Apocalypse Tank

[thetechieotaku]

I saw the preview of the Soviet heavy tank on the EA website. It's looks more childish and it's second attack move is UNREALISTIC. I would rather like to have it's secondary ability to be attacking air units. Just like RA2.

[apple23]

but then that would result in mammoth spam like in CNC3, or if it was like it was in RA2, it would be so rarely used it didn't matter.

It looks fine. It is like an imposing, industrialized mammoth tank, except with a magnetic harpoon instead of missile packs.

The M-harpoon will be better than missile packs, trust me.

[thetechieotaku]

but then that would result in mammoth spam like in CNC3, or if it was like it was in RA2, it would be so rarely used it didn't matter.

It looks fine. It is like an imposing, industrialized mammoth tank, except with a magnetic harpoon instead of missile packs.

The M-harpoon will be better than missile packs, trust me.
Uhmm.. Just curious, what's the time setting of RA3? If it's set later than 2012, than that might be possible and I might tolerate the M-harpoon

[apple23]

I actually don't know, but if you paid attention, part of the soviet's timetravel gone wrong was bringing forth all these new technologies sooner than they should have come.

Either way, an M-harpoon is decently realistic, and even practical. IMO for balance and gameplay reasons, it's better than the missile packs of all other mammoths.

[thetechieotaku]

I just hope that EA offers the player an option to upgrade all apocs with missile packs via the battle lab, just like in the mammoths.

[truefeel]

Typical EA of screwing up the game: in the first cnc game, mammoth tanks had cannons and missiles. In all the cnc games (except generals) it came under that formula. Now suddenly EA decides to change... .Thx for messing up, EA !

[nyarlathotep]

As faras I have seen, they always refer to "previous models" on the official faction site, with those previous models sounding a lot like RA2 units. So yes, I think they put it a bit up in the near future, so things like the m-harpoon sound a bit logical. Anyhow, it wil help do bring down some of these japanese mecha's. I think you'll need that bit of help...

[truefeel]

Meh, logical, maybe; but they cross right through a tradition.

[Derek]

Tradition means jack****. If you want to argue unit design based on tradition then you need to go outside and jump off the nearest five story building.

If you want to argue actualy unit design, start now.

[Quadhelix]

Typical EA of screwing up the game: in the first cnc game, mammoth tanks had cannons and missiles. In all the cnc games (except generals) it came under that formula. Now suddenly EA decides to change... .Thx for messing up, EA ! This is not a Mammoth Tank; it is an Apocalypse Tank. In Red Alert 2, the Apocalypse Tank was nothing but a renamed Mammoth Tank. EA has now corrected that problem.


I just hope that EA offers the player an option to upgrade all apocs with missile packs via the battle lab, just like in the mammoths. No, the should not and will not. The Apocalypse Tank is not an anti-aircraft unit. It needs to be escorted by Sickles and Bullfrogs if it is to do its job well.

A missile pack upgrade would either render Bullfrogs unnecessary, which is bad, or be too weak to ever really be used, making it a pointless addition.

[truefeel]

This is not a Mammoth Tank; it is an Apocalypse Tank. In Red Alert 2, the Apocalypse Tank was nothing but a renamed Mammoth Tank. EA has now corrected that problem.


Lol, no. the apocalypse was the ascendant of the mammoth tank. That's not a problem, as it was intended to do so. Maybe this new thing is good for the ones not familiar with cnc, though.

Tradition means jack****. If you want to argue unit design based on tradition then you need to go outside and jump off the nearest five story building.

If you want to argue actualy unit design, start now.

it's called "freedom to express your opinion" and you can't do a **** against it !

[ein1017]

I still have yet to play the game or really looked up the units so what is the M-harpoon effective against?


Even if it does not have missles, it is still a big tank. It still has the tradition of a mammoth tank if you really want to argue about that. Sure the missles where nice but it does not make the tank.

[Zardac the Great]

I am all for the Apocalypse Tank having the harpoon.

