Forum Opinion on Tank Bailing Poll

[dogbadger]

i used to park my tank next to the bunker in pitomnik to cap and, accompanied by a 3rd crew member if available, would leave 1 gunner to man the hull mg+turret while i ran inside and covered an entrance.

Once capped i'd get back in and continue.
It always felt cheap - effectively using the tank as an occasional apc - and so i'm glad this is going to be removed in HoS

 

[Crni-Wuk]

And look how effective they were afterwards. (Notice one didn't quite make it out?) Did they help defend the capzone then? And the Allied commander at the beginning of the clip (you know, the one with no leg below the left knee), in RO I would imagine he would be deemed combat ineffective and respawned. He certainly wouldn't be running around hiding in the capzone either. As far as RO is concerned, he's dead. Bail = dead.

When thinking about bailing out I personaly would want to have the option in certain situations.

And I think there are really 2 positions where one can look in to it. The one is from a realistic (not realism) point of view where a human beeing would simply get out of a vehicle (if possible of course) when ever he wants. And the other side is from gameplay (in the sense of realism) where it is just simply stupid to have a tank driving up to a bunker which is a cap point to see the crew jump out, capture it, get back in and continue to hunt down the enemy. Thats not the behaviour which happend in combat usualy. Crews would not leave their armor if they dont have a REASON to do so.

Now what I find sad is that there seems to be no compromise for some ... It has not always to be the one or the other really. I personaly would like to see possible sitation where you have a chance to escape a "burning" vehicle or at least a damaged vehicle leaving it behind to explode (which was done that way many times). The reason that its not realistic is not a valid point in my eyes as there are indeed many examples where the crews of tanks served as infantry men or suported the infantry in the curent fighting. This is what happend many times in Stalingrad. On both sides. The shoot out between the Pershing and Panther in cologne is here a bad example as its a fight between tanks with the Panther in a very desperate situation since the Pershing scored the first hit. Its obvious for anyone that in such a situation no crew will have a chance and thus just try to escape ~ and you probably would not do more then that in the game as well anyway. But if one might spend some time searching or asking I am sure he will find situations where the crews of tanks continued fighting with the usual infantry on foot if the battle asked for that during attacks or defences. Particularly in battles where the vehicles have been very limited in numbers which was usualy always the case for the German military. If I remember right there was the doctrine with Panthers usualy to have one behind to replace it and never engange without Panzer IVs guarding the flanks, but reality would often be different I guess. On Russian side often enough (depending on the time) tank crews would be seen as just 5 "men" in a vehicle. But I am no expert about the details but I am sure there have been quite a lot of commanders/generals which havnt seen more in it then just 5 aditional infantry men inside a metal box untill later in the war when there has been better training and better vehicles and most important better tactics, better in the sense of used technology (radios, commanders cupola etc. those have proved to be a serious factor) as I assume someone might think twice about sending his crews in the fight as infantry when there has been extensive training behind it with the vehicles. But particularly around Stalingrad you can find situations where crews served as infantry men for various reasons either replacing infantry or much more likely since they had simply no vehicles available for them ~ again many times the case for the Germans. So to simply call it "unrealistic" would not be truly accurate I guess and I again would love to simply hvae here a bit more "options" available as if you have infnatry behind your vehicle why should you with a machinepostil not get the option to suppor them once your vehicle is destroyed.

The other question though is how "viable" it is, as I see as more important what someone mentioned about aditional work regarding a feature so that it is not simply "there" but also feels "alright" and for that you would need some (awfull lot?) animations. And if that proves to be to much then well I think one has to go with the best possible solution. To not have it at all. BUT in my oppinion thats not the ideal solution regarding a realistic combined arms scenario. If one can imagine that many tanks had 1 or 2 mps inside eventualy it is not far away to assume that many provided some support for the infantry, if needed ~ or more acurately with no other option available like new/other vehicles. All that with the background that you dont have replacements because if you dont have vehicles then tank crews are not much more worth then usual infantry. So personaly I would not mind to see a map for example which has one single vehicle for each side and when its imobilized the crew gets a chance to bail out, and fight with the infantry. Doesnt seem that unrealistic for me.

