MBT Operators

[dsi]

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

Tanks don't need 3 guys. Real tanks don't even need 3 guys.

I lol'd, sure you can drive around with one person, but you aren't going to be able to fire, load, or see anything without massive downtime due to having to crawl into another position.

[Shade Millith]

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

Tanks don't need 3 guys. Real tanks don't even need 3 guys.

T-80 / Crew 3
M1 Abrams / Crew 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Leopard 2 / Crew 4
FV4034 Challenger 2 / Crew 4 (commander, gunner, loader/operator, driver)
T-84 / Crew 3
T-90 / Crew 3

You're so wrong it hurts.


I think MBT's should require at least 2 people to operate properly. Gunner and a Driver. However, I don't think I'm going to get my wish. As such, I really don't care if there is or isn't 3 man tanks, as they'll probably be overshadowed by single manned MBT's.

[Warhound]

Originally Posted by dsi

I lol'd, sure you can drive around with one person, but you aren't going to be able to fire, load, or see anything without massive downtime due to having to crawl into another position.

Since when does reality factor into video games?

Nah how bout we go for true realism and add a commander position and a loader position. Heh, just think the loader position can be like a mini game for the person, quick time events that load the shell!. So that brings the crew to what? about 5? maybe four if we roll the commander position in with the secondary gunner, but who would want that right? We can have more inner vehicle teamwork!

Please gents can we at least wait till beta till we pass judgement on the gameplay,teamwork, and maneuverability issues...

/rant

[Verruna]

Originally Posted by basti

Yes, optional.

Choose between controlling the main gun as the driver, and having a extra gunner taking over the main gun and you just drive.

Thats the minimum. Beta will probably show that drivers should never control the main gun.

This is my line of thought

[Shade Millith]

New thought.

While the driver can use the main cannon on a tank, he uses it less effectively. It's ROF is lower. Only with a dedicated gunner can the tank fire with it's full ROF.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Shade Millith

New thought.

While the driver can use the main cannon on a tank, he uses it less effectively. It's ROF is lower. Only with a dedicated gunner can the tank fire with it's full ROF.

That's not really a new thought tbh. They've long since had this configuration in BF2/BF3 so lots of peeps who have played that and PS1 know full well that combined driving/gunning is less effective on the battlefield than an outfit manned 2-man/3-man setup in PS1. You don't need to nerf the MBT's stats to lower its effectiveness

That's not to say that some people aren't good at one-man gunning and not to say that it isn't fun. It's just a different type of fun, and it is a pity to limit the types of fun available in this otherwise brilliant-looking new game.

I think the fact this topic is still getting new threads, what, two weeks after GDC shows the depth of feeling.

Edit:
Should have added this:

Originally Posted by basti

Yes, optional.

Choose between controlling the main gun as the driver, and having a extra gunner taking over the main gun and you just drive.

Thats the minimum. Beta will propably show that drivers should never control the main gun.

Seconded! Been saying this for some time.

[Zenben]

Standard mechanic is driver takes main gun, another person takes secondary gun. A great deal of specialization later, the driver has the option to add a third seat that is driver only, and the primary and secondary guns are manned by other people. Best way I know to arrange it.

[Zenben]

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

Tanks don't need 3 guys. Real tanks don't even need 3 guys.

Not sure where you're getting your information, but an M1 Abrams has a crew of 4.

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Atheosim

How about this idea: 3 man tank with dedicated driver and 2 gunners gets access to slightly more powerful weaponry, making the devotion of extra manpower a profitable investment.

Quoting my post hoping for a little feedback on my idea.

[Warhound]

Originally Posted by Atheosim

Quoting my post hoping for a little feedback on my idea.

Well, personally though only benefit that should come out of 3 man tanks is maneuverability. I mean at least give the two manners a chance firepower wise.

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Warhound

Well, personally though only benefit that should come out of 3 man tanks is maneuverability. I mean at least give the two manners a chance firepower wise.

I agree with you, but I'm thinking that the lay man would be less inclined to want to be without a weapon unless there were some sort of tangible benefit to it.

I think more tactically minded players would be more inclined to utilize the 3crew configuration, but the people who would rather run&gun might see the incentive to not being a solowhore .

[Warhound]

Originally Posted by Atheosim

I agree with you, but I'm thinking that the lay man would be less inclined to want to be without a weapon unless there were some sort of tangible benefit to it.

I think more tactically minded players would be more inclined to utilize the 3crew configuration, but the people who would rather run&gun might see the incentive to not being a solowhore .

Without a weapon? Pretty sure the secondary postion has a weapon.

I will make the case one more time, you don't need to have 3 men in a tank for teamwork to happen.. Your still coordinating within the vehicle with this configuration and you're still coordinating across multiple vehicles with the two man configuration. Can we stop making the case of a loss in teamwork, if anything we will need more teamwork coordinating many more vehicles.

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Warhound

Without a weapon? Pretty sure the secondary postion has a weapon.

I will make the case one more time, you don't need to have 3 men in a tank for teamwork to happen.. Your still coordinating within the vehicle with this configuration and you're still coordinating across multiple vehicles with the two man configuration. Can we stop making the case of a loss in teamwork, if anything we will need more teamwork coordinating many more vehicles.

Well I'm referring specifically to the driver. I agree that a 2 man configuration requires teamwork and coordination. I'm just saying that somebody who would prefer to pull a tank and solo with it might be more inclined to fill it up with 2 other people if there are tangible benefits.

Or am I not getting your point here?

edit: And I mean tangible benefits aside from having an extra gun. Like the extra gun being more powerful for instance.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Zenben

Not sure where you're getting your information, but an M1 Abrams has a crew of 4.

Most WWII and later tanks had crews of 4 to 6, some only 3. Only the lightest at start of war (and WWI) had 2.

EDIT: of course, we don't have a need for radio operators or loaders.

[sylphaen]

Yes but...

If 2nd gunner can switch between seats instantly without having to stop the vehicle, the 3rd gunner is a non-factor.

Similarly, if tanks do not have enough armor, having more manpower for faster repairs is a non-factor.