Job/Role daydreaming

[Legion88]

No, they don't. In real life, no one is there to "take hits".

And this is wrong. Every unit supposed to engage directly with the enemy is also supposed to "take hits".

And a tank is sturdier and deals far more damage than someone with a machine gun.

You are mixing scales. One tank is at least a troop of soldiers and in the scale of platoons and companies you can see that infantery is superior than tanks in urban and covered environment, while tanks are superior in plain fields.
It's different styles of tanking and different fields where they outplay the other.

As for your example, the split is made in range and the mobility, not the damage they can cause. A bow does not inherently deals more damage than a sword, its just much much safer to kill someone at long range, especially since you don't respawn.

As i said above, it depends on the scale you look at it.
Also it is more likly that an arrow deals damage or wounds than a sword.

That's it ! If you want more people playing tanks, create a permadeath ! Everyone will want to survive above all ! /jk

I would think that disableing the raise ability of healers could be a nice mechanic indeed.
Raises are to powerful.

In the end, the role repartition has nothing to do with how real life works. A dagger does not deal more damage than a 2-handed Axe or Sword. And let's not talk about bare-handed fight, when you have people with guns.

That's right.

It seems we are not so different but are taking different scales and angles as point of view.

[kikix12]

As i said above, it depends on the scale you look at it.
Also it is more likly that an arrow deals damage or wounds than a sword.

I'll pass on discussing the rest and I'll respond to Gemina later...but this...

Arrows are FAR inferior to swords in terms of damage. Arrows literally have only range advantage over any melee weapons. Even a pocket knife is more deadly than an arrow in fact. Heck, even an ARROW used in melee is more lethal than arrow shot with a bow thanks to accuracy and consistent power behind it.

Arrows were used in real life battle as more of a "we'll shoot a rain of thousand arrows, maybe they'll kill a few knights and scare the heck out of the rest". Arrows are nigh useless against any metal armor, for example. You absolutely cannot kill anyone in heavy armor by shooting arrows at them. Ever.

Now, crossbows are in a bit of a better position. Note the "bit", since most crossbows were still too weak to compare to a sword or spear or axe in their lethality.
So yes, bows and arrows had their place, but it was not a place of a rain of death as much as a method to break the lines and instill panic of the enemy. Even horses could continue galloping with several arrows stuck over their bodies, and that's only for the light cavalry, since heavy ones had armors as well.

[Reynhart]

Every unit supposed to engage directly with the enemy is also supposed to "take hits".

No, every unit supposed to engage directly is supposed to not die. No one stays in front of bullets like a tank does in front of auto-attacks. Video game mechanics do not apply in real life.

Oh and by the way, from your own logic, every melee DPS should wear the same armor as tanks. Having a front line job in leather when plate is available is stupid.

Also it is more likly that an arrow deals damage or wounds than a sword.

Arrow does shit on plate armor, unless your archer is Legolas and can hit joints...

[Ameela]

No, they don't. In real life, no one is there to "take hits".