One Man Armor (Tanks and APC's)

[charliegrs]

i completely agree that attack choppers shouldnt be allowed to take off without a gunner. hummers, i think you should be allowed to do what you want with them. ive had to use them on my own a few times to rescue my squad, its not ideal but it happens. as far as armor goes i think the devs should do one of two things:

1. the before mentioned no gunner no operational tank. only a fully crewed tank can actually move.

or more controversial but it honestly has its merits:

2: just bring back the 1 man tank from vanilla. but keep all the functions from PR like zoom,smoke etc. reason being is that we already have way too many people using it on its own as it is {ubp irish} and atleast this way it only takes 1 person in a squad, which would be better for combined arms operations with infantry since you can have 1 guy using a tank and 5 infantry, and all can use voip.

i would prefer option 1 but really at this point i would prefer any solution to the problem, and atleast 2 would make people who actually defend the use of solo tanking happy.

[Ghost1800]

The way I see it, this whole argument is a bit moot until they fix the squad glitch that effectively allows you to solo a tank.

[[uBp]Irish]

i think i know what you're talking about ghost, but could you elaborate a little further?

[Artnez[US]]

Originally Posted by [uBp]Irish

actually no, i wasnt being sarcastic.

if we're going to play the reality card in this thread, because the OP already did (no driver, no engine.. no turret operation), than i'll play it right back.

Are you looking for an argument to win? To assume that no one here is aware that the mod can't be 100% realistic is to assume that we're all stupid. Do you think we're all stupid?

no transport pilot would fly with out a co-pilot. Co-pilot might be going to far, but he would definitely not lift off without atleast ONE gunner.

It's true. Everyone knows this. Congrats.

No attack helo pilot would dare think about lifting off without his gunner. That's the most vital asset to that vehicle and any solo-attack pilot is just a floating peice of metal. Let's noob-free that peice of equipment also, because yea.. that's really needed!

Yes it is actually. That would be an excellent idea.

And i'm definitely not kidding about the hummer. No soldier in his mind would drive off in a hummer on his own, with some other people back at base needing a ride.

More truth. Don't forget to put on your Captain Obvious hat.

The points might be exaggerated, but so are all the ideas that circulate about how to fix "one-man tanks". The fact is you're not looking across the whole spectrum, but only focusing in on one minute detail which is the fact that someone can take a tank, go sit on a ridge, and provide cover. Oh wait, isnt that what he's supposed to do? God forbid someone does their job and the role of their vehicle.

It's a game balancing issue. The developers spent a considerable amount of time make it so that the driver has something to do and the gunner has something to do. This is for a reason.

For the most part, it isn't about "realism" but more about gameplay and engine limitations. Tanks are made SUPER powerful in this game and 2+ manned tank will survive longer because the squad members need to communicate... and neither of them want to get killed.

The role of the vehicle depends on battle. With all the wise cracking you've been trying to do (unsuccessfully might I add), you've been more successful in proving that you haven't spent too much time in tank battles. Sitting on a ridge is perhaps the worst possible thing you can do as a tanker. This is why :

1) You silhouette will be seen at the top of the ridge.
2) You will easily be spotted because you have high ground.
3) Aircraft will decimate you in a heartbeat.
4) If you're a solo tanker, engineer or specops will easily sneak up on you.

The difference between a Tank and a Cannon is mobility. What you are talking about is exactly what the Germans would do in late WW2 when they had no fuel to power their armor - turn them into immobile cannons.

The entire advantage of today's armor relies on speed, agility and power.

... sitting on a ridge ... *laughs* ... wow.

Back to the hummer thing, i'm really not sure why this has never been addressed. If we cry reality in this mod, like i said earlier, noone would leave base without a gunner in the hummer. Its nice that they added a 3sec delay to the turret, but still, i cant count the times i've seen a guy take a hummer on his own when there are people still at base waiting. I dont see why the same argument that the OP uses against armor wouldnt apply here? Or the Co-Pilot to the Transport Helo? Or the gunner to the Attack Helo?

The copilot would have nothing to do unfortunately. In armor, the driver is responsible for getting to the destination and the gunner is responsible for killing. In a transport helicopter there is only one objective.

In addition, there's a gameplay limitation at work. If this were a 128 man server, I'm sure the devs wouldn't allow a chopper to take off without a full crew. However, since there is a maximum of 32 players per side... to use every vehicle would mean to take up the entire team.

However, armor is scarce. There's usually, at most, 5 tanks on a map. That's 10 people on maps like Kashan, which is reasonable because it's a heavy vehicle map.