Having missile pods will make the Apocalypse tank essentially impossible to counter, as it destroys tanks with ease, can sqush infantry, and would decimate aircraft too.

This would result in countless Apocalypse nerfs and essentially what we saw with GDI's Mammoth in TW.

Is that really what you want?

I would much prefer to have it remain The Tank that will demolish everything on the ground. You will have to support it with bullfrogs or MiGs.

Essentially, Giving the Apocalypse missiles will reduce the ammount of strategy used and will result in countless patches aimed at nerfing it.

Keep the Harpoon.

[truefeel]

Having missile pods will make the Apocalypse tank essentially impossible to counter, as it destroys tanks with ease, can sqush infantry, and would decimate aircraft too.
I'm not talking about balance for a moment. Missiles were a real chararistic of the mammoth/apocalypse tank. It was(/is still) balancable, particulary in the stage where all those units were developped. Now is indeed a different thing: all the units are ready. Nothing can be changed anymore (well, except with mods of course). Just saying that I personally (and I respect others their opinion) would liked to see the mammoth/apocalypse tank that was THE symbol of the brute force of the Soviets.

Even if it does not have missles, it is still a big tank. It still has the tradition of a mammoth tank if you really want to argue about that. Sure the missles where nice but it does not make the tank.Well, IMO it does. It gives the impression that it is a tank that can stand its own without support (while that does not have to be true; the impression counts). That feeling is not there with this new apocalypse tank.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!

I should have been the one to start and Apocalypse thread.

Anyways, opinion time, despite the fact we argued with this concept quite a while a ago.

I am still a little ticked they removed the missiles, though, the M Harpoon through use, I have found out is effective in quite a few regards.

Although, tanks with even a machine gun count as basic anti air, as long as the machine gun is not Co-axiely mounted, or if it is, needs to move beyond standard turret elevation.


Anyways, the apocalypse is now a focused Anti-armor weapon, and will take on nearly any unit it comes across.

And I ****ing laughed my ass off when I found out that Apocalypse tanks can't be run down by King Oni's in one shot.

As I figured, Higher level units and buildings would either be immune to the tackle, or would take multible hits, which makes alot more sense.

Anyways, while I do not like the apsence of anti air, it's lead me to a fairly good assault force combonation.

And remember, air force plays a key strategic role in the battlefield now, it's not like how it used to be, aircraft either being useless, or only a little side thing to try out in certain situations.

My main forces usualy consist of 8 Apocalypse tanks, 12 hammer tanks (4 AA, 4AI, and 4 rockets), 8 Twinblades, 8 MiGs, and various amounts of other surpises that help me adapt to the situation.

Also, two terror drones will destroy a king oni mech. Terror drones aare a must have in any soviet assault force.

Now by all means try and create a counter force to what I listed, but know beforehand, that is only average, I hide other units in there, and sometimes I produce even more of some units, it just depends on the cash i have, and how cheeky I'm feeling.

But don't worry about the Apoc having no anti air anymore, it's actualy more effective at anti armor and anti structure than it ever was.

[truefeel]

It's not really a concern of effectiveness. Apocs in RA2 were quite useless at all fronts due better alternatives, but it alteast was a real mammoth class tank. It would had been perfectly acceptable (for me atleast) if the apoc was not cost effective against aircraft and you had to use an alternative.

[Quadhelix]

Lol, no. the apocalypse was the ascendant of the mammoth tank. That's not a problem, as it was intended to do so. Maybe this new thing is good for the ones not familiar with cnc, though. A. I believe that you mean "descendant" instead of "ascendant."
B. "Descendant" does not mean "perfect duplicate in all important regards."


it's called "freedom to express your opinion" and you can't do a **** against it ! You're free to express your opinion, but that does not make your opinion correct.


