Crewed tanks should have a HUGE advantage

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

MkH^

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 11, 2006
500
0
0
Finland
Musketeer said:
No, I disagree. I have very often racked up an excellent fill/death ratio playing against superior numbers of enemy tanks with a crewed tank...

Against enemy tanks without communication in public games yes, but what about players co-operating in single person tanks? Using them that way is far more advantageous than only having a single tank - no matter how well the communication works.

I personally use tanks always fully crewed - or at least having a gunner and driver, but that is mainly because this is not fucking Battlefield 1942, being based on realism and teamwork - not assholes going for individual score tanking solo.
 

=GG= Mr Moe

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 16, 2006
9,791
890
0
56
Newton, NJ
In the spirit of trying to stick with the realism of the game and the team atmosphere, a couple of things should be done, while a few others should probably be avoided. This way tanks can still be operated by solo players and crews.

Recommendations:

Increase the amount of time to either switch positions or enter or exit a vehicle. It doesn't have to be an extraordinary amount of time (2 to 5 seconds guessing..). A bit of animation would be nice with this (say similar to switching driver views in a PK III) if it is possible without too much trouble.

Do not recommend:

Do not recommend locking tanks so only single players can operate. This is simply not fair to other players out there when the tanks were designed for more than one operator, no matter how good the solo tanker is/thinks he is. Design a mod/mutator for this if you'd like and put it up on your own server/share with others and do NOT include in the basic game.

Do not recommend decreasing the load times for crewed tanks. It is already set at a realistic time. That simple.

Do not recommend increasing the load times for solo tankers. If he is in that position, the gun will load at the recommended speed, and if he switches positions mid-load, he wil have to resume postion to finish loading the shell. It is already realistic.

Do not recommend mandatory having at least 2 people in a tank. Tanks can be operated solo, just at a disadvantage, plus what happens if there is no-one around to help crew the tank? The person waiting could sit there forever for another person to enter the game/respawn after a death.

___________________________________________

This way players can still operate solo if they really wish, just at a REALISTIC penalty. It just may encourage some to try to cooperate with a crew.

There probably is no solution to satisfy everyone. I believe increasing the time to switch positions would make it more realistic in any case (whether you solo tankers like it or not, face it, it does take time to switch positions in real life). For those who really want to crew a tank solo, create a mod/mutator to do just that. I am sure there would be servers willing to use it, then you can happily join them knowing you don't have to worry about a noob/bot hoping in with you. Then the rest of us can play the normal servers knowing we won't be locked out of a tank and stuck waiting in the spawn area.
 

Theodrake

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
404
0
0
Musketeer said:
No, I disagree. I have very often racked up an excellent fill/death ratio playing against superior numbers of enemy tanks with a crewed tank. Communication is the key. Those solo tanks are often solo because they DO NOT communicate to begin with. Often not engaging the racing group of solo tanks is the best bet. By manueverring you can take advantage of their lack of coordination. Start killing them off and more often than not they will not communicate their target or damage to others. If you have a SMART MG gunner he will NOT hose down everything causing all other tanks to follow the line of tracers to you. A smart crew will also NOT fight a tank to the death but will race it back to the spawn area and allow it to die in order to get a new one. Solos race out die and repeat, depleting reinforcements.

I will always take a equivalent tank with a good crew over two to one numbers of solo tanks operated by "solo minded" people.

Strawman. Take three people that will cooperate. How are they better in one tank then if they were in three tanks. They will still cooperate and they can now bring three times the fire on a fully manned tank. The only advantage the crewed tank has is the commander can unbutton and scan the horizon better then even an unbuttoned driver. But I still give the advantage to the 3 cooperating tanks versus the 1 tank with 3 cooperating tankers.
 

Priest85

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 3, 2006
3
0
0
My suggestion, and I only post it because I haven't seen anyone else do it, is this:

Make a join screen similar to America's Army. Have three slots per tank, and open spawning. You have the standard time to make your choice. If you don't, then you will respawn a wave later. As spots are filled, they are darkened and unchoosable, as it is now.
When you choose a slot, you spawn IN the tank initially. If you leave the tank and are killed, you respawn on foot. The last person/s in the tank when it is destroyed respawns in a new tank after the prescribed amount of time.
Example: You pick a slot in a tank with two others. Out at the front, the MGer jumps out to pick off an infantryman and is killed. He will respawn in the next wave, sans tank, and has the choice of waiting for you in spawn or trying to link up with you on the field.
The remaining two crewman continue to fight the tank, but are eventually destroyed with the tank. They would respawn in a new tank that only their missing crew can enter in the spawn.

