Tank commander

[robert090993]

okay, i give up, no one is open minded. I'm going to beat my wife, and go to CA

[SkaterCrush]

okay, i give up, no one is open minded. I'm going to beat my wife, and go to CA

Its not that we don't have open minds, its that there are just too few people in PR maps for this to be useful. If there were 64 v 64 maps then I would love for something like this to be in, but not right now.

[Hunt3r]

Well wouldn't it be basically be making the commander a person who sits protected inside (It seems that as the guy up top you always die from errant grenades...) and can lase, set markers, do micromanagement, etc, and can get up and use binocs for spotting, and using the M2?

Seems like a good idea. I like it, seems like it would make a good case for having a third person around.

[IAJTHOMAS]

Well, they have a split commander/driver in arma and I've never really enjoyed either role as much as I do the combined role in PR.

Driving gives you an incredibly limited view of the battle field and doesn't really make you feel like you're contributing much, whereas being commander I always feel like I'm not actually "doing" anything that couldn't be done by the driver if he had the option of CO view. The CROWS M2 is rarely useful (otherwise we'd see the current 3rd slot in PR used alot more).

Some of the features you suggest sound interesting, if difficult to acheive, but I would prefer them worked in the the current positions rather than having a separate position put in and taking feet from the battlefield with little extra gain.

Also, as regards the "realism" argument, it goes back to a distinction I've made before. Do we want small scale "micro-realsim" to be the focus i.e. meticulously recreating the methods in which equipment is used, or do we try to prioritise "macro-realism" or realism on a large scale?

If we want the latter, sacrifices have to made in the former given the player numbers available. (Although, for the reasons above, even if we had the manpower, I'd personally prefer the combined driver/commander role. I'd be open to some kind of optional separate CO if that's how some people would prefer to play.)

[mk19ftw]

Im serious when I say, most of you have a one way street that leads to the 'Ideal PR release', open it up and accept some ideas. There are features of the game I hate and features I love! Most of you are choosing to be pessimist and forsee this as un-doable because of player limit. A huey has many seats, does that mean they all have to be filled..no. Does this seat have to be filled...no. It merley gives an option to the tank crew to accept a new person into the vehicle that could provide vital and quick intel on the situation. And towards are little russian friend who gave his two cents on there also being a loaders position in real life... ADD IT. This is Project Reality, most of you get caught up on features and dont step back to think about the bigger picture.

Moral of the story guys. Try to be accepting. If you had an idea, I'm sure you would at least expect some users to post how it could be better implemented or how it could be better explained. Posting the same thing over and over again and not taking the time to read the first and many posts after it hurts the progression of the possible feature. Which in the long run only becomes detrimental to the mod as a whole. WE NEED GOOD IDEAS. We need a solid and cooperative user base that is willing to help progress the development by making suggestions.

[boilerrat]

I always use the .50 in a tank.

I have a squadie use it, or I will.

[IAJTHOMAS]

You said it yourself, some people like some things and others don't. Saying we're not open minded because we have a different opinion having listened to and considered the arguments isn't really fair. Its not like people are post one word "NO!" answers.

Personally I think suggestions tend to attract alot a negative posts as if you agree with something and can't improve on the idea, why post? However, if people disagree with the fundementals of an idea, or about the way the idea is implimented posting becomes much more useful as these flaws might not have been recognised and it gives people the opportunity to consider how they might be worked around, if possible.

It merley gives an option to the tank crew to accept a new person into the vehicle that could provide vital and quick intel on the situation. And towards are little russian friend who gave his two cents on there also being a loaders position in real life... ADD IT. This is Project Reality, most of you get caught up on features and dont step back to think about the bigger picture.

Presumably if the commander were introduced as the OP suggested the driver would lose his command abilities (including the periscope view I would assume?) and leave him looking out of a drivers slit all game or a two man tank would lack the extra targetting etc and become less useful.

