How many players should operate a tank?

Malik · Post by **Malik** » 2006-06-02 19:24

I think the driver should get the full 360 degree view. Somehow Top Cat, I don't think it'd take 25 years to give the driver a damn camera that we've had around for decades. It's not rocket science, the military currently use the 360 degree view for the commander, he's just suggesting we combine the commander's reconaissance abilities with the driver's steering. It makes sense that the driver can see everything, in reality he would get a commander telling him where to go, but in a game that's not so easy. I can hardly imagine tanks being used on public servers if the driver had to rely on a commander to give him directions. Communications aren't going to happen, so let's just pretend that the driver and commander are the same guy, the gunner gets his restricted 360 degree (using the periscope on the cannon) and the machine gunner gets the classic spinny chair on the roof. The driver has a view comparable to the black and white TV missile view from the helicopters complete with a border to make it seems like a screen (to at least slightly obscure his vision) and he can rotate this camera fully at a reasonably fast rate, about the same as the machine gunner on top. He can't look up or down too much either. Just like humvee drivers, if he aligns the centre of his view with a target he can still spot them. The only issue I see with this is the location of the camera. Having it at the front would obscure a rear view, having it on the turret would be obscure by the guy on top, but then again the driver could periodically shout "Duck!" when he wants his machine gunner to get down.

Butmonkey · Post by **Butmonkey** » 2006-06-02 19:28

I say keep it the way it is. If you remember the tanks in DCR, alot of the time it would end up in either 1 tak would be still and the other trying to escape, both of them dancing around each other, or both of them sitting ducks. Its quite dificult to aim whilst the vehicle is moving, the slightest bump can make you miss. When you are driving Its easier to correct this, you know what type of terain your on. When just the gunner you dont.

Thers also the whole how do I know what target to aim at thing. The same thing that happens in humvees when the driver wants to go one way and the gunner the other.

It may not be "realistic" but its more convenient. WOuld you like to spend a whole round as a loader in a tank? I wouldnt.

I can see LAV's and the MEC/PLA equivilants having seperate driver/gunner. but not MBT's. If MBT's do get seperate driver/gunners then they should have armour/weapons adjusted.

C-Hawk · Post by **C-Hawk** » 2006-06-02 19:30

IF I could - I would change my vote to #3 ; I voted for #2. BUT had not read the choices until AFTER taking the Poll - I wish the expalation of the choices had been placed ahead of the actual Choices that we voted for. Either one would ADD more GREAT Reality and FUN Teamwork to an already GREAT Mod!
NOW - if they'd give an AT man a rifle of some sort to go with his rocket launcher!

Carry ON! Me Soldiers!

Post by **A.J.Sawyer** » 2006-06-02 19:31

Option 3, because I love red orchestra soooooooooooooo much

Malik · Post by **Malik** » 2006-06-02 19:35

C-Hawk wrote:NOW - if they'd give an AT man a rifle of some sort to go with his rocket launcher!

We've been through this thousands of times already. If the AT class had a rifle, he'd be the ultimate killing machine, not to mention the fact that it goes against USMC textbooks. Light anti tank rockets will be given to rifleman later on, but for now you're going to have to use that pistol. Get in a squad and let the other guys with their rifles do all the work on the infantry front. The AT class is the Anti-Tank class, not the Anti-Personnel class.

Iasthai · Post by **Iasthai** » 2006-06-02 19:38

Major Ursa Norte wrote:Don't fear. I will be dropping this tonight and hope to sway my clan in dropping this mod as well.

To all of the 16 year old "weapons experts/millitary experts" YOU need to get REAL. I am tired ofthe condesending attitude that most of the children adopt in this community. Just because you look it up in a search engine does not give you authority to spout off at the mouth.

Make your simulator. I will be sure and correct anyone who might stumble upon this mod who actually thinks they are going to be getting a "game".

Oh and aznLB, your little blurb under you alias couln't be more correct.

Is it just me, or is this guy pure and simply trying to start a flame war? Anyway, while i like option 3 leaving the gunner with only pulling the trigger seems really pointless, which is what people are telling me option 3 is, so its option 2 for me If the TC had less power over the gunner, that would be great, i would go for the option then, but the idea of just sitting there, waiting for the com to aim the cannon so i can pull the trigger is Really off putting

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-06-02 19:40

Malik wrote: he's just suggesting we combine the commander's reconaissance abilities with the driver's steering. It makes sense that the driver can see everything, in reality he would get a commander telling him where to go, but in a game that's not so easy.

