Topic: AT-AT transport (Read 1003 times)

M Doyle · « **on:** March 21, 2008, 09:54 pm »

Well while reading about my favorite unit (the AT-AT) on wiki i noticed that it said it could transport units

I could either transpor 2 AT-STs 4-6 scout troopers + their speeders or ten storm squads.
so i thought i'd ask if they could be used ad transports as it is their name
AT-AT=all terain armoured transport

whats your guys opinions on this?

Solar · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2008, 10:04 pm »

perhaps we could add a bike unit to the current stormtroopers,

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2008, 02:28 am »

I think having the AT-AT as a transport is a great idea, but we should limit how much it can carry otherwise the player will have no use for the Juggernauts. Maybe carry 2 scout troopers instead of 4-6

Darth Stalin · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2008, 02:42 am »

Well, use of the Jggernaut is also required after the troopers have left the AT-AT => they can no more go back into it, yet the can go into Juggernaut. So I use the attack group of 2 AT-ATs, 1 AT-ST and 1 Juggernaut that can get troopers onboard after they've taken an objective. And that works quite fine...

Godzilla · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2008, 04:55 am »

I believe the true purpose of the AT-AT is two-fold:

1). A heavily armored and armed attack vehicle.

2). To walk up and through the enemy lines; devastating any enemy units that get in the way so it can disperse it's storm trooper squads to secure the area the AT-AT destroyed.

It IS a transport but it's transporting roll(s) is different that the Juggernaut and various other vehicles. It's not meant to carry vehicles into battle since, well, not enough room :p On the battlefield (directly on the battlefield) it's supposed to waltz up to enemy lines, blast them to bits, and dump it's stormies onto the area . So, no, it really shouldn't carry vehicles (loading and unloading the at-st requires an awkward process the AT-AT must undergo, IIRC). But I agree that it SHOULD carry scout troopers.

Iron-Guardsman 2413 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2008, 11:38 am »

I agree, the unloading process did make them horribly vulnerable and took ages. Plus the long legs just cry out to be shot at... or tripped up

.

M Doyle · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2008, 05:20 pm »

the AT-ATs kneel down while deploying then a boarding ramp disemploys to allow acsess

Quote from: Godzilla on March 22, 2008, 04:55 am

I believe the true purpose of the AT-AT is two-fold:

1). A heavily armored and armed attack vehicle.

2). To walk up and through the enemy lines; devastating any enemy units that get in the way so it can disperse it's storm trooper squads to secure the area the AT-AT destroyed.

yes but it wasd also supposed to deploy troops to go into places i can't

Use 1: attack vehical
Use 2: protect troops untill they are at their location and need to be deployed
Use: devistat landscape and Demoralize enemy

Django (sunfalcon) · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2008, 06:46 pm »

well about the juggernaut. it was given only to backwater almost completely neglected outposts of the Empire because the Empire did not want to give them AT-ATs so maybe the AT-AT can be a better but more expensive juggernaut

Dr. Doozer · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2008, 06:51 pm »

I think that it can fit the dual-purpose. It just can't fit as much as, per say, teh Juggernaut.

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2008, 07:17 pm »

i think that the deploy stormtroopers ability takes care of this its not that big, so 18 stormtroopers would just about fill it. besides, its so slow that it takes away one of the major advantages of a troop transport: increased mobility. after all, the vanilla troop transports were fast, but not heavily armored at all.

Iron-Guardsman 2413 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2008, 11:02 am »

Good point. I am not sure how realistic this would be but how about it can only carry Stormtroopers. What I mean is once it has deployed its Troops, they could get back on again later so they would be protected from those thrice cursed MPTL-A's.

Solar · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2008, 11:14 am »

nah, why protect them?

they are free and expendable. there is no limit. let them die.

Godzilla · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2008, 03:47 pm »

Quote from: Solar on March 24, 2008, 11:14 am

nah, why protect them?

they are free and expendable. there is no limit. let them die.

Because Storm Troopers have feelings too.

The Nameless Sith Lord · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2008, 03:50 pm »

They do? I always thought they were heartless drones.

Seriously, the AT-AT is fine as it is.

