d5c Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 i do not think it should be that hard to take down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLocke Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 1st, "no" and "it's good the way it is" are the same answer. 2nd...in BF1 it's too easy to take down with a tow cable, the rocket's are average, but nothing else does damage. (OK mines and time bombs do, but it's rare for someone to get that close.) In BF2 the speeders finally do blaster damage, but overall it's too easy to take down. I'd like something in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Now I can see why this guy was banned. "NO" it shouldn't be easier to take down because it is suppose to be tough to take down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Agreed, they're meant to be hard to take down. I can't see why he was banned, I looked at his posts and his only crime seems to be that he is an idiot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerted Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Agreed, they're meant to be hard to take down. I can't see why he was banned, I looked at his posts and his only crime seems to be that he is an idiot...Idiots shouldn't be banned. Someone needs to be at the bottom to make the other people look smart... This thread could use a much better name, but there are so many other badly named threads. I don't think they are too hard to take down. In fact, I think they are to easy to take down. In the movies, only one was taken out and that was by a hero. The At-At's armor should be increased and its speed decreased (or at least something to counter the extra armor). I'm not talking about how easy it is to use tow cables, I'm talking about a units ablity to damage the AT-AT from the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Well, it depends on how you attack the AT-AT. But, it is much easier to take down an AT-AT in BFII, which shouldn't be that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSR Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Thats true... it still took me ages to use the snowspeeder though as i used to sit in the back and let the Ai do the driving, but thankfully ive matered it now, exept for the odd flying into the floor problem every now and then. Still, the AT-At is good enough as it is, as its designed to be a tough piece of kit and not a flimsy walking thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLocke Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Well, it depends on how you attack the AT-AT. But, it is much easier to take down an AT-AT in BFII, which shouldn't be that easy. I also hate the fact that it became a one man vehicle. No co-pilot. Overall BF2 made it too easy. I don't mind that speeders do some damage, but now they do too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoidAndroid Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 aww man, I accidently voted "yes"... anywho, I completely agree, the AT-AT should not be easier to take down, in fact I think it's fine the way it is, good armor, lasers and rockets deal some damage, but nothing of signifigance (unless you get him on the neck) and it clearly has the power to destroy all the turrets before they get a chance to aim at his neck and deal any real damage. These things will wear it down in time, but the only immediate threat is the snow speeders. Which have been weakened, so one rocket will blast them out of the sky, heck I rarely see a successful tripping of an AT-AT anymore. I also don't like the fact that speeders now have high powered lasers, I mean in the movies the lasers were ineffective, in the game they should be as well (exept maybe targeting the neck deals slightly more damage.) Speaking of snow speeders, has anyone noticed that they removed the tail gunners lasers? He only has cables now, I know it's only a minor gripe, but I loved spraying infantry with those lasers (and sometimes actually getting a kill.) and yeah, it sucks that it is now a one man vehicle, I wonder why they got rid of the co-pilot position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I also hate the fact that it became a one man vehicle. No co-pilot. Overall BF2 made it too easy. I don't mind that speeders do some damage, but now they do too much. It's like 5 to 10 hits to the neck will take it down, totally untrue to the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerted Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 It's like 5 to 10 hits to the neck will take it down, totally untrue to the movies. Not to attack you, but where in the movies did someone see a rocket hit the At-At's neck? I can't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLocke Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Not to attack you, but where in the movies did someone see a rocket hit the At-At's neck? I can't remember. Sorry, I think he meant 5 to 10 hits from a speeder's blaster. The fact that BF1 was more true to the movies in the sense that speeders didn't do any damage except for towing the ATAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Not to attack you, but where in the movies did someone see a rocket hit the At-At's neck? I can't remember. I said, in Battlefront II, 5 to 10 hits on the neck from a turrets blaster would take an AT-AT down, which is totally untrue to the movies as blasters aren't meant to do anything to it. You just misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerted Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Oh, yea sorry, I was thinking rocket attacks. I haven't tried to take the At-At down with a turret yet. If its only takes 5-10 hits from a turret, the turrets are to powerful or the At-At needs more health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I'm talking about a half to fully charged Dish turret, it's the AT-ATs that are too weak, AT-STs don't take much more to take down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fate's Decision Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 (aaaaaaaaaa too many unnecissary quotes!!!! it burns and stings!!! make it stop!!!) I admit, they are much tougher to destroy in BFII than in the original, it's even pretty easy to hit the snowspeeders from inside the ATAT if your timing's good enough. And in SBF, even if you did managed to hit one, it still wouldn't kill it. [note: this site's Ads by Gooooooogle thing is freakishly annoying. It's like the opposite of advertising. It's like, I reeeeeeally hate jeeves right now, and I don't want to have to get rid of him every time he pops up. That iPod is a fake.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLocke Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Speaking of snow speeders, has anyone noticed that they removed the tail gunners lasers? He only has cables now, I know it's only a minor gripe, but I loved spraying infantry with those lasers (and sometimes actually getting a kill.) I never noticed that, haven't been a co-pilot for one in BF2 yet. Yeah, I loved when I got a hit with the cable, my pilot would be circling, I'd fire near the walker's feet to take out any spawns before they could get a rocket off. That would really suck without that laser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetTrooper13 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Oh stop whining. If you think it's too hard to take down play as the Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clonearcman Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 I don't think it should be weaker necessarily. I think that the head rotation shouldnt be so wide. Its kinda easy to shoot down speeders most of the time. AI does it to me unless I get real close in the T-47. Half the time I crash. Thats not really considering it making it weaker is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 actually, in BF1, if youre in that big white turret, then you can take down the ATAT if you keep firing, i got two of them like that (and also tank buster award ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSR Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 thats an anti infantry turret. and this is an old thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.