Comments: 35
NikitaTarsov In reply to Arklyte84826 [2017-06-05 13:11:26 +0000 UTC]
This points are correct but hit only our actual (short) time periode. Other times had far different values of this single positions, and so the Manticore does.
But to possibly clear some things up - the setting is kind a Fantasy-world a few thousend years later, so more our time and a bit future, depending on which of the isolated nations we look at. The world is kinda post-apo after the big war that devasted the world, and restrict wide range with sensors or exploration through many obstacles - mutated Critters, radiation storms, wastelands, tribes with active peices of the warped magic of the old times, etc..
Kambahr Debihn is one of the most wide, but also most retrogressive nations. Many people are Orcs or Minotaures(which are up to 220cm and massive in body), so even the infantery is quite massive. This comes together with a massive production value of 'simple' ressources(what prevers a military technology like around our WW2), and a big number of bad educated people. Such people are perfect for cheap heavyworks, but also react strongly on psychological effects like such tanks or it´s oversized calibres.
As i told - the weaponary isen´t build to be tactical, and if we take a look to the military design-history of the last hundret years, we see how long technically retard designs had it´s use, and even would have it today. So my design is capturing all this social, mental, material-depending and tactical parts for it´s special setting, cause i hate to take things too easy
No robotics are as cheap as criminal workers they will never see the daylight again. Well, it is even enough to set the people under pressure to make military tonnage out of nothing(at last money). If it would be different, in WW2 not one of ten ships had been build for the pacific war.
Would you say all prototypes of supertanks in our reality had been build for it´s tactical use? Not the FCM Char 2c nor the idea of the german Maus or Ratte. Superweapons always had a psychological effect we can hardly comprehend with our actual basic school education. But if you set yourself mentall yin a WW2 szenario, you will know how the Manticore has it´s use and military leaders love to build it^^
I mean ... tell a (for example) american general about you cool new idea of a levitating, 600ton tank that pucke atomic deathrays. Well, i guess you wouldn`t even manage to talk about the costs before he orders a few(and try to manage this with his buddys in the politic).
Well, it sound a bit simply attacking but for the point i didn´t really know if it was meant this way (and i know that i can sound this way too), i tried to explain myself. Hope this makes more sense in your eyes now. That i "was going for looks only" sound a bit arrogant to tell me what i was going for. Cause ... i´m not going for looks, or not mainly, or even as one of the first five points. I´m going mainly for rough conceptions for a game project, and DA is the best way to interact with the other game designers, and btw. maybe interest others for our project. Surely, it helps to get critique to the conceptions, but 9 of 10 i can give back with a simple remembering of all what was written in the text (and what it inflicts) or in the world describtion(what unfortunally is available just in german atm). So for the moment i can advertise to understand the work a bit more easy: Get loose from some of your real world positions (or increase them) and allow some reasons to shape the thing a bit different
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Arklyte84826 In reply to NikitaTarsov [2017-06-06 09:02:45 +0000 UTC]
Well, first of all, the setting then is completly different from what I've expected. Now it explains lack of AA rocket battery or guided missiles as ammunition for 385mm cannons. Nonhuman crewmembers are also unexpected... though I have to point out that humans too are "up to 220cm and massive in body" and sometimes even bigger
If you have tech level that allows robots to be produced and maintained by other robots then you simply can't go ANY cheaper and effective. Prison workers still cost a lot in comparison and are capable of less. And that is before you mention things like fictional nanotech(actual nanotech is a rather dirty thing with all that metallic pulver getting everywhere).
Yeah, and how many Maus's, E-100's, Ratte's, Tzar "tanks" and Char 2c's were there? You're forgetting that you yourself stated that those vehicles were used succesfully over a long time. So you can't get anywhere less practical then T-35/Mk.V levels. And those weren't as "useless and retarded designs" as you might think. In fact even the above mentioned(except Ratte and maybe Tzar "tank") have usage as mobile defensive points on prepared positions.
1)propulsion. Come on, you're a german after all(хотя судя по имени, вы из бывшего ГДР. You must feel with every fiber of your being that this thing should be electric with said engines being only used to supply generators with needed momentum. "An engine per track" scheme was dropped VERY EARLY in the existence of tanks(said Mk.V already had only one) and none of those which had it, stayed in service for long.
2)toxins and acids ARE chemical weapons. They're chemicals dispersed as gasses/liquids/microscopic particles. Compare to biological weapons which are viruses, bacteries, contaminated blood and other organic substances, sometimes even parasites and so on.
