Storm troopers are weaker than rebel troopers?

[Guest]

Really? I have heard that the rebel troopers are better than storm troopers?!?! WTF

 

if this is true my respect and hope for Empire at War has just taken the ewok express down into the sarlacc pit.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Cain

[WhiteSkull]

Copy and paste where i answerd this in the other thread.

 

I just ran sevral test, rebel troopers vrs storm troopers rebles lost every fight, unless i used take cover then they won every fight ( the ST's never used TC) so seems balanced to me.

 

Also on a side note rebel troopers are stronger in the movies then ST BUT ST always one cause of greater numbers.

[Darth Tyrant]

Really? I have heard that the rebel troopers are better than storm troopers?!?! WTF

 

if this is true my respect and hope for Empire at War has just taken the ewok express down into the sarlacc pit.

 

Rebel troops are more tactical, because the rebellion dont have the resources to get lots of troops like the empire, thats why they get the option to take cover. The empire is all about strength in numbers. In EAW imperial troops are stronger than rebel troops, but the rebels get the take cover option, which reduce the amount of damage they take, thats why you see that they are more powerfull, but they are not. How to deal with this?, Always have tons of troops together or a few at-sts will fix that.

[Teradyn_pff]

Actually the best counter to the rebel troops seems to be the Tie Maulers.  Those come 5 to a pop cap point and one can run over a whole group of inf.  Not to mention the overload thing.

[OMEGA]

Have you even actually played the demo? They're equal man, and if you think this game deserves the scarlaac pit, you're sadly mistaken. Best RTS of 2006! I can feel it comin already!

[Dorkthehunter]

It's quite simple: Stormtroopers are free!!!! Rebel troopers are not!!! Thus, the Rebel troopers have to be more powerful to have a fighting chance. It's called: Balance!!! Please stop being so pecimistic people.

[Xenomorphine]

It's quite simple: Stormtroopers are free!!!! Rebel troopers are not!!! Thus, the Rebel troopers have to be more powerful to have a fighting chance. It's called: Balance!!! Please stop being so pecimistic people.

 

Soldiers from a rag-tag band of what amounts to mercenaries, without armour, who have to make do with whatever weaponry they can find with their meagre resources, are better than fully trained, heavily armoured and well equipped professional soldiers?

 

That's like making a game about the recent Iraqi conflict and letting the Republican Guard have ultra-powerful armour and being able to beat Apache gunships and M1 tanks in one go, to make them 'balanced' - we all know that's ridiculous adn would take away an unnecessary amount of willing suspension of disbelief.

[Haradim]

Soldiers from a rag-tag band of what amounts to mercenaries, without armour, who have to make do with whatever weaponry they can find with their meagre resources, are better than fully trained, heavily armoured and well equipped professional soldiers?

 

Don't discount the power of heroism and being amongst the "good guys". In Star Wars, that goes a long way - against all odds (and "realism"), the Galactic Empire fell largely because of it - and a lot of luck/destiny -, despite the fact that the Empire could have crushed its foe quite handily if it really committed itself to it.

 

In that sense, it's not unreasonable that a unit of Rebel soldiers could stand up to a unit of Stormtroopers. A Rebel player just needs to remember that their equal-ish or somewhat better infantry are not going to hold up against the more numerous and better reinforced enemy. This is quite in line with the SW universe as portrayed in the movies, books, and other sources.

 

I will also note that one can assume the Alliance has not only trained their own troops as much as possible (likely with first-hand experience), but has gone to lengths to recruit soldiers already skilled in the ways of war, which may be another way to explain why they fight on more or less equal terms.

[raydude]

Soldiers from a rag-tag band of what amounts to mercenaries, without armour, who have to make do with whatever weaponry they can find with their meagre resources, are better than fully trained, heavily armoured and well equipped professional soldiers?

 

That's like making a game about the recent Iraqi conflict and letting the Republican Guard have ultra-powerful armour and being able to beat Apache gunships and M1 tanks in one go, to make them 'balanced' - we all know that's ridiculous adn would take away an unnecessary amount of willing suspension of disbelief.

 

Hmmmm, you mean like, Battlefield 2? That game has T-72's and BDRMs going toe to toe with M-1 Abrams and Bradleys and yet the game is still popular.

 

And besides, you're arguing about realism for a fictional universe set "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away".

[Guest]

Don't discount the power of heroism and being amongst the "good guys". In Star Wars, that goes a long way - against all odds (and "realism"), the Galactic Empire fell largely because of it - and a lot of luck/destiny -, despite the fact that the Empire could have crushed its foe quite handily if it really committed itself to it.

