Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

When playing the game one thing that always strikes me as a waste is that some vehicles are much more vulnerable then they should be.

Not because they were coded the wrong way, or even because of player behaviour, but to the limit of how many players can be on one side in a server.

Take for example a B17......how much gunner positions does that bomber have ? Are they ever occupied in a normal game ?

Wherever divebombers fly, they have usually no rear gunner. Not surprising, because that gunner can do very little due to the limited traverse of his gun(s) and the aircraft can't take that much fire neither.....a dead mans seat, with very prospect of obtaining a score.

Somewhat better is the mg gunners seat in tanks.....although those seats are almost always empty too. Wich makes that vehicle a lot more vulnerable then it could/should be.

Now what if AI could control these vehicle gunner seats, if there isn't a human player in them ? I am not talking about a COOP game here, but a normal conquest game.

All Bombers would fire out of all ports, as they would do in real life, and pose a much more challenging threat for attacking fighters, then the hapless defenseless targets bombers are now, while the server can just be 32 human players or 24 players, and be much more alive.

Same for tanks....have all mgs seat controlled by AI, if there is nu human in them. Then it will be much more challenging to take out a tank for infantry, while being more realistic at the same time. There wil be a greater need for longer ranged weapons to take out tanks, just as in real life, because it is very hard to get close to tanks without being killed.

That bombers and tanks have MG seats is a great feature of FH, but the fact is in 24/32/40 player servers they won't and can't be occupied, making such a vehicle much weaker then in real life. Would it be possible to code AI to control those when not occupied by human players in normal conquest games ? Or is that something DICE programmers would have to do ? And if it would be possible, would it run into massive protest of players who see themselves confronted with a drop in killrate, since these cheap/easy targets now have teeth ? ( wich they should have )

Save me the SDK dances.....rather discuss about what the effect would be in it could be done... ;)

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

most people don't have computers to handle this kind of stuff

and, just for instance, how would you stop the ai from going crazy with the battleship aa? which would be twice as bad

Edit : it is a decent idea, though

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I want AI to go crazy on battleship/carrier AA !! Finally these ships would defend themselves properly out of all ports in a normal conquest game, when all human players fly around in aircraft....

I don't want a half COOP game where you fight bots, but something that will make small server come alive and offer the human players the challenges they should be facing.

Shooting a one human manned bomber requires no skill at all.....and shoving a AT projectile in a tank with one human player isn't a real challenge neither...

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Then its time for them to upgrade from their P3 800MHZ , 256MB ram and Geforce 3!

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Its a decent idea, and it would probably be awesome to have, but as others have said..

LAAAAAAG! In more ways then just one, and maybe i do need to upgrade, but so would _alot_ of others.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Does AI cause lag ?? AI is calculated serverside, not client side !

If some players run into stuttering/freezes because their CPU can't handle what is going on, they would have the same problem in servers with a high number of human players.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Sounds like something not possible, but then again I don't want any AA getting near my precious battleship AA.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I don't really care about lag in this issue, although i am sure it will kill my 20FPS to 5FPS. :uhm:

But if i wanted to play against bots, i would load a COOP game, or better yet fire up some MMORPG (now that's a way to waste money playing against bots). I play online because i want to play against people, not computer.

You can't sneak up on computer, you can't force a computer to make a mistake, a computer will never sneak on you, you can't play mind games with the computer, a computer won't get "distracted", a computer won't try to fool you. A computer won't make a human error. That's why we play online against humans, not computers.

If those MG will be controlled by AI, there will be no reason to have an actual player manning them, cause obviously the AI controlled MG will be more effective and accurate. So you will be promoting less teamwork, cause people in tanks would rather race away from human players that want to get in, so that thier AI MGs could stay

A battleship is a very strong unit in the game. If completely manned, even by average players, it's more then a scary opponent. Keyword here: manned by players. Yes, you will get the full power of the battleship when the team is working together and manning that battleship.

And what do you suggest? Make a battleship a 1-man-army, so that 1 commander in battleship could rule the sea and sky, cause his AI is keeping off all the enemies. Hmm... i thought you were against 1-man-armies? Nice to see you sing a different tune once again, to suit what you want. :rolleyes:

Bombers without gunners? Tanks without gunners? You really need to find a good server to play on, cause in my experience, 7/10 times i would chase a bomber, it would have a gunner in it. Skilled or not... well that depends, but at least the gunner is there, laying fire on me, so i can't get a direct shot. I've been shot down by rear gunners, and i've killed planes with rear guns myself. All it takes is teamwork and a good server.

