Well, i suppose that everyone has seen the updated LEC site where small videos are included for each section. Apperently, i don't think that anyone passed through the fact that the plex soldiers needed 36 rockets to take out a chicken-like-AT-ST! Not to mention that the soldiers were 5 meters close to the ATST........................

Well, i hope that the ATST was extre-healthed for video purposes, so that viewers may enjoy the whole cinematic. Since 1-2 bazooka rockets can take out a real armored tank from greater distance than 5m, i think that (when game comes out) 5 rockets are enough for an ATST to go down,not 36 [...].

PS: Sorry for the "chicken", i play as rebs :smash:

In real life yes, it does not take alot of missiles to take down a tank. But for gameplay purposes it should take alot more. Gameplay>realisme.

Actually, what i'm saying is that 36 rockets is extremely many hits. Besides, a rocket soldier should cause some fear to the hostile vehicle. If it take 50++ missiles from 20 plex soldiers to take down an ATAT, what's the purpose for building them? It's simply pointless...

Yeah I agree 36 seems abit excessive but, 1. I am sure its a demo, they have done that before to show off. 2. I agree that it should take more than one for gameplay perhaps they will fire a little slower and need about 3 or 4. Battlegrounds vanguard and heavytrooper fire power seemed balanced to me they might consider the same values or stats?

at-st is way weaker than that. in the third movie, it shows two of them getting destroyed by ewoks. one go smashed by two logs, and one tripped, fell, then was eunglufed in fire

at-st is way weaker than that. in the third movie, it shows two of them getting destroyed by ewoks. one go smashed by two logs, and one tripped, fell, then was eunglufed in fire
Oh but that was the famous Ewok attack. No one can really explain how sticks and stones beat the imperials now can they?

As far as this goes I agree with Darth Alec, gameplay > realism. Im sure there are better ways of taking out an AT-ST. Also their strength may have been lowered for the video so they werent too strong.

I figure the rocket soldiers were of the very basic form for demonstration purposes. Techs may be researched to increase power along the way because AT-STs may not be in from the start, but the rocket soldiers may be (possible explaination) Also they mention battling in groups, so that was just one unit of rocket soldiers. Finally, the AT-ST didn't do a lot of damage to those troops either. I think this is because the devs naturally slow down the action a tad so the user can actually react to the attacks before the AT-ST is just lost. If they went for realism, sure the AT-ST is gone in one hit, but if you're viewing your base on the other side of the map and suddenly it says your under attack, and you move to the spot to find nothing because your line of sight from those AT-STs has vanished, then what's the point. You at least want to see what's happening. Like mentioned earlier, just a tiny tweak for gameplay's sake.

Actually, realism can be applied in gameplay. I'd just wanted to mention Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps; one bazooka, and a jeep is out, 1 bazzoka against a Tiger, and the bazzoka is out, inflicting minor (but not insignificant) damage to the Tiger -if he's fast enough to fire before shot down-. Also, a bunch of 15 dreaded bazookas carried in a troop transport and unloaded in the back of a stealth line of 3-4 Tanks (especially Tigers) could easily sparse the panic among the enemy lines and inflict great damage.

Another point was that when a shotgun trooper fired on a tank, well -as expected-, the tank took no damage. In EaW, firing with laser an armored vehicle sounds awkward; generally speaking, i never liked the "everything can destroy everything" feature used in RTS...

Well, surprise, counter-attacks etc etc. are real methods that must be applied to a RTS, if we're talking about RTS.

whatever the reason maybe, but i still say if it really takes 36 rockets, its too much. Maybe 10 or 12, but even in gameplay 36 rockets to toast a walker is just too illogical.

Well, i suppose that everyone has seen the updated LEC site where small videos are included for each section. Apperently, i don't think that anyone passed through the fact that the plex soldiers needed 36 rockets to take out a chicken-like-AT-ST! Not to mention that the soldiers were 5 meters close to the ATST........................

Well, i hope that the ATST was extre-healthed for video purposes, so that viewers may enjoy the whole cinematic. Since 1-2 bazooka rockets can take out a real armored tank from greater distance than 5m, i think that (when game comes out) 5 rockets are enough for an ATST to go down,not 36 [...].

PS: Sorry for the "chicken", i play as rebs :smash:

Although it may have been exagerated...think about it where is the fun if it died in 3 hits? It may be unrealistic, but they must exagerate a bit for game purposes. Think of SWGB, AT-ST's didn't die right away in that as well, as well as many RTS games.