It represent - that is waht i like. A bit of logicalness.

You must understant, i am not completely sure my self. More just putting arguments before and analysing them.
At present the situation you sugested of driver relying on the commander, could cuase alot of problems with certain players.
I get on and say this now and not wiat for another 10 hours: HOW WOULD THE AVERAGE PLAYER REACT TO USING OPTION 3 AND HOW WOULD THIS CHANGE OVER TIME?

unless this quesiton is answered, i feel we could debate the issue for along time.
The only really feasable way of finding the answer is to actaully implament it OR we could do a questionnair, asking 300 PR players. THis might not be accurate though, for obvious reasons.

I propose that PR creates a tank with a crew of 3. A driver, gunner and machine gunner. That is the basic set up. The quesition then is: WHAT VIEW DO YOU GIVE THE DRIVER and DO YOU GIVEN THE MACHINEGUNNER A SPECIAL COMMUNICAIOTN SYSTEm?

The options for the drivers view are either a standard, forwed looking one, that is quite limited, maxium of 180 degrees OR a 360 degree view, that is through a camara on top of the turret.

THe option for the machine gunner is either nothing or fairly basic or complex (depends how you see it) communication system, where by he has a map and can place waypoints and issue instand simple orders.

EXTRA, also there is the option of giving the gunner some very simple order system, identical to the commanders instant messages - stop, forwed and backwards.
THIs system would require MAGICS idea, of using different coloured lettering for each crew memebr. Cheers for that, solves one simple prob Magic.

But only if implamented.

So, back to the main quesiton, how do we test how normal PR players react to option 3. CAn they co-operate successfully AND over time do they improve or does they skill level remain the same??????????

Crawley · Post by **Crawley** » 2006-06-02 19:55

Welcome to reality! 4

Iasthai · Post by **Iasthai** » 2006-06-02 20:01

Some thing that worrys me is what happens with tanks in Red orchestra, is that quite afew players would rather TK than share a tank, i already see this sometimes in PR(mostly with helos)! its not something i want to see happen to the mod

Post by **Evilhomer** » 2006-06-02 20:04

Butmonkey wrote:I say keep it the way it is. If you remember the tanks in DCR, alot of the time it would end up in either 1 tak would be still and the other trying to escape, both of them dancing around each other, or both of them sitting ducks. Its quite dificult to aim whilst the vehicle is moving, the slightest bump can make you miss. When you are driving Its easier to correct this, you know what type of terain your on. When just the gunner you dont.

Thers also the whole how do I know what target to aim at thing. The same thing that happens in humvees when the driver wants to go one way and the gunner the other.

It may not be "realistic" but its more convenient. WOuld you like to spend a whole round as a loader in a tank? I wouldnt.

I can see LAV's and the MEC/PLA equivilants having seperate driver/gunner. but not MBT's. If MBT's do get seperate driver/gunners then they should have armour/weapons adjusted.

If we do go this way, you can expect to see tanks become far more powerful in terms of armour and damage. But, the points that you have just stated are my biggest concern.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-06-02 20:15

OK, know one appears to be able to answer my q's but i would be gratefull anway.

But monkey and Evilhomer i completely see your conserns. Although the loader one does nto actualy exist.
THe one about it being hard to aim, it a serious point. However someform of basic stabalizer might be could, where the once the gunner click, the gun remians at that level. THis would mean, even if the tank went over rough ground, the gunner just have to worry about the horizonatal plane. Whihc makes things alot easier. BUT remebr he still has to get the hight right, cant just stabalise the gun and any hight, wel he can but it wont hit.

A more extreme method would be where the gun was even more automated, and there was a simple lock on system where the gunner just have select the target, requiring some accuracy but less than required for a present hit and once he had locked he would have just to keep the gun pointing in a small area round the target, not too big or too small, jsut enough to require a certain level of skill but easy enought to keep on whjile traveling over rough grond - BUT this is abit crazy and i do not know how unrealsitic this is, feedback would be good.

OR a system where the COmmander actaully helps keep the gun stable by continuouslyh watching the target through a scope. ths increasing the accuracy compared to jsut the gunner on his own. - again abit crazy but still an idea!

