Red Orchestra 3: Afghanistan on UE4 (Soviet Afghan war 1979-1989)

[Agent]

I know this question has been asked many times under Developer Q&A on the youtube on the tripwire channel and on the forums, but do you have any ideas about this topic in the future? http://pravda-team.ru/yoki/image/article/9/9/8/49998.jpeg

[Roujiamo 南蛮主义者]

I think that the idea is good, but the gameplay would be to similar to arma or squad, and perhaps to slow paced for the series.

I think the best location for the next game would be the Soviet afgan war, it had modern weaponry and helicopters but still retains the gurilla warfare that makes RS2 so fun.

[static]

Originally posted by Conservative party UK:

I think that the idea is good, but the gameplay would be to similar to arma or squad, and perhaps to slow paced for the series.

I think the best location for the next game would be the Soviet afgan war, it had modern weaponry and helicopters but still retains the gurilla warfare that makes RS2 so fun.

They'd have to massively increase map size somehow; combat during the Soviet War in Afghanistan often took place at longer ranges than similar engagements in Vietnam. Vastly different terrain and more modern weapons means longer range firefights.

[Agent]

Originally posted by Conservative party UK:

I think that the idea is good, but the gameplay would be to similar to arma or squad, and perhaps to slow paced for the series.

I think the best location for the next game would be the Soviet afgan war, it had modern weaponry and helicopters but still retains the gurilla warfare that makes RS2 so fun.

I mean it, soviet afghan war, red orchestra series it's about soviet union, so...

[Agent]

Originally posted by static:

Originally posted by Conservative party UK:

I think that the idea is good, but the gameplay would be to similar to arma or squad, and perhaps to slow paced for the series.

I think the best location for the next game would be the Soviet afgan war, it had modern weaponry and helicopters but still retains the gurilla warfare that makes RS2 so fun.

They'd have to massively increase map size somehow; combat during the Soviet War in Afghanistan often took place at longer ranges than similar engagements in Vietnam. Vastly different terrain and more modern weapons means longer range firefights.

Combat collisions often arose in the mountains and gorges, also, if a larger map can add more serious technique: Grad launchers, MiG-23, Su-25 and control them not bots, but players, stingers, ZU-23-2 for taliban, etc.

[Shallot]

@publicagent
Just play arma at that point. This game has no place for jets. Even the Helis in this game are gimped to fly in suicide boxes.

[static]

Originally posted by Onion Ninja:

@publicagent
Just play arma at that point. This game has no place for jets. Even the Helis in this game are gimped to fly in suicide boxes.

^ Nailed it. The RO/RS series is about close-up, small unit engagements between what are basically abstractions of understrength companies with some battalion level support in the mix. Not sure how well the game design would scale up to an ARMA-type engagement.

[Kutze]

It would be cool to go back to the Red Orchestra 2 (meaning conventional vs conventional) roots using the theme of a hypothetical World War III scenario set in Europe shortly after World War II pitting the Warsaw Pact against NATO.

It would also open up a lot of interesting factions like the US, USSR, West Germany (using G3s), East Germany (with their crazy Stahlhelms), Poland, Yugoslavia, France (MAS-49), etc. Tank combat would be cool as well because none of the tanks really had an advantage back then.

It would also open up a lot of map varieties from the plains of Germany to the denser forests of Eastern Europe. Perfect for the 'territories' game mode of RO2.

[Agent]

Originally posted by Onion Ninja:

@publicagent
Just play arma at that point. This game has no place for jets. Even the Helis in this game are gimped to fly in suicide boxes.

Originally posted by static:

Originally posted by Onion Ninja:

@publicagent
Just play arma at that point. This game has no place for jets. Even the Helis in this game are gimped to fly in suicide boxes.

^ Nailed it. The RO/RS series is about close-up, small unit engagements between what are basically abstractions of understrength companies with some battalion level support in the mix. Not sure how well the game design would scale up to an ARMA-type engagement.

I see fans of CS, cod, chu chi and hue city, if you do not know how to fly a helicopter or have not encountered people who know how, these are your problems, what's more, I do not demand it from developers, but I'm interested in them and the moderators, are there any ideas for the future?

[Agent]

Originally posted by Kutze:

It would be cool to go back to the Red Orchestra 2 (meaning conventional vs conventional) roots using the theme of a hypothetical World War III scenario set in Europe shortly after World War II pitting the Warsaw Pact against NATO.