The attack helo I completely agree with. Nothing much else to say there.

Also, lets think of it in a metaphorical way, which PR has come accustomed to. We can say, that on a lower population server, the solo-tanker taking his tank out, could fulfill the role of a fully crewed tank. Why do i say this? well look at the facts, we already have the "metaphor" that tanks are lazer snipers because IRL the gunner would have computer that would factor in the physics of gunnery. Just like how shock paddles can bring someone back to life is a metaphor for the fact that that guy was probably evaced out and is coming back as reinforcements. Or back in .7 who the knifing of a civilian was a metaphor for actually "capturing" him for information.

It is true, we can use that metaphor.

However, if you're inclined to argue (like you are apparently), you can create a metaphor for anything and make it seem logical.

The point is really freaking simple here: Tanks are VERY powerful animals that need to be tamed. Metaphors are there to create things for ENGINE LIMITATIONS.

Let me break it down for you:

lazer snipers because IRL the gunner would have computer that would factor in the physics of gunnery

That's what the computer is doing now. What do you think you're using to play the game? How else are you going to make this realistic? And if you bring up a way how, it probably won't be possible due to ENGINE LIMITATIONS.

Just like how shock paddles can bring someone back to life is a metaphor for the fact that that guy was probably evaced out and is coming back as reinforcements

This is an ENGINE LIMITATION. If we could have 128 players on the map, this wouldn't be an issue as people actually could get medevaced.

Or back in .7 who the knifing of a civilian was a metaphor for actually "capturing" him for information.

This is an ENGINE LIMITATION. If a model of handcuffs could be created and animations for handcuffing civilians and escorting them back to base would work - they'd do it. But they can't, thus a compromise was necessary.

We can say, that on a lower population server, the solo-tanker taking his tank out, could fulfill the role of a fully crewed tank.

This is NOT an ENGINE LIMITATION. On a lower population server, a tank would have a much easier time surviving and killing because there would be less enemies to fight against. As a result, it would be harder to fully man a tank without losing a big chunk of infantry troops. So if you have 4 tanks available, you'll probably only want to use 1 tank.

If the server numbers are low and no one wants to gun with you, too bad. That means your team does not value the force of armor and/or no one is capable of using armor.

Adapt.

If you look closely throughout PR, there are metaphors everywhere to increase the game-play ability of this mod, while at the same time trying to move that little bit closer to reality. The fact that most arguments, like i said earlier, have been directed at armor (probably just because they are the most destructive) is actually quite biased.

As I mentioned before, metaphors are there as a result of engine limitations. It has nothing to do with gameplay. The balance is not JUST between gameplay and realism, it's between realism, engine limitations and gameplay.

How many times have you been the only person on a team that made an armor squad, and then have some scrub join it only to drive your tank repeatedly up a slope they cant traverse? How much time have you just now wasted? I know i am far more lethal when i can position myself on the ridges to the south of the bunkers on Kashan, and have a great over watch position so my people can cap the flags undeterred, rather than spend the time getting there with some noob-driver.

As mentioned before, ridge lines are not a formidable way of creating a defense or creating supporting fire. Even if it has worked for you a few times, you wouldn't survive a minute in the TacticalGamer server. You'd either get wiped out by aircraft or other armor as you'd be spotted like mad. Maybe that's an overstatement... you'd survive way more than a minute but it shouldn't be that way. Armor is a mobile fighting force, not a stationary cannon.

If you're the only one in the armor squad then no one wants to use armor with you. You can pose the same argument for:

"What if I'm the only person in an Infantry squad?"

In those cases, it's important to remember that Project Reality depends on teamwork for the game to be fun. If you're not having fun then chances are there is no teamwork going on.

The main arguments i've realized that the hardcore group of Dieselheads have had to argue against is the fact that a solo tank, on his own, can defeat a 2man tank anytime anywhere. PM me, and we'll go test it, but it is not the fact that the tank is so much effective, but the fact that because there are still variables in the equation that hinder the effectiveness of a 2man tank crew.

What the hell are you talking about. It's not about what's most effective. Of course a solo tanker would be more effective if all he's the only one operating the tank. That's the whole flipping reason they split gunners from drivers! Tanks have entire crews and are a devastating force. Nothing is that devastating without some effort and coordination, sorry!

Sure, some noobs like to sit on ridge lines and pick people off. That's exactly the "strategy" we're trying to prevent. It's not how tanks are used.

