Project Reality Forums

DangChan wrote:Make it so that there are more T-90s for every M1A1. This would promote teammwork in trying to kill an M1A1, thus, you have a Win-Win situation. One win would be that it would be more realistic, and two, it would promote teamwork.

I disagree here, it would promote people to be engineers and rape the map alongside in 2 T-90s. Only good for them bombers.

i think the driver idea is pretty good, although the armour is just right at the moment there have been incedents when blokes have taken out an abrams with an RPG-7

i agree, one drives, one guns.

but i also agree with 3rd position as commander being spotter/50cal.

nikov i dont think it will take away from grunts, because alot of people dont want to just spot on the battlefield..... but it would add a bit of extra support for those dedicated tank crews. it would be a sometimes tedious job though.

*Another long post from Maj.B*

If you make more than one crewable position, you're going to get what every other game has with that system. Example::

Tanks still get taken, all the time, by one player. They just have to switch positions. Even better, someone comes along and jumps in the tank and drives away just as soon as you fire on a target and uses it as a taxi. Then they take you for a ride through kill zones and park you in an open exposed position.

The net effect will be tanks become almost worthless as offensive weapons.

Personally I like that prospect, I am one of the few that want an all out hard core simulation, but I don't think that will be playable or marketable to other than a few like minded souls. If you start micromanaging the armor, get ready for the whiners to come on and complain their uber elite tanking skills are suffering. Unless you lock a tank until it is fully crewed you're going to have this asset wasted time and time again.

I think we have to ask ourselves, what kind of simulation do we want?

1. An infantry simulation?
2. An armor simulation?
3. An aircraft simulation?
4. A combines arms simulation?

If we are going for number four then trying to minutely regulate the vehicles just because we want less of them will take away from the other three. As it was pointed out by others, if you have to crew a tank with three, that takes away from the infantry simulation. MC'ing planes and heli's would have the same effect. You increase their simulations at the expense of another. There is a fine line between realism and playability.

Inceasing the spawn times on Armor is the only practical short term solution. A long term solution would be to have a dedicated tanker class that is only qualified to operate Armor. Then have only one or two available to spawn for that round. Once both are destroyed, no more armor. I was an average grunt in the USMC, other than a HUMVEE, I doubt I could operate much more. Maybe a 5-ton truck if I had 30 minutes to figure it out. Certainly not an M1A2, I wouldn't know where to start.

Personally this scale of combat in this game does not lend itself to a large scale combined arms simulation. A squad might see one tank in it AO or get one airstrike but repeated waves of armor and fast movers hovering overhead is just not realistic. Bringing the game down to a realistic size might be a better goal than trying to regulate the crewed positions on armor/planes.

'[R-PUB wrote:fuzzhead']i agree, one drives, one guns.

but i also agree with 3rd position as commander being spotter/50cal.

nikov i dont think it will take away from grunts, because alot of people dont want to just spot on the battlefield..... but it would add a bit of extra support for those dedicated tank crews. it would be a sometimes tedious job though.

That would come in handy with the Gunner. Who else is going to spot a Spec Force running up with C4 while the other two focus on the roads and the enemy armor in the distance? Good idea.

BluDragon wrote:i may be wrong but ive read a Abrahms is able to take a direct hit from anything on the battlefield and the crew 'should' survive. Now i dont think that counts multiple direct hits. Also, if the ammo storage area is hit, it is compartmentalized so the resulting explosion is directed up and away from the crew compartment. Makes for a pretty fireworks display.

i heard this before yeah i heard about it on the histroy channel theres like a door for the ammo but thats what you mean

DangChang wrote:
I know that an M1A1 would win everytime against a T-90.

well in desert storm we lost an abrams to a T-80 it caught the abrams with its pants down they didnt see the T-80 so Abrams was destroyed but the crew got out before it blew up they closed the ammo compartment and got the hell out of dodge

Figisaacnewton wrote:has the pentagon ever live fired the most high tech rounds at an abrams? i thought that at this point, the armor vs firepower race was being won on all fronts by firepower, and that we just hear about rpgs not being able to hurt abrams... because they are rpgs...

yes they have in the 80s they tested it against a tank shell for all i know but i dont know about RPGs

jezzzy wrote:tons of abrahams were lost in iraq.they're not that tough

WTF? where is that coming from? I thought we've lost very few, and most just go down for a while cuz of so much dust and ****, and they need repairs. RPGs don't even dent the things unless you get a one in a million shot into the right spot, and the terrorists dont exactly have tanks of thier own.

