"Crew" Modules

[Theoman02]

Seeing as we're in need of more internal components to force players to adapt to bigger sizes, it would be the perfect addition to add some sort of "Crew" Modules.

Let's start with a gunner/loader module. Basically, what this does is act like an entity that you can simply link to a gun with ACF that buffs the fire rate and/or the accuracy of a weapon, through a slider, by a maximum of 25%.

However, this would also come at a cost. The module would have to be as big as an acf pod or pilot seat and weigh 250kg. In addition, the bigger the gun, the more gunners it should need to reach its maximum buff efficiency of 25%. What would be good in my opinion would be:

• 1 gunner for up to 2200kg weapons
• 2 for up to 6000kg weapons
• 3 for the bigger ones.

This could easily be done by having a "light" module, a "medium" module and a "heavy" module. Last but not least, losing a module in a fight should lead to a severe debuff, according to the module's attributes. For example, if i had a "light" gunner module boost my gun's attributes by 25% and it dies during a fight, my gun would be nerfed by 40% on top of the buff, so a total of 85% efficiency.

A similar method could be adapted for engines too, but only a single driver "module" could speed up the engine by 15-20%, as deemed fit, at the weight of 250kg as well.

If, once the module is destroyed, the debuff thing is too much to implement though, it should just remove the buff from the modules only.

Conclusively, all these do nothing but buff the effectiveness of vehicles. People can still make small vehicles without a crew and it'll be the same as before, but people who build bigger vehicles with crew modules will enjoy a boost in both firepower and mobility. This should not nerf any current vehicles nor be mandatory, but considered as an advantage to building bigger vehicles. I hope this gets implemented as soon as possible, seeing as it would, in my opinion, change the way vehicles are built, and diversify ACF even more.

P.S: Hopefully what I wrote makes sense, since my native language is not English.

[Bubbus]

Thanks for the write-up, it's good but there are problems;

• See #38
• ACF has no shortage of ideas but a real shortage of people with time to implement them. We need scripters and modellers.
• There's debate over whether a problem exists in small tanks - and if so, whether the problem is a lack of internals or if it's a lack of space required for effective armour.

[Theoman02]

Thank you for the reply, but i feel the need to address to the 3rd point.

I've been building many tanks in Gmod , and, in my observation atleast, it's the lack of internal components which result to the small size of tanks. I've talked to Karbine/Amplar about this and we both agreed that tanks just lack internal components.

[Amplar]

Small tanks are small because of the lack of internal things to make them big.

[Bubbus]

That's one factor, yeah. Another is that small tanks would be less small if you need 200mm of space to fit 200mm of armour. Not arguing against either, except the armour thickness doesn't introduce as much extra learning curve.

[Amplar]

no. we cannot do actual thickness for armor. props aren't varied enough, it just won't work. Please stop pushing that idea. just remember that acf armor is in EQUIVALENCY. it's not actual steel, it's whatever material is required to the rha protection.

[Bubbus]

I should have made it clearer that I wasn't talking about actual thickness, I was referring to the discussion we had in #37 in which you responded positively. The density slider is key - a slider between 50 and 200% lets you use 1in plates for the 15-30mm range, then 2in plates for the 30-120mm range, then blocks for all thicker armour.

[Amplar]

oh, yes.