans had two crewmen. On Carentan however I remember even four people sitting in tank because there is only one.

[Filamu]

Because it is against current PR standards for armour.
If you change it to be like in the Cas proposed in std PR, it would be ok, but it is kind of weird to have very different meta between the minimods.

I honestly don't know how anyone would think this would be a good idea. This is literally like saying players should have shields to not die while they're shooting - Its such an inconvenient when that happens.

Sound checks in PR, or simply having no engine sounds, have a big impact in the game. You can listen for enemies approaching while remain 'hidden".
And even with the limited audio that you would get for being inside, it would always be better than simply having the engine on, while keeping the full advantage of not being heard by enemy players.

This feature shouldn't even exist, the tank should always keep the engine sound, either with the driver or gunner in it but I don't believe this is possible.
So the best thing we can do is allow players to do "turn of" the engine but with the risk of being killed.

See also: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr-bf2-suggestions/145561-another-seat-2-manned-vehicles.html

I have to say I prefer it that way. If you want the advantage of being quiet you have to accept the risk of either having the driver on the roof, or on foot. You get both an extra view point as well as silence, but at a risk. It offers some interesting choices for the crew, and it offers a task for inf, either in protecting the armor extra or trying to kill of the driver.
It is always enjoyable to kill a driver

[robert357]

In PR standards - which are modern conflict. Most tanks in PR have thermals, great zoom, great mobility etc. Of course 3rd seat can make them OP. But WW2 tanks don't have it. WW2 is much, much different from PR. You can easily hunt down lonely tank, because maps are designed for close combat. Almost every time when I played on Carentan there was a moment when enemy tank passing whole squad.

If it possible to get timer before driver can move after obtain driver seat it would be even better. 5 or 7 seconds before you can move tank not only will require to think first, if it necessary to "turn off" engine, but also force to have at least three crewman in tank.

[ALADE3N]

In PR standards - which are modern conflict. Most tanks in PR have thermals, great zoom, great mobility etc. Of course 3rd seat can make them OP. But WW2 tanks don't have it. WW2 is much, much different from PR. You can easily hunt down lonely tank, because maps are designed for close combat. Almost every time when I played on Carentan there was a moment when enemy tank passing whole squad.

If it possible to get timer before driver can move after obtain driver seat it would be even better. 5 or 7 seconds before you can move tank not only will require to think first, if it necessary to "turn off" engine, but also force to have at least three crewman in tank.

Is that how tanks are way back WW2? Always come across AT emplacements or Infantry with AT's?

[robert357]

On western frontline? Well, kinda. France was very tough because of hedgerows and flooded fields. In game Carentan have a lot of dense bushes and deep ditches. You can get stuck so best way is stick to the roads or green fields. Standard squad have one AT rifleman. WW2 tanks are weak compared to modern tanks in PR. You can take down Sherman with one shot from Panzerfaust.

I remember 88 gun on Carentan. I know what it can do. PR:WW2 in beta were already much more different from PR. In standard PR tanks usually fighting with other armoured vehicles, because APCs usually supporting infantry. In WW2 tanks are infantry support. It very similar to Vietnam maps.

[FFG]

could make the bow MG require a driver in the tank to use like the gunner of the tank as well

[LimitJK]

could make the bow MG require a driver in the tank to use like the gunner of the tank as well

that was already the case in the beta.

[HellRanger2558]

I don't see the point of letting the driver control the hull mg in regular pr you don't see the driver control the top hmg plus it does provide a good engine kill spot and a extra pair of eyes up front looking for enemies plus the tanks seemed pretty well balanced in the beta with the hull mg i know that extra suppressive fire saved my *** alot on omaha.

[solidfire93]

been a while since you guys updated us on the current state of PR:WW2 ?

are we close to release, or still have to wait ?

it would be awesome to see the game get released this spring or summer !

[shahram]

been a while since you guys updated us on the current state of PR:WW2 ?

are we close to release, or still have to wait ?

it would be awesome to see the game get released this spring or summer !

There is no release date. It is always in development phase. don't take this game seriously.

[HellRanger2558]

been a while since you guys updated us on the current state of PR:WW2 ?

are we close to release, or still have to wait ?

it would be awesome to see the game get released this spring or summer !

We just got a major update in December.....have some patience

[VTRaptor]

M1 Garand and M1 Carabine had their ironsights fairly thick compared to K98. Will the sights remain as they were?





Also, how will the damage of these weapons look like? How many shots to kill?

[ALADE3N]

M1 Garand and M1 Carabine had their ironsights fairly thick compared to K98. Will the sights remain as they were?





Also, how will the damage of these weapons look like? How many shots to kill?

I think Kar is just 1 shot , Idk on the Garand and M1 Carbine though

[Frontliner]

Kar98k is oneshot for most of the body, Garand is 2 shot everywhere, Carbine(if I get the numbers right) should be 2 upper body, 3 for the remainder

[Anthony817]

I don't remember if I shared it with AfterDune or not, but I had somebody edit the animations for the M1 Garand to bring the camera closer to the sights so you can have better visibility out of them. The model used to have a really tiny pinhole when we used to have 2D ironsights for BFKorea, but after we donated much of our content here thankfully PR replaced the sight with one that had better view.

Anyways, here is a picture of our Garand model circa 2007. Note how chunky the sight is there vs the current one.



And here are the updated down sight animation view. It REALLY helps with target acquisition.



It was retextured for my Battlefield 1943 remake mod but you get the gist. Let me know if you guys have it or not. I don't remember if I shared this update with you.

[VTRaptor]

Irons in FH2 are fairy thin compared to PR:WW2 counterparts, making it easy to just snipe everyone with one shot garand.


I don't know how much is it related to the camera itself.

During last beta I felt like irons on US weapons are supposed to be thick, making it harder to shoot accurately, because they were semi auto, while K98 was bolt action and thin ironsight weapon, balancing both factions. Is that correct?