Why not make it so that vehicles take x amount of time to manufacture based on it's power? FOr example a land raider could take an hour or so, and a predator half and hour? It won't stop spam, but it certainly could help against it
Short answer: It would create a lot of problems that would require even more fixes Long answer: Having lengthy delays before being able to deploy a tank would mean who ever shows up with tanks first has a huge advantage. They now have uncontested armoured forces while the opposition (who now rush to get their own tanks out) wait for the the deploy timers to count down. The uncontested tanks can push back the enemy, possibly past the base that was being used to deploy armour to counter them. To fix this you'd need to be able to create tanks in reserve (on a per player basis) which requires more tracking of players. It would also mean that transports are harder to pull when needed, which results in foot-slogs between bases where enemy armour could easily hit and destroy easily.
Aaaaaand there goes my thought In all seriousness, you are making some excellent points, i think the devs need to take a gander at this
Warning: Wall of Text and Realism To take this from a realistic point of view, armored vehicles particularly tanks are only as effective as their crew. They have blind spots, they have mobility issues, and as should be enforced: they have bad firing arcs. A realistic tank for Warhammer 40k (and I will use the Predator as the example) should have a relatively slow turn radius and have a relatively slow rate of fire particularly on non veteran crews. Now you can allow players who really want to specialize in vehicles to be able to purchase exp unlocked perks that help them perform better in vehicles such as faster reload rate, faster turn radius, better armour, etc. but in most conditions, these vehicles should be considered low stock. Tanks should also need a minimum of three players to operate AND move at the same time. Every vehicle with a large caliber weapon needs a dedicated loader, a dedicated gunner, and a dedicated driver in order to be effective hence why most vehicle crews are 4 (the additional person typically being the commander). Now with the Predator MBT, you have the autocannon designed to fire a larger HEAT shell to be somewhat effective against other armored vehicles. The average M1 Abrams MBT of the USMilitary has a fire rate of roughly six rounds a minute and that's with an experienced crew, you factor that this is with a larger caliber weapon, you can make the Predator have roughly double the firing rate. Now while this doesn't sound very fast, it still has several support weapons which can be crewed to provide mobile infantry support which is what the tank was designed for in the first place. Most people have this misconception that tanks were designed to destroy other tanks when in fact they were originally designed to spearhead infantry assaults to allow them to have mobile heavy firepower upon which you could center an assault and hopefully not get slaughtered as was seen in World War I. This concept needs to be the center of the tanks design in that they are designed to be used WITH infantry support, not as a group in itself that goes all hell merry after the nearest enemy battle group. Tanks at a minimum operate in squadrons of three armored vehicles and are rarely seen in strengths more than four squadrons (three being the main combat with the fourth being held in reserve for combat losses). This model should be copied to help prevent tank spam by only allowing tanks to be spawned inside of a squadron led by a faction commander and using faction resources. The reason I suggest this for tanks and tanks only is that they are high priority targets and also high damage dealing assets. Now let's talk about how to deal with tanks. The average tank has sloped frontal armour that helps protect it against anti-tank weaponry and also deflect shells that are fired at a certain angle. Since the mathematical statistics and trajectory can be confusing and tedious, you can instead say this protects it from all small arms fire for now. Larger scale weaponry and dedicated anti-tank weaponry such as missile launchers, melta bombs/anti tank grenades, high calibre auto weaponry typically are the most effective against side and rear armour where the vehicle either has thinner or non sloped armour. Tanks are also most vulnerable when they advance because terrain causes the vehicle to bob up and down, especially when it fires since the suspension brings it up on the front ever so slightly, that is when you hit a vehicle since the weapon will impact on the belly armour where most vehicles have little to no protection (hence why mines are so deadly). Laser based weaponry such as Lascannons should be the type of weapon that when fully charged, can really damage a tank but again, they need to hit it repeatedly and if the game is using a damage mitigation system, on the same section in order to deal any real damage. Tactics to take on a tank are typically to make the enemy crew become greedy for soft kills and lure it into an area the infantry support cannot help it. Tanks are most deadly in open terrain where they can maneuver and see every threat coming which is why urban fighting, particularly in base will be the death of a tank. Corners and blind spots combined with multiple elevation levels and trenches make crews paranoid and more cautious as every turn can hide an anti-tank gun or a suicide bomber. What makes it even more deadly is that other tanks can play cat and mouse with their targets in urban environments as well because being on the home front gives you the advantage of knowing the terrain. How tanks can defend themselves is by allowing wargear such as smoke grenade launchers and additional armour plating that will go on the vehicles side. Allowing vehicles to have fragmentation launchers (limited use or rechargeable ability) that can be used to eliminate infantry close up. Based off some of the game footage of the maps, a lot of combat will be in relative close range which means tanks in general aren't going to have a very high life expectancy to begin with especially when you go up against veteran tank hunters.
