1. Poison Gas, Wells had a bit of a fetish for that.
2. Cantankerous nature...make them prone to breakdown, and prone to
going boom from boiler explosions when hit.
3. Slow, if RL WWI tanks are any guide..they aren't going to move very
fast, be able to carry much armor (it should stop rifle and MG fire,
but anything heavier is going to be trouble) and bog down easily,
especially the heavier models.
4. They should have a victorian "whimsy gothic" visual influence? (I
don't know HOW you'd do that, it's sort of one of those if "I'd know
it if I saw it".)
Jason
One thing I would consider would be the affect of all that burning
coal on the crew inside especially if any of the pipes leaked due to
mechanical failure or enemy fire.
On point 3 I may have to invent some reason for being able to carry
enough armor so they can be truly worthy of the name Ironclad, not
just tin can, it will probably include some sort of improved coal. Of
course this would make fueling and resupply a big problem (some
scenarios are just writing themselves).
And for your final point I'm thinking maybe spire-like observation
towers.
On Feb 13, 9:12 pm, Jason Weiser <jason.wei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I may have to let you have a look at my Russian Civil War Armor books...WWI
> tanks were dangerous, cramped, with poor air and often, crews left vomiting
> and gasping for air..They were thrown about like marbles in a tin can...and
> often were badly injured. In short...throw coal in with the associated
> Carbon Monoxide? I see a lot of crews asphyxiating....that could be fun and
> interesting in it's own right...as a doomed land ironclad charges the enemy
> fanatically before they succumb to the choking fumes!
>
> Jason
>