Project Reality Forums

I would never turn around and have my rear armor facing an enemy tank. If i were the driver i would reverse back the direction i came. By retreat i mean just getting out of your LOS. If you let me travel for awhile so that i was well within your LOS, then i dont know what you want me to say, I would be screwed. But so would any vehicle in that situation, and thats why this scenario is faulty.

I didn't notice your dispute about quick shots until now. I dont mean stop/shoot/move in an open field. I mean popping out from cover, letting the tank steady, firing off a round, falling back, rinse, repeat from a different position. Even if you did manage to hit me, i could simply get repairs behind the cover, and still repeat while wearing down your tanks life as the battle goes on. You also must have forgotten about attack markers, which are invaluable in acquiring the area of your target before you move out from cover.

The behavior you are describing seems like you have fought some very incompetent tankers. Why someone would move into enemy territory in an open field without doing a complete scan of the area first is beyond me.

If you have really trained people to tank, and have seen the potential of a well communicating tank crew, i dont really see how you can argue the other side of it.

Irish, I agree with what you're saying in regards to how 1 man armor can be more tactically effective than crewed armor. You're right, with a crew armor they usually try to zig-zag around thinking they can avoid fire. However, a good crew will easily rip you up. Unfortunately, there aren't that many good crews out there.

So assuming that you're correct about 1-man armor being more effective, what does that change? All that's saying is that armor is configured incorrectly and should be changed (thus the reason for this thread).

There's no reason to call me narrow minded. I'm open to a wide array of suggestions regarding armor, however - the most important point is that armor should be difficult to use! Let me give you a perfect example.. M203 Grenade Launcher.

A grenade launcher is very powerful. It's basically like throwing a grenade, except it can be used at far longer ranges and get into places grenades just can't (due to distance).

A group of 3 infantry could be taking cover in a building. It'll be very difficult to get a grenade up there because to get close enough you'll need to be in the open. And even if you do get close enough, it's very easy to miss with grenades. A grenade launcher is the perfect tool for the job. Now, remember how in vanilla BF2 people would call these "noobtubers"? The reason was that grenade launchers were so accurate and so easy to use that it would nearly impossible to fend off a grenadier.

In PR the devs came up with a perfect compromise. Grenades are very difficult to aim now and have more of an arc.

The result? They took an extremely effective tool that could easily reduce a firefight into a few simple GL shots and turned it into a valuable tool that takes a lot of time to learn.

The entire point is making very powerful things difficult to use. A single person should not be able to use armor for that reason. Let's forget realism for a moment (crewed armor is still more realistic than one man) and strictly focus on gameplay. Armor has been extremely beefed up for PR (as it should be). When armor rolls by, people freaking run! There are few tools on the battlefield that can counter armor as well. If an tank gets a good spot he annihilate an entire squad of infantry with it's incredible zoom, powerful cannon and machine gun. It's a moving fortress for pete's sake.

From a gameplay perspective, armor should be more difficult to use because it's so powerful. Armor can single handedly change the tide of the battle - helicopters cannot, aircraft cannot and neither can infantry on their own. Here's some more examples:

Infantry need to work in groups
A single infantryman is useless but a group of infantry using various weapon systems are very effective. In order to be effective, however, they need to work together and fight towards the same objective. They need to communicate and help each other out. No single infantryman can fight on his own, not even a sniper.

Attack helicopters need to work with others
An attack helicopter is pretty useless without a gunner. Sure it has some basic weaponry in the pilot's seat but it's not enough to do any real damage. Additionally, helicopters need aircraft to keep fighter jets off of their back. More often than not, if a helo goes into a fight solo it will be destroyed rather quickly because in order for the pilot to use his munitions he needs to get pretty close. The gunner's weapons can be used from much farther distances allowing the helicopter to use terrain masking and other tactics.

Transport helicopters need to work with others
A transport helo is only as good as the cargo it carries. In order for the transport helo to be effective, there needs to be a good line of communication between the commander and the pilot(s). If squads use team chat, it's much harder to communicate smaller details like moving a little more south, etc. Chat gets filled up pretty quickly and it takes more time to explain what you want in chat than to tell your commander and have him relay the info the pilots (this has worked incredibly in TacticalGamer server. helos were picking up and dropping troops all round very effectively thanks to the communication between the commander, ground troops and the pilots).

Jets/Bombers need to work with others, but are also very difficult to fly
Jets and bombers don't need to work together with other units as much. Often times they can patrol the map and sweep in for a kill or two and get out. Effectively flying jets is very difficult though and jets only exist on very large maps. There is also only 1 fighter per map and 1 bombers and the respawn time is huge - so that really offsets the fact that they are flown solo.