So its not as simple as just adding extra features (unless the idea is merely for a toggle crouch or a CROWS system, both of which are well known suggestions). As I said, I would be open to this being implimented as a genuine option, with a 3 person tank having the same functionality as a two man tank then its worth considering.

Also, player numbers aren't the only argument against the in this thread, but it an important one, imho.

The simple fact is we'd be stuck with 1/4 of the team loading guns for tanks, more doing logistics, another 1/8 co piloting transport choppers on some maps, a load more people driving ambulances and fling CASEVAC etc. If we want anything like a realistic portrayal of larger scale combat we have to sacrifice certain things.

32 players on a team, so roughly a platoon by my understanding(depends on what Nation/branch of service etc)?

Start taking away the armour, logistics, transport element from that number and your looking at a very small scale battle.

I always use the .50 in a tank.

I have a squadie use it, or I will.

Basrah is one of the few maps where I think this position is genuinely useful. In the larger, less urbans maps I'd rahter have an extra tank/AAV/support truck on the field than 2 topgunners. Horses for courses I suppose.

[bloodthirsty_viking]

i dont think that this would affect gameplay much, but i think it would be nice, and for everyone who sais that it takes another player off the frontlines, in most servers i play on, the peaple dont stray to far off unless there is someone in the 50.

I think this would improve gameplay, becuase all it dose really is give the 50gunner an safe acces to maps, i feel it should close the hatch when he gose in, and he can see aprox loc of teammates. this way its annoying to be in there continuisly, but still bennifical, plus, on those long drives where you just need cover, i feel its good... i mean the 50 seat is there and used, why not give it another function?

[Myru]

Okay, plain and simply. We give the commander a periscope, and the abilty to lase targets for the gunner and driver. The gunner can gun, the driver can drive, the commander can command. Each one can concentrate on what they are doing, and comms are inproved.

okay, now I get your idea of that "commander screen" and I would be in favour of that if it wouldn't take one of those rare infantrymen of the field and if it would be technically realizable.
There are already threads suggesting a third postion in the tank besides the gunner and the driver which should be alike the "Operation Flashpoint tankcommander", where you are able to set move-orders for your driver and target/fire-commands for your gunner. Those suggestions also including the "laser target" idea were rejected because they were either not realisable or would cause gameplay issues, like there cannot be individual attack/move markers for only certain vehiclemember to see because its hardcoded, and laser targets shot by the commander would also be useable for everyone outside the tank, which would cause certain gameplay issues.

I think the current system, demanding communication between the crewmembers to use that asset properly, already gives an advantage to tankcrews having a 50cal gunner, since 6 eyes observing the sourrounding are better than 4.
Making him able to use his binoculars while sitting behind the 50cal would improve this whole thing but i doubt it's technically possible.

Nevertheless, being able to toggle the "head down" position would be convenient and should be implemented if its possible.

[ma21212]

well tbh the driver acts much like the commander in PR tanking. i suppose in a real tank you dont have only 5 buttons to drive the tank.

[Nagard]

in the real world there is a loader position, want to take that one?

Made me smile

Actually what you are suggesting robert is something which has been discussed in the forums at least one time (if I remember right, it was exactly the thing you suggested. Correct me if I'm wrong!). The most reasonable argument against implementing (and I agree to that) is the fact, that right now the .50 gunner is an optional crewmember, which some SLs want to see on their tank, some don't care and the other ones don't wanna see. Your idea would make the .50 gunner/commander absolutely necessary for every tank. Of course this would massively improve realism, but on the other hand (and here comes the argument) you would increase the lack of infantry on the map (Ever played Kashan? 4 Tank squads and 2 lonely snipers...).
Unfortunately most of the "Tanksquads" stay at the mainbase waiting for their assets to spawn back in or cruise around hunting the enemy, losing sight of the overall objective: To conquer and HOLD the flags. You will agree that a tank is definately the wrong asset to defend an objective since an unmoving tank is as easy to kill as hitting a barn with a shotgun while standing 5 meters away. Usually you can call territory occupied at the earliest once the infantry has dug in and established a defensive perimeter around the objective.