 

[Major_Day]

The main argument for not allowing tankers to leave their tank seems to be the "instant" exit that we have in RO at the moment.
Ramm himself has said that this is "lame", and i agree, but the same guys who at present jump out of a tank and run away/hide will find it much easier in HoS, because as soon as they take one hit all they have to do is press the "scuttle" key,and hey presto a new life and a new tank.
Tripwire are introducing many new "options" for ppl playing the game,but at the same time they are removing the option for a player to exit his tank whenever he wants to, this is totally unrealistic, as is the ability to scuttle your tank and suddenly reappear in a new one.
Lets try and keep as much realism in the game as possible, irl tankers had the ability to leave a tank if it was disabled, we should stick with that option.

 

[Mormegil]

The main argument for not allowing tankers to leave their tank seems to be the "instant" exit that we have in RO at the moment.

Well, that is ONE argument. I mentioned 7 or 8 more issues.

The biggest one for me is having tankers act as infantry. If you want to be infantry, pick rifleman or assault. Don't pick tanker.

 

[Apos]

(...) irl tankers had the ability to leave a tank if it was disabled, we should stick with that option.

Irl tankers have to leave damaged or destroyed tank, flee from battle and come back weeks or months later with new tank.

Red Orchestra is the game

And instead of bailing out and running miles to spawn point they get there with some delay and reinforcements penalty.

RO is not sim game, it's game with balanced realism and gameplay.

 

[Kashash]

My problem with exiting tank being disabled is that in real life crews often got out from the tank and move forward a bit on foot to see what's the situation on the battlefield while not exposing their tank (Michael Wittmann being example). It was actually common tactic in RO/DH where you just keep your tank hidden behind the bush, observe the area and pop out with your tank at the right moment when the enemy is approaching.

 

[Grobut]

The main argument for not allowing tankers to leave their tank seems to be the "instant" exit that we have in RO at the moment.

Not for me it isen't, moreso as TWI has allready said they would not do that.

My main argument is that, as an infantryman, i want my teams Tankers to have my back, i don't want to get raped in the capzone by the enemy's tank, because all my tanker guys are pulling a machoman, sitting next to me in the zone with their useless pistols drawn, i want them in their tank, doing their job.


In a CA map, what few tanks you get are a hugely important asset for the team, a tanker on foot is not, i want my tankers in their tank pulling their weight for the team, or failing that, i want them ready to drive a new tank to the frontlines as soon as possible, not wasting everyone's time and the teams tanker slots playing Infantry, a job everyone else on the team is much better equipped for.

 

[Das Bose]

It seems the only argument for locking players into tanks is to force a certain type of action/gameplay from them. Historically, this will end in tears.

The people who want the freedom to get in and out of their tanks are happy for others to play how they like, but those who agree with the locking into tanks seem to require other people to play a certain way. Longevity doesn't come from forcing anything

 

[Fedorov]

It seems the only argument for locking players into tanks is to force a certain type of action/gameplay from them. Historically, this will end in tears.

The people who want the freedom to get in and out of their tanks are happy for others to play how they like, but those who agree with the locking into tanks seem to require other people to play a certain way. Longevity doesn't come from forcing anything

nobody forces you to play tanker, and playing GTA with tanks shouldn't be allowed in HOES

 

[Major_Day]

It seems the only argument for locking players into tanks is to force a certain type of action/gameplay from them. Historically, this will end in tears.

The people who want the freedom to get in and out of their tanks are happy for others to play how they like, but those who agree with the locking into tanks seem to require other people to play a certain way. Longevity doesn't come from forcing anything

+1 Forcing ppl to spawn inside a tank is imo acceptable, and the lesser of two evils, but please allow tankers to make their own mind up whether they should get out or not (but only if disabled,and with an exit delay built-in)

 

[fiftyone]

Lock me in and throw away the key...

