Discussion in 'Ideas and Suggestions' started by cheerstoyou, Feb 18, 2013.
It couldn't possibly do any worse than an MBT!
No, but then as I just described in that other topic. You don't add units unless they have a set purpose, a specific role. Sure a heavy tank wouldn't be any worse than an MBT. But then, it doesn't really offer anything over an MBT. Any implementation of a heavy tank would end up with a weak one-man tank, a strong one-man tank, and a really strong crewed tank. Which wont work for a variety of reasons, most of which I have already explained.
As everyone except you understands QUITE well.
Unfortunately, being a damage sponge isn't a purpose able to justify implementing an entire tank.
Nope. Being able to "cross the killing zone between trench lines and break into enemy defenses" is.
Unless you think that tanks shouldn't be able to do so... which is odd, considering where that quote is from.
I await your next brilliant response with great anticipation
My brilliant response is the ever famous "game =/= real life". Similar to Paul's desire to see hull mounted guns. Just because something works in real life doesn't mean it'll work in the game. Besides, I don't see any heavy tanks in real life, do you? So even if we did do what you want, and used real life as an example, we STILL shouldn't have your heavy tank because the military learned after WW2 "Huh, having a tank that's a glorified meat shield really isn't a good idea". Which is why all modern vehicles are designed to stay as far away from combat as possible.
So I repeat my statement that being a damage sponge doesn't justify implementing an entire tank. At best it could be a certable upgrade to MBTs to give them better front armor at the expense of mobility. But it most certainly doesn't warrant implementing an entire vehicle just so that it can take more hits.
P.S. Might wanna click your own link and scroll down to the 21st century bit. Doesn't exactly help your case.
You could add a special tank that is high in resources and only to be built in one location (The Crown?). No certs could be put into the tank but would need at least 3 to man properly. I would make it a 7 man tank with multiple guns. This would make it a nice objective and add a bit of spice to the action.
You speak on Behalf of the Community?
Perhaps you should stop making assumptions on what 'others' would like and go ask them.
How do i think it will be used?
Probably like an SPG using it at long range solo. Park it on a hill top, switch to gunner, start sniping. At least until competent crews get together and unlock the frightening potential that it has in close combat and support. when that occurs, then people will probably drive it to larger stations using it as a defensive unit or an offensive one.
The reason crewed vehicles are used in many games is not because they have a gun with a turret. It is because the tank itself provides a greater deal of protection often being able to absorb several direct hits before being destroyed.
People don't use libs over esf because they have a gun turret that points down... They use libs because a Lib has enough armor and health that it can not only fly into a high conflict zone, but also fly back out of it too.
Congratulations, you just described Close Air Support Attack Aircraft, such as the AH-1 Cobra, or AH-64 Apache.
One of the most widely used aircraft in vehicle based games...
You have a very limited imagination if you could not see people using it...
But you don't address the point.
Liberator Gunner has a limited range of fire, This requires communication between him and the pilot to achieve the desired cone of fire for optimal effect. This is the same mechanic as the Gunner and Driver in the proposed Heavy Assault Tank... This is made possible and more reliable because the tank itself is twice as powerful as the MBT, but suffers some serious limitations too.
it goes on to prove that you have done no research of your own and are simply making assumptions and accusations.
Because you require more explination. You stated that World War 2 Tanks with Hull mounted guns had smaller crews then Tanks, cus you don't need a driver. Truth be told, most Assault Guns have larger crews then their tank counter parts, often ranging 6-7 opposed to their Medium and Heavy Tank counter parts having 4-5.
Some of the Late War Assault Guns had:
Gunner, Driver, Commander, Loader A, Loader B, Co-driver/radio operator, Spotter/Machine gunner.
Some of the Late War Heavy Tanks had:
Gunner, Driver, Commander, Loader, Co-Driver.
Also, of 6 Vanu Players.
No, SoE nerfed magriders into the ground, they are crap.
No, i am a pilot.
No, i don't drive tanks.
why you msg me?
When asking the question:
Would you drive a Magrider which has x2 the health, a very weak version of the gun you use now, but had an additional gun manned by a Gunner which is mounted the same way that your current gun is just twice as powerful, would you drive it?
Sure that sounds pretty cool.
No, i am a Pilot.
srsly, stop msg me.
A tank whose role is to draw as much attention as it can for as long as it can, at the cost of being inefficient for the size of its crew and the resource cost sounds fun to me.
This isn't lacking a role.
Its having a rather clear role.
This is the guy who heads your convoy, as people attacking him will take much longer to kill him, giving the entire convoy more reaction time.
