1) Glazed terracotta on tanks would have the same durability as normal terra on Medium tanks Only. This allows tank turrets to be competitive
2) Tanks would have a reduced redstone need of 3% per ground vehicle in general.
The vehicles in this suggestion would replace the current vehicles

Light Tanks: Would be a maximum of 200 blocks, and may have an IFV gun or an alternative IFV gun that does AP style damage (to combat banner forts).
Medium Tanks: Light tanks would be reduced to a maximum of 250 blocks and have a tank gun + A machine gun.
Heavy Tanks: Heavy Tanks would have a maximum block count of 350 and a heavy tank gun.

The thinking is such that the Light Tank would replace the IFV and allow smaller nations to Field and IFV without needing a tank. However, it could be easily countered by a medium tank. A mix of medium and heavy tanks would be useful, however the Heavy tanks wouldn't have tank turrets therefore the medium tanks could counter them if used correctly.

I think a downsize of tanks will increase enjoyability at Sieges, especially at crowded sieges like Kaima I've noticed Heavy tanks pretty much tank up an entire chunkish, and even with a normal Tank, the sizes are quite absurd. These sizes means pvpers and gunners have a lot less room to play when there is a lot of tanks pulled out and increases risk of dragging or running someone over. Smaller tanks = more space to play for both pvpers and movecraft which is a net win IMO.

I know another criticism is going to be light tanks (IFV replacement) being able do counter banner forts, I think the AP ability of these tanks should do around 1/2 the damage of a regular AP cannon. However it allows the Attackers to use something that from my understanding is easier used from the fort. And it keeps combat dynamic. I see banner forts as a rather crude form of turf war style gameplay to avoid damage in the open. This is understandable, however it gets to a point as I saw at Livland, Kaiama, Dunlace and Brig that banner forts become so complex or used so wierdly that they can pretty much counter movecraft without the enemy using it. Now remember a LT with AP cannon, cannot have an IFV gun, meaning it can either bypass the banner fort or damage exposed players. This means your idea to counter the IFV without pulling movecraft depends on the type piloted. But it allows multiple light tanks to force the enemy to pull out heavy/medium tanks.

The Reduction of tank sizes also makes losing a movecraft session even less important, I think the points should be scaled down to reflect this. Speaking to some PvPers, a lot of their fear to pull movecraft is losing points and achieving little. I think movecraft should act as a secondary support objective (i.e. banner control/suppression) then a means to end itself (farming points). This might encourage movecraft shy nations to compete a bit more knowing the vehicles themselves are cheaper and will drop less points.

Lastly, people are going to pull out the trucks can be used with cannons card. While I accept this is factual, I don't believe this should be the case. I feel moterised artillery shouldn't play the same roles as tanks. I find the fact they can compete in movecraft regions in a similar capacity to tranks evidence that the system is broken. Instead, they shouldn't be able to operate the gun in DC, and should have a movement delay after firing.

P.S. any arguments about having to scrap tanks/or design new ones are redundant. Staff have every few years released an update that requires a process of upgrades/reprinting. This could be solved by a temporary decrease in print costs or times. This itself is not a good argument.

3

4