Three, Two or One Man Tanks?

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-12-30 05:02

An online college course on Critical Thinking wanted me to write a position I took a stand on or arguement I resolved. I've got the first and am hoping for the second! Being lazy, I will not edit out the bits that you already know.

I have been playing computer games for over a decade now as both a hobby and a passion. Over the past few months, I have played a war-game called Battlefield 2, in which up to 64 players control individual soldiers, crew vehicles, and fight for control of the level or map. In particular, I have been following and assisting a team of developers who are modifying the game into an even more realistic and team-oriented experience. Suggestions and discussions on their online forums have offered me many chances to take and defend a position with ideas instead of bullets.

One particular question which continues to raise controversy is how to use and control tanks in a way both realistic and fun. In stock Battlefield 2, a tank can be effectivey wielded by a single player who works both drives the vehicle and operates the main cannon. A second player may climb in to operate a heavy machine-gun, however, this only marginally improves the tank's combat power.

Most players agree that this is a flawed system and that tanks should require multiple players working closely together to operate. From this, several suggestions were put forward. Players seeking an exceptionally realistic game made cases for three-man tanks, citing the crew layout for modern tanks. They would have one player drive, one player aim and fire the main cannon, and one player manning the heavy machine-gun and leading the other players. A few other players suggested only two-man tanks, once again with one player driving and the other player operating both the main gun and the heavy machine-gun.

I felt that neither suggestion properly balanced realism with game design. First of all, in-game communications are clumsy and players rarely practice together as a real tank crew would. Because of this, a player expected to lead two strangers through typed commands would be very frustrated and ineffective, while crews who did train together would have an enormous advantage with possibly game-breaking results. For these reasons I ruled against a dedicated tank commander as presented by the first suggestion. The other flaw, suffered by all views put foward, was that a dedicated tank driver would not have an enjoyable experience. With a limited view of only what is directly in front of his tank and no weapons to operate (save ramming the enemy), drivers would have a difficult time navigating obstacles and be penalized by the kill-centric scoring system.

From these two flawed player roles, I arrived upon a compromise. By having the driver aim and fire the heavy machine-gun with the mouse while steering the tank with the keyboard, the tank will require two players to operate. This creates the team vehicle without marginalizing a player to an unenjoyable game role. Also, the driver may use the machine gun post to view behind and beside the tank and assist in his navigation. The gunner will be able to focus entirely on his real-world role of target aquisition and engaging, supported by the driver's field of view. Lastly, using a two-man crew instead of a three will free one more soldier up for the infantry combat which this mod is most loved for.

Nevermore · Post by **Nevermore** » 2005-12-30 05:43

The inherent flaw in your suggestion is that the driver would be far too easily picked off from his machine gunners position, his head sticking up out of the tank, although I understand your dilemma, I dont agree with the feasibility of its solution.

It would then render the AT class of soldier obsolete in favor if the Sniper class, as it would tend to be more important to halt the advance of tanks by shooting the machinegunner/driver as favorable over multiple strikes with AT rockets.

In either case, you either have a mobile armored gun platform, or a distant, immobile gun platform, not to mention the ease in which either position can be replaced when someone is rendered combat ineffective{driver dead, new driver takes over}.

The tanks cannon, and machine gun are still somewhat effective at range, even if its not advancing remember. AT rockets are less accurate and harder to hit your target at range even when immobile.

There is no easy solution to any one problem in this case, there are a lot of things that must be sacrificed for gameplay, as well as sacrifices to realism in order to fascilitate functionality. Its the Dev teams job to find thier vision of a happy medium.

Remeber, its a REALISM MOD, not a REALITY SIMULATOR. Realism in short often more than not, isnt really FUN, and it is a GAME after all

My 2 cents, nice suggestion though Nikovk

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-12-30 06:58

The driver won't be sticking his head out.

Two man tanks FTW

Nevermore · Post by **Nevermore** » 2005-12-30 08:18

Cerberus wrote:The driver won't be sticking his head out.