Tank gunners are less common. You want to know why? Cause of stupid tank commanders! That's right. It's the tank commanders fault they don't get gunners, cause they keep turning the turret back and forth and driving the tank, so that gunner doesn't get a good shot. If you want the gunner to do his job, then let him do it, and when you see infantry running, don't twist your main gain, but sit still, so the gunner would have a clear shot to take him off. If you are driving a tank, and your gunner stars shooting, then stop for god's sake, and let him finish off whatever he was shooting.

I've provided a stable platform for a gunner, and he stayed with my tank for the whole game, because everytime he would start firing, i would stop and not move. And whenever there was infantry i could kill easily, i instead left it for the gunner to pick off. I rewarded my gunner by giving him kills. He protected my back from AT. We haven't died the whole game. And that guy wasn't even on the same TS as me, he wasn't even a clan player. He was a regular pubber.

If you can't keep your gunners, then there is something you are doing wrong. If you don't meet enemy bombers with rear guns blazing back at you, you better find another server.

But personally, BoW, i think you need to get yourself a good tank simulator, and play it offline with your AI

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

The battleship aa is notorious for causing lag and you can yell at players to stop using it. So my point is how would you stop an ai player from using it? I guess you could just adjust the ai script to ignore that position on the ship.

And the other thing my good buddy slav points out is how do you account for human error with the simplistic ai in this game. You're penalizing the good players by taking away their advantage of having good control under fire, being a quicker, more accurate shot, etc.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

interesting idea, but i think the weapons are too strong in the hands of AI. take the bomber for example, you could never get near the thing b/c one of the AI guns would fire one shot and hit you in the cockpit. they'd probably even take out aa gunners with one or two rounds as they flew over. tanks would be the same way, you go to sneak up on a tank and the AI commander would spin around instantly and fire one shot and your'e dead

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I would only fear the idea of AI gunners sniping you off beyond fog distances...

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Well if the AI would bot be made too smart (ea it wouldnt have some magical super skill which allowed it to NEVER miss a target making AA etc. into deadly superweapons) but just do atleast something it would be sweet. These bots should have a higher miss chanche then your avarage FH player so not to let people prefer bots above people.

Also tanks should have indepent MG positions so you no longerhave to shoot 300 bullets at a AT-er and still not hit him because the damned commander keeps turning around his turred and hull.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

at least we got away, right? :rolleyes:

the bots also have to take commands from the commander of the vehicle, so that if you try to sneak up on someone they won't reveal your position. also, the bots couldn't care less if one uses camouflage or hide - they will spot people and kill them through bushes. they will even shoot through friendlies to hit.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

What would be good for like a B-17 is if the planes MG fire didnt damage the plane but all the gun turrets that could were tied together like the battleships AA turrets so like if the tail gunner was tracking a target the top turret and ball turret and one of the waist guns would too.

You still need a gunner but he can control the guns on certain parts so it doesnt require more than a few players to control the plane and the turrets. Or have turrets linked to positions. Say bombadier in nose gets nose guns and top turret and rest are linked to the rear gunner.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

That would be like the remote control system that was on the B-29s and late model B-26s. One gunner would control several gun ports by remote control and the guns would be set not to fire when they were aimed in a position that would damage their own plane.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I was talking about there are not enough human players on most servers to fill the MG positions of all vehicles.

And without these positions occupied, those vehicles are cheap kills/ not realistic targets.

If you claim you are always in servers where all vehicles MG positions are taking, well....you ignore the fact that that is physically not possible. ( nicely said without calling you names eh ? )

A B17 bomber already almost takes up half the players on allied side of a 40 player server....add 3 tanks with 2 mg positions to that and 2 fighters, and you are down to 2 infantrymen, and nothing else....that is not what is happening in servers, mister [SYN] hydraSlav.....

I didn't say COOP game, because no-one want to fight skilless bots, and no-one likes bots in control of the vehicle itself. I am talking about automated defensive positions on vehicles, that have a set "somewhat less then human like" efficiency ( 70-60 % aim and not firing through the fog ) in firing on targets that threaten them.....if there is no human player that occupies that position.