 

In that sense, it's not unreasonable that a unit of Rebel soldiers could stand up to a unit of Stormtroopers. A Rebel player just needs to remember that their equal-ish or somewhat better infantry are not going to hold up against the more numerous and better reinforced enemy. This is quite in line with the SW universe as portrayed in the movies, books, and other sources.

 

I will also note that one can assume the Alliance has not only trained their own troops as much as possible (likely with first-hand experience), but has gone to lengths to recruit soldiers already skilled in the ways of war, which may be another way to explain why they fight on more or less equal terms.

 

that's some BS right there, we all know the reason the rebels won is because George Lucas decided that the rebels should win. If it was a little more realistic... Luke would have still killed vader and palpatine but the rebel fleet would crushed at endor, the ewoks would be massacred, the sheild bunker might have blown from han and leia but then they would still have to deal with the imperial forces

[raydude]

Actually it would have all ended in Episode IV after the Millenium Falcon got captured and everyone was trying to escape. The stormtroopers went from being excellent shots (beginning of the movie when they killed all the rebel troops who were hiding behind cover) to missing the broad side of a barn.

 

Still I prefer my Star Wars universe to have a high degree of unrealism and fun.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn 889]

Stormtroopers should be weaker as they have no initive of there own they are like drones!

[Haradim]

that's some BS right there, we all know the reason the rebels won is because George Lucas decided that the rebels should win. If it was a little more realistic...

 

Star Wars was never meant to be more realistic. It's a story about a tiny handful of underdogs that overcome a tyrannical evil and restore peace to an entire galaxy by killing a mere two people and taking out an oversized "invincible" superweapon (for the second time). It was only after the EU got into full swing that the situation became more complex than that, but that theme of conquering all evils through heroism, sacrifice, and doing the right thing remained in play until at least the NJO novels, which had a specifically darker theme.

 

Realism in Star Wars is likely not something you will see much of on any project backed by LA. It has always been about Heart beating Fist, no matter how ludicrous it seems when you take the time to analyze things.

[Guest]

Stormtroopers should be weaker as they have no initive of there own they are like drones!

 

drones with better training, weapons, armour, accuracy than any rebel bum

[Grand Admiral Thrawn 889]

yes they may be better drones but that armor and unformality is there undoing as they don't know when to retreat.

[Deadeye31_pff]

guys, we're talking about a GALACTIC CONFLICT, I am quite sure at it's height, the rebellion had more than enought WHOLE PLANETS!!! to train their troops. come on, if Osama Bin Laden can train a few thousand guys in a small camp in the mountains of this one planet, think about what a rebellion spread over dozens, if no hundreds or thousands of planets could do.

[Gen.Vader]

dudes, hold on a sec

 

they both are the same pretty much, they both have the take over command, and the reason you prolly win the entire time is because the AI has been dumbed down, and that you can concentrate all your firepower on one company of STs while the computer does not do that (yet)

[Guest]

yes they may be better drones but that armor and unformality is there undoing as they don't know when to retreat.

 

sure they do? when someone tells them to, duh! they followed orders to the letter and where not that much differnt than clone troopers

[Xenomorphine]

Don't discount the power of heroism and being amongst the "good guys". In Star Wars, that goes a long way - against all odds (and "realism"), the Galactic Empire fell largely because of it - and a lot of luck/destiny -, despite the fact that the Empire could have crushed its foe quite handily if it really committed itself to it.

 

I don't care!

 

So what if you have good morale? That counts for nothing. The Taleban was ranting and raving about how its version of God was going to help them drive out America and look what happened.

 

All the good spirits in the world are not going to save you from intelligently deployed mass firepower (which was the problem for the Empire, as time went on - massed firepower not being deployed intelligently).

 

Note, also, that in the opening scrawl to the original film, it stated that the Alliance had only just won their first ever major victory against the Empire and that had been, what, twenty years? More? Since originally being declared?

 

Heroics will get you nothing on their own, apart from an early death!

 

The problem the Empire had in the examples we saw it losing at, was a lack of adaptation and unwillingness to let its forces show initiative. How well do you think those engagements at Endor would have gone, if a commander of the quality of Tarkin or Thrawn had been in control of the fleet and been allowed to engage the opposing forces at will?

 

In that sense, it's not unreasonable that a unit of Rebel soldiers could stand up to a unit of Stormtroopers. A Rebel player just needs to remember that their equal-ish or somewhat better infantry are not going to hold up against the more numerous and better reinforced enemy. This is quite in line with the SW universe as portrayed in the movies, books, and other sources.

 

It is, if you factor in the realisation that they have no armour.

 

If they adopt insurgency tactics or are depicted with some type of armour, then it's another matter completely. If they just stand in huge columsn, out in the open, then they would get slaughtered.