Two man tanks FTW

argh, i retract my useless diatribe then, i misread what he had typed

its a great idea when that lil detail comes to light, LOL

thats what i get for skim reading eh?

Nevermore · Post by **Nevermore** » 2005-12-30 08:24

Well, they would both prevent the ever present "hop in tank/generic vehicle with room for more than one, drive away" guy....which is never a bad thing.

Post by **Rhino** » 2005-12-30 12:27

NikovK wrote: From these two flawed player roles, I arrived upon a compromise. By having the driver aim and fire the heavy machine-gun with the mouse while steering the tank with the keyboard, the tank will require two players to operate. This creates the team vehicle without marginalizing a player to an unenjoyable game role. Also, the driver may use the machine gun post to view behind and beside the tank and assist in his navigation. The gunner will be able to focus entirely on his real-world role of target aquisition and engaging, supported by the driver's field of view. Lastly, using a two-man crew instead of a three will free one more soldier up for the infantry combat which this mod is most loved for.

its flawed, so manny snipers could pop off his head.

the best thing to do is to just keep the tank as it is. Yes it is not reaistic but then again it is really the only effective way to have it in the game....

Post by **Hitperson** » 2005-12-30 13:17

solodude23 wrote:I still like my idea better.

me too

Equilibrium · Post by **Equilibrium** » 2005-12-30 14:19

i think the name of the mod says more than the hole discussion about how many soldiers have to move a tank. i say the realistical solution is 3 men, because a tank is a haviest weapon on battlefield real and digital. so we have to balance the fire power of the engaging units. we havew in multipl up to 64 player and siglepl 16 so i think the manpower is avalible.

why 3 men tank? i you want to have a heavy weopon you have to reduce your infantry for balancing. the roles of this 3 sold. are on the side of real. 1 men driver , one gunner , one comander( here gunner on the extern .50cal). every sold have so his own task and can concentrate on this.

Post by **Hitperson** » 2005-12-30 15:11

Have the tanks like they are in OFP

Post by **Rhino** » 2005-12-30 16:09

Hitperson wrote:Have the tanks like they are in OFP

what are they like in OFP, never played it....

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-12-30 16:23

This topic has been beat to death with the suggestion stick. I think we get the point by now..

The problem is how to do it. (coding)

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2005-12-30 17:06

Rhino wrote:what are they like in OFP, never played it....

Ironically, some of the tanks are exactly like in BF2 as you could actually choose which type to spawn

The problem is how to do it. (coding)

Not really a problem. Its just to do some code transplantation and rearrangement of seats/controls.

Trufret · Post by **Trufret** » 2005-12-30 20:47

I woudn't mind having a 3 man tank crew as the hevy machine gun on top in kinda redundant due to the turret gunner having a machine gun too.most of the time there isn't anyone in the top anyway except for a ride somewhere.

1.Driver/commander -maybe 3rd persion view
2. gunner -current hud system
3. heavy gunner-optional as 2nd position has a machine gun already

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-12-31 06:29

Of course the driver/machine gunner will toggle between a fixed internal view and the unbuttoned view, while still being able to crouch in the MG position. The trick is to bind them like an attack helicopter gunnery position; changing weapons changes views. While in driving mode, the driver has a limited field of view but his model is tucked away invulnerable. While on the Mg he can shoot, duck, and still use the control keys to steer.

See? That's not so hard, is it Devs?

OverwatchX · Post by **OverwatchX** » 2006-01-02 01:03

Tether · Post by **Tether** » 2006-01-02 01:50

I would like to see three man tanks as long as communication wasn't an issue to coordinate between Commander/Gunner/Driver and so forth.

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-02 03:11

Tether wrote:I would like to see three man tanks as long as communication wasn't an issue to coordinate between Commander/Gunner/Driver and so forth.

It is, and we're taking one more player from the infantry fight and stuffing him in the greasy underbelly of a tank.

Tether · Post by **Tether** » 2006-01-02 20:51

NikovK wrote:It is, and we're taking one more player from the infantry fight and stuffing him in the greasy underbelly of a tank.

True, your initial idea is fine by me. Whatever works for the Devs, etc.