M Doyle · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2008, 07:05 pm »

Quote from: The Nameless Sith Lord on March 24, 2008, 03:50 pm

They do? I always thought they were heartless drones.

No the clones were the Storms, Some still were Sub-Human Dones from clone wars, but most storms were members of blanets that joined or were drafted. 95% of all storms are Human and 80-90% are all men

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2008, 07:52 pm »

Anyhow, back on topic now.

I think maybe the AT-AT should have 4 spaces available (like the Gargantuan) (can carry 4 stormtrooper squads, or 2 scout troopers)

Altairen Draconis · « **Reply #16 on:** March 24, 2008, 08:41 pm »

actually its able to hold more than that Lyman im sure as the only type seen was the AT-AT/B not very reliable transports but the regular at-ats could hold speeder bikes (im not kidding either)

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #17 on:** March 24, 2008, 08:43 pm »

Yeah I know but if you make the AT-AT able to hold a lot then it defeats the purpose of the Juggernauts

Godzilla · « **Reply #18 on:** March 24, 2008, 11:03 pm »

Quote from: Sergeant Lyeman on March 24, 2008, 08:43 pm

Yeah I know but if you make the AT-AT able to hold a lot then it defeats the purpose of the Juggernauts

Agreed. Remember, the game needs to stay a game... not a playable Wookieepiedia.

The Nameless Sith Lord · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2008, 12:58 am »

Quote from: Sergeant Lyeman on March 24, 2008, 07:52 pm

Anyhow, back on topic now.

I think maybe the AT-AT should have 4 spaces available (like the Gargantuan) (can carry 4 stormtrooper squads, or 2 scout troopers)

I agree.... thought I think it should be able to carry a single AT-ST, too.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2008, 12:51 pm »

Quote from: M Doyle on March 24, 2008, 07:05 pm

No the clones were the Storms, Some still were Sub-Human Dones from clone wars, but most storms were members of blanets that joined or were drafted. 95% of all storms are Human and 80-90% are all men

ur only partly right. the remaining clones wer the stormtroopers, but during the uprising on kamino the emperor decided that having an army of clones wouldnt be avantagous due to the fact another similar incidence could happen. this is wat cost palpitine the war. standard humans intergraded into the ranks compaired the advanced traning of the clones. hmmmm. sounds like he was beging for defeate. and stormtroopers wer all human/ mandalorian. the emperor HATED alien species. he only kept thrawn cuz of his intelligence. tho im 99.9% sure that they wer only men. maby dubble chek on wookie. or play the games. ive never heard of a female stormtrooper.

as for the at-at its fine the way it is.

The Nameless Sith Lord · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2008, 03:11 pm »

Please go discuss Stormtroopers in another topic.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 26, 2008, 06:34 am »

i did reamin on topic. read the last line. ur off topic. but really. the at-at is perfectly fine. no need to change it

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 30, 2008, 03:34 am »

Quote from: kylekatarn288 on March 23, 2008, 07:17 pm

i think that the deploy stormtroopers ability takes care of this its not that big, so 18 stormtroopers would just about fill it. besides, its so slow that it takes away one of the major advantages of a troop transport: increased mobility. after all, the vanilla troop transports were fast, but not heavily armored at all.

i stand by my first post with no change.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 30, 2008, 10:52 am »

im w/ u on this. no change needed. it mainly transported stormtroopers any way

Solar · « **Reply #25 on:** March 30, 2008, 05:50 pm »

can we still add a speeder bike?

it is cannon (look in the Cross section book) and it would be useful as a scout.

Altairen Draconis · « **Reply #26 on:** March 30, 2008, 05:54 pm »

yea i like the speeder bike idea as well makes it much better defended in a sense

Revan 225 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 30, 2008, 06:32 pm »

but theyr to easily killed... then again so r stormtroopers

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 31, 2008, 10:12 pm »

speeder bike is an interesting idea. it could have a second special abilty called "dploy scout" or something. except it would require an animation to look good.

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #29 on:** April 01, 2008, 02:09 pm »

Quote from: kylekatarn288 on March 31, 2008, 10:12 pm

speeder bike is an interesting idea. it could have a second special abilty called "dploy scout" or something. except it would require an animation to look good.