What does a 2man tank crew bring to the table that a 1man tank crew cant do on it's own? Move and shoot at the same time? Right, because that's perfect. Granted the Devs in .75 have made it more stable, the turret stabilizers on most turrets still arent that great to move/shoot at the same time. This is where 2man tanks come in with the tactic of shoot/skoot, but that split second you stop to shoot at me, you're wasting time trying to align your sights on my hull, while the whole time i was trained right on your side-skirts waiting for you to stop where i then plunge a Sabot into your skirts. One more to go and you're done.

The question like i have stated in EVERY other anti-solo tanker post, is not that we should limit the effectiveness of a solo tank (because really, taking that away can hinder a 16 player game severly if you wanted it too), but figure out what would be a better way of making the 2man tank crews more attractive. Figure out what would make being in a 2man tank crew more attractive than going out on your own?

I'm a bit tired from all this typing and you finally got to your main point so I'll just state this...

The devs aren't selling vacuum cleaners. Sometimes you want to make this harder to use due to their devastating effect. Infantry squads use a lot of coordination on the ground to accomplish the small tasks they are assigned every 10 minutes. Why should the tankers be any different?

Tanks are easily the most devastating force on the battlefield. Anything that devastating needs some effort to operate.

I'm a very sarcastic person in real life. When people are so narrow-minded that they look for alternatives without looking at other issues in the spectrum (cars/attack -transport helos) it kinda.. riles me up.

Perhaps I misunderstood and you really don't support solo tankers. Maybe you only posted this elaborate ... thing ... to emphasize the point that co-pilots are not in the game.

The only reason co-pilots and humvee gunners are not required is strictly the limitation of people that can be on a server.

If a single team has 32 people, we can safely assume they need atleast 2 full infantry squads at work. That's 12 down, now you have 20 people. Say.. 3 tanks.. 6 people. Now you're down to 14. There are usually around 4 pilots so now you have 10 players left. With 10 players, there isn't enough people to double/triple man all of the vehicles that you want.

The reason people nit pick at armor soooo often is that armor does the most killing. Transport helos are no big deal because they still take a lot of coordination to use. If you're soloing in the tank it's all about:

1) Find where to park out.
2) Use mouse.
3) Click, click, click, click!!!

As a transport pilot, the job is way more challenging and you are way more vulnerable. The distinction must be made whether you like it or not.

[xgayox]

Uh...wow. A fully crewed tank brings so many more things to the table. First off, three pairs of eyes constantly scanning for targets is ALWAYS better than one. The 2-man tank crew provides you the ability of flanking targets, quickly firing, and falling back with the enemy having no idea what just hit them. As a solo tanker, what would you do if a fully crewed tank rolled up right on top of you? If he came up on your 12 o'clock you might have a chance, but any of your flanks and you would be dead before you ever realized he was there. A fully crewed tank also provides you the ability of getting repairs in the field.

You can brag all you want about your kill/death ratio against tard rushing tanks in servers where apparently the pilots are incompetent as well, but the fact is a properly crewed tank is miles and miles ahead of a solo tanker.

[DeltaFart]

Honestly I like the idea of having tanks not usable without a driver, but 60s is a better compromise, though I laugh at challengers that try to solo themselves, while I pump AP rounds into the top of their turrets and tell my driver to move behind them

[charliegrs]

i think a great way to discourage soloers is to make a 60s delay after switching from gunner to driver. this way, if a noob tanker is sitting on a ridgeline being a pill box, and a fully crewed tank comes upon him and puts a round in his side, thus causing the tank to catch fire but not be destroyed, instead of the noob tanker being able to switch to driver and flee, he will have to wait 60 seconds before he can move. this way hes guarnteed to get destroyed and i bet hel think twice about solo tanking again.

[[uBp]Irish]

yet again artnez, you prove my point, that you are so very narrow-minded when it comes to finding alternatives to fixing issues.

I know solo-tanking sucks. I do it i admit. If PR wanted to make armor 2man crewed, than they need to find a way to make it attractive so people will actually want to 2man crew the vehicle. I do 2man crew.

My turn to argue respectfully your points.

Artnez: The role of the vehicle depends on battle. With all the wise cracking you've been trying to do (unsuccessfully might I add), you've been more successful in proving that you haven't spent too much time in tank battles. Sitting on a ridge is perhaps the worst possible thing you can do as a tanker. This is why :
1) You silhouette will be seen at the top of the ridge.
2) You will easily be spotted because you have high ground.
3) Aircraft will decimate you in a heartbeat.
4) If you're a solo tanker, engineer or specops will easily sneak up on you.

here we go...

my time in tank battles has ranged from early-mid .5 till now. No need to boost the ego, but i've had my pretty penny in armor, as well as having to be the leader/platoon sgt for the armor section of 2 PR clans.

