DingBat said:
The only problem with "mannable" 88's is that it would take half your team to man it properly. Take a look at any picture of an 88's in action.
Even a small Pak35/36 "doorknocker" takes a few guys just to move around and lug ammo, etc.
Thanks for the quick reply, Dingbat. Good points. Again, I'm only coming at this from a strictly player POV, I don't have any knowledge of programming or anything.
I agree about the 88s , since they were manpower intensive(I know this from pictures!). But wouldn't your points also apply to tanks? It takes 5 people(?) to efficiently operate most tanks depicted in game. However this is toned down for playability's sake. Couldnt we have a similar system for PAKs?
I would say something where you have only fixed AT positions in a map at certain locations. Like the static models we have now, but usable. The idea of moveable AT guns is a good one, but for the future maybe, as I think it would be a bit difficult to implement correctly.
My idea would be have a fixed AT gun, and the gun has two "roles" Gunner and Loader, just like on tanks. It could have an icon on the left perhaps, like the tanks do, showing the roles. If you're the Gunner, you would see the optic device or whatever the sights were on that particular piece, so you could take aim and fire. If your a Loader, you would see, from a kneeling down position, the breech of the gun and an animation would see you grabing a round, loading it into the smoking chamber and locking the breech. Now that I think about it, I guess the Loader would also have to be the Gunner, i.e the guy who actually fires the gun, while the first guy just aims.
The "Aimer"(for lack of a technical term: Gunner? Fire director?) could have a NumPad command "Fire!" and the Loader/Gunner could fire the gun when the "Aimer" has a tank in his sights and yells this command.
Imagine the coolness of being a Landser moving through your AT position and hearing "Feur!" BOOM!!!
Sorry, I don't know the Russian equivalent (though I'm sure it sounds awful).
Infact, you might even implement 3 roles: "Aimer"(guy who uses the sights) "Loader" and "Firer"(Does my knowledge of militaristic terms astound you?).
But that might be too much. I think 2 is enough.
The gun would be usable by one person switching between roles(like tanks). The advantage to having 2(or 3) people at a gun would be the gun can traverse with more than one person, while with only one person it is fixed in one position.
For example: By default, your gun's sights are fixed onto a crossroad where enemy tanks have to cross. If you operate the gun by yourself, you cannot move from this point. But if you have another soldier at the gun, you can traverse the gun's aim a bit more in case the enemy diverts a bit from the road. This gives the effect of having a crew actually moving the weapon. *Edit* Or one guy can just operate it fully, whatever works. But it would be faster with two.
I don't know too much about AT guns/artillery, so I'm not sure if some had a traverse mechanism aside from physically moving the whole gun(I mean just the smaller guns, like the PAK36, or 40 even).
Anyway, just a thought. I got the idea from a screenie of WW2 Online showing the optic sights of some AT gun and thought how cool it would be if they were in RO.
Heres a few shots I have of a PAK40 in use and it looks like it doesn't take anymore than 2 people to actually operate it.(I'm sure it took more to actually get it there, though). Something like this is what I have in mind. Just static positions.
I have another one of a PAK40 in Normandy that also shows only 2 crew members using it, but I can't find it.
Cheers!