It would need two atop turret guns though, to make it more unique (Albiet, they would leave the turret gunners exposed to enemy fire unlike the current turrets.)
There is a reason most tank games DON'T use modern tanks.
The Heavy-Medium-Light tanks concept is so fun.
more assumptions and falsehoods.
The M1 Abrams is a 'heavy tank'
The weight classification system was convoluted and conflicting with no real clear definition that was uniform across many military forces. What may be a 'heavy tank' for one country may be a 'medium tank' for another. This is because they used different methods to define their weight classification. Many NATO and WARSAW Pact countries defined their tanks weight classification based on the average weight limit on a majority of the the bridges through out the country.
The US on the Other hand defined a tanks 'Weight' based on the 'weight of the gun' or more simply put, the Size of the Gun.
the M48 had a 90 mm gun and was a Medium Tank while the M103 had a 120 mm gun so was a heavy tank.
This however became a conflict in and of itself with the adoption of the 105 mm gun due to the amount of ammunition types and capabilities of the gun itself, as the M63 105 mm gun had more killing power then the M58 120 mm gun, despite its smaller size. So in turn the M60 became the first 'Main Battle Tank' or MBT, a new definition used by the US army.
the MBT is now defined as the Primary 'Battle Tank' used by a country's armed forces.
So for the US, the M60 is no longer an MBT, it is defined simply as a Tracked Battle Tank, or Medium Tank as it predominantly has been phased out of usage for the armed forces save for reserve and guard divisions based in the US. However, in Egypt or Turkey which predominantly uses the M60a4 variation of the tank (M60-2000) It is still considered an MBT to them.
'glorified meat shield not a good idea'?
Is that why tanks have been getting continually thicker and thicker armor?
I mean, a Challenger 2 can survive most all RPGs and AT Missiles out there, but i guess that isn't a definition of making a 'meat shield'...
'Staying as far away from combat'?
They are staying So Far away from combat, a Whole 20 feet at times!
Almost Every armored vehicle in the US military has been modified with modular armor or upgrade kits to provide them urban survival and they often go driving into Urban situations and get rather close to combat providing support to infantry.
And its called TUSK for the USMC M1 tanks. The Challenger 2 and Abrams can survive even some of the IEDs used out there. I have seen a M2A3 Bradley ran over a 105 Howitzer shell IED, it flipped it, and blew the tracks and guide wheels off, but the crew survived, shaken but alive.
People assume a lot of things about armored vehicles, most of which is that they are rolling coffins. Trueth is the modern MBT and AFV are some of the safest vehicles on the battlefield. Problems of the M4 Sherman and the tanks of WWII are a thing of the distant past. Even the Russian tanks, not the export models but the domestic tanks, the T90 are some of the best designed tanks around.
There's a reason that modern armies no longer use light tanks or heavy tanks, but just one style of tank. The MBT fills most of the roles. Light tanks were too weak against situational other enemy armor and ended branching into becoming IFVs, serving an anti-infantry and armored carrier role.
Heavy and medium armor classification became obsolete because medium tanks were able to carry heavier guns, resulting in the medium/heavy tank class becoming too similar in capabilities. So they just made one tank which did not sacrifice too much mobility that a heavy armor class would use but maintained its stopping power.
But there is also a point that the reason we don't have certain variations of vehicles is because no one has yet provided a threat which required that type of vehicle to be developed. The last several major conflicts seen have been predominantly an modernized force against a less advanced one, which often leads to conflicts lasting all of a few weeks of actual combat.
In Planetside we not only have 3 factions of generally equal strength, but also fortifications which are impervious to damage, Buildings which can withstand the impact of Anti-Tank weaponry, A repair system which can fix an damage to vehicle in Seconds rather then Hours, and vehicles themselves which have a specific amount of damage absorption as opposed to localized damage.
Paul. Every post you make is basically "real life does it so we should to!" I'm sorry, it doesn't work this way. SPGs may work in real life, attack helicopters may work in real life. It doesn't matter what works in real life. It matters what works in the game and whether it's fun or not. Your reliance on real life being the backbone of any argument you conjure up proves just how bad of an idea it really is.
I have yet to see you make a post that doesn't reference real life. And I have yet to see you make a post that explains the gameplay benefits of your ideas. If I'm a gunner, what do -I- get out of having my gun strapped forward to the tank hull? What fun do I have just sitting there waiting for my driver to point me at a target so I can shoot? You even dared reference the Liberator in this case despite it being nowhere near similar. The belly gun, and indeed the tail gun, are both turreted. The belly gun can hit pretty much anything below the Lib, including forwards and backwards. It's hardly the same as strapping it forward as I mentioned in my post above.
