Designing real-looking, not overblown tanks for Generals 2, and scaling them realisticaly.
Ever since TD, tanks in C&C games (and possibly in other games aswell) were designed in a following fashion: We take reasonable designed, naturaly sized, one-barreled tanks, and make them the faction's backbone armor. THEN we take a huge-*** overblown double-barreled triple-missle launching quad-threaded monstrosity and make it THE deciding armor unit. OR make it a high-tech supernatural strange-something-something thingy.
What did it do?
Well, MBTs are the main modern armored vehicles in use, which are the heaviest things deployed by modern armies. They are surrounded by lighter vehicles, like APCs and IFVs.
In current RTS gaming, there is no such thing as a modern IFV/APC, with their role limited to (mostly useless except for some abstract strategies like engie rush) infantry carriers, not medium armored vehicles. In RTS games, the MBT tanks are the medium vehicles, in other words: Medium vehicles are treated like utilitary/support stuff, and heavy vehicles fill the niche of medium vehicles. The role of modern realistic heavy vehicles is filled by superheavy stuff out of cosmos or the 3rd Reich (See P-1000 Ratte and P-1500 Monster for reference).
While I think this is not wrong by definition, I think it's a bit too overused cliche.
I think it would be really unique for the feel of the game, especialy semi-realistic like Generals, to have the use of absurd superheavy vehicles limited. Generals 1 did that for the most part (with only two absurd tanks, that is: GLA self-upgrading tank which, in the end, was huge and double-barreled, and China Overlord), and I think it would be nice if Generals 2 would stay this way. If it already exists in fiction of the world, like the Overlord, then fine.
But I think it would be nice to keep the rest of the tanks reasonable. MBTs are not "medium" vehicles. They are heavy stuff. They are big (what most RTS games forget, and make their size comparable to light vehicles), they demand respect.
And I'd totally love a C&C game where the heavy T3 vehicle is a modern, realistic looking two-threaded, single-barreled tank. But with it's size, armor and firepower done right, it would still earn as much respect as a Mammoth - Just without being over the top.
Keep in mind that I do not demand putting tanks from T2 to T3 - It may be an interesting idea, but there is nothing wrong with having more advaned, but not overblown, tanks at T3. Just like Generals 1 did with USA - They had Crusader tank as the main tank, and Paladin as the advanced one. Both were looking realistic and sensible.
- Different, original feel of the units
- Bigger game realism when it comes to visual terms
- Some C&C fans may be dissapointed with the lack (or severe reduction of) "big toys".
- It may be harder to design different and original tanks when they all fill the same pattern (one cannon, one tower, two threads etc.)
A chart showing tank size comparisions:
GDI Predator MBT next to infantry (middle of the pic):
Mideast Crisis 2 screenshot showing a UN Abrams fighting against infantry:
Both Predator are Abrams are MBTs, yet while Predator seems comparable to a jeep in size in TW (it was even dwarfed by Zone Troopers), the ME2 Abrams more realisticaly depicts the scale of a modern tank. It doesn't need to be absurdly overblown to look imposting. Main battle tanks are huge and imposting already.