How many players should operate a tank?

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2006-06-02 14:18

Possible Combos:

Set 1 (vBF2 style):
Pos. 1: Driver/Gunner/Smoke
Pos. 2: Turret MG

Set 2 (Best of both worlds):
Pos. 1: Driver/Smoke
Pos. 2: Gunner
Pos. 3: Turret MG (No direct control over tank operations)

Set 3 (Uber-Realism):
Pos. 1: Driver
Pos. 2: Gunner/Loader (Limited vision, but fires the round)/Turret MG
Pos. 3: Commander (Full vision to sight and acquire targets)/360 degree outside/inside hatch view plus optics

Set 4 (Real Life):
Pos. 1: Driver
Pos. 2: Loader/Turret MG
Pos. 3: Gunner
Pos. 4: Commander

Braddock096 · Post by **Braddock096** » 2006-06-02 14:20

I like option 2, which is the way Red Orchestra has it. You can operate a tank single handed but there is a delay on switching positions which means a full tank will always have the advantage over a single hander.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-06-02 14:22

oooooooo, interesting and nicely presented. Top marks all round.

HAs to be : Set 3 (Uber-Realism):
Pos. 1: Driver
Pos. 2: Gunner/Loader (No vision, but fires the round)/Turret MG
Pos. 3: Commander (Sights and acquires targets)/360 degree outside/inside hatch view plus optics

I love this stuff AND AND you can have 1 squad operating 2 tanks, together with amazing teamwork AND this forces the enemy to also work as a team and use tactics becuase other wise it will own the battlefield.

Option 3 is only slightly different to option 2 but really makes tanks that lethal and deadly vehicles they are. It provides the option, if you want, to put in alittle more teamwork if you want and get many advantages from doing so. Small change but can only enhance option 2, making option 3 a perfect choise.
People say this is too complicated but it is really not, just requires abit of teamwork and the dividens of such a system are huge, through the roof ext.

I also guess the commander has control fo the smokes. That is the problem with 2, in real life the driver has a really poor view and giving him a really good one, is just so unrealistic and that means the driver can not properly use the smokes at the right time, he can not see the guy wiht the RPG, on the 3rd floor behind the tank BUT the commander can and he can provide the gunner wiht a target.

Also, some say giving the commander the top mounted machine gun is unrealsitic, but many tanks have 2, one for the loader and one for the commander.
This actually weakens the tanks in some respects becuase there will not always be a machine gunner manning the top turret gun, becuas ethe commander is very valuable and will spend alot of time, turned in, looking through the periscopes. Rather than with a permanent and almost diposable machine gunner.

Iasthai · Post by **Iasthai** » 2006-06-02 14:23

Im alittle confused as to why the gunner would have no vision? i mean how would he aim..? Still set 2 works best in a gaming sense i feel, maybe swap the MG gunner for a commander/MG'er?

Malik · Post by **Malik** » 2006-06-02 14:27

Well the Commander aims and says "Fire!" and the loader/gunner would fire the round.

2 is the best, I've always wanted that. A lone wolf can only drive and shoot. If he drives he can't protect himself, if he shoots he can't dodge anything.

Billy_gunner · Post by **Billy_gunner** » 2006-06-02 14:27

Yes if you stay in mind 32 pll around. Option 2 it's the best have Red Orchestra too . Good choice.

Honor.

Billy_gunner.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-06-02 14:47

option 3 is very very similar top option 2.

But the small difference makes a huge difference. option 3 just improves communications - you cant disagree with that. And i jsut happens that improved systems means calling some one a commander, with out leaders, you can neverforfill your potencial and this is that same with tanks.
2 commanders who agree on a simple plan, can make sure that it is followed out. Commanders dont have to worry about the actuall drivign and think aABOUT TACTICS, is doing that so wrong, I THOUGHT PR LOVED TACTICS.

Such a simple addition improves tactics massively. BUT if you dont want that, you can just take the place of a commander and jsut man the machine gun instead. No different to option 2. Option 3 just allows those who want to, which will be alot, to use the tank in a far more tactical way.

A gunner is virtually blind with out one in real life. IF commanders where not such a valuable asset to tanks then they would not have them BUT THEY DONT, EVERY TANK IN THE WORLD HAS ONE, no exceptions. And this is one exeption that PR can not make!
Small change, makes a world of difference.

