importance of tank HMG gunner

[Cobhris]

(I sometimes dream of one man operated tanks. 6 tanks in one squad. 12 tanks to a team. Whoa!)

That's vBF2.

[DesmoLocke]

That's vBF2.

^ it wasn't meant to be commented on. It was made small and in parentheses for a reason.
Example... (your .85 sig needs to be updated and it doesn't make much sense having it on these forums)

I was merely saying that on maps like Kashan and with the current 64 player limit, 1 man tanks with the pre-requisite of being in a squad would make sense... numbers wise that is. Teamwork would still exist. You would still have six pairs of eyes, but instead of 3 main guns, you would have 6 obviously.

I don't understand why people think teamwork doesn't exist in vBF2. You can find it. You just have to search harder.

With the delay in voip, and the delay in working with another random human being, one manned tanks might better represent a real world tank crews ability to work as one. Although, a well trained tank crew using mumble is another story. But, the tournaments don't run 24/7, 365days a year.

Exactly. My small remark wasn't a suggestion but rather just a thought, which I guess I should have kept suppressed.

[McBumLuv]

Meh, it's useless on Kashan, but I wouldn't dare leave base without one on Basrah. In many cases there they are so necessary that they are often more useful than the gunner himself. Although they do get shot out a good deal

But on Kashan, not only are you further dividing your team, not only are you requiring up to and extra 8 players if your first wave is still alive, but you're also wasting more players because they can't do that much. What can they do? They can provide good fire support against infantry and light vehicles at a distance, which the gunner already does, but also at closer ranges, which while the gunner isn't quite as good, the long view distance, open terrain, and lack of bombs cars and such make it unecessary. It can hear enemy air assets overhead, and can engage helicopters, but an IFV can engage to a much better degree, and they can't hear anything really above cloud level, which is where the air assets stay most of the time.

So, in the case of Kashan, it just doesn't make sense to take those extra men off the field or from their other supporting operations in order to act as a deadweight ever so easily killed, but on Basrah it would be suicide not to have one.

It's really up to the crew. IE, when Cheditor, Space, and myself crewed the CR2 on Basrah we were amazing and didn't go down once, attracting 2 full mortar strikes, at least 3 bomb car attempts, and were it not for me being in the .50 cal at the start of the round we would have been slaughtered by the Big Red early on because our first gunner was not really trustworthy/skilled/experienced in anyway, and didn't even have mumble or anything for that matter.

[badmojo420]

requiring up to and extra 8 players

I hate the common idea that you need to mobilize your whole arsenal of tanks at the start of the round on Kashan. I would say a team of two tanks can be just as effective as a convoy of 5 or 6. It's all about how you use them.

I don't think we should take away infantry on kashan and put them into 50cal positions. But if a tank squad can either take 3 tanks, no 50cal gunners, or take two and have gunners, leaving the other one as backup, then i would go with 2 and fully crewed. But, that's just me.

[CodeRedFox]

Here is the dev's feeling about it:

Less players on the ground and more fully realistic tanks or More players on the ground and less fully realistic tanks.

Does it suck we are stuck at 64 players....yeah

[Sidewinder Zulu]

Most of the time, the driver of the tank can just switch to the .50 cal if needed, and then back to driving.
This is especially useful on Mestia and Basrah, or other CQB tank maps.

Nothing like some 12.7 mm bullets to stop a Big Red from getting your Challenger!

[Garmax]

its always good to have 3 eyes

dont you mean 6?

[Herbiie]

^ it wasn't meant to be commented on. It was made small and in parentheses for a reason.
Example... (your .85 sig needs to be updated and it doesn't make much sense having it on these forums)

I was merely saying that on maps like Kashan and with the current 64 player limit, 1 man tanks with the pre-requisite of being in a squad would make sense... numbers wise that is. Teamwork would still exist. You would still have six pairs of eyes, but instead of 3 main guns, you would have 6 obviously.

I don't understand why people think teamwork doesn't exist in vBF2. You can find it. You just have to search harder.



Exactly. My small remark wasn't a suggestion but rather just a thought, which I guess I should have kept suppressed.

Teamwork virtually never happens in v.BF2. I cannot be bothered going through crappy server after crappy server trying to find 1 that occasionally uses team play, when there's a Mod devoted to it.

A 1 man operated tank would not better represent the ability of a 4 man crew working together, to be honest, a 4 man crew (there's 1 always in the tank, the loader, who shouts "UP!" using mumble and voip, working together, is a better representation of a 4 crew tank working ... together....

[UKrealplayER666]

The only maps a top gunner is esential is Kozelsk and Basrah, i came off with almost double the kills of the gunner in Kozelsk because of the added menouvreability, in Basrah you get shot out on countless ocasions but i saved my crew from big red 3 times in one game

having one on Kashan is suicide for the top gunner as he will get shot out as soon as hes seen, no fail

[Viper5]

I find .50s useful on INS/Militia maps and situationally elsewhere.

