Tank destroyers

[VioletZero]

With the changes to how tanks function from PS1, I can see armor pushes becoming VERY popular. It needs a more solid counter. One that armor can't just steamroll right from the getgo.

It's easy to see why they removed artillery. Which is why I think it is only fair to have a replacement that, while still indirect, could be seen coming and is easily able to be countered.

Enter the Tank Destroyer. It would be a tank that is specifically made to take out armor from a defensive position.

They would have powerful, pinpoint accurate anti-vehicle guns and have thick armor in the front capable of withstanding many more tank shells than a regular MBT can.

For as powerful as they are against ground armor, their weaknesses are numerous. Hard counters include infantry, MAXes, aircraft and armor coming from behind.

On top of that, in order to fire, they must lock down their vehicle first. Which can take some time. And without a turret, they are limited to a small cone in which they can target enemies. They also have a VERY long reload time. So they're easily overwhelmed.

They're a flawed defensive placement that, when used properly, could kill an armor push. Encouraging wider varieties of tactics than just tank rushing.

Of course, we're not even certain that we'll need this. But it is something to keep in mind just in case ground armor is a little too good.

[SteinB]

Shouldn't be necessary to have a seperate vehicle type for this. Customize a tank with heavier protection sacrificing mobility and a powerful gun sacrificing traverse/rof and you'll have your tank destroyer.

[DxC]

I do like the idea would be something else to defend and watch out for when manning it (snipers Cloakers etc)

[VioletZero]

Shouldn't be necessary to have a seperate vehicle type for this. Customize a tank with heavier protection sacrificing mobility and a powerful gun sacrificing traverse/rof and you'll have your tank destroyer.

There a few balancing factors missing.

First off, MBTs have turrets. In order for this vehicle to work, it can't have a turret.

Second, I'm fairly certain that they come with machine gunners. Which would remove one(or two) of the main counters which kind of defeats the point.

Third, part of what makes the vehicle worth a damn is both its high accuracy and high power. If it can load an enemy tank into a weakspot, it goes down. Which is sort of what it needs to work, and I doubt that a tank part will have both the accuracy and power needed.

[Hmr85]

There is enough counters in the game already that we shouldn't need another Vehicle. If they roll armor you also have the option to roll armor to counter. Also, they gave Infantry a deterrent called a rocket launcher that works great.

Nobody would ever roll MBT's if there was a "Tank Destroyer". All people would ever be using is Tank Destroyers to destroy other Tank Destroyers. So really there is no point in having them.

[super pretendo]

With the changes to how tanks function from PS1, I can see armor pushes becoming VERY popular.
What exactly happened

[VioletZero]

There is enough counters in the game already that we shouldn't need another Vehicle. If they roll armor you also have the option to roll armor to counter. Also, they gave Infantry a deterrent called a rocket launcher that works great.

Nobody would ever roll MBT's if there was a "Tank Destroyer". All people would ever be using is Tank Destroyers to destroy other Tank Destroyers. So really there is no point in having them.

You wouldn't really be able to use tank destroyers to spearhead any assault because of the requirement to lock down first.

Of which, that basically means that they have to spend like 5 seconds or so deploying so that they can fire their gun. But this also means they're completely immobile.

You could probably use a tank destroyer to support an assault but a defending tank destroyer would always beat an attacking one.

What exactly happened

The biggest change was that they made it so that tank drivers operate the main gun too. Which means that there are going to be a lot more tanks around.

[Hmr85]

It sounds great but all your doing is locking yourself down and making your self a fixed target for Infantry and other armor/air. I just can't really see a reason for having a tank destroyer when you can roll a Vanguard say for instance and do everything your describing but better. I still retain my versatility and ability to bug out in a hurry if I need to.

[Furret]

If its a one shot kill, its not a good idea. Nobody wants to go over a hill and instantly die because some guy was sitting on the other side with a destroyer. The counter to an armor push should be a bigger armor push imo. Not turning this into a rock-paper-scissors fight.

[VioletZero]

If its a one shot kill, its not a good idea. Nobody wants to go over a hill and instantly die because some guy was sitting on the other side with a destroyer. The counter to an armor push should be a bigger armor push imo. Not turning this into a rock-paper-scissors fight.

Okay, there's another reason why I like this idea that I forgot to mention.

On both the attacking and defending sides, it would emphasize the importance of intelligence and communication.

And about the rock-paper-scissors comment, I respectfully disagree.

