Tank Control and Positions
 

Hey,

It has already been suggested many times that driver and gunner should be seperated when in tanks, for historical realism. This has never been implemented, due to the fact that people will have to change position to fire the main gun, and the driver will not have any weapons to fire with.

Some tanks (e.g Tiger, PzIVH) already come with a Bow MG position, manned by an extra person, and historically other tanks (e.g. Sherman, PzIII, PzIV, T-34) had these MG Positions as well.

I suggest merging the Drivers/Bow MGers positons, giving a driver with control of the tank, a MG to mow down infantry, and very restricted vision (as is historically accurate). There would be a gunners position, with control over the turret, main gun, and Co-Axial MG, and again, restricted vision, but with the ability to turn the view point to survey the area. The other positions, such as passenger, and cupola MGer could remain unchanged.

The driver could have two types of view, as is currently implemented with the gunsights. One on the machine gun, with a Narrow Field of View, and one through the square we normally get when driving, but stuck looking forward. The gunner could remain unchanged, with the square view for looking around (which would move with the turret), and the narrow gunsight.

Light Tanks, Such as the Pz. II, which did not carry these bow MGs could remain unchanged.

I think this is a good idea because it supports teamplay, and makes the Mod more historically accurate. Tanks could still be operated by one person alone, by switching positions (as is commonly used in artillery such as wespe and priest), but it would be more efficient with a crew of two, increasing the potency of the tank, but also placing an emphasis on good tactics, as enemys would be hunting tanks like crazy, as two kills would be awarded. It would also make tanks harder to kill, with a manned MG in the front, meaning infantry would have to approach from the sides/back to be safe.

I welcome your opinions on this.

Thanks,

Scion.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

No it would not work out. Imagine your dukeing it out with tanks and some n00b drives off with your tank. Its a horrible idea.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

and it would cut the number of tanks on the field in half

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

If it's that much of a problem, why are Wepses, Kats, and other mobile artillery platforms still in game?

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Exactly, this system has always been implemented in Vanilla BF in artillery, why can it not be applied to medium/heavy tanks as well?

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

one phrase
coax machine gun
and plus AP shell is not splast

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Artillary is a rear area unit at least in common practice. Tanks are used to breakthrough it would not work.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

ugh.

NO

alright people? STOP SUGGESTING THIS.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

The only way i see this beinf implimeted is on heavy tanks aka tigers, king tigers, is-2, pershing(if added) but nothing else. Mabye other duper heavy tanks though.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

If voice communication was standard in this game between driver and gunner, then maybe! But as it stands, how do you tell the moron driving that he's just passes a IS-2 that's going to get off another shot in 10 seconds?

Typing isn't really an option!

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Instead the two-man feature should be removed from artillery too. Not the other way around. It's a major pain in the butt when you have established a good firing position and then some jerk comes and hops into the drivers seat and taxis to the front line, probably getting both killed in the process. The vehicles could still have two seats for driver and gunner separately, to prevent firing from the move and assaulting with them, but they could be manned by one player only.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

F6 F2? I think it could be worth a try. Otherwise I was thinking tanks could have positions inside tanks purely for transportation (as seen in the Stug3G)

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Then that same idiot that drives of with you firing takes a Wespe by himself and uses it as some sort of assault gun. Baaaad.
On some maps I'd like to see immobile Katushya's (Karelia, Outskirts) but that's about all mobile artillery should change.

As for tanks, NO!
Besides the obvious drawbacks like communication, a huge decrease in effectiveness or people not using them anymore, I think that even IF it would somehow work, you still have like half of your normal players available for doing the rest.

EDIT: Agreed D-Fense. More merry Tank ride-a-longs for the infantry. At least 2 positions on every tank, maybe more.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

It's time to make a sticky thread with the text:
"DEVS SAID MANY TIMES THEY WONT DO THIS"

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

that would't work: most people ignore stickies! :mad:. Ever noticed how many people asked about "how to map" or to ask why their "FH doesn't work/Crashes to Desktop" , there where (are) both stickie threads for them but people just thend to ignore them! -->
"hmm i have a CTD bug, lets ask people WTF is going on"
*visits forums*
*browses*...
"Sticky: FAQ: bugs & problems"
"nah it can't be discussed inthere!, wait lets report this bug in a new post"
*posts*
*gets flamed to hell*
:rolleyes: (or they just post and don't look for any threadtitles at all!)

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

I belive that it is impossible to get good coop if you're not playing LAN. It is not always possible to see what the player writes because you're so into the game.. :banana:

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

After that reply this topic is ready to be closed.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Ok then, I was just suggesting a diffrent format, giving the driver something to do.

If you actually read my first post you would see that I start with "It has already been suggested many times..." I can accept that players will be taken away from other roles, and this may degrade gameplay too much. If that is the case that is fine, and this idea should be buried.

I do not accept however, that communication would be an issue. As D-Fens rightly pointed out to all of us, we have a set of perfectly good voice commands that are rarely, if ever used for communication between players. The scenario mentioned earlier, the gunner sees an enemy tank, is unable to get a shot off, or misses his shot. The gunner could quite easily use the stop/wait call (I'm sure most players don't even know there is one), perhaps combined with the enemy armour spotted call, the driver could stop, and allow the gunner to take his shot, then continue, perhaps by the Go call.