 

[Major_Day]

Lock me in and throw away the key...

Only the AI get keys, you can't be trusted with it.

 

[CCCP]

Only the AI get keys, you can't be trusted with it.

NIce LOL
Anyway from Infantry point I WANT to KILL Tanker when he bails out all messed up from fire and AP round .In fact I want to STAB him for all the HE rounds he sent my way I WANT MY REVENGE as regular Rifleman. And delayed exit thrue only couple hatches will be very welcomed by me

 

[Grobut]

The people who want the freedom to get in and out of their tanks are happy for others to play how they like, but those who agree with the locking into tanks seem to require other people to play a certain way.

I think anyone who doesen't want me, and only me, to have an AK-74M in this game is a big mean poopyhead.
There, now you have to give it to me, or you'll be a big mean poopyhead.

 

[Major Liability]

It may make sense from a gameplay perspective, but sitting in a tank awaiting certain doom when you know you're completely boned is just suicidal and makes no sense to those who want to live. A delay to exit and come out the hatch rather than simply appearing beside the tank would suffice in my opinion.

 

[<*>Nora The Martyr]

I gotta say yeah, being able to bail is kind of necessary.

Just make bailing take longer then old Insta-bail RO.
give the crew-members a pistol and a knife to discourage bailing.

 

[jalex3]

I gotta say yeah, being able to bail is kind of necessary.

Just make bailing take longer then old Insta-bail RO.
give the crew-members a pistol and a knife to discourage bailing.

how is it really "necessary" ? to keep your K/D intact...

 

[hockeywarrior]

I gotta say yeah, being able to bail is kind of necessary.

Just make bailing take longer then old Insta-bail RO.
give the crew-members a pistol and a knife to discourage bailing.

I agree -- what makes it necessary? This is what I fail to see in any of the arguments against locked tanks. I think it's just people clinging to the way things used to be done, even when that system didn't work very well.

 

[skittlesareyum47]

I kind of like bailing out, it's kind of funny running away fron teh IS2 :O, but it isn't a great loss not being able to do it. It does seem a bit pointless to be able to. Their system in this matter I think is probably most practical.

 

[REZ]

For me its just another punch in the stomach much like the confirmation of a DH style suppression system was.. except this time instead of adopting elements of one of the worst mechanics to ever plague an FPS, its been decided that simply removing depth, real abilities and immersion is the best way to solve what some perceive as game-breaking actions on the part of players. Instead of working toward actual creative solutions, a gross amputation has taken hold as the only conclusion. Man, we dont like how those guys are playing the game, so we'll just remove that entire part of the game so they'll play how we want them to. Even though what they were doing was possible in reality, we'd rather choose the most uncreative, unrealistic, draconian method possible to force the gameplay we want. Lock them in their tanks, yeah, that's the ticket. No, no, it doesnt introduce a whole host of unrealistic behaviors of its own.. suiciding to 'pop' into a brand new tank sounds like the exact instant arcade action we're going for, it'll be great!

It seems the only argument for locking players into tanks is to force a certain type of action/gameplay from them. Historically, this will end in tears.

+1 Forcing ppl to spawn inside a tank is imo acceptable, and the lesser of two evils, but please allow tankers to make their own mind up whether they should get out or not (but only if disabled,and with an exit delay built-in)

It may make sense from a gameplay perspective, but sitting in a tank awaiting certain doom when you know you're completely boned is just suicidal and makes no sense to those who want to live. A delay to exit and come out the hatch rather than simply appearing beside the tank would suffice in my opinion.

I gotta say yeah, being able to bail is kind of necessary.

Just make bailing take longer then old Insta-bail RO.
give the crew-members a pistol and a knife to discourage bailing.

I agree!