![smyk_vitaliy_16[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/J9JJHpg.jpg "smyk_vitaliy_16[1].jpg")
Fact: I think tanks are really cool; mechanized land vehicles in general
Query: Why would a world prioritize tanks?
Solution: It got blasted to hell and back. The super-thin atmosphere makes flight neigh-impossible and that, combined with the fallout, means that travel is best done in rolling micro-fortresses and armored haz suits.
Query: Could one make an RPG where the Players are the crew of some semi-futuristic tank fun? Would being in the tank with one person driving, one shooting, one doing engineering stuff, etc, not get boring after a while? Sure they'd get out of the tank every so often, but in-tank action would be notably restricted, even if it was some super-tank with multiple turrets or what have you.
Solutions?
>>47394916
Take any mecha game, replace the word "mech" with tank. There you go!~
>>47394994
1. Mecha games give each player their own mech
2. There are no good mecha games
>>47394916
Two paths come to mind, both of which aren't mutually exclusive:
>A) The tank is a Land Oil Rig/Land Motherbase
As if it was the biggest marine oil platform, the tank is a CITY, and you can do whatever you can do with humans in a city. The tanks moves, defends itself and can aquire its own resources because it's big enough to house a MANUFACTORIA of its own. Mining facilities, control centers, and it has as many machineshops as the body has lymphatic nodes.
It even has rival clans that fight for the control of the tank's subsystems:
You could have ordnance-gangs that fight for the control of the turret sector, who use shotguns and submachineguns as to not damage the behemoth's sacred interior
>B) Megapredators
Akin to 40k knights, the tank was designed to combat the myriad of megapredators the planet has, besides the fact that the very air (or lack of it) is death. As such, not only do the players explore the world using the tank as a transport, but the tank itself becomes a character AGAINST the world, with the players being parts of it like your arms and legs are.
Think of it as "A Megazord is you, The Game"
>>47394916
Dat bussel rack.
>>47394916
i think each player being a tank commander gameplay wise is better option than each of them being of the the crews imo.
You can check the vehicles rules of warhammer 40k imperial guard RPG, a friend told me they are pretty good.
>>47395273
I think you misunderstand, it isn't a lack of objectives or narrative, it's the fact that being a part of a tank crew means you're responsible for 1 thing. In a fight you do 1 thing, and unless that's drive you'd basically be doing attack rolls and perception checks the entire fight. Even driving would just mean you'd get to decide where the tank goes.
>>47395343
Pull a Steel Battalion and introduce fatigue rolls, sanity checks and player aptitudes.
Example
Your character has Tank Hunters as a native skill, useful because your starting position was to be the turret gunner.
But the driver rolled wrong on a fatigue roll/got stunned, and the commander ordered you to become the driver, even though he could have gotten in the driver's seat himself, the smug bastard.
You both roll for leadership, but being the commander he has a reroll and beats you. Gotta drive it is.
Your Tank Hunters grants you a better understanding of the hull's integrity, both weakspots and strong points. As such, your natural skill shall now inflict a -1 to damage rolls upon your tank, as long as you pass an initiative test (meaning you angle the tank to better take the shot)
Introduce multitasking that will make them look at you and say "But I'm a sponson gunner, WHY AM I TRYING TO FIX THE ENGINE"
Because we're on acid sands and the engie is stunned, that's why!
And he can't
And the tank suffers a -1 to armour and an optional mission is to go to the junke-controlled scraplands to gain ablative armour and play a defense scenarion off tank (or on-tank, like that "Fury" movie)
Srsly dude, are you trying? Just look at pic related, many things can happen in a tank.
There's a movie of shit that happens in a tank, Fury, and it's a rather damned good movie. Hell, there was a series about a tank girl!
But yeah, I'm getting of track (kek), just give your tankmates a lot of unexpected scenarios and a shitton of enemy antitank weaponry that will make it worth it to have an onboard medic to buff them.
Don't make me tank shock you!
>>47395322
See, then the scaling gets crazy. If you're a squadron of tanks the only things that can challenge you are other military forces or giant monsters, so every combat becomes a little sortie. While that sounds awesome, A: you could end up dedicating entire sessions to one fight, B: talk about redundant enemies and plot hooks, C: players aren't the most responsible people on the planet, so giving them all tanks is asking for some of the most murderiest of hobo shenanigans.
>>47395668
I like you, and those are great ideas.
>>47395795
>>47395716
What's wrong with giant monsters? And a tank can succumb to both hordes and MEQs
What can a Crysis team do? The same thing can do a tank squad. Get the one with the flamer sponsons and extra armour on the front.
Play them as if they were a formation, but with access to different kinds of tanks. Hell, maybe someone is feeling like Commissar Dan and uses a goddammed artillery piece as a frontline tank...like a Medusa. Or the Techpriest follows you on his Centaur DT, or however his DT is called.
I shall post a pic related soon. You read Mont'Ka?
The book sucked, but it has nice rules.
>>47395808
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with giant monsters and I totally intend to include them. However, a squad-based Tank RPG is going to be an intrinsically different form a crew-based Tank RPG, and it's largely just a matter of intent; it's the latter that I'm interested in. If I wanted to make the prior I'd almost be better of just making a skirmish-scale ttwg game.
>>47395871
> ttwg game
yes, I realize what I've done there
I want mecha tanks. Not like the GunTank but more like Outlaw Star had baby with White Glint.
The tanks are piloted by a single user while most of the systems such as loading is automated. You have Grappler arms that allows the tanks to grab modular weapons system and literally change it's weapons systems almost on the fly.
