79 replies to this topic

[Kamikaze]

yes, all right comrades.
Here it is, my concept drawings how this super-unit can look like (and my name for this unit):
MA-2 ,,Mammoth'' Siege-Tank
(Considering that I've done that with PAINT and PAINT isn't very professional.)

MA-2 “Mammoth” Siege-Tank

Country of Origin : Soviet Union
Developers : Ministry of Experimental Science / Arkhangelsk Tank Plant
Manufactured at : Arkhangelsk Tank Plant
Produced by : Soviet Construction Yard
Precondition : Battle Lab, War factory, Airfield
Key Features :
» 135mm "Adskogo" cannon (x2)
» 10-cell missile "Katyusha" rocket launcher (x2)
» experimental "Katastropha" Artillery cannon (x1)
» Hull-mounted Twin Flak Cannons
» Very sharp and pointy rams
» 16-layer Reinforced steel armor
» Additional high-density ballistic plating
» 8 Tesla Reactor (6 small & 2 big)
» Hybrid Diesel Tesla Engine
» Aqua-sensitive pontoons

Strengths:
Amphibian,
stronger as the feared Apocalypse Tank,
the strongest ground unit, there can also attack both ground-and air targets. and by the pontoons also be able to attack naval units,
can use his special ability to switch in a siege mode making it effective against strong base defense.
high worth of defending because equipped with 16-layer reinforced steel armor and additional high-density ballistic plating.
explosions of the artillery bombardment are effective against infantry (if it hits) since a high surface damage occurs and the damage is simply immense,
can crash everything on land except buildings.

Weaknesses:
a little slower than an apocalypse tank, in siege mode it is as slow as a Kirov (or may not move at all, which can decide you (I would be the first prefer)),
special ability cant be used on the water.
As each vehicle vulnerable to terror drones, Em-Dusruptor attacks, or the Paralysis whip,
turning circle like a grinder,
dead angle against ground units on the back as the artillery blocks gunturret,
can also be frozen (takes longer time and of course the prerequisite is the Cryo-Copter/-Legionnair live long enough),
has a damage against infantry as a apocalypse tank (minor weakness because you can roll over everything with that thing),
marking (like the Pacifier) shows where the next shot goes down from the artillery.
Artillery is accurate to slow units and buildings, faster units and infantrymen to hit is not so good (unless they form a column).

I have not thought about costs and production time as I'll leave you full freedom of ideas.

Edited by Kamikaze, 15 January 2011 - 17:24.

[V.Metalic]

So the double-barreled turret can rotate or is fixed?

Well... the concpet is really interesting, I must admit But its quite long and dont have a bulky appearence as Hammer or Apocalypse. But it isnt the bad start I like the 4-tracked suspension, I also thinked of them when I was thinking about tank larger than Apoc... depending on your answer of the turret, I should try to make something more bulkier... and probably without the flak cannon, it only gets in the way, the Katyusha should be enough.

And the name should be changed, probably to ISU or something totally new... I will think about it. And for its rotating as Grinder, I dont know a reason for it. Grinder must make a circle because it has the wheels, but since "Mammoth" has tracks, I dont see a problem in turning it on the spot.

Edited by V.Metalic, 15 January 2011 - 12:51.

[Kamikaze]

Thanks comrade V.Metallic,
-the bulky appereance, yes ,somehow it can be incorporate.
-the gunturret has a rotate of 180°,more and the Cannons would collide with the artillery housing
-the flak cannon is a double securing against air attacks, as the Katyushas can attack ground units also, I thought that if the rocket thrower have fired a volley, the reload time would be a too high risk.
-why the rotating? for the balancing, I think a unit that is so strong, and isnt able to became out-maneuvered would be OP.
(Naturally, there are also a Soviet answer: just send more of the Mammoth tanks.)
-I used the name because I wanted to use something that already had a reference to Red Alert, but has no appearance in RA3
And i think this unit-concept looks more like an ISU

Edited by Kamikaze, 15 January 2011 - 17:26.

[V.Metalic]

Outmaneuvering would be made by making the turning of the tank really slow, since its heavier than even Apocalypse.
Rampager had the place where the flak cannons would be placed becuase it was land battleship. "Mammoth" is however a tank, so he dont have the space for it. Also, what would be better when this huge tank would be destroyed by aerial targets?