Although it may have been exagerated...think about it where is the fun if it died in 3 hits? It may be unrealistic, but they must exagerate a bit for game purposes. Think of SWGB, AT-ST's didn't die right away in that as well, as well as many RTS games.
Like Jmaster, I would prefer a game that took more hits to look more real instead of less hits. It wouldnt be fun if everything died in one hit, theirfore why it took so many hits. Besides, maybe the AT-ST was modified with a special armour or something.

Actually in SWGB every mechanical vehicle did die with 3-4 grenades (grenadiers were in plex troops' position), even the big ATATs. Well, this was the other limit, too-realistc (thus un-realistic).

The realism is something more general in RTS than taking out a unit within few units in all circumstances (which is not what i mentioned); talking about rockets that can penetrate 10cm of heavy steel, then we talk about penetration; talking about lasers, we talk about blast penetration; talking about ewok stones, then we change discussion :) .

Anyway, the point isn't the specific video which, as i said, must be "montazed" for show purposes. The point is if EaW will be realistic in combat level.

Besides, that is the point of different units; one units may fear to confront another face-to-face, while another won't. Also, having 10 AT-STs (units in general) against 6 troops (units), changes the possibilities of get smashed. And if we'd like to have big health bars, then the solution is the damage level. In other words, when a unit (when applicable) is 30% hit, it slowes down it's fire-rating or moving ability depending the hit point, when goes to 50%, it cannot shoot/it limps, when it's 80% then it's actually useless if shot in guns etc etc.



PS: (Irrelevant) Did you notice how the units come in/out from a shield field (small video showing the imps crawlers or sth like that)? Very nice graphic-work made here....:)

36 does seem to be a bit much to take out a sissy AT-ST. If it was an AT-AT, I would think it should take about 50 hits from a group of plex troops. For an AT-ST, probobly 8-10 would be good enough for me.

Has anyone taken notice that he actually counted them??? I'm impressed.

Thrawn...nice icon. From T/F right?

WxDude, it's simple maths......6 troops x 6 rocket launches = 36............no derivatives or gaussian integrals :)

I do tend to think 36 is a bit much. But those AT-STs may have been upgraded with a special armour.

I'm less bothered by AT-ST taking 36 missile hits then plex soldiers taking a nice amount of AT-ST fire and get out unscathe.

Maybe 36 is a bit much, but I don't think Rocket troopers should be the only solution against enemy vehicles.

It seems that E@W has a good balance of vehicles and troopers on both sides, thus a combination of various trooper type and vehicle type would be best in every situation.
It's also a complicated equation of balancing factor. How common will the plex soldier be? If they're really common, having them rampaging too easily through the battlefield might not be a good idea.

All in all, I'm sure it's only for demonstration purposes. If the AT-ST was taken down in 3 secs, they wouldn't have been able to make that video.

I'm less bothered by AT-ST taking 36 missile hits then plex soldiers taking a nice amount of AT-ST fire and get out unscathe.

ditto.
I was surprised myself. I was just hoping that it was because they had a height advantage. But an AT-ST doing so well in other instances as a light vehicle usually appears as an anti-infantry device, but in this case not a one went down. It was a tiny bit odd.

In real life yes, it does not take alot of missiles to take down a tank. But for gameplay purposes it should take alot more.
Because?
And an AT-ST is not a tank, it's a scout/anti-infantry vehicle. Sure, it might have gotten slightly unbalanced if one rocket killed it, but 36?! Come on!

Gameplay>realisme.
Is it really too much to ask that you give us some arguments instead of just clichйs?

I'm less bothered by AT-ST taking 36 missile hits then plex soldiers taking a nice amount of AT-ST fire and get out unscathe.
There's that, too.

Oh but that was the famous Ewok attack. No one can really explain how sticks and stones beat the imperials now can they?
For the love of...
Sticks and stones didn't beat the Imperials. There's no evidence in the movies that those pathetic arrows and stones went trough the armour of the Imperials. The Rebels won due to that hijacked AT-ST, not because the stormies had their asses kicked (which they didn't, they were the ones doing the kicking).

It wouldnt be fun if everything died in one hit
Nope, but 36?!

remember theres that paper, rock, sissers thing

infintry are string vs rocketteres, rocketters are strong vs vechles, and i thought the at-st was a vechle destroyer, not a troop killer

remember theres that paper, rock, sissers thing

infintry are string vs rocketteres, rocketters are strong vs vechles, and i thought the at-st was a vechle destroyer, not a troop killer

if it's a vehicle destroyer, I didn't see it shoot a single vehicle in any of the SW movies. It looked like it was doing a very good job ravaging through troops.

Well, when a trooper is shot from a 1+ m long beam, i think that it's kind of anti-infantry shot.