--

So ask yourself, who stands out in this equation? Only tanks and APCs.

Interestingly enough tanks are the most effective weapon out of all of the ones mentioned above. On those maps that don't have jets and bombers but still have armored vehicles (that's most of the maps by the way), the only thing to stop armor are:

1) Infantry squads working together.
2) Other armor.

So basically everyone has to work together in order to operate efficiently, except armor. Those things that don't need to work with others as much are a rare commodity and are difficult use, unlike armor which is very easy to use.

Forcing a driver/gunner to armor will balance things out because now you'll need to put more work into using it. PR rewards the team that has the most teamwork, that's the way it always has been. To say that armor needs no teamwork to operate while everything else does need it is completely unfair and doesn't fit the general direction of the mod.

'Artnez[US wrote:;637427']
From a gameplay perspective, armor should be more difficult to use because it's so powerful. Armor can single handedly change the tide of the battle - helicopters cannot, aircraft cannot and neither can infantry on their own. Here's some more examples:

Attack helicopters need to work with others
An attack helicopter is pretty useless without a gunner. Sure it has some basic weaponry in the pilot's seat but it's not enough to do any real damage. Additionally, helicopters need aircraft to keep fighter jets off of their back. More often than not, if a helo goes into a fight solo it will be destroyed rather quickly because in order for the pilot to use his munitions he needs to get pretty close. The gunner's weapons can be used from much farther distances allowing the helicopter to use terrain masking and other tactics.

True. However, cant this same kinda argument be applied to Armor. A single tank sitting alone is very suspectible to Airpower. A frogfoot/a-10 on a lazed tank is screwed if attacked right. I see your argument, but an attack helo on it's own can still get away if it's hurt, albeit faster even than a hurt tank.

So ask yourself, who stands out in this equation? Only tanks and APCs.

Interestingly enough tanks are the most effective weapon out of all of the ones mentioned above. On those maps that don't have jets and bombers but still have armored vehicles (that's most of the maps by the way), the only thing to stop armor are:

1) Infantry squads working together.
2) Other armor.

again true, except for the fact it seems in PR heavy armor is getting phased out very quickly in place of APCs, which arent even being played in their role as people carriers/infantry support. They're also probably the must likely to get destoryed within 5 mins of use (if played wrong, or even right) just by HAT/L-AT/IED/C4. The think is, the tanks are getting taken away, and i'm about to cry

So basically everyone has to work together in order to operate efficiently, except armor. Those things that don't need to work with others as much are a rare commodity and are difficult use, unlike armor which is very easy to use.

well...if you've got a tank in a city.. or even an apc since they're more prevalent...they'll probably get taken out, pretty freakin quick. So actually. It is important then to have infantry support.

Forcing a driver/gunner to armor will balance things out because now you'll need to put more work into using it. PR rewards the team that has the most teamwork, that's the way it always has been. To say that armor needs no teamwork to operate while everything else does need it is completely unfair and doesn't fit the general direction of the mod.

well, i'm not saying armor doesnt need teamwork, i'm just saying, there should be alternative ways to look at correcting a problem with a vehicle. I also see it being unfair to apply such a radical change to one type of vehicle, and let other vehicles get off scotch free. It just doesnt make any sense in that aspect. If PR reallly wanted teamwork, than i could see a minimum of 2 members in the vehicle needed before it can be functional. but that's just my opinion.

good points.

how if there is such server with low amounts of people like a 10 vs 10?

....what?

You cant claim to have any skill in a tank if all your doing is point and click, anyone can do that. The real skill from driving a tank comes from the cooperation between driver and gunner.

If the driver is aware of the gunners needs he will asses the terrain, if it is too bumpy for the gunner to keep his turret aimed then he should decide not to move...however if the driver has a relativly smooth area or can get to a smooth area quickly then its brilliant cooperation between the driver and the gunner and the lone gunner would lose. If your tank crew work together properly then the fact is a fully crewed tank would thrash a loner no matter the situation.

Now the other argument with this might be... if your going to play lone wolf why play PR? why play a MULTIPLAYER game if all your going to do is sit alone in some corner of the map and blast things from a distance, you might aswell go blast AI or hell...theres plenty of duck shooter games on the net going for free, and they even tend to be harder.

And even if you are getting 70+ kills what about the rest of the foot troops that are dieing actualy trying to do something more then get a high kill rate.

Kill rate means nothing... Especialy on insurgency, takeing objectives isnt always about how many people you kill, its about taking objectives or supporting the ones taking the objectives. Ive played rounds where my squad and I have destroyed 5 caches in a round because we held our fire and didnt kill everything in sight. I can average 20+ kills a round in a good week im not the best player, i will be the first to admit that, im not even close, dosnt mean shit anyway if we didnt complete any objectives.

