More (new) units that nod to existing military counterparts.

[odd lichen]

1. You probably picked the two worst examples as "eye candy" for more units inspired by IRL stuff, you picked, boring tank, and, boring tank. BN does not need another unit that is just "Tank", the tank roster is complete enough as it is.

2. This is not to say this is a bad idea, but at least pick units that are more interesting in form and function, a heavy flamethrower tank like the TOS-1 is distinct in form and could have a niche. A heavy laser AA vehicle like the Szhatie would also be unique.

3. AI Slop Bad

[sage cradle]

My suggestion wasn’t two specific nods if you read to the end… I just put two as an example. (Although, an Abrams nod as a tier 10 unit would go hard.)

If anything I think nods to air units are probably the most eye catching ones, thats what Z2 did, and it worked.

I don’t think the tank category is dead, or full. There’s still loads of room you could expand upon. IFVs, wheeled or tracked, anything with APS could be a dodge tank, etc. and the MBT examples I put up there themselves could be a pure anti armor role, kind of like the snake.

Just used AI to make an example of work. I don’t care what you think about AI, just using it to get my idea across visually…

[orchid glacier]

We already have an Abrams with the super tank

[verbal turtle]

Ontos - Tank Killer
Abrams - Super Tank
Indiana Jones Tank - Medium Tank
FT-17 - Light Tank
Some Soviet rocket artillery - Rocket Truck
Katusha - Hailstorm

What else

[slate jacinth]

That is not an Abram's. The resemblance isn't even there. That's like saying Joe Biden resembles JFK just, what are you talking about?

There's very few military vehicles IRL that'd fit Battle Nations and the more you add that aren't cartoonish or fictionalized we reach a point that's confusing "what is this supposed to mirror real life?"

A few top pics of mine would have to be the Sturmtiger, TOG II, or Char 2C for example. These are over the top and fit Battle Nations as a whole.

But I would not go back and redesign the Tempest. Battle Nations takes inspiration from real life, but it's clearly separated with many fictional tellers. Having something that's not as goofy, the OT-34, TO-55, Churchill Crocodile or Churchill AVRE... These don't look cartoonish they look like actual tanks. And then the line blurs.

Modern tanks are exceedingly boring and in Battle Nations I don't think they have sabot more than lasers or railguns which is... Kinda funny and I definitely enjoy. Instead of reaching where we did IRL, sheer incompetence leads to something like the Mega Tank, Chem Tank, Laser Tank, Plasma... They don't necessarily understand what sabot is their solution is to mount the latest tech haphazardly on an existing vehicle, or just up-gun the vehicle to a ridiculous caliber

Hell, the Phalanx Tank uses the same turret found on naval vessels to shoot aircraft, as it's primary weapon. Meanwhile M10's in Naval use some type of dual MG system. So the weapon exists we've just decided to use it for a tank. Meanwhile on the M10?... Budget cuts I guess!

[orchid glacier]

It's just an abrams with a second barrel

[orchid glacier]

I don't recall exact model but that design idea was most ww1 tanks, think ours is the british one

[slate jacinth]

It has a mini turret above the midsection of the turret. That ain't right. The tracks are much larger than the Abrams paired with the tank itself being more compact, gun barrel too short, multiple MG's(?) in the turret cheeks... Whatever the hell is on the back of the turret...

That ain't an Abram's. It's just a tank. They may have drawn generic ideas from the Abrams like the hull.

[dull lodge]

Pretty sure the super tank is just a C&C reference

Of the double barrel mammoth tanks

[stable rose]

Even the wiki says slight resemblance. I don’t think the resemblance is super striking personally but also big tank is big tank: if you want an Abrams look alike for your roleplay or something the super tank isn’t THAT far off

[orchid glacier]

Same way the medium is a mishmash of ww1 designs

[stable rose]

Yeah like it’s a made up game tank. I don’t expect the Abrams inspired tank to be an exact copy of the Abrams. I think the top turret for example is a cool nod to other imperial design standards.

[orchid glacier]

Though back to inital thesis I do think it'd be nice to have more real world inspiration in vehicle and to push back the game's quick descent into purely sci-fi designs, though in same way current units are rather than a 1-1 translation of an irl vehicle (more than we already have)

APC, some of those german superweapons, maybe some drones or attack choppers

[slate jacinth]

The wiki isn't official, and just like the claim here it's wrong. Citation is fandom....

[slate jacinth]

That's different as that's straight up the Mark IV tank but with a whole turret instead.

[slate jacinth]

As I said with the TOG II, Sturmtiger, & Char 2C, I think they thematically make sense for the game. But in general the games original developers seem to think bigger bullet = better so. There's no such thing as Sabot and sci-fi railguns & lasers do the same thing.