 

I will also note that one can assume the Alliance has not only trained their own troops as much as possible (likely with first-hand experience), but has gone to lengths to recruit soldiers already skilled in the ways of war, which may be another way to explain why they fight on more or less equal terms.

 

Highly doubtful! The Alliance doesn't have the luxury of time, resources or numbers. They have to take what they can get.

 

Also, many of their forces would be unreliable, due to being defectors. Would you be wiling to entrust that calibre of individual to major military operations? There's a reason why you wouldn't do and it's valid.

 

Hmmmm, you mean like, Battlefield 2? That game has T-72's and BDRMs going toe to toe with M-1 Abrams and Bradleys and yet the game is still popular.

 

I wouldn't know. I don't have a connection speed which would allow me to enjoy it. Therefore, I don't have it.

 

But whoever said that popularity equates to being good?

 

And besides, you're arguing about realism for a fictional universe set "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away".

 

So what? 'Rome: Total War' was set a long time ago in places which are mostly far away from me, too, but at least that manages to be both entertaining and fairly realistic in the way it does stuff.

 

Remember, this isn't a film. This is a representation of how those forces would have hypothetically confronted one another. That requires at least a reasonable level of feasability in how they would operate.

[raydude]

So what? 'Rome: Total War' was set a long time ago in places which are mostly far away from me, too, but at least that manages to be both entertaining and fairly realistic in the way it does stuff.

 

Remember, this isn't a film. This is a representation of how those forces would have hypothetically confronted one another. That requires at least a reasonable level of feasability in how they would operate.

 

There is a difference you are apparently not getting. Roman Empire, Roman tactics, and ancient conquests ACTUALLY HAPPENED. We have historical documents, archaeological artifacts and hard physical evidence about how Roman units behaved and were used against the forces of other empires. Thus, it is not hard to create a game which incorporates some of what the reality of fighting in Roman times would have been like. Hence, Rome Total War is fairly realistic even though we are more than 2000+ years removed from the setting of the game.

 

Star Wars NEVER HAPPENED. It is a MADE UP Universe. Thus, you can make ANYTHING UP in terms of unit size, strength, capability, deployment, attack vs. defense ratio, you name it. How can one argue that a stormtrooper squad should be able to overpower a rebel squad when no such thing exists IN REAL LIFE? In my opinion the attack, movement, defense values of the current Star Wars units are fine. Why? Because they have no basis in reality. At all. None. Whatsoever.

 

But lets say you argue that stormtroopers should be just like normal men except with armor. I would argue that they are not normal men. The first three movies established that they are clones. So, the closest analogy for a clone would be a videotape. Know what happens when you make a copy of a videotape? The copy is not as good. And the copy of a copy of a videotape is even worse. By the time of Episode IV you now have several generations of copies and each successive generation is getting worse. That, to me, is sufficient explanation for why the stormtroopers suck, especially when compared to the clone troopers.

[raydude]

(regarding Battlefield 2)

I wouldn't know. I don't have a connection speed which would allow me to enjoy it. Therefore, I don't have it.

But whoever said that popularity equates to being good?

 

Well, most people playing Battlefield 2 today would say its a good game. It still stands as an excellent counterpoint to your statement:

 

"That's like making a game about the recent Iraqi conflict and letting the Republican Guard have ultra-powerful armour and being able to beat Apache gunships and M1 tanks in one go, to make them 'balanced' - we all know that's ridiculous adn would take away an unnecessary amount of willing suspension of disbelief."

 

Because most people playing it find that the balancing issues in the game are not "ridiculous" and do not require "an unnecessary amound of willing suspension of disbelief."

[noian]

Yes but you can still research star wars. There is more than 1000 pages at the star wars databank.

Also, if you don't know, read EU, ask Lucas, there are many ways.

I for one don't gasp at the fact rebels can beat stormtroopers. Rebels arn't working for money. Rebels are fighting for their home and life! If you killed the stormtrooper companies leader, I bet half of them would run/lose heart(like in the revolutionary war)

[Jmaster3265]

and if you think this game deserves the scarlaac pit, you're sadly mistaken.

 

What? Whats that mean i don't get it, the sarlacc pit is in the game you know.... ??? :

[Guest]

What? Whats that mean i don't get it, the sarlacc pit is in the game you know.... ??? :

 

ever heard of metaphors? he means the might not do so good,

 

example: "my respect for this game just flew out the window"

 

I really hope I don't have to explain that one

 

is everyone illiterate here?

[Otto von Bismark]

Shut up, green doggy thingy. Rebel troopers are supposed to better than the imperial troopers(singularly, you've seen the movies, stormies always outnumber rebs 5/1). Stormtroopers don't need to be awesome shots...the empire's wealthy enough to hire billions of bucket heads(I'm not really referring to the game).