[Suggestion] 3 man main battle tank OPTION

The OPTION of having the shooting and driving be separate seats.

So the driver is driving around, without crashing into every single rock possible, which you will while driving in a direction you're not looking in.
While the gunner is gunning, and the top gunner is top gunning.

No penalty or bonus outside of this. You just have to slot into into the turret part of the loadout, or something like that.
This will not remove single crew lightnings or 2 crew MBTs, it's just an option.

If you really need to give the driver something to do, give them a hull mounted machinegun or something.
Though that would be a bonus, so I wouldn't recommend that.

And i believe you now in your next post will introduse some brilliant idea on how you will make this work on a magrider?

The gun on front is a PPA and the top gun is the AT gun.

No. That would leave the magrider at a serious disadvantage because its a fixed gun tank, whereas the other two have not one but two rotating turrets.

Oh, i can just imagine this setup on a mag.

Gunner in front: left...left...LEFT FFS. MORE LEFT, NOT SO ******* MUCH, RIGHT RIGHT STOP. **** SAAAKE I SAID STOP.
all while the other two have two rotating turrets and pwn everything.


So... again,
THAT WOULD BE A NO FROM ME, ALEX!

I don't think you understand. The pilot controls the fixed gun which is anti infantry and the gunner controls the top anti tank weapon which is a normal turret. This is how the vehicle originally worked.

I dont think YOU understand. OP wants a 3 man MBT option. 2 gunners and a driver. Thats the scenario in describing in a mag.

Yes the other MBT have two gunner slots but the magrider only has one gunner slot and a powerful anti infantry weapon fixed on the hull.

This had been suggested years ago when the game was still in beta, but not as an option, as default.
MBT were less common on the battleground at that time (3 resources system anyone?), there was the acquisition cooldown, and vehicles in general were quite tough beasts.

Some users suggested that a 3-men crew would been more balanced, given the power of a battle tank: 1 driver without weapons and 2 gunners.
Higby found this suggestion very interesting but it never became a thing.

In time this doesn't have a justification anymore as vehicles today are definitely less effective. And considered the current resources system why would anyone "waste" one soldier just to have an indipendent gunner? This extra soldier could spawn another tank himself / herself and provide additional firepower. After all with the current resources syste one should simply spam vehicles as much as possible.

Btw the Prowler used to be a 3-men vehicle in PS1, and it was the only one of the 3 factions (which has been the main argument for that being UP for many many years).

And because of this i refer to my second post in this thread., the second part. Coordinating it will be impossible with a fixed gun

How is it impossible since it's almost exactly the same setup. The gunner has a full 360 freedom of movement on the anti tank gun and the magrider controls the same way.

Basically like this:

Because the OP talks about a 3 man crew!
One to drive the mag, one to gun top gun and one to gun a fixed gun.

The top gun and driver works like its allways have, but a fixed gun relies SOLELY on the driver to get aim. Presicion shooting will be impossible as the gunner has to direct the driver for anything beyond point blank.
The other two MBTs wont have this problem.

Just give the "fixed point" gun, a slight elevation & rotation angle.
Precision shooting now possible - The Magrider will want to face the enemy anyway, given it directs the smallest profile to hit.
As well, the magrider can strafe, making it far easier for a magrider to use a fixed-point gun..
Imagine a fixed-point gun on the Vanguard or Prowler, where the entire chassis must rotate before it can move in the wanted direction.
After all the Magrider does have the slimiest profile, and highest mobility.
Soon to have the fastest reload as well.

I thought the answer would be obvious:

You are creating an extra seat anyway. In the Vanguard and Prowler you decouple the turret view from the driver view and give it to the extra seat. In the Magrider you do the exact same: The gunner will now be turning the "turret", which is simply the entire chassis of the Magrider. The driver will still control direction and afterburner.
Then to balance it out you can do two things:

1. The Magrider is now equally fast in all directions. If that's too powerful you can reduce its maximum speed.
   • This isn't a stretch. The Magrider seems to have an inertial drive/uses anti-gravity to push itself in all direction. So it should be capable of going just as fast in all directions. You could make up some lore mumbo-jumbo that it takes two hands to keep modifying the engine in the right way so it's only possible to get the most out of it when you don't gun as well.
   • In this case, the Afterburner could be omnidirectional.
2. The "undercarriage" of the Magrider gets some visual flair to indicate what direction the driver is looking at. This will work similar to the normal Magrider in that the maximum speed can only be reached when the driver is going forwards. This allows the gunner to look around at will and the driver to go any direction in the same way the standard Magrider can go around.
   • Unique to the Magrider, the directional damage would be based on the Gunner looking direction.

in other words the driver can turn the chassis with the rear exposed to the enemy, while magburning and accelerating and not take rear armor damage because the gunner is facing the enemy, while the other two can't?