I'm not talking about balance for a moment. Missiles were a real chararistic of the mammoth/apocalypse tank. It was(/is still) balancable, particulary in the stage where all those units were developped. Now is indeed a different thing: all the units are ready. Nothing can be changed anymore (well, except with mods of course). Just saying that I personally (and I respect others their opinion) would liked to see the mammoth/apocalypse tank that was THE symbol of the brute force of the Soviets. Actually, from what I can tell (and I could be completely wrong on this), RA3 is trying to use a system of "hard counters," in which no numerical advantage can allow a unit to defeat its counter. If the Apocalypse Tank could attack aircraft, would have no counter that it could not defeat, given enough Apocalypse Tanks.

[truefeel]

A. I believe that you mean "descendant" instead of "ascendant."
B. "Descendant" does not mean "perfect duplicate in all important regards."


*****, gotta work on my english.

You're free to express your opinion, but that does not make your opinion correct.

Did I claimed that ?

Actually, from what I can tell (and I could be completely wrong on this), RA3 is trying to use a system of "hard counters," in which no numerical advantage can allow a unit to defeat its counter. If the Apocalypse Tank could attack aircraft, would have no counter that it could not defeat, given enough Apocalypse Tanks.

Oh, but that depends also on how much money it costs and if there are better alternatives. RA3 tries indeed the system of hard counters, but the numbers still count, only far less then RA2.

[apple23]

What would be the point of arming the apocalypse with missiles if a bullfrog was much better anti air support? That would be basically taking out the M Harpoon and replacing it with something that had a more efficient alternative anyways.

And in a gameplay stance, removing apoc's anti air means you now have to escort it or it is easily counterable, and that is what RA3 is all about.

[truefeel]

at the expensive of one of the chararistics that made an apoc tank a real apoc tank. That's good for the peeps who want something, bad for the ones who don't want it changed.

[apple23]

Why would you deny change if it brought about better balance and better gameplay? I'm sure you saw the disaster that was CNC3's mammoth.

Are you seriously that wrapped up in the whole "Keep CNC tradition going!!!!11!!!!" Parade?

[truefeel]

But can be balanced, don't you think ? I'm not looking here at balance btw, b/c you would know that a game, barely been released in a beta, cannot be balanced at all yet.

I'm not really wrapped up in that kinda of thing, better: I'm completely behind changes, but IMO that unit should not be called an apoc tank b/c it works completely different then the original one. Let me say it this way: if that "RA3 apoc tank" was just a tiny low tier tank, I would feel the same way about it. Maybe you would also think then it's not the name suiting.

[Derek]

at the expensive of one of the chararistics that made an apoc tank a real apoc tank. That's good for the peeps who want something, bad for the ones who don't want it changed.
Care to show me this "real apoc tank"? :rockbrow:

[Statalyzer]

I'm completely behind changes, but IMO that unit should not be called an apoc tank b/c it works completely different then the original one. Let me say it this way: if that "RA3 apoc tank" was just a tiny low tier tank, I would feel the same way about it.

Well put.

[truefeel]

Care to show me this "real apoc tank"? :rockbrow:

real simple:
-big bulky heavy armoured tank
-anti armour/building dual cannons
-AA missile pods.

And that were all the mammoth class tanks (of which the apoc tank is part of), even the MkII in tib sun (which is a walker, but acts the same way as a mammoth class tank).

[Derek]

real simple:
-big bulky heavy armoured tank
-anti armour/building dual cannons
Fixed.

See, making a list is easy. Now would like to show me a "real apoc tank"?

[Daishi]

F***ing play RA2 if you want to see the original apoc - with it's Mammoth-esque AA missile pods - in action. What do you want us to do, pull a video up?

By the way, Derek, Dr. Feel, you forgot the high price tag :p

In my opinion, the mammoth tusks were an important factor in defining the apoc, since AA capability was the only place where the apoc really shined more than the Rhino. The Apoc's DPS was pitiful for its price and it couldn't take as much punishment as its lower-tier counterparts were capable of stacking on individual targets when it was masses vs. masses. What set it apart from the rhino though was that it was capable of playing multiple roles in combat. When mixed with Rhinos, it could switch from adding to the firepower of the smaller tanks to swiftly punishing anything moving through the air, and was the only heavy unit in the game that could do that.

