73 replies to this topic

[Razven]

Everyone who's played Shockwavemod knows that there will be no Abrams tank. Reasons are that:
-It's ugly
-Too old (not going to be in service in Generals timeline)
-Too unoriginal

-The M1 tank is old
Let's see, the Airforce Gen's Sheridan tank (M551) is in use in the mod, and it was built in 1960's and was last used in Operation Desert Storm. It is currently in reserve. So let's say it's entire lifespan was from 1966-1991, a total of 25 years. With the short barrel featured in the game, it is safe to assume that the tank will not be in service within the next 25 years, or at least not comparable or adequate for the United States military.

However, the M1 Abrams entering US Military service in 1979 and with the current upgrades, would still be in service withinthe next 25 years

In short, your argument that the M1 Abrams being an outdated obsolete machine is worth nil, since with the current amount of upgrades from A1, to A2 and the new A3 that will be eventually coming. Even though it would be reasonable to think that the M1A3 tank would not be sporting RAILGUNS, it would be silly to think that with upgraded armour, TUSK (Tank Urban Survivability Kit) and the possibility of more secondary armament like a Mk.19 automatic grenade launcher, M134 minigun (the one on a Black Hawk) and gunshields or whatnot. The M1 tanks are still far from ending their usefulness on the battlefield.

-The M1 tank is ugly
Why is the tank ugly? Is a rocket buggy that's about to tip over because of rocket pods strapped to its back more pleasing to the eye that a solid 68 tonne tank? Okay, let's be real, rocket buggies are not. A machine is not designed to be pretty machine used in a parade, it's supposed to look mean and powerful. In comparison, the Overlord tank will probably win the ugly tank award, followed by the Marauder Tank. Of course, what is ugly and what is not is largely judged by a person's preferences. For example, I base things that are ugly as those which are not realistic to a large degree or something that is lopsided or top heavy. So the M1 tanks are not ugly is anyway in my opinion. Which also brings us to the last point that is also presented by many members here...

-The M1 tank is unoriginal
Please note that I am not here to bash or The_Hunter, the dev team or any person on the forum, I am personally presenting this as my point of view on the whole "M1 tank matter".
The M1A2 tank is the perimeter fighting tank that has not only seen combat, but came out with barely a scratch. It steamrollered into Iraq, one in Operation Desert Storm and again in Iraqi freedom. M1 tanks were also used in UN peace keeping missions, while convoys protected by APCs and Humvees were attacked, M1 tank protected convoys were often unharnessed due to the sheer intimidating power of the tanks themselves.
The M1 tanks is a iconic symbol of United States military power, comparable to the fear of a battalion of Apocalypse tanks in RA2 or a air wing of Hyper-Sonic Auroras to Granger. A literal yell that either yells "Soviet Power Supreme" or "We'll bomb you right back to the stone-age!" Iconic units are in almost every war, we have the Shermans and Tigers for WWII, the T-72 representing the Soviet power back in the Cold War and the Ak-47 for the Vietcong.

While the above views may seem biased, it's because they are. I am a supporter of M1 tanks, but I do respect the Shockwavemod team's decisions to not put any unit/building/things they deem unsuitable for their mod. I hope that this gives a little insight to how I view the points that are often employed against the M1 Abrams.

[Waris]

Good point.

However the prime reason that always had the M1 shot down is and will always be it overused-ness.

Go out there and count how many mods, let alone games that have the M1.

One of the principle of making a good modification is the addition of contents that can actually refresh the gameplay experience of players.

Sadly the M1 does not fit in this category anymore.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

M1 is a fucking ugly tank. And that thats all that matters to us. and for god sake if you love it so much just pretend that the crusader is a pimped out version of it.

Edit: on the Sheridan. we actually had a discussion between the staff between the M8 Buford. the Sheridan won because it just looks cooler ingame, also if you missed it its the sheridian MKII which is fictional version created by us, realism be dammed. For some reason the current generation of US weapons just look uninspiring. where is my Sr-71, Hummer, F-15, F-14 and other epic designs of USA in the 21st century. For the most part Russian/European Technology just looks way too cooler these days.

