Author Topic: Changes to tanks  (Read 446 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ELH_Vivicector

  • Star Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 1028
  • Karma: 37
Re: Changes to tanks
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2012, 07:29:40 AM »
Tanks are just fine right now. They are made to survive way more damage then mechs, cause mechs can just dodge that damage. Tanks are killable, but you need to be careful with them. A stand-still fight of tanks vs mech is a death for mech.

Offline General_Armchair

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 315
  • Karma: 25
Re: Changes to tanks
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2012, 07:46:20 AM »
I wouldn't say it is useless and easy to kill even with the suggested crits. Problems doesn't lie on tanks versus more powerful stuff, which should have enough fire power to kill one. However the less powerful assets have no way to damage one to the point it is noticeable. Mind you, many assault mechs have 6k arms or less, which is less than the side armour of Demos, Morrgus, that is without the hull touched. Damaging an arm on top tier assaults to point of near destruction is very possible with good aim and stealth even with starting mechs. Mind you, the Demo is cheaper than most heavies and many mediums too.

You're just counting the armor in the arms.   Tally up the armor from all the torso sections, legs, head, weapon pods and suddenly mechs are looking SIGNIFICANTLY better.  You have to come to terms with the fact that one of the advantages of tanks is that their armor is distributed amongst fewer sections than a mech.

So you can arm a mech but can't "arm" a tank?  So what. 

In MWLL, Mechs are very stable firing platforms, have FAR fewer issues with terrain (when was the last time you saw a mech stuck on a stump or flipped upside down?) and are far more agile.  When was the last time you saw a mech spin come to a full stop and spin 180 degrees because a 12 inch rock was blocking its path?

Tanks are old and reliable, and they act appropriately on the battlefield.  No frills blocks'o armor that trundle to the fight an unleash pain from their simple turret.  They're less advanced than mechs, and consequently there are fewer things that can go wrong.

I'd say the vast majority of the tanks are pretty well balanced.

My thoughts on specific tanks.

1:  I'd like the see partisan variants that are allowed to "grow up" to their heavy class weight. (they're 80 tons like the demo).  We can live without them now, but IS will eventually need a "big" AA tank once things eventually go puretech.
2:  I think the demolisher's performance vs mechs is fine, but I would be ok with a price increase (it wouldn't take much to knock the lbx20 variant into the next salary bracket)
3:  Huit....I still think a variant that replaces the prime's UAC5's with LBX10's and the 4 UAC2's with a pair of LBX5's (an equal tonnage swap...in cbt rules at least) would be a superior AA tank given the short window of engagement presented by skilled pilots.
4: Morrigu.  These things are deadly.....and at this price point they better be deadly.
5: Epona pursuit tank.....still waiting  :'(

Offline mechpriest

  • Bondsman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Karma: 3
Re: Changes to tanks
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2012, 02:33:34 PM »

3:  Huit....I still think a variant that replaces the prime's UAC5's with LBX10's and the 4 UAC2's with a pair of LBX5's (an equal tonnage swap...in cbt rules at least) would be a superior AA tank given the short window of engagement presented by skilled pilots.

Even though I am a bad pilot, I do think that AA huit is notoriously inefficient. They're too slow to keep up with the quickly changing battlefield and they don't have the sufficient firepower to be a threat against fast flying aircrafts.

RAC-VTOL, while costing around 40k, is actually superior AA asset compared to Huit Prime. Maybe I am truly a miserable pilot but I have been shot down more often by a RAC-VTOL than a Huit Prime. And I have died more often by my own flight mistakes(.. err. hitting the ground. Or THAT mountain.) than because of a Huit Prime.

Offline F22-sama

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 17
  • Nyan de nyaa
Re: Changes to tanks
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2012, 03:02:56 PM »
The "AA" Huit is best used against mechs. Long range harassment like nothing else but against aeros, the window of engagement is simply too small for it to deal significant damage. Currently the best ground based AA units are mechs arm the LBX10/20, the Bloodasp B is my personal favourite against everything. A real beast of an multi-purpose AA Huit could have 4 x AC2 + 2 LBX10, the AC2 gives it the reach, LBX10 gives it the killing blow, something like that.

About the major weakness of tanks, the wonky physics. It is not that tanks are bad, it's just that they are not suppose to be Teflon coated balloons. I am still mixed about ability destroying tanks weapons, but ways to hamper it's performance without destroying it out right is needed. They stay fully operational for far too long for their price. Increasing the price is a bad idea, so does decreasing their firepower or armour. Tanks should still have the edge on staying power.

Offline Spooky

  • Living Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 2461
  • Karma: 64
Re: Changes to tanks
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2012, 03:21:39 PM »
Keep in mind that not all intended negative effects for destroying the component of a vehicle are implemented yet.

Offline F22-sama

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 17
  • Nyan de nyaa
Re: Changes to tanks
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2012, 03:39:05 PM »
Yea, I do know that. Just voicing some possibilities and discussions.

Tanks needs more handling fixes on top of that, like terrain handling, if anything, tanks should be able to stop faster than any mech can dream of, not slower.

Also, many are overlooking the fact that tanks are very resistance to shakes from missiles too. It should stay of being one with the merit of a tank that logically makes a lot of sense.