I have in mind something what has the features of Apocalypse Tank, IS-7, Object 279 and Object 704, S-51, RA1 Mammoth Tank, and some other RA3 designs

[Kamikaze]

OK, that with the turning circle do i understand.
What would be better as to be destroyed from air attacks?
To be destroyed by overwhelming amounts of tanks and infantryman of the enemy ... to be blown up by one attached explosive charge, or simply by a single shot purposeful torn into pieces as you was previously frozen. Be able to defend yourself against everything , but then be crushed by the material superiority of the enemy. My comrade...THAT's better.
And it has the space.
The whole unit is based on a concept from Westwood Studios, and there has the tank a flak cannon on the gun turret.
Oh, and the tank tracks are inspired by object 279.

Edited by Kamikaze, 15 January 2011 - 21:02.

[V.Metalic]

Thats machine gun. Thats totally different Its like knife compared to great broad sword

[Kamikaze]

than install a machine gun
this idea had i before but i wanted a unit which is able to defend itself good against air attacks.
because that is (in my eyes) the biggest problem of the soviet groundforces. they have enough to defend against infantry and tanks, but only the bullfrog and the inaccurate Reaper against air targets.
I wanted a unit which can stand in that hole of the soviet lines and push the enemys back with superiority firepower.

Edited by Kamikaze, 15 January 2011 - 20:06.

[V.Metalic]

Maybe that the Soviet ground forces lack proper AA defense is the point Giga Fortress also cant in flying mode defend against air targets. "Mammoth" needs something what can easily destroy it so it isnt over-powered.

[Kamikaze]

That is true.
Now guess why I e.g. use each water and bring the Giga fortress again back to it Naval form?
Well, a mg would be more suitable to your flavor?
I would of course be ready to exchange the Flak (unfortunately) against a MG like them from a sentry gun of the Soviets (but the Rocket launchers stay ), but first I would like to hear more opinions.

Edited by Kamikaze, 15 January 2011 - 22:17.

[V.Metalic]

MG is smaller than Flak, than more fits on large tank, but the problem is, a MG like M2 against aircrafts is... not very effective, and instead can be used against infantry too... I guess that it should be scrapped. The two guns, artillery gun and Katyusha launcher(s) would be enough for it.

[Kamikaze]

Better?

[V.Metalic]

... It looks more like a battle train than tank... I have something in mind, I will show it later.

[Kamikaze]

(post deleted)

Edited by Kamikaze, 26 January 2011 - 17:06.

[Kamikaze]

Comrades,
this is my final design for the
MA-2 "Mammoth" Siege-Tank

Country of Origin: Soviet Union
Developers: Ministry of Experimental Science /
Arkhangelsk Tank Plant
Manufactured at: Arkhangelsk Tank Plant
Produced by: Soviet Construction Yard
Requires: Battle Lab, War factory, Airfield
Cost: 5000
Build time: 0:50
Tier: 3
Role: Super-Heavy Artillery-Tank
Armor Type: Ultra-Heavy

Key Features
» 135mm "Adskogo" cannon (x2)
» 10-cell missile "Katyusha" rocket launcher (x2)
» Experimental "Katastropha" Artillery cannon (x1)
» Very sharp and pointy rams
» 16-layer Reinforced steel armor
» Additional high-density ballistic plating
» Tesla Reactors eliminates 70% emissions
» Aqua-sensitive pontoons

Pros
» The strongest Ground-Unit in the game, can also attack naval units
» Rocket launchers can attack air-/ and smaller ground targets
» Terrifying 135mm cannons are effective against every vessel
» Very heavy armor
» Can crush every ground-unit
» Amphibious
» Artillery is effective against groups of enemy's and buildings
» If wisely used, almost invincible

Cons
» Very slow, even with the Artillery activated.
(If activated, the vehicle creeps only like a kirov)
» Very slow rotations
» Very expensive and long build-time, can only built on land
» Can't control both weapon systems at the same time (Either Artillery or the 135mm cannons + rocket launcher
(the last two can fire if the enemy is to close, but attack-instructions goes to the artillery))
» Even only a vessel, so vulnerable to terror drones, EM-disruptors, paralysis whips and Tanya's C4.
» Can't use it's special ability on the water
» Blind spot on the back

(Differences to the last Presentation:
-The Pro's and Con's better defined
-Light-revised design of the tank
-Cost, construction time, role, Armor and Tier specified.
-MG and/or Flak deleted same as the rotation circle like the grinder, deleted)

Edited by Kamikaze, 26 January 2011 - 21:17.

