Tank beats... nothing.

[Lord Doomhammer]

[rant]

A tank is specifically designed to protect the occupants while providing overwhelming firepower to the local battlefield. Now, why can video-game developers not comprehend this?

I have not yet played a video-game where a tank actually protects the user from fire from even small arms (rifles, grenades, RPGs etc). Now, I know what your thinking 'rockets are suppose to kill tanks' and you are wrong! Modern tanks like the M1A2 Abrams, the Challenger 2, the Leopard 2, these tanks are all featuring ceramic and depleted uranium armor that RPGs cannot penetrate. So, why can any tank from battlefield, halo, etc not take more than a few hits before it goes supernova? Is the armor not there to prevent the bullets from hurting the driver?

Now, I realize that a machine that is impervious to anything but an air-strike or a 2000lb IED would be incredibly hard to balance. And to that I say too bad. Its suppose to be an avatar of war, having a tank should not be something just laying around.

[/rant]

[discuss]

 

[emeraldrafael]

I dontknow. Why can you sponge up bullets when really after the first one you'd be down, hurt and then laid up for months to heal, missing a lot of the action?

Do you want realism, or do you want a game? Cause no matter how much you cry for it and no matter how much developers gloat about it, its not happening.

 

[MetroidNut]

Game balance trumps realism, for the better. Sure, Halo's Scorpion tank should be indestructible, but how incredibly boring would that make the game?

And, I mean, tanks already dominate the shooters that contain them. Just look at the Halo: Reach map, Hemorrhage, before they replaced the Scorpion tanks with Covenant Wraiths. Basically, whichever team won the first-sixty-seconds tank battle, would win the game.

 

[archvile93]

Yeah balance and fun over realism. Putting such a thing into a game would do nothing but cause endless frustration in the player base, especially in multiplayer.

 

[Sacman]

Exactly it's about balancing the game... having a huge indestructible armored vehicle with an overpowered mounted cannon is not good design... besides I prefer a less than realistic feel if it meant the game was actually fun...<.<

 

[FFHAuthor]

No matter how much games might tout realism, they will NEVER give total realism. The modern battlefield is a realm of vulnerability and toughness that we as gamers aren't conditioned to experiance. Comrehension of a modern battlefield isn't something that we would accept. Even the most 'realistic' shooters out there fudge the reality of the modern battlefield.

For instnace, modern body armor is almost impervious to small arms fire. But how dull would Modern Warfare be if you were invulnerable? Or if you shot an opponent and nothing happened?

If you could drive around a tank that was invulnerable to everything that can be thrown at you on the battlefield, you'd be faced with an odd decision as a developer.
A: Why would the player get out of the tank if it's invulnerable and has incredible durability?
B: If you're going to create situations where the player HAS to get out of the tank to proceed, why include the tank at all?

 

[Kortney]

snip

Yeah and guess what - in real life one bullet will stop a man from fighting and take him away from the front lines for a period of time. That's not in our games either. Why? Because not all things that exist in war are really worth writing into code.

 

[BlastedTheWorm]

Balance. You'd completely ruin the fucking game if as soon as someone got in a tank, they'd be sorted for life.

 

[WanderingFool]

Tanks can still be destroyed by weapons such as Antitank mines, the Javelin missle, and various other tank busters used by aircraft... not to mention other tanks.

If they were to make tanks as tough in videogames, they would have to add weapons to give the team facing the tanks a chance... or call in for air support...

Spoiler: Like this...

hehehe, Thor's angry...

 

[oplinger]

I don't think tanks should be the avatars of war they are in reality.

However I do sort of agree that tanks die really easily in games. I don't think a few rockets should take them down, or like in some games, a lot of bullets. ...I think making them useless is much more fun. >.> blow their treads off. Or be all action movie and put grenades in the barrel, or pop the hatch and do heave a grenade in.

There's other ways to do it rather than just "I HAVE A ROCKET. I WIN" ...Other much more fun ways.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Tanks however are largely useless, as missiles are specifically designed to destroy them (no amount of ceramic can fix that, everything has a counter) and in an urban environment you might as well not even send them in.

Nothing man portable can kill a modern MBT (IFVs and the like are another matter). On the other hand, a radio or target designator is man portable

A tank could well, but it'd have to be handled well. Playing as the people hiding from the unstoppable death machines could work, and/or scurrying around with a mine to immobilise it and then running away.

Playing as the tank...nah, wouldn't really work.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Firstly, whats the point of an AT weapon that can't kill tanks? It's a game after all.

Secondly, nice pic.

 

[WaReloaded]

Personally, I think Call of Duty 3 did vehicles quite well, Jeeps and Horchs (Axis equivalent) were weak but provided a faster method of crossing maps (or convenient flag defender) and Tanks whilst destroyable were still quite dangerous and made maps dangerous to traverse.

 

[Ogargd]

800 dollar mine beats 8 million dollar tank every time =D

 

[demoman_chaos]

[rant]

A tank is specifically designed to protect the occupants while providing overwhelming firepower to the local battlefield. Now, why can video-game developers not comprehend this?

I have not yet played a video-game where a tank actually protects the user from fire from even small arms (rifles, grenades, RPGs etc). Now, I know what your thinking 'rockets are suppose to kill tanks' and you are wrong! Modern tanks like the M1A2 Abrams, the Challenger 2, the Leopard 2, these tanks are all featuring ceramic and depleted uranium armor that RPGs cannot penetrate. So, why can any tank from battlefield, halo, etc not take more than a few hits before it goes supernova? Is the armor not there to prevent the bullets from hurting the driver?

Now, I realize that a machine that is impervious to anything but an air-strike or a 2000lb IED would be incredibly hard to balance. And to that I say too bad. Its suppose to be an avatar of war, having a tank should not be something just laying around.

[/rant]

[discuss]

Thou hast forgotten the A-10, the American counter to the Soviet tank horde. The 30mm gatling cannon can turn a tank into a pile of useless scrap with a half-second burst. Also don't forget the javelin, which allows a single infantryman to take down a tank.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Id think having tanks being incredibly hard to destroy might be good for Single Player, but it would break multiplayer, in single player it would make it more exciting than, strafe and fire rockets

 

[Lord Doomhammer]

Look, what I'm trying to say here, is I'm sick and tired of getting into a tank and being shot out of it, or having it explode after seconds of fire from just normal guns, you don't need anti tank weapons, you don't need another tank, just normal guns. The thing a tank is designed to protect against can defeat it in seconds. its getting rediculious and it makes me wonder if developers know what real tanks are.