While I do think it should be more complex than that, the reason why hard counters exist is so that it gets the team working together more. You can't be a one man hero army whatever. There are(or at least there should be) things that force teams to diversify their roles.

[SteinB]

There a few balancing factors missing.

First off, MBTs have turrets. In order for this vehicle to work, it can't have a turret.

I said a more powerful gun sacrificing TRAVERSE/rof.

Second, I'm fairly certain that they come with machine gunners. Which would remove one(or two) of the main counters which kind of defeats the point.

Tanks do come with secondary guns, true. But there needs to be a person for that secondary gun for it to function and in your scenario the same could be accomplished by having a second vehicle/emplacement (go engies!) with such a gun.

Third, part of what makes the vehicle worth a damn is both its high accuracy and high power. If it can load an enemy tank into a weakspot, it goes down. Which is sort of what it needs to work, and I doubt that a tank part will have both the accuracy and power needed.

Again I said a POWERFUL gun sacrificing traverse/ROF

But after all this what I think you are actually looking for is not a vehicle but a antitank gun emplacement (go engies!)

addendum: I'm not trying to shoot down :) your idea so much as redirect it. Adding superspecialized vehicles to the game is not a good idea. Adding skills that allow for varied tactics using the standard vehicles is.

[VioletZero]

Believe me, I prefer it when people oppose an idea.

And you're sort of right that this could act as an anti-tank emplacement. But there's something that tells me that it will have more limited uses than what I am proposing.

[CutterJohn]

With the changes to how tanks function from PS1, I can see armor pushes becoming VERY popular.

You mean a bunch of tanks with just drivers. Which means they have no gunner. Which means they will be incredibly vulnerable to air, and which ultimately means Liberators would chew them to pieces.

The counter to tank spam exists already.

[VioletZero]

Isn't there an anti-air configuration for tanks?

[CutterJohn]

Isn't there an anti-air configuration for tanks?

Yes, for the gunner.

[Sirisian]

You mean a bunch of tanks with just drivers. Which means they have no gunner. Which means they will be incredibly vulnerable to air, and which ultimately means Liberators would chew them to pieces.
From the gameplay video it also looks like they will be severely weak against infantry. The shells move slowly and look very easy to dodge. Not sure if anyone picked up on that. The main cannon is a purely AV weapon it looked like. Maybe at close range it can kill infantry easier. Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2wifg7aitk#t=1m52s). Also players can sprint making it even easier to dodge.

More on topic I don't think there should be a better AV weapon in the game. Tanks should have the strongest AV cannon. Infantry with AV and other tanks can kill tanks. Or gunships or pretty much anything. The devs need to focus on making unique vehicles with fun gameplay in mind, not creating one-off counters for a problem that can be balanced away if it even exists.

[Metalsheep]

They made a "Tank Destroyer" vehicle in Planetside. It was the BFR, and we saw how much the community loved those things. :/

They had immense armor and a recharging shield. To boost their defense they could crouch and become immobile, and their default weapon was Tank destroying weaponry. A single BFR could wreck an armor push, let alone multiple BFRs.

Once they were nerfed, they still function as an Anti-Tank platform, they can handle two or three if the pilot is good.

They were incredibly weak to infantry, in fact, one infantry with a Jammer and Decimators could solo one. They used to be good against anything if they had the right gun equipped, but since they got nerfed they are only truly useful against Tanks. Weak to Air, Infantry, MAXs and slow moving.

It did not work well in PS1. (Though i do enjoy the current iteration of the BFR, though its actually horribly weak now.) I don't think a vehicle with similar function will go over well.

Tanks are already vulnerable to Air, even with AA I'm sure Air can keep the Tank population in check, especially the new Liberator. Lets also not forget about AV MAXs and Infantry.

[Warborn]

Mechs will not be in Planetside 2 at release, so there is no sense in discussing them in this thread.

Tank destroyers should be tanks armed with anti-armor cannons (do away with tank cannons that have a huge blast radius and are good against armor and infantry) and fighters armed with air-to-ground rockets (which should, similarly, have a small explosive radius to make them weaker against infantry). Synergy is what is needed. Combined arms. You don't need to make a new vehicle to accomplish the task of having something designed to kill armor, because the game should already have been designed with the vehicles given roles which depend upon the weapon(s) they are outfitted with.

[Metalsheep]

Well, i wasn't aiming to turn this into an Anti-BFR/Pro-BFR thread. But that's what their intended function was in Planetside, and they pretty much wrecked the games flow. They nerfed them way too late, and they still destroy tank combat.