VOTE FOR OPTION 3 AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE, THAT WILL MAKE PR THE GREATEST TACTICAL SHOOTER IT CAN BE!!!!!! follow your tactical heart, please, do it for PR

[ZiiP]DarkJester · Post by **[ZiiP]DarkJester** » 2006-06-02 14:52

Realistic tank crews would be amazing... Which mod already has this implemented? is it USI?

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2006-06-02 14:53

As much as I am with you on that Top_Cat, one must remember that this is going to be played not just by those who are part of the mostly mature and close-nit PR forum community, but also by pubs. And we all know how crazy pubs can get (no organization what-so-ever). Therefore there is a need of balance for the gameplay to realism equation. Another thing this does bring up is how it will affect singleplayer mode, because the AI will have to be tweaked as well even with just set 2 or 3. We felt it was important (before commiting lots of time to these changes) to get the communities thoughts on the matter.

Malik · Post by **Malik** » 2006-06-02 14:55

3 just sounds harder to implement, 2 just requires an extra seat and the current roles to be split. I can see how the idea would be useful, but at the minute it still seems people are struggling to comprehend the fact that smoke on tanks is now a projectile. Anyway, I kinda like the current system with the secondary gunner being vulnerable, it gives me something to shoot at when I'm not AT.

Major Ursa Norte · Post by **Major Ursa Norte** » 2006-06-02 14:58

With every step you take toward ultra realism, you lose players and support. Go ahead, make a simulator. I am slowly getting driven away from this project. This mess about tank crews, the insane class changes and the most aggregious insult to date, re-skinning the Littlebird in UN colors! Unforgiveable.

I hope that the DEVs of this project keep their heads and don't turn this into a simulator. In any event, I am rapidly losing interest in this whole project.

[ZiiP]DarkJester · Post by **[ZiiP]DarkJester** » 2006-06-02 15:00

But people come to PR because they want the simulation that BF2 lacks. The clue is in the name.

Post by **Katarn** » 2006-06-02 15:01

Major Ursa Norte wrote:With every step you take toward ultra realism, you lose players and support. Go ahead, make a simulator. I am slowly getting driven away from this project. This mess about tank crews, the insane class changes and the most aggregious insult to date, re-skinning the Littlebird in UN colors! Unforgiveable.

I hope that the DEVs of this project keep their heads and don't turn this into a simulator. In any event, I am rapidly losing interest in this whole project.

What? It seems if we make any change you will be angry with us. We made the class system quite balanced in my opinion, then the changes become rediculous? This tank system requiring 2-3 players has been used in several games and works quite well, though it's based on realism, experienced players with microphones will easily be able to be a more effective fighting force than alone. And reskinning the littlebird in UN colors is for the tournament admins I believe... Hell, reality is in the title, what do you expect?

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-06-02 15:07

SCREW SINGLE PLAYEr! PR is about humans not robots.

A bit extreme, but games never get become great with compramise. A strong desision with reason that the decider believes are 100% right, any feeling of regret or question and the idea is not worth the time spent botherering to implament it.

1) - Commander only needs to be able to set up a seriese of way points.
2) - Sent less than 5 instant commands, 3 can be hot keyed, sent in AN INSTAND, quicker than any voip.
3) - And finaly and most usefully, designate target (point out enemies), just point and click, like a gun. THe computer then says waht it is, tanks, man, man with anti tank rocket, plane, attact heli.

3 things, each beautifully simple. It means a retard cna use them a clever player can WIN.

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2006-06-02 15:08

Major Ursa Norte wrote: re-skinning the Littlebird in UN colors! Unforgiveable.

This will not be present on all Littlebirds, it is merely for the use of Admins to observe combat in Tourney games. The blue UN colors have been assigned to it for easier identification.

EON_MagicMan · Post by **EON_MagicMan** » 2006-06-02 15:24

While the temptation would be to go for super-realism, nobody wants to be a loader. I think, regarding Set 2, what would be good is to have the tank Gunner (guy who controls the turret) have a command rose (not sure about the codeability of a new command rose), that would send a local message or a message to the driver.

For the rose, the middle button would be "Stop!", with the other buttons being different directions (the top being "Move forward.", the top left being "Turn left a little.", the left being "Turn left.", and so on).

