IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Reloading Myself To Death., Why can't I cancel my reload.
stealthbeast
post Feb 16 2007, 05:16 PM
Post #1


Private
*

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 9-January 07
Member No.: 5,552



This question has probably been run over by many people... so many people... So forgive my mentioning it, what with my post count and join date, but I need clarification..

The only class in this game that can interupt their reload are pistol wielders. Why?

Before it was almost dismissable. But now, rifle classes take 10 seconds to reload. I feel its best that rifle classes take this long to reload, after all, in real life, the fastest someone could reload a rifle was about 15 seconds when in a perfectly calm environment...

But not being able to interupt your reload isn't realistic. I've fired shots, looked around to make sure that my teammates were around to help me and made sure there were no enemy units, and began my reload. 3 seconds into my reload, an enemy comes charging at me. My only defense being my teammates who are desperatly trying to bayonet the guy (which they cant cause these idiots don't understand that you have to aim at your target, not in their general direction), and shuffling backwards at half my walking rate.

it gives me 7 seconds to think about how screwed I am. While it's true that I should have reloaded at a more convinient time, that doesn't stop that fact that I should have been able to do something with those 7 seconds other than yell over my microphone to my teammates to help me...


People back then were stupid enough to line up and shoot each other.

They were stupid enough to ignore cover.

They were stupid enough to walk slowly at a defense in a perfect line.

They were stupid enough to charge into a moat with bayonets.

But I doubt they were stupid enough to stand there innocently for 15 seconds reloading as a man rushed fiercly at them with a bayonet....



but I'm sure this issue has been confronted like 2 hundred times... So please clarify this issue to me...




EDIT: I'm retarded.... Posted in the wrong forum.

Could this be deleted or relocated to the appripriate BG 2 forum?

This post has been edited by stealthbeast: Feb 16 2007, 05:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jackx
post Feb 16 2007, 06:25 PM
Post #2


midnight devcult phenomena
Group Icon

Group: Retired Team Members
Posts: 2,260
Joined: 14-May 03
Member No.: 1,223



It's a compromise. Your weapons in bg and bg2 never, ever, misfire, and you never, ever, fumble a single reload. That is totally unrealistic as well, but imagine how you'd feel if your weapon randomly wouldn't fire at all.
It's for the same reason that you can't pick up weapons, either - yours does not break/malfunction, and therefore there is no need for it.

Interruptable reloads would render the increased reload time of the rifles (which is the price they pay for their deadly accuracy) virtually irrelevant, particularly if you take into account that the rifle classes have a higher movement speed than the infantry and thus can run away pretty much indefinitely.
And running away is exactly what you should do if in doubt...

Also, keep in mind that the rifles, just like the officers, are specialists - they excel in certain situations, but are much worse allrounders than the infantry, and thus simply aren't as viable on all maps. Just position yourself a good 7 second's run away from any visibility-blocking obstacles if you can - your weapon is accurate enough for the extra distance to the target not to matter, and you should be safe. If you can't do that, consider running up, shooting, switching to melee, running back to safety, and reloading only then.

All this means that your effective ROF is probably as low as 3-4 shots per minute, which in turn means that to be an effective rifleman and to help your team win, all these shots have to count, not just killing (or wounding severely), but killing the right people, too. Excellent aim isn't what makes a good rifleman - that, and patience, are just the basics. What really matters is excellent situation awareness, the ability to pick out just the right targets. In a pub, this might mean that rifles, just like officers, end up underperforming, but at least the rifles are no longer obsolete.

QUOTE
which they cant cause these idiots don't understand that you have to aim at your target, not in their general direction)

That, and the selfishness of players, who often don't even try to protect their teammates, makes the situation quite annoying, if not infuriating, but there's little that can be done about it by us. We can't make people smarter than they are. :/



--------------------
no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be... no peace
no peace!

-------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stealthbeast
post Feb 16 2007, 07:05 PM
Post #3


Private
*

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 9-January 07
Member No.: 5,552



QUOTE(jackx @ Feb 16 2007, 06:25 PM) [snapback]28291[/snapback]

It's a compromise. Your weapons in bg and bg2 never, ever, misfire, and you never, ever, fumble a single reload. That is totally unrealistic as well, but imagine how you'd feel if your weapon randomly wouldn't fire at all.
It's for the same reason that you can't pick up weapons, either - yours does not break/malfunction, and therefore there is no need for it.

