One Man Armor (Tanks and APC's)

[M.Warren]

Listen, I'm glad that everyone here made some serious posts in relation to the one man armor subject. But in the end, the problem still exists. Pardon me for being brief, but I put most of my effort in simply posting what I felt the first time around and going right for the point. Like I said, it still exists and one man armor (Tanks and APC's) still run rampant.

I really appreciate the PR people that have spent so much time on tedious detail in the creation of new factions and making it as real as possible off of a game they didn't create themselves. And personally I feel Black Sands Studios should put out their own game for modern warfare. It's obvious at this point that the majority of people here know that there is a small handful of people in the world that appreciate a game that pays attention to detail.

It's a shame that games now are made to appease the masses rather than a specific player type. But what can I say? Appeasing the masses dumbs down everything. Look what happened to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six line of games... It was amazing at first, where 1-2 bullets would end your day. Now, you get shot 10 times and you brush it off. Thanks Vegas, you screwed it up. You want a serious FPS reality game? Go play Ravenshield, old school Ravenshield and find out theres less than 40 people that play it. And 1/2 of them respect it's detail even to this day, when it was made around 1998. Ahead of it's time for sure.

[gclark03]

How about marginalizing the turret start-up time (5-10 seconds, preferably 5) and following your suggestion of disabling the turret without a driver? The timer and driver requirement are a bit redundant, after all.

[Colt556]

Personally, I'm absolutely against the 60 second turret delay. It wont fix ANYTHING. It'll just annoy us normal gunners. Solo tankers are campers, they'll have no problem finding a nice camping spot, and waiting 60 seconds for the turret. But those of us who actually crew the tank would like to be able to bloody use the turret.

The only good idea I've read, was the original one. Make it so the turret can't function unless the tank has a driver. That would make it IMPOSSIBLE for a solo-tanker, is the most realistic, and simply the best option.

As for attack helo's, they shouldn't be allowed to take off with a gunner either.

And for Irish's "Humvees" and "Transport helo's" thing, a humve doesn't NEED a gunner to operate. I can hop in a car and floor it without the need for someone on the gun. Is doing so stupid and reckless? Yes. But is there anything stopping me from doing it? No. So like you sarcasticly remarked, we're aiming for realism. As for the transport helo, they don't NEED a co-pilot either. As far as I know a heli can operate with a single pilot. So again would/should a co-pilot help? Of course. But is it required? Absolutely not. Realism is key.

[Tirak]

I support a longer warm up time in place of a tank disabled without its driver. The point of CTD or a wrong button click (It happens a lot more than people think) is important to consider, additionally, despite popular belief, crewman inside a tank can be killed without the whole tank blowing up, it happens a lot on Basrah, if you're driver dies and the gunner is still alive, you want to take away his only means of defense? In addition, there are circumstances when a drive bails out, they panic or some other reason, again, now the turret is down, and Irish brings up a good point, however, I'd prefer to see some kind of deployable artillery filling the role that he plays as a Solo Tanker, or perhaps a Self Propelled Artillery unit, but that's a discussion for a different day.

[Colt556]

Originally Posted by Tirak

I support a longer warm up time in place of a tank disabled without its driver. The point of CTD or a wrong button click (It happens a lot more than people think) is important to consider, additionally, despite popular belief, crewman inside a tank can be killed without the whole tank blowing up, it happens a lot on Basrah, if you're driver dies and the gunner is still alive, you want to take away his only means of defense? In addition, there are circumstances when a drive bails out, they panic or some other reason, again, now the turret is down, and Irish brings up a good point, however, I'd prefer to see some kind of deployable artillery filling the role that he plays as a Solo Tanker, or perhaps a Self Propelled Artillery unit, but that's a discussion for a different day.

You guys act as if once the driver leaves for some reason, the gunner is helpess. Here's a good suggestion. --GO DRIVER-- and get the hell out of dodge. You shouldn't be sitting there as a gunner in a driverless tank trying to be the hero and taking out every last man. If you lose your driver for whatever reason, just hop in the driver seat and RTB to get a new one.

[Tirak]

No, I don't believe the gunner is helpless, I belive that if the drive suddenly is incapacitated, be it CTD or death or one of a thousand reasons, and the gunner is lining up on a target that is a threat to the well being of the tank, he should be able to take the shot.
Situation: Driver's down and your tank is low on health, in your sights is an HAT gunner ready to destroy your tank, under the model of disabled armor without driver, the tank is dead, the gunner will not be able to switch seats and get the tank out of there before the HAT gunner gets his shot off. Same situation, except now the tank is not disabled by no driver, gunner takes the shot, threat neutralized and may now drive away to the nearest safe zone to get a replacement driver.

[Colt556]

Originally Posted by Tirak

No, I don't believe the gunner is helpless, I belive that if the drive suddenly is incapacitated, be it CTD or death or one of a thousand reasons, and the gunner is lining up on a target that is a threat to the well being of the tank, he should be able to take the shot.
Situation: Driver's down and your tank is low on health, in your sights is an HAT gunner ready to destroy your tank, under the model of disabled armor without driver, the tank is dead, the gunner will not be able to switch seats and get the tank out of there before the HAT gunner gets his shot off. Same situation, except now the tank is not disabled by no driver, gunner takes the shot, threat neutralized and may now drive away to the nearest safe zone to get a replacement driver.

Sacrafices must be made. That type of scenerio rarely ever happens. I've been playing PR a LOT and I haven't seen such a situation happen even once. So to toss out a perfectly good, and permenant solution because of a once in a million occurance? Pfft. If that happened with Warrens proposed fix, that tank is screwed. But maybe he shoulda gotten out of there after the first HAT hit, don'tchya think?

[Undies]

Turret cannot be moved unless a Driver is present in the drivers seat. (No Driver means: No engine, no power, no turret. That's reality, period. <And "manual hydraulic backup systems" aren't an excuse so people can be running amuck with valued assets.>)

Just on a technical note, IRL almost every tank can continue to use full turret services for long periods of time long after the engine/generator has stopped running. (Bit like a submarine)

[clueless_noob]

Not so many threads ago, somebody suggested two kit apporach to this problem: make separate crewmand driver and crewman gunner kits, and enforce delay for kit switches. I think it would be more practical solution than long warmup times etc.

[LekyIRL]

Originally Posted by devnull

Not so many threads ago, somebody suggested two kit apporach to this problem: make separate crewmand driver and crewman gunner kits, and enforce delay for kit switches. I think it would be more practical solution than long warmup times etc.

That actually sounds like a good idea.