Players wont find it fun when their sole purpose in the tank is to just pull the trigger, relying on another player for EVERYTHING else. It's simply not fun. And as I have said, it doesn't matter how things work in real life. PS2 isn't real life. Some things can reference real life, sure, but ultimately that only works if it ALSO works within the game. Your ideas do not.
Besides, even your obsession with referencing real life (like it somehow makes you right) is full of fallacies. You try mentioning modern MBT tankiness to support your meat shield idea. However last I checked we already have an MBT in the game, it's just from the early 70s. Beyond that, MBTs being able to survive hits doesn't mean that's ALL they can do. You and Cheers want a vehicle that literally JUST takes damage, and does nothing else. MBTs in real life don't do that. I mean hell, if you gave me a real life MBT I'd be more than happy. I'd be down right giddy. But to compare a heavy tank to a modern MBT.... really dude?
Actually no i don't.
Every post that I make a reference to reality in is Also uses a Direct Quote of you trying to reference something in reality, but also horribly failing at it and providing nothing but false hoods and assumptions.
Don't Remember that?
Both those statements are wrong.
And I have called you out on it.
You have yet to respond to those besides a, Stop talking bout Reality!
Except i Have.
Game Play wise...
it increases survivability and presence on a battlefield.
It aids in the breaking/upkeep of a Stalemate siege.
it is a Mechanic already in the game seen with liberators.
What do you get by jumping into the gunner seat of a liberator? Or an Abrams in ArmA? or a Panzer IV in Red Orchestra?
If the pilot or driver doesn't take you to where the enemy is you can't really do anything.
You are just as dependent on the driver in any other multi-crew vehicle as you are in this game.
I referenced the ball gunner of a Liberator because it is the same Mechanic.
Truthfully i can fly Direct Attack as a liberator with a CAS30 and High G Frame and provide absolutely nothing for the Gunner to shoot at because the Gunner of the Liberator can not point directly forward or backwards. It has a negative up bubble limitation of roughly 30 degrees (approximation).
You are as Dependent to Shoot at what your Pilot wants you to shoot at just as you are in the proposed Assault Tank.
I'm sorry you feel that a 45 degree arc isn't enough for you to aim in, but that is the limitation provided. You have to Work around it requiring Team Work and Communication... Ya know... what so many people want to have in this game?
And exactly how is it MY fault you don't understand the notation i used?
All of this is stemming from the fact that you didn't know what:
'22.5 degrees left pan limitation, 22.5 degrees right pan limitation, 45 degrees up bubble, 15 degrees down bubble.'
means and simply made assumptions to reply to it.
This is an accurate Notation to show to Code Monkies because it is clear set defined factors and leaves no room for assumptions on their part.
If you say 'It can pan Left and Right 45 Degrees'
Does that mean it has a 90 degree firing arc?
45 degrees left + 45 degrees right = 90 degrees.
Or did he mean a 45 degree firing arc?
22.5 degrees left + 22.5 degrees Right = 45 degrees.
all of a sudden you have your coders making assumptions about your design because they didn't bother to call you up for clarification.
Again, see, this is you referencing a real life point which is incorrect.
To correct you i have to use real life references which disprove your statement.
One of the Primary Roles an IFV in a Mechanized doctrine is to provide mobile Hard Cover to troops disembarking and moving through hostile areas.
comparison of a Heavy tank to a Modern MBT?
Last Heavy tank of US:
120mm main gun.
65 ton weight.
120mm main gun.
67 ton weight.
Yeah, we can compare Heavy Tanks to Modern MBTs.
Mostly because an MBT is often a Heavy Tank.
See, these are not vain attempts at proving my point right.
They are direct responses proving your ignorant statements Wrong.
Neither of those statements are false. SPGs in WW2, some of them had the driver as the gunner. I never said ALL SPGs, now did I? You're just nitpicking and trying to invalidate my arguments by twisting what I say and then latching onto it. Furthermore, heavy tanks DON'T exist anymore, that one aint even false.
More survivability doesn't warrant an entirely new vehicle. Breaking a siege is exceptionally easy with what we currently have, hence why bases fall in half an hour. And the Liberator has absolutely no relevance to what you want.
"As dependent" not even close. With the belly gun of a lib you have a very wide range of movement. As I have stated so many times, the belly gunner can essentially hit anything on the ground if the Lib is flying level. That's a pretty wide area. However with your SPG, the gunner can ONLY hit what's directly in front of the tank. How you can even dare to compare the two truly baffles me.
