Project Reality Forums

Farks wrote:You see the problem with adding another essential seat to the tanks?

I understand what your saying, but i dont think that its too much of an issue. Currently i am "always" using a guy on the .50 cal with the engineer kit so i am using these 3 slots anyway.

And if the seat is not necessary in order to operate the tank, it is pointless. It's better to let the driver have the commander view. And I can tell you from experience from organized, serious PR games that it is very useful.

Well, its not NECESSARY, but neither is having an engineer in the .50 cal. Its just really helpful, and i see more pros than cons on this one

Waaah_Wah wrote:I understand what your saying, but i dont think that its too much of an issue. Currently i am "always" using a guy on the .50 cal with the engineer kit so i am using these 3 slots anyway.

Well, its not NECESSARY, but neither is having an engineer in the .50 cal. Its just really helpful, and i see more pros than cons on this one

Eh, it IS an issue for the exact same reason I posted. Engineers should operate as a squad on their own, so they won't get killed in the tank and can meet up with damaged tanks in a safe spot, and do other tasks aside from repairing.

What's the problem with letting the driver have the commander view? It works really well like I said, and making it an external seat would just complicate things when you're limited to two guys per tank.

Farks wrote:Eh, it IS an issue for the exact same reason I posted. Engineers should operate as a squad on their own, so they won't get killed in the tank and can meet up with damaged tanks in a safe spot, and do other tasks aside from repairing.

I disagree Engineers on the .50 are worth their weight in gold as they can repair the tank after i safely drop behind some cover. If im hit, and have to drive to the engineer in an inf squad miles away i will often find myself getting killed because my tank is badly hurt. Also there are these times when you get hit by a HAT, kill him and then realise that yur tank tracks are disabled.

Why not let that engineer do something useful? Sitting in the .50 cal be pretty boring at times, you have no zoom, and your an easy target for pretty much everything.

What's the problem with letting the driver have the commander view? It works really well like I said, and making it an external seat would just complicate things when you're limited to two guys per tank.

"External"? I think you misunderstood. That seat would be inside the tank, so the TC is safe and can use his periscope camera (the current driver camera) to spot targets.

I agree that there should be another seat for a TC because... The mod is called how? Exactly... Project REALITY. IRL tanks like the Abrams or the T90 are operated by 4 men. The idea Waaah_Wah had was to add one more internal seat for a TC and link it with the .50 (maybe via Weaponslot or whatever, which would KEEP the tank 3 seated) and to remove the drivers all-around-commander-view. This wouldn't add another seat and empty the servers. It would simply CHANGE one of the seats.

Nagard wrote: IRL tanks like the Abrams or the T90 are operated by 4 men.

wrong , t-90 is operate by 3 men .

[R-CON]77SiCaRiO77 wrote:wrong , t-90 is operate by 3 men .

Gunner loads himself or is it automatic?

Nagard wrote:I agree that there should be another seat for a TC because... The mod is called how? Exactly... Project REALITY. IRL tanks like the Abrams or the T90 are operated by 4 men. The idea Waaah_Wah had was to add one more internal seat for a TC and link it with the .50 (maybe via Weaponslot or whatever, which would KEEP the tank 3 seated) and to remove the drivers all-around-commander-view. This wouldn't add another seat and empty the servers. It would simply CHANGE one of the seats.

The whole point of the mod is to also ditch as many of the boring rote tasks which aren't necessary for people to play out. Would you like to spend the whole game in a quartermasters tent giving out kits to people, then sitting round doing anything when people aren't asking for anything? Of course not, so the team neglect the idea of having someone play the role of a quartermaster because it's boring, and isn't necessary.

Autoloader

Tirak wrote:Gunner loads himself or is it automatic?

Like a bad *** revolver with 120mm caliber

Let's look at the facts guys:
There isn't such thing as a .50 caliber "guy".
Tanks are designed to operate on territory covered with
radio active fallout,you can't just put your head down when you see a
nuclear mushroom growing.
Comander operates the .50 from the inside,the tank can be sealed off
completely.
I'd love to have 3 guys (for t90 anyway) driver,commander and the driver.
You say not enough people to have 3 man tanks,make it 2 tanks on Kashan
instead of 4+4,add the antitank missiles for the t-90 with 5km range,
bump the Abrams canon to what it actually is ~ 2.5km.
Is that going to happened ?
I think you all know the answer..
What did the tanks get in 0.8?
A coax that's all but useless,I don't want any more "improvements" like that that's for sure.