So it is a misnomer and the new apocalypse tank should go by another name.

[Quadhelix]

In my opinion, the mammoth tusks were an important factor in defining the apoc, since AA capability was the only place where the apoc really shined more than the Rhino. The Apoc's DPS was pitiful for its price and it couldn't take as much punishment as its lower-tier counterparts were capable of stacking on individual targets when it was masses vs. masses. What set it apart from the rhino though was that it was capable of playing multiple roles in combat. When mixed with Rhinos, it could switch from adding to the firepower of the smaller tanks to swiftly punishing anything moving through the air, and was the only heavy unit in the game that could do that. The new Apocalypse is distinguished from the Hammer by different aspects than the original Apocalypse from the Rhino. Because the makeup of the Soviets' forces has changes, the Apocalypse has changed in kind.

it works completely different then the original one.
No, it doesn't. It still uses twin heavy cannon against ground targets, and is still the largest tank in the Soviet army.


So it is a misnomer and the new apocalypse tank should go by another name. Remember that the Soviet's time travel has lead to a Cosmic Retcon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CosmicRetcon), so the design path that lead to the original Mammoth-clone Tank might have taken a different path, producing the modern Apocalypse Tank.

Furthermore, certain real world aircraft share a name with an older counterpart. For example, the A-10 Thunderbolt II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10) was named for the P-47 Thunderbolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt). Interestingly, the P-47 was apparently a fighter craft that came to be used for close air support, whereas the A-10 was designed for close air support. Similarly, in this case, the Apocalypse was capable of combating both ground and air targets, but Soviet engineers realized that it could fare far better against ground targets if they removed the anti-aircraft weapons in favor of larger guns.

[Derek]

F***ing play RA2 if you want to see the original apoc - with it's Mammoth-esque AA missile pods - in action. What do you want us to do, pull a video up?
Everyone completely missed what I was getting at. There is no "real" Apocalypse Tank. Its entirely fictional, and as such they do whatever the **** they want with it, as long as the gameplay is improved its a good thing. I mean seriously, this is even more retarded than saying Generals isn't a CNC game.

[Cylon Crusader]

Personally, I think that the apoc is better off without the missiles, because in RA2, they were too overpowering, and the m-harpoon is a nice change in style for RA3.

As for the physical look, they really need to rethink the design, because it looks like something made out of volley balls and milk carton cylinders.

[Avapodnaught]

Yeah, everyone that can realize that not everything needs to follow suit exactly, its boring, play a mod from a newer game engine about an older game (I saw a Generals mod for RA1... wish it ever came out, it might be fun with Generals online with a couple of people)
Long boring history

The many different Mammoth tank line from the original one using rockets when it turned and firing its cannon when facing the enemy directly (if that is how it also worked on the computer, did that on my old n64 game but didn't really play so much on the computer besides the campaign) and with anti air rockets, and able to heal itself to a nice percent of health
A Soviet Mammoth tank that fired its rockets at infantry whenever firing at them, not requiring a turn, and used its cannon fire against tanks and rockets against air
The Mammoth Mark II Walker with a railgun that fired against vehicles, large rockets, and a huge size... too bad it didn't squash other vehicles... but I bet you could fit a Limpet under it ><
The Apocalypse tank of Ra2 could attack with great might against puny vehicles but rather sucked against air unless it stayed still, a real problem with rockets, and able to become promoted to decimate small armies fast and actually be worth its money against infantry
The Mammoth Tank of the Command and Conquer 3 universe used four treads and regular cannons/railguns combined with rockets on land targets, and slow firing rockets against air
Apocalypse Tank of Ra3, the only one... I think it is amphibious and with two cannons, and has a harpoon, if its amphibious that would be great against ships (not sure...) and close by vehicles

I think that there are only two Apocs, and one might be amphibious (still not sure) and it has a bad ass harpoon to play bulls-eye on an enemy vehicle

[truefeel]

Personally, I think that the apoc is better off without the missiles, because in RA2, they were too overpowering, and the m-harpoon is a nice change in style for RA3.


lol, in RA2 apocs were underpowered due the rhino was a more cost effective unit against ground and flak tracks were a much better alternative against air. RA2 apocs are barely used.