[Whitey]

Are tanks supposed to be pretty? You know what's ugly? A T-72. A square body and a round turret. Its kinda like playing with one of those "shape toys" and trying to shove the circular block into the square hole, it just doesn't work right.

Sure, militarily, the T-72 is a real piece, but you also have to give the M1 props. No tanks is not ugly.

The overused bit: As much as the tank is overused and not refreshing, neither are any of the old Generals/Zero Hour units. What you need to consider about other mods and the M1 is this: They always serve the same role, big, slow, and powerful. I've seen one mod where they are big, fast, and powerful. But do tanks have to serve that purpose? I always thought it was teh gameplay that determined refreshingness, not the actual look of the unit.

[Kris]

Why bother adding the abrams when you basically have the Paladin? The Paladin looks like a uber modernized Abrams Anyway...

Edited by Chris, 15 June 2007 - 17:41.

[Eddy01741]

First off, I don't give a shit, and I don't think too many supporters of ShW give a shit about the looks of an Abrams. Basically, every single vehicle on the GLA side is more ugly and less "sleek" than the M1 Abrams. DOes that mean I support it? NOOOOO!!!!!!!

Read the thing on what will NOT be implemented into the mod.... Units that are already used in other mods, I can count over 10 mods off the top of my head that use the Abrams (INCLUDING the much-hated Reborn mods). Abrams is not only already used by other mods, it's OVERUSED by the other mods. It would be more logical to suggest the Apache than the Abrams for god's sake.

THen about your too old point... ZOom in, it says M551A2, you see that A2? That means that it's not real, it's technically imaginary, there was the M551A1 in real life, but not A2, so your point in the SHeridan is invalid. However, your point in the M1A2/A3 is valid, but still, lack of originality trumps the fact that it will still be in service, want an example?

Lets see, the Comanche, it's not going into service period, the program was frozen, then canceled, it is still in EVERY USA general's arsenal, isn't it?

Also, M1 tank in no way represents the power of USA, and it shouldn't in the mod. There is not going to be any unit (at least any ground unit) that represents a mean, big machine that is powerful and strikes fear into the enemy. USA=High tech, not "brute force", China=brute force/numbers. China is known for their extremely slow but powerful overlord tanks, and hordes of battlemasters swarming across fields. USA's strong point is their Airforce, not their army. They have more air units than any other, GLA has one at most, China has three at most, USA has.... eight at most, and even vanilla has five. USA is exemplified by high tech and airforce, hence, precision superweapon, the particle cannon, use of lasers, PDLs, and of course the best airforce. So if your to give USA a mean unit, let it be in the airforce, except USA already has something we call the aurora, and it's many varients.

Also, what do you want this supposed abrams tank to be, eh? A slower, more powerful tank, yeah, lets go copy China, or replace the crusader, good job, just adding extreme lack of originality. I mean, whatever you make the Abrams, it's either going to replace the role of an existing unit, or make a unit that is overpowered or doesn't fit the personality of the USA faction. USA is not big, slow and powerful, or fast, and weak, it is somewhere inbetween. Your suggesting this "68 ton" behemmoth should be a big mean machine, well sure, lets make USA their own overlord, and the only general that this abrams tank could POSSIBLY fit is Ironsides, but wait.... Ironsides already has the Mammoth tank, which is a more MBT-esque Overlord. Oh, and no matter how you put it in ShW mod, it adds a HUGE aura of unoriginality.

Also, for the "lifespan" of the Abrams. Face it, we said we would have built bases on Mars by now, we havn't even put a living organism on Mars yet. They SAY the abrams will serve for another 25 years (THey say "far into the 21st century" a lot too), but who knows. I bet The Brits thought that their almost ww1 style tanks and WW1 style battleplans would be fine for the 1930s and 40s, and yet France is taken over in a blink of an eye. The thing is, since this is put into a future time, we don't know what has happened, if there was something like another COld war, USA would abandon the Abrams and start making more advanced designs, things never go exactly as planned. So while military experts might say that Abrams will serve far into the 21st century, they could be wrong.

