Originally Posted by Bonius
If it's resource inefficient compared to 1-3man vehicles, it won't get used by the people able to use it. (Relating back to the "why not just 100MBT's?)
Limiting FoV/Area coverage on the guns would render it completely useless unless fully manned, again relating back to "why not just 100MBT's". The blindspots would also get exploited easily by the opponents.
The achilles heel you mention is already in place in the current metagame. Why would you want to put something that costly in a defensive position? Wouldn't the enemies just go the other way? (The heavy can't chase after them, nor can they engage them effectively).
With all the above points covered, I only see the heavy battle tank you are describing as a huge, costly and ineffective artillery platform. The only thing you would get in the end is a minor e-peen boost before you get blown to bits by enemy AV-vehicles/infantry.
|
While writing my last post I was reminded of UT2k4's Paladin tank, which was allowed to create a forcefield in front of wherever its cannon was facing. Someone else brought up a tank with extending armor- I think that is the direction a Heavy tank should be going, not simply a 2x power MBT with a 2x cost. It should be a defensive vehicle that could hold on long enough for reinforcements to arrive and allow their teammates to dig in as well.
As for it being useless if not fully manned -- the person rolling out of base with a 1 man leviathan in UT2k4 deserved to get that thing destroyed, same applies here I think. As for blindspots being exploited - you mean like shooting a reaver in the rear?
Other vehicles already experience this. Potentially (assuming it is made, and made in my design) the Heavy tank would have the greatest situational awareness, but would require coordination in order to capitalize on it.