[V.Metalic]

... Still the design is the same, and so not good. It looks like a wagon than a tank, and not anyhow bulky. And the fact that artillery cannon can never fit inside that... "dome"... I really must make my version of it, so it dont looks like a wagon.

[Kamikaze]

I can not read your mind ,I need informations and not "not anyhow bulky" so say me what how change.
And with the artillery tube ... its a experimental artillery, so I have thought of that you don't retracts the whole thing, but rather like a telescope artillery.
I had a look at my tank again and I changed it again too.
Am I now on the right path?

Edited by Kamikaze, 27 January 2011 - 18:57.

[V.Metalic]

I must admit its better, but still there is the thing with both weapons. I dont say they are wrong, hell no, but not correctly placed.

My idea is that since the two Drakon guns dont rotate, they should not take that many space. So maybe you should add above the turret a... "roof", so it will look like a bunker (to make this, you should again lift the turret down like it was previously . The hatch will just be longer, similar to the submarines. With this, the artillery gun should be lifted so it will be on the level of Drakon's "roof". Then you will move it closer to the front, so in the end, the front of the artillery gun will be right above the Drakon turret's back. Also, the overally cupola in which the arty gun is is too large target. You should make it more like a turret of the Drakon, just modyfied to fit in the arty gun. The arty gun, when not active, will be shortened like yours, but not in the extend like yours, and will lie on the turret's roof. And the rest of the stuf on the back will be moved closer to the front.

Like this, it will be compact and look liek a real Russian super-heavy tank If you want, you can try to make it, maybe I will try it myself when I will have some spare time... and the rocket launcher... would be moved on arty's turret... I must think about it more.

Edited by V.Metalic, 27 January 2011 - 22:12.

[Kamikaze]

Since when will the two cannon not rotate any more? Where did you get that?
In my case they rotate, namely about 180 - 200 °
(P.S.: and they are no Drako cannons anymore they are 135mm "Adskogo" cannons)

[V.Metalic]

They will rotate, but because they dont rotate 360°, there is no reason for them to consume that much space

I mean that the guns will be on the front with "roof", behind them will be the tesla reactors and ammo storages (lore-wise), and above the back will be the arty gun.

[Kamikaze]

Good day, shock therapy.
After this boring weekend, which I had to stay at home because of a gastrointestinal virus, I came again to the idea to work on my "Mammoth Tank-concept" .
True to my fine proverb:
"Never give up, and if you dont like the end, reject it and start anew."
First, I renamed it from MA to AT (Artillery-Tank).
And in this case there came out these two new concepts:
AT-3 Mammoth and AT-4 Mammoth
Especially, it was the AT-4-concept who impressed me and so I developed it further:
AT-4 Mammoth working-out
What do you say to this?

Edited by Kamikaze, 21 February 2011 - 17:16.

[V.Metalic]

The name will be probably changed to fit Russian naming system.

From these 3, AT-4 is the most promising to my vision, but there is still the problem with folding arty gun in, because lore- and reallife-wise, there will be no space left for its ammo. I will say you from this how to make it closer to what I mean.

- The turret with tank cannons, make lower, but only that.

- The superstructure of arty gun, prolong it to the front, so it will cover tank turret's back.

- Add a "roof"/armor plate above the turret. And move the tesla reactors on turret on the back.

With this, there will be a space for the ammo of arty gun. I presume that the arty gun will be fixed, right?

[Kamikaze]

Real man, where is eg the space for the ammo on an apocalypse tank?
About such details even EA has not made any thoughts!
So why now with this concept?
You think WAY too realistic of a tank from Red Alert.
And in my concept will always remain a gun turret on the front.
Thats the only point which I would never change.

Edited by Kamikaze, 22 February 2011 - 15:03.

[Destiny]

No one should talk about ammo storage in any kind of C&C game, period.

[V.Metalic]

You really dont know about this kind of thing Apoc has enoguh space for ammo in its turret, only its infinite And I havent ever said to move it anywhere else, only "lower" it.

[Kamikaze]

Ok, but i dont understand what you mean with "roof" above the turret.
Have you a example or something like that, because i can't imagine how a "armor plate/roof above the turret" should look alike
And if you mean that the artilly can't swing to the left and right than
yes, the arty gun is fixed.