OMG - Han and Chewie are awsome!

[Garbageben]

Well the videos are to show off the unit and what it can do. You wouldn't want the Han and Chewie movie to be like this:

 

Han runs out and points a device at the AT-AT and AT-ST.

However he gets shot before he can press the button.

End of Video.

 

That wouldn't make you want to use Han and Chewie now would it?

[Teradyn_pff]

Of course they were trying to be perfectly realistic, and somehow messed up...

 

OR they acknowledged the fact that for balancing issues, AT-ATs probably are not very effective against infantry. And Heroes would be offley worthless if they couldn't take a lot of hits.

 

That is bull. AT-ATs are not as effective against infantry because:

 

1. Their weapons are designed for tank/artillary roles so using them on infantry is an extreme waste of firepower. Kind of like using a grenade on a fly.

 

2. They are probably not as effective at aiming (although this is something that I assume as they were able to shift the entire AT-ATs body and hit a snow speeder in flight during the battle of Hoth).

 

3. They have a limited forward firing arc in the direction of the ground. Remember that the AT-AT is about 100 foot tall.

 

Basically, what should have happened is that there should have been fire hiting around and close to Han and he should have been losing a little life as he suffered concussion and fragmentation damage from the near misses (something more believable than surviving multiple direct hits from something that can penetrate the hull and destroy a shield generator from several kilometers away).

 

The other issue is the AT-ST. Where is it written that it is not effective against infantry? Anyone remember that it was there firing at Han also? A units superior health (ie a Hero Unit) should either deflect in the case of Jedi or dodge and have misses against in the case of conventional heros.

 

My argument is that it is not a technologically challenging thing to put this in, but it is something that is much more important in the long run than where a Rancor is found because we will not be able to make that kind of change.

[SirNuke]

How many games show Tanks as being effective against infantry? In real life, infantry tend to get shredded up by them, and certainly no infantry can withstand a direct or close hit from a tank shell. I would think that an AT-AT command crew is more than capable of dealing aiming and dealing with things like the firing arc, as modern day artillery doesn't travel in a straight line.

 

Yeah, infantry aren't the idea target for tanks, nor for AT-ATs, but you simply can't make a good game that has that type of realism (barring some type of setup where the infantry dodge and such, which is difficult to program, and would be rather awful to simply have the bullets miss most of the time). If AT-ATs tore up infantry, who would build infantry, except to capture check points? That is the sort of thing that debalances a game, removing strategy in favor of "Build as many AT-ATs as you can, and a squad of Stormtroopers to capture points".

 

Also note that Han doesn't take any damage in that video. It is very possible that you would regularly use him while the AT-AT/AT-STs are distracted fighting other units, but the video is intended to show off Han + Chewie's abilities.

[Guest]

"A units superior health (ie a Hero Unit) should either deflect in the case of Jedi or dodge and have misses against in the case of conventional heros."

 

That makes sense. As we can tell from the movies Han is one lucky duck when it comes to blasters, In fact I don't think he is ever hit at all throughout the movies. Luke and Leia got hit but of course they don't get hurt like on the Battle of Endor:

 

 

Leia:

I got shot...but it's just a flesh wound!

 

 

Stormtrooper:

Whereas for us anything worse than a paper cut is fatal.

 

 

 

http://www.jerrythefrogproductions.com/ReturnOfTheJedi.html

[Xenomorphine]

Is the AT-ST more suited for the pursuit and destruction of infantry? Yes. It's faster, has a much better field of fire and even seemed to be deployed specifically for that purpose on the Endor moon, implying it was meant to be their main role.

 

Does that make the AT-AT incapable of doing so? No! They have a much more limited field of fire, but these aren't tank shells we're talking about here!

 

An AT-AT and AT-ST both have direct energy weapons. Those on an AT-AT are simply of a far greater magnitude.

 

That isn't the same as a tank, which has to choose between different ammunition which is meant for different targets. For instance, if a tank chose Sabot, then it would do very little, unless a soldier was in its direct path, since it's not explosive.

 

You don't have that choice when firing a direct energy weapon!

 

That means that the AT-AT would be more effective at killing infantry than an AT-ST. The only thing is that this only applies if the target is in range and in front!

 

Remember, the AT-AT is meant for transporting a limited strike force and pounding through the most obvious defences. It's not a vehicle which is designed for seige warfare or dedicated assault mission. There are those types of walkers which are openly available, but they were never viewed in the films. The game, however, is using them for such a role.

 

But that doesn't mean it would be bad at destroying infantry targets. If the target is in view, it would be much better, if anything.

 

Where it comes into trouble is if the target is moving in an unpredictable route at very high speed. Think to yourself what Solo would have done if he had to attack one of those things. Would he go out on foot? No, he'd be loaded up on some type of vehicle capable of doing that!

 

In fact, why not show Chewbacca taking over a speeder bike, loading himself and Han Solo on the back of it, then have them use that to approach the walker and do all the rest? More realistic and perhaps even more dramatic!