Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[Figment]

Evilpig, it WILL be the strongest weapon. That's ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED. Besides, that's why it is called the MAIN or primary gun.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Figment

Evilpig, it WILL be the strongest weapon. That's ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED. Besides, that's why it is called the MAIN or primary gun.

I don't know what your confirmation that the driver controlled weapon will be the strongest is, but everything is wide open to tweaking. It has been said that the "secondary" weapon may be stronger.

Not everything that is said is rock solid and it would be too time consuming to put a disclaimer on the end of every statement.

[Malorn]

I haven't heard anything saying that main gun (driver gun) is the strongest.

What I have heard is that the secondary guns are "no joke".

I think it's reasonable to conclude that in order for the secondary gun to not be a joke it needs to be significantly better than the primary gun in whatever role is chosen (AV/AI/AA), otherwise you have absolutely no reason to man the gun over pulling another tank.

I expect the main gun will be a general "all purpose" AI/AV gun, but not super effective at either. As in, it'll take many shots to blow up another tank and it'll probably take multiple shots to kill infantry. By comparison a mortar on the top of the tank will be far more effective against infantry, making it more worthwhile than running two tanks - IF your purpose is infantry suppression.

By my rough expectations, I believe the secondary gun needs to be at least 2x as effective in its role over the main gun in order to justify the resource cost of the upgrade and the opportunity cost of not having a second tank.

So if you had 1 tank with a mortar secondary gun (AI config), it would be roughly as effective at taking out infantry as 3 tanks w/o gunners. Likewise, a tank w/ AV secondary gun would be 3x as effective at taking out tanks.

If that isn't true, then pulling a second tank will always be a better choice.

[Kipper]

Right, so what we're really saying is that the primary gun is actually what everyone is calling the secondary gun.

To me, it makes sense that the weapon referred to as being "primary" is the one that has the most power, regardless of who operates it. "Secondary" is the back up / nice-to-have-but-not-crucial weapon, again, regardless of who operates it.

It seems that most people are simply referring to the "primary" gun as being the one thats operated by the person who is in seat #1, and the "secondary" gun being the one operated by seat #2.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Kipper

Right, so what we're really saying is that the primary gun is actually what everyone is calling the secondary gun.

To me, it makes sense that the weapon referred to as being "primary" is the one that has the most power, regardless of who operates it. "Secondary" is the back up / nice-to-have-but-not-crucial weapon, again, regardless of who operates it.

It seems that most people are simply referring to the "primary" gun as being the one thats operated by the person who is in seat #1, and the "secondary" gun being the one operated by seat #2.

That is why I changed the wording to "Driver Operated" and "Passenger Operated" a few pages back. "Primary" and "Main" just gravitate opinion to power.

[Malorn]

I think people get confused and hung up on "primary" = strong, "secondary" = weak

A better way to look at it might be Primary = All-Purpose, Secondary = Specialized

The secondary one isn't necessarily better than the primary...I'm betting it depends on the role. Like the AI secondary gun will certainly be better at killing infantry than the primary gun but it will be worse against vehicles than the primary gun.

[Figment]

The main cannon of a tank will always be better at AV than whatever you put on top.

That's the point of having a cannon. Period, I don't even understand why you consider the possibility that the gun around which the entire turret is built is the weakest. That would be completely insane. Being "no joke" (whole quote) means it has "substantial power", but we also already heard the secondary gun has less power than the Lightning's specialised weaponry. And a Lightning is NOT a Main Battle Tank. Unless of course they make another main battle tank out of the Lightning, which would be rather quaint from a gameplay as well as a 'PS tradition' perspective.

AI and AA guns on top of a tank are primarily there for defensive purposes, an AV gunner would be there for increased firepower, but the gunner in the current PS2 tank setup is not the controller of the majority of power. The theorizing that's going on may sound nice on paper, but is not reflected or supported by anything I've heard or seen so far.

Quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by Higby

One of the biggest unlock lines for mbt's are secondary weapon unlocks. You'll be able to switch out a variety of weapons up there that add a ton to your tank's situational viability. These will rival the power of the main guns depending on the vehicle and situation and will be a lot of fun to use. Imagine putting a mortar cannon on top of your vanguard, now you can sit behind cover and shell an area; or, add an AA Flak cannon for defending against reavers. There will be a lot of variation here and having a good secondary gunner will always be a major benefit.

See, Higby says rivals, not equals. And even if you equal the main cannon, the AV gun is still pointless compared to getting a second tank. Less or equal power and ONE tank hull, or equal power, but twice the endurance by having two tank hulls. No matter how much you try to twist and turn it, NOBODY who can get their own tank at the same time, will opt to gun an AV gun on a tank. No serious armour outfit would even consider it. They'd all get AA guns, especially if the new Liberator is supposedly so good at fighting ground vech. AI gun is probably almost pointless enough to not consider gunning as well if you have a main gun with the rate of fire and damage dealt as we saw in the demo (three accurate shots in as many seconds, no way infantry can kill a tank by then). On top of that, infantry can always be easily targeted by the main gun, aircraft cannot. AA will be the only useful secondary weapon.

