So with the new Armored Warfare coming out and the current giant of videogame tanking World of Tanks, I thought it would be interesting to explore tank gameplay mechanics that make tank versus tank warfare much more fun and engaging. But tanks are so OP against infantry with their HE spam! Eh... this thread is more focused on tank versus tank fights and not so much tank versus infantry fights. In some ways, these suggestions will make tanks weaker against infantry, but in other ways they will become more powerful. Anyhow, the tank versus infantry balance shouldn't be changed a whole lot with these suggestions and overall should be about the same. But I like how tank gameplay currently works! Well sure. I tank a lot too, and according to the stats about 1/3 of all PS2 players will jump in and drive a tank at some point in their playing. On the other hand WoT and AW have tons of players, so I think there is a high demand for tactical tanking. If it makes you feel better, these changes could be used for new tanks, so the old MBT/Lightnings will be kept the way they are but new harder-to-use but stronger tanks will be introduced. What new tanks? But these changes would be too difficult to implement and would take up Dev time! I've left out some suggestions, like modular damage or camouflage, which would actually be new features. Instead, almost all these suggestions would be relatively easy to implement, making use of current in-game mechanics. Without further ado, the suggestions: Turret Rotation Tanks usually need some time to rotate their turrets, because moving a massive, heavy turret with a giant gun in it takes time. For example, this tank requires about 20 seconds to fully rotate the turret 360 degrees. PS2 tanks currently do have some limits in turret rotation, but the rotation speed is so fast that it's barely noticeable. Having tanks in PS2 need time to rotate their turret would create a few changes. First, flanking and ambushing would be much more effective, because it would take longer for a tank to return fire. This would reward proper tanking tactics. Second, this would weaken tanks against infantry and fast-moving vehicles. Tank cannon would generally be for attacking fixed or known targets, but would be less effective against smaller faster-moving targets. This would probably have to be combined with a HE/HEAT buff to even it out, and secondary AI and light AV weapons might need to be beefed up too. Third, this would limit tank awareness, as it would be difficult for them to look behind them. This improves the value of a secondary gunner who can look out for threats, as well as working with other tanks to cover blind spots. Fourth, different guns and cannon would rotate at different rates, allowing for more differentiation with tanks. Lighter weapons, like the 75mm Viper or 100mm Python, would turn more quickly than a 150mm Vanguard cannon. This would not be a difficult change to implement because turret rotation speeds are already in the game... they just need to be slowed down. Acceleration Tanks, being extremely heavy vehicles, need a lot of power to move. This means that they do need a bit to get up to speed. Having their first few gears be relatively slow before moving into higher gears would create this effect, along with noise and vibration. First, this change would really help with immersion, in that a tank beginning to move would feel more tanky. Second, this change would mean that stopping and going would have more tactical value, as stopping in the wrong place would take more time to correct. Trying to flee infantry with C4 would be more difficult if you were at a complete rest. Third, this change would make for a bigger difference between Lightnings, MBTs, and Heavy tanks (when we get them). Making this change would be pretty easy... just tweaking with the gear system already in-game. Stability In general, tanks are less accurate when firing on the move and more accurate when firing still. Tanks in PS2 have stabilizers built-in, but it's almost as if these stabilizers are too good (especially in 3d person, where there is no recoil either). Sure it's the future, but laser-accurate cannon encourage too much run-and-gun. In other tank games, tank gun need some time to "settle" before they reach their optimum accuracy, usually as a result of a rocking tank. We could add in a CoF to tank cannon which greatly reduces when still. First, this means that tanks who are firing from a still position have an advantage over tanks who are charging into battle, which rewards tactics and planning. Second, this can be used as a characteristic to distinguish between different tank weapons. You could pick a more stable cannon that has some other drawbacks for shooting on the move, or a less stable cannon with other advantages. This deepens tankplay. Not too difficult to implement, as other weapons have both moving and still CoFs. Just give the tank cannon some moving CoF and no still CoF. Ammunition Specialization In PS2 tanks have different cannons for different types of shells. AP is supposed to be better against vehicles, HE is supposed to be good against infantry, and HEAT is somewhere in the middle. The actual result though is that pretty much everyone uses AP because HEAT and HE are terrible. In