3 man crew would work very well on the Tournament (imo) there is a lot of communication on the
TS that is done by the driver/commander currently.I speak from experience over the last 2
campaigns btw.

Ok, I'm for putting the cupola gunner inside the tank with a camera, as long as the seat is not a requirment for operating the tank, and that the driver gets to keep the commander view. The driver have it for a very good reason, and it works brilliant. I don't think good tankers should lose a lot of situational awareness because there are not enough players to man all the cupola positions.

Farks wrote:Ok, I'm for putting the cupola gunner inside the tank with a camera, as long as the seat is not a requirment for operating the tank, and that the driver gets to keep the commander view. The driver have it for a very good reason, and it works brilliant. I don't think good tankers should lose a lot of situational awareness because there are not enough players to man all the cupola positions.

The driver will still be able to look forward and to the sides, and when the tank is stationary, will be able to use the periscope camera if he gets into the TC seat.
It wont be "required" just like an engineer isnt required in a tank now. It would simply be damn useful.

Waaah_Wah wrote:The driver will still be able to look forward and to the sides, and when the tank is stationary, will be able to use the periscope camera if he gets into the TC seat.
It wont be "required" just like an engineer isnt required in a tank now. It would simply be damn useful.

Sounds really unecessary though. ??:

Not really Would give properly crewed tanks a bigger advantage and make tanks more realistic

Just remove the 50 and make the commander seat the right to be engy?

Seriously though the 50. is a bullet magnet you cant stay up there since all the guys is aiming for you.

Waah Wah, an extra seat for the TC is unneeded, by your logic, we may as well have a loader too, after all, it is realistic, and hey, you've got even more eyes to look around. No, the split isn't needed and isn't good for gameplay.

How is an extra seat with a camera "not good for gameplay"? Something needs to be done about the TC spot. Because right now, sitting on the .50 in a suicide.

Waaah_Wah wrote:How is an extra seat with a camera "not good for gameplay"? Something needs to be done about the TC spot. Because right now, sitting on the .50 in a suicide.

Your original idea is to split the driver and the TC, meaning adding another seat for the TC, so that's four people to a tank out of 32 players per side, now multiply the four crew members for the tank by the number of tanks on Kashan, then subtract that from 32.

Waaah_Wah wrote:Not really Would give properly crewed tanks a bigger advantage and make tanks more realistic

But they ARE already properly crewed with 2 men in PR coz of player limitations. In a properly organized team on for example Kashan Desert, you don't have enough players to three-man the tanks because you have infantry, pilots and all that stuff.

I'm sorry, but this is what I've been saying the whole time now, are you even listening?

Tirak wrote:Your original idea is to split the driver and the TC, meaning adding another seat for the TC, so that's four people to a tank out of 32 players per side, now multiply the four crew members for the tank by the number of tanks on Kashan, then subtract that from 32.

4 seats yes. 4 people in a tank, no. The TC should be inside using his periscope camera with the ability of jumping on the .50 if needed.

But they ARE already properly crewed with 2 men in PR coz of player limitations. In a properly organized team on for example Kashan Desert, you don't have enough players to three-man the tanks because you have infantry, pilots and all that stuff.

I'm sorry, but this is what I've been saying the whole time now, are you even listening?

Like i said earlier, i mostly have 3 people in the tank. Gunner, driver and a .50 cal gunner. This is alot better than 2 people because the engineer in the .50 cal can get out and repair the tank in the field.

If 3 people per tank is too much, one tank can always be removed from Kashan/Quinling.

And somehow i doubt that more than 50% of tanks will have 3 man crews anyway.

And AFAIK, the driver does not have 360 view IRL

Waaah_Wah wrote: Like i said earlier, i mostly have 3 people in the tank. Gunner, driver and a .50 cal gunner. This is alot better than 2 people because the engineer in the .50 cal can get out and repair the tank in the field.

If 3 people per tank is too much, one tank can always be removed from Kashan/Quinling.

And somehow i doubt that more than 50% of tanks will have 3 man crews anyway.

And AFAIK, the driver does not have 360 view IRL

1. Yes, you, and on public servers I assume.
2. So the commander is both commander, 50 cal- gunner and engineer?
3. The 360- driver view is a compromise for not having three-men tanks. Unrealistic? See point #2, that's even more unrealistic.
4. Removing tanks? 4 tanks are needed on these maps for them to live up to their concept.

Listen, I think it would be really nice and realistic. And so would also having dedicated truck drivers, civilian medics, artillery support, etc, but it just wouldn't work in PR. You have to give up some things in order to have a playable game.