In general conventional options (Mega tank, Super Tank, Hvyr Tank, Heavy Tank, Medium Tank, Light tank, Mini...) seem to just get bigger guns as they advance. The Mega being the pinnacle.

Where as with Sci Fi I mean... Lasers & Railguns are redundant but you can't really sci-fi that any differently which is why they likely made Railgun, then Plasma. Diversity instead of making 5 different laser vehicles. Instead it feels like you have multiple abandoned categories due to this spice.

Also, while I think the tanks I suggested make sense thematically, how do you implement them even. Char 2C while unique is redundant. TOG II is redundant. Sturmtiger could be a unique artillery piece but, you'd want to disconnect the names & history like the M50 just being Tank Killer.

And going back and altering the original games tanks just... Doesn't seem right.

[verbal turtle]

Wiki is sometimes wrong

Sturmtiger would be interesting, albeit…….the mega tank already has a massive gun that looks like a sturmtiger

The LOSAT looks like a good fit for the game tho

[verbal turtle]

It’s the Indiana jones tank basically

[stable rose]

I never claimed it was official, I was bringing up another place that mentioned a resemblance. I feel like the claim of it resembling something also isn't really a statement of fact as opposed to a subjective observation. I don't think your belief that the super doesn't resemble an Abrams is any more deserving of credit than the three other sources observing slight resemblance. You're dismissing opinions or perspectives with your opinion/perspective.

[slate jacinth]

Everything is subject to opinion, however on this particular subject I feel calling it an Abrams is just a disservice to the Abrams, and ignorant to lineage. It's not that you claimed it's official, it's just useless semantics. I've met other people who I am not going to actively ping into this thread who agree it doesn't look like the Abrams. You have 3 people in this thread who disagree. What's the point? Are we going to hold a debate? I don't want to.

Tanks interest me, but the Super Tank is entirely fictional. It resembles nothing, The Abrams is largely in videogames, an incredibly generic tank. This leads to inadvertent design influence, but nothing really matches the Abrams, it has a turret shaped like that, what so it's the MBT-70? Has the short barreled gun launcher, even comes with a 20mm in the roof... But no 6 machineguns all around it. That's a feature you'd find on the IS-7, or specifically early war American Tanks.

The 2 features it shares with the Abrams are loosely just generic concepts, Turret cheeks that slant, and a hull. Absolutely nothing else present really resembles an Abrams so to call it an Abrams just strange to me.
-# (The 20mm is absent in this image but you can find examples if you just look up MBT-70)

[slate jacinth]

Mega Tank but jet propelled rounds that sits in the back. As I said, if any vehicles I liked got into the game I'd like them to not resemble their normal inspiration. They can loosely look like it but, when we add IRL vehicles it just gets confusing like when you play a game that couldn't get the licensing to AK-47, so it's just some made-up name. Part of the fun of BN in my opinion is the fact it's fiction.

[stable rose]

You're the one starting a debate instead of just saying "I don't see the resemblance." I also can't call it a debate when you're just using ad hominem and strawmen.

I gotchu: agree to disagree

[slate jacinth]

I don't see the resemblence and am going to rant and rave like a madman about it because I like looking into tanks so when you call it an Abrams I inherently feel the need to break down why you're incorrect in that judgement. However as you said agree to disagree because regardless it's your opinion and you're entitled to it in the same manner my opinion'd differ.

[stable rose]

Yeah but you're a madman who thinks I can be incorrect for a perception

In fact you just contradicted yourself trying to claim I am objectively wrong for whatever reason but then also conceding I am entitled to my opinions.

[slate jacinth]

Contradicting would be writing all that then continuing to hammer down why you're incorrect. I am simply saying I feel you are.

[stable rose]

But that isn't what you said. Now this is a motte and bailey 🤣

[slate jacinth]

-# Mhm I said I felt the need to break down why you're wrong, which I then built on was my opinon...

-# And when you add 2+6 to the power of 99 billion it does in fact equal a wheel of cheese...

[stable rose]

If it is an opinion you can't really "prove" me wrong without first understanding why I think the way I do. Then perhaps you could show me a different perspective or explain your alternative view.
For the second half I don't know what that means except that you are frustrated you're getting called out for bad debate tactics and bulldozing the conversation. I think that would count as a red herring? Also another strawman if not.