most other tank games, AP, HEAT, and HE are all useful for fighting tanks in different ways. AP is best for close-range attacks, but at longer range it loses effectiveness (because penetration comes from speed, which is lost over time). HEAT is less useful for penetrating armour, but if it does can be highly destructive so is great at lighter vehicles. HE doesn't penetrate armour at all, but instead causes a small amount of internal damage and is used when you have no hope of penetration. What this means is that shell selection is more important than AI/AV. Knowing the armour and range of your target also becomes important. If you are engaging at close range, AP might be best. But at longer range HEAT would be better. And engaging tanks with indirect fire or full-frontally might mean using HE. First, this would give a valid role to all ammunition, not just having everyone use AP. Second, this would deepen the tank game as you would have to know and predict the best type of shell to guarantee the best outcome. Third, new players with HEAT would actually have a proper counter to AP tanks... simply remain at range. These changes wouldn't be too hard to make... AP gets a reduced damage over distance, much like how most small arms work. HE gets to ignore tank directional armour, much like how C4 works. Ammunition Loadout Since picking the best ammunition for the changing battlefield conditions is important, tanks would be allowed to take different types of shells. In most other tank games you are allowed to take a mixture of AP/HEAT/HE shells. PS2 currently just limits you to one. I think that in PS2 tanks should be allowed to carry two of the three shell types so there is still some value in choice. Switching shells in the field would be done by pressing the "fire mode" button, which would start a reload cycle and then load in the new shell. Alternatively this could work by simply having tanks carry two "weapons", and having a long "drawing" time when switching between the two to simulate reloading. First, this would allow for tanks to preload the type of round that they think they will need, which rewards tactical skill. Of course if they messed up and loaded the wrong round then that would penalize them. Second, this allows for tanks to engage a variety of targets in a variety of situations, making tanks more flexible and useful. This should balance out the turret rotation and awareness nerfs. While this might be the most difficult change, none of it requires anything new. Just two fire modes (with a delay in between), or two different weapons (like switching between a carbine and a UBGL). Cannon/Gun Types Well what happens to the different tank cannon if ammunition is no longer linked to cannon? This actually opens up even more space for tankers to play in, because now tanks would have access to different guns. For example, the turrets above are both for T-34 tanks, but one is 76mm while the other would be 85mm. Same tank, different guns. Why would you ever take a smaller, weaker gun? Well smaller guns might actually have favourable characteristics, like better rotation, stability, and RoF. They could also have better ammunition counts, or even carry a bonus (such as to speed). The options are pretty limitless. You could play with velocity, ballistics, elevation/depression, etc. First, this change would allow for mixing and matching of ammunition and guns to produce a high variety of results. This allows tankers to customize their tank to their playstyle. Second, this change would allow for the creation of different vehicle types. A Vanguard with nothing mounted on top except for twin Kobalts, for example. Not too difficult to implement, just a good amount of modeling. Sidegrades, Not Upgrades This isn't taken from tank games which generally do just have upgrades. But in my view PS2 should be a game where you don't simply get something better than a BR1... you get something that's more suited to your playstyle instead. Small arm attachments, like suppressors or grips, do this. You get something, but you give something. In my view, tank "upgrades" like Reload Speed or Rival Chassis should carry downsides with them, so sometimes you're better off with Reload 2 instead of Reload 4, or even no utility at all! First, this would make tank upgrades a little more difficult to choose, adding to depth. I mean currently for many weapons you have a single choice anyhow. Second, this would mean that new tankers aren't at a true disadvantage. Sure they might not have some of the advantages of a tricked out tank, but they also don't have the disadvantages of a tricked out tank. "Crew" Most of these tanking games have tanks that are operated by a single player, which is fine. Same way PS2 does it. But they also feature virtual crew who can have perks and specializations, which add them to your tank. They don't actually do anything, only apply certain modifiers to the vehicle that they're in. These crewmembers could be introduced so that tankers can further customize their tank, creating a number of different specializations. For all intents and purposes they would be treated as "utilities" with their own crew slots, but would have upgrade trees. Might need the most tweaking to make work, but I think it would be worth it.