Project Reality Forums

What i would like to see is an option for the tank commander or the person maning the 50.cal or the 30.cal gun mounted on the turret to duck when uder fire. Rather than just sitting there getting shot at with no protection.

Definetely agree with that. If you are an exposed top gunner, you really need to be able to hold up or down or something and have your guy duck under and close the hatch, then open it up when you think it is safe.

That being said- can you model the tank so it actaully has an interior? in bfv, the areas where people use mounted mgs on vehicles are just covered by a black textute, and the persons body just dissapeers.

If the tank's hatches didnt have that, and were actaully open, then you could get a grenade in there, and wipe out the whole crew (if they are actaully positioned inside the interior.

I think it should be:
Driver, with option of rasing head to get better view (yer not my idea )
Gunner 125mm etc main cannon and coaxial MG, kinda needs to have some sort of PoE visual round selector so that you can choose between the different rounds, APFSDS/HEAP/HEAT/HESH or whatever
commander gunner better view and ducking/sittin options

stole thei ideas from where i read sumwhere

I like DCR tanks so much better than vanilla tanks becasue (a) more realistic (b) you are so much more effective, especially over ts (as bf2 will be, with voip). You can drive and look for the next target while your gunner is already engaging the first one.

I guess that's true.. maybe a driver position would be suitable.

One thing that worries me though is this sytem of "teamwork" points. While it sounds all good and everything, I personally don't think it is enough to push those "loner" players into the "teamwork fold". Considering, a lot of loner players who are actually really good usually make the top spots in the scoring system not because of teamwork but because they are simply good, and get a lot of kills. In BF42 you got 2 points for capping a flag and 1 point for killing; usually, it is a lot easier to simply kill 2 people than cap a flag. So a lot of people concentrate on killing people, without teamwork having anything to do with it.

What I'm trying to say is, how many kills you make should be a very low priority in terms of calculating your points.. in the driver/gunner instance, the driver should actually get more points than the gunner, even though its the gunner getting the kills.. medics, and ammunition suppliers should also get more points for their work than the soldiers who are making the kills in the field. And, most importantly, there must be an immediate, in-game reward for achieving high scores (through teamwork, since sticking only to killing shouldnt make you 1st place). That was one of the things that drives America's Army's system, that the higher your score, the sooner in line you are to pick the kits. So not only do you have incentive to be a supporting role because it'll get you first place bragging rights, it'll also give you the reward of choosing the best classes next round.

Like I said.. unless there is something that really leans towards teamwork, a lot of loner players will continue to be loner players, who care only about going off and doing their own thing, because if simply killing large numbers of enemy soldiers will get you 1st place, thats all they're going to do. Speaking from experience

Question concerning the challenger II, the gpmg is mounted on the loaders hatch so would it be worth going for actuall positions rather than cutting it down to 3? you would still have an auto loader for the gun but it just means the comander can concetrate on locating targets and guiding the tank.

I don't see what's the big advantage of four or even three crew positions. Since the commander is the one who tells the driver where to drive and the gunner where to shoot (In the Abrams the commander can even override all the Gunner's controls) and the others crewmembers are just there to push buttons and turn levers, then why not let the commander drive and engage targets himself?

I see no reason to waste precious manpower in a 16-player server for such insignificant roles seeing that this also robs the tank of its ability to engage targets on the move. If you could have intellegent AI drivers and gunners under your command it would be a whole different thing, but since you can't do that in BF it would be best to take the Forgotten Hope's approach at tanks. Give the tank operator a primary commander's view with reasonable visibility but no aiming device, so that he'd have to bring up the gunner's view with reduced field-of-view in order to engage targets.

i think for the sake of people actulay being able to paly keep it as it is. if we have the # of people that are needed to drive an tank the game will not go any where. people will be wating for a crew and to fill up a few veicles will use most of the people palying the game there will be nothing but a few tanks and that is it no suport for them too. i think your suposed to belive there are tank drivers and othere people in the tank waiting for you to coamnd. i think maby if you want to Steal a tank it should be harder, you need a few people and it take a little time. then you can get rid of that name indicator for freindlys and hostiles so if you steel a tank people will trust and there would be a reason to steal a tank (think tank stealing should be for spec ops or if there is a tanker crew <--with is dumb) remeber it is still a game and to have ever one trying to get veiclse to move would make it almost imposible to play. (would you like to have comad posts to and have 30 people watching comp sreens to tell your 2 men in the feild what to do). soem things the game should have it so some jobs that need people (the nocomabt) the computer should do soo it still fun and people are actualy playing.