3)why would a flamethrower need to be mounted anywhere? So that something might take a spot on lower part of weapons sponson? Just add nozzles on the perimeter of the tank. They would be more then enough to "burn the ground around the tank" in 50m radius. And if you wanted 200m max of conventional flamethrowers then your mounted ones wouldn't be able to reach it because of their bad placement. Plus there's thermobaric and phosphorus ammunition for that. Geneva convention doesn't exist in your setting, right? Then nothing stops you from using chemical throwers instead, more exotic napalm compositions and even adding some radioactive dust to the composition. Inhuman taken up to eleven. Grenade launchers used vehicle's active protection system would still turn any infantry to bloody bits far more effective though.
4)and speaking on topic of inhuman methods and absense of restrictions, nothing stops your vehicle from driving in constant cloud of chemicals. Not only using CS-gas when you deploy smoke. And if you had your tech level a bit higher, you could have used microwave emitters, sonic based riot control devices and outright lasers to burn out enemy optics... and eyes.
5)side mounted sponsons. Due to placement of autocannon on top and flamethrower beneath it, it's obvious that sponsons are static. Combined with 385mm cannon's design with extra plating on it's side, it becomes obvious that it's designed to shoot only straight forward. Leaving out MASSIVE blind zones and forcins whole weapon to reposition itself for minutes, driving around in search of flat ground with enough free space so that it can finally aim. "Dumb" IRL designs had A LOT of freedom in comparison. Mk.V has quite sufferable "angling" for it's cannons(or mg's). Sturmtiger too could fire it's main gun over building it stood right next to thanks to high angles btw. Plus afforementioned lack of guided rocket ammo. I feel that it would have been better to switch its place with mortar you installed in front and place the cannon into a gimballed mount.
AA guns on top of sponsons are also limited in their line of fire thanks to bad placement. They too hit hull with their body thus being unable to turn back... or raise themselves up due to said body also hitting their own mount and sponson.
6)biggest ever gattling gun created had 37mm caliber and it had almost vibrated itself out of existence. Here you claim 110mm. Why? Does it have a rate of fire that would require a multiple barrel design and even gattling gun? Does it? Then where does it store all that 110mm rounds? There is no space in WHOLE VEHICLE for all needed ammo, not in some little container connected to cannon. And are crewmembers expected to change said ammo containers by hand? Coupled with oversized for such a scale scope, I have a feeling that you decided to simply double the calibers when you were writing the description later. And haven't adjusted the model for it afterwards.
Not to mention that it will never reach neither distances of 152mm AA autocannons, nor volume of fire of combined systems. Or become threat to tanks due to lack of precision and power behind it. You could have used a weapon complex of several guns instead in a bigger turret. You decided not to.
Well, if you decided that I've attacked you before, I'm afraid to think what you'll assume now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to Arklyte84826 [2017-06-06 17:38:38 +0000 UTC]
Yes, and most of them was castet for tank crew members xD
Yes and no. Robots need supply of all ressources and a tech level that makes it easy to keep them in service. This needs a complex society with good tranport and 'perfect' ressource-managment. criminal worker can be droped and good. A bunch of same-level-retard-ad-criminal individuals can keep an eye for them. And if it revolts - drop a bomb and make a new one. Everything else is a self-descepting business management idea.
That supertanks fail in our world - with our tactical and ressource-bound situations - didn´t kill ther use in another situation(i painted roughly, but good enough i think). It sounds abit rhetoric to attack this point.
1) Hah, as German i just had to hate my neighbor for not keeping ther hedge on the high i like it xD
I didn´t go much depper into the function as dirty and painfully retard monster engine. For sure ther will be a electrical inbetween, but why describe every little screw? You think i should? I not even like to make a complete technical readout for this thing. It´s a game conception, and i focus on this as much as on the higher tech nations with ther super advanced technologys. And guess ... i will not fully explain how the grav-tank-engines work. I just grab some ideas it could work, and leave the rest to the scientists
2) So ther´s no reason to write it in detail, even if doubled? Really? Im such a fool ...
3) You want a technical answear or a real one? The technical is: All inside parts of the actual technology would be a big securtiy problem - even without enemy fire. And many weapon in this real big nation are taken from smaller territories what now have been consumed. All this weapons come together on a vehicle from just one of this tech-corners. So they are not designed to get integrated, but they have a use, so they get ther. And that´s teh easiest way. All this have the nice side effect that easy mindet people can see this flamer before they throw ther working capacity into this flames.
