Jmaster3265 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 An AT-AT stands for All Terrain-Assault Transport, so in fact you could concider them equal to the Moldy Crow/Millenium Falcon/Imperial Star Destroyer. Since the AT-TE was pre-form of an AT-AT, the function of the AT-AT must be at least similar, the AT-AT is an invasion walker as well as a transport. A rancor could defenity do as much damadge or more like the Ewoks in the Battle of Endor. Have any of you seen a wampa attack a vehicle before, It would be interesting to see the wampa's power vs. a walker, it might actually be the same. Are you sure? if i remember correctly it was All-Terrian-ARMORED Transport. Edit: Found proof =) http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/atat/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Also, in X-Wing "Isards Revenge" a squadron of X-Wings destroyed 4 AT-ATs with only their laser cannons and implied that a single Proton Torpedo could have finished each. You have to remember that at Hoth the rebels only had very outdated weapons for their Snowspeeders and defenses, the only notable defence they had was the Ion Cannon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rok_stoned Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Okay well for those of you who think a rancor could kill a AT-AT consider this: How many of you can destroy a motorcycle with your fists only? (No taking apart, rancors arn't that smart). And on top of that, add two shot guns and two pistols to the bike. And add James Bond (gotta have an experienced pilot) driving the bike. Now add 15 metres between you and the bike; and, you should be dead by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 As per the http://www.starwars.com databanks say, a fully grown rancor can get to 10m tall while an AT-AT is listed at 15.5M. So there is a possibilty that it could inflict some damage, but I think that the laser cannons on the AT-AT would blow that thing to bits in one hit. That listing is incorrect. According to the movies themselfs they appear to be around 23 meters tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabbas WhOr3 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 That listing is incorrect. According to the movies themselfs they appear to be around 23 meters tall. OH MY GOD! You disagree with starwars,com databank! Blasphemy! Quick someone get the holy water and purge this demon from from the forum.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 They (StarWars.com) also claimed that the Executor was only 8,000 m long too, then 12,600 m, which really was just a change in the unit used for the 8,000 meters to 8,000 miles (which is 12,600 meters). Guess what, they did some better research and measurements some time in the third quarter of last year, and got to 19,000 meters, which is about 1,500 meters too much, but a hell of alot closer to the truth. Something I've known for about 6-7 years now, and others even longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Starr Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think it would be more original if they put a krayte dragon on the tatooine map if you do not mind me suggesting. Rancors I would expect to be on a more harsh planet like Dathomir. Though I myself think they are somewhat overpowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Krayts would have been much better indeed. It's actually big enough (or atleast the ancient ones can be) to knock an AT-AT down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmaster3265 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think it would be more original if they put a krayte dragon on the tatooine map if you do not mind me suggesting. Rancors I would expect to be on a more harsh planet like Dathomir. Though I myself think they are somewhat overpowered. They probably will if you remb while you were looking at the loading map for Tatooine you saw a short description of the planet. And if you noticed all the creatures it mentioned were in that map. Tuskens, Rancors, Sarlaccs, all except the dragon which might be shown and in the full version. Although it wasn't mentioned in the creatures list at the official site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rok_stoned Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 IMHO, the rancor should be replaced by a rancor becase a rancor, in my opinion, should be easy to kill by normal tanks multiple AT-STs; also, if they change it to krayt dragon, it would be okay to keep the stats the same way and maybe on dathomir they could have many (severely nerfed) rancors and (maybe a matriarch one). Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gswift Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Sure, the rancor is too resistant to blasters, however the AT-AT is geatly overfeared. The legs are surely resistant to blaster bolts, but it's likely they are not very strong, otherwise a small cable wouldn't take them down. Someone argued that the legs must be strong, however I ask you to stand the core of you toilet paper roll on end on your desk. Push down on it and it will take great weight, push on it's side and it crumples easily. Another person said that the advanced metals would be stronger than steel. Have you seen what a Stealth Bomber is made of? Composites. Graphite composites are light and strong, but can't take physical damage. They are brittle. A simple hammer will make short work of composite structures. The periodic table is