I think PS2 should be fine at release with enough Anti Tank capabilities. The Lib Gunship makes me pretty comfortable that Tanks can be kept in check. I'm just not sure about Air being kept in check.

[VioletZero]

Well, let me make one thing clear.

In my intended design, two tanks would beat one tank destroyer most often(most often meaning if the tank drivers aren't COMPLETE buffoons.) But, if facing forward, one tank destroyer would beat one tank.

[Warborn]

Air will keep air in check. That's really the way it always should have been and why I'm now fine with fighters being single-person vehicles. With fighters being given air-to-air capability at the expense of air-to-ground, you can count on there to be serious dogfights to determine which side is able to start bringing out aircraft which pose a serious threat to ground targets. Logically it just seems to follow that if one side simply rolls a bunch of liberators and reaver whores like they did in PS1, the other side which instead brings in a bunch of air-to-air fighters will rip them to shreds.

And that's the way it ought to be. With that, you can seriously scale back ground-to-air weaponry and make air superiority be very important and the source of effective anti-air measures.

Well, let me make one thing clear.

In my intended design, two tanks would beat one tank destroyer most often(most often meaning if the tank drivers aren't COMPLETE buffoons.) But, if facing forward, one tank destroyer would beat one tank.

The problem you've identified is armor being too effective en masse. People in this thread have identified something in the game already (air power) which would serve to mitigate the potency of armor, while also pointing out that if tanks have to choose between either anti-infantry or anti-armor guns they will not necessarily be "a problem" if they are seen in larger numbers, as unlike PS1 it will not mean "every single ground target in front of them is about to die".

[aleksandrgrc]

only thing id like to say is
in one interview i heard / read that a reason classes where created was to make it easier to know what can that guy do to me at a glance. reading this thread made me realize that cannot be true. because all the tweeks u can give to everything in this game but have it look probably very similar at a distance.
is the exact opposite phillosophy.

that said i like the customization. i hope that a super power gun with very little travers speed slow reload and high but familiar recoil so we can have our TD's on the slow front armored como electronics masking ambush duty. with the mind field to our flank and a path in the woods to retreat. when those two vanguards come chasing the bait they wont know what hit them.

we r going to have alot of fun in this game :)

[metziih]

I don't really see the point behind dedicated TD ground vehicle. I mean, in the same ammount of time wouldn't it be easier to just call in the lol-airforce and bomb/liberate the hell out of the armoured push? Besides, if TD's are slower than "normal" tanks, wouldn't they be quite pointless when enemy goes full Erwin Rommel mode and just drives around your TD's and starts ravaging behind the front lines?

Flying/VTOL Hunter-killer patrols, if somewhat decently organized could;

a) react faster to enemy armored spearheads than TD's.
b) cover more ground when searching for the enemy tank-formations

Basically, only use I see for TD's would be;

a) Siege-weapons / infantry direct fire-support vehicle
Slow speed, big gun, high armour. But then again, I see no reason why the regular tank(s) couldn't fulfil the same role while being more mobile.

b) Opportunistic tank-destoyer
And this would only work when and if enemy was being a silly, and didn't either see your big TD in time, or decided to launch a frontal attack against your TD with a tank.

[Figment]

TD's tend to have a lower profile than a tank. Dedicated platforms >>>>>> tank modification.

[metziih]

TD's tend to have a lower profile than a tank. Dedicated platforms >>>>>> tank modification.

Occasionally, but there is a good reason why TD's are not in use anymore.(Or mostly just are IFV's with ATGM's slapped on to them.)

TD's without a turret are extremely dependant on the terrain, you can basically only use them in places where enemy can come from only one direction.

Ref; STRV 103 S

However, there are "light" TD's. Big gun, high speed, no armour.

Ref; IKV 91

But again, the reason why there is no "dedicated" TD's anymore simply is, tactical versatility > too high specialization

[Marinealver]

If they bring back BFRs, then they should add a tank destroyer (lightning fwd fixed gun varient). High anti armor damage, little to no splash, and ignores shields.

[Marinealver]

Occasionally, but there is a good reason why TD's are not in use anymore.(Or mostly just are IFV's with ATGM's slapped on to them.)

But again, the reason why there is no "dedicated" TD's anymore simply is, tactical versatility > too high specialization

Well it isn't just the overspecialization but the fact that todays battlefield has changed. Those videos were made in the 70s and 80s which was the end of the cold war erra also know as the post (world) war (2) era. Back then armored vehicles such as tanks still played a major war between military conflicts.