Reading 'The Iraq War' I actually just got through the part where the US launches its first 'Thunder Runs' through Baghdad. An Abrams was taken out of action by a 'lucky shot' from an RPG. It set the Abrams on fire. Everyone except the driver got out. He was stuck inside by the turret being directly over his hatch. After all of the shells had burned off they managed to move the turret and the driver was 'badly shaken but okay'.

mrmong wrote:i think the driver idea is pretty good, although the armour is just right at the moment there have been incedents when blokes have taken out an abrams with an RPG-7

Well seeing as a 7 can work it's way through a foot of armour.

Maj.b00bz wrote:*Another long post from Maj.B*

The net effect will be tanks become almost worthless as offensive weapons.

I think we have to ask ourselves, what kind of simulation do we want?

1. An infantry simulation?
2. An armor simulation?
3. An aircraft simulation?
4. A combines arms simulation?

If we are going for number four then trying to minutely regulate the vehicles just because we want less of them will take away from the other three. As it was pointed out by others, if you have to crew a tank with three, that takes away from the infantry simulation. MC'ing planes and heli's would have the same effect. You increase their simulations at the expense of another. There is a fine line between realism and playability.

I have to disagree with you, though your points and position are valid, I feel that they better apply to vanilla Battlefield 2. This wouldn't be as much of a problem in project reality for two big reasons. One, the game is supposed to be realistic, and if you don't like it that way then don't play it. Two, from my experiance with prrm the community is outstanding. I haven't seen any prick run off with a vehicle with two others beging for rides. I would like to see this put in, and also, tanks should be impervious to anything other than antitank weapons.

A much as I would like to see 3 people crewing a tank I think this should wait until we see a solid number of players on a bunch of different servers. As it is there are only a fair amount of people on 1-2 servers. In order to put 2-3 people in a tank just to do the job of 1 person as it is now I would like to see a whole bunch of servers with strong numbers of people.

'[R-PUB wrote:BrokenArrow']A much as I would like to see 3 people crewing a tank I think this should wait until we see a solid number of players on a bunch of different servers. As it is there are only a fair amount of people on 1-2 servers. In order to put 2-3 people in a tank just to do the job of 1 person as it is now I would like to see a whole bunch of servers with strong numbers of people.

Yea we just dont have the player base yet.

SiN|ScarFace wrote:Yea we just dont have the player base yet.

perhaps should just release a couple of more updates to the bigger BF2 websites, i usually see a mod update from the PR team every once in a blue moon i think just showing some vehicles every once in a while will greatly increase the PR community.

Back on topic, i would love to have a 3 man crew for tanks, usually when i play tanks, with all the realism and all, it becomes a challenge, for me at least, to manage driving, locating targets, switching between HEAT,SABOT, and the smoke canisters, trying to missiles, tank shells etc.

Would be nice to split up the responsibility and work load

Figisaacnewton wrote:terrorists dont exactly have tanks of thier own.

well actually we found a few tanks in iraq some BMPs, M4 Sherman tanks many old tanks especially world war 2 tanks but i dont think the insurgents hid those that might have been the iraqi military forces before we took saddam out of power the sherman was in a shed cause well i heard iraq was one of the places the germans invaded

I think that there should be at least two necessary positions for the tank. A driver and a gunner. The driver would drive, and when in his position, anything he can see in his FOV would automatically be spotted. The gunner can shoot at targets but that is all, he can't spot or pop smoke (the driver's job) reducing the tank to a bad artillery platform without a driver.

Also, perhaps if there were a commander up top, he'd automatically spot everything in a 360 degree radius for about 50 metres, as if he were talking to the gunner and telling him where the enemies are.

It's just a brainstorm, but what do you guys think?

No..The Gunner and Driver should be ONE..That level of corodination isn't possible without them being in the same squad, and each haveing a headset.

evangalin: thats the point.....

making the tanks a crewed weapon, so you must work together in order to make it an efficient killing machine, and not just a one man 'powerup' like in unreal tournament.

most players have got a headset by now... they are only 10$ for gadsake!

Tanks imo should need 2 people to use it. Driver and a Gunner. But, i also think there should be spots available for the commander and a 50cal operator. So there is an option for realismn but not necissary.

As far as abrams being invulnerable to all things ever. Not true. More then 80 Abrams were sent back to the US because they were seriously damaged and over a dozen were beyond repair. That is FACT from 2004, im sure the total is more now. I printed the source page in "the best tank in the world" post a while ago.

Also Abrams are very poorly armored everywhere except from the front.
They were designed for the cold war to take anything the russians could hit them with. A 360 degree threat was not a problem back then. It is now.

Simply google search and you will discover abrams have been lost to single RPG hits from the rear and side.

Abrams also require ridiculas amounts of fuel because of a fuel wasting engine.

Anyway, hopfully this clears up some M1A2 myths for a while.

T1.