That would be the simplist, most effective way to get communication down, because as we know, on a public server, unless given the tools (and even when given the tools, but I'm ranting now), people can't coordinate worth a damn.

The thing I love about facing a tank in Red Orchestra is that it is this big, awkward beast.

A tank in BF2 is just as coordinated and as able as a player, prettymuch, when you consider it's high turret speed and the fact that it's one person driving it, so it just spots you and then 'boom'.

I also think that the APC (do any maps still include that thing?) should have a seperate gunner.

*EDIT* Some way for the Gunner (turret guy) to look 360 degrees would be preferable. Obviously an 'unbuttoning' system like Red Orchestrated would be extremely difficult to impliment, but even the most half-assed ability to somehow view a foot above the tank and be able to rotate the camera would be handy.

Major Ursa Norte · Post by **Major Ursa Norte** » 2006-06-02 15:30

I expected a game. Despite having mature serving or ex-millitary people on your DEV team, some of the proposed and current changes are so far from "reality" to make any sane person laugh. I don't want to belittle the massive degree of difficulty you and your team have to overcome to create something like this, and do it all for free, BUT, I do feel a bit let down. I joined this community based on what was advertised as a Realism Mod for BF2. Tweaks and enhancements made on BF2 that took care of the accuracy and arcadey aspects. NOT a combat simulator.

And I don't care if the UN skin is only for tournament play or NOT. Mention of the UN is just bad. The politics surrounding that organization are just too powerful and any reference to them in a game is just poor taste.

I really don't want to give up just yet, but it is getting harder to hang on.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-06-02 15:34

EON_MagicMan wrote:While the temptation would be to go for uber-realism, nobody wants to be a loader.

Option 3 has no loader, same number of player

, just that 1 players has the ability to provide very basic information to the gunner and BOTH very very basic dircetions for the driver AND IF HE IS CLEVER more detailed directions in the form of ways points.
simple, there is a system to suit every level of intelligence.

AND IF YOU DONT LIKE ANY OF IT, just operate the machine gun AND YOU HAVE OPTION 2.
OPTION 3 JUST ALLOWS FOR SOME, TO PLAY MORE TACTICALLY, IT IS A OPTION, you choose, and such a thing can only please more players.

YOU dont have to give orders, but if you wnat to really make a tank a extremely powerfully killing machine you can.
OPTION 3 ENCOURAGES TEAMWORK, AND IT ACTUALLY MEANS that a tank crew using the commander options could out manovour and beat a tank not using them A VICTORY FOR TEAM WORK, TACTICS AND PR!!!!

EON_MagicMan · Post by **EON_MagicMan** » 2006-06-02 15:36

Major Ursa Norte wrote:And I don't care if the UN skin is only for tournament play or NOT. Mention of the UN is just bad. The politics surrounding that organization are just too powerful and any reference to them in a game is just poor taste.

I really don't want to give up just yet, but it is getting harder to hang on.

Oh, right, depicting the UN is in "poor taste".

Give me a break, or elaborate, please.

I personally think that it is a fun way of implimenting a non-combatant observer into this completely hypothetical situation. Having a media chopper or something would be equally neat.

*EDIT* Top Cat, you've sort of sold me, but still I believe that the commanding should be left to the guy manning the turret, because ultimately, he's the guy who is in charge with killing the enemies.

I could see things going awry when the Commander has missed an enemy that the Gunner has spotted, and the Driver, who is listening to the Commander's order is driving away while the Gunner is missing his perfect candid shot on an enemy tank.

With lack of tank tactical training, I don't think that adding a third party that prettymuch solely commands would work as well as keeping it simple.

[ZiiP]DarkJester · Post by **[ZiiP]DarkJester** » 2006-06-02 15:49

Major Ursa Norte wrote:And I don't care if the UN skin is only for tournament play or NOT. Mention of the UN is just bad. The politics surrounding that organization are just too powerful and any reference to them in a game is just poor taste.

I really don't want to give up just yet, but it is getting harder to hang on.

You are not making sence. IRL, units they are obversers were painted white and had huge UN markings on the side so they didn't get shot at. The dev's here have cleverly taken the same principle and added to the game in one specialist area for a match.

Why are you so anti-UN?

Anyhow, don't answer that.. it's offtopic, I apologise.

How many players should operate a tank?

Which set would be the best balance of gameplay and realism?

How many players should operate a tank?