>>47395808
>And a tank can succumb to both hordes and MEQs
This is something that is often forgotten. A tank, even in today's age, is utterly fucked if infantry gets up close and personal. By nature, they have so many blind spots and so few ways of addressing small threats at close range that if any sophisticated enemy manages to get the drop on them, it can get very, very scary for the crew. Just imagine being in a tank with its treads shot off, its scopes dead, and suddenly you hear something tearing at the hatch locks overhead...
>>47395949
>Our Mechas are different: The post.
Kidding, I don't have anything against mechas, but tanks can vary enormously. The City-tanks I had in mind (yes, I'm quite partial to the concept) don't really have threads, but a shitton of legs like that walking castle animu, for the sole purpose of traversing any and all kind of terrains. Even swimming.
YET I also love the personal tank concept. I'm a hueg fan of the Metal slug series, and I never let go of that goddammed tank, which could also jump and survive reentry. Srsly, those tau make mechas when they could easily have jumping tanks.
And also, the Zveno project.
Stupid xenos.
>>47395979
Getting surrounded by cheap infantry with cheap weapons is Irak, right? The concept of the tank was getting revised, it was noted that, unless they were able to reliably protect the tank, it would be worthless, as a missile is orders of magnitude cheaper than tanks, so it's a quite economical counter.
And war is won with resources.
>>47396084
I don't want tanks to become like mechs. I just want them to have variable weapons systems that they can swap out on the fly.
Think Dominion tank police in a way except Bonaparte can re-configure itself to hand whatever situation comes his way. (Yes I know the tank is not sentient but he's as much a character as his two pilots are)
>>47396084
>Getting surrounded by cheap infantry with cheap weapons is Irak, right?
No, AT stuff has always been cheaper than tanks and AT tactics focus on isolating the armoured monstrosities and blowing them up one at a time.
>>47395795
Here, some scenarios your tanks could get into. And then you could dwelve into each tank or...(continued)...
>>47396183
Not in WW1, where they had just been invented. And on early WW2 they had to invent specific vehicles just to deal with tanks, up until the invention of portable antitank munitions (panzerfauster, it was called?).
It depends on the setting, and 40k is thousands of years in the future, yet still has some WW elements. 30k's Armoured ceramite changes lots of things.
>>47395979
On the other hand, it's worth remembering that a tank is, in and of itself, a fairly scary bit of kit.
I recall a mock-up from the tank mecca that is Bovington, where you get a trench-level view of a WWI tank coming over the top of a trench. Even as a completely lifeless static display, it's a bit intimating. And then you recall the noise and sound of a tank - magnified in WWI, where no-one knew what they were, but even a modern tank has a significant psychological impact up close.
The real deal, and certainly later tanks, would be a hell of a lot worse - in some modern tanks, the gun on the cupola can even be fired from inside the tank, which you can't even really shoot back at.
>>47395795
...or you could have several different customisable tanks manned by single individuals, like >>47395949 suggests, in formations, each with their own battle role. As in, your party is tanks nao. OR (continued)...
>>47395795
...you could have your guys in a Superheavy, managing them as if they were a department building. Stormlord, Doomhammer and Banehammer, all of them have troop carrying capacity. You could have a Commissar player manage a broadside of them, and go on missions to replenish your expendable amounts of indentured slaves and hired guns.
Just like the Imperial Navy does!
This might require you to step out of the tank sometimes, unless you make it shopping mall sized, with clans and stuff (so basically, Necromunda in a tank), and alsothe obligatory mission where the slaves seize control of the tank and your party has to make their way back inside without permanently destroying the tank itself
Have fun!
>>47396324
Yeah, they are big and intimidating, but that's why I made the distinction of a "sophisticated" enemy. Once you realize that a tank, as a big, lumbering object is really just a big target, it becomes, well, just another target.
I was trying to posit a scenario OP could put his players through that would give them a harrowing session, but the fact is you don't need to be very close to ruin some tank crew's day.
>>47394916
Alternative solution: instead of thin atmosphere, make it loaded with dust, high winds, perhaps a desert or blasted wasteland.
All the high-speed dust corrodes any decent engine that makes a vehicle airborne. Only very rugged, WW2-era airplanes can be useful, but this limits their impact on the battlefield. For decent, long travels sealed vehicles are necessary.
I think this context would make tanks and all sort of armored vehicles the dominant force.
>The Macrochelys Landship is the lastest word in mobile defense. Its domed body and mechanic shovel-pawns means it can literally dig in, covering its under section and exposing only a shell capable of withstanding its own 50 mm railgun artillery.
>Reconfigurate your defensive lines, lentgh and depth, on the fly with Macrochelys Landships. Those puny scout propellers will never acquire decent intel on you.
>>47394916
I like Heavy Gear's solution.
Air-power is de-emphasized because of the unique conditions on TerraNova. Since the planet is 90% covered in oceanic deserts, air currents make aviation over the Badlands extremely risky. Frequent dust storms render navigation and targeting useless, while the TerraNovan upper atmosphere is home to hellish thermals that can easily rip the wings off an airplane.
Also, laser anti-aircraft weapons mean that anything that can be seen can be killed at the speed of light.
>>47396282
Yeah, forgot about ww1. But they just mostly got stuck on mud and blood, did they not?
In early WW2, tanks really weren't too advanced, and most, especially the light ones, were penetrated by AT rifles, which are basically just huge rifles. If that didn't work, there was an array of AT grenades (big grenades), satchel charges (LOTS of grenades), molotovs and even logs used to defeat tanks.
And yeah, by 42 the Americans deployed bazookas which really made things easier, the Brits got the PIAT (Portable Infantry Anti Tank iirc) and in 43/44 the Germans developed the panzerfaust (literally "armour fist")
In addition to that, artillery was also widely used. Not only as artillery, but also via direct fire. Sometimes the guns were transported via meat engines or thrown on top of a truck or a half-track.
