Some Thoughts on MBT's from a Veteran Tanker

[Salad Snake]

Iirc the Nekomata from Battlefield 2142 was a fixed-gun hovertank, and it was actually more powerful than the EU Tiger tank, which was traditional. Despite having less armor, the ability to strafe made it a terror in the hands of a good driver.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by SixShooter

If the Mag had a driver controled turret for the main gun everyone would freak out and scream that it was too overpowered and everything would get nerfed to shit. I'm fine keeping it how it is and learning how to use it well. The fact is that it's probably too late in the dev cycle to make a significant change at this point. It's going to come down to balancing armor, speed and firepower to get people to use it.

Eh, that is how it was in PS1 and people didn't freak out. The driver controlling it would arguably be less powerful than having a dedicated gunner.

I just want to understand why it was changed.

[AThreatToYou]

Imagine the Magrider as a Tank Destroyer and not a MBT.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Imagine the Magrider as a Tank Destroyer and not a MBT.

Again this is how it was in PS1. Having a fixed gun makes it worse at this job since you expose yourself to make shots on the tank you are trying to kill.

[Stanis]

AThreatToYou was thinking the same thought I was.

In World of Tanks the tank destroyers are mostly forwardfiring only.
They are compartively, heavily armoured, less maneuvrable but their guns have the biggest tier/class penetration and damage = power.


If the drivers main gun on the new Mag is still about as effective a peashooter - then it won't work as a Tank Destroyer.


I can see how arguements for manueverability and strafe work in theory.
But I'm saving my big whinge for Beta.

I will be playing other empires just to compare flight dynamics and tank handling.

[NoDachi]

What if the magrider's gun had the flattest projectile, fastest projectile speed, fastest RoF and still better damage than the prowler?

The way I've been paying attention to all the information we've got so far is that,

Vanguard - Alpha damage
Prowler - Burst damage
Magrider - DPM.

It'll probably end up handling like the JT out of WoT, but with enhanced maneuverability. See how it handles in game first before writing off the fixed gun.

EDIT: My only real concern right now is that it lacks the ability to go hull down. The gun is at the bottom of the tank and it hovers giving it the tallest profile.

[Inq]

Originally Posted by NoDachi

EDIT: My only real concern right now is that it lacks the ability to go hull down. The gun is at the bottom of the tank and it hovers giving it the tallest profile.

Correct, thats one of the point's I was getting at. From a lore perspective even with new technology the engineers on vanu would not forget basic principles of tank design. Such as mounting the main gun at mid/high level on the hull/turret to allow the rest of the hull to remain behind cover.

Whoever made the design of the Magrider made it from an artistic stand point certainly not a combat effectiveness one. The design looks 'cool' but it does not fulfil its role correctly. The design would make more sense if the Magrider could fly not hover.

[Turdicus]

I'm almost tempted to say the magrider deserves the highest front armor rating, it makes some sense to me. If the whole design philosophy of the magrider is that you never have to expose your weak sides in order to maneuver then it should have some crazy front armor rating. That would make the mag a terror in 1 on 1 fights and urban engagements (it never has to go through a corner with a weak side exposed). IMO it would then make the mag just as vulnerable in large engagements as the other tanks, but just as good in small scale and 1 on 1 engagements.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Well, this is kind of making much ado about nothing...

Worst case scenario, use some imagination.

The Mag looks like it has vastly superior agility to the other two. Up close, hostile tanks will have to work extra hard to avoid being flanked. The only way to avoid it is to constantly rotate the hull to face the Mag you're engaging, and if you are, then you're exposing the rear to SOMEBODY. This is true in the Mag's case, too, BUT, he'll have the initiative in the engagement.

Even if it was a "boat anchor" in some shape form or fashion, the logical response to this is to keep it at range, using superior weapon ballistics (i.e. no drop, higher speed) to land precision fire on the enemy at range, and the increased maneuverability to avoid return fire. Can other tanks move back and forth to avoid fire? Yes, but they have to turn their side, and weaker armor, in order to move quickly, whereas the Mag can keep it's front armor to the enemy.

Don't be in a rush to make assumptions about whether something is good or not, just because you saw some incompetents in a video fail at driving.

Don't make the assumption that ALL engagements must be point blank brawls. This has nothing to do with the vehicle as much as your own lack of imagination.

I've rarely ever seen, in any game, something considered "useless" or "underpowered" to ACTUALLY be ineffective. I make a point in many games to go with the presumed under dogs and never seem to have the issues that so many complain about, mostly because I try to be adaptable and work with an overall strategy as opposed to "I wanna go in and make stuff BOOM!" A little thought goes a long way toward making you successful, regardless of the circumstances.

The game should be "approximately" balanced. It does not have to be "perfectly balanced, where everyone has the same capabilities and strengths".

[Gugabalog]

As MBTs are generally designed as tank destroyers as opposed to infantry support platforms (Think Stryker as opposed to Abrams) If the mag got a front armor buff/has heavy ass armor on the front it will be viable.

[NoDachi]

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

As MBTs are generally designed as tank destroyers as opposed to infantry support platforms (Think Stryker as opposed to Abrams) If the mag got a front armor buff/has heavy ass armor on the front it will be viable.

Errr no.

First you're wrong about MBTs, and secondly why would you say something so unsubstantiated as the viability of a tank in a game you're not even playing.

[Gugabalog]

Originally Posted by NoDachi

Errr no.

First you're wrong about MBTs, and secondly why would you say something so unsubstantiated as the viability of a tank in a game you're not even playing.

Look it up. "Errr no" is not a viable counter argument to my statement; give me a source stating MBT's are not used as tank destroyers. And I make my claims based on mechanics in media streams.

[NoDachi]

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

Look it up. "Errr no" is not a viable counter argument to my statement; give me a source stating MBT's are not used as tank destroyers. And I make my claims based on mechanics in media streams.

A main battle tank (MBT), also known as a battle tank or universal tank, is a tank that fills the heavy direct fire role of many modern armies. They were originally conceived to replace the light, medium, heavy and super-heavy tanks.

as opposed to

A tank destroyer is a type of armored fighting vehicle armed with a gun or missile launcher, and is designed specifically to engage enemy armored vehicles. Many have been based on a tracked tank chassis, while others are wheeled.
Since World War II, main battle tanks have largely replaced gun-armed tank destroyers although lightly armored anti tank guided missile (ATGM) carriers are commonly used for supplementary long-range anti-tank work. However, the resurgence of expeditionary warfare in the past twenty years has seen the emergence of gun-armed wheeled vehicles, sometimes called protected gun systems, which may bear a superficial resemblance to tank destroyers, but are employed as direct fire support units typically providing support in low intensity operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Idunno]

Originally Posted by NoDachi

Errr no.

First you're wrong about MBTs, and secondly why would you say something so unsubstantiated as the viability of a tank in a game you're not even playing.

MBT where just not only meant to take on other MBT's. They can do many roles , not just Tank destroying.

[NoDachi]

Originally Posted by Idunno

MBT where just not meant to take on other MBT's. They can do many roles , not just Tank destroying.

Yes, they are universal, they are not designed to be pure tank destroyers as the guy was suggesting.

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

. And I make my claims based on mechanics in media streams.

Show me the stream which demonstrates the magrider being non-viable because it's frontal armour isn't strong enough.