HERO System Vehicles

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

My ideas have always run along the lines of the base damage rules... damage by hex, or by compartment, possibly with an overall BODY stat that is depleted at at much reduced rate to represent superstructure, and that is predominantly removed as a result of area attacks that somehow scale to the size of the target... A shipboard cannon, to use your example, would have an AOE 1 hex attack, whereas a shell firing cannon is an explosion, affecting a large enough area that it would thusly do more structure Body, and a musket ball, being much smaller scale, would be virtually wothless. By the same token, the USS Iowa is big enough that a tank shell wouldn't do full structure damage to it, while a shell from a 16" gun would be large enough to inflict grevious harm to a smaller target.

 

Edit: Add a system like this, and then implement a broad interpretation of the equipment as focuses rules (this means building almost evry component as a focus, including the propulsion systems etc.) and you have a MUCH more workable vehicle system. The only other difference I'd like to see is a return to Focuses having the option of having their own BODY stat, so that you can implement a "failure rate for complex machines" based on inflicted body like is mentioned in the breaking things chapter.

[Mister E]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I like the way Vehicles are basically specialized character write-ups. It's an eligant solution, that is very compatable to the game system.

 

I my game, anyone who wants their character to be able to punch through Hardened Defenses like they're made of paper (or tin foil), should be expected to buy Penetrating x2 for their STR. This probably isn't too far-fetched when you imagine how much PSI a super-strong brick could deliver with the tips of his fingers. If you used the optional Wounding, Impairing, or Disabling rules... your attacks would also have greater effects, and possibly give you a hightened level of realism. Even if you don't use these rules for the Heroes themselves, I could see using them for Vehicles, just for that reason.

 

Otherwise, super-strong characters should tear appart tanks with their bare hands, using Power Stunts to Dispell systems on the tank... ripping off the the Hardened Armor sounds like a hell of a lot of fun... so does bending the main cannon into a pretzel.

 

Dropping on a tank, using a kind of "death from above" technique, would allow you to get extra Velocity Damage, right? This could be simulated with a Move Through using Leaping.

 

Tanks generally have crappy DCV's... you could get extra Damage with a "Called Shot to the Nuts." -6 OCV targets the Engine/Drive Train, and gives x1.5 BODY to your attack, which is pretty cool.

 

When superheroes come up upon Attacks with the "Real Weapon" Disadvantage, all they need is a little creativity in order to use that to their advantage. That's why "Real Weapon" is a Disadvantage that is worth character points. Sure, it's a vague Disadvantage, (that is no where near as clear-cut as most of the others), but it does what it needs to do, which is make the Attack Power vulnerable to basic, real world, problems... like bent gun-barrels.

 

I, myself, am amazed at how much detail went into all of the vehicle write-ups in the UV and the Vehicle Sourcebook; and I'm pretty saticefied with my purchases. Until these books came out, I was paralized at the thought of having to go through the effort of writing up vehicles for my players.

 

One critique on tanks, that I've noticed... in the UV, none of the tanks have KB resistance, but in The Vehicle Sourcebook, they all do. This is no big deal... given how modular the game is, and how much effort the game designers have done for me, it's pretty much a walk in the park to add KB resistance where ever I want it.

 

I think making vehicles move in continuous segments might be a good idea... but at that point, (and I could see this being done as a house rule) why not let the characters move during segments, too? I think the reason for this boils down to the fact that it would slow down table-top combat speed, which is a pretty major consideration.

 

(I remember one battle my players had, where a car was flying through the air, with a player in it... and another player made a long Soliloquy so that it would land on a villain before he could react to it. We laughed pretty hard over the absurdity of the situation... and even though the plan didn't work because of the failed Presence Attack... it was a great game session, never-the-less.)

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

 

(I remember one battle my players had, where a car was flying through the air, with a player in it... and another player made a long Soliloquy so that it would land on a villain before he could react to it. We laughed pretty hard over the absurdity of the situation... and even though the plan didn't work because of the failed Presence Attack... it was a great game session, never-the-less.)

Nice post, overall, but this one bit made me laugh...