70+ kills dosnt mean shit either if the objectives aren't completed, and while your off doing your rambo tanking, you could have bheen trying to flank the enemy thats whipeing out friendly infantry squads.

Having 70+ kills dosnt mean a thing.

Tanks are great killing macheines, true but they are only of use when applied to the right situations.


For all you solo tankers here is something you will all enjoy.

Play Duck Hunt

just imagine your in a tank and your shooting little men in a desert.

You cant claim to have any skill in a tank if all your doing is point and click, anyone can do that. The real skill from driving a tank comes from the cooperation between driver and gunner.

Ummm.... how do you play video games again? I think the pointing and clicking is quite important.

And even if you are getting 70+ kills what about the rest of the foot troops that are dieing actualy trying to do something more then get a high kill rate.

Given the current ticket system, kills/deaths are significantly more important than doing anything other than keeping the enemy from getting ticket bleed on you. Capturing a single objective that neither stops ticket bleed for your team nor starts it for the other team is infinitely less useful than getting 70 kills.



Anyhow, while I'm against one manning, the fact is that sometimes it's necessary. There is no point in trying to confine players more and more, it should be up to admins and teams to keep individual players in line.

point and click is only a small part of it, the way you move around, the way you place yourself, the way you order your squad around... pointing and clicking dosnt keep you alive in PR, deciding where to point and click from does. The whole point of PR is about positioning... of you, your squad its veichle if you have one and the enemy.

Holy God you guys can type. Try and keep your comments to a minimum of a paragraph.

All we should be concerned about is some feedback from a DEV. You guys have all good points, and they are all well thought out. Your dedication to realism and tactical awareness is admirable, but you cant do anything by being windbags. No offence.

I respectfully request some answeres to this problem from team-leaders please. It's pointless for us to communicate accross these forum pages, if we are being ignored. It bugs me big-style.

Jester_Prince wrote: And even if you are getting 70+ kills what about the rest of the foot troops that are dieing actualy trying to do something more then get a high kill rate.

Kill rate means nothing... Especialy on insurgency, takeing objectives isnt always about how many people you kill, its about taking objectives or supporting the ones taking the objectives. Ive played rounds where my squad and I have destroyed 5 caches in a round because we held our fire and didnt kill everything in sight. I can average 20+ kills a round in a good week im not the best player, i will be the first to admit that, im not even close, dosnt mean shit anyway if we didnt complete any objectives.

70+ kills dosnt mean shit either if the objectives aren't completed, and while your off doing your rambo tanking, you could have bheen trying to flank the enemy thats whipeing out friendly infantry squads.

Having 70+ kills dosnt mean a thing.

it doesnt mean anything? i'm pretty sure that grunt on the ground taking a flag is pretty glad i'm up on a hill providing overwatch, destroying the tanks, apcs, infantry, and light-transport that was moving in to give him some hell. I mean...usually they dont die if noone is there to kill them right? cause.. that's beyond physics.. how do you kill yourself if you dont tk.. or jump off a building, or suicide.. idk, might enlighten me?

Listen, I'm glad that everyone here made some serious posts in relation to the one man armor subject. But in the end, the problem still exists. Pardon me for being brief, but I put most of my effort in simply posting what I felt the first time around and going right for the point. Like I said, it still exists and one man armor (Tanks and APC's) still run rampant.

I really appreciate the PR people that have spent so much time on tedious detail in the creation of new factions and making it as real as possible off of a game they didn't create themselves. And personally I feel Black Sands Studios should put out their own game for modern warfare. It's obvious at this point that the majority of people here know that there is a small handful of people in the world that appreciate a game that pays attention to detail.

It's a shame that games now are made to appease the masses rather than a specific player type. But what can I say? Appeasing the masses dumbs down everything. Look what happened to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six line of games... It was amazing at first, where 1-2 bullets would end your day. Now, you get shot 10 times and you brush it off. Thanks Vegas, you screwed it up. You want a serious FPS reality game? Go play Ravenshield, old school Ravenshield and find out theres less than 40 people that play it. And 1/2 of them respect it's detail even to this day, when it was made around 1998. Ahead of it's time for sure.

How about marginalizing the turret start-up time (5-10 seconds, preferably 5) and following your suggestion of disabling the turret without a driver? The timer and driver requirement are a bit redundant, after all.

Personally, I'm absolutely against the 60 second turret delay. It wont fix ANYTHING. It'll just annoy us normal gunners. Solo tankers are campers, they'll have no problem finding a nice camping spot, and waiting 60 seconds for the turret. But those of us who actually crew the tank would like to be able to bloody use the turret.