Even some AA weapons proved strong against armour, most notably the German made flak 88, which shot 88mm shells. I've heard of other AA weapons being used against armour, too, but I am not sure of others, except against lightly armoured targets.
>>47394916
Warhammer 40k has armored regiments that work kind of like that.
You even outlined a solid background for the regiment.
>>47394916
This sounds like it could be cool. maybe you have to pick up refugees at some point and they could cause problems on board. or have the potential for mutiny. https://youtu.be/IMRD3z_mTqI
>>47397310
I liked the whole spectrum of tanks and armoured vehicles that were developed, simply because they had to make compromises on armour and armament, because the engines couldn't pull the weight of both and still attain good speed. I mostly liked the concept of the Assault Gun, even if it was kinda dumb and got obsolete fast (Iron Warriors, woo!). At least early in the war, that is, until the MBT arrived.
>>47396324
I like how superheavies have the Fear rule, maybe because of this very thing. Also, your pic reminded me of this one, but I thought it was just a proposal, not a real thing.
>>47396777
Then the setting must have a super thick corrosive atmosphere, triple sevens. One that reduces the usefulness of missile and energy weapons weapons and only the big guns have the power to shoot through, along the lines of what >>47396832 proposes (nice).
Heavy and thin solid ammo munitions that pack the inertia to ignore the winds to an extent, can't be scattered in the thick radioactive dust-laden winds like laser beams, and won't be corroded away like a missile's vulnerable fins, but are too heavy to be carried by regular infantry or airplanes, thus mitigating both of the tank's enemies.
Except for Megapredators >:^)
Infantry can still try to jump on it and satchel-charge it to oblivion, so watch your back. And sides. And upper sides. Watch your everything, really.
>>47397886
Assault Guns may be obsolete, but they were, and still are, cool as fuck.
>>47394916
You could consider Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak where the game follows a rolling carrier/resourcer. (Just replace aircraft with artillery or something.) I am personally a huge fan of rolling manufactories whose primary purpose to to locate and refine resources for further usage. And considering the blasted to hell bit of your setting, it'd be a perfect fit if your goal was to locate and acquire old advanced techs and resource caches before other competing interests.
Your crew could be assigned to recon and escort duties and to break up the actions could find themselves stranded out at a wreck or something scavenging parts to repair their tank in order to get back home all the while defending themselves against enemies of various types (monsters, soldiers, the environment, ancient guardian droids, etc.) You could put the crew in the open desert, canyons, ruined cities, bogs, what have you. You could give them a npc tank buddies to back them up on large set piece battles or maybe a couple of light recon drones when they're just out looking around. Really I think this could be a great idea.
>>47398920
Man i've never seen a game peak so fast.
>>47397886
>>47396832 Here.
If the dust includes lots of metalic particles, wouldn't that work as natural chaff? If it does, and lasers are impossible, targeting systems are going to be horrible right? The whole thing easily turns into line of sight, shoot-the-flank WW2.
Sand and dust storms also create a lot of static electricity, but I don't how that affects anything.
The whole planet probably looks like Venus without the extreme heat.
A suitable propulsion system may be this:
>A scale system is method of propulsion developed by ZAFT for use in land battleships. Scale systems use the vibrations of thousands of tiny mechanical scales to move over loose soil or sand, and can also function in water. For smaller vehicles such as mobile suits, a scale system can also be used for underwater propulsion, though the relatively fragile scales cannot withstand the high pressures of the ocean depths, requiring the mobile suit to remain close to the surface. As the scale system can propel a vehicle sideways or backwards (or vertically, in underwater use) with equal speed to forward motion, vehicles with a scale system tend to be more agile than those of comprable size that are reliant on conventional thrusters or screw propellers.
>>47398998
The problem with a lot of sand is that it renders any and all machines worthless after enough exposure. Fans? Say goodbye to those when the sand erodes it and everything mechanical on it.
>>47398998
That setting is bound to be pretty sandy, so a hovercraft tank could work out. Those air ducts better be huge so that they don't get clogged with all the chaff. And yea, just like >>47399058
says, propellers can kiss their asses goodbye
I thought about Agrellan's (Mont'Ka) environment. An irradiated dessert, meaning it had storms cutting both visibiliy, communications...and life expectancy.
Sand can kill anything, really. Even threads, get into the gears. Maybe you could have magnetic hover tanks? Or Ghost In the Shell's hibrid leg/thread locomotion. Or even the Shagohod's screw drive.
The Mechanicum's Triaros IFV has an electrified skin to zap would-be hijackers.
>>47399161
>Maybe you could have magnetic hover tanks?
For what you intend it to do, you might as well say magical instead of magnetic. Legs have even more moving parts and imperfect seals, it'd be like the tin man in a day.
The best thing to do would be fly over the sand, or use some local animal.
>>47394916
The solution I'd do is give everyone their own tank, but if you want them all in the same tank you run into issues. Essentially, how do you keep the driver and the loader (if present) engaged in the action. The same with the commander, to a lesser extent. The solution- you have to emphasize mobility. If you're not moving or in a hull down position, you want to change that. Further, give the driver something to do if not driving. Electronic warfare, firing a weapon of his own, etc. Then for the loader, the same thing. Maybe have him effect the shells in some way as he's loading them. Perhaps have him make the ammo choice, and provide modifiers to it. Once again, give him other things to do as well- his own guns to shoot or other tasks. Ideally, I'd probably remove the loader altogether, but it's another crew spot you need for an average 4 person party. Then you have your commander, who is really just handing out modifiers to everyone else, spotting targets, and firing his own gun. Of course, the gunner's just going to be doing the whole gunning thing. To make other crew members more relevant, I'd suggest including a lot of threats which can be killed by smaller guns as well. You'll need all of them working in order to survive.