The real answear: I`m a game designer, not a engineer. I not even have the claim for the second one. And it looks more cool to have this dirty-rough weapon outside as a optical point of what this tank and it´s whole nation is.
4) Beside the problem that wide areas of this world - and so of ther combat terrain - are still such toxic clouds? Big need, well. Yes, in some tactical situation it can help. But it´s a weapon of fear, not extinction. Just idiots burn ther ground down too much. This is more a psychological border instead of a real. Yes, it´s fine, but you want a result you damage if you use too effective methods.
But i didn´t have the tech level much higher.
5) Ther will be other designes maybe in this direction, but as i say, full tactical use of all parts was never the claim. Ther is no need for such oversized weapons. Never, no way. It´s simply for people they put ther trust in bunkers or defense lines. This tank is an actor, it comes, makes his show, and all is fine. And to decide what tactical point completly power hungry and eccentric military leaders take when they are free to choose, is simply my decision. I decide how insane they was on the day they point out this concept. And all our actual weapon concepts had such a day. Mentaly and intelectual not adult individuals decide about a point they better had asked others for. So all tanks was build we ground our definition on 'an good concepted tank'.
6) With our materials and with our ideas. This world has differents of both. In the fantasy-version, they are many materials and alloys with magical influence and so differing characteristics. So well, i give a fart for technical limitations of such small relevance. Can this explode the possibilitys too much? No, cause i decide of the limitations in quantity and specific material disadvantages. Storytellers magic.
About ammo starrage i´m not finaly sure. Maybe the bursts are short, or the most ammo is storred in easy constructable parts. Well, ther is no need to fight long combats for the Manticore xD
Maybe even some parts of the grenades can be foamed
Oh, they had to do a lot per hand, but not for a technical need, no, for oily, sticky atmosphere and dirty
pilots who wear ther uniformes a month too long. They suffer for the feeling of the nation.
Yepp, i decidet to follow a concept, and not all concepts are so self-confident to call themself 'smart'. It´s not my job to design smart on this nation. It would really help if you step back from your technical perspective and try the one that is relevant. If not, this discussion didn´t have a goal we´re both going for.
You did attack me with your accusation i had designed this for clicks not for the idea. This was insulting, cause i was relative sure you can´t see into my brain. Also i don´t think it was meant very nice. Normal discussions on the internet (where we all are ten years old) had stopped for this little lack of social attention.
We had flamed a bit, called the other one ten-years-old, etc.. Regular thing in internet ... and with exactly no use for one of us, if i assume you´re not happy for everyone who quit talking to you to say: "Yes, one more who stoped talking to me and so accept my allmight!"
Well, i answeared. And i can´t write it shorter as to ask you what you´re heading for. Acceptance of your technical expertise? Okay, didn´t hurt me. Some of your points just lack of the perspective you need to interpret the facts you see. We can´t talk about apples when i talk about the color and you about the taste.
Okay ... that´s my version of 'short' xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to Arklyte84826 [2017-06-07 11:58:36 +0000 UTC]
Cause it´s the most evilish thing i learned to do
Well, yes, that may be true. But to defend myself - we´re five to ten years before buying tanks from american prduction The time of german engineering are mostly over. We have Siemens who build trains that didn´t drive ... and possibly the chinese tried to copy our maglev-train all too good, cause ther copy didn´t work xD
Meh, i´m a bit pissed about this but ...
Quality isen´t wanted anymore, when quantity grants the bigger market efficency for the current hour x.x
Oh it´s in development, so i´m the technical corner you can say. I get some races stereotypes and a cultur concept and design the machines for them(well not all but a representative selection to fill the vehicle section of a core rule book). Actually we have five big nations to focus on.
Not that i wouldn´t take critique on concepts into account, and depending on the consent with the main game developer i use it as optional or advancing ideas. Everything has to grow from a fragile plant
I really wish we had more of english info, but atm we just have my by-the-work textes on the vehicles(most also in english) and main developers literature, what is german only(for the obvious reason we write best in ... german). Only english text is the first 'citizen classes chart' of the first big nation, which sketch the culture a bit.
