CorranSec Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Those Mech Destroyer ideas sound great. Combining canon unit uses with actual gameplay balance is always good. You'd have to make sure there is actual gameplay balance, though.... but we'll leave that for another time.
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 You're right about the gian speeder thing. It sucks how they made the flash speeder the strike mech and the gian speeder the hvy strike mech.
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 19, 2002 Author Posted October 19, 2002 The gian speeder is the mech destroyer. I think that the AAT would fit a more assualt mech role with being slighlty slow, but strong assualt battery that has a tiny bit of splash damage. Good vs pretty much everything like assualt mech is.
Admiral Vostok Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Yeah, that could work well, especially since MTTs probably would be fairly weak when compared to other assault mechs. They'd be well armoured and good transports, but their attack would be short ranged and weak. AATs would make up for them with good all-round stats. But I don't think the AAT is slow, one of my favourite bits in the Battle of Naboo is when the sheilds come down and the AAT's speed in, blasting everything in sight.
Darth Windu Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 The way i see it, the various Mech Destroyer's and Assault mech's would be- MTT - fairly slow, very well armoured, anti-infantry weapons, can carry 20 troopers AAT - moderately fast, fair armour, 1 assault mech canon, no troop carrying ability AT-AT - slow, very well armoured, 2 assault mech canon, can carry 10 troopers AT-ST - moderately fast, fair armour, anti-infantry weapons, no troop carrying ability AT-TE - fairly slow, very well armoured, 1 assault mech canon, can carry 5 troopers Gian Speeder - fairly fast, very little armour, anti-mech canon, no troop carrying ability
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Then here is my point of view: AT-AT: High hp, med armor, very strong attack, can carry a small amount of trooper. AT-ST: Med hp, med armor, good attack vs both but better against infantry. AAT:Good armor, good hp, good vs mech but rather bad against infantry, can change weapon(artillery mode and normal) artillery mode will be like you saw in ep.1 MTT: Greatest Armor, defensive weapons only(used to defend itself but not good against anything) can carry a lot of troopers but only 10 destroyer droids. AT-TE: cannot carry troop, good speed, med attack, med hp but low armor. Gian speeder:Fast, anti mech weapon, low armor and low hp. Flash Speeder: Low hp, anti-infantry weapon, low armor and low hp. Homing spider droid: Good vs mech only, low hp but high armor, med speed, cannot carry troopers. Dwarf Spider droid: stay as it is.
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 19, 2002 Author Posted October 19, 2002 I have to disagree with a couple luke. AAT-No switching weapons. I think giving it the artillery weapons always would make it more unique without the micro. AT-TE-They should hold troops, and have good hp and bad speed and armor. bonus vs troops and mechs Dwarf droid-These guys were slow and vurnable, but had a high attack and should have relativley sized splash damage.
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 oK about the AAT and the dwarf droid(I did not know about that) I think the AT-TE should not hold a lot of troops.
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 19, 2002 Author Posted October 19, 2002 It did in the movies, and your current build seems kinda skimpy (the AT-TE was revolutionary and led to the basis of the empire's mech arsenol)
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Yes it is the ancestor which is supposed to be weaker
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 19, 2002 Author Posted October 19, 2002 It basically knocked confederate socks off, thus leading to its populairty and evolution.
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Never said it would be that weak, just weakER.
Admiral Vostok Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 Gotta agree with sithmaster on this one. The AT-TE should definitely hold troops, and the AT-AT should not hold a small amount but a large amount. Remember all the Snowtroopers on Hoth? They arrived in the AT-ATs. "All troops will de-bark for ground assault," General Veers says, and then there's heaps of snowtroopers everywhere. What do you think takes up most of the AT-AT and AT-TE's bodies? Trooper transport. The AT-AT should hold maybe 20 while the AT-TE holds 10. I started a new thread for this sort of thing, so go there
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 What do you think takes up most of the AT-AT and AT-TE's bodies? Trooper transport. It's engine maybe?
simwiz2 Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 If various assault mechs are going to be carrying 10 or 20 troops and have massive armor/attack then they need to take up more than one pop slot to prevent them from being overpowered.
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 That's why they sould'nt carry a lot of troops.
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 20, 2002 Author Posted October 20, 2002 Simwiz, the only one, in my opinion, that should carry more than than the current build would be the MTT, and it would hve a completely nerfed attack. Its purpose would be to transport the TF's substandrad troops through guarded or defended areas where the probably would have been killed. Gameplay with realism twist. It's engine maybe? I dont know about you but when i think of the ATAT or the ATTE, i dont think "fast":)
Darth Windu Posted October 21, 2002 Posted October 21, 2002 I actually lokked at the star wars databank in reference to troop carrying ability, and the numbers are- MTT = 112 AT-AT = 40 AT-TE = 20 Hence, using the AT-AT as a reference, i figured the best way to go about the trooper carrying ability would be to give the AT-TE 5 troops, AT-AT 10, and MTT 20.
Admiral Vostok Posted October 21, 2002 Posted October 21, 2002 Yeah that seems reasonable, Windu. I am also an advocate for more powerful units taking up multiple population slots. That would at least stop my friend from building about 40 AT-ATs They should take up 8 or 10 slots, like the terran battlecruiser and the protoss carrier did in starcraft.
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 21, 2002 Posted October 21, 2002 Maybe the AT-AT should take two units slots not more.
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 22, 2002 Author Posted October 22, 2002 Im am so for the idea of good units costing more than one pop. Especially when using 3d engines, too many units can be taxing to a computer. Also this creates more of a balance between the small and weak units and the big and strong units.
simwiz2 Posted October 22, 2002 Posted October 22, 2002 "Good" units taking more than one pop slot is, IMO, almost necessary for good balance in many of the newer games, especially if units are to be portrayed as they were. Just think of how AT-AT's could be very strong like they were in the movies, they would just take more pop and be expensive. Units can be portrayed much more realistically without upsetting balance if large units take up more pop.
Arthur2 Posted October 22, 2002 Posted October 22, 2002 use unique unit sets... don't make them all the same it's good that starcraft has unique unit sets, but then starcraft is weak on strength and weakness settings of the units... (i dun see what big units can do when there are mass hydras...the big units die fast anyways.) if we have unique unit sets and maintain the properties of the units then SWGB 2 will be a great game... (for instance: assault mechs can kill a small group of troopers with one shot, that's more like it...it's absurd to use mass trooper and actually defeat someone with that in post-T4.)
Darth Windu Posted October 22, 2002 Posted October 22, 2002 Not a bad idea, with the more powerful units taking up more than 1 slot. Personally i like it coz it would allow those units to be even more powerful and more 'realistic'.
Arthur2 Posted October 22, 2002 Posted October 22, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Windu Not a bad idea, with the more powerful units taking up more than 1 slot. Personally i like it coz it would allow those units to be even more powerful and more 'realistic'. yeah one thing to be aware though... in SC, big units are relaly not worth the money and pop... cauz they die too fast anywayz... maybe the big units can take no population at all but it's depended on how much population u have for example, for every 10 ppl u can build one ATAT...something like that so ppl can't mass... well that's just an idea actaully i still support the 1 population thing cauz i think it gives us more space for large scale battles we can put stress on the resources (ATAT costs around 600 food, 600 nova...argh that's a lot of money already...maybe we don't need to change at all..)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.