this game lacks....
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Cpt._Allister_Caine [ Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  this game lacks....

.....TANKS!!! :shock:

Author:  it [ Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

noty plx..

btw.. I sense this as being off-topic material... *waits for another mod's opinion*

Author:  Cpt._Allister_Caine [ Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

yeah, just kick it into offtopic..... im not that serious with bringing tanks into TC. :)

Author:  XenoKiLLer [ Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

Tanks belong with the Marines and the Army, TCE has no armies in it but instead has international counter terrorist teams - aka they are interpol special ops teams. TCE primarily forcus on man to man.

Plus, tanks would be impossible to implement into the Quake3 engine and it has only been done once with Wolfenstein Frontlines (FalkonET) and wasnt that popular. The maps arent even big enough to sport motor bikes or even a skateboard, let alone a 70 ton tank.

Author:  it [ Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:22 am ]
Post subject: 

when it comes to tanks in Q3 being really hard, see call of duty, and CoD: united offensive. the SP cmpaigns have tank levels, and in MP, tanks are very popular (especially on MP_foy)

Author:  kozak6 [ Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:23 am ]
Post subject: 

There was also "Wolfenstein: The Frontline" but I dont' know whatever happened to that.

Author:  Shiro013 [ Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:57 am ]
Post subject: 

I completely and fully agree! We need some Leopard 2 A6's, and my favorite, an M1A2 SEP Abrams.Oo and the brand new M1A4 Abrams which carries a nice fancy 140mm Smooth Bore glide cannon. :yay:

Author:  XenoKiLLer [ Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:02 am ]
Post subject: 

That would work for BF2 but probably not TCE, not even AA, and not even CS, because those three games are man to man urban combat based not vehicular mahem and violence.

Author:  Cpt._Allister_Caine [ Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Shiro013 wrote:
I completely and fully agree! We need some Leopard 2 A6's, and my favorite, an M1A2 SEP Abrams.Oo and the brand new M1A4 Abrams which carries a nice fancy 140mm Smooth Bore glide cannon. :yay:

do you have a link for me?!
i dont know about that model youre talking about. the m1 i know about has a 120mm rheinmetall maingun.

Author:  Shiro013 [ Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:50 am ]
Post subject: 

Lol, the M1A4, I just made it up, don't get your underwear all in a knot looking for it, you won't find it. It'd make great for a game though, True Combat: Tank Warfare, hmmm. 8) You know what happens when you put an Abrams up against a Leopard 2A6? Well for starters the 2a6 comes out in shambles. Because truthfully, the M1A2 has better range than the 2a6's gun. The Leopard may outrun it, but it can't out gun it. Lets cut back to the Leopard 2A1. The old thingy mc-jigger. The gun sights were all manual, no fancy self center on the target no matter where you go, so the Abrams gets first point on that, only thing the Leopard gets that I sau is better, is it's speed, but Germans are well known for cutting armor to gain some speed. But why cut off the armor if you have a manual gun sight, sounds painful if you ask me, going 60mph trying to aim that bugger hitting some massive bums, flying 6 feet in the air, coming down with a hard fall, well I proved my point, GO ABRAMS!!!

Author:  Cpt._Allister_Caine [ Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

but you know the m1 uses the same gun like the leo2 does? maybe the m1s got issued DU rounds (where germany uses tungstencarbide), but the maingun of the leo2 a6 got recently upgunned to 55 calibers, whereas the m1 has only like 43 calibers.

no fancy self center on the target no matter where you go

what are yer talking of?
leo2 has stabilisation for sure:

Der Turm bzw. die Hauptwaffe verfügt beim Leopard 2 A4 über eine hydraulische Richtanlage. Leopard 2 A5 und A6 sind mit einer elektrischen Richtanlage ausgestattet. Im Gefecht wird die Richtanlage durch das Zuschalten der Waffennachführanlage (WNA/EWNA) unterstützt. In dieser Betriebsstufe („Stab ein“) werden Bodenunebenheiten, Fahrgeschwindigkeit und Zielbewegungen automatisch kompensiert, die Waffenanlage ist uneingeschränkt einsatzfähig. Richtschütze oder Kommandant müssen das Ziel lediglich anvisieren, die Kanone wird der führenden Optik in Höhe und Seite nachgeführt.

may i quote wikipedia:

Beim Kauf einiger russischer T-90 durch Indien kam es zu simulierten Kämpfen zwischen T-90, M1A2 „Abrams“, Challenger 2 und Leopard 2 A4. Der Leopard 2 A4 (Baujahr 1985) war dabei wie der Challenger 2 dem T-90 (Baujahr 1993) unterlegen. Der M1A2 war etwa ebenbürtig. Später ließ man jedoch den aktuellen Leopard 2 A6 (Baujahr 2001) gegen einen T-90 antreten. Diesmal gewann der Leopard 2 A6. Ein Leopard 2 A6 gewann später auch gegen einen M1A2 Abrams und einen Challenger 2. Dabei muss man aber berücksichtigen, dass der reine Kampfwert in einer solch simulierten „Panzer gegen Panzer“-Duellsituation wenig aussagekräftig ist, da für eine Armee neben diesem Aspekt auch zahlreiche andere Gesichtspunkte wie Logistik, Beschaffungspreis, Unterhaltspreis, Systemintegrität und -kompatibilität darüber entscheiden, welcher Kandidat für sie der „Beste“ ist.

tank vs. tank, the leopard 2 clearly gets the chicks.

sorry that i have only german sources on the fast.

now that i see youre talking of the leo2a1..... well... heck that thing isnt that good for sure. but were not really using it anymore. it was in service in the early 80s. :wink:

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group