Everyone's trying to redesign the thor but...

I agree that the Thor/Thor replacement should do non-splash damage. Kinda short range too.

 

And do you feel that the Thor is too big? Like having more than 2 in your army doesnt allow anything to pass?

 

I am not too sure about that... One of the main reasons making the Thor stand in the way of your other units is the fact that it cant turn for shit. This tank would probably have a little better turning speed, making it easy to move them into a corner or something to let other units pass.
But, this is supposed to be a tanker, it SHOULD be in front of your units.
I don't want the Thor/Tank to have less than 800 hp, that's for sure.
Making the Thor/Tank small would eventually turn it siege tank sized, so i think that it still should be pretty big.

 

maybe a APC, can house marines on the move.

 

I still don't like the idea of a normal tank. It is way to generic. Ever think that Terran may have moved on from tanks? After all, as you said, the Tank Mode of the Siege Tank is only used about 10% of the time, and that's only for transportation.

 

Yeah, but thats because its more powerful when attacking in siege mode. This tank would not need to transform, and it would not have that low hp+the inability to fire at close targets.

And I am sure that a tank designed by blizzard can become everything but generic.

 

A strong GTG single target attack maybe a double attack.

Gattling guns or missles vs air.

Flame Throwers for attacking at melee range.

With some special ability.

Not your generic tank imo

Edit: It could be a hover tank or some other fancy moving mechanic.

 

in reality.

MECH>TANKS. period

starcraft is 2400+ years in the future. MECH is the next best thing.


im sure UED has something similar to this. haha. well not as overwhelming as these mobile suits.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Or17QKYRkog
NOTE: gundam 00 is set in the year 2300+ way behind starcraft. =p ofcourse there are still tanks in gundam or any sci fi universe. :

so DONT cut the thor. 8)

i hope they will remove and change the lame reapers pistol. come on! 2400+ years and you give them pistols? #%$@&(. hahah. and i thought blizzard has already learned from starcraft 1 "unhigh tech" like concept. why pistols? why bullets? its NOT realluy that badass. come up with something better than pistols.

and

THOR is TERRAN.

just look at the marines. they look ike small armored MECHS. THOR will be the pinnacle of terran mobile vehicle not tanks etc.

THOR / MECHS / GUNDAMS / did i mention MECHS = PWNZ ANYTHING SCI FI!... in SCI FI MECHS OWNS not clones not x fighter not death stars not siege tanks. =p
starcraft 2 is set in the year 2400+ its about time the TERRAN GET SOME MECH.

 

mech may be better if they can fly and whatnot, and have super mega transformers power ranger powers but in simpler military tank is better imo.

 

give the thor a red bull and it'll give him some wings!

No but seriously, i think the terrans are sophisticated enough design a better super unit. The thor is just a giant goliath with thick armor slapped on, original guns replaces with large lasers, and 4 artillery glue on the back and shoulders.

i still believe the terran super unit should be a flying unit

 

Zeratul11, your last post really did not help the argument of not having tanks in StarCraft. You said a whole lot of stuff that didn't really have any thought behind it, except for it being your initial reaction. You can't just say:

It hasn't got anything to back it up, and it is just your own opinion. Also, that video you posted had little to no relevance to what everyone has been talking about. I, personally do not want the Thor to be replaced by another tank, but your post, if anything, persuaded me to want a tank replacement. Please post constructively and don't just add random videos, etc. Also, the Reapers are given Pistols because Pistols are cheap and effective. The Terran Government would not go around giving the most hardened criminals expensive weapons. Instead they have developed Reapers to be good at raiding the enemies economy, and have equipped them with the D8 charges to further improve their base raiding ability. Reapers are designed to be expendable. If they had gigantic mega-weapons, then they would definitely not be expendable. Also, in my own opinion, I believe that bullets are much more bad-@ss than lasers or whatever your replacement for them would be. If I really hated the opponents guts, I would want to stuff them with lead, not shoot condensed light at them. Both bullets and lasers would have the same end result, and lasers are much more expensive, so why would they be given lasers?
@ DKutrovsky. I do not think that your idea for the tanks weapons would make a uniform unit. It is just way too random and all over the place. Giving it turrets and gatling guns, and missiles and flamethrowers plus some other ability would make the end product seem all muddled up, with no uniformity to it. That's not to mention that it would make it a well rounded unit with absolutely no weaknesses, which is not what StarCraft2 is about.

 

Mechs, imo, should not replace tanks. If you think about it, tanks will probably outlast most other forms of conventional weaponry. A tanks is simply one of the greatest military advancements/inventions ever made. A tank can be armed with many different types of weapons, relatively mobile compared to artillery, while boasting enough firepower and armor to stand up against most enemies head-to-head. Of course, this is a generic tank I'm talking about, not going into specific models, but my point is that tanks are too valuable and versatile overall to discard in favor of some huge, enormously expensive mech that's still in its experimental stages, which would translate into one of those "it's this huge piece of metal that should theoretically blow everything apart but we don't have any idea about how it'll react in a real situation and it probably has a million bugs and glitches that we still need to solve" things. A mech, while while it technically would be "advanced" technology when compared to a tank, just lacks the practicality of it. Sure, it doesn't have to be practical in order to win a war. Take nukes for an example. Compared to a rifle or a grenade, it's not as cost and time effective. But why is it still used? Because once it's perfected, it could do huge amounts of damage on a wide scale in a short time, something that a rifle or a grenade cannot do. Just like a mech. And the reason I'm arguing on both sides is because tanks don't need to be taken out, and neither do mechs. Keep it how it is, it's fine this way.

