Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?

[Crota]

You have to remember, Terran is a mix between piece meal units that were built to respond quickly and high tech units. Look at the new Sci Ves, it almost looks super clean and years ahead of any other Terran unit. All in all I like the direction of the art design and where it is headed. Just need to get into the beta.

[flabortast]

The reason Nighthawk looks clean and sleek is because it a covert ops unit.

[pure.Wasted]

Actually, the Hellion's gun is pretty large as it is. Any longer and it would look too front-heavy.

I refer the discussion back to the image you originally posted:



That is decidedly not front-heavy. But you can't ignore that the gun is, proportionately, three or four times larger than the turret on the Hellion.

In any case; as I proposed earlier, a solution isn't necessarily to make the gun as big as possible. If we remove the turret completely, and instead line the sides of the Hellion with propane tanks, with tubes stretched out to point where the unit is facing, I think that would look a lot more interesting.

Alternately, doing the same for the Vulture model: attach a propane tank to either side of the beak, with extending tubes to funnel flames at units directly ahead.

It's not so much about intimidation or even practicality as it is about giving the unit a unique and interesting design. A fragile-seeming gun attached to the very top of a vehicle is hardly anything we haven't seen before.

[vIsitor]

I disagree. The gun in that pic is longer, maybe, but the Hellion's flamer is of a much larger bore.

I'm gonna side with Mr.Peasant on this one. If the Hellion's gun were any larger, it would look comic and unbalanced.

Still, I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps a compromise? Two flamers set in parallel, maybe?

[MattII]

One issue I can see is weight distribution. Currently, much of the Hellion's weight is over its rear wheels while the front ones are out on spars. Maybe it would appear less dinky and comical if some of the weight were moved forward.

[Lupino]

That's because you're always thinking in terms of realism whereas people who have more of an imagination than just placing 100% real life aspects into future sci fi games actually look at other things, such as the rule of cool.

Rule of Cool falls flat when the thing being defended by it usually isn't all that cool. You can craft things so that certain ideas work where otherwise they would not make sense, but that can only so far until the idiocy of the idea outshines any "cool" aspect of it. Meanwhile, that pesky "realism" gives us plenty of scifi-y things like power suits, laser cannons, optical camouflage, sonic weaponry and heat ray guns! (the Martians must be so pissed we stole their shit). I suspect if you ever read any "hard" scifi you will fine plenty of new exciting things being used to create compelling stories.

Fine, hovercraft would suffer from not being able to be dragged home to be repaired.
So how are tanks repaired if their treads get ruined? They're pulled back on busted treads?

Tracks can be replaced in the field, but if other parts of the drive system are damaged, that's exactly what happens. The tracks help make pulling the sixty-ton vehicle that much easier.

And you're not assuming things yourself? We'll always have to assume in sci fi games where nothing is solid evidence. You're assuming that just because hovercraft technology is a hundred times more complex than making a wheel, that it's not worth replacing the wheel for. Even though you have no idea itself how reliable the technology is, as well as not knowing whether the benefits of being faster and not suffering from rugged terrain justify replacing the wheel 500 years into the future where Flying machines can turn invisible and Battlecruisers which should be using nuclear power to power themselves can still reserve nuclear energy to use the yamato cannon.

The assumptions I make are based on very basic principles; i.e., anti-grav only works when the generator is being powered; wheels are always "on" and do not require additional power than necessary. The whole point of this argument is that even with anti-grav tech, there are plenty of reasons and situations where using a more traditional drive system would be more advantageous.

For an in-universe situation, traveling over Zerg Creep. When Mike and Kerrigan drove their Vulture hover bike over Zerg Creep in Liberty's Crusade the hover unit couldn't find any traction, and the thing slid into a crash. A wheeled vehicle would not have that problem. If you expect to be fighting the Zerg, then having your scout units rendered impotent is not a good idea.

I'm fine with the flamethrower, I don't have a problem with it, but using it for psychological effects is completely useless against anyone but other Terrans.

And that matters in situations where you are fighting other Terrans? Besides which, for the past four years the Dominion has been spending most of its time putting down human rebels, and it still has to contend with two other human powers in the sector.

Seems to me we have no evidence to suggest that the Vulture is at all hard to manufacture, and game evidence that they're extremely easy to mass produce and manufacture, costing 75 minerals, no gas, and not requiring any additional research technology or machine shops.

Again, this has nothing to do with how hard or not a Vulture is to manufacture, it has everything to do with the method by which it is propelled.

You could save a few but I doubt it would do you any good. That's beside the point though, so you can't save a goliath because it has legs, how are you going to save a tank if it's dead on power? Drag it on its treads by tying a string to it and pulling?

Why yes, in fact, you can. Your thinking goes against the very reason armies like the US maintain fleets of recovery vehicles like the M88. Of course, even a tank that has its entire drive system shot out and can't be recovered can still act as an improvised pillbox; a Goliath that loses a leg and falls over can't even continue using its weapons to fight off the enemy.

[Nicol Bolas]

When Mike and Kerrigan drove their Vulture hover bike over Zerg Creep in Liberty's Crusade the hover unit couldn't find any traction, and the thing slid into a crash.

What? A hover vehicle couldn't get traction and slid?

And people actually talk about the realism in this universe?

A wheeled vehicle would not have that problem.

No. Hovering vehicles should be able to hover over any surface; that's usually the point of them. There is no surface-to-vehicle contact, so the idea that a Vulture should slide due to being over the Creep is asinine.

However, a wheeled vehicle does need traction. And thus it could lose traction on a slippery surface like Creep.

[MattII]

No. Hovering vehicles should be able to hover over any surface; that's usually the point of them. There is no surface-to-vehicle contact, so the idea that a Vulture should slide due to being over the Creep is asinine.

However, a wheeled vehicle does need traction. And thus it could lose traction on a slippery surface like Creep.

Actually, the really asinine thing is that the Vulture doesn't slide under normal circumstances, I mean given that it has no contact with any surface (even a hovercraft has some friction where the skirt touches the ground, and a lot more if the skirt deflates, say when it's braking).

[pure.Wasted]

Actually, the really asinine thing is that the Vulture doesn't slide under normal circumstances, I mean given that it has no contact with any surface (even a hovercraft has some friction where the skirt touches the ground, and a lot more if the skirt deflates, say when it's braking).

I'm pretty sure the italics emphasizing the word 'slide' were meant to say exactly that.

[MattII]

I'm pretty sure the italics emphasizing the word 'slide' were meant to say exactly that.

And I didn't quote the part with the italics in. Besides, my point still stands, the Vulture has no contact with the ground, and thus slides everywhere anyway.