Fixed.

See, making a list is easy. Now would like to show me a "real apoc tank"?

Ok, so you want an apoc with only dual cannons and no harpoon ? that's cool.

A real apoc does not exist, no. But what in earth of the game is real? realism is not an argue in game full of imagination.

No, it doesn't. It still uses twin heavy cannon against ground targets, and is still the largest tank in the Soviet army.

you completely missed the point. the RA2 apoc was designed (but failed kinda on that point, as explained above) to be a stand-alone tank, just the same as the complete mammoth class tanks. That's completely different then this tank.

So it is a misnomer and the new apocalypse tank should go by another name.

and that's my point all along.

Remember that the Soviet's time travel has lead to a Cosmic Retcon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CosmicRetcon), so the design path that lead to the original Mammoth-clone Tank might have taken a different path, producing the modern Apocalypse Tank.

Furthermore, certain real world aircraft share a name with an older counterpart. For example, the A-10 Thunderbolt II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10) was named for the P-47 Thunderbolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt). Interestingly, the P-47 was apparently a fighter craft that came to be used for close air support, whereas the A-10 was designed for close air support. Similarly, in this case, the Apocalypse was capable of combating both ground and air targets, but Soviet engineers realized that it could fare far better against ground targets if they removed the anti-aircraft weapons in favor of larger guns.

To hell with the crappy RA3 storyline. That storyline has too much imagination. It's almost a ferytale.

The Apocalypse tank of Ra2 could attack with great might against puny vehicles but rather sucked against air unless it stayed still, a real problem with rockets, and able to become promoted to decimate small armies fast and actually be worth its money against infantry


It has to sit still also though to fight vehicles, and the RA2 apoc sucked against infantry kinda (it sucked against everything actually due it was not cost effective).


Why the hell did this escalated to such large proportions ? I'm gonna stop complaining.

[nyarlathotep]

Fixed.
See, making a list is easy. Now would like to show me a "real apoc tank"?

This is the closest thing in real to an apoc

http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/fotky/tanky/prototypy/035.jpg

It's German, it's nicknamed "the mouse", and...it had no AA. Although it had a "batllebunker". But it was to heavy for on the field, it tore the streets to shreds and sunk in the mud.

[truefeel]

lol, that thing looks more at a battle fortress then a real tank.

[Quadhelix]

lol, in RA2 apocs were underpowered due the rhino was a more cost effective unit against ground and flak tracks were a much better alternative against air. RA2 apocs are barely used. Okay, so what is the problem with removing their AA, which obviously isn't enough to make them used often, and improving their effectiveness against ground targets? If it makes them more effective tanks, what is the problem with it?



you completely missed the point. the RA2 apoc was designed (but failed kinda on that point, as explained above) to be a stand-alone tank, just the same as the complete mammoth class tanks. That's completely different then this tank. I once again draw your attention to the story of the Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt II. The Thunderbolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt) was a fighter developed during World War II that came to be used as a ground support aircraft. The Thunderbolt II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10) is a dedicated ground support aircraft. I do hope you can see the similarity in the situation with that of the Apocalypse Tank and Apocalypse-II Tank.


To hell with the crappy RA3 storyline. That storyline has too much imagination. It's almost a ferytale. Which part?

Anyway, the part to which you are objecting here, the changing of the past through time travel, was the basis for Red Alert 1. Therefore, you objecting to Red Alert 3 on a plot element that it shares with Red Alert 1.


It has to sit still also though to fight vehicles, and the RA2 apoc sucked against infantry kinda (it sucked against everything actually due it was not cost effective). So what is the problem? The Apocalypse is being changed from a jack-of-all-trades unit into a true master of the battlefield. The loss of its AA missiles has cleared the way for it to become a true powerhouse.