If it help´s a bit, this is the group that group my M-Tec works:
m-tec-age.deviantart.com/
Ah, no prob, it´s always tricky to value people without a face, and i try to keep the behavior of responsibility. Things can´t be said different as meant, but it has to be clear, and so it was. Finally all fine it seems^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
sheperdsfireworks [2016-12-28 23:45:17 +0000 UTC]
Is this Inspired from a WW1 Tank or the 40K Land Raider?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to sheperdsfireworks [2016-12-29 13:33:36 +0000 UTC]
Would say it´s tricky to say, the second is inspiredmuch by the first so ... in the end the oldschool Tank-tank. Should have the clumsy heavyness as well as the psychological effect(which at WW1 still worked) to fit to this nation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
cullyferg2010 [2016-09-09 02:34:07 +0000 UTC]
This vehicle makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to cullyferg2010 [2016-09-09 14:36:17 +0000 UTC]
Thanx for the detailes and expert critique, i always love to read the eruptions of some smart aleck dudes. Really, it happend way too rarely to have such constructive critique.
And if you end with 'whatsover', i must ask you, why you even read this lines? Bored of live?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
cullyferg2010 In reply to NikitaTarsov [2016-09-10 03:02:34 +0000 UTC]
Sorry if my statement makes no sense as your vehicle. The side sponsons would make it difficult to travel down a street, let alone a highway with light and power poles. The AA Gatlings need to be mounted on top, and the main Gatling should be housed in a low silhouette turret. For use against other armor or a structure there could be pop-up missile launchers on top or the side. That's my take on your vehicle. Having driven and worked on armored personnel carriers, your vision would fit on another world, but not on ours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to cullyferg2010 [2016-09-10 12:35:53 +0000 UTC]
'I don´t like bananas' had made the same sense without arguments. Okay, now you have some. Let´s value it. You say 'your vision would fit on another world', and suprise suprise - it IS for another world. So what you´re talking about? I had said several times that this design didn´t have a future in our reality.
This thing btw don´t care for urban damage, cuze if it´s used in urban terrain, it´s there for simple intimidation.
Top mound AAs restrict the fire angle of the main weapon, while the side position restrict just ther own fire arc. For aircrafts are not very popular in this nation - it´s a logical decision. Beside that the top mount would cause weak armor points on the top, what is a problem, cause old school anti-tank weapon tend to have a top-side tendency.
A lower silhouette for the main weapon? Why? for being more stealthy? Bahahaha! This thing isen´t, and don´t want to be stealthy. Also it´s a weapon build for naval and basement defense - they not re-design it without a reason to do so.
As said, this nation is very poor about missile technology. So no, the mortars are a simple and relyable weapon(if you combine it with stupid massive load of explosives). Try to think more economically(oh sorry, i forget, you have worked in a armored vehicle, so you have learned to deal with the perspective of others who thought the build a smart tank).
I generally don´t give much for american sense of tech. All that is more complicatet as a frigerator is build from others. Your awesome railguns? Build from some british dudes of BAE. Your awesome new Jet? Copyd by chinese before in service, and taken out twice from russia by own development. Helicopters? Hahaha, Apache is rebuild several times and can´t even solve a normal job without beeing too fat, to inflexible, to sensitive in electrics, get ther front galsses bilind from fine sand and burn multible times the fuel of comparable units. Tanks? Last one in candian army trophy(1 time xD) and now equiped with a jet engine that get´s cut when the smallest amount of sand is in the air. Naval? We saw the succsesses in Krim, when a missle cruiser gets 'shut downed' by a simple lil button, and american manouvers with other nations(France/Germany)tend to end with a fired Admiral for not have the slightest chance to spot the attack subs knocking on the hull. Assaultrifles? Army testers begun to cry as they had the XM8 in ther hands, but bribe maoney and nationalism made it the nasty Colts. I can do this the whole day. Your military forces have a reason to just find use against goats and ther ridiculous armed watchdogs. And that´s not just the fault of zero invention and the tendency to just pay for 'cool' technologys instead of usefull. It´s a problem of education and propaganda. The horray-patriotism wasen´t that heavy in Germany 1932. You may forgive me if i didn´t take critique from this corner too serious, okay?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
cullyferg2010 In reply to NikitaTarsov [2016-09-10 23:17:05 +0000 UTC]
As you say, this vehicle was built for another world. It reminds me of the AT-AT the Empire used on Hoth in Star Wars. My point of view was from what it would look like on Earth. Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to cullyferg2010 [2016-09-11 19:40:19 +0000 UTC]
Mhhh, i don´t think we had misunderstandings, so i´m still in search for your first intention to write a critique without mentioning the backround or point out specific problems you have seen in the conception. You gave me these points after i asked for it. A constructive critique always have a point of 'what could be better', and yours didn´t had this criteria.