I had one player who got to the point of joking about 0 phase soliloquies. They take no time... the player could have recited the Gettysburg Address while the car was in midair and it would have politely waited for him to finish

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

What exactly do you mean by a compartmentalized damage system? I think I get the gist of what you're saying' date=' but I'm not sure what I'm thinking is what you mean.[/quote']

 

It's where you divide up the major functions of a vehicle into compartments and assign damage to them instead of to the entire vehicle. This in turn determines the result of that damage.

 

It's almost like hit locations, but has significant difference because the Body (and maybe even DEF) of each compartment is different, and all the functions of that compartment are lost when that Body is matched in damage.

 

 

For the M1A1 for example, you could split things up between engine, ammo, crew, suspension, tracks, external gear. This allows the very real life outcome of a flank hit on the ammo compartment (the rear of the real life turret) to whack your ammo supply- but due to the pressure release panels of the design, leave the rest of the vehicle intact.

 

 

The concept becomes even more appealing the larger the vehicle becomes. For example a large warship requires a very significant amount of it's volume to filled with water before sinking and it has water tight compartments to assist it in remaining afloat. It becomes very useful to be able to define those compartments and state what number of them need to be destroyed before problems occur.

 

Then there's fire. Fire for large vehicles is actually more important that the original damage done by the weapon hit. Compartments also allow one to manage the resulting fire damage, it's spread, and fire fighting attempts. But one is getting into really interesting rule expansions at this point that are suit for an entire supplement itself.

 

 

 

I'd also like to see the fixes Fox1 has made for his game (alluded to pages ago, before things got really nasty).

 

Likely way too complex to go into. It's a mix of compartmentalized damage plus redefining the armor and weapons.

 

One of the keys of it is that anti-tank class weapons have two damage values- one is the base weapon damage used to determining if the armor deflected the attack or not. The second is a NND does body explosion, where the defense is 'not being a compartment whose armor was pierced by the base attack'. This damage goes against the compartment with overflow into others if there's no blow out panels or other internal defenses. It basically represents the fact that anti-tank weapons don't kill by poking a small hole in a tank- they kill by the overpressure, heat, and fragments generated by poking that small hole.

 

So the main gun on the M1 does something like 1d6K+15 (five dice of standard effect plus one rolled dice) with some resistant piercing points and a 17d6 NND does body explosion that would go of inside the compartment hit.

 

This allows me to give the M1 20 points of armor in front (with double hardening) meaning that one of six shots of it's own gun will pierce it. If the armor is exceeded, the 17d6 NND EX goes off inside that armor and will whack the compartment with the result of either a dead or soon to be dead crew, no more ammo, no engine/power, or a tracked and thus imobile tank.

 

Hits on external gear uses only the defense of that gear, so any hit on that compartment will likely rip a machineguns or the like off.

 

Side armor is around 14 points, rear and top/track armor is 10 points. Compartment body varies, but tends to be 10 points per (if an attack does affect the whole vehicle, like say a transform- I use a BODY value of 16).

 

A STR 90 brick could nicely whack a tank built in this manner. You grab the turret and pull for but one example, attacking in effect the turret attachments at their top armor value of 10 points. A simple 2d6 push or a haymaker tug and off it comes on a average damage roll.

 

The Hulk with STR values of 100+ with a mad on would have no problem trashing a tank per phase. Bending the barrel (external gear) would be child's play. He could even bash in the front armor directly, although it would take him a few hits. At 125 STR, it would take all of two non-haymaker non-pushed blows and the internal compartment is wrecked and the tank disabled.

 

This is a major improvement over being able to fly to the Moon, grab that moon, fly back, and start whacking on a M1's frontal armor using that moon- and still taking multiple hits to disable that tank.

 

 

 

 

To be fair to HERO, scaling this would be a major problem. The compartment size would have to vary as the size of the vehicle increases. One could also reasonably claim that compartment size should vary as the weapon damage changes as well. It's highly likely for example that a 16 inch naval gun really wouldn't care about the M1's blow out panels.