Also if MTB;s have a crew of 3 and APC/ IFV have a crew of 2, this would reflect the actual differences in number of crew. Realsitic representation.

solipsism · Post by **solipsism** » 2006-06-02 20:18

Not enough people playing on the pubs to make this work for any of the 3 man tank crews.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-06-02 20:23

BUT you would only have MTB;s on 64 player maps, and please tell me,.......o no, i was really hopin you only had 64 when you had atleast 30 players???

Just need to limit vehicle, 2 MTB;s, 4 humvee , 1 black hawk, 1 eagle - 37 players to fully fill them up. Amd is that not considered alot of vehicle and they are already full with just under half of the possible players?>!

BUT BAACK TO QUESITON THAT ARE ABOVE oN PREVIOUS PAGES , loook (read) up.

Major Ursa Norte · Post by **Major Ursa Norte** » 2006-06-02 20:48

Malik wrote:We've been through this thousands of times already. If the AT class had a rifle, he'd be the ultimate killing machine, not to mention the fact that it goes against USMC textbooks. Light anti tank rockets will be given to rifleman later on, but for now you're going to have to use that pistol. Get in a squad and let the other guys with their rifles do all the work on the infantry front. The AT class is the Anti-Tank class, not the Anti-Personnel class.

Textbooks. You had a US Marine come to these forums and explain how it is in REAL LIFE, but you ignored him and kept right on quoting manuals.

Post by **Ghostrider** » 2006-06-02 20:51

Major Ursa Norte wrote:Don't fear. I will be dropping this tonight and hope to sway my clan in dropping this mod as well.

To all of the 16 year old "weapons experts/millitary experts" YOU need to get REAL. I am tired ofthe condesending attitude that most of the children adopt in this community. Just because you look it up in a search engine does not give you authority to spout off at the mouth.

Yo sure that mouth isn't too big for your face? Why don't you join a Mod team (any other mod team) and show us your 'great' work after talking so much?

Make your simulator. I will be sure and correct anyone who might stumble upon this mod who actually thinks they are going to be getting a "game".

We're always glad to see ppl like you go back to vBF2

-Ghostrider

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-06-02 20:53

IRT Major Ursa Norte

first off, don't mind the "R-Dev" title in my name, you can completly ignore it in this case, because I'm speaking as a Project Reality player at the moment.

Excuse me, but would you mind pulling your head out of your arse for just a second? BF2 is a GAME, Project Reality is a MOD, a modification is something that changes the gameplay of a video game to suit those who had different ideas for the game. If you remember, the word Reality usually ties in with real life. First off this is far (but not too far) from a simulator, PRs first priority (correct me if im wrong) is teamwork and team play, working together with others, so if working together in a tank is too realistic for your taste then leave the mod, I think if you were capable of signing up and posting on the forums, at some point you would of realized that this mod is geared towards realism. I'm sorry you chose to make such an *** of yourself in front of everyone, so next time try constructive criticism or thinking your words through a little better.

AznLB · Post by **AznLB** » 2006-06-02 20:56

Hahaha, Ursa I think you got confused when you joined this mod. Again -- if you don't want reality, don't play Project Reality.

One-person tanks isn't reality.

Crawley · Post by **Crawley** » 2006-06-02 21:09

If we do go this way, you can expect to see tanks become far more powerful in terms of armour and damage. But, the points that you have just stated are my biggest concern.

They way they are right now is pathetic i hope you keep your word

First off this is far (but not too far) from a simulator

Oh but it is far off, trust me i think you guys could make this game ultra realistic if you weren't stoped by the stupid *** BF2 engine, but it is a wayyyyyyyyys of.

Post by **Ghostrider** » 2006-06-02 21:13

Crawley wrote:They way they are right now is pathetic i hope you keep your word

Who are you quoting..?

Oh but it is far off, trust me i think you guys could make this game ultra realistic if you weren't stoped by the stupid *** BF2 engine, but it is a wayyyyyyyyys of.

Heh...it is difficult enough to write code that will work on BF2 without EA/DICE letting us know their details. It's a wonder how every Mod team manages to go around these barriers, etc.. imo

-Ghostrider

Crawley · Post by **Crawley** » 2006-06-02 21:15

Yea, UBI is easier to make mods for, they make there games crappy as hell so talented people can mod them. And i was quoting Evil Homer, let me put it this way 3 is better then 2, but 4 is better then 3. Nevertheless ill be somewhat satisfied with 3 in a Crew.

How many players should operate a tank?

Which set would be the best balance of gameplay and realism?