New features for tanks!

[nyles 11]

There are some features regarding tanks that I really would like to see being implemented or tweaked:

-Tank commanding is pretty easy in most tanks but when playing tank commander in the Bradley, I have huge difficulties to even get an small overview of whats happening around me withough switching to third person view. The main problem is that the bradley has no 360° cupola for commander like the t-80 for an example. I'm not suggestion to add an increased field of view for the commander as in real-life this limit might indeed be the case. Instead I'm for adding a completly new feature. When commanding a infantry squad you can command soldiers to watch a specific direction (the mouse cursor transforms when holding another key and you simply have to click to the position where you want them to look at), so why not allow tank commanders to do the same for the turret gunner. In the case of the bradley the commander could order the gunner to turn the turret and would therefore be able to look in the direction he wants.

In my oppinion this is a vital feature for all players that mostly play in first person. This should also be possible when the commander is "turned out".

-Another issue regarding the bradley is the fact that it originally is an amphibious apc. Currently it sinks like a stone, though. I would really like to see the bradley to be an amphibious unit.

-When moving around with an tank platoon there is often the case that one of your tanks gets shot down leaving a few of the crew injured but alive. In such cases the whole movement speed of the platoon is crippled as the infantry moves very slow and if injured mostly can only crawl. I would suggest to give all of the MBTs another spare seat inside. This seat could simply be the position of the loader which most tanks lack as a crew member anyways in op:fp. I'm not suggesting to give the tanks 4 crew members by default as this would most likely screw up a lot of missions where the max. squadlimit would be exceeded. Just allow personal to use this spare seats (1 per tank) as a "ride in back" option.

-The generel movement behaviour of all tanks/apcs seems more like a wheeled vehicle than a track unit. I would like to see more direct control about speed decrease and better behaviour when climbing hills (in terms of more horse power). A tank can come to an immediate stop in no-time and I don't really think that those huge speed decrease times in op:fp are needed.

What I would suggest is to add another bindable key to the game: breaking. This would let any sort of vehicle or tank come to a full stop asap. Currently the only real way to decrease speed is to hold the "back" key, which is very time consumming at a certain speed. I don't mean to replace the "back" key as the option to simply decrease speed should still be possible, but I would like to see a break key for immediate (at least faster) stops.

-Another thing with the tanks that really annoyed me is the way to high viewport of the M113 driver. If you want to drive without the "sight" view (toggled by the same button that lets you aim through scope etc..) you can only see a few meters in front of you and have no superior field of view like in the m60 or abrams. Driving without being "sighted" in is very useful as you can look at the sides while driving but with this limited field of view its almost useless right now. Please lower the viewport so that you can look more horizontal and are not limited to the area directly in front of you. Same goes for the Hummer view port by the way, where looking through the side window is almost impossible.

-Staying with the M113s; In my oppinion the capacity of the troops that can "ride in back" is way to low. There is still some space that simply can't be used as a sit right now, but modifying this to allow a few more infantry men to mount the m113 would be great. You did something similar to the Hind in the last patch, if I recall correctly. Furthermore I want to point out that the vulcan still is off centre when swimming, meaning that one part is deeper in the water than the rest, making the vulcan look weird when amphibious.

-One last thing, which is rather unlikely I have to admit, but still an idea I want to bring up, is to give tank commanders an top mounted machine gun to shoot with. I know that there can't be more than one gunner right now, but I'm wondering if its really that difficult to implement a commander controlled, top-mounted weapon. I mean, commanders already control the rotation of the cupola. Adding an mg to that cupola could really be interesting. Tank commanders should only be able to use this machine gun when turned out though, kinda balancing this out. Only exceptions would be the M60 tank which normally has a machine gun mounted directly into the cupola which can be operated from the inside, and the bmp apcs, which should not get top mounted machine guns at all. Of course only tank with commanders will be given an extra machine gun.