Yes, arcade gameplay will be over then.....no more cheap kills of half occupied ( therefore half efficient ) vehicles. But there will be more realistic war, using your brains will be much more important. Also there wil be more action and the server will feel more "alive" when it is only a 24 or 32 player server....

When you see pictures or artist paintings of an air attack on a carrier or battleship, you see an inferno of AA fire.....When you join an average server however, most players will be at islands fighting as infantry, or in aircraft dueling each other. Some one that wants to attack a carrier, will be able to strafe/bomb it at will, with AA only coming alive if "plane campers" if present on the flight deck get irritated by that......

That is not war.......automated gunner positions will give FH more the feeling of a full out war.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Would it be possible to have every member of a tank have a kill when any of the guns on the tank took a kill. Then people would be more inclined to get in a supporting position of a tank

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

AI/ NPC's would really add color to the game and make the scale seem even larger. FH should be played at 64+ player server capacity to take advantage of all the toys.

I always thought this would be a great idea esp if some custom animations were implemented for the AI

World War 2 Online has AI machine gun emplacements outside of towns to protect against attacks. They look like little LEGO guys.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I'm for it if it's implimented well, I really shouldn't be able to sneak up behind a Chi-Ha or fly within range of a bomber knowning that that MG is most likely unoccupied (occupying them sure surprises people) because IRL all positions are manned at all times.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

*Reaches for his SDK Marimbas*
Perhaps BF2 will have scriptablity for this, but for now it canna be done properly afaik.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

i could tell you guys - play coop at least once - bots are accurate, but are not invincible [i can say that bot with rifle is better than 90% humans]
play Battle of Britain COOP and tell me how hard is to kill a he111 fully manned [yes, bots use defensive guns very often] - it is as simple as it is when they are not present - why? because bombers die way to fast... and is very easy to simply snipe bomber from very long range [even with convergence spreading bullets a bit] while doing slight evasive maneuvers - for human gunners it is even harder because human pilots dont fly stright and gunner has not only to lead his target bu to lead his pilot [haaard thing]
only realy fresh pilots come close to bombers - because it is not needed, and CAN be realy dangerous

until bombers become stronger, gunners are almost useless

but, yes, i'd love to have at least few tank mgs manned by ai - coop ai isnt deadly accurate with this toy and rarely save my ass, but it is better to have one than not

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

The bots do shoot straight, I'll give them that.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

OHHHHH i love that idea! itll make the bomber at least slightly less a coffin (maybe)

Also make the bots man all the turrets. so people wont have to, but give players the ability to take over when ever they need to

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

from my experience bots seem to at least try deflection shooting - but i cant tell for sure - it'd be nice touch if it is possible - because gunners life was always short and borring [with intermediate excitement once a while] - as it was in reality...

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

You are ignoring the fact that not all vehicles are alive at a given point in time. So my statement holds true. I never said that all tank MGs are always manned. In fact, i said that 70% of times there is a rear gunner in a plane, but tank's MGs are occupied less often, due to the fault of stupid tank commanders that don't let the MGers do thier job. Now if you want to calculate that, go ahead waste your time.

Bottom line is: contrary to your statements that:
Bombers do have gunners, and MGs in tanks are not almost always empty. The are empty only when stupid pilots take off without waiting for infantry to board their bomber, or when the selfish tank commander twists and turns his turret at every single infantry, not letting the MGer on top do his job.

Not taking purely tank maps into consideration (Valirisk, Prohorovka, Kasserine) there are much more infantry then available tank positions.

That's the thing, players don't have a set % aim. It varies based on skill (that's why it is an FPS that's based on individual player's skill, not some MMORPG, where the % varies on what you have, and not the individual player). There may be good players with higher %, there may be not so good players with lower %, there may be crap players with negative % :rolleyes: .

Same again, even a good player's % will differ on circumstances. It will go up in ideal situation (stationery, clear target), and it will go down when someone is firing at him, he is destracted by other explosions, he hesitates what target to choose, he is hindered by tank's movements, etc, etc, etc. A bot (automated gun) will always have the same %, it will not hesitate, it will fire just as accurately on the move while not moving, it will not get distructed, it will not make mistakes. It will be exactly that: a bot, a robot!