Oh, and if you noticed, not all of us are from the USA, or favor the Abrams tank so much (no offense intended), and even some people from the USA (like me) don't like the Abrams tank so much (You ask why? Because everybody says that it's so much better than all these other tanks just like it. The CHallenger 2 and Leopard 2A6 are as good or better than the Abrams (key words, lack of fuel guzzling gas turbine engines), same goes with the F-22A Raptor).

[Whitey]

Paladins look nothing like the Abrams.
The M1A3 would be fictional and thus futuristic.
The Sheridan, even upgraded would never match an M1A2, let alone an A3.
Generals is a fictional timeline and the Comanche is futuristic, put the two together. The USA in generals was never about old but upgraded technology, unless you count the F-117.
The Abrams is big and fast and has reasonable armor, but its 120mm is no match for an overlord and perhaps even weaker than a battlemaster. Its improved armor would make it more of an Ironside toy than the Predator tank that he has (which has improved weaponry...
And lastly, the US is in the game, the Challenger 2 is not an American vehicle now is it? If there's a US team, keep it US.

[Rich19]

Where would the abrams fit in? The crusader and paladin are more than enough to fill the role of the tank. Adding the abrams would mean removing one of them. It isn't going to be the paladin, because the abrams doesn't have a point defense laser. It isn't going to be the crusader, because the crusader was an integral part of the usa side in vzh and vgens.

[Jazzie Spurs]

The m1 is one of the best tank in the world, have a good armor and other cool things, in shockwave, the model can be "Hunterized" to look like a 2022 vehicle some sensors better weapons system and a pdl also (in generals) have the drones.
@ Sheridan
I like that tank but in service in that years
perhaps will need a new tank becouse that tank in that era :sh:

[Dauth]

I fail to see why it should go in. If you're a fan use the legacy that the M1A1/2 is nicknamed the Paladin anyway. It has a selection of new innovative abilities but the smoothbore gun is not as accurate as a rifled barrel on a Challenger 2.

Can anyone give a good reason for it to go in? Other than, "Its a cool US tank and I like it".

[Sgt. Nuker]

Wow, such a big stink stemming from the proposal to add one tank. It's true, the Abrams will never go into Shockwave, and we've given our reason(s) why, time and time again.

On a matter of opinion, the T-72 is a good looking tank, but that's just my opinion. The T-72 is also Deathstrike's Scarab tank, so it can't be THAT ugly. The Abrams looks okay, but the Challenger II and the Leopard beat it hands down (the Leopard can swim, and the Challenger, well....it's just beastly) An "ugly" tank would have to be the LeClerc. Not to pick on the French, but tank design is not their forte.


Regards,

Nuker

[Rayburn]

Why is this topic that started as a more or less technical discussion deviating into "why does Hunter keep out the M1?"-talk?
Game-wise, it's an overused piece of crap. I intentionally put it that harshly because that's what it is. It's not unique, nor special or cool at all. Adding an Abrams is probably the first thing all those common mods of questionable quality do. Do you want ShW to sink on that level? I think not and the Paladin Tank which is there since the days of Van.Generals already IS close to an upgraded M1 if the Crusader isn't enough for you.

As for the actual tank, it's somewhat overrated IMO. Leopard 2A6's are at least equal, if not better, seeing that the M1's gun is actually a Rheinmetall-weapon and the British C2 has superior range, accuracy and armour. There's stories about one of these tanks having survived 70+ direct hits by RPGs. The sole reason why half the world thinks that the bloody Abrams kicks the shit out of all other tanks is because there's no other tank which is so hyped and shown off with, atleast from what I know. In addition, the Abrams was mostly used against outdated tanks from Middle Eastern states. Leftovers of Soviet exports which can hardly compete with ANY modern tank. That's like comparing an EF2000 to some old Messerschmitt. During their time, the latter was a great plane just like some T-72 or whatever during the Cold War, but today, it just can't cut it anymore. These combat results don't mean THAT much...