 

Good post. It's great to see that at least some people are keeping an open mind and arguing for both sides. Not me though. I still believe that a tank would not be used that much. If people wanted normal tank, then they would use a Siege Tank in Tank Mode. I know that the suggested tank to replace the Thor would be bigger and more powerful, but in essence they are the same thing, a big armored vehicle with tracks and guns. Also, what would the weakness of this new tank be? It there is no reason for it so be slow, and it would easily be able to turn around on the one spot. So far, as DKutrovsky said, it would have a powerful Ground-to-Ground attack, making it effective against large ground units. It would have a Anti-Air weapon to attack air units, making it effective against air units. It would have a flamethrower, making it effective against massed ground units. On top of this it would have another special ability. What is the weakness?! It's effective against everything! The Thor on the other hand, is vulnerable to fast moving units, and units that can shoot on the run. Also, if they do not have a readily available Detector, then it could easily be taken down by groups of Burrowing Zerg. It hasn't been said whether it can attack air or not. Long story short, Thor is an effective unit that has a major weakness, but the new tank would excel in all situations with no weaknesses. This is not what StarCraft2 is about. Every unit has a major strength and a major weakness.

 

i was giving those examples to show that you can make a tank more interesting and not just a siege tank in tank mode, so its not generic.

Having flamethrowers and gattling guns and missles and a powerful single ground target weapon might be(well is) too much. But im just giving ideas how you can tinker around with tank weaponry. You can slap any kind of weapon on it.

You can also make different types of propelsion, hover, or legs.

You can have him use lazers instead of guns. You can make him move slow, but fast moving turret.

You can give him minimum range. You can take away the Anti Air.

You can do all sorts of fun stuff. You're arguing that i suggested too many thins at once, but not that having a tank in general(balanced) would be worse than a mech.

 

[img width=293 height=274]http://www.planet-snk.de/img/articles/3705/Metal-Slug-5-small-PS2-small-1.gif[/img]
here this should solve everybody problem

 

wwow awesome

 

Okay

 

If Heavyarms2050's mech were to appear in the game, I would burn every single copy of StarCraft2 that I can in contact with. I don't know why you said it would solve everyone's problem.
DKutrovsky's picture is just as bad, it doesn't even have any real protection from incoming attacks.
@ DKutrovsky. Everything you suggest for tanks, could be done with mechs as well, except it would be easier to make the mechs look different from other mechs, taking the Goliaths, Vikings, and Thor (even the SCV to an extent) as examples. All of them are mechs, but they look extremely different from each other. In my opinion, this is harder to do with tanks. Even if it did have a different role to the Siege Tank, then it would be like creating a new, unique unit for the Zerg, that looks exactly like the Mutalisk, even though they have completely different roles. You may be able to slap any kind of weaponry you want on to a tank, except you can do the same for a mech, the only thing being that with the tank, it doesn't actually change the appearance all that much.
Also, when you said:

Legs? Isn't that just a mech?
Another thing is that when Wlck742 said that tanks are one of the greatest military advancements ever. There is a problem in this statement. Yes it is true that they are a great military achievement, but the military, anywhere in the world, has not gotten close to perfecting a mech. At the moment they are quite cumbersome and easy to tip over, but as we know the Terran are much more advanced than we are. They have created body suits for every single Marine that respond to absolutely any stimulus almost instantly, whereas we haven't created a relatively simple mechanical limb yet (relative to the complexity of the Marines body suit), which shows that the Terran would easily have the technology to create a stable mech. Once mechs have been perfected they would easily be able to replace the tank. It is like creating a huge and heavily armed person, that is able to react fairly quickly to any problems, whereas a tank is designed completely differently, so it does not have the same maneuverability as a mech. I know that the Thor is really slow and have very little maneuverability, but a tank of the same size would have exactly the same problem.

 

No matter what, the tank will always be more stable than a mech, its just mechanics.

Tanks are also better armored, and protect their pilots better, and they dont need to resemble a human, they are made so that they can do their job well, to destroy things.

Legs as in 4-6 legs which will make it more stable, and sturdy than a 2 legged mech.

Two legged units or things in general arent the pinicle of war machines. I dont know why you think that mechs are so great honestly, they are tall, bigger targets, easier to see, less balanced, pilots are generaly more vulnerable, harder to drive, cannot carry as much weapons and probably more expensive.

As for pros, im not really sure.

 

Being tall is actually a huge advantage that the mech would have over a tank. They are able to see a lot more from where they are standing than the tank would be able to see. If you were trying to shoot a specific person in a crowd of your own people who is standing about 20 meters away, you would definitely want some kind of high ground, and the higher the high ground, the better.
Also, having two legs isn't necessarily that bad. Marines have pretty much become a mech, because of how their suits work. Their suits respond to their every stimulus in an instant. Their hands don't actually reach the end of their their armor's sleeve, and the feet don't reach the end of their armors leg, as seen in this picture; http://www.starcraft2.com/art.xml?s=21.
Mech suits are an extension of the body. The Thor wouldn't actually have a single person operating the whole thing, like how a Marine does, but they would have people operating each arm, leg, etc. there is no reason to say that tanks are better armored, because it purely depends on how much armor is put on in the first place. A Marine could have more armor than a tank if it wanted to. The same argument can be used in response to you saying that the pilots are more vulnerable. It just depends on the design of the mech or tank. The Thor would be able to carry much more weaponry than a tank because of its huge size, and there is no reason to say that it can't. Again, it all depends on how it is designed.
You haven't actually given any proposal for what this tank would be like. It is easy for you to ague against the Thor, because it is a specific unit. It is hard to argue against any type of tank, because you can always change it. Write a description of what this tank would be like, then see how it fairs up against the Thor.