What's up with those exposed tank tracks in the trailer?

[lolyoursofunny]

Hello, I love Generals and I still play Shockwave mod from time to time.
It's good to finally see that Generals 2 is being developed.

However, I saw the short trailer and noticed those bunch of EU tanks have hugely exposed tracks, so obvious that anyone with a rocket launcher would have completely render them immovable.

What is this all about?
I know I know.... It's cool and looks high techy, just like the mammoths in C&C3, but come on.
It does not make any sense!

[Kyang]

I know I know.... It's cool and looks high techy, just like the mammoths in C&C3, but come on.
It does not make any sense!

That's why it's Rule of Cool, and nothing else. I don't really like it either, but I doubt it will change.

[hellodean]

i think its because they went to all the effort of making the model tracks work, they want them to be visable

[Commander32]

That's why it's Rule of Cool, and nothing else. I don't really like it either, but I doubt it will change.

You can if you whine enough. :P Happened with the Zone Troops with no sealed suit back in teh early days of CnC3, as well as the fugly Apoc tank in the Early Days of RA3.

Back just put em in the back at least?

[Noodlesocks]

I don't mind the twin rotor VTOL but the exposed treads of the tank really bothers me. I thought we might have gotten away from the wacky unit designs of EALA.

[Commander32]

I don't mind the twin rotor VTOL but the exposed treads of the tank really bothers me. I thought we might have gotten away from the wacky unit designs of EALA.

K, lets make a petition to have it changed then. Or somehow make a mock of it to get their attention.

[GammaCobra]

Maybe it has an upgrade to cover the tank threads for more armour?

[Yayo01]

Sense and realistic logic in my Generals? What is this i don't even....

[Victimizer]

Exposed tracks are not just stupid they look ugly. Armor skirts give the tank a much stronger appearance.

[Yayo01]

Exposed tracks are not just stupid they look ugly. Armor skirts give the tank a much stronger appearance.

Yeah, like WW2 GLA scorpion tanks facing 2020 modern mbt's and winning against it...It's damn Generals, it can do whatever it wants.

[Garbarsardar]

As I already mentioned in another thread, EA's had the exposed-tracks fever since C&C3. Hell, even the first Generals had some semi-exposed tracks on some tanks. It's like someone at EA thinks the more exposed the treads, the longer and thicker the tank's cannon and the more girls will fawn over it.

[Commander32]

Maybe it has an upgrade to cover the tank threads for more armour?

That can work, Composite Armor or sumthing

[Alex06]

I dunno who said that, but I'm guessing it's true; It's because they probably worked so hard to texture and segment realistically the tank tracks, they want their work to be seen.

[Commander32]

I dunno who said that, but I'm guessing it's true; It's because they probably worked so hard to texture and segment realistically the tank tracks, they want their work to be seen.

Well at least put it behind instead of the front. :/

[Nerdfish]

Tanks with exposed tracks wouldn't work, then again real tanks are monsters with some 10KM of range, and real jets can cross typical RTS map in a second or so.

More importantly, those things ARE NOT BUILT ON THE BATTLEFIELD and have LIMITED FUEL AND AMMO. RTS mechanics is basically incompatible with realism.

Unless you want the first guy to deploy a tank to win by having it taking out enemy HQ across the map. they really can do that :D

Oh let's not forget real tanks can switch ammo and have machine guns on them. And they don't have hit-points and does not worry about ****ty RPGs no matter how many are thrown at them.

while on the point, please be reminded real commanders don't radio individual soldiers on the field. There is something called chain of command. Micromanagement DON'T EXIST. Soldiers are trained professionals, not automatons that wouldn't take cover when shot at.

Something realistic wouldn't be an RTS.

[JoeMcBob]

Tanks with exposed tracks wouldn't work, then again real tanks are monsters with some 10KM of range, and real jets can cross typical RTS map in a second or so.

More importantly, those things ARE NOT BUILT ON THE BATTLEFIELD and have LIMITED FUEL AND AMMO. RTS mechanics is basically incompatible with realism.

Unless you want the first guy to deploy a tank to win by having it taking out enemy HQ across the map. they really can do that :D

Oh let's not forget real tanks can switch ammo and have machine guns on them. And they don't have hit-points and does not worry about ****ty RPGs no matter how many are thrown at them.

while on the point, please be reminded real commanders don't radio individual soldiers on the field. There is something called chain of command. Micromanagement DON'T EXIST. Soldiers are trained professionals, not automatons that wouldn't take cover when shot at.