Today war has gone compleetly asymetrical, non governmental orginizations can now have access to war funding as easy or even easier as any nation, you might even start to see some corperations carrying private security forces. Home-made explosive devices can now be manufactured with anti-tank capacity. Also the proliferation of military aircraft can outmanuver any ground vehicles on the battlefield. Even some terrorist orginizations have begun to develop tactics using aircraft in terrorist and insurgent attacks. Putting more emphesis on boots on the ground patroling instead of powerful vehicles and big gun artellery that once dominated the battlefields of the 20th centuary.

[Figment]

There will be plenty of chokepoints to consider one directional.

They are very ambush and defensive oriented vehicle type, they have a completely different gameplay from other tanks and as such and I like having different options.

Like dedicated AA units should be designed to fight ground to skies at their core, I find the idea of putting everything on the same tank chassis utterly ludicrous, tasteless and completely lacking imagination. It would really hurt my in-game emersion experience to get the cheap art-redo instead of niche and specialist vehicles.


Using the same chassis and basic gameplay for everything is like using stock animation and footage in series and movies: it becomes VERY noticable and will be explained as a lack of budget and that will be interpreted as lack of quality: cheap.

[cryosin]

Rolling armor was a big part of planetside 1. If you ever witnessed 20 on 20 tank fights, you know how awesome they really are. There is a huge sky battle going on in the skies, flak everywhere, and you have 20 tanks shelling at each other across a vast landscape. When these moments happen, no other game comes close to delivering the awesomeness that it does.

Rolling armor is a great strategy for open world combat.

Here is the counter system:
Tanks = Tanks( DUH)
Reavers > Tanks
Ground AA > Reavers
Tanks > Ground AA

Replace reaver with any Air2Ground vehicle and you have the same idea. Also, AA air counters A2G air.
Its actually very well balanced. I would only have to say that Ground AA in planetside 1 was a bit too powerful, but outside of that the concept works fine.

Infantry are suppose to be effective when they can hide. If you are out in the open trying to kill a tank or a reaver, you won't succeed unless you outnumber the tank significantly. This is how it is in real life and planetside 1.

This is actually fairly similar to battlefield. In battlefield you need to be an engineer to have a good chance of killing a tank. Air is also a great counter to tanks. AA is a good counter to air and so on and so forth.

[Darkace]

As stated before there are many reasons why tanks destroyers are not around anymore. One solution to balance out tanks & making them more powerful but still balanced would to give them different main gun ammo like in real tanks. Such as sabot (giant metal dart) for defeating armor, HEAT (what most gamers think of as main gun rounds) rounds that explode on contact for defeating light armor. Heat rounds would have much lower damage but would have splash damage. If the debs want to get really creative also through in a canister round (giant shotgun shell) or even mpat rounds for defeating air targets

[MrKWalmsley]

One good way to stop a tank rush:
MINES!

Look, the point of a rush is that it is quick. How can a tank destroyer or even several tank destroyers defend against a tank rush if they have a VERY long reload time? The numbers would have to be nearing equal to compensate for inevitable misses, causing the rushers to have time to flank the TDs, ultimately dooming them (due to their slow nature and the fact that they need to "pack up", they would never be able to turn around to get them quicker than the tanks can circle them.

And if you're going to say that they should be placed in areas where they cannot be flanked then you are also asking the developers to re-design vast spans of their map to suit this one type of vehicle, and in such areas all that would probably end up happening is TD vs TD battles or just an easy Liberator strafe!

The best defence against them are mines. But if you really want to reduce the frequency of tank rushing, do you know what would be easier for the developers for you to request? To turn the tanks back into driver, gunner. And I would be right behind you on that, but not this.

[Noivad]

Rolling armor is a great strategy for open world combat.

Here is the counter system:
Tanks = Tanks( DUH)
Reavers > Tanks
Ground AA > Reavers
Tanks > Ground AA



This post was excellent - Bring back ADA = Air Defense Artillary - DO NOT put AD on tanks - it never will be realistic. Planetside appeal for many is the teamwork involved with multiple person, multiple different role vehicles where more then one person had to work together to kill something linke in a Raider or a deli, or a sky guard. Thats what Outfits were all about. We don't want 3 types of outfits - infantry - tanks - and air. If you gonna specialize outfits then make if so there are ADA outfits like in the real world. ADA is found moving with the infantry, tanks, and yes even air bases to keep the air ports free of enemy air. Make Planetside realistic in every way. Make it team work heavy. make it so if ur with a team u get the most resourses not solo play.
Planetside 1 was a great game for the teamwork. not where everone got to drive a vehicle that could do everything. :evil:

[Figment]

Once had an idea for a PS1 common pool TD, called the Vanquish.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/VanquishTankDestroyer.jpg (http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/VanquishTankDestroyer.jpg)

But of course that's the old PlanetSide style and leitmotive.