So you critique is simply a kick in the balls for a not so self confident artist as i am. This ... is just nor very nice.
But i can deal with it, so i asked for more and finaly got this relativization from your side. Even ... if i not really got the point how you want evaluate a AT-AT in a real world perspective. Is the construction bullshit? Well, they can give a fuck for those deficites, cuze they have energy shields and blaster weapons. And the weapon is designed to work in space as well as in deep sea. I guess we couldn´t even try to evaluate a weapon that is designed to get build in 1-billion-units-per-order.
If you say you´re skilled in the tech and requirements of a weapon system - be fair and rate it for the specific requirements it has in the perspective of the designer(and it´s world). Everything else is just unfair and offensive. Such critiques cause my last messages, in what i evaluate the systems you possibly have made your experieces in. And ... i didn´t allready know if i´m sadisfied with the non-reaction on my critique of the american evaluation and information handling. A dude who´s dealing punches should know how to take it(even on internet where we can all run and hide like schoolgirls). Cheers!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
cullyferg2010 In reply to NikitaTarsov [2016-09-12 00:19:22 +0000 UTC]
Was not intending a 'kick in the balls' over your artwork or intention. You draw very well. Just the image made me think that this vehicle would not be plausible because I didn't read further into your write-up. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Goldenwings283 [2016-09-09 01:11:27 +0000 UTC]
could be used in military if darpa decides they like your design enough to test it your design seems more than worthy of DARPA's attention.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to Goldenwings283 [2016-09-09 14:49:11 +0000 UTC]
Ah, thanx for the nice words, but i think it didn´t have the attributes to fit to a real world 'modern' battlefield. It´s too immobile, no way to air transport it, the armament is mainly choosen for hardcore infights and it´s defense systems can´t be calles everything but smart xD
It´s just for a totally different reality, and even in this it´s more oldschool. The nation which has it in service is some of the most technologically stuck nations - it´s just awesome big and have enough menpower to survive.
Hehe, i don´t think DARPA would mention it, buuuut .... if i give out the same bribe money, i guess i could warm the hearts of some american generals they managed to keep the emotions of a six year od child xD So well, probably this - logically seen - waste of money have only a chance through the club of stupid nerds called DARPA xD
My more advanced nations all rely more on mobility combined with firepower(of different conceptions). I suspect the most tanks and IFVs of other, more advanced nations would crack this tank on extrem range, or dodge it on terrain and lead the combat somewhere else. All the Manticore can do is to silde slowly to the smoke on the horizon
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AntivirusDes [2014-10-11 14:10:49 +0000 UTC]
This thing reminds me the Mark I, the very first tank in the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
conscript900 [2014-10-11 04:31:14 +0000 UTC]
a tank to be feared certainly
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
conscript900 In reply to NikitaTarsov [2014-10-11 18:57:57 +0000 UTC]
Definately dont want to be on the buisness end of it haha.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rose-Eclipse [2013-07-18 17:37:28 +0000 UTC]
Such a fricken Awesome Tank
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rose-Eclipse In reply to NikitaTarsov [2013-07-31 16:28:55 +0000 UTC]
(Late Reply be very Late Sorry)
Metal Heavy
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TheEndOfPain [2013-07-01 19:18:39 +0000 UTC]
This isn't a tank, it's a battle fortress
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheEndOfPain In reply to NikitaTarsov [2013-07-01 19:59:57 +0000 UTC]
It's really great! Also, I'm about to upload some hand-drawn guns
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to TheEndOfPain [2013-07-01 21:22:01 +0000 UTC]
I always feared from the fact that ther is no "ctrl+Z" - so i´m focused on digital stuff^^
Ever tried?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NikitaTarsov In reply to TheEndOfPain [2013-07-01 23:07:54 +0000 UTC]
Hmmm, uncool - SketchUp for example was much easyer than i ever expected. And the real life eraser has some dirty bugs....it let the quality die, like Paint does.....maybe a reason for Gates´ god-complex.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheEndOfPain In reply to NikitaTarsov [2013-07-02 00:49:15 +0000 UTC]
Depends on the eraser. I used to have one that didn't leave any marks on the paper, other than the dust, but that was easy to wipe away. Sadly I can't remember the brand as it was years ago
👍: 0 ⏩: 1