Did you guys take this into effect?
 

Some tanks did not have MGs that rotated with the turrent. Many tanks in WWII had MGs that only pointed forward did you guys take this into effect?

You mean hull mgs and mgs on the turret? Im sure the team is well aware of that one.

yes yes yes they know that ! look at the Stag hound armored car it have hull gun!

But...:eek: it will be of no use! A gunner have to wait his one or two seconds for some decent shots? Afther that the pilot/main gunner will rotate the turret! I think that reality have a limit in games!:mad:

But how do you want to implement the hull guns i a way that you can use them? Extra position slot? I mean unlike the coaxial mgs they weren't fully rotatable but there was the possibility to pivot them to a certain degree.

Yes, some tanks have an extra position just for hull gunner.

Maybe the driver should control the hull gun, and a seprate person should control the main turret.... or maybe only on the heavy tanks...

No no the driver/gunner spot in S9R mod sucks. Sometimes you have to put gameplay over realism.

Your opinion

I like the XWW2 way(thats S9RM, now), its 'more' realistic(though not all gunners seperate from driver), and takes...teamwork!

Artie, you must be a rambo in bf...not a good thing...

If they start to put positions and positions in the vehicles we will need 100 persons to play FH. like bf is ok

bye

I am not a rambo. I am a role player i do what i have to to see my team win. Having a driver and a gunner seprate is just a bad idea IMO many people will agree. If you have a bad driver and a good gunner the tank is a simple waste of resources.

Hey, heres a hint...a bad person can take a single controlled vehicle...and be worse!

Seperate gunners take teamwork, and if you get someone who is bad in it,then get out! dont take out any chance of teamwor, just because some dont do it...

i think it's a bad idea to separate the main gun operator and the driver unless there is a possibility to communicate with each other
in a fast and effective way (voice over ip) like in cs. but that's not the case here. not everyone has bc ts or rw and you can't expect them to install it.

THINK ABOUT IT

the MG'er has only a small frontal radios to turn his gun, doesnt it make sence that he should drive it?

the main weapon usully is on a 360* pivot, he can hit no matter where the driver is going....


the MG'er in the front should drive...

I do like the idea of a hull MG spot. But having a seperate main gunner and driver is just bad.

I like the idea of the Hull MG position like whats in S9 but I'd use it more as a safety if the tank has the Cupola MG. From the Cupola, you can cover almost every angle but you're higly exposed. In that case you can switch to the Hull MG, where you have a limited area to fire but relative safety. As far as the BF tanks go, you're neither just the gunner or driver but a micronized tank commander in control of the tanks functions as though you were the whole crew. Call it Rambo but Rambo is fun and with less frustration than someone trying to do donuts or ramping a river while you try to get that vital hit on an IS-2.

the hull gun on S9 is seperate from the driver/gunner position. If you seperated the driver and the gunner position you'd have way to much problems with people not wanting to drive, not enough people in general, and communication problems.

And most german tanks didnt have top-mounted MGs. There was a mounting point on most of them, but i dont think they all had them.

well, tanks are a bit too arcad-y right now... the game is to simple...

this would make things a bit more complex, and would make the hull gun more effective.... (not to mention the realism of it)


another idea, how about only the heavy tanks (tiger, ect) that can kill in pretty much one hit have seprate top gunner positions...

light tanks, with weaker guns and armor, would use the driver is gunner concept...

Not in all tanks with cupola MGs are exposed points at the M3 Grant/Lee and in FH MGs will kill infantry no more annoying soldiers that surive 5 shots from a .50 cal:dance:

In a 20 person server whcih is about average, if it was a tank battle map, you could only have 5 tanks per team. That's just not enough for me. And there aren't many 64 player servers. And I'd probably get dizzy trying shoot while some other guy is driving.

Fewer vehicles in a game= Good

im sick of this vehicle combat bullshit..

i want vehicles ingame, but they shouldbt be the centre of attention!

In a game such as this, they should...

this is a vehicle based game...only if this game was more realistic, would infantry battles work better(running around firing bars...gay...suddenly stopping to fire your enfield into the surprised german...priceless...

But in bf, as it is, vehicles form a core, and in FH, I quite hope they do, as well...but there should never be enough vehicles on a side so everyone can be in something at once...excluding cargo planes and APCs, riding positions basically...

I'm agree with you RPGreg2600. ANd also with you raslin

yea separate gunner and driver is not good...

If this netcode was tighter (which it isn't... very flimsy) then yes i could see infantry combat being alot more intense (as opposed to me shooting 2 feet ahead of every moving target).

Real tank crews trained months to get good at what they did... communication was vital. I doubt this can be simulated on any pub server since

1- The gunner and the driver, don't know eachother
2- The gunner and the driver must type out what they want to do
3- How could they agree on anything?

People like to do what they want to do, forcing teamwork on them is kinda limiting the freedom of the game. Maybe if the game had a voice/radio communication system and everyone playing had microphones and only the gunner and driver can talk to eachother (or else really flood the whole voice communication room with dialog) then yes i could somewhat see this work...somewhat