The only good idea I've read, was the original one. Make it so the turret can't function unless the tank has a driver. That would make it IMPOSSIBLE for a solo-tanker, is the most realistic, and simply the best option.

As for attack helo's, they shouldn't be allowed to take off with a gunner either.

And for Irish's "Humvees" and "Transport helo's" thing, a humve doesn't NEED a gunner to operate. I can hop in a car and floor it without the need for someone on the gun. Is doing so stupid and reckless? Yes. But is there anything stopping me from doing it? No. So like you sarcasticly remarked, we're aiming for realism. As for the transport helo, they don't NEED a co-pilot either. As far as I know a heli can operate with a single pilot. So again would/should a co-pilot help? Of course. But is it required? Absolutely not. Realism is key.

I support a longer warm up time in place of a tank disabled without its driver. The point of CTD or a wrong button click (It happens a lot more than people think) is important to consider, additionally, despite popular belief, crewman inside a tank can be killed without the whole tank blowing up, it happens a lot on Basrah, if you're driver dies and the gunner is still alive, you want to take away his only means of defense? In addition, there are circumstances when a drive bails out, they panic or some other reason, again, now the turret is down, and Irish brings up a good point, however, I'd prefer to see some kind of deployable artillery filling the role that he plays as a Solo Tanker, or perhaps a Self Propelled Artillery unit, but that's a discussion for a different day.

Tirak wrote:I support a longer warm up time in place of a tank disabled without its driver. The point of CTD or a wrong button click (It happens a lot more than people think) is important to consider, additionally, despite popular belief, crewman inside a tank can be killed without the whole tank blowing up, it happens a lot on Basrah, if you're driver dies and the gunner is still alive, you want to take away his only means of defense? In addition, there are circumstances when a drive bails out, they panic or some other reason, again, now the turret is down, and Irish brings up a good point, however, I'd prefer to see some kind of deployable artillery filling the role that he plays as a Solo Tanker, or perhaps a Self Propelled Artillery unit, but that's a discussion for a different day.

You guys act as if once the driver leaves for some reason, the gunner is helpess. Here's a good suggestion. --GO DRIVER-- and get the hell out of dodge. You shouldn't be sitting there as a gunner in a driverless tank trying to be the hero and taking out every last man. If you lose your driver for whatever reason, just hop in the driver seat and RTB to get a new one.

No, I don't believe the gunner is helpless, I belive that if the drive suddenly is incapacitated, be it CTD or death or one of a thousand reasons, and the gunner is lining up on a target that is a threat to the well being of the tank, he should be able to take the shot.
Situation: Driver's down and your tank is low on health, in your sights is an HAT gunner ready to destroy your tank, under the model of disabled armor without driver, the tank is dead, the gunner will not be able to switch seats and get the tank out of there before the HAT gunner gets his shot off. Same situation, except now the tank is not disabled by no driver, gunner takes the shot, threat neutralized and may now drive away to the nearest safe zone to get a replacement driver.

Tirak wrote:No, I don't believe the gunner is helpless, I belive that if the drive suddenly is incapacitated, be it CTD or death or one of a thousand reasons, and the gunner is lining up on a target that is a threat to the well being of the tank, he should be able to take the shot.
Situation: Driver's down and your tank is low on health, in your sights is an HAT gunner ready to destroy your tank, under the model of disabled armor without driver, the tank is dead, the gunner will not be able to switch seats and get the tank out of there before the HAT gunner gets his shot off. Same situation, except now the tank is not disabled by no driver, gunner takes the shot, threat neutralized and may now drive away to the nearest safe zone to get a replacement driver.

Sacrafices must be made. That type of scenerio rarely ever happens. I've been playing PR a LOT and I haven't seen such a situation happen even once. So to toss out a perfectly good, and permenant solution because of a once in a million occurance? Pfft. If that happened with Warrens proposed fix, that tank is screwed. But maybe he shoulda gotten out of there after the first HAT hit, don'tchya think?

Turret cannot be moved unless a Driver is present in the drivers seat. (No Driver means: No engine, no power, no turret. That's reality, period. <And "manual hydraulic backup systems" aren't an excuse so people can be running amuck with valued assets.>)

Just on a technical note, IRL almost every tank can continue to use full turret services for long periods of time long after the engine/generator has stopped running. (Bit like a submarine)

Not so many threads ago, somebody suggested two kit apporach to this problem: make separate crewmand driver and crewman gunner kits, and enforce delay for kit switches. I think it would be more practical solution than long warmup times etc.

devnull wrote:Not so many threads ago, somebody suggested two kit apporach to this problem: make separate crewmand driver and crewman gunner kits, and enforce delay for kit switches. I think it would be more practical solution than long warmup times etc.

That actually sounds like a good idea.