Developing an AV secondary gun for a MBT where the driver has a more powerful gun is an absolute waste of development resources, IMO.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Figment

See, Higby says rivals, not equals.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

[Kipper]

Sorry to be still confused. In your quote, Higby is referring to the "secondary" gun being the 2nd seat / turret gun, and implying that will be the tougher gun - or at least the one with more versatility.

This makes me very happy, because to be truly effective in a tank will require 2 people, but alone, you won't be exactly defenceless - just mostly.

Secondary = second seat, not second choice.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Figment

The main cannon of a tank will always be better at AV than whatever you put on top.

That's the point of having a cannon. Period, I don't even understand why you consider the possibility that the gun around which the entire turret is built is the weakest. That would be completely insane. Being "no joke" (whole quote) means it has "substantial power", but we also already heard the secondary gun has less power than the Lightning's specialised weaponry. And a Lightning is NOT a Main Battle Tank. Unless of course they make another main battle tank out of the Lightning, which would be rather quaint from a gameplay as well as a 'PS tradition' perspective.

AI and AA guns on top of a tank are primarily there for defensive purposes, an AV gunner would be there for increased firepower, but the gunner in the current PS2 tank setup is not the controller of the majority of power. The theorizing that's going on may sound nice on paper, but is not reflected or supported by anything I've heard or seen so far.

Quite the contrary.



See, Higby says rivals, not equals. And even if you equal the main cannon, the AV gun is still pointless compared to getting a second tank. Less or equal power and ONE tank hull, or equal power, but twice the endurance by having two tank hulls. No matter how much you try to twist and turn it, NOBODY who can get their own tank at the same time, will opt to gun an AV gun on a tank. No serious armour outfit would even consider it. They'd all get AA guns, especially if the new Liberator is supposedly so good at fighting ground vech. AI gun is probably almost pointless enough to not consider gunning as well if you have a main gun with the rate of fire and damage dealt as we saw in the demo (three accurate shots in as many seconds, no way infantry can kill a tank by then). On top of that, infantry can always be easily targeted by the main gun, aircraft cannot. AA will be the only useful secondary weapon.

Developing an AV secondary gun for a MBT where the driver has a more powerful gun is an absolute waste of development resources, IMO.

I don't know why you think that something that rivals something else must be less powerful. I was told different wording. Either way, he clearly speaks of how it will be situational. As for your 2 tanks > 1 tank, as 2 tanks who are getting ripped up by a reaver and can't put their "Main" guns on it. Are you begining to see any of this?

Either way, we'll really find out in Beta, won't we?

[Mackenz]

Originally Posted by Figment

See, Higby says rivals, not equals. And even if you equal the main cannon, the AV gun is still pointless compared to getting a second tank. Less or equal power and ONE tank hull, or equal power, but twice the endurance by having two tank hulls. No matter how much you try to twist and turn it, NOBODY who can get their own tank at the same time, will opt to gun an AV gun on a tank. No serious armour outfit would even consider it. They'd all get AA guns, especially if the new Liberator is supposedly so good at fighting ground vech. AI gun is probably almost pointless enough to not consider gunning as well if you have a main gun with the rate of fire and damage dealt as we saw in the demo (three accurate shots in as many seconds, no way infantry can kill a tank by then). On top of that, infantry can always be easily targeted by the main gun, aircraft cannot. AA will be the only useful secondary weapon.

Malorn mentioned it above, and so does your quote of Higby - an AI mortar is an incredibly useful weapon that cannot be replaced by the AI of the 'main' or driver gun.

The driver gun is direct fire. Try getting to infantry in defilade with that. A mortar is incredibly useful there - I can see it being a requirement for any attack against hilly or complex terrain.

Although maybe not relevant to PS2 (Teller mine or engineer satchel charge equivalents not available to PS2?), but an AI dual/quad mount is extremely useful for 'hosing' tanks down if swarmed by enemy infantry - try doing that with a 150mm shell with less griefing .

An additional dedicated AV weapon may not be as useful, but there are AV missiles that also provide that top-down attack (think the Javelin in the US Army*). Again, useful for AV hull-down situations - terrain and enemy composition dictates the load outs - as it should. Of course, infantry AV weapons may also get to hull-down AVs (ah my Phoenix, how I loved you), but if the range is long and activity is hot I can see an AV missile load out. Of course, you *could* just get Libs/Reavers too, but we are talking possible uses, not what you would necessarily use.