I would also like to see this done for infantry roles. Have squad slots showing whats available. Seperate squads and allow special weapons when squads are filled out. No waiting; it can all be done just as fluidly as it is now.

I feel this would address the issue's of solo+coop, tank locking, and eliminating the initial dash to get the tank you want that often devolves into foolishness.
 

GonzoX

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 6, 2006
708
0
0
home.roadrunner.com
MkH^ said:
Not a bad idea. This might have some hilarious consequenses though. Can you imagine ten morons sitting in tanks in the main begging for someone to drive for them :D

LMAO!

And I would gigle my butt off as I walk past them with my PT Rifle.
 

GonzoX

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 6, 2006
708
0
0
home.roadrunner.com
Theodrake said:
Strawman. Take three people that will cooperate. How are they better in one tank then if they were in three tanks. They will still cooperate and they can now bring three times the fire on a fully manned tank. The only advantage the crewed tank has is the commander can unbutton and scan the horizon better then even an unbuttoned driver. But I still give the advantage to the 3 cooperating tanks versus the 1 tank with 3 cooperating tankers.

Eggzacetttely!!

I keep reading about this alleged superiority of fully manned tanks online but I just do not see it.

In fact, As a single tanker I kill fully manned tanks by myself all the time. Tickles me pink when I kill a tank and get three points instead of one. :D

So a big thank you goes out to all those sardine can packed enemy tanks waiting for my deathblow. ;)

Three separate single manned tanks TEAMWORKING together via voice coms kicks ass online IMHO.

So you fully manned players just keep packing them tight and lining them up boys. Ill be waiting LOL! :eek:
 

CaptRanger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 15, 2006
432
31
0
www.highest-degree.com
GonzoX said:
Eggzacetttely!!

I keep reading about this alleged superiority of fully manned tanks online but I just do not see it.

In fact, As a single tanker I kill fully manned tanks by myself all the time. Tickles me pink when I kill a tank and get three points instead of one. :D

So a big thank you goes out to all those sardine can packed enemy tanks waiting for my deathblow. ;)

Three separate single manned tanks TEAMWORKING together via voice coms kicks ass online IMHO.

So you fully manned players just keep packing them tight and lining them up boys. Ill be waiting LOL! :eek:

I think you and some others are missing the point and getting pretty off-topic.

The reason this thread was made was to request that fully tank crews SHOULD get an advantage. As it is now, you're right, 3 single-crewed tanks working together is more of an advantage than 1 fully crewed tank.

But, this game was built on realism. It is not realistic to drive a tank into combat, instantly switch to the commander, spot a tank, and instantly switch to the gunner to fire. It real life, one person in a tank would be pretty much combat ineffective and a fully crewed tank would obviously have the advantage.

This is what people are requesting to be put in and it shouldn't be confused with an argument about what we already have. That is just counter-productive.
 

Theodrake

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
404
0
0
CaptRanger said:
But, this game was built on realism. It is not realistic to drive a tank into combat, instantly switch to the commander, spot a tank, and instantly switch to the gunner to fire. It real life, one person in a tank would be pretty much combat ineffective and a fully crewed tank would obviously have the advantage.

This is what people are requesting to be put in and it shouldn't be confused with an argument about what we already have. That is just counter-productive.

So its realistic to have only 2 men man the IS-2 which in reality took 4 men. Or the Tiger I that needed 5 only has 3. Or why didn't they give the IS-2 a 2nd MG. Or why didn't they give it the MG firing out the rear of the turret.

So how is having one man tank with delay between positions any more realistic then pretending the commander is also the loader/gunner. Which is why I argued that a fully manned tank get the standard reload time and the 1 man tank be slower. I'm guessing its easier to implement the take longer to reload versus delaying how long it takes to move between positions.

Maybe the simplest penalty is make the wait for another tanker delay 30 seconds. As it is now it only kicks in if there are more tankers then tanks.
 

CaptRanger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 15, 2006
432
31
0
www.highest-degree.com
Theodrake said:
So its realistic to have only 2 men man the IS-2 which in reality took 4 men. Or the Tiger I that needed 5 only has 3. Or why didn't they give the IS-2 a 2nd MG. Or why didn't they give it the MG firing out the rear of the turret.