And that's the point: You NEED the infantry MORE than the tank. Every infantryman missing on the field is a handicap for the affected team and so your suggestion (as much as it could increase the reality) would also increase the problem of the lack of simple grunts.

I hope you don't see this answer as not open minded and merry christmas.

[Herbiie]

i know this has been discussed in the past, and they revolve around putting a new sit on armour to have a commander, and the reply is always, it would eat up to may players.

But, be honest guys how often do we use that 50cal. I'd say we would only use it while the gunner is out of small arms ammunition, and your being swarmed by infantry. so, i was thinking, that maybe we could keep the 50 cal sit, but when they press control, it toggles a commander mode. Allowing access to the game map, contact reports, squads, and requests in safety. But when a mob is swarming you, you can switch 50 cal, and get those little ********.

tanks guys,
hope you had a good christmas

*yawn*

Driver = commander

It WOULD eat up too many players, and is already there. Also if you take a Tank out without a .50 on Albasrah you need to rethink your tactics.

Atm the Driver/Commander can already switch to the .50 pretty easily - he presses F3.

What would be the purpose of this? Absolutely none.

@ Ma21212 - nope the driver has 2 big levers and 3 pedals (Ignoring the silly panel at the side)

[robert090993]

Im serious when I say, most of you have a one way street that leads to the 'Ideal PR release', open it up and accept some ideas. There are features of the game I hate and features I love! Most of you are choosing to be pessimist and forsee this as un-doable because of player limit. A huey has many seats, does that mean they all have to be filled..no. Does this seat have to be filled...no. It merley gives an option to the tank crew to accept a new person into the vehicle that could provide vital and quick intel on the situation. And towards are little russian friend who gave his two cents on there also being a loaders position in real life... ADD IT. This is Project Reality, most of you get caught up on features and dont step back to think about the bigger picture.

Moral of the story guys. Try to be accepting. If you had an idea, I'm sure you would at least expect some users to post how it could be better implemented or how it could be better explained. Posting the same thing over and over again and not taking the time to read the first and many posts after it hurts the progression of the possible feature. Which in the long run only becomes detrimental to the mod as a whole. WE NEED GOOD IDEAS. We need a solid and cooperative user base that is willing to help progress the development by making suggestions.

Best reply so far!

[robert090993]

Presumably if the commander were introduced as the OP suggested the driver would lose his command abilities (including the periscope view I would assume?) and leave him looking out of a drivers slit all game or a two man tank would lack the extra targetting etc and become less useful.


This is not true, most tanks, if not all have a periscope for the driver, the "drivers slit" is also there for escape. What my idea is the gunner, driver and commander can concentrate on their jobs.

I completely agree with the fact people are not opening up. This is because one person posted player limit, which i agree needs to be discussed, and then 3 or 4 people said the same thing over and over again.

[robert090993]

Okay guys, case closed. Everyone whines about the infantry. Idea busted.

[KingKong.CCCP]

what I would like to see is ability to get on cupola (.50 seat) and use binoculars.
then I wouldn't need to get out of the tank to see what's going on far away when being in an ambush.

[Tit4Tat]

It WOULD eat up too many players, and is already there. Also if you take a Tank out without a .50 on Albasrah you need to rethink your tactics.

Not necessarily, two manning a tank on Albasrah is fine, only to jump on .50cal if needs be....if your taking your tank throught a city than you do need a .50 gunner to watch for mines and your back, side streets,roof tops etc.(even though u can see them mines through the drives seat)

But if your taking a tank through the city in AlBasrah than you shouldnt be driving a tank.

You should stay in the open and keep the angle of the city more narrow(less turet movement)easier for the gunner and less chance of being suprised by bc or br,whilst the drive checks ur six for unexcpected suprises.

Back on topic: Forget about the loader thats just silly IRL there's alot of thinks that are not implemented in PR, but a 3 men to operate a tank i think could work but not that necessary, it could be fun and more tactical but theres just not enough action/large scale battles to benefit a 3 man tank crew.