 

 

I haven't done any work on vehicles larger than tanks and cargo planes. There's been no need in my campaigns and I have other things to do. I doubt the system would scale cleanly, but it would certainly produce better results than the current system.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Or we could go your route of making baseless' date=' false accusations, act like a total jacka$$ for no particular reason, and generally be a jerk. How's that working out for you so far, troll?[/quote']

 

Or we could just make personal attacks against people we disagree with.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I was looking at a few charts, and I think that the key to scaling may be close to already in place. Cross referencing the Vehicle size chart and the Base Size chart gave me an idea that... That the smallest size vechile to comparmentalize is the 8 hex area size, or the minimum base size. This translates to a "standard" 4 hex length. Then looking at the scale table for Mass combat in FH, one sees that the first larger scale up from "Individual" is "Squad", which uses a 1" = 4" scale. Hmmm. perhaps if we look at the default "compartment" size as being one step down the mass combat size scale, so a vehicle in "squad scale" has compartments at "Individual scale". Then you could, for instance, consider a destroyer with a 500 hex area to be somewhere around "Division scale" with the default compartment size as "Regiment scale". Of course, thats WAY to big for compartments on a millitary vessel, but not out of line for civilian vessels like bulk cargo ships. So we need to add a cost (probably as an advantage) to decrease the compartment size relative to the scale of the vehicle.

Then we need more damage allocation,probably a way to resolve secondary damage effects (probably a liberal application of Side effects to work similar to the old Star HEro "Volatile: Limitation) and a way to deal with superstructure damage, which could be handled, to a certain extent, by the Size modifier to damage similar to the mass combat damage resolution.

 

Hmmm.. we have some potential here....

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Please go back to your book. The 20 DEF is 100% coverage, you'd notice in the power list where it gains another 10 DEF in the frontal arc.

I know about the +10 DEF on the front, which Ill agree is egregious. However, and this one will blow you away, just don't hit it in the reenforced front and you dont have to worry about it.

 

 

I have no idea what values the HERO designers would give to other vehicles, given that they provided the IOWA with less defense than the a M1A1, I could assume that lesser tanks actually have higher defenses.

The Bradley on the opposing page has a 14 DEF, so apparantly lesser armored vehicles do indeed predictably have lower DEF.

 

 

 

Already dealt with this idea. The idea of my Aircraftcarrier lugging superhero having to buy special powers to whack a M1A1 is beyond belief.

So basically because you dont think it necessary to buy an extra power, it is therefore beyond belief. Good to know.

 

I suppose next you're going to have me buy Entangle, only to hold my character's morning bowl of Wheaties.

 

Perhaps I should just set the Aircraftcarrier down on top of it....

A sure sign of a weak debater is a need to put words in other people's mouths.

 

 

And just how likely is any of that to occur, and just how often does the Hulk destroy tanks in this method?

How often do you think it should occur? Do you have a point or just endless spew?

 

 

This is getting silly now...

 

Sigh, let's go through it all...

 

from page 176:

 

"{1}Whenever a Vehicle gets an Occupants/Cargo result on its Vehicle Hit Location Table (and sometimes other results), {2}or it suffers a crew casulaties results on an optional effects roll, {3} or it loses more than half it's current BODY, the characters aboard are endangered.

 

I've added the {ref} numbers. Let's go through them shall we?

 

{3} For this to happen to a M1A1 through the front, the attack would have to total an astounding 43 BODY. Looks like the Hulk needs a STR of 215.

 

{2} Page 190 If a Vehicle suffers actual BODY damage in combat, the GM may, if he wishes, roll to see if an "optional effect" of damage occurs as a result."

 

Bolding mine. That means a 31 body attack (STR of 155) attack on average from the front, let's run the charts shall we?

 

Using the Automobile Hit Location charts (there isn't one for tanks) we note that the chance of getting crew casulaties from the optional table is... get ready for it...

 

7.6%

 

Whoop Whoop

 

Edit: Oh, forgot to add that the max crew loss in from this method is a overwhelming 24%.

 

Add an extra Whoop to the above.