what it is, and I don't think the Star Wars universe is so different from ours. The legs of a walker are also laden with moving parts and joints, and they are long. Long, thin supports are easy to break. The walker is an all-terrain transport, designed to work on many worlds. It's not an indestructable behemoth. It's just a little much for the blasters on a speeder, or anything smaller. Walkers seem to be quite nimble for their size, supporting my theory that they are constructed lightly. This must be a good debate. It's drawn more interest than most other threads. I must ask why the walker is thought to be so strong. I would think that a tank would be smaller but stonger than an armored transport. Does that not make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boc120 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I'm pretty sure that our periodic table rarely, if ever, applies to the Star Wars Universe. They are always talking about things like Tibanna gas, and plastisteel, or transparisteel, and a bazzillion other random minerals that each planet mines for whatever reason. Authors just make up a new one when it fits their need. I'm all for it though, there are a lot of planets in the Star Wars galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Alec Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 AT-ATs are the strongest semi-artillery pieces in the galaksy. But, as someone here pointed out, a toiletpaper roll snaps easily if pushed on the side, but strong if you stand on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi3112 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I agree with boc120, I haven't seen any material that comes even close to bacta or kolto. Unless any of you have seen some sort of healing fluid. I bet that would put medics out of business real soon, so they might just keep the fluid a secret. I know I would. Now AT-ATs are extremely tough. Quite honestly they are the most powerfull thing seen on the ground. Rancors may be tough, but they are still nothing compared to an AT-AT. A single shot from an AT-AT should be more than enough to kill a Rancor (unless it can survive with a really big hole in it's body), and the AT-AT in the game even fires 2 bolts at once. Now a Rancor is not nearly as armored as a shield generator, and in ESB, at maximum firepower the rebel shield goes down in 1 shot, and in the game, the Rancor only loses half it's health. Besides the Rancor will be kicked by the AT-AT when it comes within melee contact. Rancor on it's back, AT-AT walks on, steps on Rancor and there you have it, 1 crushed Rancor. Rancors may be powerfull, but an AT-AT is even stronger. And an AT-TE would be even stronger against one, due to the shorter legs. At some points the AT-TE is better then an AT-AT. Besides a Crayt Dragon would be more fitting to Tatooine, the may not be as high as an AT-AT, but they are longer in the head to tail. And they are a lot stonger than a Rancor. They eat Banthas and I doubt a bantha fits in a Rancor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedge2211 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 We still have Luke yelling, "that armor's too strong for blasters!" Plus there was that sequence of a Rebel turret firing a ginormous blaster bolt that struck an AT-AT in the knee (the weakest point of the leg) and did no visible damage. The things are strong--certainly not invincible, but very strong against conventional weapons. Certainly they're much stronger than a rancor; and much bigger, too, if you just watch the Return of the Jedi scene in Jabba's dungeon and the Battle of Hoth, watching Luke for scale. The door that slams down on the rancor's head is probably approximately equivalent to an AT-AT's leg squishing it, and the high-grade blasters on the Imperial Walker would probably obliterate the rancor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalamarS@ Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 I guess my issue was more around the fact that hitting with Veers special ability of "Maximum Firepower" only took it down halfway. It can blow and entire building off the face of a planet, but the mighty Rancor will take three shots. :-) Seems a bit of tuning is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalamarS@ Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 And no, I didn't intentionally send his AT-AT after the Rancor. You see who wins the race of a Rancor chasing an AT-AT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gswift Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 And no, I didn't intentionally send his AT-AT after the Rancor. You see who wins the race of a Rancor chasing an AT-AT. Yeah, that sucks. You're right about the blasterproof rancor being a little much. I know what you mean about the rancor outrunning AT-AT's. It's as annoying as the tornado outrunning large groups of infantry because they get tangled up with each other and the ones in back just stand there or run in the wrong direction. At least there's a chance to shoot the rancor, or hunt it down for revenge after it breaks up an attack. I live in Kansas, and I've never heard of a tornado that lasts for a half hour or more. I guess we should be gratefull that it doesn't travel faster around the map! It almost makes it stupid to make heavy use of infantry. I wonder if the map in the demo is actually used in the full version? I bet it's not. We'll see in three days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.