How many players should operate a tank?

[Nick666]

As long as everybody can run around with 5 laserguided anti-tank rockets in his magic never-full rucksack the DEVs don't have to make the tanks more realistic!

I voted for option 2. This works good in other games and is not that UBER realistic. But those tank operations have to fit in the whole setting. Very deadly tanks are, only special and limited infantry can stop it. It should be like in "Forgotten Hope" with nice tank battles in the open besides good infantry battles in towns. There, you have good anti-tank equipment only as pick-up and thus are limited!

[triumph]

Two or three sounds good with me. I really want to see vehicles require full 3 man squads to run and maintain armor well for long periods of time.

Would it be posible to give the tank gunner/commander some kind of beacon via the X key or weapon switching so the tank commander may coridinate fire better? Maybe something like joint operations?

So what about LAVs/BTRs? Would a gunner ruin things for the APCs or do we expect people to delay spawn?

And for tourneys the UN are considered Game Admins or Game masters so i see the UN helo as being fine but thats mainly becuase i've been playing those kinds of tourneys for years now.

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

I can see you point. IF a man chooses to be commander as it not fully aware of all the targets, i can see your senario comin true. BUT USING HIS 360 vision, which the driver adn the gunner do not, he can see the whole battlefield. Therefore he should be able to see what the gunner is shooting at. BUT can he actaully help.
WILL A COMMANDER HELP OR HAMPER THE GUNNER?????
If the gunner is also given a stop, forwed adn backwards option, then mabey this could be solved. IF the commander does nto do his job, he will know becuase the gunner is barking orders.

AND UNLESS PR pushes plays and asks them to use there brain, we will just have a bunch of stupid players who are only acting midly realsiticly cos if they dont they will die very very quickly.

WE COULD ADD OPTION 2 in PR.4 AND IF IT WORKS WELL ADN PLAYERS wnat to have alittle for options THEN WE COULD ADD OPTION 3 in PR1

Personally i am all for that, cos option 3 will take alot more tme to add, but if it is brocken up, when it comes to , IF , we decide to try option 3 later, we can we alot less effort and troubl.

SO:

ADD OPTION 2 IN PR.4
CONSIDER MORE SERIOUSLY OPTION 3 FOR PR1

simple and almost no one can argue, i hope. Just lets no forget to considrer option 3 again, after we have all tryed out the considerbly more realistic option 2. We also dont waste any time, cos any time we be about making it better, and option 2 can only make it better BUT WE DONT KNOW IF option3 will.
THANK YOU MAGIC MAN FOR POSINGTHAT QUESIOTN TO ME.

[Billy_gunner]

OK if DEV can and if pll want OPTION 2 =32 , OPTION 3 = 50 OR MORE OK. Automatick on server np . Cheer.

But i think it's impossible to implant 2 mode so...

But option 3 is a good move but only..... i think on 50 up pll

Honor.

Billy_gunner.

[Thunder]

i cant decide between 2 or 3. maybe 3 for torney play or large servers, but 2 on pubbie servers. people should be encoraged to teamplay not forced

dont want to put too many people in a tank as its removing them from the infantry battle and AT crews would get huge amount of kills.
how good a vision do tank crews have?

[EON_MagicMan]

Having options would be great!

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a three-man tank with the Commander popped out the hatch. I think Billy's idea is a good one, for sure.

Lets just say I'm a little jaded after coming off a server yesterday where my teammates couldn't even understand the simple concept of "staying near your squad leader in a squad named 'TEAMPLAY', and *gasp* maybe even spawning on him! Especially if you both got wiped out at the same time!

*SIGH* You can never rely on the players.

[Dark Ewok]

SCREW SINGLE PLAYEr! PR is about humans not robots.

A bit extreme, but games never get become great with compramise. A strong desision with reason that the decider believes are 100% right, any feeling of regret or question and the idea is not worth the time spent botherering to implament it.

Now, TC, Single Player is an important part of gaming and should be implemented in Project Reality if at all possible.
There are quite a few of us SP nerds about and I have had tons of fun playing PRMM against bots. Some of us don't really have the time to invest in becoming a good online player but still want a taste of the best mod for BF2!