 

Edit: I did find the tank section. The actual chance is 4.1% The max crew loss is 12% (not even a full man). Further chances in my post edited

 

Add a fourth Whoop to the above

 

{1} Base chance of this happening (assuming a hit on main body counts as Occupants/Cargo): 25%

 

However please note on page 189 the following:

 

If an Occupants/Cargo result comes up on a vehicle Hit Location table, the damage applies to the Vehicle as normal. Any damage that gets through the Vehicle's defense then applies to the occupant(s).

 

So we still have to get through that 30 DEF front armor if the Hulk is going to damage those crewmen.. And here I thought we could just ignore the armor like you suggested.

I never suggested you could "ignore" the armor. Further, is there a point in there somewhere? There is a chance to harm the crew even thru the DEF, as I said. If it's not enough of a chance to suit you, then change it.

 

Finally you seem to be obsessed with the Abrams tank. It seems that your entire gripe about the vehicle system is hung around the DEF value of a particular vehicle that you don't agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm good with that too. Never said anything to imply otherwise.

 

Woot! you're right about something. Here's a cookie.

Do you know any other notes? I keep hearing the same one over and over again.

 

 

Movie?

 

I didn't watch that movie. I'm talking about the comics.

 

You know, where Hulk smashes tanks. Superman smashes tanks. Cyclops blows the turrets off of tanks... all with a single shot. Heck, I think I have one here with Ms Marvel whacking tanks... looks like it was the villain of the week doing the turret rip with a single claw hit- the same lizards she was beating into the ground.

 

Comic books, you remember those right?

Oh, you mean another form of media that is scripted and plotted by writers, rather than played out in real time by a group of people attempting to entertain themselves?

 

 

 

Given your track record with looking up rules cites...

 

I wouldn't be tossing the term troll around if I was you.

 

What do you know about my "track record"? Approximately not much, so spare me your lame aspersions.

 

When someone comes on the boards and spews vitriol, has nothing but non-constructive criticism to broadcast as loud as possible, and seeks to make their points, if any, by the expedient of being insulting and rude -- someone such as you've shown yourself to be -- I consider that person a troll.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

What do you call it when someone comes into a thread asking "What do you dislike about the Hero System's vehicle rules?" and argues with someone expressing his opinion about just that.

[Dust Raven]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

AAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Sorry, I don't really have time to read through over a hundred posts at this time, and this is just my initial reaction to reading the first 20 or so. Please forgive me if the conversation has impoved since then. I'll ellaborate on my initial reaction after I've read more of the thread.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I know about the +10 DEF on the front' date=' which Ill agree is egregious. However, and this one will blow you away, just don't hit it in the reenforced front and you dont have to worry about it..[/quote']

 

What Hulk care about front? Hulk SMASH.

 

 

 

The Bradley on the opposing page has a 14 DEF, so apparantly lesser armored vehicles do indeed predictably have lower DEF.

 

The Bradley isn't a tank. But I wouldn't expect you to know that, apples and oranges comparsions seem to be your main way of expressing yourself.

 

 

 

So basically because you dont think it necessary to buy an extra power, it is therefore beyond belief. Good to know.

 

Let's see... the ruleset and vehicle construction allows me to go grab the FRAGGING MOON and whack a tank with it- and then tells me I that I can't disable that tank with such an outrageous attack.

 

And then when after pointing that out and expressing my dislike, someone tells me to buy special powers or yet more damage and that will solve all my problems-

 

Yeah, that is beyond belief.

 

 

 

How often do you think it should occur? Do you have a point or just endless spew?

 

Given your track record, it's likely to only have a impact at less than 10% of the time. But I guess you think 4.1% chances are the bunny's warm slippers when fighting a tank regiment.

 

Remind me not to let you have my back in fight.

 

Oh, and by the way....

 

HULK SMASH.

 

Hulk must be able to kill tank per phase. Hulk must be able to kill tank even through front armor in at worst two phases. Hulk must not use smarts. Hulk must not use tricks.

 

HULK SMASH.

 

Nothing... Else... Works....

 

Hulk can't count on the crew driving itself over the cliff. Hulk can't hang around all day whacking tank in the hope that the crew never makes their control roll.

 

HULK SMASH.

 

 

 

There is a chance to harm the crew even thru the DEF, as I said. If it's not enough of a chance to suit you, then change it.

 

You do realize that statement is laughable don't you?