Edited by Rayburn, 15 June 2007 - 20:21.

[Whitey]

Well, the M1A2 is constantly underrated thanks to the Game Industry, above all. Whether it is being torn up by an alien machine or devastated by a few RPG hits, the M1 MBT is never displayed at full potential. The Abrams is fast, agile, armored, and it packs a punch. While the CHallenger may have superior firepower, the Abrams has its own perks. A lot of these come from its internal technology. Externally, the M1 holds more Anti-Infantry devices too. The Challenger's armor may be better but the M1A2 can outrun it. The Abrams is also like a decade older so its really not too balanced a match.

There's too much to compare for me to analyze it though...

Edited by Solo Wing, 15 June 2007 - 20:38.

[Razven]

This thread is not supposed to change any minds, it is my argument against the points raised when this forum utters the word "M1 tank".

Waris, PotP, Chris, people, I am NOT asking for a change in the mod, I am merely stating my points in an argument.

PotP,
Find a tank that is pretty or tell me why the Crusader or Paladin looks pretty.
Your Sheridan Mk. II is still a spawn of the original Sheridan, just as the M1A3 would be a spawn of the M1A1.
I am not saying I want the M1A3 in the game, I can handle the fact that it's not in the game and will not be in the game.
I would also like to remind you that I posted this instead of in the shockwavemod forums is because I am speaking mostly about hard facts and realistic history of the tank, not how it would affect gameplay or what it could do. It I wanted to make a suggestion or a question, I would've done it on the shockwavemod forums area.

Chris and PotP,
The Crusader and Paladin are both fictional tanks within the EA Generals universe. There is no real life counterpart.

Solo Wing,
Even if it's a fictional timeline, the game still bases itself on technology that the US uses today. The M-16 for the ranger, the US Cargo Plane, The B-3 (more like B-2 Spirit), the F-117, Patriot Batteries and of course the Humvee. Of which the M-16 has served since the Vietnam war alongside the Sheridan. The US in the Shockwavemod is about hi-tech state of the art technology that suits the purpose, if something that is useful but not up to par, there's probably a quick fix for it since it takes too much time and effort to remake something that a old but still useful unit can fulfil with a minor upgrade.
We have the M16A1, A2, A3, A4 (in use now) and probably up to A5 or A6 in Generals time.
We have the Sheridan Mk. II
We have 17 variants of the Humvee. The TOW version, MG version, Avenger and LOSAT, not counting the LOSAT in .95, we still have 3 of the same thing. Not purpose built or state of the art, but it gets the work down.

My above statements focus on the realistic aspects, not the game. Realism and balance is best left to the mod team.

Eddy,
What does fuel consumption, being in the US, your hate for the Reborn mod and how gameplay value and traits of what the US military is depicted at matter?
Oh, and go look like the the Abram thread back in the Shockwavemod Suggestion forum or any other. The point that "It's butt ugly" is always followed by the points I raised in some combination. So your first point is moot.
I think I've read the No-go-list more times than is has been edited by now, I never said that I wanted it to be in the game, I am addressing the points on why people say it shouldn't be in the game asides from the fact that the team doesn't like it, which is a perfectly understandable point. Maybe you should be less hostile to those who try and talk about the matter at hand with a much more cool-headed attitude.
Maybe I should discuss about the Apache Longbow, but then again, most of my points stated here by work for the Apache too, so let's not try and be redundant.
Zoom, you have 3 Humvee Variants. I bet Humvees have also been used in plenty of games too, might as well not use that many Humvees then.
Lack of originality trumps nothing, that's like saying that the M115A2 is unoriginal, oh wait, it's just an upgrade from the A1. Technically Imagery also allows a M1A3 in the game if the team wanted the tank in.
Let's see, the Comanche was still in the development stage when the Generals game was first developed. I guess EA's fortune telling screwed up there. But the Abrams was in before the Generals idea came out and still pretty active up to now, at 2007.
Let's see, if I compared the the weight of a blue whale to a Tiger Shark, it would be kinda like comparing apples to oranges or maybe even a Abrams to a Overlord. Oops, you just did that. The weight of a Overlord is probably near 3 to 4 times the weight of a Abrams. The closest you could get is probably a large Crusader or a slightly down sized Paladin tank. A MBT could possibly fit any US General other than Granger. Balance and stuff like who gets what is best left to the mod team.
High tech, not brute force. Explain how a MBT that outranged, outgunned and out survived the entire Iraq conflict, twice not be high-tech. With a near zero casualty caused by enemy action. I think that's pretty high-tech.
You are talking about lifespan in a game where WWI tankettes are firing missiles glued to their turrets, The Chinese are using T-88s, Red Guards use bolt action rifles and then we have EMP and lasers...and then EXOSUITS!
Hitler was a scheming fuck, going across a neutral country to get to France. Too bad he lost. But considering that the fight with the GLA is probably based on the current War on Terror, then hell why not the M1 tanks? It's not like they're not in Iraq anymore.
Are you implying that I'm American cause I don't know what you're trying to point out if you're not. American or not, the fact that you mixed the disagreeable points of both the M1 in real life and for gameplay and originality reasons is rather biased isn't it?

