Commando Archive
Thread: Interesting thing I found out about Flamethrowers...
Page 1 of 2
Cizal1267
Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:17 pm
#1
This was posted by another user, and I take no credit in writing it.
From Sotaudi:
ATSTs are machines, and, therefore, should not be subject to bleeds unless you considered damage to a hydrolic system analogus to a bleed. But people keep saying that ATSTs should not be able to be burned. With all due respect, this is non-sense. They are armored vehicles, but they are not hermetically sealed, closedenvironmental units. It would be relatively easy for flaming napalm to seep into unsealed openings and cause the thing to catch on fire. Even if it did not, it would turn the cabin into an Imp sized Ez-Bake oven, killing the occupants.
Flame throwers have been used to destroy tanks since their invention. What makes ATSTs so invulnerable to flame throwers?
N4R4Y4
Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:46 pm
#2
Cizal1267 wrote:
This was posted by another user, and I take no credit in writing it.
From Sotaudi:
ATSTs are machines, and, therefore, should not be subject to bleeds unless you considered damage to a hydrolic system analogus to a bleed. But people keep saying that ATSTs should not be able to be burned. With all due respect, this is non-sense. They are armored vehicles, but they are not hermetically sealed, closedenvironmental units. It would be relatively easy for flaming napalm to seep into unsealed openings and cause the thing to catch on fire. Even if it did not, it would turn the cabin into an Imp sized Ez-Bake oven, killing the occupants.
Flame throwers have been used to destroy tanks since their invention. What makes ATSTs so invulnerable to flame throwers?
The fact that this is a video game and reality (including the physics of it) have no place in a video game....
Jeren_Sehn
Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:45 pm
#4
That's right, the AT-ST is a machine, but it does have a driver. Flamethrowers have always been used to great effect to take out pillboxes, tanks and other fortified positions precisely because the napalm can breach the openings and kill the people inside when bullets cannot. If there's a crack in the armor,a port to see through, or a vent to breathe through,the burning napalm will likely find it and come pouring in.
MarksPerson
Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:17 pm
#5
Hell, it's Star Wars. For all we know the FT's napalm can burn a solid cube of steel. And if they want to make the game realistic they can start by not allowing TKAs to lunge (sp?) 21m and stop putting invisible paint on buildings.
ValinCalred
Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:52 pm
#6
The way napalm is used to kill a tank is to either fire through a hole and kill the crew by just burning them or firing the napalm at the tank long enough that its ammunition overheats and explodes.
The first way does not apply to AT-STs because they are at least 10m above the ground. The second way also does not apply to the AT-ST because they do not have any explodable ammunition. (Yes I know in Star Wars they are said to have concussion grenade launchers, but in this game they do not)
I am a commando, I am an Imp, and I have never used an AT-ST as a pet. I have never seen how the flame dot applies to the AT-ST any more than a bleed dot would.
maddogs
Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:11 pm
#7
The way napalm is used to kill a tank is to either fire through a hole and kill the crew by just burning them
The first way does not apply to AT-STs because they are at least 10m above the ground.
_____________________________________________
well this is defintly not true becous if you wach episod 6 you will esly see that the eye events are extremly open and if i did it right i could esly pop a gernad in one of thos haches and even esyer spray a giant cone of flame threw them wich in both cases would kill the drivers
flame throwers RL and gernades should own atsts
SasKarna
Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:01 am
#8
on the contrary, the SWG team have likened it to being as real as it can be for a game environment....dont take this too literally, obviously star wars is not real and all that junk. but the game mechanics were designed to be realistic as is practical for a game and the economy etc all designed to follow certain reality based guidelines. in sure the ATST thing was an accident, but just becuase you can see some reality in the possibilty, doesnt make the guy an idiot.
napalm is a chemical that burns a while, and it has killed tank crews...why not ATST crews, i believe that was the point.
Fenrix
Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:55 am
#9
There is always that age old problem with multiplayer games in particular.
Realism vs Balance
Raanan
Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:54 am
#10
Aye, it's a difficult one. How is making the flame dot not work on an at-st balance, though, when the rocket launcher which is supposed to be at-st buster sucks at it? I suppose TH would say it's just part of the pains of the combat balance or whatever they're calling it. Still, I hate being made useless even if it is temporary.
Roronyyy
Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:49 am
#11
i use to be a comando and thought imps can use powerful at-st's then deal with the damage, but now i see some insight. i could see someone flaming my car and blowing it up and catching it on fire. i don't think my insurance will cover it not sure.
FlashBewin
Thu Jan 29, 2004 7:47 am
#13
....This is a game where Big ships, nearly a mile long in length, can devestate a planet from orbit, using gigantic, lasers called "Turbolasers"
Logic has absolutely nothing to do with this game.
Star wars was a movie. It wasn't real. It never WILL be real.
The Devs can do whatever they want to, Right or wrong.
Page 1 of 2