|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alaric Rhys
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
6
   |
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Rather than super-heavy vehicles, I'd like to see some specialized vehicles in the finished game.
As others have already pointed out, massive super-heavy vehicles would be too much of a liability with the air-support and orbital strike. They'd be large, slow-moving targets that would get nickle-and-dimed to death or just outright destroyed by some well-placed ordinance.
Specialty-vehicles, on the other hand, could add a lot to the game tactically and gameplay-wise. Examples would be a dedicated anti-aircraft tank with multiple MGs, or tank killers like the self-propelled guns (think some of the more unusual designs from WW2, like the Marder). |
Alaric Rhys
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 19:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
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.
|
Alaric Rhys
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. |
|
|
| |
|