Reason why we play against humans is cause a human thinks on it's own, he makes choices, he uses cunningness, he makes mistakes. That's the challenge of playing against humans, you cannot be sure of what the human will do. With humans, you can play mind games: "i am going to move here... but he knows that i might move here.... so i will move here instead.... but he knows that i know that he knows that i might move here so he will be expecting me there, so i will move there instead.... but he knows that i know that he knows that i know..... on and on and on. You get the point. This will only happen with humans. That's the challenge of playing with humans. A bot will always be the same.

If i wanted to play against predictable bots set at skill level of 70%, i would have bought a singleplayer game and played it offline. I am playing online against humans, cause i want the challenge of playing against unpredictable humans.

And behold the new era of arcade, where a rambo tanker will drive into a flag, with AI blazing at all defenders from all MGs with a fixed accuracy, no matter what manuevers the tank makes. No need for teamwork, no need for teammates to support the tank or be his gunners. He is the rambo tanker with automated guns. :rolleyes: Wow, awsome teamwork in a team game :rolleyes:

And behold, here comes the rambo Battleship, all alone, yet he can withstand any attack of planes, cause he's got automated guns. Who needs a crew of teammates, when you alone can be unsinkable :rolleyes: Let's go, Rambo, let's go :rolleyes:

You are proposing that that in team game, we should screw teammates and go without them, since we got automated guns. BF/FH rewards teamwork: if you are alone in a battleship, you will die from a B17 bombing run. If you have a teammate on board, you will be rewarded, cause that teammate will take out the enemy bomber. Yet you are saying, screw teammates, i don't want teammates, i want to be alone and my guns working by itself. And don't tell me that people would want to have human gunners, prone to error, when they could have automated gunners instead.

Heh, i got an idea. Let make automated Flak/Pak guns, that will blow up your tank at the edge of the fog, through the bushes. Let make automated carpet bombing B17s, that will zero-in on your tank from the highest altitude and will bomb you with no error. Hell, lets make automated bazooka men, that will kill your tanks with precision, or automated minelaying APCs, that will mine every single road

You are asking to take out the teamwork element, and make every vehicle a 1-man-army, so that a lone user of that vehicle would get all the benefits which otherwise would have required cooperation between several players. As i said, buy a singleplayer game and play with bots offline.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I swear sometimes that bots hack. I know it sounds stupid but they will kill you from 1000m with a rifle and they wont even be pointing it in your general direction.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I have to agree that BoW has a good idea, but even one team mate in a bomber gunners position or on AA on a DD or BB makes a huge difference. I often tag along in a gunners position in a bomber just because most people dont expect the defensive positions to be maned.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

That is what AT infantry weapons are for.....kill tanks that attack flags and come into range of infantry enjoying solid cover like bunkers, trenches, manholes and sandbag walls....

The only diffrence automated tank MG gunners will make, is it will pay off for infantry to have solid cover untill the tanks gets near enough to take out....that is realism, not arcade....

AT infantry weapon = short range weapon to kill tanks that attack your position

Tank MG = offensive weapon to kill infantry that is not in bunkers, trenches and manholes where they are supposed to be. ( when enemy tanks attack )

Not unsinakble.....but a realistic challenge to sink, like in a real war.

How can anyone enjoy destroying something, that doesn't fight back ?? That is cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all. A warship is supposed to spit hell at you, not lay there doing nothing.....a bomber is not a defenseless target drone for your fighter......a tank not a target drone for your AT infantry weapon. You should be under fire when attacking these vehicles where the MG positions face you.....in a real war you would be under fire, then why not in FH ?

Yes, i agree humans should be in them.....that is why i suggested, they are automated when no human is in them, but are human when a human does occupy them. That is why i suggested they should be set to a level an average human would do better.....this encourages to have humans in those positions, but protects the vehicle player to a certain degree against cheap kills when there is no one that want to be gunner for you.....or in small servers there simply aren't enough players to be vehicle MG gunners. ( the average FH server is such a server )

By the way.....why do you get so pissed off about a subject, that is purely hypothetical ??

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

don't get me started

He is right about the greatly increased chance of Rambo-ism, though. Although, whether thats a bad thing is not for certain. AI-assisted tanks and bombers would be properly fearsome to infantry and fighters, the way they should be. Whether teamplay would be adversly affected is up to the players themselves, as it always has been.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

They do that in Ace's High -- when you man a machine gun all the other machine guns will track the same target and if they have a line of sight, they will fire (Ace's High also has two drone bombers mimicking your moves, so their guns track the same target and the ones' that have line of sight will fire -- is way cool -- forms quite the cone of death.)