I think the Beta will reveal the possibilities of all this stuff, and more.

* Edit: Clarified the Javelin is a weapon in the US Army, not PS2.

[Fenrys]

Originally Posted by Figment

AI gun is probably almost pointless

What you are saying makes sense in theory, but I'm going to reserve judgement until beta.

For all we know, the AI weapon could be a belt-fed, full-auto sniper rifle that can down 2-3 infantry between shots of the main gun.

Also, an AV 2ndary will probably be pointless most of the time. It can be useful in choke points where the limiting factor is not the number of players in your platoon but how many of them can fit into the front row of the column and take a shot.

For example, in a 4 v 4 fight, where one team has 4 tanks, and one team has 2 tanks with AV 2ndary, the team of 2 might be able to maneuver so that only 2 of the opposing tanks have line of sight. I think the end result of such a fight would probably be that a single 2 person tank is left mostly undamaged, and the other 5 tanks are destroyed. The 4 tank team would have twice the hitpoints, but the 2 tank team would have twice the local firepower and occasionally 4x after a single person tank is blown up but before the next can maneuver to replace it.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

I don't know why you think that something that rivals something else must be less powerful. I was told different wording. Either way, he clearly speaks of how it will be situational. As for your 2 tanks > 1 tank, as 2 tanks who are getting ripped up by a reaver and can't put their "Main" guns on it. Are you begining to see any of this?

Either way, we'll really find out in Beta, won't we?

If they can switch seats (what some people here want), I see them ripping that Reaver apart, tbh. But beyond that, Piggy, you are hopelessly behind in the discussion. It's a completely irrelevant point because one single tank with two AV guns stands even less of a chance against that Reaver. So I'd still opt for two tanks.

Why you ask? Clearly two MBTs don't have access to AA? Depends on if they can switch seats of course, but we're talking about 2 people who can pick any one man tank combi.

If I speak of tanks, I'm speaking of AV-AV MBT combo, AV MBT-AA Lightning combo and AV MBT - AI Lightning. I would never opt for a gunner myself, if I know what I'll be facing I'm still not going to bring a gunner. Especially not if the Lightning has better weapons than the gunner, which it has.

And if the Lightning even is going to rival a MBT in hitpoints, boy, is the gunner pointless.

[Malorn]

The AV options for the gunner slot could be extremely effective against vehicles. An AV gunner option for a tank could be a super-powerful wire-guided or camera-guided missile. Or it could be a lock-on rocket pod. Or it could be like the heavy rail gun from the NC BFR in PS1.

The mechanics of the weapon could be huge deciding factors. Just like the mortar hits infantry more effectively, guidance systems for AV weaponry will make them more effective, while simultaneously making it near-useless against infantry. Thus the main gun remains a general-purpose cannon reasonably effective against most targets, while the secondary gun is a specialized gun that really buffs the tank against specific targets.

Think of the buggy guns from PS1. The Ground-Pounder on the Marauder was extremely effective against infantry. The Enforcer recoilless rifle was effective against all targets but it was easy to hit tanks with it since it had a flat trajectory.

There's a lot of options for secondary guns that by their nature can make them much more effective against targets, but not effective at all against the types it isn't designed to be.

Flak cannon is another good example. Flak is great against aircraft - WAY better than the tank's main gun. But against armor or infantry it's damn near worthless.

Translate flak cannon into AI or AV options and I think you'll get an idea of how the gunner specializations can be highly effective AT THE ROLE THE ARE INTENDED TO FILL, while the main gun remains reasonably effective against most targets.

So tank w/ Anti-tank missiles => owns tanks, but is not really any more effective against infantry or aircraft than a gunnerless tank.

Tank w/ Anti-infantry mortars => owns infantry, but not much more effective against other tanks or aircrat

Tank w/ flak cannon => owns aircraft, but no more effective against anything else than a gunnerless tank.

It depends on the role, but they can make those guns highly effective and it is balanced because they are only effective at a specific role.

Resources might come into play here also. It might be much cheaper to trick out a tank and add a gunner slot upgrade than to run two tricked out tanks without gunners. So resources could be used to balance this as well.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Fenrys

What you are saying makes sense in theory, but I'm going to reserve judgement until beta.

For all we know, the AI weapon could be a belt-fed, full-auto sniper rifle that can down 2-3 infantry between shots of the main gun.

Also, an AV 2ndary will probably be pointless most of the time. It can be useful in choke points where the limiting factor is not the number of players in your platoon but how many of them can fit into the front row of the column and take a shot.

I don't believe infantry will be just flat stuck at the mercy of a tank. Yes, a tank should and probably will easily kill infantry, but AV equipped infantry will probably kill a tank quickly and will be such a large target.