Dorb

I like it but not when I'm in them. Main fact I like it is IF I'm in a gunship but back to subject.. No not really.. I like being able to switch to guns if must be..

__________________

Glitch

I love having a Driver when I am in a tank (or a mech really). It is a large advantage since he can drive us places and his gun is bigger than mine.

Oh, did I mention I prefer to be the topside gunner? On Inf maps my job is Anti-Eng and Anti-EMP Even if that means bailing to deal with it.

On big Armor maps, I feel my job is 95% Anti-Air which typically means watching the rear arc most of the time. No need to shoot most of the time, but I love killing me some gunships.

spiff913

One situation on armor maps where it's good to have a gunner -

If the other team is trying to buggy-doom you.

Alert, accurate gunner > buggy.

__________________
.

Zhohar

I would beg to differ. Most buggy doom squads start up on the flags I am shelling. As I'm zoomed in, I can see the buggy before it gets within gunner's rage, zoom in, shell it, and when it comes within F2 range, switch to the gunner seat and finish them off.

__________________
Pfft, how can you call it suicidal if we lived through it?

LordKelvin

Yes, but wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to waste the time to deal with it yourself? You can continue shelling the flag and let the topside gunner finish them off.

__________________







Why MTG has lost any sense of balance:
Lotus Cobra

Reaperassault

Wouldn't be better if your team had and extra medic reviving people/ extra engy mining roads killing buggies going to cap flags/ extra support EMPing enemy armor?

__________________

jazy2

I like to think that a 2 man team would / should work together in the tank. Last thing you need is a lone driver bailing to bait mines and a sniper picking him off, now the enemy can take your teams tank. As we are a teamwork based community I am a little surprised by people prefering to 1 man a tank. You can't repair and shoot at the same time and sometimes both these things need to happen together. You also can't look full 360 degrees at once. Neither can a 2 man tank team but they still see twice the amount a 1 man tank can!

It becomes a slipery road if we start 1 manning vehicles as the norm. I don't see a huge problem with 2 people setting off together in a tank, split up for wider angle of attack (tank and engy firing together) then meet back up, repair in relative safety, covering each other and transport to the next engagement.

__________________

INTEL the newest political party.....Keep the IDS's up.....open your Battlefield eyes!

LordKelvin

You and several others always throw this argument in our face, as if it was the be-all end-all of arguments.

First of all, this is a thread about whether having a gunner in your tank is advantageous. Talking about medics here is irrelevant.

As for engineers and support infantry, they have a higher mortality rate than medics. Why? Because their functions require them to go off on their own for periods of time to engage armor. So if you take that support or engineer in your tanks gunner seat, he is protected from fire more so than on foot, he can hop out to perform his function versus enemy armor, and still be supporting his teams armor. An engineer or support that is alive is one that is doing his job. An engineer or support that is running around on foot is a dead one.

Extra medics doesn't do anything on armor maps except when immediately taking a flag, and even then it's not essential if you have armor backup.

Extra engys on foot do little except die to walkers and tanks shells or get run over. Don't even try to say that they get revived, because they don't. I've run as engy in even the best squads and I'm the one that has lowest revive priority. Guess what. That's another lost ticket.

Extra support on foot is useful for resupply,but when he goes to flank armor and EMP lock it, his chance to die becomes very high and his chance of being revived goes way down. Another lost ticket.

Compare this with an engineer in a tank's gunner seat. While the tank is on the move, he is protected from fire. When the tank has engaged enemy armor, he can exit and fire off a shot to take down the enemy armor faster, then immediately reenter the tank, minimizing his exposed time and increasing his effectiveness two-fold. When the tank needs repairs, the main gunner can continue to cover both of them while the gunner actively repairs. When motion mines need to be cleared, again, all the engy has to do is hop out, throw bait, hop back in while the tank is still active, making stealing it impossible. If the tank is being assaulted by infantry, the top gunner can ensure the tank isn't surprise flanked or shot from behind and can alert the main driver to threats they may not be able to see, not to mention having the means to kill them himself if necessary. If under assault by a gunship, the top gunner can keep it spotted and damage it, while the driver takes evasive maneuvers.

There really is no situation in which having a gunner is less advantageous than not having one, because engineers or supports in a gunner seat are those that stay alive.

__________________







Why MTG has lost any sense of balance:
Lotus Cobra

LogicalHarm

It's an interesting argument. I have another view on it, which I can't explain very well but I'll say anyway.

I find often in the gunship that, although it's crucial to have a gunner, I fly much better when I'm solo. I guess it's one less thing to worry about psychologically, allowing you to think freely on your task. I imagine the same thing could be applied to tanks. I always have a little ping of burden when I see the F-Number notifier pop up.

