AT-AP

Only thing you should think about when working on a CW mod, is that some units (AT-APs, ISPs, Venators and Acclamators) are already made for the official game, so you can save time and energy by simply doing a more advanced "copy&paste" operation. If that's how the editor works, that is. =)

Since space is even more devoid of heat than snow planets, I'd imagine flying would not be a problem for spacefighters. On the matter of flying into a shield, it would depend how fast you went. At the speeds SW fighters have, they would probably be treated like projectiles and be destroyed on impact. If going at a slow, hovering pace you might have a chance, but then there's the problems that arise afterwards from not being "grounded" . I always imagined "wheel-sets" being made for this kind of situation. You'd attach them to a fighter or a speeder, go slowly through the shield, then send them back out and do the same thing with another unit. Or carry them inside AT-ATs and Juggernauts.

Yep, and according to more recent sources, only wheeled/tracked/legged units can do this, due to shield-effects messing with repulsor-generators (which handily explains why the Empire didn't use bombers with their walker-assault on Hoth). =)

I'm not sure, but I seem to recall seeing Imperial capital ships engaging Rebel vessels in the various videos while the fighters simply harassed and chased one another. Hopefully they'll have the "capital ships duke it out, shields weaken/go down --> fighters hit sensitive areas".

No SW film has ever shown a generator being OUTSIDE the shields, only on the inside. That's why the armies/commando teams had to get planetside in the first place. The closest I could come to this "logic" is in some poorly written books. Not the films.

It's from the old Leipzig convention photos from August, they were playing a beta there and some of the footage plus screencaps showed AT-AP walkers being brought in on Rebel transports. They walked with the other units without attacking them and the player who controlled them managed Rebel units as well, so they had to be on the Rebel side at that time. Note, this could simply be a case of beta-elements being changed around and that the final version (like the clearer, detailed scenes we've seen in the past few weeks) has it as either a strictly Imperial vehicle, a Rebel choice in multiplayer or available to both factions.

My name is Espen and I'm a 22 year-old student from Norway. Been a SW fan since the middle 90s and work on and off on the SW Wikipedia. Like reading encyclopedia entries on certain subjects without actually having to read the sources referenced (i.e. badly written novels and comics). =d I'm also a participant on the Stardestroyer.net forum and am a big fan of SW tech (especially walkers, unpractical as they may be irl).

Just a few minor peeves (even below "pet" =P): Pod Walker = AT-AP Swamp Unit = Swamp Speeder (or ISP) The walker pictured is a SPMA-T, not a SPHA-T. You can tell by the four legs on the right-hand side and the "slope" infront of the cockpit which the SPHA-T didn't have. That's it. =)

If I can't participate, could someone ask about the AT-TE? Or provide a transcript, if possible? =)

See post above. (They do.)

Oh, I see what you're getting at now! What good questions to ask Petroglyph about the DS' usefulness besides its main weapon. Think you got some good ones there already, didn't think of the psychological factor being in the actual game. =O

That's not true, it was exactly like X-Wings in the OT, except it shot proton torpedos covered in blue shields instead or red ones. (And two of them fly past in the Naboo celebrations scene, so that makes the N-1 part of the OT-era as well ;P) I like the inclusion of more "primitive" weaponsystems in PT vehicles (rockets, missiles, projectiles etc.) Whenever we saw these in the OT, they were always covered with energy-shields, so they actually look more primitive without them in the PT. And since the AT-AP, ISP speeder and A6 Juggernaut are part of the OT-era now, that makes these "advanced" vehicles still relevant. (Not that they were all that advanced to begin with, the AT-AP was like a bloated AT-ST, and the Juggernaut was like an AT-AT with wheels)

Since these shows most likely will feature plenty of action and battles and little in the way of cheesy romance, I don't see any problems. =) Hell, the battles in CW alone will probably showcase enough AFVs to keep me drooling (here's to TX-130S fighter tanks and AT-XTs making it in!)

I really don't know why it's in the game, to be frank. Only good thing it will do is blow stuff up and amuse the fans, because they just HAVE to have it. When I get this game I'll just stay away from building it and stick to using my resources more wisely. As far as I can tell, the DS is completely unnecessary. Aside from the intimidation-factor in-universe, the Empire could have spent their money more wisely. (Even if it never put a serious dent in their budget, with logistics of city-worlds like Coruscant being more than comparable to the various DS-projects, and they don't ruin the galactic economy).

Oh yeah, in the game? Fudge all that. Planet-destroying all the way, a huge waste of time for a mobile Rebel fleet. ;P

Heh, I was just jesting there, but since we're discussing the CW, I was surprised to see so many droids as well as clones. I guess the rationale was that before the CW, "normal" armies and droid armies were all there was on a galactic scale. With the clones, you've suddenly got a new galactic military power, being able to grow and breed biological troops to operate more like their mechanical counterparts. The battles felt more epic than most of the OT ones, so they got that right, at least.

According to various sources, in addition to being a literal planet destroyer, the DS also acted as a "super-carrier", bringing both land and spacecraft with it when conducting conventional warfare (i.e sieges and invasions).

ARE TEH WORLD DEVSTARORS IN???111

Yeah, that's one that irks me with alot of games these days, as soon as the first one is out, they're already announcing the sequel. Just let the thing run for a few months at least before asking for more. =P

Oh, snap. HAHAHHA That was actually unintentional. TIE/in TIE/ln Now I got it.

Ah, I thought you wrote it TIE/LN (it was just to explain 'ln') Now I get it, all is well. T.I.E. fighter + Eta-2 ---> TIE fighter ---> TIE/ln and TIE/In (introduced in roughly the same timeframe)

Ok, I need to settle this: TIE/in (interceptor) TIE/LN (newer fighter-model) Is that correct?

Nice catch. I usually don't use the original name unless I know people won't throw a hissy-fit over it, like with Executor-class Star Dreadnought instead of Super Star Destroyer (or calling it Super-class, *shudder*). Anyway, judging by the classifications in the game: Tartan Patrol Cruiser (Corvette) Broadside Cruiser (Corvette) Immobilizer-418 Cruiser (Frigate) Acclamator-class Assault Ship (Frigate) Venator-class Star Destroyer (Destroyer/Carrier) Victory-class Star Destroyer (Destroyer) Imperator-class Star Destroyer (Destroyer) Anything I'm missing?

We were talking about the TIE/LN fighter (that's not how I've seen it spelled, btw.), not the TIE/in.

Yes, the several months old trailer has never been seen on one of the biggest EAW fansites.