Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[NapalmEnima]

Originally Posted by Azren

There seams to be an ongoing line of thought about the secondary gunner having AV capabilites. If you think such a thing would justify using a gunner instead of two tanks, you are sadly mistaken. Lets see what we have here:

1 tank has an armor of 100 points, and has a main gun that deals 20 damage, and a secondary gun that deals 20 damage aswell (would probably be much lower, but just for the argument's sake, lets make it 20 too).

now then, two tanks have an armor of 200 points, main guns that deal 20 damage each (20+20=40).

So what you are proposing would mean that the damage output is the same, however the armor value isn't. In a 2v1 fight the 2 tanks would always win.

You're forgetting the scenario where one of the tanks flanks the solo 2 seater and gets shots at more vulnerable armor. Not a given, but quite possible.

BUT, by the same token, you're forgetting the scenario where the 2-seater blows right past the two 1-seaters, giving its turret a free shot at one of their back-sides. This just might be a 1-shot kill, we don't know yet. And while the remaining two tanks are turning towards each other, the AV turret will probably get at least one more free shot on the side armor.

Ass-u-me-tions:
All three tanks get two shots off before the 2-seater passes the two 1-seaters.
Side shots do double damage
rear shots do x5 (insta kill) damage.

When the 2-seater passes the 2 1-seaters, it will have taken 80 damage. 1 of the 1-seaters will also have taken 80 damage. Now the turret gun puts a kill shot into the rear of the undamaged tank, killing it.

While the other one-seater is turning around, the gunner gets another shot at the side armor of the remaining tank, killing it as well.


Now that's a lot of "if"s and "maybe"s. But it is theoretically possible to create scenarios with numbers just as made-up as yours where a 2-seater comes out on top in straight up AV damage.

So its not all cut and dried, and in general the 2 tanks will be more survivable given straight-up direct damage G2G AV weapons... which is precisely why I suspect turret AV weaponry to be DIFFERENT.

Originally Posted by Azren

Lets see now about that other idea, about driving circles around one manned tanks and killing them with your gunner.
1 - if you drive around, you will not be able to shoot him, or be prepared to hit a tree or some small stone.
2 - your gunner will probably have much lower AV damage than the main gun does.

Which is it? Similar or much lower? Given Higby's "secondary guns are no joke" comment, I'd imagine that they'll be in the same ball park and perhaps even superior in specific circumstances. A beam weapon might beat out a cannon in DPS over the long haul because the cannon needs to reload while the beam doesn't. A rapid-fire missile weapon might be able to out-DPS a cannon in the short term but have lower DPS over time due to its long reload time.

Funky Weapons might open up strategic possibilities that simply aren't possible with the main guns. Shield leeches, immobilizers, blinders, indirect fire weapons.

Under the right circumstances a secondary weapon that was nothing but a targeting laser might be vastly superior to any single weapon a tank might carry, if only because there's several weapons of similar power at the ready waiting for a target.

Originally Posted by Azren

3 - your enemy will have much greater firepower than you, because he will be using the main gun

So what this all adds up to is: you either fight him face on, and probably win, or you drive around, trusting your gunner and you lose. So if you will fight him face-on anyway, why bother with gunner? Just roll two solo tanks and the poor guy will have no chance.

"Your enemy will have much greater firepower?" Not a given.

Further, the ability to not charge in headlong means you have a better chance at dodging shots entirely. The downside being shots that do land might not hit your frontal armor (ouchy).

Originally Posted by Azren

About that third idea, giving the driver the option to release the main gun to the gunner:
Just who in his right mind would give up more than 50% of the vehicle's firepower?

Someone with an enemy outside their normal firing arc. You put the main weapon in the turret, and your superior-in-some-undefined-way weapon has a 360 degree of fire. Tactical flexibility has value. Don't underestimate it.

Originally Posted by Azren

Just think about it, a gunner will not be able to shoot more than one gun at a time anyway, so giving him two guns is pointless, if you can use it yourself.


There really is only one way to balance this and please everyone: Make two types of tanks. Make a one manned variant where the driver gets the main gun, but has 65% less armor than the normal tank. Make a normal tank where the driver has no guns, but the gunner gets to use the main canon and a secondary one (if he wishes to).

There are lots of ways to balance this.

If a "secondary" AV does twice as much AV damage as the main gun, then straight up slugging matches are even.

If they are superior in specific situations (front loaded damage, remove options from the enemy), then the smart players will work to create those situations and kick the crap out of the Derps in the 1-seaters.

You can make A2G accessible enough that 1-seater tanks are just wheat to be mowed, with a survival time of 10 seconds outside air cover.

Your "just pull two tanks" argument also rests on the ability of both players being able to pull two tanks. There's going to be lots of other stuff to spend time and resources on.

A specialized tanker might have a specialized engineer as a gunner. What if that engineer has a cert that lets them passively repair the vehicle they're in? Or boost its shields? AND boost its shields? Given some prep time and CE, the enemy's "quick charge to an exposed flank" turns into "a dead tank in the middle of a mine field".

Lots of balancing options. You either don't want to see them because you hate the idea of 1-seater MBT existing, or you're just not bright enough to figure it out. I'll be kind and assume you're emotional rather than stupid.

Or I'm wrong. It happens.

But not very often.