1. That's why i never sit on the top of a ridge. On kashan for instance, you have areas on the ridge south of bunkers that make perfect places to "hull-down" in. Research it, add that to another of your uber-l33t tank tactics. The sloping line of the rising ridge makes it so the only position that your tank could be attack from is the presumable (if you're american) the left, front, and slight right (if you didnt destory their armor at the North Outpost). With a good spot, you have clear vision of the left (road from Mec Main) and straight ahead inside all of bunker region. Perfect infantry overwatch, with the ability to have your rear covered, and no silhouette. Take some time to research your maps, and you'll find some great spots. Same goes for Quin, Kufrah, but not so much basrah.. never liked basrah.

2. Hmmm no so much. If you have the higher ground you have the advantage of looking down on the enemy. Most mec crews coming out of their main are more looking straight ahead of them into bunkers. If they look to the hills good, they'll see my turret.. which.. is one of the most armored parts of my vehicle. I'm covered, they're in open ground, i have a 75% chance of hitting them on the top of their turret, the side skirts, or their rear, right behind the turret. That higher ground opens up a world of opportunities vs. them having to shoot up at me and risk hitting the ground infront of my tank.

3. actually here i agree with you. but then again.. when doesnt aircraft decimate armor. usually your noob-friendly AA vehicle is around, but eh.. usually on kashan/quin it's good since your flyboys have the skies locked-down (atleast on the servers i've played on)

4. Correct. only thing i cant disagree with. However, on my spots usually on quin/Kashan i have a good chance of seeing them before they hit me, just by the shear fact i'm just inside clip range, and i position myself that my back is facing friendly field.
-----------next.


Art, with the whole section where you talk about engine limitations, no offense, but i kinda just skipped over it. You missed my whole point, but nevermind, not really worth arguing about.

-----------

you said: "As mentioned before, ridge lines are not a formidable way of creating a defense or creating supporting fire. Even if it has worked for you a few times, you wouldn't survive a minute in the TacticalGamer server. You'd either get wiped out by aircraft or other armor as you'd be spotted like mad. Maybe that's an overstatement... you'd survive way more than a minute but it shouldn't be that way. Armor is a mobile fighting force, not a stationary cannon. "


Played on TG, dont really like it because they usually already have a squad setup by the time i get there, and if i do get in it, they usually like where i put them so they have a clear visual of the area. I once SL'ed a TG armor squad on Kufrah, 2 fully manded tanks, and all we did was move with infantry and protect the flanks and knock out anything that came in sight. So thanks, i'm not a total idiot.

-----------

Might want to save this post everyone, because i'm about to demolish the 2man vs. 1man armor argument "why 2man tanks are better".

I'll set the picture. This if anything, will be the one thing out of this post you'll want to read.

Open Field. Solo-man Tank, vs. 2man Tank. The solo tanker instantly switches to gunner, wastes 20 secs. If the crewed tank is smart, they'd hit once, and move. Solo tanker now has control of his turret, he trains his sights on the enemy tank while the crewed tank either..

a) zig-zags back and forth making it harder to keep the reticle on target

or

b) travels in a straight line slight left/right to keep moving forward.

In situation a, the solo tanker might take a shot. If he hits, good for him. If he misses the crewed tank better stop, and get the second shot in which would either destory or critically wound, which would need a 3rd shot then. In Situation B, the solo tanker, if trained well, would be able to hit a moving target in the side skirts. Boom theres one hit, only one more needed. If the crewed tank continues to do this, then the battles over after another hit.

IF situation A again, the crewed tank would have made their 2nd shot either killing him or hurting him. However, he is now in a situation where if he stops to aim/fire again, the solo tank would get another hit in. Assuming in Situation A the solo tanker didnt miss vs. the moving target, this would cause the crewed tank to explode.

In either way, it depends on gunnery skills. However, if both have equally good gunnery skills, the problem is that the solo-tanker can just wait till the crewed tank stops, and then plunge one in the sideskirts. It's not really feasible atm to try and move/shoot on the run just because all those little bumps will totally screw up your shot picture.

---Pt. 2.