[badmojo420]

A 1 man operated tank would not better represent the ability of a 4 man crew working together, to be honest, a 4 man crew (there's 1 always in the tank, the loader, who shouts "UP!" using mumble and voip, working together, is a better representation of a 4 crew tank working ... together....

That's not true. After training with your real life tank crew for months or even years, and then being out there all alone with only them to depend on in a warzone, doesn't even come close to what the best PR tank crews can perform.

Of course we can't all relate to military training and whatnot, so just think about it like you have some temp workers coming in to your workplace, and those temp workers have to work together. Then compare their performance against you and 3 co-workers you've known and worked with for years. Which do you think will come out on top?

And beyond that, a tank crew in real life doesn't deal with voip delay, or poor communication standards. Both of which are the leading cause of tank deaths in PR from what I've observed.

Now, you may be looking at it from the tank crews perspective, and yes, a 4 man crew would better represent their real life counter-part. The perspective I'm looking at is the commander/observer role. Ignoring the people in the tank, and just watching its actions and performance, i would say a 1 manned tank(without restriction) would out perform a 4 manned tank.

If you disagree could you explain why you think otherwise. I took the time to explain our point of view on the subject. Least you could do is say more than 'No its not, this is better'.

[DannyIMK]

there should be 4 seats for tank, driver and gunner, commander with machinegun and loader with machinegun(or atleast in the abrams)

[fubar++]

You are talking two different things here: How it is game-wise and how it is reality-wise.

As far as I know the HMG seat is reserved for the tank commander while not turned inside the tank (reality-wise). There isn't actual tank commander in PR (game-wise), only driver, gunner and that extra HMG seat, as the commander optics are used by the driver (which is often acting as commander, at least I am while crewing a tank).

I think there would be more use for the HMG if the tank model would be changed, so both the driver and the man in HMG could use the optics inside the tank. When the man in HMG seat would press the ctrl-key, he would pop his head out and could operate the HMG, and when releasing the key, he would turn inside the tank again. That way you still would have option to use two man tanks (driver/gunner), and three man tanks with actual tank commander (with HMG) onboard.

Hopefully this could be done and haven't been rejected for being hard-coded.

[Spartan0189]

Well, Personally, I usually just have a fully manned tank by Rotation of turret..
Like, The Challenger II has a slow rotation rate, I'd rather have a .50 gunner for those fast incoming targets
Or something like the Abrams, It would be nice to have a .50.
But, also, having it fully manned when the Gunner or Driver times out/gets kicked/so forth, the gunner on the top can switch without the driver getting kicked. or vice versa.

So, more or less, in my point of view, I'd rather have one, because having a fully manned tank is good.

[KingLorre]

if we made the HMG gunner more of a commander and gave him a secondary option (X?) to pull up a binocular and scan the area he would already be more of a help to the gunner and driver and maps like kashan.

imagine this like the COD2 tank missions where when you pressed 'B' you would bring up your binoculars and be able to fire at range. Ofcourse now you do not crew the tank on your own however you would have good spotting capabilities and be able to help your squad as you have a better situational awareness ontop of the tank(IE. bieng able to hear sounds from the outside , detecting incoming fire much easier and having in my experience a bit bigger field of view.)

I'd say, Binoculars for the Tank commander! the tank commander now actualy becoming the HMG gunner instead of the driver.

[Punkbuster]

It of course has a reason so yes it is important.
Why in real life tanks are fully crewed???

[TheLean]

if we had 110 players on a server, yes. the 50 would be used and it certainly helps the tank.

but, there are abouts 4 or 5 tanks spawning at the start of the round on Kashan. thats 8-10 men to crew minimally.

12-15, and you start eating in to the personel for th infantry squads, which leaves your team with deficient capping capability.

Also, atm 50cal gunners cannot use binos etc, making him useless in long range engagements. Really we should just shove RWS/CROWs on top of the tanks for a 3rd gunner

also now, only crewmen can crew 50cals on tanks. Which sucks bigtime gameplay wise, since the guy isn't useful most of the time, only if the enemy manage to sneak up on you, or you are suppressing, rather than destroying a contact. (e.g. on the bunkers in Kashan, firing at the door to keep them inside)

+1. With 32 players per team it simply can´t be justified. When playing you should think Where do I help my team the most.

[Herbiie]

there should be 4 seats for tank, driver and gunner, commander with machinegun and loader with machinegun(or atleast in the abrams)

The Loader is already inside, after you fire you hear someone shout "UP!" and he's your loader the loader IRL won't be on a machine gun

[Cassius]

What rudd said, also irl everyone is hurdled inside the tank with the top closed most of the time

[J.Burton[EEF]]

I'd agree with a 4th seat idea.