[truefeel]

Which part?
Anyway, the part to which you are objecting here, the changing of the past through time travel, was the basis for Red Alert 1. Therefore, you objecting to Red Alert 3 on a plot element that it shares with Red Alert 1.


Who said I was objecting on that ? Did I mention that I was objecting at that ? don't jump too fast into conclusions. The storyline as its whole is crappy.

So what is the problem? The Apocalypse is being changed from a jack-of-all-trades unit into a true master of the battlefield. The loss of its AA missiles has cleared the way for it to become a true powerhouse.

That's your opinion. I respect that, but that will not be enough by a long shot to convince me :p. That quote is nothing more then an opinion; you gotta come up with good arguments. That thunderbolt thingy might be, but it's not command and conquer. You can't just compare reality with fiction.

Okay, so what is the problem with removing their AA, which obviously isn't enough to make them used often, and improving their effectiveness against ground targets? If it makes them more effective tanks, what is the problem with it?

Lol, I typed basicilly a whole page together and you still ask that. Look at my previous posts.

[Derek]

realism is not an argue in game full of imagination.
Then stop saying that its not a "real" Apoc. It is whatever the hell they want it to be.


People like you are the ones ruining the CNC series.

This is the closest thing in real to an apoc



It's German, it's nicknamed "the mouse", and...it had no AA. Although it had a "batllebunker". But it was to heavy for on the field, it tore the streets to shreds and sunk in the mud.
That thing was never actually built, it never even got past the blueprints stage.

[truefeel]

Then stop saying that its not a "real" Apoc. It is whatever the hell they want it to be.


People like you are the ones ruining the CNC series.


watch what yur saying. this is not the flamerz corner. u always get so heated up when you get a response you don't like ?

[Daishi]

That thing was never actually built, it never even got past the blueprints stage.

You two aren't talking about the same tank. And the Maus isn't pictured in nyarla's post: the Maus had one cannon IIRC.

The dual-cannon P-1000 Ratte, on the other hand, never got past the blueprint stage. You might mean that one.

And Dr. Feel, I agree with Quadhelix because it's true that in the RA3 timeline, the Apocalypse Assault Tank of RA2 was never developed. The name Apocalypse could go on to mean any tank that is even similar in combat role, and here we are with a brand new one.

Had the Apocalypse been carried over from the original tank, I would agree now that it was a misnomer, but I'd totally forgotten about the storyline. Of course I think it would be better having a different name than before like every other unit in RA3, but we have to be rational here.

Also, Derek, while most of your points make sense, I don't think people like Truefeel are ruining the C&C series at all. And you don't have to take him so literally just so you have an excuse to be a jackass.

[truefeel]

And Dr. Feel, I agree with Quadhelix because it's true that in the RA3 timeline, the Apocalypse Assault Tank of RA2 was never developed. The name Apocalypse could go on to mean any tank that is even similar in combat role, and here we are with a brand new one.

Well, unlike it might seem so, I don't bother really much about it. It has been raining here for 2 days none stop, leaving me really bored at house. Nothing else to do then just internetting, so that's why I replied so heavily on it and might seem that I weight alot on it.

Also, Derek, while most of your points make sense, I don't think people like Truefeel are ruining the C&C series at all. And you don't have to take him so literally just so you have an excuse to be a jackass

Meh, it's ok. I might have been a bit boring to him. Though I highly rank on a mature discussion without such idiotic remarks.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I don't know why people say the Apocalypse tank wasn't cost effective. I got my moneys worth out of it time and time again.
I always won with apocalypse tanks. You have to know how to use them, you don't just mass them, and throw them at the enemy, it takes finese to move them location to location, and effectivly deal with threats. I usualy had about 20 of them, 4 teams of five. Five Apocs per unit when i engaged enemy forces.

Anyways, you're all ****ing forgeting something major.

There has always been a counter to the mammoth and apocalypse tanks. They're called ships. The allied cruiser was a pain in my side for a while. But I used MiGs to dispose of them.