plezz Excuse my spelling didnt proof read hard ops:

and one more thing i forgot there are only 32 people per team so rember 6 people to a tank do the math. on maps that are that big vs the people that are left would not be a battle but a skirmish. (and as we all know there is not that many 32 vs 32 games)

whoa, i dont think anyone was going for 6 people in a tank... are there even that many? commander driver gunner loader... regardless i think even 4 is to many, i think the way it is is fine, especially with the way tanks wont be invincible anymore, far from it. if there is an increase in the number of personel needed to opperate a tank, id say 2 is as far as it should go.

worst are you saying having tankers is stupid? or being able to steal tanks. id say the tankers are a neccessary addition to the game, it keeps everyone from just running into a tank, its the same as having pilots. but stealing tanks shouldnt be an option because really, its just stupid, and asking for TKs

first i saw some one talk a bout 6 people in a tank and i said 6 to make a point. and i think any one should be able to drive a tank in my mind becuse i am asumeing there are tankers in the tank all the time so all they need is to be given oders by you who is Controling them sort of that why i dont think you need tankers. now steealing them i dont care if you cant but if you can make it harder (becuse your asumeing that there are tankers in there and they wont drive for the some one else) and if some one dose steal a tank he should tell his team and hopefuly were he will be. if you captured a tank in real life you could not just drive it back in to your your side. (pilots is ok but there has to be some way that they dont become a pilot with out any thing to fly).
i think in short that we have to keep it so there are not to many people needed to operate a tank. (main point)

right like i said: 2 max, but im saying tanks need to be locked to tankers only and only if that is a tank used by their country.

Pulaski wrote:TC uses left click and right click to issue commands to gunner: "Contact, gunner traverse left"

In the new version it's "Contact, gunner engage target"

Having drivers/gunners seperate in tanks would be no different than the pilot/gunner situation in the attack choppers. We all know the gunner position is the TRUE punch of the AH-1/Havoc/etc and more often than not you'll have a guy who just flies around and hovers while his gunner finds and destroys targets -- and you'll find people willing to fly who want gunners. Of course you'll always have the ***wads who are all about "me me me", but you'll have that reguardless.

Also, there'd be little stopping one guy from hopping in a tank and switching to gunner anytime he needed to. Would be less efficient than having a combined driver and gunner but would mean one man could use a tank still.

I'd say go for it, but make sure you do it completely and properly. Ie, driver can't see ****, gunner & commander have comms options such as saying "target 3 o'clock" or "target left" and "stop", commander should have ability to either sit on the .50 cal MG or button up and peer around with telescopic copula sites.

I'd also like to see a 4th position for "loader", although really his only purpose would be to operate the 7.62mm MG to give the tank even more firepower.

LASTLY I think the coaxial .50 cal MG should be ballistically the exact same as the main 120mm/125mm gun... IRL they are, and are used a lot to predict where a shell will land.. ie, fire off the MG, see where it lands, if it lines up, fire! Though not so much maybe with the M1 and modern tanks as their ballistic computers kind of negate the need, but still -- should be the same in PR considering we don't have ballistics computers in our BF2 tanks .

Having a seperate driver and gunner for tanks [and for that matter other armed vehicles] is a fantastic idea.

Furthermore I suspect many would willing become drivers in the same vien as many now fly tansport choppers or drive vodniks.

However it is surely not wise to push the essential tank crew beyond 2 (with a third spot for secondry gunner/commander) this would push peoples limits for coperation a little -too- far and the job of loader is not an apealing one in a computer game.

He wouldn't ACTUALLY load, he'd operate the second turret-mounted MG, which in reality is operated by the loader (when he's not loading tank rounds, that is). It's just a way to add even more firepower to a tank, or atleast the M1.

Only that when the loader is manning the 240 on the roof the gunner shouldn't be able to fire the main gun, right? Now that's a problem with the BF2 engine!

I agree with Scribble. 2 is the maximum number of tank crewmembers. The best configuration for both realism and gameplay would be the commander driving the tank while operating the cupola .50cal from inside (possible in M1A1 and T90).

I support the idea of separated Commander/driver + Gunner only on the conditions that the commander has an efficient way of pointing out targets for the gunner (Turret control override or at least DCR style overlay. Just yelling "3 o'clock" is not good enough!) and that the Gunner's view is fully stabilized on both traverse and elevation axes.