It would also open up a lot of interesting factions like the US, USSR, West Germany (using G3s), East Germany (with their crazy Stahlhelms), Poland, Yugoslavia, France (MAS-49), etc. Tank combat would be cool as well because none of the tanks really had an advantage back then.

It would also open up a lot of map varieties from the plains of Germany to the denser forests of Eastern Europe. Perfect for the 'territories' game mode of RO2.

In World in Conlict - RTS from Ubisost was really good scenario. I would like to see Red Orchestra 3 on a new engine with a new weapon, new vehicles used as a transition to a possible fictional conflict between the USSR and the US starts in 89-91. There are a lot of ideas, for example, as in the same World in the Conflict from the attack of the Soviet Union on America after crisis and exacerbation in West/East Germany. It will be like Red Storm or Rising Orchestra, i don't know

[Shallot]

@publicagent LOOOL, are you serious right now? Not to toot my own horn, but I'm a pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ good helo driver, so don't try and tell me that I don't what I'm talking about. Maybe you should read a book or watch a video about helo warfare in nam. Huey's get zero Lz prep, and are forced to land in areas where they are guaranteed to be shot by ak's or rpg's. they have extremely limited coordination with supporting assets. cobras can't stretch out the range of their own armament, and have to get up in the enemy's face to have any deadly effect. Basically putting a trooper armed with an m82 within 200 meters of the enemy. You're gimping the potential of that weapons system.

Understand that core game designs have inherent limitations. I would love to see TOWs on my cobras, or migs fighting it out with AA emplacements, or even phantoms if we're still talking NAM, but that's not gonna be fun nor will it work. Battlefield which has HUUUGE maps still has to put limitations on their Aircraft, keeping them below 400kts. Even in PR that Has even larger maps and allows jets to push their envelope still makes it feel like it's in a teeny box of airspace, where everything happens to quickly and too sloppily. Zero space for tactical implementation of weapons except in dogfights.

If you even want to start thinking realistic jets you have too look at arma, but DCS. Is your endgame.

(Just got triggered at being told I don't know what I'm talking about)

[Agent]

Originally posted by Onion Ninja:

@publicagent LOOOL, are you serious right now? Not to toot my own horn, but I'm a pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ good helo driver, so don't try and tell me that I don't what I'm talking about. Maybe you should read a book or watch a video about helo warfare in nam. Huey's get zero Lz prep, and are forced to land in areas where they are guaranteed to be shot by ak's or rpg's. they have extremely limited coordination with supporting assets. cobras can't stretch out the range of their own armament, and have to get up in the enemy's face to have any deadly effect. Basically putting a trooper armed with an m82 within 200 meters of the enemy. You're gimping the potential of that weapons system.

Understand that core game designs have inherent limitations. I would love to see TOWs on my cobras, or migs fighting it out with AA emplacements, or even phantoms if we're still talking NAM, but that's not gonna be fun nor will it work. Battlefield which has HUUUGE maps still has to put limitations on their Aircraft, keeping them below 400kts. Even in PR that Has even larger maps and allows jets to push their envelope still makes it feel like it's in a teeny box of airspace, where everything happens to quickly and too sloppily. Zero space for tactical implementation of weapons except in dogfights.

If you even want to start thinking realistic jets you have too look at arma, but DCS. Is your endgame.

(Just got triggered at being told I don't know what I'm talking about)

i dont talk about super simulator controls for jets, and maps can be more larger, but desolate on the edges for tank and jet battles, like op. firestorm in battlefield 3.

[Shallot]

But why? Why is that necessary? It won't advance the gameplay at all. 90% of helo pilots go for kills instead of prepping lz's for Huey's or obj's for infantry assaults, wouldn't jets Do the same? Good luck calling in a nape strike when your phantom is busy doing whatever he pleases.

[Agent]

Originally posted by Onion Ninja:

But why? Why is that necessary? It won't advance the gameplay at all. 90% of helo pilots go for kills instead of prepping lz's for Huey's or obj's for infantry assaults, wouldn't jets Do the same? Good luck calling in a nape strike when your phantom is busy doing whatever he pleases.

Apparently you played for the wrong team.

[Shallot]

@publicagent, i havent seen you bring up any reasons to include jets that would improve gameplay. I'm not opposing the setting of the game at all, but the additions you want are pretty silly.

[Agent]

Originally posted by Onion Ninja:

@publicagent, i havent seen you bring up any reasons to include jets that would improve gameplay. I'm not opposing the setting of the game at all, but the additions you want are pretty silly.

Explain your argument