Vanguards and Infernos occasionally get stuck in battlefield wreckage. A bot APC with limited offensive capability, Vanguard/Inferno level armor and a payload of t1/t2 bots could offer an interesting improvement to invasion dynamics. ps: upsidedown face, apc is too short for the forum search feature.
And what would stop the apc from getting stuck? I say no. If the apc is a dropship that can travel between planets, i think there could be a place for it, possibly.
Multi-unit transports make it a lot harder for the opponent to tell what is inside. Why not use the air transports that are already in the game?
Reason #67 to use custom google search instead of forum search; i.e. google "site:forums.uberent.com apc" but i'm not chastising you for 'not searching' - I actually dig the idea. I think. edit: Especially if it's a fast mofo that gets 'em from a to b quickly for emergencies. But if it gets blown up, you lose everything inside.
Sort of needs a "No" option. I'm not against the idea in general, but I don't think it adds anything to the battlefield. This makes sense for air or planetary transports, but a ground transport isn't really needed.
I've been supporting the idea of drop pods for months. That's a different topic than what OP brought up though.
new guy making his first thread eventualy messed up poll ... happened to me aswell ... soooo can we maybe be a bit less prejudice ? ...
Apcs are a nice idea and addition they would make troop transport easier and make the war even more mobile
I think this could be an interesting advanced vehicle. You just build the APC which comes loaded with 6 Doxen and they pop out when the APC dies/reaches target.
I hate it when people create polls that don't have "No" as an option. For that matter, Uber should just revoke polling permission for standard users, restrict them to Planetary Vanguards or whatever they named our community's trustees. The capslock isn't helping my good humor. But I've digressed. This doesn't really make a whole lot of sense in my mind either in terms of gameplay or physics. If you can fit... Say, 6 bots inside of an APC presumably about the same size as those 6 bots, why not just stick the bots' weapon systems on the APC and have a lighter, faster, more heavily armored unit capable of firing while in transit. But nobody cares about realism in this game, so let's set that to the side. In terms of gameplay, a land-based APC wouldn't confer anything except a way to make bots go faster by adding a micro barrier, and I think most people will at least acknowledge that Planetary Annihilation requires a significant degree of micro, if not that it is plagued by micro. Pelicans add a unique dynamic by giving units a different means of moving, same goes for the Astreus. An APC, considering that the most survivable unit in the game, the Vanguard, is squashed under an equivalently priced DPS unit in a matter of seconds, wouldn't be very useful for giving bots increased survivability, only speed. Then you might as well use the Pelican, which is a hell-ton faster, or better yet a Teleporter. Teleporters are really cheap for what they do, it isn't unwise to have a Teleporter in every major base if you need it, so fast response teams can fast-respond, at least late-game. So I guess the counter-argument would be the vulnerability to AA, and how having say... A hover APC would be useful. I guess I can see that, but if the enemy has AA coverage of an area, that means either fighters or AA towers. Generally, if an enemy has Fighters or Towers in an area, they have intelligence coverage of that area, which means that a hover/tracked APC would be detected and subsequently exterminated with extreme prejudice. So ultimately I would vote that it doesn't really concern Uber. The Pelicans, Stargates, Astereuseseuses and soon (I hope) the Unit Cannon scratch this itch with sufficiency.