 

 

 

Finally you seem to be obsessed with the Abrams tank. It seems that your entire gripe about the vehicle system is hung around the DEF value of a particular vehicle that you don't agree with.

 

Actually I mention only two vehicles for a single point in a five point post. I could go through the entire TUV and do the same. It would just bore me to tears to do so and serve no point.

 

You've been the one to fix on this single point. For some reason you think I don't have the right to dislike how HERO handles and constructs vehicles.

 

An amazing point of view on your part. I must wonder why you think you have the right.

 

 

Oh, you mean another form of media that is scripted and plotted by writers, rather than played out in real time by a group of people attempting to entertain themselves?

 

This implies that it's impossible.

 

Odd then that I just outlined a vehicle construction method and house rule that allows just that.

 

 

 

What do you know about my "track record"? Approximately not much, so spare me your lame aspersions.

 

I know your track record from this thread. It's the record of a raving fanboy who just can't stand the idea that something in HERO doesn't work for another person.

 

I also know that I won't deal with you any further. Off to my ignore list you go.

[Ndreare]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I regret asking now. It seemsthis was a topic was a flame topic.

[Ben Seeman]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

[Citizen Keen]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Shooting from the hip...

 

I think that the vehicle combat rules work fine, save for the Segment/Phase discrepancy (which I agree is a bit of a problem - especially since character falling and sliding are set up as Segmental). I think the problem is how vehicles are built.

 

I don't see Abram tanks as having that much Body - look at all the delicate machinery inside. They just have a lot of armor. For me, an Abrams is a strong example of a vehicle with a really high def, and only a normal amount of Body. My $.02

[Captain Obvious]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Then we need more damage allocation,probably a way to resolve secondary damage effects (probably a liberal application of Side effects to work similar to the old Star HEro "Volatile: Limitation) and a way to deal with superstructure damage, which could be handled, to a certain extent, by the Size modifier to damage similar to the mass combat damage resolution.

 

Hmmm.. we have some potential here....

 

One of the old 4th Ed FH Companions had some sinking rules for ships that were basically just a new application of the bleeding rules. Perhaps they could also be used for fires, secondary explosions, and the like, with damage control being used to counteract this, using rules similar to Paramedic rolls....

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

One of the old 4th Ed FH Companions had some sinking rules for ships that were basically just a new application of the bleeding rules. Perhaps they could also be used for fires' date=' secondary explosions, and the like, with damage control being used to counteract this, using rules similar to Paramedic rolls....[/quote']

This is the kind of thing I am talking about! Woooo hoooo! I'm all about stealing current mechanics to keep the feel, function and flavor of the system while increasing it's utility. We're getting places

[Guest voodoo54]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Why do you not like them? I am sure it has been considered by many but...

 

I realy like the HERO way of doing vehicles, in fact I like them better than any other system I have played in except maybe the Pure War Gaming Systems.

 

Bringing this up because of this thread

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32414

 

I think the Hero way is great. For me it's just detailed enough since I like using vehicles once in a while but its not a main feature. Its also intenally consistent with the rest of the system. Every tried building vehicles using GURPS? You need a degree in engineering!

[Lord Liaden]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I regret asking now. It seemsthis was a topic was a flame topic.

 

Don't beat yourself up over it, friend. It's often impossible to tell what subject is going to provoke heated controversy. For example, check out my old "Dr. Destroyer vs Takofanes" thread - I never saw that coming.

 

Mind you, IME starting off a topic with "Why don't you like X?" tends to act like an accelerant.

[Ndreare]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I think the Hero way is great. For me it's just detailed enough since I like using vehicles once in a while but its not a main feature. Its also intenally consistent with the rest of the system. Every tried building vehicles using GURPS? You need a degree in engineering!

 

 

I work in Engeneering and Inspection, I those skills DO NOT HELP!!!

[rayoman]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

This is the kind of thing I am talking about! Woooo hoooo! I'm all about stealing current mechanics to keep the feel' date=' function and flavor of the system while increasing it's utility. We're getting places [/quote']

 

The Ultimate Vehicle, page 207 under the heading Other Damage Effects. There are rules using Wounding, Impairing and Disabling and Bleeding for vehicles.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The Ultimate Vehicle' date=' page 207 under the heading [b']Other Damage Effects[/b]. There are rules using Wounding, Impairing and Disabling and Bleeding for vehicles.