__________________

Razcsak

Maybe, it depends on how crucial the armor is to a map. On a map so heavy with armor that losing a tank is almost like losing a ticket (such as Tampa), then you'd be right. On other maps, the loss of one engineer on the field that is instead making my tank better at armor killing (by repairing and an opening Pilum volley), better at infantry killing (by spotting and engaging with grenades, firearms, or the top turret) and better at mobility (by MMBs) and better at post-armor surviveability (by either allowing me to run support and EMP whatever killed us/kill infantry or simply by being another man with guns and grenades) is possibly a valuable tradeoff. Now, this also assumes that you're not so tremendously skilled in armor that you are capable of single-handedly performing all these tasks. Some of you are. I am not. You say that an extra medic reviving or EMPing enemy armor might be better for the team. It might be. An extra engineer keeping up a tank, APC, or walker can make a huge difference as well.

Reaperassault

Bring up the possibilities that are lost by having a person sit in armor is completely relevant. Its basic cost versus benefit.

Here is how I think of the situation

Pros:
1) Turret: deterrent AA, light FAV damage, light infantry damage
2) repair ability
3) engaging enemy armor (situation dependent)

There is not really a cons list but an evaluation should be done on the level of productivity the gunner is providing. I often find myself asking Am I helping my team (i.e. making or taking tickets) or could I be elsewhere being more productive? In any given situation I constantly evaluate my situation and do my best to play effectively for my team. So if the gunner is able to preserve tickets or take tickets at an optimal rate then awesome, if not and there are more efficient roles on the field that need to be filled then something needs to change.

Now specifically with tanks, I find that an extra repair is not really needed. Tank engagements are most productive at a longer range and that in itself provides less of a need for repairs. Cover is also a huge factor, just like any other soldier a tank in cover is going to need less repairs. I often run out of ammo before I run out health. I engage very carefully with tanks making sure that I have an advantage over my enemy while doing my best to stay out of bad situations. The longer armor is up the more effective it is, plain and simple. You don't have to be a great player to use some common sense when deciding to engage or not.

__________________

Zhohar

Tanks' weaknesses are: slow speed, lack of manouverability, and a very large weak spot.
Tanks' strengths are: accurate main cannon, ability to zoom on infantry 250 meters away.

You can figure out, from those two ideas alone, that the tank's modus operandi in BF2142 is simple: keep a large buffer of distance between you and the target, and shell accurately by zooming in. In fact, I've seen some of the smartest tank pilots on TG do just that. As Eroak said -- if you are not zoomed in while engaging a target, you're very likely doing something wrong.

Tanks, when used properly, are 150-200 meters away from their targets. This makes the F2 cannon -- the gunner seat -- ineffective. It can't see its targets and can only damage them by accident.

This rules out the gunner's ability to actually combat infantry. Let's move onto his repair abilities.

Since the tank is out of sight range of enemy armor, enemy anti-armor rocket launchers, and usually hard to hit with Rorsches, the tank takes damage very infrequently. If a tank does take damage, it's very often a frontal hit that can be repaired easily by backing up out of sight range of whatever fired at you.

Tanks, because of their distance buffer, take damage so infrequently that, as Reaper said, the gunner could be better put to use doing something other than repairs.

The gunner is ineffective with his seat, and has very rare need to repair -- what job does this really leave him with?

__________________
Pfft, how can you call it suicidal if we lived through it?

LordKelvin

Yes, Zhohar, I agree entirely. However, many situations, even on large, open armor maps, require you to close that distance to effectively put pressure on a flag due to buildings or other cover being in the way. Just as often, infantry will attempt to close the distance to you as well, and it is fairly difficult to take out more than 1-2 before they reach you if they are smart. Infantry might also engage you while you are fighting another tank or walker, and it is a boon for your top gunner to be killing the pesky engineers while you concentrate on the enemy armor.

And Belgrade makes long-range combat almost impossible. The only open fire-lanes can be used by the enemy too, and all an engineer has to do is aim in a straight line after your reversing tank and will likely score another hit. Same goes for the opposing tank and Rorsches.

All I'm saying is, I'd prefer to have someone watching my back when the s*** hits the fan. PM and I tank together all the time, and he's saved me more times than I can count by alerting me to infantry or armor flanking me, which I was unable to see because I was zoomed in and shooting at another target. That alone, that extra pair of eyes, is a strong enough reason in my opinion, in addition to the points I mentioned before.

__________________







Why MTG has lost any sense of balance:
Lotus Cobra

Reaperassault

Ok wait, you are saying that it is difficult for the main cannon of a tank to take out more than 1-2 smart people but the top turret can? I don't quite follow that.

Belgrade is not a typical armor map and that is why a lot of people like it but I believe Lyra already made a good point about Belgrade.

And all I am saying is that with some smart tactics and common sense you can use a tank to full potential with one person, not all the time but the majority of the time.

__________________

LordKelvin

Well, the main cannon has a cycle time between shells... a pretty long one at that. If you fire controlled bursts with the topside machinegun you get a much more effective infantry suppressor. Simply put, it's easier to hit a moving target with a stream of lead than a single shell.

__________________







Why MTG has lost any sense of balance:
Lotus Cobra