How many players should operate a tank?

[Major Ursa Norte]

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]

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

[[R-DEV]Katarn]

Originally Posted by Major Ursa Norte

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]

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.

[JS.Fortnight.A]

Originally Posted by Major Ursa Norte

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by EON_MagicMan

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]

Originally Posted by Major Ursa Norte

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]

Originally Posted by Major Ursa Norte

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.