Edit 1: Responding to Rayburn,
The fact that the M1 tank can take a DU round in the face and the crew unharmed is pretty amazing. The tank was stuck and it took 5 thermite, a box of 50.cal rounds scattered inside the interior, the shell and charge pile box opened to wreck the interior. And then they had to blast a hole through the back of the tank with another M1 tank so that the enemy can't claim it as a trophy. And after that, the tank still looked complete (no major parts missing) from the outside.

Edited by People's Liberation Army, 15 June 2007 - 20:46.

[Rich19]

Major Nuker, on 15 Jun 2007, 21:15, said:

and the Challenger, well....it's just beastly

Only tank in the world to have on board facilities for making mugs if tea, if I remember rightly.

Solo Wing, on 15 Jun 2007, 21:36, said:

Well, the M1A2 is constantly underrated thanks to the Game Industry, above all. Whether it is being torn up by an alien machine or devastated by a few RPG hits, the M1 MBT is never displayed at full potential. The Abrams is fast, agile, armored, and it packs a punch. While the CHallenger may have superior firepower, the Abrams has its own perks. A lot of these come from its internal technology. Externally, the M1 holds more Anti-Infantry devices too. The Challenger's armor may be better but the M1A2 can outrun it. The Abrams is also like a decade older so its really not too balanced a match.

There's too much to compare for me to analyze it though...

So not only do you want the M1A2 in game, but you want it to be overpowered as well?

The mod is not about realism. However, that doesn't mean nothing based on real life can go in. That's why the sheridan (mark 2) fights alongside the comanche. Not becasue it's 100% accurate, but because they are cool units. And frankly, the M1A2 is not as cool if it is standard issue in every mod out there just to please the fanboys.

[Hobbesy]

I think some of you guys are just being Hunter's pet. -_-

[Whitey]

Rich, you're a fool. ( ) Did I say I want those specs in game? Hell no, I was commenting on MDW's post.

[Rich19]

Ah, then excuse those parts of my earlier post.

[Sgt. Nuker]

People's Liberation Army, on 15 Jun 2007, 16:39, said:

Edit 1: Responding to Rayburn,
The fact that the M1 tank can take a DU round in the face and the crew unharmed is pretty amazing. The tank was stuck and it took 5 thermite, a box of 50.cal rounds scattered inside the interior, the shell and charge pile box opened to wreck the interior. And then they had to blast a hole through the back of the tank with another M1 tank so that the enemy can't claim it as a trophy. And after that, the tank still looked complete (no major parts missing) from the outside.