Just now was doodling a bit and just made some basic PS2 TD concepts with different configurations and principles that at least somewhat fit the new art direction (mind, these are just napkin size 10 min. doodles). (click images for bigger size).

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/TD_Concepts.jpg
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/TD_Concepts.jpg

Then something hit me: the driver/gunner debate.

What if...

Heavy tanks: gunner main gun / driver secondary gun
Tank Destroyers: driver main gun / gunner secondary gun

Then the advantage of the gunner is at all times 360º weaponry.

[PredatorFour]

One good way to stop a tank rush:
MINES!

Look, the point of a rush is that it is quick. How can a tank destroyer or even several tank destroyers defend against a tank rush if they have a VERY long reload time? The numbers would have to be nearing equal to compensate for inevitable misses, causing the rushers to have time to flank the TDs, ultimately dooming them (due to their slow nature and the fact that they need to "pack up", they would never be able to turn around to get them quicker than the tanks can circle them.

And if you're going to say that they should be placed in areas where they cannot be flanked then you are also asking the developers to re-design vast spans of their map to suit this one type of vehicle, and in such areas all that would probably end up happening is TD vs TD battles or just an easy Liberator strafe!

The best defence against them are mines. But if you really want to reduce the frequency of tank rushing, do you know what would be easier for the developers for you to request? To turn the tanks back into driver, gunner. And I would be right behind you on that, but not this.

Tank destroyers arnt meant to get up close to tanks, theyre not as maneuovreable. They are meant more as artillery pieces hitting hard from afar. Figgy`s drawings are cool, showing them to be bulky , heavy tanks with hard hitting weaponry. Id love it if we see more vehicles like this! I like the scarab design and the `Trminator` too lol

[Shlomoshun]

IT's a tough one, basically you end up with the never ending game of what is the hard counter to what? In terms of Armor, the hard counter should be Air to Ground, also Engineers (mines), as well as plenty of soft counters (Heavy Infantry, MAX, Base Emplacements).

The one I can't quite figure out is Air Superiority....what's the hard counter of Air 2 Air....is it the Lightning or Anti Air MAX's or what?

[CutterJohn]

IT's a tough one, basically you end up with the never ending game of what is the hard counter to what? In terms of Armor, the hard counter should be Air to Ground, also Engineers (mines), as well as plenty of soft counters (Heavy Infantry, MAX, Base Emplacements).

The one I can't quite figure out is Air Superiority....what's the hard counter of Air 2 Air....is it the Lightning or Anti Air MAX's or what?

Obviously. An air superiority fighter lacks dedicated ground attack weaponry. If the enemies are bringing out lots of fighters to shoot down your attack aircraft, counter with ground AA.

[Figment]

IT's a tough one, basically you end up with the never ending game of what is the hard counter to what? In terms of Armor, the hard counter should be Air to Ground, also Engineers (mines), as well as plenty of soft counters (Heavy Infantry, MAX, Base Emplacements).

Tank Destroyers and tanks are simply different forms of heavy ground AV, they simply have different gameplay, like buggies and light tanks.

The one I can't quite figure out is Air Superiority....what's the hard counter of Air 2 Air....is it the Lightning or Anti Air MAX's or what?

Probably they will create Wasp type custom modifications to ES aircraft. You can't figure it out because aircav in the air is its own counter. There's so few niche units that it muddles the clarity of gameplay in terms of rock-paper-scissors, tbh.

[Gonefshn]

Best tank destroyer ever....

http://www.igcd.net/images/013/568.jpg

If they include this then I am all for the idea.

In all seriousness though your really just asking for a mobile deploy able AV turret. I'd rather let tanks duke it out, instead of a hard counter I'd rather just see the better tank battalion overtake the other.

[Figment]

A tank is a mobile turret.