Interruptable reloads would render the increased reload time of the rifles (which is the price they pay for their deadly accuracy) virtually irrelevant, particularly if you take into account that the rifle classes have a higher movement speed than the infantry and thus can run away pretty much indefinitely.
And running away is exactly what you should do if in doubt...

Also, keep in mind that the rifles, just like the officers, are specialists - they excel in certain situations, but are much worse allrounders than the infantry, and thus simply aren't as viable on all maps. Just position yourself a good 7 second's run away from any visibility-blocking obstacles if you can - your weapon is accurate enough for the extra distance to the target not to matter, and you should be safe. If you can't do that, consider running up, shooting, switching to melee, running back to safety, and reloading only then.

All this means that your effective ROF is probably as low as 3-4 shots per minute, which in turn means that to be an effective rifleman and to help your team win, all these shots have to count, not just killing (or wounding severely), but killing the right people, too. Excellent aim isn't what makes a good rifleman - that, and patience, are just the basics. What really matters is excellent situation awareness, the ability to pick out just the right targets. In a pub, this might mean that rifles, just like officers, end up underperforming, but at least the rifles are no longer obsolete.

QUOTE
which they cant cause these idiots don't understand that you have to aim at your target, not in their general direction)

That, and the selfishness of players, who often don't even try to protect their teammates, makes the situation quite annoying, if not infuriating, but there's little that can be done about it by us. We can't make people smarter than they are. :/


I guess that all makes sense to a point.

Annother question: I have decent aim, but I can't steem to hit ANYTHING running perpendicular to me. I mean... ANYTHING.

no seriously, i dont think I've ever hit anyone running relativly perpentidular to me.. I put the crosshair on them, i fire the gun, and it doesn't hit them. simple as that.

In BG1 i have no problem hitting people. but in bg 2, i dont think i ever hit someone runnign perpendicular...

This post has been edited by stealthbeast: Feb 16 2007, 07:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JakeParlay
post Feb 16 2007, 07:21 PM
Post #4


Captain
Group Icon

Group: Retired Team Members
Posts: 388
Joined: 18-August 06
From: Connecticut
Member No.: 5,061



you've got to lead them just a wee bit.. the farther they are and the faster theyre moving the more you lead the target. don't go overboard, it doesn't take much, but trust me, once you get it learned, they can be some of the most satisfying shots you'll ever make biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jackx
post Feb 16 2007, 07:54 PM
Post #5


midnight devcult phenomena
Group Icon

Group: Retired Team Members
Posts: 2,260
Joined: 14-May 03
Member No.: 1,223



Also don't forget to account for latency when shooting - the simulated bullets are serverside, so there'll be a bit of a delay caused by your latency...


--------------------
no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be... no peace
no peace!

-------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stealthbeast
post Feb 16 2007, 09:50 PM
Post #6


Private
*

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 9-January 07
Member No.: 5,552



wow really? how much should i lead the shot
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jackx
post Feb 16 2007, 10:33 PM
Post #7


midnight devcult phenomena
Group Icon

Group: Retired Team Members
Posts: 2,260
Joined: 14-May 03
Member No.: 1,223



I'll have to leave you with the very helpful "get a feel for it" here... depends on a lot of factors, i.e. lag, angle and speed and distance... I know I hit most of the time (with a musket, anyways, I'm not much of a rifleman), both on stationary and moving targets, but I couldn't tell you just by how much I lead them... :/


--------------------
no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be... no peace
no peace!

-------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupa
post Feb 17 2007, 03:53 AM
Post #8


Lieutennant
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 249
Joined: 10-March 05
Member No.: 3,358



QUOTE(stealthbeast @ Feb 16 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]28289[/snapback]



People back then were stupid enough to line up and shoot each other.

They were stupid enough to ignore cover.

They were stupid enough to walk slowly at a defense in a perfect line.

They were stupid enough to charge into a moat with bayonets.



I wouldn't call tactics back then stupid. For frontier and skrimish combat in America yes, but not large battles.