Solo Tank vs. crewed Tank. Crewed Tank has overwatch, solo tank rolls into sight. Crewed Tank has high-ground. Outcome: Crewed Tank wins, because by the time the solo tank sees the crewed tank, he has to waste time to switch and by then he's already screwed.

Reverse the positions. Solo tanker *should win, based on the fact he has the high ground and can fire down on exposed areas on the tank.

--------pt 3. Urban combat----

Solo tanker drives into city. First Mistake, is that he drives into the city. If he's a solo-tanker he should know never to go into a city alone. 20 sec wait to get turret operational is just asking for IED's.

Solo tanker is in a position inside city, already setup in turret to ambush anything that comes in. Crewed Tank drives in. Solo tanker sees the crewed tank, one hit. Crewed Tank moves back. Moves back in to get a shot on solo tank. Solo tank takes a hit, but manages to get another hit off. Either the crewed tank is now blown up, or is critcally wounded leaving it open to HAT/Engineer attacks.

Theme = Solo tanks should never be in the city...that's what i taught to all my armor trainees.

----------

xGayox said:

"Uh...wow. A fully crewed tank brings so many more things to the table. First off, three pairs of eyes constantly scanning for targets is ALWAYS better than one. The 2-man tank crew provides you the ability of flanking targets, quickly firing, and falling back with the enemy having no idea what just hit them. As a solo tanker, what would you do if a fully crewed tank rolled up right on top of you? If he came up on your 12 o'clock you might have a chance, but any of your flanks and you would be dead before you ever realized he was there. A fully crewed tank also provides you the ability of getting repairs in the field.

You can brag all you want about your kill/death ratio against tard rushing tanks in servers where apparently the pilots are incompetent as well, but the fact is a properly crewed tank is miles and miles ahead of a solo tanker. "


Location Location Location. You never sit in a spot where you cant watch your flanks...

Quick Shots? really, how quick are your shots when you're driver is moving and those tiniest bumps in the ground make it seemingly impossibly to keep your sight picture on target? stop/shoot/scoot, is a good tactic, but again i say, any tanker worth his weight in gold, will wait till you stop, and then fire. The time it takes for your gunner to align is reticle on target will just waste more time. Also, it doesnt matter if you have "l33t flanking abilities". A tank in a good position should have ATLEAST 270 degree field of view (i know it's 360, but 180-270 before target gets behind cover or something). If you're a moving target, the gunners i train for armor in the past 2 clans will be able to pound one into you. No offense, but your argument is moot.


I'm not trying to be egotistical, but you keep throwing this arguments at me, and i'll keep disputing them. I've perfected the art of solo tanking since .5/.6. .7/.75 made it harder, but it's still double.

I will tell you know. I am against the fact that solo-tanking is still here. I can sympathize witch you about noobs taking it and screwing it up. I know, it sucks, i've felt the same thing.

I will say it one last time. Look for alternatives to solving issues. This isnt just something that will apply to PR and solo-tanking, but also to life. I'm going offtopic now, but we need to think about maybe how to make wanting to crew together will be more effective than just demolishing everything that comes into view.


@artnez, let's tone down the personal attacks. I'll do the same, sorry about this post and the previous. Let's argue/dispute respectfully. You've got your side i've got mine.

[xgayox]

Pt. 1

I'm not sure on what it is exactly, but the ROF is faster than one shot per 20 seconds. You would be able to hit the solo tanker twice, three times is a stretch, but again I would need to know the exact ROF. But regardless, if the two man tanker gets the first shot, there is no need for him to zig zag like a chicken without a head....He will win the firefight regardless because he got the first shot off, retreat, and get his repairs.

Pt 2.

The two man tank should retreat after the first hit, not continue moving in the LOS of the tank....



Your scenarios are mediocre at best, and you didnt dispute many of my points in my original post. More eyes scanning for targets, the flanking ability, and field repairs are more than enough to want to fully man your tank's positions.


EDIT: Just tested this on a local server, the ROF on the challenger is 1 round/7-8 seconds. That is enough time for 2, nearly 3 shots before you would be able to get off your first round at me.

[[uBp]Irish]

so, xgayox, wouldnt you say on open ground though, there's really no place to retreat too? For instance the area south of the Ridges, by like.. village/US Armor Spawn? that's a tooon of open field, and if i was in a solo tank vs. a crewed tank, and he started to run, by the time he turned to run, and i reloaded, theres just another shot into his back.

Your first respond to PT 1 is true, i've gotta figure out how long it takes to reload, but i think its between 5-10 secs (if i remember right).