Hmm... that's a good idea since (I assume) most people don't use the scouts all that much. Making it a garrison unit would be very helpful.

M Doyle · « **Reply #30 on:** April 01, 2008, 06:49 pm »

Yes and it'd be good for finding Hazards or targets for the AT-AT too, like the MPTL artillery droid

Kai · « **Reply #31 on:** April 07, 2008, 05:16 pm »

I have a book with detailed drawings fo the most starwars ships and vehicles,
and the AT-AT carrys
40 stormtroopers and 5 speederbikes

Prototype · « **Reply #32 on:** April 08, 2008, 06:32 am »

I agree with Kyle and everyone else who stated that its fine the way it is. I do like the deploy scout ability though, if its not too hard to test around with..give it a try.

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #33 on:** April 08, 2008, 05:09 pm »

the only problem is that it may require an animation

evilbobthebob · « **Reply #34 on:** April 08, 2008, 05:20 pm »

Tbh, the only improvement I want to see to the AT-AT is its light laser cannons (on the sides of the head) working. That would make it more canon.

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #35 on:** April 08, 2008, 05:26 pm »

Quote from: evilbobthebob on April 08, 2008, 05:20 pm

Tbh, the only improvement I want to see to the AT-AT is its light laser cannons (on the sides of the head) working. That would make it more canon.

yes, that would be great to see. would it be anti-infantry rounds?

And yes, I like the speederbike idea better than garrisoning troops because it already transports troops with the 'deploy squad' ability.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 08, 2008, 06:59 pm »

definently. tho fir the side cannons maby make them anti-snowspeeder wepons? i fine that an at-at gets taken down way to easily. it costs 1000credits (700 w/ palp) and these cheap snow speeders w/ a live expectancy quadroopled that of an at-at... definently need to give the at-at a chance. if u remember in ep5 that some speeders wher taken out by at-at's. thatl make it more cannon i think

M Doyle · « **Reply #37 on:** April 08, 2008, 10:05 pm »

It though those were it's main light canons and i think
A: i like the Scout troop idea
B: i think the AT-AT should be able to use thes more powerful Specil side cannons From Battle front 2 as they were Powerful, Quick devistating and good for killing snow speeders

(same idea with S-Speeder extra cannons)

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #38 on:** April 09, 2008, 01:19 am »

BFII is non-cannon.

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #39 on:** April 09, 2008, 02:41 am »

Well, if you watch Ep5, when Veers blows up the shield generator, a speeder heads for his walker and he shoots it down with his side blasters. It's hard to catch but watch for it. They look pretty accurate.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #40 on:** April 09, 2008, 03:16 am »

Quote from: kylekatarn288 on April 09, 2008, 01:19 am

BFII is non-cannon.

thats not true. well, at least not 4 the story. the story IS cannon.

The Nameless Sith Lord · « **Reply #41 on:** April 09, 2008, 03:23 am »

Kyle, Battlefront II is canon.....

Also, why can't we just add the scouts? It'd be nice to have a garrisoned scout unit with a vehicle that cannonacilly holds them.

s-t-n · « **Reply #42 on:** April 09, 2008, 12:40 pm »

Quote from: The Nameless Sith Lord on April 09, 2008, 03:23 am

Kyle, Battlefront II is canon.....

Also, why can't we just add the scouts? It'd be nice to have a garrisoned scout unit with a vehicle that cannonacilly holds them.

firstly, BF2 is non-canon. they added loads of non-canon things. although i believe that BF1 is canon...but may be wrong on that.

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #43 on:** April 09, 2008, 02:25 pm »

*ahem* like I was saying, Veers shoots down the snowspeeder with his side blasters. I think that would be good for the mod

s-t-n · « **Reply #44 on:** April 09, 2008, 06:47 pm »

although i agree that side blasters are a good idea, i dont think they should be any more accurate vs snowspeders than the current ones. and althoguh they should have a similar projectile to that of the main lasers, they should be more anti-infantry or mid-amage, not high damage.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #45 on:** April 09, 2008, 10:08 pm »

dude... bf2 IS and i repeate, IS cannon. story wise. as for the side cannons, they would be more effective against speeders. veers prooves it in ep5

