realistic crew for tanks/APC/AA tanks

[BiM]Black7 · Post by **[BiM]Black7** » 2006-01-13 11:16

How meny are for realistic crew needed to drive tanks/APC/AA tanks
that is

3 for a tank (1 driver, 1 gunner & 1 MG controller)

2 for APC (1 driver & 1 gunner)

2 for AA tank (1 driver & 1 gunner)

to avoid switching seats add some switching time between possitions..

jezzzy · Post by **jezzzy** » 2006-01-13 11:21

this has been bought up before. its a cool idea, until your the only one who wants to drive the tank, therefore if theres only one of you it becomes obsolete (sp?:S)

Harven · Post by **Harven** » 2006-01-13 11:23

Well... for realism.. isn't there more like 4 in a tank?

Driver, Machine gunner.. Main gun operator.. ammunitions.. and tank commander.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-13 13:30

Harven wrote:Well... for realism.. isn't there more like 4 in a tank?

Driver, Machine gunner.. Main gun operator.. ammunitions.. and tank commander.

Which would make for pretty boring game as 90% of the players would be tied down in vehicles (well, not so boring on tank battle maps, but every other type of map). Requiring 2 for max effiecency is enough.

Tom#13 · Post by **Tom#13** » 2006-01-13 17:22

4 people to use a tank is definately to many. 3 people (gunner, driver, mg) is a good compramise, teamwork,increased realism and not to many players (seeing as the mg isnt necesary to work the tank you could use only 2)

MonkeyNutz · Post by **MonkeyNutz** » 2006-01-20 12:26

I'm not really a fan of heavy vehicle maps anyway but for the sake of debate it might be interesting, here's why:

Tanks are easier to kill in this mod meaning more points are up for grabs for taking one out. This also means in order to become an affective killer and survive a tank crew must work together (meaning more skill involved) which might have the affect of tanks behaving more realistically. By that I mean selecting areas with high cover/camo and offering support from a distance.

I do realise tanks are built to track and fire but most vehicle engagements in BF2 as is are point or near point blank (point blank for a tank I consider <100 m) skirmishes.

What we have at the moment are Mecha suits with contempary shells that any bloody idiot can jump into and start spamming to high heaven with out thought to his crew or vehicle. (Including choppers which I believe would benefit from needing a joystick and throttle to fly properly - ten a penny pilots ruin this game IMHO)

[BiM]Black7 · Post by **[BiM]Black7** » 2006-01-20 13:28

i say add crew/pilot as a class only these guys can use tanks / hellis and plans

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-01-22 06:32

Tom#13 wrote:4 people to use a tank is definately to many. 3 people (gunner, driver, mg) is a good compramise, teamwork,increased realism and not to many players (seeing as the mg isnt necesary to work the tank you could use only 2)

I think the machine gunner should be the commander. He would be the only who could really see in the tank. The driver and gunner should only have a limited view of what is ahead of them. He wouldn't be necessary, but would be a good addition to any crew.

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2006-01-22 11:31

It should be one to use the tank. As in being able to drive, but needing to stop and change positions when firing. Two to use effectively, driver and gunner double the awareness. Then three to maximize effectiveness, driver commander and gunner. Commander gets the .50/12.7mm and a less obstructed view (independent targeting?) of the area than the gunner. Possibly a fourth position with a secondary machine gun for the M1AX and Challenger 2's. Russian and Chinese tanks won't need this due to the autoloader.

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-22 22:05

APCs and AAVs absolutely should not be made multi-player vehicles. With the existing 6-man limit to vehicle crews, a two-man APC would leave only four passenger seats for grunts. Yes, I know we currently have only four passenger seats for the grunts. I speak of the beautiful realistic APC's of tomorrow with five seats in the back.

As for AAVs, balance issues alone, speak nothing of bored drivers, mandate they MUST remain one seaters. Reason? The fighter and attack jets are one seaters, and compared to an AAV are more fun and lethal already. Why make AAVs less effective?

With tanks, I'm lukewarm to the idea of a three-man tank and would prefer a two-man hybrid, a gunner operating the main cannon and coaxel, and the driver both driving the tank from safely inside the hull, or "turning out" to operate the .50 cal. I know, its an oddball hybrid role, but it does allow the driver something to do besides just pushing WASD. Now, once he is safely hull-down, he can switch over to the .50 caliber and scan for helicopters instead of staring at a bush or wall for ten minutes. I have suffered over a year of three-man tanking on Planetside with the driver, gunner, commander layout. Its boring as hell in the driver's seat while defending and the commander's machine gun doesn't add to the combat value of the tank significantly. With a driver able to look around from the .50 station to get a feel for the nearby trees and obstacles, he can not only drive better but also scan for helos while doing ordinary road movements.

If you'd rather have three-man tanks, its perfectly justified within realism, but will take one more man out of the fight to crew a tank. I'd just as soon have more grunts alongside my tank than more realistic tanks.

Four man tanks with gunner, driver, loader and commander will be absolutely grand once we find someone willing to sit inside a metal box all day shoving shells into the breech. Now, with the Challenger this would be a fun exercise in seeing what two or three powder bags behind a sabot round will do. But with any other tank we'll be bored out of our skulls.

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2006-01-23 01:41

Nikov you make a good point.

Would it be possible though, to have the drivers position have some way to 'turn out' and man the 50cal? and would the driver be able to drive and man the gun simultaneously?

Ugly Duck · Post by **Ugly Duck** » 2006-01-23 02:51

Tacamo wrote:It should be one to use the tank. As in being able to drive, but needing to stop and change positions when firing. Two to use effectively, driver and gunner double the awareness. Then three to maximize effectiveness, driver commander and gunner. Commander gets the .50/12.7mm and a less obstructed view (independent targeting?) of the area than the gunner. Possibly a fourth position with a secondary machine gun for the M1AX and Challenger 2's. Russian and Chinese tanks won't need this due to the autoloader.

Yeah, that.

As for APC's, it could go either way for all I care. Seeing as there is a spot left over I don't see why we couldn't make it a driver spot. It would function in a more realistic manner and either way you get 6 spots out of it. With this method a squad could still roll up to the flag and every one but one guy would hop out and the guy inside would lay down cover for them.

If left as a 1 man vehicle you would see APCs become even more dominant when compared to tanks, as they have about equal kiling power and the tanks would be less mobile(no matter how good we get it, 2 people controlling a vehicle isn't going to work as well as one person).

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-23 02:54

Fuzzhead, I'd love to see that happen, but I do not personally know how it can be done.

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-23 21:50

I like the idea of driver smoke, it falls in with drivers being in charge of defense while gunners have offense. Smoke is closely tied to maneuver as well.

Wonder · Post by **Wonder** » 2006-01-28 02:53

Oh my god Solodude! That's brilliant! You're a genius for coming up with that kind of an arrangement all by yourself!