I don't know exactly why the dev's did what they did, but I'm guessing they sacrificed some of the spots for gameplay. I'm not sure how many people would play the game as a loader, but I'm guessing not many.

The tanks still have all of the positions, it's just that they are consolidated. The commander is the gunner, loader, and commander.

The point is, tank warfare is a team effort and if a game is going to go for realism, tanks should work best when crewed by more than one person.
 

Theodrake

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
404
0
0
CaptRanger said:
I don't know exactly why the dev's did what they did, but I'm guessing they sacrificed some of the spots for gameplay. I'm not sure how many people would play the game as a loader, but I'm guessing not many.

The tanks still have all of the positions, it's just that they are consolidated. The commander is the gunner, loader, and commander.

The point is, tank warfare is a team effort and if a game is going to go for realism, tanks should work best when crewed by more than one person.

I agree and either method will penalize the solo player. By slowing down position change the solo tanker has to decide if not moving between shots is worth it becuase they pay the change position cost up to 4 times (only 2 if he scoots and shoots versus hide, reload, unhide, shoot). Whereas if he chooses to sit it out then he gets just as good of a reload time as a fully manned tank. With the reload penalty no matter what choice the reload is slower, but I'm thinking not as slow as position change.
 

CaptRanger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 15, 2006
432
31
0
www.highest-degree.com
Theodrake said:
I agree and either method will penalize the solo player. By slowing down position change the solo tanker has to decide if not moving between shots is worth it becuase they pay the change position cost up to 4 times (only 2 if he scoots and shoots versus hide, reload, unhide, shoot). Whereas if he chooses to sit it out then he gets just as good of a reload time as a fully manned tank. With the reload penalty no matter what choice the reload is slower, but I'm thinking not as slow as position change.

I agree. I suggested something similar to this a long while back in this thread:
http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5716
 

Musketeer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
389
0
0
Theodrake said:
Strawman. Take three people that will cooperate. How are they better in one tank then if they were in three tanks. They will still cooperate and they can now bring three times the fire on a fully manned tank. The only advantage the crewed tank has is the commander can unbutton and scan the horizon better then even an unbuttoned driver. But I still give the advantage to the 3 cooperating tanks versus the 1 tank with 3 cooperating tankers.

Last night was a perfect example. It was the map with the frozen river and two bridges. I kept manning the driver's position and using VOIP and had a couple different gunners. Two in particular worked out really well. We also had an MGr from time to time.

I would take the Tiger to the far left flank, race down to river level, cross uner the bridge to the Sov side and raise havoc. With a gunner and driver I could listen for the loading. As soon as a shot was off I would move us behind coer or reposition to keep the enemy fire on the 11 or 1 o'clock angles. I also would call out target bearings. Several times I was able to mauever the tank for rear shots on unsuspecting Sovs or manuever around walls or buidlings to allow only one of the multiple Sov tanks to engage us at a time. Those that were solo manned were easy to kill as they could not effectively manuever and reload fast enough. In the end our ability to manuever and fight held the area long enough for the Germans to claim that side of the river and win the game.

On the other hand if you are going to engage only in a long raneg gunnery duel with minimal manuevering then the fully manned tank is not as effective. It becomes a stationary gun emplacement. In these cases I will often bail out of the drivers spot, go prone, break out the binoculars and start shouting out targets. It would be nice if an unbuttoned driver could use his binoculars while stationary...
 

Musketeer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
389
0
0
The best way to mandatorily create fully manned tanks would to automatically fill empty seats with bots! A live player boarding a tank would automatically eliminate the "bot" player, and swiching the position would result in a bot switch.

If one human player enters a tank then the other positions automatically become bot operated. Otherwise there are no bots.

As soon as people become sadled with bots watch how quickly they team up in tanks!
 

=GG= Mr Moe

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 16, 2006
9,791
890
0
56
Newton, NJ
Musketeer said:
The best way to mandatorily create fully manned tanks would to automatically fill empty seats with bots! A live player boarding a tank would automatically eliminate the "bot" player, and swiching the position would result in a bot switch.

If one human player enters a tank then the other positions automatically become bot operated. Otherwise there are no bots.