One thing I will say on crewmembers: some modern AFVs are switching to a system where any member of the crew could do any job from any position, because you can use computers instead of analog systems. This way, you don't necessarily need to have dedicated positions, and you can just flop around doing whatever needs to be done.
One of the key aspects of any tank game is going to be spotting. You're going to need rules for spotting. Ideally, rather extensive rules on it, including hiding parts of the vehicle. This includes both hull and turret down positions.
>>47399221
HORSE DRAWN TANKS IT IS!!
>>47395087
Battletech is awesome, fuck you.
>>47397310
The American WWII AT guns were the bastard children of both AAA guns and howitzers.
It's pretty impressive how the US managed to reuse weapons and vehicles in its inventory to do so many different jobs.
>>47394916
Holy shit this is a good idea for the plan I have.
>>47398998
>If the dust includes lots of metalic particles, wouldn't that work as natural chaff?
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that metal particles would scatter radio waves a bit, making any radar system return slightly fuzzy targeting data.
No, in that actual chaff is cut so that the length of the individual chaff are 1/2 the radio wavelength of the radar system to be scrambled. Random size particles aren't going to be very effective, and may not be large enough to have any real effect.
Of course this requires that your players know this, so with a little handwaving it could work in your setting.
>>47395087
Jovian Chronicles is the only one I can think of that does it well
>>47400171
Good to know anon, thanks.
Does actual chaff work against those microwave radar arrays that cook birds out of the sky?
>>47394916
you could always try doing OGRE or something. Which just got an anime, after a sort, in the form of Heavy Object.
"Okay team so here's your army. You have to stop...that thing."
>>47399373
A lot of people did that though - the infamous german '88 was an AA gun they started pointing at British and French heavy tanks (Matilda II and Char B1 Bis, respectively) when nothing else was doing the job.
Still, interoperability and shared parts was a huge part of the allied success in how it reduced the strain on logistics
>>47397886
>but I thought it was just a proposal, not a real thing.
Flame tanks are fun.
I do recall an interview with a flame tanker where the valve got stuck open and they spent their entire tank of flame fuel in one go... apparently the results were pretty horrific
>>47394916
How do you keep guns relevant to prevent tanks being replaced by armoured missile carriers?
>>47396832
You don't think an atmosphere choked with dust also poses a problem for tank engines?
>>47402650
Interceptors, interference, and/or a scarcity of resources leading away from fire n' forget/self-destructive munitions; a shell is cheaper than a missile.
>>47402660
Filters!
>>47394916
Absolutely it could be fun. You just need to give people a reason to go out and do things (like, say, acquiring resources for their community) and occasionally mix things up (going out in armored hazmat suits to secure said resources from inside a pre-war building).
You could increase the odds of success by having things like different factions (raiders/pirates, as well as competing communities) and various things to flesh out the setting (old cities being dangerous and filled with radiation and automated weapons, for example) to get the players invested.
It would also help to have a robust vehicle design system so they could create and get to know their own tank. Make it a character in its own right. That would be helped by making damage something that lingers and is hard to repair, but doesn't necessary end the game when taken.
>>47394916
>Query: Could one make an RPG where the Players are the crew of some semi-futuristic tank fun? Would being in the tank with one person driving, one shooting, one doing engineering stuff, etc, not get boring after a while?
A possible solution. youre squad is a disorganised group of resistance fighters who dont get on very well. their commander has been killed and so the running of the tank is more or less a democracy. players could be given a strict time limmit to argue over what each-other should do during combat. to survive they will have to find a way to organise themselves and work as a team.
>Sure they'd get out of the tank every so often, but in-tank action would be notably restricted, even if it was some super-tank with multiple turrets or what have you.
another idea. the tank could be more or less a nuclear submarine on treads; with a nuclear reactor on board and the ability to fire tactical nukes from its guns.
you're players do some quests in a town and get familiar with the locals. then the order comes via the radio to wipe said town from the map.
>>47395979
Well, since a good percentage of tanks have air filters the obvous solution is to spray out chlorine gas like a skunk whenever your tank gets surrounded.
>>47394916
As I suggested about a year ago, one could run a campaign in which the PCs travel around the setting in a single tank.
It is my strong opinion that the PCs should all crew a single tank. That way, the party can't easily split up which gives the campaign a less fragmented direction; they can interact with one another easily and any problems with the party's tank concern the entire party, forcing them to work together. Having only one tank also keeps the party from being too overpowered.
>>47394916
>Would being in the tank with one person driving, one shooting, one doing engineering stuff, etc, not get boring after a while? Sure they'd get out of the tank every so often, but in-tank action would be notably restricted, even if it was some super-tank with multiple turrets or what have you. Solutions?
ANY rpg focused too much on combat gets boring after a while. If you're focusing on that aspect to the point where it takes up the majority of sessions, you're really using the wrong medium, you should be playing a videogame or something where the violence is actually fun, and not just abstracted into a bunch of dice rolls and optimal decision making that everyone has figured out by the second time they get in a fight.
Playing a tank crew could be awesome, and there are all kinds of stories that you could play out. Watch Kelly's Heroes or Fury for inspiration. But the actual "put the shell in the breech and fire at the thing" part is the least interesting.
>>47394916
>neigh-impossible
Also why do you need some justification for lots of tanks in a world? Planes can't occupy territory or stop anywhere they want, and since mechs aren't real there's nothing stopping you from not having mechs to replace them.
>>47404106
>>47394916
Tanks and various armored fighting vehicles are often very resource consuming and technically complex, but they're still a much safer bet for various dystopian sci-fi hellscapes or post-apocalyptic shitholes than planes are.