 

Nice catch!

[rayoman]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Thank you.

[Dust Raven]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Okay, so what is the arguement here? Looking over things it seems to be primarily between Fox1 and Killer Shrike (two people whom I respect, if not agree with). Fox1 is saying the Vehicle rules suck, because they can't do X. Killer Shrike is saying the Vehicle rules don't suck because they in fact can do X. Fox1 is then saying "not they can't" because of one or two example write ups. Sigh. I really hope I'm reading all that wrong, cuz that's a really poor reason to dislike something. If you don't like a write up, or how one write up interacts with another (particularly one you've created), you are allowed to change either of them, even the official Hero System published one. I'm sure you know this Fox1, so I'm wondering what problems you are having with the actual rules.

[Dust Raven]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

As for my own opinion of the Vehicle rules, I like them. They provide just as much detail and flexibility as a regular character, and use nearly the same rules so it's easy and uncomplicated. Movement is a bit funked up, but then so is movement for characters and everything else in Hero. That's just part of the game and it works.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

As I've said before on these boards, my problem is not with the Hero Vehicle Rules themselves....they work fine, if you know what to do with them. My problem is with many of the published writeups. Oftentimes when writeups from one supplement is put up against a writeup from a different supplement, they don't stand up together. A good example is many of the vehicles writeups for Champions supplements, vs many of the Example Vehicles in the Ultimate Vehicle, vs the Starship writeups in Terran Empire. None of these vehicles are in "scale" with one another so that attempting to do a "cross-genre" campaign that featured a lot of vehicular action would be a nightmare.

 

One simply need only ignore the published examples, unless they are close to what you are trying to simulate. My suggestion is to simply play with the numbers until you get a system that works for your playing style.

[proditor]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

My talking points:

 

Some of the published vehicle write-ups are waaaayyyy wrong. Not just in my opinion, but supportably incorrect against other baselines/weapons in the same book(s) and real world evidence/information.

 

This is not a problem with the system as it has been written. It is a problem with the write-ups.

 

However: For at least 75% of the world who doesn't collectively obsess about the armor properties of Chobham vs. rolled armor plate (Like I do) this is not an issue. They have basic stats that are "close enough for government work" in most cases. They can play and enjoy their games (Which is the whole point really).

 

What would I fix for us more compulsive types?

 

1) Compartmentalization rules or scaling rules. Surprisingly, I kinda liked the fuzion mechanic for vehicles. Yeah, I shouldn't say that out loud, but I remember stating up a slew of UNTIL vehicles for a fuzion campaign and they worked well and elegantly.

 

2) Baselines: And this is harder actually...we know from reports in WW2 that once within a certain range, the 88mm on a Panther will shoot through the front armor of Sherman EVERY SINGLE TIME. We also know that the 75mm on a Sherman will bounce off the front armor of a Panther until it gets much much closer. Guess what? Without turing this into an actual wargame with engagement ranges, fixed damage based on range, etc, there is no easy fix for this. The very mechanic of die rolling means that this is unavoidable. But here's a potential kludge if you really need to model that specific effect accurately. At Ranges of less than X, the Panther gun counts as Penetrating vs all DEF values that are less than Y. Honestly, I do not want that mechanic in the core rules, like ever.

 

3) Perception of PC vs. Tanks. Okay, tanks are nasty mean. But when I hear Ms Marvel is flipping them around like toys, that tells me that the same guys who said she can lift about 15-20 tons on a good day had NO IDEA that tanks in the 70's weighed roughly 60 tons. (M60, 57.3 tons). Yes, Champions is based on comics. But you have to make a clear and decisive decision here. Do you want "realistic" tanks, or do you want comic book/Godzilla tanks? I'd like to compliment Von D-Man on an elegant middle road to this that I would very much like to steal.

 

So that's about it, fire at will (Pun mostly not intended, and why always Will? We're gonna give him a complex....)