|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
   |
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
hopefully we will see a tank that resembles the attributes of a titan class ship. i just can't seem to image the the weight of this tank or the damage it would do. one thing a titan tank should be able to do is take eve ships out the sky. the image of a titan tank should have four tank tracks, with it's sub weapons being normal tank turrets on the game and it's main weapon should four times the size of a normal tank turret.
i really want to see a titan tank.
|
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Superluminal Replicant wrote:As long as they add militia versions to.
why?
|
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Angely Unomahar wrote:4447 wrote:Superluminal Replicant wrote:As long as they add militia versions to. why? the same .... why ??? titan tank, if there's some, will need lot of skill (I hope) and if they are militia, we'll be in game with 5 titans (like i've seen with actual HAV ! )
a lot of skill and money to build a titan tank. |
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
i play as a assault class . i think if the you had a titan tank and you were losing it could be a game changer,an a moral boost for the team. this moral boost you will feel more apart of the eve universe thus giving emotion to the game.
anyway titan tanks are not on world of tanks. |
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Surya and Sagaris tank builds are pretty much the equivalent of Titans.
you could call them equivalent to titans but i think i heard that mechs are going to be introduce into the game. |
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
your most probably right, but i think CCP would have to do a variant that is a heavy. |
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1500_Monster
This? In DUST? Would be lol-tastic. Only place I've ever seen superheavy vehicles work is 40k, and everything there is run by nightmare fuel and rule of cool. Completely different vibe.
1000 ton tank, most of them super heavy tanks are under 100 tons.
|
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:4447 wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1500_Monster
This? In DUST? Would be lol-tastic. Only place I've ever seen superheavy vehicles work is 40k, and everything there is run by nightmare fuel and rule of cool. Completely different vibe. 1000 ton tank, most of them super heavy tanks are under 100 tons. You are talking about a block-sized tank (where current large cannons are the "small" turrets). HAVs are already in the 100 ton range easily.
a titan would be a monster looking at wiki most of the weight is in the turret meaning a titan class tank would be over 3000 tons i think?
|
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
got me thinking now...the role of a tank is to break an enemies defence line. a titan tank being 3000 ton with orbital bombardment would seen as a sitting target it would be used more as a artillery unit. if we shrink a titan tank to have three turrets but being the same size as a HAV main turret. the role of the a titan tank becomes a role of a tank killer or a super tank killer. the titan tank would have more armour and 2x slower then a HAV just to balance it out.
now the problem with 3 turrets the same size, dependent on the size of this titan class base. would see the two side turrets a minus angel of movement giving it one of it's weakness just like some of the tank killers in WW2. with this weakness i would put two with sub turrets like on a HAV to cover the back on the tank but this would still be it's weakness.
what do you think. |
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
in natural progression in any weapon we will always see a bigger, better weapon in the future. taking this on broad a titan/ heavy tank killer should be that progression. |
|
|
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 19:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
backwards, forwards we get there tho |
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 19:36:00 -
[12] - Quote
Alaric Rhys wrote:4447 wrote:in natural progression in any weapon we will always see a bigger, better weapon in the future. taking this on broad a titan/ heavy tank killer should be that progression. Not necessarily. The Tiger 1 was a real beast during WW2, yet the M1A1 Abrams has a much lower profile and is easily twice as 'powerful'. The larger something is, the easier it is to hit. Having a massive tank looks cool, and it's certainly imposing, but everyone near it will be able to hit it. It's size will mean it has many blind spots where attackers can fire on it with impunity, and it might even be possible for infantry to swarm over it. Aircraft would have a much easier time bombing it, and the orbital strikes could take it out in one go.
The bigger and better saying, i know sometimes bigger isn't better but i know weapons get better. the M4A1 is lower profile is i think gives it better speed. tanks because there's no major war going with super nation against each other there's no need for a tank killer. |
4447
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
649
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Alaric Rhys wrote:4447 wrote:Alaric Rhys wrote:4447 wrote:in natural progression in any weapon we will always see a bigger, better weapon in the future. taking this on broad a titan/ heavy tank killer should be that progression. Not necessarily. The Tiger 1 was a real beast during WW2, yet the M1A1 Abrams has a much lower profile and is easily twice as 'powerful'. The larger something is, the easier it is to hit. Having a massive tank looks cool, and it's certainly imposing, but everyone near it will be able to hit it. It's size will mean it has many blind spots where attackers can fire on it with impunity, and it might even be possible for infantry to swarm over it. Aircraft would have a much easier time bombing it, and the orbital strikes could take it out in one go. The bigger and better saying, i know sometimes bigger isn't better but i know weapons get better. the M4A1 is lower profile is i think gives it better speed. tanks because there's no major war going with super nation against each other there's no need for a tank killer. It's not a matter of better speed (though speed counts). The lower profile is a defensive design; the lower the tanks is to the ground, the more easily it can hide and the harder it is to hit. As I said, a larger vehicle is more visible, and thus easier to hit/destroy. Older tanks tend to be larger because we didn't have the tech to make them any smaller without sacrificing power. Also, never discount the effectiveness of infantry swarming a large, slow moving vehicle. During the Soviet invasion of Finland the Russians lost approximately 3,500 tanks, mostly to infantry armed with little more than simple explosives. Tanks are not self-reliant; they require infantry support to be effective. The bigger the tank, the more support it requires. For Dust, this would mean you'd probably have 6 or more people just to full utilize everything the super-heavy has to offer, but that would leave few infantry to support it. Meaning the enemy could pick it apart as long as they worked as a team. Also, M4-A1= carbine/assault rifle. M1-A1= tank. Huge difference.
i could be here all day with this
|
|
|
| |
|