Crusader design: Classic VS New, Whic Options

[BLGMGL]

Just a simple poll. Wondering which of two Crusader designs you like more. It's only design voting. I'm not talking about the performance, firepower, hovering ability or whatsoever. Just a design!

Personally, Me gusta classic boxy design of Crusader.



This post has been edited by blgmgl: 29 Nov 2012, 6:10

[SpiralSpectre]

New sleek design hands down.

[(USA)Bruce]

I personally think the old and boxy type was better but you must remember that;

-The hover abilty is whats diffrent
-The hover ability on boxy crusader was implemented in shw
-The new cruasders are "state of the art" becuase In Rotr its around 2050s ish....

[ArsenalXA4]

Classic Crusader = Old and Busted

Hover Crusader = New Hotness

'Nuff said...

[Warpath]

Ok, though I kinda liked the old design cause they look more ruged and tougher I can't imagine how the old crusader could even hover a few inches of the ground and ROTR takes place in the 2040's so you could expect they either replaced or upgraded it, so it's like what they say: Out with the old and in with the new.

[H3adSh00t]

Ok, though I kinda liked the old design cause they look more ruged and tougher I can't imagine how the old crusader could even hover a few inches of the ground and ROTR takes place in the 2040's so you could expect they either replaced or upgraded it, so it's like what they say: Out with the old and in with the new.

But sometimes Old is the Gold...

[TheCeLL]

I liked the old design because it looked more like... well, a classic tank.

The new design is cool and looks high tech, but I liked the boxy style of the old one, and it just looks more reliable.

Though, the new hovering mechanism is very cool, and I liked the ROTR style of hover better than the Shockwave one.

[piratep2r]

I honestly just don't like the new crusader design very much, but it is sort of for a bunch of reasons.

However, it ain't my mod, the mod is amazing, and I am getting it for free...

[ArsenalXA4]

Honestly I only use Hover Crusaders as part of my ACRs when on naval maps. Saves space in the LCACs (Hovercraft). That and I find they tend to die too quickly for my tastes.

[Cobretti]

Actually, the ROTR Crusader Tank is the original design as per the concept art, hover ability and all:


I have to say I like this more futuristic design better. The original Crusader looked like a low-detail rip of an Abrams tank.

[BLGMGL]

Actually, the ROTR Crusader Tank is the original design as per the concept art, hover ability and all:


I have to say I like this more futuristic design better. The original Crusader looked like a low-detail rip of an Abrams tank.

The concept is called Leopard. It seems that the original Generals or Zero Hour devs abandoned the idea of hover tank.

[ArsenalXA4]

Given how the dev team didn't have everything they originally planned to implement in Generals I think they went with the Lo-Budget Abrams as a compromise.

[Guest_Vintorez_*]

Actually, the ROTR Crusader Tank is the original design as per the concept art, hover ability and all:


I have to say I like this more futuristic design better. The original Crusader looked like a low-detail rip of an Abrams tank.

I thought the Paladin was more or less the game equivalent of the Abrams tank - it looks more similar. The Crusader to me looked more like a British Challenger II tank if anything?

Does anyone know what real life tank the Crusader was based on?

[TheCeLL]

I think the real life crusader is more or less its own original design.

[Zeke]

afaik, the box crusader is based on the pre 2a6 leopard 2 (hence the name avleopard).

[__CrUsHeR]

I prefer the new Crusader, he conveys modernity and technology is unique and very cool.

In the beginning it was hard to get used to the new Crusader.

[Lobo Solitario]

The new Crusader. It's different and interesting, and it gives me reasons to use it even if I'm fielding Paladins.

[Guest_Vintorez_*]

afaik, the box crusader is based on the pre 2a6 leopard 2 (hence the name avleopard).

Thanks - so EA decided to give the USA a unit based of a German tank? That's a little weird.

[__CrUsHeR]

The United States sometimes incorporates foreign technologies to develop their own weapons, the Abrans is very similar to Leopard and both tanks were developed in a project of co-operation between Germany and the USA in the past.

In the Generals the two countries may have made a new partnership to jointly develop the Crusader.

[ArsenalXA4]

The United States sometimes incorporates foreign technologies to develop their own weapons, the Abrans is very similar to Leopard and both tanks were developed in a project of co-operation between Germany and the USA in the past.

In the Generals the two countries may have made a new partnership to jointly develop the Crusader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbt70

Short and skinny, the project went over budget and the Germans withdrew in 1969. The Americans continued development until Congress cancelled the project in 1971. The two countries also tried different guns for the project: The Rhinemetall 120mm Smoothbore gun and the American XM-150E5 Gun/Launcher, a longer 152mm weapons system similar to the XM-81 found in the M-60A2 Starship and the M-551 Sheridan. Of course we all know which gun was used, although first issue M-1 Abrams tanks wound up fitted with the M-68 105mm rifle from the M-60A1/A3 because the 120mm guns were short in supply at the outset of the '91 Gulf War.

[(USA)Bruce]

Europe WAS Fully under USA protection and "techniclly" controll to ZH lore....

[X1Destroy]

Russian and Chinese are still using the T-80 and Type 59 so why the hell does Americans have to use alien's magical hover tank technology? I'm glad that the beta crusader got kill off

I'm not saying that the new crusader is ugly, but if the beta crusader wasn't existed in the first place then the old crusader model will be remade to look much better just like the paladin instead of being replaced by a completely different model.

Would be good if the old crusader will be given to one of the USA generals in 2.0.

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 5 Dec 2012, 15:13

[__CrUsHeR]

I do not see this as an alien technology or something impossible of conceiving, although it is hightech.

If you think you will see that there is an logic to this improvement, we see:

- The vehicle could theoretically cross a minefield or a hostile area without the risk of damage. (on ​​the game logic does not apply for balancing issues).

- The vehicle could transpose aquatic areas at a speed considerably.

- The vehicle could move with greater speed and theoretically would be highly maneuverable.

However there are indeed some 'problems' if we think from the perspective of realism:

- The cost would be very high.

- The level of armor would be reduced to allow greater performance.

- It would be possible to conceive of an engine capable of suspending many tons?

However this is just a game without a true commitment to reality.

[X1Destroy]

The Hover Crusader is an ineffective, expensive and fragile prototypes that would never be massproduced. Why do we have to replace the old but still good ones with this thing? I'm not talking about realism here, just about the current economic state and technology level of the USA in ROTR will make the appearance of massproduced magical hover tanks an impossibility.

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 5 Dec 2012, 18:16

[MARS]

The US are actually back in good economic shape by the the Russo-European War breaks out. In fact, it's been stated in the Thorn-update that their situation improved considerably as early as 2033, with the creation of the NAU so their post-GLA recession doesn't really factor into this very much. If anything, it's actually the reason why they got rid of many old Crusader tanks in the first place, as you'll learn from a dedicated NAU update later down the road.