I'm not too psyched about AI machine gunners for vechicles.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

This might work!

You dont have the problems people are associating with the AI gunners since you still need a gunner to operate the guns but you still get the increased firepower to help protect the plane.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

there is plenty of ramboism NOW so i dont know what this talk of it would happen is...the big difference is of course that you would have more trouble to kill a vehicle of whatever type..so what? easy kills are for for talkers not walkers. i think tying the guns together is an excellent idea, but ai manned guns is even better cos the overall personal involvment of people in that situation would be increased. this is due to ai taking possies of what might normally be taken by people if they dont get in. that means more people in the fight in a new capacity and that is never a bad thing.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Teamwork = having teammates (humans) to man those MGs to act as offensive weapon to kill infantry that is not in bunkers.

"Like in real war", that battleship would not be crewless. It would have a full crew, and it's that crew manning all positions that will make it a challenge to sink. And it's that crew's human error that will make it not unsinkable. Why should a lone rambo-admiral have a full power of the Battleship? He will only get it when working together with his team. A Battleship without crew would have been a peice of cake to sink in RL. Only difference is that in RL a Battleship would not be without a crew. So lets make that in FH a Battleship will not be moved untill fully manned. That will give it a full crew. Good idea, no?

Nice argument.... Tank killing infantry at a distance is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all". PoW blasting destoyers in 1 hit is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all". Tiger laughing at Sherman's shells bouncing off is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all". Sniper killing MGs is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all". Everything here is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all".

And that's where my argument comes. I fully agree that they should be manned by players, yet i completely appose any AI, for the reasons i mentioned before in the long post, if you read it. A human's accuracy will range anywhere from 0% (completely distracted) to 100% (lucky fluke). That's what makes them human. No AI will compare to that, no matter whether you set AI at 20%, 50% or 80%. AI will be constant.

In some cases you have to rely on human error in order to get an opportunity to strike. That will never happen with AI. I can distract a player by throwing a granade at one side, and then sneaking around the other side. That will not happen with AI, it simply won't pay attention. I can confuse the player by blowing a shell into dirt in front of him, and then hidding while he can't see me behind the dust. That will not happen to AI, since he will see me through the dirt and will know exactly where i am.

[/quote]By the way.....why do you get so pissed off about a subject, that is purely hypothetical ??[/QUOTE] Because so far, all your recent "suggestions" are targetted towards making tankers (your) life easier so you can be more effective without working with you teammate human players, so you don't need to worry about looking behind your back, etc, etc :rolleyes:

That would be great. The easiest way to prevent the guns from shooting at the plane itself when aiming multiple guns is to make their movement limited in such a way that they can't hit the plane itself. And then we would just need to link them like it's done with AA-battery, Howitzers-battery and Wespe-battery....

But with Hartman gone, who will code this :bawl:

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

No... that goes the other way round. The big difference is that now tanks will have less trouble to defend themselves, while being used by a lone-rambo.

Currently, BF/FH rewards teamwork, cause with a teammate in your tank, you are more effective.

The proposed AI will oppose teamwork, since people in tanks will be just as effective without a teammate, and since the AI's effectiveness will be at a set level, they would rather have that set level, then unpredictable human player, who won't be effective while the tank is moving (unlike AI that will be just as effective while moving as while stationery)

No, that means that everyone will get his little rambo-1-man-army tank, eliminating the support roles that are currently present

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's the best idea i heard for years LOL

All these score sick people will run for a position in a B-17. Because all the bombs the bomber drops will get kills for them too :nodding:

The idea with the bots will probably make lag to some people that are already fighting with lag...

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

I agree with the bombers and battleships and such, but not the tanks.

I realy loved the Aces High system. Maybe they could try to make it like that, except for the parallel clone-bombers.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

the bot will waits all the ammo

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

IF you would make de top gunnercomputer controlled it would have to be an actual bot since ypu should be able to take it outif it decides to fire at you (or more likly somebody else so you can shoot him in the back). This bot would have to be destroyed however if somebody would enter this position. Better would be to just have SOME vehicles, boats and airplanes have SOME computercontrolled bots. These bots would be somewhat worse then your avarahe player.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

The problem with a bot gunner on a tank is that you'd have no control over it. For example, I have enough trouble setting up an ambush spot with my tank without some trigger happy noob jumping in and randomly spraying machine gun fire around and alerting the whole enemy force as to my location--at least I can tell him to knock it off. If a bot is firing at everything that's visible within line of sight, that would be very annoying.

