So essentially point and shoot. Thats how i see it still. I understand what your getting at with the lag time, but i still think its degrading the tank warfare.
What is the "degrading" difference from reality? The TC would be up there guiding the turret's position.
Also this isn't a completely new trend. The game has already allowed this kind of multitasking for a long time: you can direct tank driving direction from the turret and top position with rudders. TC position works as SA-oriented, turret as action-ready. You can drive around from TCP and instantly jump to turret once you spot something worth turning the turret to. You can get guns-on very fast if you're in the right gear by "ruddering" the tank around + turning the turret from gunner position.
So it's a historically correct change, and not much of a tactical change from what we have now. So how have things degraded? The only negative I see is not having the tank inside modeled. I'll miss it, but to personally it's a coin flip between that and more toys to play with. In fact I now think more variety in gameplay elements are probably the most valuable addition HTC could make.
AH isn't a screenshot generator. It should maximize
combat quantity and quality - tactical and strategic combat alike. Eye candy versus game
play richness. Which one is better? The less better one is a "degrading" choice relative to the more better one; this is an instance of old 'better is good enough's worst enemy' axiom.
At this point they might as well remove the ability to look behind you in gunner positions of planes as well, as they are 'pretty much useless' as far as gameplay is concerned also. Why even model the inside of the bomb bays?
Bad comparison. The gunner positions can't be boiled down to fewer number of position like the driver position in tanks. Hence the need to still have what the gunner sees - bomber fuselage innards - modeled.
WASD/Mouse? How is that NOT dumbing down things? Aim and click.
Using the word "dumb down" as in the above quote is a style over substance fallacy. How is simplifying airplanes to combat trim not "dumbing down"? Not streamlining air combat that way is a "burdensome" realism feature as HT points out.
I just feel that AH already has a nice balance of 'realism' vs. 'playability
How was (is) it realistic for the TC to effectively teleport away from TCP into driver seat to start engine, and then teleport to gunner to move turret to spotted enemy bearing, then teleport back to TCP (all the while losing a real TC's situational awareness while zapping around the tank's inside) to resume TC duty?
I'm seriously concerned about the quantity vs. quality thing.
See above. Are you as much concerned about the increased quality of ground combat thanks to a richer set of tactical elements (ie unique, non-redundant ground vehicle models) IE "quantity" ?
WASD/Mouse? How is that NOT dumbing down things? Aim and click.
Another wrong point and soon you might be copping out of argument because there's so many things you've said quoted and refuted, but nonetheless these things are wrong: Do you, in reality, use a joystick to swivel and elevate your head and eye sight? The reason mouse look as has become the rock solid gold standard in FPS type games is simply that it's the best analog to human behavior. Track IR already made SA "point and click" in the cockpit, so what's wrong with giving GVers this streamlining as well?
How long IS it until HiTech is willing to resort to WASD+Mouse and graphics cuts for planes as well? It almost feels as if we'll be playing two separate games at this point. A 'relatively' realistic flight sim, and a FPS 'unrelatively' unrealistic Tank sim. At least the operating characteristics of the two were previously 'well matched' with each other, but not any more?
in bold- Where is the evidence for this specific thing? Show evidence for this trend or admit you made it up... There's no hints anywhere anytime that airplanes will go to WASD. You're comparing planes and GVs like they weren't apples and oranges.
Where is your advocacy against combat trim? Against auto retracting flaps? Clipboard GPS radar? Standardized instrument metrics? Standardized instrumentation depth IE all planes having automatic fuel mixture etc? Unhistorical payload configurations? Undercarriage brakes foolproofed from noseplants? Etc etc. Never mind the more extreme ones like pre-flight check, etc.
I just don't quit know how I feel with incorporating Arcade-Style antics with AH as it is now.
All things considered you're missing the point.. The only detrimental change is not having tank insides modeled for their immersion value.
I'm just afraid that they will forget what this game is about and end up turning it into something that is just like "That Other Game".
To be like WoT, AH would have to have some genuine "dumbing downs": No ballistics, including a gawd awful dispersion system that literally makes some shells fly out sideways for "gameplay balance" concerns. No physics. A magic reticle that instantly tells you what damage you'll cause by pointing at various points on target vehicle.
Some of the positives present in WoT (which WoT in no way has some kind of patent on AFAIK) that AH
should shamelessly adopt: changing round type shouldn't be instantaneous. Trees shouldn't be indestructible obstacles, and ideally at least some buildings as well. Damage should occur on rams, incl. turret barrel unlike WoT. ... Other things I know are better but aren't in AH, IOW WoT:AH comparison here and now isn't so simplistic as one being arcade and the other being sim.
