Improvement: Tank destroyers

VioletZero · 2012-01-23, 03:46 PM

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 · 2012-01-23, 04:01 PM

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.

VioletZero · 2012-01-23, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

SteinB · 2012-01-24, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

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 · 2012-01-24, 11:31 AM

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.

DxC · 2012-01-23, 07:07 PM

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

Hmr85 · 2012-01-23, 07:18 PM

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.

VioletZero · 2012-01-23, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by super pretendo

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 · 2012-01-23, 07:58 PM

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.

super pretendo · 2012-01-23, 07:42 PM

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

What exactly happened

Furret · 2012-01-23, 08:03 PM

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 · 2012-01-24, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

CutterJohn · 2012-01-24, 11:45 AM

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 · 2012-01-24, 12:03 PM

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

CutterJohn · 2012-01-25, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

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

Yes, for the gunner.