problem is I dont know how to put this ingame because it is supposed to have its main gun as turretless (just like the Self Propelled Anti Tank Guns of World War 2 or the Tank Destroyer in RA2).
by the way. The model is a combination of the mirage tank chassis and the barrel from the other allied tank. the MG on top came from the amphiblious vehicle for balance purposes. also make this unit available as a tier three unit.
I'm willing to send the max 9 models and the texture sets to anybody who can make the code and make this unit in-game having the function as an anti-armor unit equipped with a slightly stronger tank gun weapon than the one the allies use. it must also have an MG for anti infantry function. just have the MG less effective than the MG on the amphibious one. QUICK_EDIT
I'll ask around the RA3 community if you want. _________________ I am Zengar Zombolt, The Sword That Cleaves Evil! There is Nothing I can not Cut! QUICK_EDIT
I meant to post before, but I definitely feel it needs more work. However, it is a nice start (better than anything I can model).
1: Barrel is far, far too wimpy for the Tank Destroyer. It had a massive barrel in RA2 if I remember right, instead here it has the Guardian one. Swap it out for the Apocalypse barrel for a test at least.
2: Turret doesn't look very merged with the body, especially near the front.
3: Minigun on top is -massive-. It is a secondary weapon and it distracts from the focus of the tank, that sabot gun. Remove it or shrink it.
I'm also not too fond of the quad treads. Quads scream Mammoth Tank, but quads aren't a total killer. Its up to you. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:08 pm Post subject:
Volgin wrote:
I'm also not too fond of the quad treads. Quads scream Mammoth Tank, but quads aren't a total killer. Its up to you.
Blame the RA3 devs. EVERY Allied tracked vehicle has a quad-track configuration. Hell, most tanks in the game have something other than a dual track config.
In that respect, it fits the Allied style very well.
However, it doesn't really look like a tank destroyer. I'd suggest you look at the RA2 TD, the T28 GMC it was based on, or other casemate designs like the Jagdpanther and Ferdinand.
Good model quality nonetheless. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
1: Barrel is far, far too wimpy for the Tank Destroyer. It had a massive barrel in RA2 if I remember right, instead here it has the Guardian one. Swap it out for the Apocalypse barrel for a test at least.
For future reference, a tank destroyer doesn't necessarily need a big gun. Actual tank destroyers use superior maneuverability. That said, it does need to look like a tank gun at least, so if it is indeed the Guardian Tank's barrel then it is fine for the definition of "Tank Destroyer". QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:32 am Post subject:
Darkstorm wrote:
For future reference, a tank destroyer doesn't necessarily need a big gun. Actual tank destroyers used superior maneuverability. That said, it does need to look like a tank gun at least, so if it is indeed the Guardian Tank's barrel then it is fine for the definition of "Tank Destroyer".
False in most respects. Only US Tank Destroyers of WWII, and in particular the M18 Hellcat, were very fast.
Russian TDs relied on powerful guns (SU-100 "ztyping end of anything", SU-152/ISU-152 "animal killer") and weren't exactly quick. It certainly wasn't that the thing they used to greatest effect.
German TDs relied on heavy armor- for example the Ferdinand's 200mm plate and the Jagdtiger's 250mm casemate, both ridiculously thick for WWII standards. (Jagdpanther's heavily sloped front was no easy task to penetrate either) And the 88mm L/71 and the 128mm L/55? Designed to kill the heaviest armor of the war. Coincidentally, both vehicles were slow as hell.
The reason why tank destroyers were made instead of normal tanks is because it was both cheaper to do, and most importantly, allowed a larger cannon to be mounted on a chassis than the turret would allow. (which is also why they faded out after WW2, with the advent of the Main battle tank) _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
a TD either has a big cannon with a low velocity shell but high explosive, or a low caliber, high velocity shot. As for speed, they're faster than a heavy but slower than a medium. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:24 am Post subject:
DaFool wrote:
Going from WoT knowledge
a TD either has a big cannon with a low velocity shell but high explosive, or a low caliber, high velocity shot. As for speed, they're faster than a heavy but slower than a medium.
WoT and knowledge that I had beforehand.
Small bore is definitely a relative term though. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum