Heavyarms Posted December 12, 2001 Posted December 12, 2001 It should allow you to garrison units in assault mechs or mech destroyers, then be able to garrison them inside the transport with it only taking one unit to garrison in the transport. THink of it this way: if one at-at is carrying troops, the troops don't leave, do they? The answer is no, they don't. Thye would just patiently sit in there.
Guest IdLe_WorkeR Posted December 12, 2001 Posted December 12, 2001 You CANNOT load full, say, AT-ATs in air transports, as the # units embarked thing is exceeded, but you CAN load full AT-ATs in sea transports, eventhough the unit limit is wildly exceeded?!?
Heavyarms Posted December 12, 2001 Author Posted December 12, 2001 no, that's wrong, and what are you talking about? I'm talking about units garrisoned in a air transport, not a sea boat!
duder Posted December 13, 2001 Posted December 13, 2001 Originally posted by WC_heavyarms It should allow you to garrison units in assault mechs or mech destroyers, then be able to garrison them inside the transport with it only taking one unit to garrison in the transport. THink of it this way: if one at-at is carrying troops, the troops don't leave, do they? The answer is no, they don't. Thye would just patiently sit in there. that all depends on assault mechs having toilet facilities. boom boom :D :rolleyes:
Heavyarms Posted December 13, 2001 Author Posted December 13, 2001 Hits head on table, falls out of chair* Geez, some really dumb posts, anyone have anything to post that is SERIOUS?
Guest Stan|SCN Punk Posted December 13, 2001 Posted December 13, 2001 See, take it this way. You shouldn't be able to garrison an AT-AT (which is obviously much larger than an air transport) anyway, but then LA would need to screw around with code since the AT-AT is derived from probably a cavalry archer/battering ram in AOK, both had the ability to load onto boats. Also, the concept of a land transport was new in the AOK expansion pack, so unless LA wants to really screw around with codes, which they don't, they will leave it as it is. And btw, the stupidity of your posts by far exceed theirs .
Heavyarms Posted December 13, 2001 Author Posted December 13, 2001 Stan, here's a hint: don't spark fights here. And, from the Tech stuff you just said, well, they really didn't use the battering ram for the at-at. It holds more units, but that also isn't the reason. There is also a mech destroyer, which carries a unit as well. Also, Stan, the scale debate hsa been debated numerous times. You just keep stating the same thing about scale. If we made a AT-AT as big as a trooper, would that make you feel better? We could also make the air transport as large as the entire screen, and that is all you would see. That make you feel better? And why are you stating I am posting loads of crap when I don't? You reading every single one of my posts? Give me 30 things I have said that say I make stupid posts, and that they exceed some of the things everyone else says. Pm them to me.
Influenza Posted December 14, 2001 Posted December 14, 2001 Calm down, WC. No matter what you feel about the scale of units, you have to admit that an AT-AT should not be able to fit in an Imperial Landing Craft. There's no debating that. It's insincere to the Star Wars universe. You need to realize that the scaling of the game is independent of SW reality. It's just a way to represent the SW universe in an easier-to-manage style. If the designers had made the AT-AT the size of a trooper, its power would remain unchanged, because size and power are not related in this RTS. Changing the size of the AT-AT does not and should not change its fundamental characteristics, i.e. big, slow, and bad-ass. It also does not change the fact that AT-AT's shouldn't fit in a transport. Now I know you're going to bring up that only 5 troopers can fit in a transport, when in SW reality an entire legion will fit. Well, that again is just part of the scaling. One Stormtrooper in GB is as powerful as an entire squad in SW reality (a squad of stormies couldn't destroy a building in a million years using just their blasters, yet a SWGB trooper will eventually do it). So instead of being able to transport XX number of "reality-troopers", the designers scaled down the space to 5 "super-troopers." So you can fit fewer, more powerful troopers in the same space. The net firepower is virtually the same in "SW reality." But the same scaling rules do *not* apply to boolean values, i.e. true/false characteristics. AT-AT's cannot be transported by Landing Craft, so we can say that they are "transportable = false;" in coding terms. Scaling the AT-AT does not change the boolean value; it stays false no matter what the model size (this probably doesn't make any sense at all unless you're a programmer). Here's another example to chew on. How would the Battle of Hoth turned out if General Veers had simply built an air transport and dropped his AT-AT's off next to the Power Generators? The Rebs had no air-defenses, so there's no way they could have stopped it. Wouldn't that have been lame? So you see, some of us highly value SW accuracy. And loading 5 AT-AT's into an air transport, sadly, has 0% accuracy .
captain_drake Posted December 14, 2001 Posted December 14, 2001 well i was surpriesd when my assutlt mech fit in the troop transport and i was a little mad over the fact that they could not fit in the air trans but thats life
Heavyarms Posted December 15, 2001 Author Posted December 15, 2001 well, the rebel transport... the rebel one... eh? what am I saying???? I thought that it was bigger, because I remember they are at least big enough to carry AT-ST's and AT-PT's. I guess you guys are right about overall scale, but what does THAT have to do about what I just stated?
Slimmer Posted December 15, 2001 Posted December 15, 2001 Air Transports don't get the additional carrying capacity from the upgrade. I am sure this will all be fixed when they come out with an expansion after Episode 2 is released in the Movies. LucasArts is all about marketing and making a money. I am sure this has been in the works if they only spent 1 year and 6 months developing the SWGB game. Plus it makes sense Episode2 release date is about 6 months after the release of SWGB. So we will have to wait until then. I just read the post about the wookie carbon bug and all who didn't believe must feel really dumb when the patch came out.
Guest SirBlack Posted December 15, 2001 Posted December 15, 2001 That upgrade is only supposed to apply to Naval units. Now as to the original point of this thread... I agree with Heavyarms that a mech with units already in it should only take up one spot in a transport. However I also think that transports should work on a class based system where the transport would be able to haul lower numbers of larger units. For example: a transport would be able to take 10 troopers or 5 mechs or 1 assualt mech.
Heavyarms Posted December 15, 2001 Author Posted December 15, 2001 well, I also have another Idea, like what black said... The 1 assault mech should be used, and be able to carry foot soldiers. Maybe 5-10 mech destroyers and assault mechs, and 8 heavy weapons and 20 troops. Sound reasonable to anyone?
Guest Stan|SCN Punk Posted December 16, 2001 Posted December 16, 2001 It is beyond the ability of the engine to be able to hold 20 of a certain type of unit and 8 of another type. It just isn't possible.
Heavyarms Posted December 16, 2001 Author Posted December 16, 2001 Originally posted by Stan|SCN Punk It is beyond the ability of the engine to be able to hold 20 of a certain type of unit and 8 of another type. It just isn't possible. Are you an ensemble studios employee or what? Unless you are, don't say you know what it can and cannot do.
Chessack Posted December 17, 2001 Posted December 17, 2001 Originally posted by SirBlack However I also think that transports should work on a class based system where the transport would be able to haul lower numbers of larger units. For example: a transport would be able to take 10 troopers or 5 mechs or 1 assualt mech. I actually like this idea. Basically, the transport has a finite "volume", and you could then give each transportable unit a "volume" value. Troopers would take up 1 unit, mechs 2 units, etc. Quite nice, realistic, and wouldn't probably require all that much coding (an expansion could do it, though probably not a simple patch). Nifty idea there!
Guest Stan|SCN Punk Posted December 17, 2001 Posted December 17, 2001 WC, just because you are stupid and don't know things, doesn't mean other people are stupid and don't know things. a little below the belt...
Heavyarms Posted December 18, 2001 Author Posted December 18, 2001 Note: Stan, I just told that post to a moderator. GIve me a link for the tech specs of the engine, if you know what you are talking about.
Guest Stan|SCN Punk Posted December 18, 2001 Posted December 18, 2001 *sigh* I have wasted enough time trying to set you straight. One last piece of advice kid, take what's good, and be leave it at that. Don't try to take a gold bar right after you got a silver one.
Heavyarms Posted December 18, 2001 Author Posted December 18, 2001 Stan, stop BSing me, you just showed you are doing it. Wow, bad things can happen on a forum!
darthfergie Posted December 18, 2001 Posted December 18, 2001 Originally posted by Chessack I actually like this idea. Basically, the transport has a finite "volume", and you could then give each transportable unit a "volume" value. Troopers would take up 1 unit, mechs 2 units, etc. Quite nice, realistic, and wouldn't probably require all that much coding (an expansion could do it, though probably not a simple patch). Nifty idea there! Basically like RA2 does...They have their engine set to where Mechs use 3 or 4 spaces and troopers use 1...Their sea transports have 10 or so spacs in them...I'm not sure about any of the air or land transports...
Influenza Posted December 18, 2001 Posted December 18, 2001 Basically like RA2 does...They have their engine set to where Mechs use 3 or 4 spaces and troopers use 1...Their sea transports have 10 or so spacs in them...I'm not sure about any of the air or land transports...And that's exactly what StarCraft and Total Annihilation do. It's a very good idea, and I'm surprised AoK didn't implement it...
Guest crd_polaris Posted December 23, 2001 Posted December 23, 2001 Stop flaming WC. He has a point you know. I think you should be able to have (5) fully loaded At-At on a transport. The excuse that even (1) AT-AT shouldn't be allowed on a imperial lander is ridiculous. We are talking about "this" game, and not what should've been. Here's this silly scale debate, and how everything should, "Fit the Star Wars universe". It doesn't makes sense that you can have 5 At-At on a trasport, but not 1 At-At and even 6 troops. Don't you agree? This is the same thought that wont even allow capital ships in the game like Imperial Star Destroyers.
Heavyarms Posted December 24, 2001 Author Posted December 24, 2001 *hits head on hard desk* sigh... wow, man, do people severly dislike me. But I'm saying there is really no way you can say the engine can't do a scale thing. Most people actually approve it, and actually, I don't use them often, but I would more if they had something like that. But, ya know, I got my haters, well, I got more than a few But, enough of that...
duder Posted December 24, 2001 Posted December 24, 2001 a sliding scale, size for space gets my vote. I personally like the idea of being able to put troops in mechs and then garisson the mechs in transports. Im sure it wouldnt be difficult to implement it. As for this flaming, its stan punk just as much as wc heavyarms. why dont you argue over pm?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.