This isn't a mil-sim, it isn't aiming to be a mil-sim. I appreciate your interest and knowledge of tanks and their use but it has little impact on how they are going to be and be used in EC. I agree that, Yes, making tanks require more than 1 crewman is a good idea, but non-control positions (loader, radioman) would be fucking boring to play as. Driver, main gunner, secondary gunners is the best solution Yes, infantry and tanks should be used together to maximise the potential of both Yes, tanks should be much easier to destroy when they are in situations infantry can easily get close to them Yes, tanks should have options like extra plating or smoke launchers to enhance their survivability but what the rest of what you have said is massively over-complicating tanks. The sheer amount of work to enforce most of your suggestions would cripple every other part of the game just to have vehicles act realistically. If you want a proper hyper-realism tank game, go find a proper tank sim.
Already play one, something most people have never heard of before: Blitzkrieg. Ah the wonders of one shotting enemy tanks with an 88
Then don't try and suggest that simulator levels of realism for tanks is going to good for EC. The sheer amount of infantry AT and (hopefully) properly designed bases are going to keep the tanks in check, without the need for enforced squadrons or requiring huge crews.
The things is that the developers themselves are still balancing and rebalancing the weapons they have and the vehicles. We've yet to get a solid announcement on whether or not players can construct defenses such as barricades and what bases in general are going to look like. We do know that: There will be several areas of large open land ripe for conquest Strongholds and bases will have some type of defenses that can be manned however no concrete evidence shows whether or not vehicles will be able to get into them The amount of AT weaponry is very low The developers have already stated their desire to enforce a team effort and having faction controlled squadrons should be one of those techniques. It answers most peoples complaint of having rouge agents running around with military assets that could be better used for the war effort and also means the people using them are reliable and know they're being rewarded. Not suggesting they follow the actual rules for designing the vehicles since the ground lore has already been established by GW up high but they should take into account that for an MMO, we really have to start rethinking the fire rates of these weapons. I'm sure no one here want's to be fighting against MBTs that can fire a HE shell every five seconds but we also don't want our vehicles to be so slow firing that they're basically glorified paper weights. The only real issue I have so far is how to balance the Eldars grav tanks. I just hope because they have an anti-grav generator that they won't be able to move up cliffs. I've played enough games to know how that goes.
Large open land doesn't mean we need to force tank pilots into squadrons, there are already squads and strikeforces if they want to organise. The large open areas should be controlled by the team of better tank-men, not by infantry (especially if they cannot 'dig in'). I can't imagine the devs would be foolish enough to allow tanks full access to bases, because they have a great example in PS2 in what happens when that is the case. I don't need to really say more on that. Low amount of AT? currently, yes, potentially available at launch? Even if you discount the heavy bolter and plasma pistol as potentially armour piercing there is quite a large variety of AT weaponary available and that's just the C/SM! Lore on combat tactics have to be reinforced by game mechanics, not just assumed. Players aren't soldiers from lore, they don't have the training nor do they follow a clear chain of command. Even then it is unlikely they will follow smart combat doctrine, because they just want to mess around with a tank. I'd like to believe we won't need HE mainguns, instead using slower firing, accurate H.B's for long range anti-infantry work but if the bases are well designed enough, HE won't be abusable as it is in PS2. Same goes for proper design to stop grav-tanks being disguised mountain goats.
When situations like this comes up, I bypass the Wiki's and go straight to the sources. 6th Ed. Codex: SM, page 78. I noticed that "main battle tank" is written without capitals, and taking its size and role into account, I think this means it is not an MBT like the Challenger and Abrams Tanks but it is the battle tank that Space Marines mainly used. Imperial Armour, vol 2: SM and Force Of The Inquisition (1st Ed.), page 83. The Land Raider, with its sophisticated armour, high-tech systems, and environmental protection (they can even drive along the sea floor!), is the Space Marines MBT. It's just that in 40K they aren't that prevalent. I believe some Chapters only have a few, if any at all. The only Super-Heavies that the Space Marines had are the IG-types and the Fellblade, Glaive, Falchion, & Spartan types. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhamm...rine-Tanks/SPACE_MARINE_LEGION_FELLBLADE.html http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/The_Horus_Heresy/Legiones_Astartes/Legion_Vehicles/LEGION_GLAIVE.html http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/The_Hor...GION_FALCHION_SUPER_HEAVY_TANK_DESTROYER.html http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhamm.../Space-Marine-Tanks/SPARTAN_ASSAULT_TANK.html Some Chapters do still have a few examples of these Super-Heavies. Edit: Here's the comparative sizes between Predator, Land Raider, Baneblade & Fellblade. Predator: Length 6.6m, Width 6m (with Sponsons), Height 4.4m, Weight 44 Tonnes Land Raider: Length 10.3m, Width 6.1m (with sponsons), Height 4.11m, Weight 72 Tonnes Baneblade: Length 13.5m, Width 8.4m (with sponsons), Height 6.3m, Weight 319 Tonnes Fellblade: Length 12.5m, Width 8.2m (with sponsons), Height 5.8m, Weight 302 Tonnes Super-Heavies are defined by their weight, not size.