Generally speaking I think DICE "cheated" while making BF2 when they decidedto cut most of the SP part out of the game. It was sort of a get-rich-quick deal, IMO. Especially since the consoleversion came with a full campaign...

On topic:

Set 3 (Uber-Realism):
Pos. 1: Driver
Pos. 2: Gunner/Loader (Limited vision, but fires the round)/Turret MG
Pos. 3: Commander (Full vision to sight and acquire targets)/360 degree outside/inside hatch view plus optics

This would be my choice and will if you can clear it up a bit for me...
The gunner, I assume, controls the turret and will rotate it to bear on targets designated by the Tank Commander, right?

[Bob_Marley]

I think the idea of having a commander is very cool, but the gunner should not have 0 vision, but an extremely constricted sight parralel to the gun barrel so he can line up his shots but cant go tearing around blowing everything apart with out a commander.

So I await my chance to sit in the turret of a Challenger 2 or a T-90 and say over my mic:
"Gunner, traverse 30 degres left, range 400 yards, SABOT round. Fire."

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

What happened to my beautifull compramise, option2 = PR.4 and option 3 considered and if wanted = PR1

Every little thing is goign to be allright.....with option3.....every little thi....

WE JSUT NEED ALITTLE DEV SUPPORT HERE, please???????????????

[Major Ursa Norte]

I'll not elaborate on my feelings toward the UN. Violates forum rules and is off topic. I would feel better if the Littlebird in tourney play was skinned like a media chopper.

You guys go ahead and make your simulator. That way all of these youngsters that spend all of their time watching combat footage and surfing Jane's Weekly can play soldier while they wait for the day that they can sign up. Poor kids. Reality of millitary life/combat won't even begin to compare with your simulator. This was supposed to be a game, a release from REAL LIFE, a distraction.

Oh, well, the search continues.

[Copy_of_Blah]

The only thing that could kill this great idea is the oversimplification of the AT, air, or special ops + engineer assets.

However I think the best would be to shoot for #3 and see how it turns out. Then balance accordingly.

I'm a fan of armor in this game, to see it nerfed wouldn't make me happy.
But if it has to be the forerunner for the sake of realism then so be it.

[hachichin]

I voted set 2 because this is the option that will work best on public servers. I would be great with a server-option of running "set 3-tanking" though, for clanwars and servers which attract intelligent players.

One thing that would be absolutely great is if the gunner (or commander in set 3) would have a modifed map. Kind of like what the squadleader has. This would simulate the realtime-screens available in most tanks today (with GPS etc). On this map the gunner/commander could request artillery, spot enemies and relay information to other tanks/vehicles/aircraft on the field.

In the set 3 option it would be nice if the Commander got the control of the turret-MG (using periscope sights).

On the M1A1 Abrams there are two MG's on the turret right? One simple one and one equipped with periscope controlled from inside, or am I wrong?

[Malik]

PR has four factions, let's not just concentrate on the US...

I voted 2 for that reason too, I don't think 3 would work well in pubs. A lone pilot won't lose interest in PRMM, he can still operate his tank, it just won't be easy. 3 means even more work for the Devs and the use of it won't be fully achieved on pubs I don't think. As Top Cat said, option 2 will at least serve to be a test run.

And Top Cat, incase you hadn't noticed the lead Dev started this topic, I think the Devs are going to be influenced a LOT by the outcome of this poll.

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

And Top Cat, incase you hadn't noticed the lead Dev started this topic, I think the Devs are going to be influenced a LOT by the outcome of this poll.

Wow, sorry. lol. That is a classic TOp cat mistake. lol. Sums me up. SOrry lol. with laughter.

But back on. With all new ideas, they are supported by everything else in the game, pointed out above, about simplifeign engi and AT too much. A complex system like option 3 needs to be backed up by a more complex support system. This could vary from, giving Sl's a better comunication system, to adding a repair vehicle to a whole new class sysstem. SOme of these things would affect it more than others, but they are still all interconnected.