Something realistic wouldn't be an RTS.

It's not a matter of being realistic, it's a matter of design.

Because the tracks are exposed, you've got a lot of contrast between the treads and the tank's chassis and armor, i.e. the treads are dark-matte and blend in with the terrain, thus are more difficult to pick out while the body of the tank is nicely defined and clearly visible because its colored brightly.

Because of how the EU tank is designed, it looks like the tank's body has been cut out where the treads are not covered. This draws the eye to the center of the tank. You're more focused on the mid-section only. Thus, the image of the tank appears more narrow that it really is.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/JoeMeas/concepts/fronttank.jpg

I like my tanks wide, bulky, and imposing as do a lot of other people. If you looked at the rear of the tank as it was going in reverse in the trailer, it looked beautiful. It appeared wide, imposing, and bulky; there was much detail to look at and admire.

http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/121/1214534/7-tankretreat_1323653205.jpg

Now take that rear section and compare it to the front of the tank where the treads are exposed. It's not as impressive looking as the rear. The seeming narrowness of the front really detracts from the great design of the tank's turret and rear section. I mean, can you imagine if the Crusader and Battlemaster from Generals 1 had partially exposed treads in the front or just exposed treads at all? They would look like cannon fodder, they wouldn't look as imposing of threatening at all; they just wouldn't look as good, period. The scorpion on the other hand is meant to look weak and flimsy. It has exposed treads and that is okay because its meant to compliment the design: a weak, lightly-armored, ancient junk tank that is meant to be used by a rag-tag army of rebels. That is completely okay.

Maybe the Dev Team IS trying to show off their work in the treads. I think the heart and soul of the tank treads lie not in the track segments, but in the animated wheels. Generals 1 had animated treads, but the wheels were just textures. The animated wheels are much more of a sigh to behold than the treads; they are a milestone in the jump from Generals 1 to Generals 2; SAGE to Frostbite 2. Even if the treads were covered, we could still admire the work put into the wheels, something very few RTS games have done because of resource issues (creating and animating tank wheels require a lot, A LOT of polygons in the model).

The model would look ten times as better if the exposed tracks in the front were covered by a modest amount of armor (covering the treads while still allowing some of the wheels to be exposed and visible). The Dev Team must really consider altering the design of the tank or risk making it look flimsy and dull in the overall design. There's nothing really cool about exposed tracks. It's a visual design flaw that takes away rather than compliments.

[stephanovich]

Like in the other threads...

I am not a fan of uncovered threads. It just doesn't look good IMO. It's a shame really, because that EU tanks looks sweet...except for the uncovered tracks :/

[wombat789]

Mountain out of a mole hill . The visuals are quite good . If I desighned those images I would not like it if my work was picked to peices . Maybe some of the critics can do some better designs !

[JoeMcBob]

Mountain out of a mole hill . The visuals are quite good . If I desighned those images I would not like it if my work was picked to peices . Maybe some of the critics can do some better designs !

You don't need to be a great modeler or texture artist to know what is aesthetically pleasing and visually engaging; everything in a game experience adds up. Besides, the Dev Team specifically asked for critical input. If the team is pay attention and taking note, it would be one of the best game development processes I've watch in a long time.

[lolyoursofunny]

One thing I hate in Generals is that tanks need to shoot like 1000 shells to kill a single infantry unit.
Same goes for rocket soldiers.
This is utterly bullsh** and I really hope this trait does not pass on.

I like the way Act of War works, where every unit even the highest tier can be destroyed in the blink of an eye, Abrams can pretty much get smoked by 2 or 3 kornet missiles, tanks can one shot soldiers, infantries being able to prone, helicopters can land to avoid fire, and specially the air-field-less aircraft systems!

I still think that Act of War is the best modern warfare RTS game to date.
Generals is fun, not it's not even close to AOW, and World in Conflict isn't really an RTS game so that don't count.

[HmYAY90]

It's kind of funny that if you look at, say, USA tanks in Generals, they look believable:
http://cc-series.pl/Uploads/RocketMan/NewCrusaderRender-1.jpg
http://cc-series.pl/Uploads/RocketMan/PaladinRender2.jpg

Suddenly, someone at EA tries to be "edgy" and turns a really cool looking tank model into a joke because of one stupid idea like making its tracks exposed for no reason.
http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/generals-2.jpg
It would look awesome if it wasn't for that stupidity!