Without long and intensive training a fighter plane is useless, the infrastructure (airfields and so on) needed are similarly troublesome to keep going, not to mention how many modern fighter planes CAN'T be piloted without the aid of the onboard computer systems that stabilize them and so on. Hell, maybe we made the switch to purely drone-based airforces, and once the sattelites got knocked out or the AI's rebelled, all that was left was ground war?
If you accidentally reverse a tank through a wall you'll be alright, if your gun stabilizer is out of commission you can still stop the tank to fire, if your main gun is out of ammo you still have the option of firing some pintle mounted whatever type of automatic weapon you could scrounge up. If all else fails, fucking drive straight at the enemy and flatten their cars or huts or whatever.
You don't need a lot of convoluted explanations for why tanks would be the top dog, they're simply better at surviving the collapse of society or eternal warfare than more logistics-demanding things like ships or planes are.
If you go full-on sci-fi give it a nuclear reactor to avoid having to spend a week looting diesel for an afternoon of driving it, and a fabrication device so it can make it's own spare parts from shit the players manage to loot and you're set. Whether it's soldiers trapped behind enemy lines with only their super tank and their wits to survive on, some kind of scrappers stumbling on the sealed vault of a BOLO, or superstitious tribesmen awakening the iron juggernaut totem that belches smoke and speaks in a tin voice, tanks are awesome and not that hard to fit into your setting even without having to stretch your suspension of disbelief until it screams.
>>47396449
He's not playing in 40k-world.
>>47404440
I like the idea of a post-apocalyptic feudal society where the knights have tanks
>>47403671
Kind of depends on how many players you have. If there's only three players, then you only need three positions.
If there are a bunch you could split them into two tank crews, or even better might be to do something to hack a little Everyone Is John onto your system to determine who's the driver and who's gunner for each round.
>>47394916
>ctrl+f Hammer's Slammers
>0 results
Via!
Anyway - solution in there was:
development of efficient and powerful fuel cells = powerful lasers
1 round = 1 fuel cell (various size = various power)(naturally)
Laser targeting = High precision
+ Laser = LOS firing
= Airpower a bust
(planes, bombs, missiles, even shells (if you really want to) can be shot down with smaller lasers - let alone Main Tank Guns)
Add Hover for better maneuverability and shitton of armor for survivability (against 'smaller' arms) & you got yourself a f#$&ing tank, my friend.
this is kinda unrelated to thread but will it ever be possible that humans will be able to create things (defences) that can withstand missiles and stuff? I mean you can put any kind of armor onto a tank, it doesn't matter how heavy it becomes. But it also doesn't matter if there's nothing that can resist getting obliterated.
tl;dr humans are better at making booms than things that prevent boom damage
>>47407044
there was a book just about that, cant remember the name
anti tank weapons got so gud that tank were abandoned for a long ass time, new change on warfare brings em back kicking ass (i think, cant remember)
>>47407044
>his is kinda unrelated to thread but will it ever be possible that humans will be able to create things (defences) that can withstand missiles and stuff?
You realize that the advantage between the two has been going back and forth since time immemorial? Yes, missiles can already be countered today. They were in the past. They will continue to be in the future.
>>47394916
I think it could work. The main thing is that you need to give everyone a somewhat active role. You can't just relegate someone to loading shells, for example, because while that is important, its also not something that requires a lot of decision making.
The Driver gets to decide where the tank goes, and you can make that interesting by implementing cover and terrain that they have to navigate through and use to their advantage.
Being the main gunner is in a similar boat, as directing the turret and lining up shots is similarly engaging. You could possibly mix this role with a loader if you wanted different types of rounds. Have them in charge of what shells they fire.
The other roles in the tank are harder to make more meaningful, so you'd probably need to double them up. Anyone manning side-guns or handling communications is going to find themselves without much to do of importance a lot of the time.
Its hard to extrapolate enough crew spots for a full party
>>47407479
>implying theres anything that can withstand a bunker buster
>>47406711
Son did you just call powerguns lasers?
>>47407622
a bigger bunker
then comes a bigger bunker buster, and so on and so forth untill some smart ass come with a better solution to the specilized defenses
>>47394916
You could just give each of them their own tank. Like, it's a future tank so boring things like loading and minor repairs and whatnot are controlled by automated systems with a sexy AI voice while the players do the cool stuff like shooting things and running people over.
>>47407622
>>47407728
Not only that but that laser, METHYL I think, that detonates bunker busters mid flight as an active defense.
>>47407785
upon that the physical defenses weaken and whatever the army knuckeheads think to use that weakness will be use
weapon development is no more than a seesaw till someone wants to play some other game
>>47407622
What the hell do you define as a bunker buster? And besides, the best defense is not to get hit at all. Hence, ERA and APS, both kinetic kill and otherwise.
>>47396084
What game is that?
>>47407990
still no matter how evasive/preventative you are, if you get hit you want to be able to take something
>>47408029
>and so, anon read the file name and looked for it in google, for he knew you are meant to ask only after the aforementioned step has already failed.
>>47394916
A good if hacky solution could be to refluff Traveller's spaceship combat rules for giant tanks.
>>47408225
Which is why they have armor.
>>47408225
>still no matter how evasive/preventative you are, if you get hit you want to be able to take something
Not really, no. Take a look at naval warfare. Note it has gone completely away from armor towards a defense by missiles, electronic warfare, and simply not being seen in the first place.
>>47407044
Sometimes destroying something is easier than creating something resilient.
Withstanding the punch is a reactive measure.