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #46 on:** April 09, 2008, 11:03 pm »

Ok, BF2 doesnt really matter right now. Movie comes first. And yes, I think they should (would) be anit-infantry as they are smaller

Revan 225 · « **Reply #47 on:** April 09, 2008, 11:41 pm »

they would also be more effective against the s speeders. cuz as it is, an at-at in the game cand deffend against them... it alawys (almost alawys) misses. that wouldnt happen

s-t-n · « **Reply #48 on:** April 09, 2008, 11:57 pm »

Quote from: Revan 225 on April 09, 2008, 11:41 pm

they would also be more effective against the s speeders. cuz as it is, an at-at in the game cand deffend against them... it alawys (almost alawys) misses. that wouldnt happen

beg to differ. they are able to shoot them down very well already, which is why these would be anti-infantry. the main are already AA

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #49 on:** April 10, 2008, 04:38 pm »

I agree with s-t-n.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #50 on:** April 11, 2008, 01:40 am »

are u kidding me?! the at-at in the game almost NEVER takes out evan 1 s speeder! not evan 1.

Sergeant Lyeman · « **Reply #51 on:** April 11, 2008, 01:42 am »

well the thing is the speeders always go where the at-ats cant shoot them. If theyre in front they shoot them down fairly well.

The Nameless Sith Lord · « **Reply #52 on:** April 11, 2008, 02:12 am »

When I know speeders are on a planet, I never use AT-ATs because they always fall to the cable attacks. I just use Veers, because he's immune to the cables. I know I can shoot them down, they just always evade the shots........... unlike on Battlefront II, where I slaughter them. But that's besides the point.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #53 on:** April 11, 2008, 03:01 am »

no they dont get shot down wen they in front... they might do some dammage but its rare u take 1 down... at-at's r non-cannonicaly weak against speeders in this game. the at-at's gave s speeders trouble on hoth. tho in the game an at-at has no hope against them

Ravage · « **Reply #54 on:** April 11, 2008, 04:43 am »

Any of you tried using AT-AAs? Take an at-at and put an at-aa next to it.

Revan 225 · « **Reply #55 on:** April 11, 2008, 04:59 am »

not realy. not as efficient destruction wise. and ni... i rarely use them

Godzilla · « **Reply #56 on:** April 11, 2008, 10:04 pm »

Quote from: evilbobthebob on April 08, 2008, 05:20 pm

Tbh, the only improvement I want to see to the AT-AT is its light laser cannons (on the sides of the head) working. That would make it more canon.

Amen to that.

In Empire Strikes Back, the side cannons are clearly seen taking out the infatry while the chin cannons act as bombardment against the turrets and other emplacements. That laser cannons on Garm Bel Ilis's platform would work for the AT-AT, no?

M Doyle · « **Reply #57 on:** April 11, 2008, 10:11 pm »

Yes i agree with that i'd like to see it's light lasers work + i'd like to see it be able to shoot down speeders as it was soo much more powerful against them than EAW depicts. Two or three shoots from it's main blasterw would blast a speeder stone dead as well as it's more powerful secondary blasters.

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #58 on:** April 14, 2008, 04:02 am »

look, this game is not going to be a playable wookiepedia, we already said that. Its the balancing that counts. If AT-ATs could shoot down speeders as easily as they do in the movies, then you might as well fold if they attack with AT-ATs.

M Doyle · « **Reply #59 on:** April 14, 2008, 11:18 am »

Yes, but the at-at's were inacurate against fast moving targets ast their lasers were quiet slow which still allows the opponent to tie them up

Kai · « **Reply #60 on:** April 18, 2008, 02:18 pm »

i also think that the at-at should have his light laser cannons, but could we got back to our theme?

whats about the scouts? any news?

e^(πi)+1=0 · « **Reply #61 on:** April 19, 2008, 07:38 pm »

still no official decision.

Kai · « **Reply #62 on:** May 12, 2008, 05:37 pm »

is this topic still alie or is id dead?

Solar · « **Reply #63 on:** May 12, 2008, 05:38 pm »

dead,

Ultimate Empire at War

News:

Poll

Who thinks the AT-AT should be able to transport units

Author Topic: AT-AT transport (Read 1003 times)