Project Reality Forums

I noticed that right now the tanks are just reskinned versions of each other, and with maps changing to 32 players quicker the tanks may become an issue. Here are my suggestions:

More seats

What I mean by this is that there should be a gunner/driver/and commander positions. The commander would point out enemy targets by clicking on the target. This would make a indicator on the gunner's hud.

Give them real-life qualities

I know that an M1A1 would win everytime against a T-90, but hear me out. Make it so that there are more T-90s for every M1A1. This would promote teammwork in trying to kill an M1A1, thus, you have a Win-Win situation. One win would be that it would be more realistic, and two, it would promote teamwork.

first of all... search next time, this has been brought up a million times.

but basically, everyone agrees with you. 90 percent (at least) of pr peopel on this forum want tanks that take 2 or 3 peopel to make work, with a seperate gunner and driver.

and the only reason a tank would win in a modern battlefield is basically because it saw the other one first and fired first. both the t ninety and abrams can penetrate each others armor (im pretty sure) so it just comes down to computers, which are important in real life but can't be accurately reproduced in game (in current maps) because the maps are soooo small and have very small view ranges.

has the pentagon ever live fired the most high tech rounds at an abrams? i thought that at this point, the armor vs firepower race was being won on all fronts by firepower, and that we just hear about rpgs not being able to hurt abrams... because they are rpgs...

[Rant]

I know that an M1A1 would win everytime against a T-90, but hear me out.

Im sorry, but I really get wound up by people who go on forums talking up there favourite weapon and vehicle.

a.) You mean the M1A2. The M1A1 is all but obsouleat.

b). The T90, Challenger 2 and M1A2 are all failry evenly matched. If it came down to it, the quality of the crew would be the determining factor as to wether it wins or loses in a fight.

Im going to ***** slap the next yahoo that comes on here making un-supported and invlaid claims.

[/Rant]

There are slightly less harsh ways of correcting someone's mistakes.

Believe me, that was the less harsh way.
Its nothing personal, but this is atleast the third topic today in which people have assumed that becasuse, im going to be blunt here, the US army uses the Abrams its obviously the best thing since sliced bread. I think people need to be more open minded and do a little research into the topic before they make any kind of claims, like DangChangs. Rant over.

JellyBelly wrote:Believe me, that was the less harsh way.

I disagree. If you're going to correct someone, fine, but you dont need to slap anyone.

easy tiger, i understand you want to get your point across but that doesnt exactly encourage new people posting thewre ideas does it.

i actually like some overt agressiveness on the forums here, in this way we would become a bit more like the official battlefield forum people.

Why would that be good?
I have to admit i quite enjoy it when people have a massive row, but theres no fun in just watching a fairly new guy get ripped into cos of his idea

DangChang has been a part of the "realism community" since back when Desert Combat: Realism was around for Battlefield/Desert Combat. He's a great guy, and your harsh-respite is really not warranted.

His comment was - to the discerning eye - not meant to be taken as a statement of fact. It was a nod to the people whom might use the general superiority of the more modern tank variants over the T-90 as a reason to skip over his main point. It was a disclaimer of sorts, to get people to focus on the point he was making.

Insulting someone for their opinion (you do not drive these tanks, we have only opinions and hearsay/theory to go on) is, as BrokenArrow said - not warranted.

Now, to get back on topic..

DC:R had a really unique and interesting system which allowed for a commander to "spot" a target for the tanker, which would transmit instantly to the gunner's viewpoint as a vertical marker on their HUD. That would allow them to quickly transverse left or right and nail the target the commander had pinpointed - it worked out very well, and the sheer uniqueness of it blew me away. I was not expecting a working, functioning multi-crew relationship fleshed out so well.

That may be something interesting to look into.

Agreed with the commander-gunner relationship.

Sigh..3 per tank, plus gunner? That eats up grunts fighting on the battlefield, you don't want to do that. Make the Gunner and the Comander one and the same.

But tanks should eat up resources (in this case, grunts) because they can be very deadly when they are crewed properly and competently.

I remeber from a BF1942 mod (might've been DCR) there was 3-man tanks, it worked well, the tanks dominated the open battlefield but when in towns and more urban settings, the extra infantry gained from using a less crew intensive vehicle was worth it.

tons of abrahams were lost in iraq.they're not that tough

and personally i dont think many people will co-operate enough to work a tank with 3 of them, at least one person in the crew will be a noob, or 8 years old, or completely in compitent in doing things right. and the rest of the crew wont be able to do anything about it.

at least with one person crewing a tank its his/hers own game, and efficiency will be better.

Firstly it wouldn't take 3 people to crew a fully functional tank, it would take 2. There is the driver, who drives, and the gunner, who guns. The commander would be a 3rd position and would increase the tanks fighting ability but would not be a necesity. BF2 has quite a few new goodies that would make a multiplayer tank a very real possibility

First off, if you've used normal tanks in BF2 or tried using the MG's on top you'll have noticed that they don't turn with the tank... not completely any ways. If this feature could be applied to the turret of the tank as well and the effect multiplied a few times then it shouldn't be too hard to gun if your driver has enough sense to not do doughnuts in the middle of the battlefield.

Communication is also much more simple than it was in DC:R as we now have VOIP as well as this new handy dandy spotting system that allows players to point out targets on their mini-map... no more "gunner turn left."

Finaly, tanks should require a bit of difficulty to use to their full effectiveness. Right now tanks are, in my opinion, a bit overpowered considering it takes one man to crew them and they can easily take out 10 men alone with no support. If these changes were made tanks would require a certain degree of teamwork but if used properly remain the ultimate force on the ground.

yeah i agree with all that but there will be occasions, on small 16 player maps especially where no one but one person wants to be in a tank, so it renders the tank utterly useless in that level, where as on the other team they may have a full 3 person crew operatin in a tank, therefore making the teams unbalanced

I doubt people would elect to be killed like insects rather than hop in their own tank for a few minutes to hunt down and kill the enemy tank.

I seriously stand by two-man tanks, gunner and driver. Gunner uses the cannon and turns the turret, the driver toggles between a fixed from-hull view and shooting the .50 caliber. This allows the driver to do something entertaining during the match. The alternative of a DC-style three man tank isn't what I'd call an unacceptable compromise, but I'd rather have one more grunt. Please note, teams use tanks if they have a tank spawned, not if they can afford the manpower. Because quite simply, they can always afford the manpower. We shouldn't take another grunt out of the game.