Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Its not how big, but how you use it.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-04-10, 12:15 PM | [Ignore Me] #32 | ||
Corporal
|
Imho a heavy tank (or superheavy) should be a more of a lineholder defensive type of vehicle, give the MBT's the offensive punch.
I just remembered this while reading this page. A game called Ground Control 2 had a nice idea for a heavy tank. It was just that, a lineholder. It's side armours would swivel to the front and grant it extra front armour and made some nice hard cover for infantry (PIC INCLUDED!) |
||
|
2012-04-10, 01:51 PM | [Ignore Me] #34 | |||
Sergeant
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-04-10, 06:33 PM | [Ignore Me] #35 | |||
Staff Sergeant
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-04-11, 01:25 AM | [Ignore Me] #36 | ||||
Sergeant
|
And if you're in a bunkered down position outside of a base, the base is already providing enough protection for the guys on foot. The heavy tank would just get instantly smashed to pieces by the assaulting forces.
Again, what role would the heavy tank fill that other vehicles cannot? Give me the complete concept. |
||||
|
2012-04-11, 02:01 AM | [Ignore Me] #37 | ||
Staff Sergeant
|
Already answered some of these but ok
1) helping protect and prolong the lives of nearby teammates - to reduce casualties. 2) Why do you assume it would only be effective in a losing battle- enemies still shoot at you even if you're winning. Even in crushing victories you still lose some men. also- I imagine the high requirement for teamwork would be enough to entice many people to load up into one. 3) You say instantly smashed to pieces- didn't we just say mundo armor and maybe defensive abilities. 4) Many other vehicles cannot fire 360 radius unless they rotate their vehicle. The Heavy tank, with its many turrets or gunports would be able to fire in all directions- but its *main* source of damage being restricted in some way for the purpose of balance. 5) taking punishment in a way other vehicles simply can't contend with. The role it could fill seems obvious to me - think what needs to be a concern if this idea does see the light of day is to not let it become too overpowered. |
||
|
2012-04-11, 02:17 AM | [Ignore Me] #38 | |||
Sergeant
|
2) You mention it as being slow, require alot of resources, handle poorly and be used in defensive position. You rarely bring something specialized for defence when you're on the offence. Why would this vehicle be prefered over five times the amount of MBT's/sunderers/galaxies? 3) Big lumbering targets makes easy prey for any form of AV-weaponry. You can pump it up with all the armor you want, as soon as it gets focused it will get blown to bits - unless backed by a squad of dedicated repairmen . 4) I've yet to see a ground vehicle without a 360 or 180 degree of coverage. 5) I've understood the part about the heavy tank being a damage sponge. What else can it do, beside just sitting there? There's alot of variables that are still uncertain with this whole concept. Would it be a cool thing to have? Yes. Is it a good thing to have? In my opinion, No. Last edited by Bonius; 2012-04-11 at 02:19 AM. |
|||
|
2012-04-11, 03:23 AM | [Ignore Me] #39 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
|
As I waited for my Indian take away last night I was reading through a book on tanks.
Main battle tank is just everyday tanks now, as a single weapon can and does knock them out of action. Now in the PS world this does not happen; multiple shots are required so we have tanks distinguished by the amount of armour; Light, Medium and Heavy. However we know that there are no heavy tanks, so I do think that heavy tanks should eventually make it into the game. |
||
|
2012-04-12, 09:30 AM | [Ignore Me] #44 | |||
Sergeant
|
I know a few "veterans" (gz on missing the biggest gaming revolution ever by the way) would play it and claim it would be the best game ever released. They would also ensure the cash flow equivalent of three McDonald's meals a month. Last edited by Bonius; 2012-04-12 at 09:32 AM. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|