As was mentioned earlier, too many players may be taken up with two per tank. SilenT AssassiN suggested using this system only for heavy tanks. This could work, as this would mean only one or two tanks per map would requrire a crew of two. This would also balance the gameplay a bit, slightly nerfing the Heavys so they are not the indestructable war machines they are at the moment.

I think there is a general fear of change out there in the community, IMHO unwilling to try something new. If this was implemented, I believe it would be a feature that is sets FH apart from all other mods, and would increase the popularity futher.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Go download the wonderful Slilent Heroes mod, and tell me if their 2 man tanks are better for combat.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Seperate gunner/driver would only work in a game with inbuilt voice com, and at a time when everyone is using voice com. Clearly that time has not yet come.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

And how exactly would we make clear in what direction the enemy is?

You ever tried this?

Yeah! Than I'd own King Tigers with Cromwells a lot.

Eerrrm. We are 'set apart' by our damage model. This damage model scares away lots of people expecting arcadish gameplay, so I doubt driver/gunner will have a very positive effect on player numbers.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

There is nothing in this game that can't be avoided or destroyed with a little team work and it does happen. They are not invincable (except if you try BF vanila tactics)

Unwilling to try something foolish and stupid.

Yes a laughing stock

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

I do not think that splitting the driver and gunner positions is a good idea, but I noticed that you suggested having the ability for the gunner to look around without turning the whole turret while he does so. This is something that I would wholeheartedly enjoy in this mod. Of course, such an addition could have its problems, but I don't have any idea how bad they might be.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

And how exactly would you do this without separating gunner and driver? You already have your other hand on the mouse controlling the turret and another one on WASD steering the tank. And what possible use would that feature give since you can just as easily turn the turret (unless you're in a Tiger or StuG)?

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Could a Tank Commander position be added. My roomate and I play all the time and work together in tanks and I love being able to act as the TC in the StuG Gs or Tigers or any tank with an upper MG or like the StuG the empty spot for spotting arty.

And as an extra question, is it possible to have the top gunners go into a hull down position, when going into infantry heavy areas it'd be nice to be able to duck down to safety.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

So true. It's by far the most annoying problem in FH.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

You could use the left shift key like in the airplanes to turn the view independantly, Exel.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

Well, I think a commander position would be nice to have. I mean, it wouldn't cripple the tank by binding more men to it, since it wouldn't be crucial to the tank's operation, but if manned, it could be a big help in spotting enemies, and maybe could be used for calling artillery as well. In addition the bow machine gun positions really need a player slot. That way, we'd have 1-3 men in such tanks, with more deadly potential than currently with each man over the initial 1 crewman that's enough to use the tank.

Also regarding taking cover while in a machine gunner position... yeah, it would definitely be good to be able to duck for cover. It'd stupid how quickly you get killed currently on those slots, because you can't duck. Those positions are pretty close to useless the way they are now.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

I dont know if its been mentioned, but Silent Heros does have individual places for vehicle crews. I am a very big advocate of team work into well really, all of the BF mods. But just try Silent Heros for a bit and you will see it is very dificult to make the team work actually work correctly. Even within clan mates the coridination is simply a huge task to perfect.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

thats exactly why it WONT be added!

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

@ The guys who think Artillery should lose the two man crew:

No, no, no!

This was one of the few things DICE did right, because it prevents people using them as assault guns.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

No. The vehicles would lose their two-man crew, but they'd still have two seats. You'd still have to switch seats in order to fire. That'd prevent them from being used as assault guns, but would also allow the gunner to do his task in peace without the fear of some n00b stealing the vehicle for taxiing.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

That sounds impossible. Having two seats will allow two people in them.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

make it so that the Gun place is the entering point thne it will work ..

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

What about a way to immobilize the sp gun controlled by the gunner? I was using the deployable '88 and some guy got in and tried to drive away with me still using it, but he didn't know how to fold up the legs of the gun, so he just left. I suppose this might be possible if you could deploy some sort of foot or something that might stop the gun from moving. If the gunner controlled this, then there would be no worries about the vehicle suddenly taking off and driving into a ravine or something. Whatever. I totally agree that getting rid of the two-man thing would be a mistake.

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

I have always been against this suggestion for the simple reason; communication.

No matter which way you shake it, there is no way on a public server to coordinate between two people. The function keys you can discount because you'll simply have overlapping calls of "enemy armour spotted". Then you would have to take the time to type in the direction and bearing of the enemy tank.

Using teamspeak would work, but only if you and your co-crewmember were on a private channel, otherwise you'd have numerous people talking simultaneously. Plus you'd have to sit around and wait for a specific person to co-crew your tank.

Personally, I think having a tank driven and gunned by a single person is in fact the most realistic representation of WW2 currently capable on a pc. A well trained crew thought and fought like one. A tank commander would yell out a command and the crew would react without hesitation. Whether turning (often just stepping on the drivers shoulders would tell him the direction to turn) or firing. I can only imagine trying to coordinate with joe public!

Re: Tank Control and Positions
 

They did this with another mod, lets just say no one plays it now...