Think pro-active: hit the missile before it hits you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ6YChXRn_A
Just remember: the bomber will always get through
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhj8ITvp-pw
>>47407622
Also, fortifications are kind of obsolete now (just as the tank is becoming, lol). The next step is the weaponization of the weather, that's what. Maybe that's what happened in OP's setting: they turned the planet into a death world after some fuckers decided atomic bombs and bunker busters weren't enough.
>>47407218
I so want to know about this book.
>>47408411
>Also, fortifications are kind of obsolete now (just as the tank is becoming, lol). The next step is the weaponization of the weather, that's what. Maybe that's what happened in OP's setting: they turned the planet into a death world after some fuckers decided atomic bombs and bunker busters weren't enough.
This is utter and complete bullshit. Explain why fighting in Ukraine has devolved in many places into literal trench warfare.
>>47408356
because armor is shit and hasn't caught up with the power of naval artillery, we're still using nearly the same materials that we made ships out of 100 years ago
1 hit to a sub or battleship and it could be out for good
>>47404992
it takes more than one person to run a tank
so each one would be it's own order
the tank commander would be the head knight
and the other positions would be various knightly ranks
the squire starts off with just cleaning and oiling it before moving on to other tasks
>>47408411
>fortifications are kind of obsolete now (just as the tank is becoming, lol)
Yeah, not really. Just ask /k/, they'll give you an earful - fortifications are not as important as they used to be, that can be said, but they're certainly not obsolete.
>>47408494
>those treads
>>47408437
Because they aren't really trying it. Ukranie's defensive line is comparatively better than what the Maginot line was back in its day? What happened to it? It got bypassed.
War is now moves at Mach 2 and can hit you even beyond visual range. Forts were made to be difficult to assault and capture, and were prevalent on a time the advances in firepower had surpassed the advances on mobility (the Mark I was more of a troop carrier than a real tank), but now can simply be either ignored or destroyed.
Or fucking bunker busted.
It'd be the same as asking "Why is there a big defensive line between the Koreas?" Because they aren't really trying it: that shit wouldn't last a day in real war, even if it has lasted decades in a mock "I'm not touching you" situation.
I love this thread, have a thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSz7nKYNSTo
>>47395087
Have each player act as the commander of a single tank, with the other two to three crewmembers as NPCs.
>>47408534
true, in a real war nowadays you could just use a nuke and win, we don't have any nuke defensive measures yet that can protect more than 1 building or so
>>47408486
>because armor is shit and hasn't caught up with the power of naval artillery
That's incorrect. The Iowa could take almost every gun that's ever floated, perhaps bar its own and the Yamato-class's 18" guns.
>1 hit to a battleship and it could be out for good
This is blatantly incorrect. Well, at least the part about BBs. They'd take many dozens of hits by heavy shot to go under. The problem is certain larger missiles, which are countered by other missiles. Don't talk about things you don't know.
>>47409041
New CLUSTER Nukes can bypass the antimissile shield. You see, the only TRUE way of avoiding being hit by such weapons is by disabling the enemy's hand
>>47409148
>The problem is certain larger missiles
so you admit theres a problem
>>47408534
This is completely retarded. Fortifications do not stop an enemy completely, they merely slow him down, often times significantly, and do so with a minimum of forces required. That means you can marshall your own maneuver forces for a counterattack while they're held against your fortifications.
Sure, you can bypass fortifications, assuming they're not across an entire front (note the defensive lines the Allies had to push through in Italy and Northwestern Europe held them up for months), but if you do so, you need to leave a significant number of troops to contain the encircled foe, lest he come out and strike at your supply lines, artillery, C3, and whatnot. And by significant numbers, I mean at bare minimum a 1:1, far more comfortably a 2 or even 3:1. Thus, fortifications are extremely good at an economy of force role.
>>47409159
problem is that the hand is DEEP in some unknown military fortress armored and armed to the teeth, and IF you disable the hand an automated sistem might do it for him
how bout a nice game of chess, indeed
>>47409232
Those aren't naval artillery. If you made a massive missile and rammed it into the side of a battleship at mach speeds, it'd probably do some damage. Little Exocet or Harpoon? Probably wouldn't accomplish much. However, those larger missiles are prey to other defensive measures. IE- SAMs, EW, etc. It's a system, you shit.
>>47409041
>muh nukes
Fuck off. You can't "just use a nuke". It doesn't work like that. Using a nuke is pretty much out of the question.
>>47409287
That's why you must become not the enemy's hand, but it's head :^)
>>47409266
>Suddenly, enough bunker buster bombs are dropped
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHTr8nofsAM
The thing is you're thinking of engaging the fortress head-on, or sieging it. A fortress it's like a rolled headheog, and you want to pounce on top of it?
A fort wants the enemy in a fair fight - don't fight fair. Kill it with missiles. If they are cover almost the whole front, make the enemy think you'll attack some place else, and then attack the place he left weakened. That's how the allies got through the Atlantic wall, which would count as prepared ground.
And there were no missiles back then!
>>47409316
tell that to WW3
What system would you use to run a game in this style? I like the ideas about a harsh planet with near constant metallic dust storms making lasers and guidance systems useless, along with fucking over air power. You'd have to have armored vehicles with bigass guns do a lot of the heavy lifting.
The PCs are each a tank commander with 2-3 NPC gunners, mechanics etc under their command. Would the tank/vehicle model be an analog to a class? Ranger = artillery, fighter = MBT, etc.
>>47409515
Yep. At times tactical nuclear weapons were thought to be used extensively. At others, many thought it would be mostly conventional. Take a look at actual doctrine.
>>47409316
then why do people keep building up nuclear arsenals?
