Re-class the Reaper tank

As of right now, the Reaper from the Heavy Tank Factory is classed as an Assault Tank: http://zero-k.info/Static/UnitGuide#unit-Reaper

I suggest it be re-classed as a Main Battle Tank. A good ol' MBT just sounds a hell of a lot smoother, more intimidating, and all around badass.

The moniker 'Assault Tank' is just forgettable. It's already obvious that the Reaper is an Assault-class unit to begin with!

Thus, a much clearer definition of its role would be Main Battle Tank, as that is precisely what it is -- a unit designed for the frontline, that can both take large amounts of punishment and give plenty of it back with its deadly cannons. MBT's have been the mainstay of player armies in almost every RTS to date. Why not call the Reaper what it is, rather than something boring and unremarkable?

Assault is a term used across all factories to describe a generally slow, high health unit that is effective vs buildings. The whole point of having the same class names across facs is to highlight that they share certain traits. If the class for reapers was renamed to MBT, it wouldn't provide as much information about it's function in comabat.

quote: Why not call the Reaper what it is, rather than something boring and unremarkable?

Because we use "assault" to describe stuff that is tanky, might have problems hitting mobiles in low density but dishes loads of damage against the things it does hit (and that is what Reaper is).

Adding new terms for the same role just makes it harder for people to learn the roles.

Also, "boring and unremarkable" is subjective; I wouldn't consider MBT less boring because nowadays pretty much any tank is MBT.

Give me one person in this entire game, who understands English or not, who does not understand what "Assault Tank" refers to, role-wise.

I have no idea what the "battle" part of Zeus' designation refers to (as distinct from its assault role), or why it's even there.

tl;dr: most every attacking unit in the game "battles" but not all of them "assault".

quote: why the Goliath is classed as a "Very Heavy Tank Buster", not an Assault?

Because it's also an anti-heavy skirm. It could use a better description but "assault anti-heavy skirmisher" doesn't really say what it excatly is, either.

Does anyone actually use or care about the specific unit titles? I mean, if you're new then it's useful to have them, but at that point 'assault' is probably a better descriptor.

"Main battle tank" well... you know it fights stuff. So does everything else. A glaive could be a 'main battle raider'. You're not actually implying anything specific about the loadout of the unit. It sounds like it has at least decent health and weaponry of some kind, which is true, but assault tell you it has amazing health and no better than average damage (for cost). You're arguing for a less informative term.

quote: Riot (AoE fast projectile) Anti-Raider (high ROF Slow beam)

Nope.jpg

OT: If the Zeus precedent says anything, it's that Zeus should be called a (Medium) Assault Walker.

The role descriptions are very important for newbies: there are hundreds of unit names to memorize, so sometimes role/movetype is simply easier.

This is also why bullshit skirmishers are very very bad. Newbie looks up description -> reads "skirmisher" -> thinks that raiders will counter it -> gets face fisted with scissors / firewalkers / wolverines.

So to summarize this thread:

Zeus and Goliath need new class names?

Zeus isn't that good against raiders since being afflicted with unconditional physical weapon inaccuracy.

(my preferred solution to the "how did i assault instahit weapon" conundrum would have been different, but also much harder to code)