I'm all for having the old RA2 style missile, they were slow tracking, medium speed missiles that wouldn't always even get the aircraft.

And now with the emphasis on naval combat, and the rediculous range of Shogun battleships. (Seriously, how does a battleship out range carriers and dreadnoughts? Does some one want to explain this to me? Because something seems incredibly wrong with that. And the rate of fire they have, it's not right for a battleship.)

Anyways, I'm kind of borderline here, but now that Aircraft can actualy take care of other aircraft, I have other formations in mind that deal with the air threat.

Oh yeah, i don't remember who said it, but to whoever though the new apocalypse is ampibious, no it's not.
Terror drones are though.

[truefeel]

I don't know why people say the Apocalypse tank wasn't cost effective. I got my moneys worth out of it time and time again.
I always won with apocalypse tanks. You have to know how to use them, you don't just mass them, and throw them at the enemy, it takes finese to move them location to location, and effectivly deal with threats. I usualy had about 20 of them, 4 teams of five. Five Apocs per unit when i engaged enemy forces.


I did a test long time ago with a dude, rhinoes against apocs. We made for the same amount of money apocs/rhinoes to get the right ratio (a bit less then 2 rhinoes for 1 apoc). on flat ground, the rhino wins each time until you are getting huge, unrealistic amounts of tanks on both sides. Then the apocs gets better. problem is that the test was even in the disadvantage of the rhino, due it did not took the better speed of the rhino in account.Generally is accepted in the RA2 online world that Apocs are in only one situation better: against defences. The biggest disadvantages of the apoc is that it can't fire on the move and it's a bit too slow. With good tank control you probably could make a succes of it, but you could turn with that same tank control rhinoes into a better succes.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I did a test long time ago with a dude, rhinoes against apocs. We made for the same amount of money apocs/rhinoes to get the right ratio (a bit less then 2 rhinoes for 1 apoc). on flat ground, the rhino wins each time until you are getting huge, unrealistic amounts of tanks on both sides. Then the apocs gets better. problem is that the test was even in the disadvantage of the rhino, due it did not took the better speed of the rhino in account.Generally is accepted in the RA2 online world that Apocs are in only one situation better: against defences. The biggest disadvantages of the apoc is that it can't fire on the move and it's a bit too slow. With good tank control you probably could make a succes of it, but you could turn with that same tank control rhinoes into a better succes.

I suppose I should have clarrified that a bit better. When I said "I won all the time with Apocalypse tanks" I meant the match, which usualy ended destroying the enemy base.
And you don't assault an enemy base with anything less than an Apocalpyse tank, be cause they are the only tank that can survive multible shots from high level defensive towers.

I didn't have good tank control, I had fantastic tank control.
Even in my battlegroups I had 10 apocalypse tanks, but that was mainly to serve as heavy fire and to draw fire from other units, since the Apocalypse tanks would be the biggest threat.

[truefeel]

I suppose I should have clarrified that a bit better. When I said "I won all the time with Apocalypse tanks" I meant the match, which usualy ended destroying the enemy base.

They are good base killers, but unfortunaly online games are won in practice by destroying the enemies force. Apocs are on that front less cost-effective.

And you don't assault an enemy base with anything less than an Apocalpyse tank, be cause they are the only tank that can survive multible shots from high level defensive towers.

correct, but you are allowed to loose rhinoes b/c mostly you have alot more then (more then double at least). So it can also be done by rhinoes, although less effective, but still very effective.

I didn't have good tank control, I had fantastic tank control.
Even in my battlegroups I had 10 apocalypse tanks, but that was mainly to serve as heavy fire and to draw fire from other units, since the Apocalypse tanks would be the biggest threat.

That's fair enough, but you would had even more succes with rhinoes.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

That's fair enough, but you would had even more succes with rhinoes.

I did have rhinos, they are probably the most effective, cost wise, anti tank units besides tank destroyers.

[truefeel]

tank destroyers are in practice very useless units, if u use fodder.