That's all for know. I would really like to hear some feedback directly from BIS about what I just suggested. Please think about it, these ideas are all well though about and in no-way uber complicated to implement.

Regards, Nyles

EDIT: ehnglisch lingauage si suparieor!!@

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Nyles @ Mar. 14 2002,13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-One last thing, which is rather unlikely I have to admit, but still an idea I want to bring up, is the idea to give tank commanders an top mounted machine gun to shoot with. I know that there can't be more than one gunner right now, but I'm wondering if its really that difficult to implement a commander controlled, top-mounted weapon. I mean, commanders already control the rotation of the cupola. Adding an mg to that cupola could really be interesting. Tank commanders should only use this machine gun when turned out though, kinda balancing this out.Only exceptions would be the M60 which normally has a machine gun mounted directly into the cupola which can be operated from the inside, and the bmp apcs, which should not get top mounted machine guns at all. Of course only tank with commanders will be given an extra machine gun.<span id='postcolor'>

engine can't support that

[Panzer Jaeger 0]

Problems with bradley sight are real even in live bradley. It has no rotating sights for commander, instead it has prisms to maximize your view from inside.

And the AAMG's for commanders. This feature would be great but if the engine doesn't allow it, what can we do?

Smoke dischargers on the other hand would be great. Fire 6 smoke grenades to about 50 meters in front of the tank. Then to charge through the smoke guns blazing hot....

AAAHHH!! Love the smell of diesel in the mornings...

BTW. Has anyone noticed when the tanks turn stopped? I don't know about western tanks but I know only on type of "tank" that can turn around its centerpoint (rotating one track forwards and the other track backwards). MT-LB(v) and other variants of it and only in ideal circumstances.

[nyles 11]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Problems with bradley sight are real even in live bradley. It has no rotating sights for commander, instead it has prisms to maximize your view from inside.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes I know, thats why I suggested this feature to allow bradley tank commanders to tell the gunner where to point the turret at. I'm not requesting a rotating sight.

[Satchel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The generel movement behaviour of all tanks/apcs seems more like a vehicle than a track unit. I would like to see more direct control about speed decrease and better behaviour when climbing hills (in terms of more horse power). A tank can come to an immediate stop in no-time and I don't really think that those huge decrease times are needed.

What I would suggest is to add another key to the game: breaking. This would let any sort of vehicle or tank come to a full stop asap. Currently the only real way to decrease speed is to hold the "back" key, which is very time consumming at a certain speed. I don't mean to replace the "back" key as the option to simply decrease speed should still be possible, but I would like to see a break key for immediate (at least quick) stops.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think most will agree with this, tanks are underpowered and are prone to slip away on all kinds of underground like someone without skates on an ice rig. Theoretically a tank can be stopped from full speed to 0 mp/h within a matter of feet if the underground isn´t slippy. Theoretically because such an immediate stop will free huge forces upon the tank crew causing injuries, or damaging the tank. There are for example 2 kinds of breaks in the M113/M577; normal brakes like you might know them from your car (operated either by the steering/brake combo handles in older models, or via foot pedals in newer ones), and a turning brake that is used to lock one or both tracks so the vehicle can turn in place, it can be also used for immediate braking.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another thing with the tanks that really annoyed me is the way to high viewport of the M113 driver. If you want to drive without the "sight" view (toggled by the same button that lets you aim through scope etc..) you can only see a few meters in front of you and have no superior field of view like in the m60 or abrams. Driving without being "sighted" in is very useful as you can look at the sides while driving but with this limited field of view its almost useless right now. Please lower the viewport so that you can look more horizontal and are not limited to the area directly in front of you. Same goes for the Hummer view port by the way, where looking through the side window is almost impossible.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is a seat adjustment issue, currently the M113´s seat is adjusted to high so the angle of your view is malaligned and forced downwards ca. 3m in front of the APC (lol, the M113 driver should be a pretty hillarious sight with his head pressed against the hatch)...hope BIS fixes this and puts the driver a bit lower. How about making the seats of all vehicles adjustable ingame by the player anyway?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-Another issue regarding the bradley is the fact that it originally is an amphibious apc. Currently it sinks like a stone, though. I would really like to see the bradley to be an amphibious unit.