[JoeMcBob]

Agreed. The more believable the designs, the better.

[Leopardi]

Agreed. The more believable the designs, the better.

+9001

[AgentOrange]

+9001

+9002

[Harrrr]

It's kind of funny that if you look at, say, USA tanks in Generals, they look believable:
http://cc-series.pl/Uploads/RocketMan/NewCrusaderRender-1.jpg
http://cc-series.pl/Uploads/RocketMan/PaladinRender2.jpg

Suddenly, someone at EA tries to be "edgy" and turns a really cool looking tank model into a joke because of one stupid idea like making its tracks exposed for no reason.
http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/generals-2.jpg
It would look awesome if it wasn't for that stupidity!

FYI, you linked to a fan-altered asset.

[Nerdfish]

Agreed. The more believable the designs, the better.
I agree with that as well, tanks should look like tanks.

[TheNukerITA]

I think JoeMcBob's post has been the only one so far to make a convincing point. The way the track guards end in the front at that wierd angle does indeed make the tank look less impressive. Personally I'd be okay if they redesigned the way the track guards end (parallel to the front of the tank instead of at an angle perhaps?) or if they left a part of the threads exposed in the back of the tank.

[Troopzor]

It's not a matter of being realistic, it's a matter of design.

Because the tracks are exposed, you've got a lot of contrast between the treads and the tank's chassis and armor, i.e. the treads are dark-matte and blend in with the terrain, thus are more difficult to pick out while the body of the tank is nicely defined and clearly visible because its colored brightly.

Because of how the EU tank is designed, it looks like the tank's body has been cut out where the treads are not covered. This draws the eye to the center of the tank. You're more focused on the mid-section only. Thus, the image of the tank appears more narrow that it really is.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/JoeMeas/concepts/fronttank.jpg

I like my tanks wide, bulky, and imposing as do a lot of other people. If you looked at the rear of the tank as it was going in reverse in the trailer, it looked beautiful. It appeared wide, imposing, and bulky; there was much detail to look at and admire.

http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/121/1214534/7-tankretreat_1323653205.jpg

Now take that rear section and compare it to the front of the tank where the treads are exposed. It's not as impressive looking as the rear. The seeming narrowness of the front really detracts from the great design of the tank's turret and rear section. I mean, can you imagine if the Crusader and Battlemaster from Generals 1 had partially exposed treads in the front or just exposed treads at all? They would look like cannon fodder, they wouldn't look as imposing of threatening at all; they just wouldn't look as good, period. The scorpion on the other hand is meant to look weak and flimsy. It has exposed treads and that is okay because its meant to compliment the design: a weak, lightly-armored, ancient junk tank that is meant to be used by a rag-tag army of rebels. That is completely okay.

Maybe the Dev Team IS trying to show off their work in the treads. I think the heart and soul of the tank treads lie not in the track segments, but in the animated wheels. Generals 1 had animated treads, but the wheels were just textures. The animated wheels are much more of a sigh to behold than the treads; they are a milestone in the jump from Generals 1 to Generals 2; SAGE to Frostbite 2. Even if the treads were covered, we could still admire the work put into the wheels, something very few RTS games have done because of resource issues (creating and animating tank wheels require a lot, A LOT of polygons in the model).

The model would look ten times as better if the exposed tracks in the front were covered by a modest amount of armor (covering the treads while still allowing some of the wheels to be exposed and visible). The Dev Team must really consider altering the design of the tank or risk making it look flimsy and dull in the overall design. There's nothing really cool about exposed tracks. It's a visual design flaw that takes away rather than compliments.

Quoted for great post of truth

[Commander32]

My best bet is to simply put those exposed parts on the back at least, though just covering em is much better.

[AgentOrange]

My best bet is to simply put those exposed parts on the back at least, though just covering em is much better.

How hard can it be to change a unit model anyhow?

30 mins should do it... the graphic designers don't even have to tell anyone they did it! ;)

[Alaskan_Viking]

My best bet is to simply put those exposed parts on the back at least, though just covering em is much better.

Yes, the rear armor of the tank is actually quite beefy and covers the tracks nicely, I can only awesome that the tank is French and it is designed in this matter in order to retreat faster.

[Kyang]

Yes, the rear armor of the tank is actually quite beefy and covers the tracks nicely, I can only awesome that the tank is French and it is designed in this matter in order to retreat faster.

The only tank that doesn't do well using reverse move...