Tank beats... nothing.

[Tupolev]

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.

Erm... actually, there are man-portable rockets that can penetrate modern MBT's, and they've been around for over 20 years, and they're not even all THAT expensive. It's true that an old RPG-7 generally isn't able to, but an 80's-era RPG-29's have been confirmed to be able to pull it off. And by "able to pull it off" I mean one of them was confirmed once to have penetrated through frontal arc ERA AND armour of a Challenger 2 tank.

Tanks have never been invulnerable machines of invulnerability. Tough, yes, but optimally they AVOID dedicated anti-tank weaponry.




As for rifles and such, if game balance is, as you say, not a good enough argument for you... well, I'm glad you're not designing my games.

 

[Random Fella]

Tanks are meh.... Jets are better, fast, tough and will destroy 10 tanks in a single air strike.

OT: Because it would be pretty annoying after being by the same guy in the same tank for the 10th time.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Without even thinking very hard, I can remember a handful of Call of Duty missions where you have to follow a tank in order to avoid small arms fire. You have to follow an Abrams in CoD4, a T-34 (iirc - the flame tank, whatever it was) in WaW, and a BTR in MW2, among others. If you don't follow the tanks, you die.

They can't exactly mandate this mechanic in MP as well because of balance issues, as others have already mentioned.

 

[XT inc]

It is well and truly about the balance issue, You cannot just say balance issues aside because they are the only show in town. No one wants to play a games where people roll up in a real tank and lay hat on them because it is s realistic war machine. This sure is fun watching our shells ptank off the tank while it lobs heavy shells at us rendering our buildings and innards liquefied.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Well, it's a little crazy, but bear with me on this one....BECAUSE THOSE ARE GAMES AND NOT REALITY. Turns out fun is just more important then realism. It's very counter-intuitive.

 

[zehydra]

I know what you mean, especially with Battlefield Bad Company 2... However, all weapons in that game are tweaked in order to provide balance to gameplay. Realism is sacrificed for gameplay. Which is a good thing; it should never be the other way around.

 

[FalloutJack]

If your invincible war machine was actually invincible (and this is assuming that you haven't engaged a cheat code), then it wouldn't be as challenging.

 

[philosophicalbastard]

Snip

Have you considered you just suck with tanks?

In most single-player games you always need to find some special rocket launcher to take down an enemy tank, even then it still takes a few shots. And in games like Halo it takes about 20 clips of non-explosive ordinance to take down a tank, by the first clip you should have blown them to hell and back twice already.

Tanks are very powerful, but not indestructible.

 

[ultrachicken]

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.

As has been said many, many times before, invulnerable tanks kill balance. The person inside the tank may have a blast, but that's at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Kitteh]

New call of duty idea: you get one life. if you die, you have to buy the game again. and it's still $60 so you better be damn careful.

 

[WhatHityou]

if you ever played chrome-hounds and was killed and are trying to kill a vs with your infantry gun, that would explain how unimaginably overpowered that would be.

 

[jyork89]

An M1 Abrams is hardly invincible. A RPG round to the treads will often disable it and there have even been cases where heavy machine gun rounds to critical points have rendered them inoperable.
A realistic game would make rounds that hit certain areas harmless, yet on the other hand rounds that hit certain critical points disable the tank instantly.

 

[Ashil Tokhai]

You sir! have obviously have not played Arma 2 or her expansion packs (The military simulator) or if you fancy WW2 Red Orchestra

Games have to be balanced, so that's why they make tanks the way they are in games like Halo for example (games where it is not ment to be realistic but ment to be fun)

 

[Ashil Tokhai]

An M1 Abrams is hardly invincible.

A bunch of my friends in the states came back from Afghanistan and from the stories I hear?
I would have to 100% agree with you (cause if I didn't I would just be lying to myself)

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

The only thing wrong with tanks is that stupid feature every game has which allows players to instantly exit a burning tank. I can waste several rockets or shells on a tank, and the other player can press F and instantly get away, leaving a burning husk on the battlefield that prevents new tanks from spawning until someone cleans it up; no one is stupid enough to get in one. God forbid I'm in that usual 20 foot killzone required to reliably even hit a tank with rockets that would turn around in midflight and hit me if fired at a target more than 50 paces away. The play could exit the tank, turn, and fill my antitank ass full of SMG rounds for all the trouble I gave him.

As for their armor, it's fine. Tanks still decimate infantry. If you put yourself in a position where players who have specifically equipped themselves for an antitank role can kill you, you rightly deserve to stare at the respawn screen. In many games, players have to sacrifice their equipment to take on tanks, so they should be able to destroy them.

 

[captaincabbage]

For balance within the game, duh.

 

[Triple G]

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.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Wrong to everyone in this fucking thread so far. That "tanks should be as stable as wooden shit house cuz balance" ideas of yours come from playing bad fucking games. Ever played "Red Orchestra"? The tanks are realistically tough, <you need only like 2 bullets to get killed and even if you have a rocket luncher it's gonna be tough against a tank and it will probably kill you. But tanks can still lose against other tanks and the tank battles are realistic for WWII measures (you fight at distances up to 1500 meters, you got scopes just like in real life, and so on).

 

[The Lunatic]

Because it's just not fun to get killed constantly while some guy in a tank destroys your spawn for the reason of only "He was the first to get to the uber-machine."

 

[ksn0va]

Game balance trumps realism

[/thread]