A much more accurate comparison would be the current MBT turrets to the lib belly gun. They have a fairly wide range of movement as well, but they can't aim straight up nor can they hit something directly besides them. Same way a lib gun can't aim up or hit things directly in front or behind it. To compare the magrider's main gun to the liberator's belly gun is just... wow...
And I'm sorry you feel like having an SPG with a dedicated gunner, because of all the ideas I have seen, this one takes the prize for "never going to happen". Players would never tolerate it. And yes, I will speak for them. Because some things are just so ******* painfully obvious. If I went and asked ANYONE, other than you and maybe Cheers, if they'd be willing to take the magriders main, hull mounted gun and be the gunner for it. I can guarantee you what every single ******* one of them would say. "Wtf? hell no" With a turret you're free to look where you want, to aim where you want, to shoot what you want. With a hull mounted gun you're forced to do whatever the driver wants you to do, and you're 100% at their mercy. No player would, or should tolerate that kind of mechanic.
And before you foolishly bring up the Lib, again, I will remind you that the belly gunner is still a turret same as the current MBT turrets. And the dynamic between pilot and belly gunner would be the same as driver and turret gunner. It is NOT the same as having your gun locked in the forward position.
It truly amuses me how you can routinely go "you're wrong, let me correct you" when in fact, all of my statements have indeed been correct and your 'corrections' are either downright false or lacking in crucial detail. Your IFV one, for example. I said being a damage sponge isn't ALL they do. I'm pretty sure an IFV does more than be a shield for troops. Such as... say.. CARRYING the troops? Or what about those guns able to lay down fire support? Yeah, certainly, an IFV ONLY exists to soak up damage, right?
If you're going to call my statements inaccurate and if you're going to correct me, at least know what the bloody hell you're talking about. I mean jesus christ dude.
Also, there's a reason they're called MBTs and not heavy tanks. Weight and armament =/= heavy tank. There are other factors involved. MBTs, with the advances of technology, can sport the big guns and armor of a heavy tank, but have the maneuverability and speed of a light tank with the overall versatility of a medium tank. I.E., MBTs can do everything. Hence why we don't have Light, Medium, or Heavy tanks anymore. Because they've all been rolled up into one vehicle.
You really, REALLY, need to stop trying to show your superiority because you are doing quite the opposite. Oh, and, a protip for your next post. Trying to split hairs and work off semantics just shows everyone that you have a weak foundation on which to build your argument. "Baw MBTs are actually heavy tanks because they weigh the same thus you're wrong!" Seriously dude.....
OMFG NO! We dont need MORE vehicles that can be over spammed! Until a vehicle limit is added or something, we dont need 500 LTs, 250 MTs, 450 HTs, 200 ESF, 150 Sundys, 90 Gals, 220 Libbys among other things zipping around. THe 150 vehicle traffic jams we have now are already annoying enough and just another reason why I dont join huge attacks....every 5th step is a Vehicle TK.
Besides, we have the Lightning and MBTs.
That's actually a pretty good point. Theoretically though, the resource income should be what prevents vehicle spam, so that more choices don't actually result in more vehicles.
Something to watch out for.
We need more vehicles that expend larger numbers of players for their power. The more people it takes to get the optimal tank setup, the less tank spam we will see, as a squad of 12 people wont mean 12 tanks, it would be 6, or 4, sure they will be powerful, but given the loadouts they could possibly equip, they would have rather clear weaknesses.
How much "Human resources" goes into an individual vehicle to make it combat effective directly correlates to how many you will see in a single battle.
If we were going to have a heavier tank, it would need a better third slot in addition, that little gun on top of the turret as well.
Perhaps making the coaxial gun for a HBT give one two weapons for one person, to once again, make putting more people in one tank more optimal, with the driver having a flash weapon to keep him from feeling useless.
They would be driving fortresses that could respond to a variety of threats exceptionally, but struggle against large number of threats without support.
This doesn't mean they would be useless in large scale battles, it would simply mean they would need to be deployed intelligently.
Not being the only thing in the metagame doesn't mean its useless, or overpowered, just..... There. With a use.
Getting more power into a small area.
You could do this by crippling their visibility -- the crew commander directing would be almost necessary to give the tank any kind of proper situational awareness.
Slow down the turret traverse for the gunner, give the driver a first-person only view (with scopes to the sides/back), and let the commander actually direct the tank as the one guy who sees exactly what's going on.
In fact that's pretty much how it works in real-life -- though it doesn't mean PS2 players would enjoy being crippled like this if you hit the existing MBTs with these changes.
Separate names with a comma.