This is a mobile bunker.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3096/2861838588_ef4dfd332f_o.jpg

The T28 (later called 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95) was a prototype heavily armored tank destroyer, designed for the US Military during the Second World War. It was originally designed to be used to break through German defenses at the Siegfried Line, and was later considered as a possible participant in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. It had no conventional turret, giving it a comparatively low profile. Its total weight when fully equipped would have reached ninety-five tons. The armor was very thick compared to tanks of the time, in some places up to twelve inches thick (thirty centimeters). This was considered heavy enough to provide protection from the 88 mm gun used by German heavy tanks.

[Gonefshn]

A tank is a mobile turret.


I said a mobile deployable AV turret. meaning it has to be stationary to fire.

your really just asking for a mobile deploy able AV turret

Either way, my point stands. Let's let the mobile turrets duke it out. and let the best mobile turret battalion wins.

[Figment]

Who says you can't fire on the move with a tank destroyer? And really, do you honestly think a deployable turret will be useful in the field? Field Turrets are stationary targets that cannot at all dodge fire, but they have 1080 degree fire. So no, they're not the same thing, at all.

Play some world of tanks Tank Destroyers to see how they work.

They may have for instance a higher rate of fire, higher accuracy (more stable platform) and higher caliber and lower profile than a tank, at the cost of a fixed turret, or they may even have a turret, but at the cost of armour thickness and gun caliber.

They're not at all like deployable turrets, they're more like sniper tanks, blocker tanks and frontal storm ram tanks (take heavy beating frontally and keep advancing, deflecting shots and simply shrugging off hits with heavy sloped frontal armour at the cost of overall armour). The main thing is, most TDs (some have turrets) are vulnerable in the side, which makes them quite different from other tanks in how you take them out. And that's fine.

[Gonefshn]

Who says you can't fire on the move with a tank destroyer? And really, do you honestly think a deployable turret will be useful in the field? Field Turrets are stationary targets that cannot at all dodge fire, but they have 1080 degree fire. So no, they're not the same thing, at all.

I was basing what I said on what a lot of people in the thread were saying. People saying to use it in a defensive role as a hard counter for tanks, and people discussing having it deploy or need to stop moving to be fired.

The tank in my original post, though ridiculous and from an N64 game, is exactly like the tank destroyer you are describing now. Full front armor, heavy gun, lower armor on the sides and rear.

I can see the difference in how these function in the feild, it's a question of tactics and how you approach the enemy. A regular tank would be much more mobile and versatile while a tank destroyer is meant to hold the line or push it forward.

I like the direction that they are going with the vehicles already, lower numbers of vehicles but more customization on the ones they are offering. If you need to have a tank destroyer type vehicle why not make it a sidegrade to the MBTs instead of creating a new vehicle. I could see a tank destroyer variant to a Vangaurd or any of the tanks with heavier front armor and a larger turret, just sacrificing mobility and side armor.

If your looking to introduce a TD thats the way to do it in my opinion. This sounds like it can easily just be a sidegrade for MBTs.

[Figment]

Alright never mind then, got confused with who you were argueing.

But no sidegrading.

Different platform. Dedicated roles, please.

Sidegrading a tank to a TD would be like sidegrading a handpistol to a sniper rifle, IMO.

[Gonefshn]

To each his own, I guess a new vehicle wouldn't bother me but it still seems like a sidegrade to me.

And yea lol, I think we are kinda on the same side here :p

This is what I was talking about, from the original post.

On top of that, in order to fire, they must lock down their vehicle first. Which can take some time. And without a turret, they are limited to a small cone in which they can target enemies. They also have a VERY long reload time. So they're easily overwhelmed.

[Figment]

Locking down could IMO be optional to increase accuracy, but shouldn't be needed. Think TR MAX ability.

[Figment]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/TD_Concepts2.jpg

Figured I'd post some more silly TD concepts. These could strafe like the Magrider, just cannot move as well over objects.

On these two, the TR would have balljointed tracks (TR roller, or... Troller), while NC would have tracks in multiple directions. Still thinking on the most appropriate name for that one.

[Gonzo]

I'm pretty sure the Lightning is going to have some sort of dedicated AV turret option available, to create a quick, fragile tank hunter that uses Hit & Runs to take on MBTs.

I don't think some of these concepts for a big, slow, heavy tank-killer would end up working all that well. Might as well get in a Vanguard and drive extra slow or something.

[SztEltviz]

I agree with the different ammo option, HE (low damage, aoe) for killing light veh and inf., AP (high damage on hit, no splash) for killing tanks. And low ammo count on tanks to force them do think before deploying.