Heavy tanks

[herr gunther]

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but one annoying problem with SC1 is that infantry anti-tank upgrades are too powerful (tanks can't upgrade against infantry and become relatively weak). I understand this will be altered in in SC2, as heavy tanks will also improve against soft targets when upgraded. However, this may make this technology too powerful, as one upgrade gives you both an advance against tanks and soft targets. Perhaps to lesson this incentive, an upgrade in heavy tanks should also result in a reduction in mobility (a different tech category in SC2, if I understand correctly). Thus, you have to weigh the benefit of heavy tanks vs. the loss in mobility, like in WWII. Thoughts?

[Edwin P.]

Interesting, I never thought of that; however, I believe that the proposed system covers this to a certain extent.

In SC2 although you can purchase increased Tank Tech for a unit, purchasing increased mobility also costs more. Thus a Fast Moving Powerful Armor Unit will cost more than a Slow Moving Powerful Armor Unit or a Fast Moving Less Powerful Armor Unit.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Edwin P:

In SC2 although you can purchase increased Tank Tech for a unit, purchasing increased mobility also costs more. Thus a Fast Moving Powerful Armor Unit will cost more than a Slow Moving Powerful Armor Unit or a Fast Moving Less Powerful Armor Unit.

You just cannot say it any better than this,

So I won't even try.

Yep, very true, the armored aspect in SC2 will be emphasized more, and have the similar impact it did in WW2.

ALL kind of varieties of tanks

all over the game board, should

you choose to do it that way, and,

As mentioned, can AFFORD it, IE, NOT

neglecting the other parts

of combined-war tactics, etc.

Like the first song-bird of Spring (... soon, very soon all will be

realized, I tell you!)

It is a very fine thing. :cool:

[Exel]

I'd like to see the tank development been controlled by not just one technology. I find the Heavy Tank tech quite unrealistic and ahistorical as the main tank tech. While the war was characterized by tanks becoming heavier towards the end of the war, actual heavy tanks were still just one type among the vast variety of tank designs. Heavy tanks were in no way the goal of the tank development, nor were they "the ultimate tanks" in any way. There had been heavy tanks long before the war, and actually if anything the war showed that heavy tanks weren't all that practical. The heavy tanks weren't the peak of the development.

So I'd like it to be replaced by something like "Advanced Tanks" or at least have a couple of parallel techs with it affecting the tank development.

[SeaMonkey]

Am in agreement with Exel. Tank development results in a lot more than just the improved armored aspect. Even though we have discussed this before it is well worth rehashing and I would offer that Exel's suggestion should be further expanded. I would like to see a more tiered technology tree where more than one advancement in anyone tech category contributes to the final advancement of the unit enhancements. For example; let's use "Advanced Tanks" as the benefitting unit, advancements in "Gun", "Mobility", and "Armor" would lend to improvements in combat/action/movement values. In this manner players would be encouraged to distribute their tech investments rather than concentrating in any one technology although that option is still available. Advancements in "Gun" technology would further enhance other unit types also, like infantry(artillery), naval(deck guns) and perhaps to a lesser degree air fleets(cannon firing aircraft). In other words, rather than increasing the maximum strength of an enhanced unit, increase its combat/movement/spotting etc. values against the appropriate target types.

[ January 07, 2005, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

I believe we have gotten a bit lost regarding the semantics behind the Tech Developments.

While it may say Heavy Tank, if you look at the effects of the Tech, you realize it really is Tank Development that is being modelled. So I would agree that a name change is due.

WWII Heavy Tanks are reflected in SC by Anti-Tank TL5.

While I don't agree with the reasoning behind what SeaMonkey said, I agree for different reasons, that each Tech advancement should not result in a strength increase.

But breaking down the different tech advances into multiple technology advances that combined would give you the characteristics of your combat units, is way too much micro-management. If you broke it down into three (3) main techs for Tanks, you would have to do the same for Naval Ships and Aircraft at least. National leaders (whom we are suppossed to be representing), didn't get involved with those types of low level decisions.