Project Reality Forums

A repair truck many times wouldn't be able to reach a damaged tank in rough terrain.
We had a salvage tank, which was a MTB with a crane instead of the cannon.
It could tow a damaged tank, make repairs and replace the engine with it's crane.
Also an enginerings tank, with a shovel and a bridge.
The shovel was used to make defensive hull down positions by making several violent runs with its shovel, an awsome sight.
If time permit each tank was made two hull down positions which were camouflaged.
After a single or a few shots you backed up and enter your second position.
You already practised this maneuver.
On the offence you would study the terrain on forehand to find good routes and firing positions.
Also you always split the 'hot areas' to scan with your fellow tanks.

Stabilized cannons would make the benefit of a two man crew in the game much greater.
It would make it even more powerfull, but at least the laser doesn't blind soldiers as IRL
I like the 'commander's' periscope of the driver, I don't know if this reality today.
It makes his role much more interesting.
IRL the commander has a switch to make the cannon automatically target whereever the
commander is looking at with his periscope. He can overrule and even laser/fire, in case his gunner is wounded.

The gunner has much better controls tough, and our keyboard arrow keys would not do it justice.

I'll second the switching seats delay idea. It's a very cramped environment.
You have to flip back the drivers seat, open and close the fence prohibiting the gunner to kick the driver (and loose his legs).
Also with stabilization on it's possible the cannon keeps pointing at its last lasered target. The turret must face the front for the driver to reach the gunners position.
I'll say it takes at least 10 seconds IRL.

I thing acceleration in the game is realistic and top speed is below average.
http://www.dailymotion.com/darklabor/vi ... et-02_auto

I love how the tanks function compared to Vanilla. This mod is excellent.
Sorry for the bump/long post!

hmm that would be badass if the commander could deploy those hull down positions and someone in an engineers tank was responible for building it, same method as a soldier with a shovel but with a tank instead, the dozer blade selected, press fire and it starts buildin. but it would look stupid watching the positions get deployed on asphalt roads where they obviously can't be dug in, I doubt the BF2 engine could be modified to know when an asset shouldn't be deployable on certain surfaces (concrete, asphalt, near water).

VipersGhost wrote:Its WAY to easy for people to single-player tank. I really wish you could not instantly switch to a driver and back up. That is the one saving grace all tankers have...if they get shot, switch and driveback\smoke instantly to retreat and repair. If there was a significant delay before you could move the tank then it would more greatly benifit 2-player tankers. I also think the delay when moving to the gunner should be longer. I'm sure in a tank it takes long than that to move, situate, and get setup to actually fire a round accurately. Now it only takes like 3 seconds.

Oh yeah and I definitely don't like all the careless tankers out there either....they just die die die so easily, like a soldier running into sniper fire every time...dumbasses.

Its WAY to easy for poeple with 2 men tank.
I really wish it would be really realistic, western tanks 4 men crew, eastern tanks 3 men crew, so it have to be for that a tank can operate.

I remember reading about that commander's ability to laser-sight a target for his gunner. The driver's view in PR does have have a pointer, I assume for target spotting purposes, but it would be nicer if you could have your gunner's aim automatically go to where the driver's viewpoint is.

Gunner's get tunnel vision and such. Usually, at least with me as the driver, I spot targets before my gunners do, and communicating their position even with targetting putting them on a flat-space on the map is difficult. You've got elevation and range, which both are measured in a distance that is calculated in a compacted version that makes no sense in what their actual distance is to you.

Personally i'm irritated with how MANY tanks there are per side. Personally i've always seen this game as infantry driven, and when you have 6-8 tanks on a side, plus APCs, that's just rediculous. I know it's a 64 player map, but geezuz, come on! Infantry have almost NO chance when 3-4 tanks and 2-3 APCs roll up and start laying waste to an area.

Now I know what yer gonna say, your side has tanks too, and HAT's. But most maps I think only two HAT's are available, and it's damn near impossible to get one, let alone use it. It's like the moon needs to align perfectly or something.

All the other infantry classes are just a waste with that many tanks. A tank is supposed to "Support" infantry, as well as vice versa. However, in it's current rendition, stock infantry have about a 5% chance of taking one out, and that's ONLY if they're combat engineers.

Now i'm not for upping HAT allowances, but either the number of armored vehicles per side needs to be lowered to 1-2 of each, or the commanders need the ability to put in ground mounted AT guns. Or perhaps just start outfitting control areas with them.