that totally doesn't sound OP. let's not forget turning your hull is based on terrain, places where you can't turn your chassis due to obstructions will give magriders more advantage.

tanks are not powerful as they are, there is no reason to make them require 3 players to operate given their lack of power and soon to be less powerful state with 200m being 'long range'.

they could have had something with making the AV turret only 200m while leaving tank weapons longer ranged to encourage infantryside to ether advance on foot or advance on foot with the assistance of vehicles, instead it's just going to be more range compression.

as long as engagement range for infantry VS tanks is equal there is 100% no reason for infantry to attempt to push at vehicles and use combined arms when they can hide in buildings while complaining that they are getting farmed because vehicles have nothing interesting to do.

it's not fun to sit on a hill hitting infantry who like to pretend this is call of duty without any vehicles.

You mean the Turrets on bases, AV turrets?
You already can basically out-range and out-dps the things.
Prowlers are a perfect example of this.
I don't see how the defensive AV turrets of anything getting range reduction will encourage advancements...
The further the range, the better off the vehicles are - They don't advance.

Infantry, would have to advance pretty far, usually without cover towards vehicles.. whom the closer the infantry get, the easier it is to shoot the infantry down.
As well, at the range where the vehicle isn't able to dodge the generally slower AV weapons available to infantry, every Top-gun, and main weapon of a vehicle will have no trouble landing solid hits.

If you are hiding in a building, you can't engage the vehicles... as the key word there is "hiding"
Buildings are also not existent in-between bases, can be fired into, and aren't containing every Cap point.
Combined Arms, isn't infantry relying on Vehicles to kill vehicles by themselves constantly.
After all, if they had vehicles able to properly engage those vehicles, its then those allied vehicles not doing anything isn't it?

It's not fun to be shot down from a tank sitting well outside any practical engagement range is the other side of that statement.
After all, I have this grand doubt those infantry are able to pretend there isn't vehicles... or they wouldn't be in the buildings to begin with, would they be?

In short: Are you asking for the AV turrets to lose range, or some other AV weapon?
As presently all tanks can engage at ranges beyond practical for defenses let alone infantry.
Grand example is the Prowler.

engineer AV turrets are limited to 200m, those are the ones i'm talking about, if they left tanks alone infantry would ether have to advance with vehicle support to close the range or sit in the base and get shelled by tanks, by compressing the range the devs are just continuing more of the infantrysider mindset that they can sit in a base and fight off vehicles from there, always.

in that way, vehicles can never force some infantry to close the range or pull vehicles to close the range, continuing the problem where vehicles have nothing remotely interesting or fun to do but shell infantry at range which nether side enjoys.

compressing the range is just gonna make vehicles weaker and more prone to being destroyed by peak-a-boo and C4 attacks.

So that anything infantry could bring is literally screwed?
At 200 meters, that turret would be destroyed in a matter of bloody seconds.

Infantry wouldn't get vehicle support...
The vehicles have no bloody need for infantry. at all.
You get more for slaughter, and have no reason to travel with infantry as a vehicle.
So infantry are dependent on literally running behind vehicles that have no damn given to them.

Vehicles do not want infantry close..
C-4, and Rockets are harder to dodge the closer you are.
Vehicle weapons (beyond NC) work best at a distance, where you can more easily withstand infantry & vehicle weaponry, and have more time to use your mobility - also to repair.
So what ******* vehicle wants infantry close, let alone wants to be able to force infantry closer than they already are.

Like dear lord.
The engineer's AV turret is head-shot bait for snipers, if it was 200 meters, it would be better off against infantry.
Tanks already can shell at the same range it fires.
You talk about infantry needing vehicles, but forget the AV turret for engies is screwed the moment, allied infantry notice it.

The Infantry can't close the range as it is, and the AV turret of engies is doomed by Sniper fire...
If you lack allied infantry to provide sniper fire, you yourself aren't part of any combined force.

Literally, Infantry are screwed the closer they get to a vehicle.
Vehicles want the range, and already have the range advantage.
AV Turret? If it really bothers you, get some allied infantry...

engineer turrets are already max ranged at 200m, anyone using them better fire a shot then move and place a new one then fire and move again.

as long as infantry don't have to pick between engaging in a pure base fight and seeking out vehicles that are disrupting the base fight there won't be combined arms, they'll just sit in the base and pelt tanks without really becoming a threat to tanks.

DBG's typical solution to lack of combined arms on infantryside's part is to cave into the infantryside whiners that don't want their infantry meatgrinder interupted is to nerf vehicles, again and again.

now they are even going back on their tank cannon velocity normalization, one of the rare vehicle buffs.

infantry vs tanks is not really engaging, because infantry are so in love with slaughtering each other so much, their ideas of fighting tanks is through nerf calls and whines most of the time.

Then re-design the Magrider it's not hard...most MBTs have crews numbering 3-4 anyways.