This I've heard. An M1A2 took 4 RPG hits, and the outside looked unscathed. The frontal section is comprised of a recipe so secret, only a handful of people know it. Supposedly top speed is "limited" to 45 mph, but apparently the crew can disable the governor and this 60+ ton beast will sprint at 60 mph. That kind of speed is scary, especially when the vehicle doing it has enough ammunition to raise a small city to the ground. The heart behind the Abrams is a helicopter turbine, tipping the scales at just north of 1500 hp. It'll drink just about anything, which can prove helpful if you're in the desert and there's not a tanker truck for miles. The only bad part is a turbine isn't exactly the stingiest powerplant on earth. Diesels, like the one in the C2 and Leopard, although a little less powerful, create less noise, while still giving the tank adequate mobility.

It should be noted that the C2, Leopard, and the Abrams are all similar tanks. The tanks' respective nations have modified each to suit their needs, but in terms of overall shape, these three tanks could be considered "family".


Regards,

Nuker

Edited by Major Nuker, 15 June 2007 - 22:28.

[Whitey]

*poke poke* nuker, there is no M1A3

[Sgt. Nuker]

Blast (no pun intended). Thank you for kindly pointing out my oversight. Funny how being just a letter or number off effects an entire statement .

[Kris]

Major Nuker, on 16 Jun 2007, 7:55, said:

People's Liberation Army, on 15 Jun 2007, 16:39, said:

Edit 1: Responding to Rayburn,
The fact that the M1 tank can take a DU round in the face and the crew unharmed is pretty amazing. The tank was stuck and it took 5 thermite, a box of 50.cal rounds scattered inside the interior, the shell and charge pile box opened to wreck the interior. And then they had to blast a hole through the back of the tank with another M1 tank so that the enemy can't claim it as a trophy. And after that, the tank still looked complete (no major parts missing) from the outside.

This I've heard. An M1A2 took 4 RPG hits, and the outside looked unscathed. The frontal section is comprised of a recipe so secret, only a handful of people know it. Supposedly top speed is "limited" to 45 mph, but apparently the crew can disable the governor and this 60+ ton beast will sprint at 60 mph. That kind of speed is scary, especially when the vehicle doing it has enough ammunition to raise a small city to the ground. The heart behind the Abrams is a helicopter turbine, tipping the scales at just north of 1500 hp. It'll drink just about anything, which can prove helpful if you're in the desert and there's not a tanker truck for miles. The only bad part is a turbine isn't exactly the stingiest powerplant on earth. Diesels, like the one in the C2 and Leopard, although a little less powerful, create less noise, while still giving the tank adequate mobility.

It should be noted that the C2, Leopard, and the Abrams are all similar tanks. The tanks' respective nations have modified each to suit their needs, but in terms of overall shape, these three tanks could be considered "family".


Regards,

Nuker

So thats why drunk soldiers can do this to the "AWESOME" Abrams:

Solo Wing, on 16 Jun 2007, 4:34, said:

Paladins look nothing like the Abrams.

But they look similar to eachother..



@PLA: I know the Paladin is a fictional tank but EA based it off somewhere like what they did to other units ingame..so if EA based the Paladin to the Abrams then why bother adding the abrams when you basically have a modernized one?

Edited by Chris, 16 June 2007 - 00:28.

[Whitey]

1) That picture just shows the M1 likes to grind. But really, that doesn't look like the hardest problem to come by, just drive on up the tank behind you and voila, the tracks would help you do that no?
2) No, they are really quite different.
3) The paladin doesn't look abrams-based, and I would love to see an abramsized paladin in ShW.

[Rayburn]

Solo Wing, on 15 Jun 2007, 22:36, said:

Well, the M1A2 is constantly underrated thanks to the Game Industry, above all.

To me, ALL tanks that appear in videogames are underrated. Range is far from realistic, there is a fixed amount of damage dealt by other weapons which isn't realistic either and tanks usually suck against infantry, especially in C&C. That's not only the problem of the M1, it's all tanks in videogames. If there was a real world Overlord tank, the one depicted in Generals would be grossly underrated as well.

Edited by Rayburn, 16 June 2007 - 06:24.

[Whitey]

Precisely, but what other tanks appear so frequently as the Abrams? Perhaps the WWII tanks but they can't be accounted for in modern tank comparisons.