Project Reality Forums

ah gotcha.

the substaining problem with making larger vehicle crews though is less infantry, or less tanks. say 64 version of steel thunder, you;d have ot cut the amount of tanks in half. but at the sametime, if peopel are together ground pounding then why shouldnt they be togther in armour? teamwork is teamwork!

As I said somewhere else, at the moment the tank acts as a pickup kit. It gives you two highly powerful weapons and some of the best body armour you can get at the cost of movement and mobility. What's more, you get this special ability to have another player sit on your back and shoot people with another super power weapon.

Fair?

maybe you should check into this game to see what being a tanker is about
http://www.steelbeasts.com/ versions of this game are used by the us military as a trainer

2 and 3 both sound good so either one id be happy with

Set 3 but with commander operating .50 cal.

AznLB wrote:Hahaha, Ursa I think you got confused when you joined this mod. Again -- if you don't want reality, don't play Project Reality.

One-person tanks isn't reality.

You are right. I guess I am confused. I would like all of you to go back and read the mission statement you have posted on this site though. It darn sure never said anything about this MOD becoming a simulator. So, I will chalk this up to false advertising.

I won't be playing PRMM anymore either. So go have a blast prentending to be soldiers.

Good luck with your efforts. I never said a foul word about the talent and dedication of the development team, nor will I.

It's 'I never will' or 'nor will I ever say a foul word about the development team'.

And nobody said that this would be a simulator then again no-one said this game will be a walk in the park for your average FPS player!

The only way that a full tank crew (anything but option 1) would work is if the tanks were given real stabilized guns. That way a gunner could shoot on the move. Contrary to EA's belief, there is no such thing in BF2 at the moment, though from the little stabilization I've seen, I think it is possible. The tanks would also need targeting computers to assist in leading targets and range finding.

Personally, I want it to stay the way it is. The one man tanks are what keep me playing on the BF2 engine at all. Otherwise I would play Red Orchestra as the gunnery physics are beyond anything the BF2 engine is capable of.

Also, and this is a big issue, there aren't enough players in PRMM yet to support fully crewed tanks. Once we have more than a couple full servers at a time, then we can think about making tanks require crews. Until then, there just are not enough willing tankers out there.

# 2 still leaves the tank at a higher efficiency rate with only (1) player than #'s 3-4. I don't like that idea because of this. One player can take on the position of all jobs. It's effects wouldn't be that different than what is in there now.
Again people wouldn't use the top mounted mg as much leaving the tank less effective than it could be.

This is the only redefining quality of #2 ->

Malik wrote:"he would get a commander telling him where to go, but in a game that's not so easy."

Exactly. If a driver can't hear com commands #s 3-4 are pointless, sadly.

PRMM isn't just about settling for 'good' is it? And every position for #3 could get their own mg.

Its not anything like a simulator. I am guessing you have never played one?

Yea, no sh*t sorry but... hes not the brightest person in these forums.

2

I think set 2 would be the best for balance of game play and it as a basic element of teamwork to the tank giving the advantage to the 2 guys in a tank as opposed to 1

Either way spells a dead tank for those soloists. I'd just like the deterrence to be raised enough so that one might reconsider their strategy instead. #2 just isn't enough. He will drive til he sees the enemy and press F2 or whatever it is and gun. Then he'll cycle back and forth til at his leisure until someone gets the best of him. Add in a third important roll and things start looking really bad for the guy.

well, i guess i go for the set 4, because we are looking for reality here, so as in real life, we are looking for team work+reality.

Another reason to have more jobs in vehicles is to alleviate the transit problems.
Drivers pass up giving rides all the time. Why? Because they don't need anybody else. A tank or apc missing a critical person will look out for people to help. Everybody wins. And we all know how much it sucks to be stuck walking!

option 4 i love realism

I voted for #2 cuz I like to take small steps in areas that could be really frustrating for some players. Moves us in the right direciton, but not too much in one go.

The "set 2" tanks would be a lot like the way tanks in WWIIOL were .. which was, imo, a really decent WWII tank sim.

egg

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']I voted for #2 cuz I like to take small steps in areas that could be really frustrating for some players. Moves us in the right direciton, but not too much in one go.

The "set 2" tanks would be a lot like the way tanks in WWIIOL were .. which was, imo, a really decent WWII tank sim.

egg

and also the sort of way OFP works apart from the gunner is not a gunner hes a commander.