>>47409457
>bunker busters from nowhere
Do you think that there aren't counters for this? Let's assume the airspace is mostly permissive for him, and there is no IADS at all. A basic fortification is just a fighting position dug in the dirt. You then give it proper top cover and camouflage it. You know Desert Storm? The Iraqis somehow managed to keep the vast majority of their armor alive IN THE OPEN DESERT, despite an extensive air campaign. Or in Serbia, where proper camouflage and decoys kept the majority of their forces alive. Mate, this is a move-countermove game. Any action you do has a counter to it. Fortifications give you a massive advantage. There are things that can be done to mitigate those advantages, but they are advantages nonetheless.
>A fort wants the enemy in a fair fight - don't fight fair. Kill it with missiles. If they are cover almost the whole front, make the enemy think you'll attack some place else, and then attack the place he left weakened. That's how the allies got through the Atlantic wall, which would count as prepared ground.
>completely ignoring the Siegfried Line and the various lines in Italy.
To be expected.
camo > armor
agree or disagree?
>>47409723
The best armor is not being hit at all. Camouflage is just one way to achieve that.
I would LOVE to play tank based rpg :3
>>47409682
not that guy but whould you mind a tl;dr of siegrid line?
sounds interesting
>>47410035
Essentially this- You know the Maginot Line, right? Big series of fortifications along the French and German border? The Germans had a counterpart to it by the name of the Westwall. This was extended across the entire German border, all the way up to the North Sea. When the Western Allies landed in Normandy, the Germans did their best to reinforce these defenses. They also included the Maginot Line and all the other old forts.
So, as we know, after a while in the hedgerows of Normandy, the Allies broke out into France, at which point they advanced at the speed of lightning. This continued until they literally outran their supply lines. After a brief pause, they resumed the attack, but ran into some problems. They had reached the start of the Siegfried Line. The Allies would be stuck on it for months. I'd put it from September to mid-December. The only reason this relative stalemate changed is made obvious about the events that occurred- the Battle of the Bulge.
You see, the Siegfried Line had served the Germans well, and they were able to amass a substantial reserve for one last major counteroffensive. In that sense, the Siegfried Line was incredibly useful in the economy of force role- enough forces could be taken off the line for a period of months so that they could prepare for the offensive. Sure, the offensive was in the end useless, and the forces would probably have been better served by making smaller, more local counterattacks, or most certainly on the Eastern Front, but the point still stands.
>>47410396
nice, its a sad thing that forts are pretty much dead
theres something nice about them
but war is all about gottagofast for now
>>47409757
Only War 40k rpg allows you to play armour regiment, allowing the player have their own tank which they will crew.
It also has super-heavy armour regiment if my memory serves me right.
>>47410477
>but war is all about gottagofast for now
It was back then as well. Field fortifications will always have a place. You're a hell of a lot safer with earth all around you then you are standing in the open.
>>47409757
>>47410477
As long as you're fighting an asymmetric war, yeah. But the moment you're being invaded, as long as you don't roll over completely, fortifications make for thorns in the side of the offending force. Supply lines are not safe unless you expend significant amount of resources protecting them, or even more trying to destroy the menace.
Bunkerbusters are expensive as fuck, too. If they use caverns then, you're out of luck.
Fortifications are not even close to what they were in the past... but still far from useless. The thing is, a "fortification" is not only defensive positions with obvious defenses. A simple hidden mustering ground with supplies and ease of locomotion can serve the same purpose without having a wall to it's name.
>>47409605
It prevents conventional wars.
That's why only pissweak countries fight anymore or get dragged into proxy wars by the bigger powers.
Nuclear weapons and global trade are why the world is at peace. People suck just as much as they always have.
>>47409605
Because it has thus far prevented war between the major powers. It is because of nuclear weapons that we are in a bizarre period where these sorts of wars do not occur.
>>47410669
>Fortifications are not even close to what they were in the past... but still far from useless. The thing is, a "fortification" is not only defensive positions with obvious defenses. A simple hidden mustering ground with supplies and ease of locomotion can serve the same purpose without having a wall to it's name.
Not to mention the fact that technically speaking a foxhole is a fortification, and as we see in the Ukraine, the best way to stay alive is to dig in.
>>47394916
>Would being in the tank with one person driving, one shooting, one doing engineering stuff, etc, not get boring after a while?
Semi-futuristic, you said? In that case, you could probably envision a world where tank technology got so advanced, a tank has basically replaced the footsoldier.
Each tank has become a one-man controlled vehicle, with reloading probably being a semi-automatic process (which is to say human involvement is minimal and it can be automized for most of the heavy lifting). The only things the one driver needs to do is drive, shoot and perhaps repair if the tank is really heavily damaged. These tanks, assuming they're light and manouverable enough (which can always happen with [insert futuristic metal or alloy here]) then these tanks would pretty much replace infantry.
Of course if such a tank runs out of ammunition, fuel or is simply too damaged in combat, the rider would be required to unmount it and fight on foot, as traditional (or in this setting outdated) infantry would do. Such a unmounted footsoldier would probably carry some kind of anti-tank weapon and a side arm (some high calibre pistol or blaster maybe).
That's the best way I can imagine making semi-futuristic tanks fun. If you have three players, give them three tanks instead of one.
>>47410805
You're right about nuclear arms, I doubt global trade though. Global trade was also used as an interbellum argument for why WW2 could never happen. Guess what? It did. It's mostly MAD: proportionate violence is a thing of the past, you're either peaceful or all hell breaks loose.
>>47411491
>You're right about nuclear arms, I doubt global trade though. Global trade was also used as an interbellum argument for why WW2 could never happen. Guess what? It did. It's mostly MAD: proportionate violence is a thing of the past, you're either peaceful or all hell breaks loose.
National economies are too fragile. So war is prevented long before it gets to the MAD stage. Shit, until georgia got invaded, no two countries with a mcdonalds ever went to war.