As soon as people become sadled with bots watch how quickly they team up in tanks!


That is unnecesarily cruel, how could you think of doing that to anyone, even to get them to team tank?:eek:
 

GonzoX

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 6, 2006
708
0
0
home.roadrunner.com
Well I think that changing the game by forcing three in a tank is Counter Productive.

Im all for realism but not to the point where the it will no longer be any more fun to drive a vehicle of any kind because you have to wait for a full crew and then you get stuck dying because you have two of the three stooges in your tank all the time.

We have nice cooperative attacks with multiple single driven tanks and that works right now. For the "full tank" crowd they have the option of sardine canning in their tanks.

Don't fix what's not broke.
 

-MM!!-Lazarus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
301
0
0
Sweden
I agree with Gonzox. There is in my oppinion already enough disadvantages to soloing. If the Dev team wants to make it take more time to move between driver/gunner spots so be it. But making it impossible or near impossible to solo tank is not a good move. Let thee be room for both sorts of tanking.
 

CaptRanger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 15, 2006
432
31
0
www.highest-degree.com
If you're not a team player, there's a ton of FPS games for you. But, RO was meant to be a realistic FPS and in reality, whether you like it or not, teamwork is key to success in warfare. If you really want to rambo around while mixing in the occasional bits of teamwork you only throw in as an afterthought, then go play BF2.
 

Ron

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 9, 2006
910
0
0
CaptRanger said:
If you're not a team player, there's a ton of FPS games for you. But, RO was meant to be a realistic FPS and in reality, whether you like it or not, teamwork is key to success in warfare. If you really want to rambo around while mixing in the occasional bits of teamwork you only throw in as an afterthought, then go play BF2.

No i actually agree that a delay in switching positions, exiting is all that is needed at present if that is brought in then we'll defiantly see more crewed tanks. Make it harder for solo tankers sure but dont make it impossible not yet anyhow i'd like to see how delay's would change tank battles first.
 

-MM!!-Lazarus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
301
0
0
Sweden
Ron said:
No i actually agree that a delay in switching positions, exiting is all that is needed at present if that is brought in then we'll defiantly see more crewed tanks. Make it harder for solo tankers sure but dont make it impossible not yet anyhow i'd like to see how delay's would change tank battles first.
My thoughts exactly. QFT

Oh, and Capt Ranger, I play with the [TT] at the end of my name and prefer crewed tanks. I just dont think you should make it impossible to solo, because a lot of players would dissapear.
 

Theodrake

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
404
0
0
Musketeer said:
Last night was a perfect example. It was the map with the frozen river and two bridges. I kept manning the driver's position and using VOIP and had a couple different gunners. Two in particular worked out really well. We also had an MGr from time to time.

I would take the Tiger to the far left flank, race down to river level, cross uner the bridge to the Sov side and raise havoc. With a gunner and driver I could listen for the loading. As soon as a shot was off I would move us behind coer or reposition to keep the enemy fire on the 11 or 1 o'clock angles. I also would call out target bearings. Several times I was able to mauever the tank for rear shots on unsuspecting Sovs or manuever around walls or buidlings to allow only one of the multiple Sov tanks to engage us at a time. Those that were solo manned were easy to kill as they could not effectively manuever and reload fast enough. In the end our ability to manuever and fight held the area long enough for the Germans to claim that side of the river and win the game.

On the other hand if you are going to engage only in a long raneg gunnery duel with minimal manuevering then the fully manned tank is not as effective. It becomes a stationary gun emplacement. In these cases I will often bail out of the drivers spot, go prone, break out the binoculars and start shouting out targets. It would be nice if an unbuttoned driver could use his binoculars while stationary...

I bet you went up against 3 Ivans that weren't cooperating. If they had you would have been hit on 3 different sides and they would have gotten at the 2 magic penetration shots to take you out.

On the other hand in any situation where there are gonna be infantry near you, a fully manned tank is a neccesity for survival. Take Konigspaltz. A fully manned Tiger is needed. The driver to keep you positioned and watching for sapers and tanks. The MGer to take out sapers and other nice soft targets of opportunity and watch for tanks. The gunner just does his usual.

I have seen very few people play the tanks of either side very well on this map. The Allies need to rush the T34 in for close support of the infantry. The IS-2 should be hunting the Tiger. The Tiger has to play both roles and the infantry on both sides need to watch the armors backside.