<span id='postcolor'>

Really? i didn´t know they have amphibious capability practically.Same goes for the M163 PIVADS.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Furthermore I want to point out that the vulcan still is off centre when swimming, meaning that one part is deeper in the water than the rest, making the vulcan look weird when amphibious.

<span id='postcolor'>

I don´t know the greatest mass (weight) location on a M163, if it is on the right side, the swimming behaviour wouldn´t be to far off, as the M163 in OFP is rolling to the right side.

However i didn´t know they are amphibious practically as i wrote before.

[madmike 0]

I think that a MG on the cupola is possible if BIS treat the weapon as a seperate vehicle as people have added a M2 to vehicles but it slows the vehicle down but Im sure BIS could find a solution as they are the gamez masters

[Major Fubar 0]

I totally agree with panzer Jaeger about the smoke dischargers, I think that's what my very first forum post was about.

People said it would have no effect on AI, but I'm not so sure - I've been able to hide from AI under the cover of a smoke grenade.

Besides, even if it doesn't affect the AI, it would be worth it just for MP.

[LordZach 0]

i'm no modder here but couldn't someone just add somke grenades to the tanks weapon list?

[nyles 11]

Yes, smoke launchers would indeed be a nice implementation, but what about those things I suggested? I would like to read some feedback about them.

[DodgeME 0]

Tanks are slow and underpowered. Like when it takes ages to climb a hill

[Sandman 0]

I belive the Bradley has amphibious capabilities, but u have to prepare it before launching into water, you cant just simple drive right into the water. I belive you have to inflate some sort of floating device before...

Any info out there?

[nyles 11]

Another two things I want to add to my first post are:

-Generel improved behaviour of the gunner AI: Especially noticeable in the bradley is that the gunner sometimes turns the turret to odd positions even with no enemy in sight and when moving straight along a road. For the commander this turns into hell as he looses almost all control about the tank because he can't see whats in front of him. Only real possibility to get around is, is by switching to 3rd person view. Maybe improve this gunner AI a tad and implement the previously mentioned feature to be able to tell the gunner where to point his turret to.

-Sticking with the bradley: the gunner only uses single fire with that bushmaster autocannon. I can understand that the drill might in fact be to only fire small bursts to mainain accuracy, but single fire in an combat environment seems utterly wrong to me. I would suggest to implement a whole new range based shooting system for all units. Basically before an AI unit gets to shoot at an enemy, the game first checks the range to the target and if the target is very close to nearby enemies. The game then decides which fire mode to choose. This would turn out to be a further step to realism and would make the whole scenery more believable for the player. Units attacking enemies on long ranges use single shots while units on medium ranges either use burts or full automatic firing. However I would not make a generel range for every unit, meaning that regardless if shooting from and bradley or of if shooting with an ak-47, the distance when a new fire mode is picked, would differ unit to unit. This would make the bradley use smaller bursts or even full auto instead of single fire even when having a greater distance to the enemy than the ak-47 would in the same situation. The ak-47 would be still firing in single fire. Another example would be a m-60 gunner which is firing a weapon aimed to suppress enemy movement and lay down covering fire. for this task single fire should only occur on extremely long distances.

The check for the range of the target to enemies near it is to see if even at longer ranges a burst could be more effective than a single shot because of the crouded enemies. The distance between the enemies should be very minimal for this check to be true.

This sounds like a pretty neat implementation to me and would eventually add new sound to the game as you mostly only hear infantry firing in bursts.

[nyles 11]

*bump*

I would really like to hear some comments. :/

[Tex -USMC- 0]

umm... fire good?