[AznLB]

I'll not elaborate on my feelings toward the UN. Violates forum rules and is off topic. I would feel better if the Littlebird in tourney play was skinned like a media chopper.

You guys go ahead and make your simulator. That way all of these youngsters that spend all of their time watching combat footage and surfing Jane's Weekly can play soldier while they wait for the day that they can sign up. Poor kids. Reality of millitary life/combat won't even begin to compare with your simulator. This was supposed to be a game, a release from REAL LIFE, a distraction.

Oh, well, the search continues.

If you're not looking for realism, I would suggest not playing a mod called Project Reality.

Anyway, I voted for 3. However options 2, 3, or 4 would be perfectly fine for me!

And can I take this time to say: THANK YOU VERY MUCH DEVS! I HAVE BEEN WANTING THIS SO BAD!

[da.SPAWN]

i have voted for 3, in the hope if set so by PR the armored vehicles stay in the map
and don´t get ripped of by one n00b admin who thinks that is more real.

[Major Ursa Norte]

If you're not looking for realism, I would suggest not playing a mod called Project Reality.

Anyway, I voted for 3. However options 2, 3, or 4 would be perfectly fine for me!

And can I take this time to say: THANK YOU VERY MUCH DEVS! I HAVE BEEN WANTING THIS SO BAD!

Don't fear. I will be dropping this tonight and hope to sway my clan in dropping this mod as well.

To all of the 16 year old "weapons experts/millitary experts" YOU need to get REAL. I am tired ofthe condesending attitude that most of the children adopt in this community. Just because you look it up in a search engine does not give you authority to spout off at the mouth.

Make your simulator. I will be sure and correct anyone who might stumble upon this mod who actually thinks they are going to be getting a "game".

Oh and aznLB, your little blurb under you alias couln't be more correct.

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

Set 2 and 3 combined, driver with a commander view.
.

But the machine gunner would also have a 360degree view. I like the idea in some respects. It has many many advantages, becuase the driver can ensure the gunner can easily hit targets and there is less confusion as to where the actaul tank is.
However, it is quite unrealistic becuase it is the exsact opposite of the drivers poor view.

THe quesiton here is, are you willing to bend the "rules", sadely (nice idea), i say no. It is that littlebit to far for me. If the date was 2030, then yes but in todays tanks, drivers are still using basic preriscopes and stikcing there head out the hatch to see, not exsactly 360 degree view. So, i have to disagree with that idea being used, but still nice though.

One NOT MENTIONED ADVANTAGE of option 3 is that every one has a very important job. However small, the crew relies on each other. THIs is actually both an advantage and a disadvantage because if you have a skilled crew, every one can rely on each other and they work well together, creating a lethal team BUT if one or two memebrs of the crew are not very good, the whole tank suffers.

The is actually a more common factor or "problem" than most people have thought before. If you create a game that has alot of things that rely on a team, if one part of the team fails in its duty it can affect the whole team, and in this case, damage the teams potencial to perform to its highest possible ability - if you get my drift.

Advantage - no one should ever be bored, the commander will always have to be planning his rout and be on the look out for danager. THis actually being the hardest job, becuase there are the most tasks to consider.
The gunner will have to focus soely on the task of making sure his rounds strike there target and also be on the look out for dangers.
THe driver, like all the other crew member, has to focus their attention on jsut driving, but they also have to listen to instrucitons from the gunner and commander, ready to take instant actions to avoid or engage threats.
This overall means every body busy BUT it also means every body can concentrate on doing each indervidual task, to the highest standard. This compared with the present situation where 3 or more tasks have to be done by one player. option 3 splits the taks the most they can be done and thus enables them be complete to the highest degree.

P.S the rest will learn, cos you make them. Systems can be create, instruction guides can be forcefullly made to read before using any such system. And they can only scroll down it, at a certian speed, with simple pictures and a minimum time limit of 2 mins per page!!!!!! Force the information down there throat, and even the wise PR players might learn something.

[EON_MagicMan]

It would be nice (though probably impossible) to have everyone inside the tank have a different colour of text when talking to eachother, like a squad. That way, if someone spots something, the tank crew knows it applies to the tank and is important.