Also, another point seen in video was that the hit troop would postpone his attack unless he gets up from the shot. I'd better open another thread for these new infos which are not firmly stated but can be seen from those videos... :)

i figger the tie-tank was the infintry killer

i figger the tie-tank was the infintry killer

I just thought it would be a fast attack vehicle. Infantry may be its main target because it can’t really hit much else, but I don’t know considering Tie Tanks have never been attempted before except in book format.

I’m kinda sad though, considering AT-ST is originally supposed to be a scout vehicle. I hope they don’t make it into a buff mama medium tank and then make the AT-AT the heavy tank like GB seemed to do.
I’ve always thought of AT-STs as light assault vehicles because of the name and because they don’t have the armor AT-ATs possess to protect them against medium sized laser blasts.
AT-STs have been overestimated in my mind because of the destruction they caused in ROTJ. A lot of people really love the chicken walkers thus I think that’s where their role in this game has gone slightly astray. Fans love ‘em and are a little biased towards them. That, simply put, is the likely reason why they can take 36 rockets.

fast attack vehicle are usualy the troop transports. in galactic battlegrounds, the at-pt was the infintry killer. they already said the at-at was the turret and building destroyer. (anyone notice, in the troop video, the imp artilary had lazer guns on the side to pertect itself?)

i figger the tie-tank was the infintry killer
I wouldnt think so, because it seemed to die very easily in it's video. It seemed to me to be a cheap, massproduced piece of junk.

Tie - Mauler , nice design, nice fire rating (three lasers firing in turns - continuously); i guess with some tech advantages they can anihilate the inantry...

............................and yes, they're destroyed too easily in the video, without even taking out a troop. I think Petro has montazed A LOT those little videos as far as health status is concerend.

yeah, i just saw that, tie-mawlers are a piese of junk

i thought the at-st was a vechle destroyer, not a troop killer
It's got rockets and grenades as well as lasers (probably not in the game, though:p), but I wouldn't take on a rebel T-3b tank with it:).

I think it was only "transformed" into a tank destroyer in SWGB, due to the fact that they didn't have anything else and the AT-ST did destroy another one in RotJ.

However, that thing is obviously anti-infantry, at least as its main purpose.

an at-st would kill anything at a distance, but its weakness is that it has a big blind spot underneath

I think it was only "transformed" into a tank destroyer in SWGB, due to the fact that they didn't have anything else and the AT-ST did destroy another one in RotJ.

However, that thing is obviously anti-infantry, at least as its main purpose.

Indeed they didn't have anything else, but they didn't have much of anything for the Rebels either, they created units. They were doing their best to slot things into spots so everyone would be mostly even when they should have been looking at unique spots. It sounds like that's what EAW is trying to achieve so far and trying to stress a little more uniqueness, I'm just afraid due to the video that EAW has slotted the AT-ST into a Medium Tank position also when quite honestly, I don't think it has the armor or the armament to compete that way. Sure it can destroy "anything" organic or lightly armored, but I don't see it putting holes in an AT-AT at all. I don't consider it's laser cannons as powerful as those sitting on some starfighters and really more equivalent to that of the snowspeeders or light artillery if that even. I see it just as it's named, a scout vehicle. Almost a Humvee if you will.

Anti-infantry seems to be its main forte, while it can seemingly stand with a heavier vehicle with its rockets, etc. I seem to remember that the rockets were anti-personell. I'll leave you with two happy quotes.

The two-legged craft, dubbed the scout walker by many, serves as a reconnaisance and patrol vehicle, often flanking approaching AT-ATs and mopping up infantry that sneaks past the larger walkers.
Because of this speed and mobility, scout walkers spell death to infantry units. Its laser cannons and grenade launchers can cut through troop emplacements. Its foot-mounted steel claws can slice through trip wires or soldiers that close to engage.
Anti-Infantry all the way...so were the troops just invincible? Did they have a height advantage and the AT-ST missed them? What? Because they looked untouched by a declared anti-infantry vehicle on open ground with no cover.

It had a short range Concussion Missle Launcher, along with very fast firing lasers able to cut infantry down fast.

AT-ST=All Terrain-Scout Transport

Since it is officially a scout transport why did they nesessarily have it be so hard to kill, I would of stoped it at 5 rockets at least for a much more reasonable gameplay.

only 5? becouse rocketters come in 6, thats as good as a one hit kill. how about 18

If it is a scout, it does not nessesarily have to be hard to kill. It is a scout so it would make sense to be weak...but fast. Oh darn I forgot the speeder-bikes(DO'H)

yup, the speederbikes are the true scouts. and the probe droid

I think they need to reduce the AT-STs death by one or two rounds, making it die with 30 or 24 rockets. Now like I have said MANY times this may have been upgraded. It also appears petro has messed with health status in these videos to make a better viewing expierence.