Project Reality Forums

Currently, the driver must either exit the vehicle or enter the 3rd position (.50 cal) in order to "cut the engines" and be sneaky.

A fourth position that enables the driver to remain inside the tank and still zoom/spot as he would in the driver position would get rid of the need to expose himself. This would essentially be a "commander position" requiring a crewman kit. I am not suggesting that the driver position view be changed in any way.

Sorry if this is a resuggestion.

Wow. This is a great idea. Though it would also mean that you can fit 4 people into a tank. Not sure if that's realistic.

I like the idea...yea fourth person just hanging out could be...silly.

I .50 cal'ed for a tank before. It's essentially doubles the killing power of a tank when versing anything that isn't a heavy vehicle. It also adds another field of view to keep of rear attackers. It would be nice for the fourth position so the .50 cal gunner isn't kicked out espeically on maps like Al Basrah

Having two people being able man a tank is unrealistic in the first place; the minimum for autoloader equipped tanks is three. The Abrams irl requires 4. The reason for two in PR is the lack of manpower on a 32 man team.

Also, the fourth position is not required to be filled at all---it's probably better to just have two crewman so the team/squad can crew as many vehicles as possible. It's only used when the driver wants to either quiet the engines or stop the tank from sliding on angled terrain.

Some other advantages i just thought of: If another pair of friendly crewmen has to bail from their vehicle, the MBT now has enough space to give them a ride back to main.

I just like having the idea of going silent.

I could be wrong, but I don't think tanks in real life turn off their engines.

What about a kill switch, It stops movement, but not the engine.

Yeah, when tanking in PR on an uneven slope, sometimes when I'm driving I need to switch seats or exit the tank to stop the vehicle from moving. This is essential when the gunner is scoped in, trying to hit a distant target. This suggestion will help situations like this greatly.

Good idea that.

Unfortunately it has been suggested to open up the other slots in the tank IE Commander/load seats. The main argument was that it would take more people off the battlefield if there was more open spaces in a tank.

Although I do agree a little bit, it would be nice if instead of being restricted to the 50. when your out of the hatch instead of being able to use your other weapons/binocs.

Besides if you are cutting your engines to be not seen I don't think it matters if the driver is exposed since you are trying to remain hidden anyways.

nick20404 wrote:Unfortunately it has been suggested to open up the other slots in the tank IE Commander/load seats. The main argument was that it would take more people off the battlefield if there was more open spaces in a tank.

Although I do agree a little bit, it would be nice if instead of being restricted to the 50. when your out of the hatch instead of being able to use your other weapons/binocs.

Besides if you are cutting your engines to be not seen I don't think it matters if the driver is exposed since you are trying to remain hidden anyways.

he's not saying to open seats for more people, what you could do is have a limitation or someting... like if there is a driver in the driver seat, you can't be in that 4th seat, or if there is more than 3 people in the tank, you can't use it

along with the kit requirements

They don't want more space in the tank, they just want a space in the tank for the DRIVER (mind you, the 1 person ALREADY IN the freakin tank) to be able to sit and spot like a normal driver, but as a kill switch to help with the tanks inability to stay on a slope when you are in the drivers spot.

And to help with "being silent" apparently. =)

The entire premise of "killing the engine" is pretty unrealistic, and I'd rather not have any ways to use it. Id that's all the seat is for, then I'm against it for that reason.

A tank commander's spot, I'd love to see (though it wouldn't be necessary, therefore not taking players off the field, rather it would be an advantage. Like how taking players off the field to command the battle is often uneeded, but can be advantageous). But the arguement that there are too few players available (which loses it's flavour when you see entire games with the team waiting at main) to man them.

Search

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... split.html

Kirra wrote:Search

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... split.html

If you searched the thread the you might have noticed that it's not the same idea he's getting at

octo-crab wrote:I could be wrong, but I don't think tanks in real life turn off their engines.

McLuv wrote:The entire premise of "killing the engine" is pretty unrealistic, and I'd rather not have any ways to use it. Id that's all the seat is for, then I'm against it for that reason.

Yeah I can't imagine it's a simple case of rotating a set of keys one way the the other, I would have though the start up procedure would be more complex then that. Like crab said I don't know but I can't see that being the case and not something you'd wanna do in combat anyway.

McLuv wrote:A tank commander's spot, I'd love to see (though it wouldn't be necessary, therefore not taking players off the field, rather it would be an advantage. Like how taking players off the field to command the battle is often uneeded, but can be advantageous). But the arguement that there are too few players available (which loses it's flavour when you see entire games with the team waiting at main) to man them.

If the commander & driver option was available you'd have dual zoomed periscope action going on, and I assume it's pretty unrealistic for a tank to have that much direct situational awareness.

Kirra wrote:Search

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... split.html

well apparently no one noticed until you said something.... good job

I would love this to get rid of the annoying "HEY LOOK We'RE SLIDING DOWN A SMALL INCLINE IN A tank"

Yay reverse emphasis XD haha

octo-crab wrote:I could be wrong, but I don't think tanks in real life turn off their engines.

Hit the nail on the head there.

AnRK wrote:If the commander & driver option was available you'd have dual zoomed periscope action going on, and I assume it's pretty unrealistic for a tank to have that much direct situational awareness.

Yea, though if it was done how I wanted it, I'd have it with the Commander's periscope where it should be, the Driver's cam above his hatch, and the gunner's cam where it is currently. Almost like APCs, but with the commander view that can use FLIR. Then, the turret turn rate would be given a maximum speed (not sure if it is atm, but it feels like it turns too fast for me at least). That way the Commander can play in either the .50 cal or his periscope view, depending on the situation.

Finally, the commander spot would now be effective for situational awareness, but not a necessity. And as I said, people who argue that it takes too many people off the field should really take a look at the main base of Kashan during nearly every pub game. They need more players on the field

EDIT: Arnk, this is what I suggested --> http://combinedarms.myfreeforum.org/about136.html

Suggested it there since I know it's been discussed here but never tried, and Combined Arms if anything is a way to show how these systems would add to gameplay, and not become detrimental to the game.

Yeah I see your point, but it would effectively mean that a tank is screwed without a tank commander, thus essentially making it a 3 man operation. You could do without but people with the periscope would have such a huge advantage over you that it would be pointless, and there's little enough people on the field already.

Well no, because tanks would not have any advantage/disadvantage incurred between the. They would therefore stay on even ground comparatively to each other if they are manned with the same amount of people.

And APCs currently aren't immediately screwed necessarily against tanks in terms of situational awareness (though in general firepower and armour they are at a disadvantage). And on top of that, you aren't requiring 4 players to be at the most efficiency. The 3rd player would be useful (as he is now), but would have the option to use the periscope and stay within the armour, or to use the .50 cal on top.