MBT Operators

[NewSith]

Just people stop burning flames. The MBT thread around is just nothing but a postcountfest. Let's clear everything out once and for all.

[basti]

Yes, optional.

Choose between controlling the main gun as the driver, and having a extra gunner taking over the main gun and you just drive.

Thats the minimum. Beta will propably show that drivers should never control the main gun.

[Sirisian]

Don't make a poll based on this. The actual mechanics some people want are far too complicated to be seen in a black and white poll.

[WiteBeam]

Tanks don't need 3 guys. Real tanks don't even need 3 guys.

[basti]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Don't make a poll based on this. The actual mechanics some people want are far too complicated to be seen in a black and white poll.

Whoever wants something that cant be answered in a "yes" or "no" didnt got the point.

This is a yes or no debate, simple as that. You want the possibility or the be forced for 3 manned tanks, or you dont.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Don't make a poll based on this. The actual mechanics some people want are far too complicated to be seen in a black and white poll.

Originally Posted by basti

Whoever wants something that cant be answered in a "yes" or "no" didnt got the point.

This is a yes or no debate, simple as that. You want the possibility or the be forced for 3 manned tanks, or you dont.

Please, give your opinions in the other thread. Firestarting sessions about this are getting annoying.

Edit: thread*

[ThGlump]

Yes, with no but.
If someone want to drive and shoot there is lighting for it.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by basti

Whoever wants something that cant be answered in a "yes" or "no" didnt got the point.

This is a yes or no debate, simple as that. You want the possibility or the be forced for 3 manned tanks, or you dont.

He would have been better off just counting what people said in the thread. It's far easier.

Fine, but that "yes" means almost nothing. It tells the developers "oh people want them" but they also disagree and want designs that are almost 100% exclusive one another. You'll notice in the other thread I was like the only person that seriously took the time to think about what a 3 man tank system would look like. You have others jumping to conclusions toward a system that would never work for all 3 of the factions.

Those people are probably voting yes without even contemplating how it would be done and then disagreeing with any balanced decision that would allow 3 people.

Originally Posted by NewSith

Please, give your opinions in the other thread. Firestarting sessions about this are getting annoying.

Then why did you make another thread. Keep it in one thread.

[Skitrel]

Dear god, another thread. A poll in a new thread really isn't necessary, everything that needs to be said on the topic has been said.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

He would have been better off just counting what people said in the thread. It's far easier.

No it's not. And if you keep arguing it'll be hard even here.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Fine, but that "yes" means almost nothing. It tells the developers "oh people want them" but they also disagree and want designs that are almost 100% exclusive one another. You'll notice in the other thread I was like the only person that seriously took the time to think about what a 3 man tank system would look like. You have others jumping to conclusions toward a system that would never work for all 3 of the factions.

Those people are probably voting yes without even contemplating how it would be done and then disagreeing with any balanced decision that would allow 3 people.

You just said "No, but...". That's an option.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Dear god, another thread. A poll in a new thread really isn't necessary, everything that needs to be said on the topic has been said.

I read it from page one. And still have no fucking clue why people say the same, and than suddenly start arguing about it as it's different. Try and read it from page 1 again yourself.

[Jimmuc]

i say yes for 3 man but as an side-grade. have an different turret that you can research that allows for 2 gunners to take control of the weaponry which allows the driver to focus on driving.

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

Tanks don't need 3 guys. Real tanks don't even need 3 guys.

the M1 Abrams has an crew of 4. most modern tanks have either 3-4 crew members.

[Bags]

Yes, optional.

[Erendil]

Yes, optional. People who can't or don't want to have to gun while driving don't have any options available to them with a strictly 2-man MBT setup.

2-man tank option #1 - should be driver using the secondary defensive weapon, gunner using the main cannon. 2ndary weapon fits the driver role of keeping the tank alive and it balances solo MBT's against Lightnings. It also solves the "two solo MBTs > 1 2-man MBT" issue.

2-man tank option #2 - like now, driver get main cannon, gunner gets secondary. However, if this option is available then they'll need to make sure that a Lightning is powerful/versatile enough in any given spec to be balanced against a solo MBT or hardly anyone will pull Lightnings.

3-man tank would be dedicated driver + 2 gunners for the 2 weapons.

[Atheosim]

How about this idea: 3 man tank with dedicated driver and 2 gunners gets access to slightly more powerful weaponry, making the devotion of extra manpower a profitable investment.

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

Tanks don't need 3 guys. Real tanks don't even need 3 guys.

The US Abrams Tank has a crew of 4. Reference

1. Driver
2. Gunner
3. Loader
4. Commander

If your lucky enough to have a tank with an autoloader you can get down to 3 crew members. T-90

1. Driver
2. Gunner
3. Commander