>>47411609
McDonalds confirmed the best deterrent.
how about sand galleys?
>>47394916
I just want to remind you that in Vietnam, the traditional counter to infantry climbing on your tank was to have another tank hose you down with machinegun bullets.
>>47413956
Nowadays it'd still be the same counter, wouldn't it? You could even use a flamethrower if your tank was hermetically sealed, like what OP's setting would demand
>>47402847
Filters clog anon. The point of them is to keep the dust from getting into parts of the engine that it would damage.
>>47407622
Oh, I just...one momemt: https://www.wired.com/2007/04/irans_superconc/ That's a few years old Anon.
>>47395716
if everyone has a tank (because the enivornment makes travelling without impossible) the scale difference is just cosmetic.
Some human fighters with swords vs goblins with swords is functionally the same as humans in tanks vs goblins in tanks.
Add in megafauna and your party can fend of 10 tonne aliens instead of wolves.
>>47408411
Obsolete tanks? Ah yes, they said the same thing in the 60's when HEAT weapons were becoming prevalent.
What's making tanks obsolete now...air power? When laser weapons and railguns are in development that are basically ending the utility of airplanes? Should rethink your position a little there Anon.
>>47402303
Not flame tanks in general, just the actual Flame superheavy with 10 flame projectors. I like the Crocodile because it was still a capable tank and its fuel wasn't a hazzard for its crew.
>I do recall an interview with a flame tanker where the valve got stuck open and they spent their entire tank of flame fuel in one go... apparently the results were pretty horrific
I so need details
>>47414218
Myeah, I guess I'm overstepping here. It's just that tanks are very vulnerable to infantry in cityfight scenarios, where it's easier to ambush them; I don't need to show you all those videos of guys blowing up tanks in Syria.
I mean they're not helpless either, but even with proactive antimissile systems it's very cost effective to kill a tank with missiles, even if you need to fire several missiles at it, the cost of the missiles is still cheaper than the cost of a tank of your own.
>What's making tanks obsolete now...air power?
Sometimes they're vulnerable, yes.
>When laser weapons and railguns are in development that are basically ending the utility of airplanes?
DISABLE ALL THE HANDS!
>>47414785
>I so need details
Not that dude, but I know the story he's referring to. I'll try my best to recall the details with accuracy.
Basically, this one Crocodile was called up as the supporting element in a night attack on a barn the Germans had holed up in. Their mission statement was simply to "expel" the Germans from their position--basically chase them out of the barn and into the waiting guns of an infantry platoon. So, they rolled up and prepared to give the Germans a rude awakening. Now, keep in mind that the flame projector is only supposed to be used in short bursts, both to conserve fuel and because a few targeted bursts of flame is just as effective as a long gout of it.
Thanks to the stuck valve, the tank unleashed its entire payload over the course of 30 continuous seconds.
One of the crew said afterwards that he was absolutely terrified as it was happening, like he'd set loose a dragon and it broke its leash. Needless to say, the barn was incinerated, and the waiting infantry could only look on in awe and horror. When they went back the following morning, they found the charred corpses of some 30-plus Germans among the wreckage. Many of them never even had time to flee their cots.
>>47394916
I'd imagine you could run it in a similar way to how sci-fi games handle space-ship combat, with every crew member having a station. I'm not sure of any systems where that would translate over well though.
>>47415044
>"We flooded that bunker with fire and watched the heretics burn till they
was nothin’ but ash on the wind. It was beautiful Sarge, just... beautiful."
Thanks man. Say, flame tanks were quite effective on routing entrenched troops, and working designs like the Crocodile didn't sacrificed the main gun.
But I guess they aren't used nowadays because it's a sort of inhumane thing to do, and there's the potential of setting the whole city ablaze, right?
(even though fuel is kinda cheap and the flamethrower was meant to be more of a psychological, but very real, weapon)
>>47415464
>But I guess they aren't used nowadays because it's a sort of inhumane thing to do, and there's the potential of setting the whole city ablaze, right?
It's more the fact that there are much more effective weapons systems available. Bunker busters are true to their name, after all, plus most tanks carry various types of ammunition and other tools suitable for rooting out fortified positions. Hell, in Desert Storm, some Abrams reportedly buried whole Iraqi trench lines, and the men inside them, with dozer blades.
>>47415701
Yeah, but you have to call a bunker buster to be deployed, and those things are quite expensive. I was talking more about dealing with infantry hiding in already collapsed buildings. Squash rounds can kill buildings, but aren't that good against ambushers hidding amongst the rubble.
.
.
.
Say, in what setting would flame tanks still make sense?
>>47415803
>Say, in what setting would flame tanks still make sense?
Any setting you've gotta kill infantry, particularly in urban areas or in bunkers.
>>47415848
But aren't you saying everyone's better off calling for bunker busters, squash shells and regular HE rounds?
>>47415879
I'm a different anon, but perhaps. See, the issue is a cost/benefit analysis. You asked where it could make sense, I gave you an answer. Is it the best way to do it? It's certainly one of the more efficient ways to do so, but it requires a different platform. You might be better off just firing thermobaric rounds out of something, like a tank cannon. While other such weapons CAN do the job, they're not the best at it. However, are they good enough to the point where the specialist isn't needed? We can't say for certain.
>>47414016
No, you'd never pull a flamethrower on a friendly tank. Too easy to damage the vehicles engine trying that.
>>47415879
HE, WP, Cannister rounds, etc. will almost always be more efficient than a flamethrower in the average scenario. It's more versatile, usually has longer range, you can use it more, etc. The biggest benefit of any flame weapon over a High Explosive shell is the psychological factor.