Ships, I could live with AI controlled flak and maybe even bombers (though I'd prefere the linked mg turrets)

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Ever played against a bot in a stuka? You can barely take off. :lol:

I like your idea though

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Stay on target. No insults and comments on other people's PC's and vice versa. Keep it nice and friendly.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Sorry, but [SYN] hydra's PC really does suck --- just turning it on about gives it a hernia :D


Maybe if you're the driver of a vehicle there could be a command to disable the AI gunners?

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

i love the idea of bots taking the mg positions. These positions are otherwise useless, because they are death traps. The same with the gunners on the bombers, bombers are already weak enough as they are, they are still extremely weak even with gunners.

give the bots the jobs that no one else wants. like main base defence. if everyone's on the front, then people can just walk right in to a back base a take it over. now if AI gunners where on the MG's and flaks, that wont happen as often

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

That might be a good idea, but how many would be the minimum?

Your partner in crime, Ace mentioned AI controlling the ship born AA. I say no way, myself, as I love manning the ships AA. Is there anything more awesome in this mod then seeing a fully manned Bismarck, Hood or Yamato (the fully loaded Yamato is practically orgasmic, IMHO) I don't care how good a pilot someone might think they are, but with posistion 3-6 manned on that boat (5 and 6 especially) by even the most incompetant nimrod, no plane will survive.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Yeah, I personally like manning the AA--and I guesss, if a team doesn't want to protect its assets, then that's their problem when those ships are sunk.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

And it's sad how often that occurs, Ace. The boats are so damned powerful, I can't understand why they're both left behind, unmanned altogether, or left to die, with no support in other cases.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

That was a saracastic suggestion to BoW's comment about "real life battleships", didn't mean for it to be taken as an actual idea... it won't work :uhm:

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

That is the basis of my idea.....there just aren't enough players in the server to man those positions, and if there were, they would spawn as infantry to fight over islands or spawn as pilot to fight in the air.

I guess, as we all know ( rheineubung and atlantic were almost never rotated on servers, and that wasn't only the lag ) the average player does not like to be on a ship, in a supporting gun, and also not in divebomers and torpedobombers.....

So they naturally will always be deserted/ seriously undermanned and be vitually defenseless....

Now you can take that deserted ship as "part of the game" or you could want it to spit hell at you, no matter i fit is humans or not because you want to fight in something that looks like WWII.

COOP is not the solution, because AI should only control vehicle support positions, not control vehicles or run around as drunken infantry.

Hydraslav can say all he want's, shooting something that can't defend itself feels lame....i don't feel "skilled" at all killing yet another torpedo or divebomber that doesn't fire back, because there is no one in the gunner seat. Or shoving an AT projectile in a tanks that is not facing me ( but one of the MG positions is - especially in some russian tanks - but doesn't fire and you know this ) Or making a dive or torpedo run on a ship that just sits there, while all the enemy players are somewhere else...

I want human player to be in those positions, but i don't want these positions silent when there are no humans in them.....

So the counter argument is, "nOOBs" will run a tanks automaticly shooting out of all ports into a flag ? Well, what is so horrible about that ? Human player can now too, but don't do that, just because they will be a 3 in 1 kill for a skilled AT infantry player. All that tank will do is force infantry players to approach from real blind angles, or keep their head down untill the tank is in range.....

Only "bunnyhoppers" that run after tanks in the field will be victim to active gun ports.....but was a rediculous situation anyway, no real soldier in WWII even considered that. ( exept jappanese, but they accpeted certain death )

How was it, that if it is even possible, that this mode is a server selection ? Hydraslav can continue cheap kills on defenceless/inefficient operating targets, while other can taste real war.....

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Ooops.

Bah, I just want big, glorious, something to write home about naval battles with all 'guns a blazin' from all positions in every boat. Hell, I'll take a ficticious battle with Brit, US, German and Japanese naval ships all in one place. I don't care, it's just that nothing is cooler then all those guns firing.

Re: Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?
 

Amen