Which brings up a point:

Jackx: Are there a lot of examples of the British army, when presented to a situation where group of their soldiers were under attack from American and native skirmishers, stay in rigid form and get butchered, like shown in last of the Mohican and the Patriot. Does the widely American held notion "BRITS LOST CAUSE WE TOOK COVER" have any truth to it? I looked at the infamous scenario in the F&I war with Braddock vs. French and natives, but after a bit more reading it looked like their cause of defeat was a serious lack of maneuverability, communication, friendly fire, and being pressed into a big mob by French regulars.



This post has been edited by Jupa: Feb 17 2007, 03:56 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jackx
post Feb 17 2007, 11:53 AM
Post #9


midnight devcult phenomena
Group Icon

Group: Retired Team Members
Posts: 2,260
Joined: 14-May 03
Member No.: 1,223



Not that I'm aware of - as early as 1777 (that is within less than a year of arriving in the colonies for most of the troops), not only the British, but the Hessians as well seemed to have adapted to the terrain very well, and trained their men in "skirmish" tactics, mainly the taking of cover and careful aiming... the basic idea was to approach under cover of skirmishers, then quickly form up and deliver a bayonet charge that would be almost guaranteed to break the American lines...
Let's also not forget that most American skirmishers did a fairly poor job, dispersing as soon as pressed by the enemy, and due to lack of training/coordination, unable to reform and continue harrying them...



Both armies basically met in the middle, so to say, as the American forces became ever better at European close-order tactics, without which a pitched battle at the time was almost impossible to win, while the British became ever better at operating in loose skirmish formation, and at the everyday guerrilla warfare.

As far as I'm concerned, the British lost due to the inability to replace losses, which is mainly to blame on the French intervention in the war and on low political support for the war in Britain. So yes, everytime the Americans lost another engagement by taking cover, taking less casualties but being forced from the field, they came a little step closer to winning the war... but it'll hardly have seemed like that to them at the time.

Let's also not forget that most soldiers of the time were not suicidal, and while many may have been "conditioned" to think that a bayonet attack is the faster, and thus "safer" way to end a fight (because it was, at least before continental European armies started bringing massive artillery trains and just blasting any attack to bits with canister), and attacking allegedly has the advantage of the men not beind disturbed by their wounded and killed comrades (who are left behind during the attack, but who'll be lying at your feet if you defend a position), most soldiers still took cover whenever they could, at least hunching as low as possible if there really was nowhere to take cover behind.
That's just the direct combat side of things, of course - when you move on to control and communication, a large number of skirmishers dispersed over a wide area of broken terrain in the 18th century is a nightmare for whoever is in charge of it, and the men would have to be highly trained to retain unit cohesion and thus be "re-usable" after their first encounter with an enemy.


On another note, Duffy mentions some French observations that as many as 25% of the shots fired at a close-order line of men (in this case, a wooden target painted with the outline of men, probably just a single rank) passed between them without doing any harm, or at least without inflicting immediately incapacitating injury, making a close-order line quite a bit less of a deathtrap than it'd appear to be.

"Brits lost cause we wore them down in a war of attrition, which included frequent ambushes sprung from cover" is something I could live with... just consider that Burgoyne's forces made contact with the enemy just about daily on their march, most often several times a day, and that that contact was usually initiated by a party of Americans firing from cover, then withdrawing...


Directly porting European tactics over to North America could indeed be called "stupid", but it hardly happened, and in their European context, these tactics were sound. Of course continental European wars had the everyday fighting of the "kleiner Krieg" as well, but the wars themselves were on such a scale that such activities could hardly hope to have any decisive effects - raids on magazines and stores could, but your typical "raiding force" of the time probably ended up being larger than an "army" that fought a pitched battle in the AWI. And of course it's not just vastly greater numbers of soldiers, but also a lot more artillery, and a lot more (heavy) cavalry, and particularly the latter can and will tear any battle line to pieces that doesn't keep rigid cohesion.

This post has been edited by jackx: Feb 17 2007, 12:00 PM


--------------------
no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be... no peace
no peace!

-------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupa
post Feb 17 2007, 04:23 PM
Post #10


Lieutennant
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 249
Joined: 10-March 05
Member No.: 3,358



Thank you Jackx.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st January 2020 - 07:10 AM