assault guns are basicly turretless tanks whith the main gun mounted in the hull (think of the StuG VI in CoH) the abvantages of this are: -price: turrets are complex things, whithout them assault guns are much simpler and cheeper to build -armour: because the assault gun is always facing it's target you can consentrate the armour on the front. -speed: because as the weight saved on the turret assault guns are much faster for their armour and firepower than tanks -profile: assault guns have a lower plofile than tamks and are harder to hit. while the dissadvantages are: -versatility: being whithout a turret means that the whole vehicle must turn to aim (like the arty) but assault guns can aim a little. -armour: most assoult guns have little rear armour. The main role of assault guns is the give infantry groups some mobile firepower, to be used mainly against hardened defenses Assault guns in empires (how I see them): A cheeper option to medium tanks whith more weight capasity slightly cheeper and faster. pros- the side whith fewer res can fight back against meds. cons- the side whith more res can AG rush -COMPLETELY screwed in close combat.-Don Music -this sounds a lot like the field gun. why not just have a field gun?-Private Sandbag
That's the point of Artillery, but not of a gun-tank. In reality, those were for head on assault, but in Empires they would be more of a defensive / back of the frontline weapon. I would prefer a missile tank. (Damn I have to bring this up in every thread)
Is this like a tank destroyer? If so, I'm all for it. Surprise surprise, some teamwork is needed so different units can support each other.
I like this idea. Stugs play an important role in wwiio allowing infantry to go up against a heavy defence without the need for heavy tank support. Something similiar would not go amiss in Empires.
so its between a light and med tank on firepower, but has the mobility of an arty? 1 armor back, 2 sides, 4 front im assuming 2cannon, 0mg, 2 missile (it should get owned by infantry) thats how i see it it would be good for low player games, even though i can forsee AG rushes in med-large sized games, and BE could mix them with afvs to fight light tanks while NF could use them to support light tanks. my overall opinion: cool but useless
The tank destoyers'/assault guns' shells should have a much longer range and velocity, so they could fly quite straight, but have no splash damage at all, so they'd be useless against infantry. This would make assault guns a very useful element of defence against tanks. Obviously, they would require infantry for protection, just like artillery does. To fight infantry-covered assault guns, you'd have to overwhelm them with infantry, bomb them with artillery, or flank them with tanks.
Umm sorry to burst your bubble but doesnt the BE AFV do this almost the EXACT thing? Sounds like that except for no mg's...
Um, no. The differences between a possible assault gun and the BE AFV are comparable to those of a horse and a hippopotamus, and so numerous that I'm not even going to bother listing them. The AFV is a piece of crap that rapidly shoots weak-ass projectiles that fly like rocks thrown by a kid. Compared to that, the assault gun would be the extreme opposite of it. So like, lol, you didn't burst my bubble, you inflated it.
AFV * Has a turning turret * Shoots rapidly * Can only shoot weak projectiles * Has a shorter range than other tanks * Has a missile launcher and an MG * Is an infantry support vehicle, and can actually be considered a weak tank, pretty useless against other tanks * Usually gets beaten by any other tank, even an NF LT * Is researched in the beginning by default Assault Gun - concept * Has a vertically turning barrel (like artillery, except it can be aimed lower), perhaps could also turn a few degrees horizontally. * Has a low rate of fire to balance against the power of it's projectiles * Shoots projectiles strong enough to take out the average tank with 2-3 shots * It's projectiles fly fast, have a long range, and outrange other tanks * Has no other armaments, thus is highly dependant on infantry support * Is an anti-armour vehicle, useful against other tanks, but useless against infantry * Can take on most other tanks, provided that they are in a safe distance, yet close enough to be possible to hit * Should require researching before being possible to build * Turns slowly and is very vulnerable when flanked * Can easily be defeated by a grenadier or two, if it doesn't have infantry covering it There's much less differences between the different tank models than there is difference between an AFV and this vehicle concept, yet they bring a great deal of variation. This would bring it even more. Seriously though, I have no idea how the hell you can compare a tank destroyer to an AFV.
Why not have a field gun AND an assault gun? There's multiple different tanks too. The field gun could be earlier in the research tree.