Green said
Then some guy with a magical anti-armor bazooka walks up to it and kills it dead with a few shots, because it can't dodge for shit. If you find a way around that, I'd agree that tanks could be viable.

Green said
How exactly is a tank going to be doing any dodging whatsoever? It can't duck, jump, and has to spend considerable time to turn it's chassis around if it intends to go anywhere but forward (and even then it's still going in a single direction) - anti-armor bazooka shots don't really travel slowly, so there's that. It could always shoot it down, sure. If the projectile was non-explosive in nature (like, say a Railgun), then that wouldn't work out very well either. Hiding from a projectile already shot towards it doesn't make much sense. I don't know what ERA is, please elaborate.

ASTA said
Standard reactive armor uses slabs of explosive sandwiched between two plates of metal. When a projectile impacts this unique armor, the explosive detonates, causing the plates to force apart, in turn damaging standard ammunition, kinetic-penetrator rods (the plates break the rods up, as they're rather brittle) and disrupts the metallic jet generated by a shaped-charge. ERA is different. It's a type of armor that works like a giant capacitor, where an electromagnetic current is passed through two sheets of material separated by an insulator. When a round strikes the armor, a powerful current is driven into the projectile, either vaporizing it or turning it into a plasma. It's newly-developed stuff, so its true method of operation is classified as hell as far as I know. As for railguns, shooting that down is a matter of firing a potent particle beam at it or firing an intercepting projectile at it (like a shell or dart, which would knock the incoming round off course or break it up). This is dipping into hard physics (and thus we're treading into uncharted waters), but particle beams of sufficient power transfer direct thermal energy to the molecules a target is made up of---superheating it if you will. The shell would more or less explode. That or fry its guidance systems if it's a smart projectile and not a dumb one, due to the electronic interference and radiation generated by the beam's impact upon the metal projectile. Hiding works if the enemy hasn't spotted you yet (or if they have, requiring your stealth capability is an option as well, such as using buildings for cover---especially if you're fighting at night). Sometimes the best way of dealing with damage is to simply not be seen.As for the movement restrictions associated with treads, we could go with a hover tank, but those are just flat-out heresy. Everyone knows treads are superior.

ASTA said
I assumed the character in question was on equal footing with the tank. If it wasn't, this fight would have never occurred in the first place. Anyway, both combatants are equal to one another because of the rules set forth by the creator of this roleplay, thus this fight depends on which character makes the best decisions with their movements and their immediate surroundings, whichever character makes the most efficient use of their offensive and defensive capabilities and the limitations and boundaries set forth by the tier system itself. If you're new and improved rocket launcher soldier is still marching headfirst towards a tank, he dies. Badly. If we want to get complicated (for no reason whatsoever), we could go and say tanks in this roleplay should be able to easily trounce lone infantrymen in open fields like they tend to do (very well) in real life. An anti-armor weapon like a recoil-less rifle or shoulder-fired missile launcher are weapons that give infantry a method of keeping relentless armor elements at bay (and maybe even destroy them). It doesn't immediately turn them into the best thing to use against tanks (due to the high armor value tanks possess and the bulkiness of rocket-launcher ammo), though this changes if the infantry is held up within an urban environment, or if they're dug in and supplemented by air power and/or by dedicated static anti-armor weapons like anti-tank guns and missile batteries.Or we could say Ender's warship pastes all of the characters on the surface of a planet because most of you lot can't even fly. At any rate, I think abiding by the RP's rules is the ideal option. Thus, wanking out single characters as being magical 1-hit wonders against anything with treads is really not the way to go.

Green said
We're just saying that tanks are inferior arena combatants, because they are limited to driving around and shooting at stuff, whereas every-single-character-in-the-history-of-ever have a multitude of different ways to approach and decimate their enemies.

Green said
Just seeing if I understood the first part of that correctly; So, if the humanoid tank man walks headfirst towards the tank, he dies. Which inadvertadly means that if the tank drives headfirst towards humanoid tank man, it dies, because they're the same, except one of them has superior movement capabilities, and can jump, duck, and even punch.Arena fights are based around two people meeting each other headfirst in a clash of skill and power. Humanoid tank man and the tank would instantly kill eachother, unless human tank man ducked.Also, no one is saying that single characters are 1-hit wonders against tanks.

LeeRoy said
Also tanks are slow at turning.

Green said
There's the issue though. Arena combat is all about rushing headfirst into battle with one another, figuratively speaking. A tank is not designed for that at-all. If I wanted to, I could write down a SNIPER character who did all his battles from 2km away with his SUPERSTEALTHSUIT - But that'd be the complete opposite of what we're all here for.

ASTA said
I don't recall a vote being made on the reasons why people are in this thread, let alone into Arena roleplaying. Trust me, I'd recall it. In any case, I'm not in this discussion to argue about the personal preferences of random people. I'm in this discussion to tell you how a tank could compete with high tier characters, and how stating said vehicle would automatically lose because of [insert random and weaksauce reason here] is folly at best and downright stupid at worst.

Green said
There's the issue though. Arena combat is all about rushing headfirst into battle with one another, figuratively speaking. A tank is not designed for that at-all. If I wanted to, I could write down a SNIPER character who did all his battles from 2km away with his SUPERSTEALTHSUIT - But that'd be the complete opposite of what we're all here for.

So Boerd said
Yeah, but eventually magic swordsman uses some BS and closes the distance

Green said
Generally speaking.*High tiers? Holy shit, I thought you were talking about intermediate characters. I refer you to Erde, who could defeat any tank in a single post.

LeeRoy said
Oh god, Erde would cream a tank without slowing down.

ASTA said
That's assuming said tank is using a conventional main weapon and remains within the strict tactical parameters modern MBTs do.

ASTA said
If mechs (which are inferior war machines when compared to tanks) can remain competitive in a world of magical swordsmen and quasi-magical cyborgs, a small treaded vehicle can as well.

ASTA said
Anyway, both combatants are equal to one another because of the rules set forth by the creator of this roleplay, thus this fight depends on which character makes the best decisions with their movements and their immediate surroundings, whichever character makes the most efficient use of their offensive and defensive capabilities, and the limitations and boundaries set forth by the tier system itself.

ASTA said
You're assuming one futuristic armored vehicle can't come equipped with a multitude of supplementary abilities to add more variation to its own combat style.

ASTA said
But alas, we'll just further regress into the now-commonplace bullshit that is GM-ignored powerplaying, player-defended powerplaying, metagaming, excessive dick-waving and trash-talking...

ASTA said
But alas, we'll just further regress into the now-commonplace bullshit that is GM-ignored powerplaying, player-defended powerplaying, metagaming, excessive dick-waving and trash-talking...

ASTA said
But alas, we'll just further regress into the now-commonplace bullshit that is GM-ignored powerplaying, player-defended powerplaying, metagaming, excessive dick-waving and trash-talking...

ASTA said
But alas, we'll just further regress into the now-commonplace bullshit that is GM-ignored powerplaying, player-defended powerplaying, metagaming, excessive dick-waving and trash-talking...