[slate jacinth]

Nah I'll just be straight up. The second half is utter nonsense, because this is utter nonsense. I'm not really frustrated, I just accept that you're wrong from my point of view, from the same manner you likely assume I'm wrong from your point of view. This is fine, it's usually how talking to people (in any format) works when people disagree. Teachers teaching you to "change peoples minds via argument" rarely works in my experience.

When it comes to my opinion, I gave you some extremely hard pointers above alongside a picture of a tank I find more similar, You feel like you do likely because I don't believe you may share such similar interests in tanks I do, and if you do, maybe you're less scrutinizing as I am and therefore you're going to perceive differently. But to me, that's just not an Abrams. It's like calling an Orange an Apple. They're both fruits at the end of the day, sure. But to call an orange an apple?... They share a similar shape kinda?....

Anyways, ultimately to me, you're pulling a bunch of words out a hat to assign me to an argumentative position like this tears me down and gives you some sort of power? In all my time online, no one has referred to anything as "Motte and bailey", interesting castle! Interesting it earned that name for online debate! But the hell does that have to do with anything? Assigning random names for online arguments doesn't really give you power, in the same manner me nailing down 300 times over why you're wrong doesn't necessarily make what I'm saying true.

If you simply perceive differently, even if I feel it's wrong, so be it! I'll respond because that's just what I do, but to say I am suddenly taking these strange positions like some type of online debate?... Lolwut? Yeah let me just gaslight strawman some more or something.

[stable rose]

There's another strawman in your block of text again haha. Just because you don't know the meaning of logical fallacies and rhetorical tactics doesn't make them randomly assigned names and you additionally infer its me giving them those names.

[slate jacinth]

The point isn't that I don't know the meaning of logical fallacies it is to say they have nothing to do with anything, throwing out "Strawman" and "Logical fallacies" doesn't necessarily give you an edge over what I am saying here is my point. It's just nonsense, arguing for the sake of.

I met someone who did this and they did this as a coping mechanism. I'm not going to say you're doing this as a coping mechanism, just that it's rather... How do I put it... Redundant? Useless information? Not what I'm doing?

[stable rose]

This might actually be somewhat illuminative to the disagreement: I care about argumentation and structure in a similar way you care about tanks. You don't really seem to care about actually informing me or anyone about your position which makes your tone and tenor disagreeable to me and makes the information worthless to me. In the same way I am trying to point out why your argument isn't effective to me and you don't care or know about argumentation which mkaes my message worthless to you!

Interesting conundrum.

I mean you never asked me what resemblance I saw between the two tanks. I think yelling information that might not even be relevant to my position to be nonsense, arguing for the sake of.

I met someone who did this and they did this as a coping mechanism. I'm not going to say you're doing this as a coping mechanism, just that it's rather... How do I put it... Redundant? Useless information? Not what I'm doing?

[slate jacinth]

This is fair! I'm not the most charismatic person, and I don't really conduct my speech online in a very... Inviting manner. I won't deny that! However, even if you say, fed what I wrote to an AI to come up with those terms, or really do actually study arguments I think saying that it looks like an Abrams, is a rather naive statement. This is why I am hard against it regardless without much explanation. I could ask you about it sure, I didn't because I didn't think to. To me it's just clear as day. As I said, apples and oranges. We recognize them because the color & shape, texture and where they come from, if they were both painted red would you still pick up an orange and go "Apple"?

It just doesn't share the similarities to me, but I am not going to sit here, and explain 50 times over why I feel I am correct in this, if I feel you're wrong, then that's it. There's simply nowhere to expand the conversation from here.

[stable rose]

You can't explain why I am wrong in this because you don't know what I think at all.

If you gave me an orange, an apple and a carrot and asked me to pick the two that are similar, you might be expecting me to pick up the orange and the apple because they're fruits and I might actually pick up the orange and the carrot because of their color.

And here you spent all this time arguing about what a fruit is when it has no bearing on what I think and why.

[slate jacinth]

Sure, but you had the entire duration of... about roughly 9 hours, to explain your side and instead chose to; cite wikipedia & throw random terminology out to proclaim an argumentative position for me, where as I built on what I said and hammered home on it, even if a bit aggressively. If you don't agree with that, that's cool, as I've said the last 3-5 messages we've peaked in the conversation.

[sage cradle]

This and maybe the HSTVL and its counterparts would be interesting

Maybe the AGS / Wolfpack series?

BMPT terminator

[polar kettle]

something like this could work
I know the mega tank has rocket launchers, but they're more of a secondary weapon there

[chrome lance]

Put the minelayer destroyer rockets on a tank chassis

Give em flame with reasonable damage as a dragon sidegrade

[sage cradle]

https://tenor.com/view/ah64e-helicopter-heli-ah-64-apache-gif-22056784