Tanks vs Bots(No, this is not a thread of what is more efficient).

Tunnel vision, that's what this forum does.

Addressing the other parts of your OP, I'd rather see the division between Bots and Vehicles be strictly mechanical. There's no reason you can't add big radar dishes to Bots or Tanks, and the same goes for big... anti-radar dishes.

Personally, I think the easiest way to differentiate between Bots and Tanks would be to make Bots more mobile but less survivable, while Tanks are less mobile but more survivable. Mind you "mobile" means "able to traverse a larger range of terrain", not necessarily faster. This way, you can have bots footslogging through mountain passes or up steep cliffs that tanks couldn't. On the other hand, tanks would generally be assaulting through predictable flat terrain.

Another thing I would like to say is that a bot should be able to traverse difficult terrain at the same speed at which Tanks can traverse flat terrain. Otherwise bots end up being inherently underpowered.

I think bots should also have more unique movement options. Stuff like jetpacks, dynamite (to blow their way through cliffs), jumping, freezing liquids to create a bridge, personal teleporter packs, and taking up less space in transports would be good ways to start.

Well tanks are defiantly better at carrying heavier weights.

No matter what Scifi tells you, tracks can support more weight then legs.

Also I apologise for the tunnel.

Uber has already stated there won't be shields in the game.

As I said, the units are in the game, but not playable yet. So I don't know if they hover.

Uber does have plans to have "other things." There's a jumbo unit suggestion thread and uber has already stated they will have 100+ units at launch.

Sounds like you need to do a search before posting.

I know

You "Maybe I'm remembering wrong",well they talk about "Shields, not stealth."

I know aboult the Unit thing, but what can be done to improve Flanking from bots and Assault from Tanks, Radar Stealth, amphibious...

As I said, I'm pretty sure Uber has already stated that stealth won't be in the game.

I also don't think bots need improvements for flanking. They're already pretty good at it.

They can travel rather quickly, and faster than vehicles. That means if bots get ahead of vehicles (or other bots for that matter), there is NOTHING that can be done to stop the bots. If your opponent goes vehicles only, they're in trouble if you attack with a bot force because they can't catch up. That gives you near free roam of your opponent's base.

Maybe you could improve their speed and reduce their health, but I still think they're pretty good where they're at.

I don't think so. they are already very fast, they don't need a speed boost(and health, reduced..ahah..LAB's..ah).
ok they don't need improve to flanking, in flat worlds,w/ no water, for example a moon.
but in a water world w/ a lot of mountains or some other problem w/ terrain.(I know that they made a Spider-like bot)
or in the tanks case,I don't have both Orbital and Air Control, but my enemy is exposed to my tanks, but his tanks can outrange my tanks because of the intel.(I remember a guy losing for harb's when he has Percys because of the lack of intel).
Or maybe he have Holkins in a water planet.

In my opinion tanks should be both larger and faster than bots, but they should also be more expensive, and less flexible with poor handling. Bots can freely move and fire in any direction with much more flexibility, and have almost immediate acceleration, although they would have much slower top speed. Vehicles, on the other hand, would have much higher top speed on suitable terrain, but would be much more restricted about what types of terrain they can effectively traverse. If you want to drive an army all the way across a planet, you should be using vehicles, not bots.

A tank's turret would handle very poorly compared to a bot's short, maneuverable weapons. Limited turret and vehicle turn rate would make a bot able to run circles around a tank. More expensive tanks would mean fewer units with fewer turrets than a comparable cost in bots. But better range, stopping power, and potentially even splash, coupled with better armor and top speed would make tanks dangerous at a distance, and potentially stronger as an independently mobile force, that requires less frequent reinforcement when operating far afield. But driving a force of tanks directly into an army of bots should be a very bad situation for the tanks.

In addition, not all vehicles will be tanks. Tanks are armored units with treads and turrets. Lightly armored or unarmored vehicles with missile systems or autocannons, surface-to-air missile trucks, self-propelled guns, and so on are vehicles, but not really tanks.

Actually tanks are generally very good at handling almost all situations. A modern tank turret can track and accurately fire upon supersonic aircraft; its why we use tanks instead of... Well, any other ground combat unit.

The biggest disadvantage of a modern tank would be its blindzone.

Actually, that could be interesting. Giving tanks a significant blind zone.

Bf3 Tatitcs

Yes, but consider how much an Abrams costs compared to a squad of riflemen. Infantry can deal with practically any type of threat as well, and are much more cost-efficient. A large force of Abrams is monstrously powerful, but considerably less efficient and flexible than an equivalent expenditure in infantry.

MBTs are designed to be able to engage a wide variety of different threats. I think this is mainly done by giving tanks two weapons; not just a tank gun that tracks everything. More like a main gun with variable types of ammunition, as a second .50 cal or other weapons. The result is the MBT's are expensive generalists. Lighter vehicles like Strikers are lightly armored and have anti-tank guided missiles. They are very strong against tanks, but lack the armor and all-purpose weapons. Vulcans and Chaparrals are also lightly armored, but are meant to protect tanks from air units, not fight enemy tanks or infantry.

I don't disagree with anything you have put forth. Now how we can turn that into fun gameplay mechanics is the question.