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

[Triceron]

Goliath chain guns are no more 'serious' than Viking chain guns. The Marine is using the same weaponry. The Marauder is using high impact grenades that deal more damage than the Vultures concussion grenades. The Hellion's flamethrower is bigger than the firebats.

Just calling the SC2 versions 'weak' or 'wierd' is your own opinion. Maybe it's not the units that need to be changed, but your outlook on the units. By all means, all the weaponry involved are improved versions of previous technology. The 'nerfed' siege tank damage is explained by better pathing in SC2, which clumps units more closely together. This means enemy units will be taking MORE splash damage. Overall, the siege tanks are dealing similar damage to their previous incarnation. This is similar to the change in workers mining rate, due to better pathing.

[Lupino]

Not me, I couldn't care less if it used wheels, my problem is with the unit's main body.

That's fine, I see no problem with the main body myself.

That's assuming that repairing the vehicle would be faster and cheaper than just all together assembly line manufacturing a new one.

Depending on the damage you'd have to take it apart and see what's broken or dented, make specific changes or scrap certain parts to be replaced by custom parts.

It always is; unless you seriously think IRL that an M1 Abrams with a damaged main gun should just be left in the desert to rust and a new one ordered up from Lima. Recovering and refurbishing a damaged vehicle will always require less resources than being forced to build an entirely new one from scratch.

I didn't see anything exciting there. Just a helicopter shooting some missles and some jets dropping some flares. And I was talking more along the lines of gameplay and lore. Gameplay wise, using jets and whatever have already been done, there's nothing new and exciting about them. Lore wise if everything used treads and wheels it would be boring to imagine.

Then you have a pretty poor imagination. Plenty of "exciting" things can be done with sensible military designs. Excitement does not require that you act stupid in the process.

Technically shouldn't hover crafts have the ability to go over water as well? Also, the AK47 trades power for accuracy, so there's always going to be a tradeoff. If SC has engines capable of keeping battlecruisers up in the sky in atmospheres, then I'm pretty damn sure you can expect near 100% reliability from something of a much simpler design than a battlecruiser's technology.

That depends on how Terran anti-grav works. And your assumption is baseless, just because a piece of tech can be made smaller doesn't mean it is suddenly fool-proof. Anti-gravity is still going to be vastly more complex system, with more moving parts, which requires a constant power supply to maintain the effect, then treads or wheels. And this is ignoring failures caused by battle damage.

I'm going to assume that with hovercraft technology, traversing terrain will be smooth without all the bumps of rocks and uneven ground. Aiming a machine gun in that case would be much more easy than if you were on a jeep. Also, if weapons COULD be swapped, a flamethrower would be vastly inferior to a machine gun anyway, which has a longer range. Why bring such a weak vehicle into close range with a flamethrower?

Again, from where do you get such an assumption? As for weaponry, flamethrower has advantages over a machine gun in certain situations; they are good for clearing out enclosed spaces and causing destruction across a wider area. They also have psychological effects which a dictatorship like Mengsk would appreciate.

And clearly it's the future, I'm pretty sure they've reduced the chances of such parts breaking down to molecular chances. Also, for a vehicles like the vulture which is cheap, mass produced and has a simple role, scouting, I don't possibly see how wheels could do a better job.

More baseless assumptions. As for wheels vs. anti-grav, again it's a question of reliability and ease of manufacture.

Maybe, but one goliath or two, or a tank or whatever in SC is not going to save you.

Why the false dilemma? Either you only save a few or you don't bother at all?

[Pandonetho]

That's fine, I see no problem with the main body myself.

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.

It always is; unless you seriously think IRL that an M1 Abrams with a damaged main gun should just be left in the desert to rust and a new one ordered up from Lima. Recovering and refurbishing a damaged vehicle will always require less resources than being forced to build an entirely new one from scratch.

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?

Then you have a pretty poor imagination. Plenty of "exciting" things can be done with sensible military designs. Excitement does not require that you act stupid in the process.

Yes, plenty of "exciting" things that we've already seen a thousand times in the movies.

That depends on how Terran anti-grav works. And your assumption is baseless, just because a piece of tech can be made smaller doesn't mean it is suddenly fool-proof. Anti-gravity is still going to be vastly more complex system, with more moving parts, which requires a constant power supply to maintain the effect, then treads or wheels. And this is ignoring failures caused by battle damage.

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.

Again, from where do you get such an assumption? As for weaponry, flamethrower has advantages over a machine gun in certain situations; they are good for clearing out enclosed spaces and causing destruction across a wider area. They also have psychological effects which a dictatorship like Mengsk would appreciate.

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.

More baseless assumptions. As for wheels vs. anti-grav, again it's a question of reliability and ease of manufacture.

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.

Why the false dilemma? Either you only save a few or you don't bother at all?

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?

[mr. peasant]

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.

Difficulty of manufacture is just speculation/a logical excuse to explain why Vultures are no longer in multiplayer and have been replaced tech-tree-wise by the Hellion.

[Pandonetho]

Difficulty of manufacture is just speculation/a logical excuse to explain why Vultures are no longer in multiplayer and have been replaced tech-tree-wise by the Hellion.

And now we also have transforming mechs to replace the goliath don't we?

The Hellion is obviously easier to manufacture, that doesn't mean the Vulture was hard to manufacture. And for the last time, I don't care about the realistic aspects of the Hellion, I just care about the art which is getting redesigned anyway so yay me.

Oh one more thing, hover vehicles don't suffer from mines, units with wheels and treads do. Realistically speaking, lurkers without any recon shouldn't even know when hover vehicles are nearby as they have no means of "feeling" them.

[mr. peasant]

And now we also have transforming mechs to replace the goliath don't we?

Precisely. There aren't any 'realistic' explanations for their absence. At best, there are just tacked on ones like Dragoons needing special shrines, etc. The real reason is that they wanted to change the tech tree.

The Hellion is obviously easier to manufacture, that doesn't mean the Vulture was hard to manufacture. And for the last time, I don't care about the realistic aspects of the Hellion, I just care about the art which is getting redesigned anyway so yay me.

Since the unit's role/function is going to be fundamentally different, they might as well completely design a new unit rather than modifying the Vulture. Also, there are people who think buggies are cool (even if a little generic; which is again fine especially seeing how it's the Reactor-capable/mass-producible unit for the Factory).

Oh one more thing, hover vehicles don't suffer from mines, units with wheels and treads do. Realistically speaking, lurkers without any recon shouldn't even know when hover vehicles are nearby as they have no means of "feeling" them.

That's only if Spider Mines are pressure-sensitive mines. There are many other possible mechanisms such as motion-sensored mines.

[pure.Wasted]

That's only if Spider Mines are pressure-sensitive mines. There are many other possible mechanisms such as motion-sensored mines.

I'm pretty sure we can safely rule that out given that Spider Mines aren't triggered by motion in the game, but by presence of non-hovering units.



I've been drawing up some concepts of an alternate Hellion model... and I think I might have stumbled across one of my biggest problems with the design, as strange as it sounds.

It's the flamethrower itself -- a fragile little thing sticking out from the unit that looks like it would come off from a single stray Gauss rifle shell. What if instead of shooting the flame from the top, the unit had two separate flames come out of its sides -- so from underneath -- and converge on the target?

And while we're at it, if we take the new Vulture design, attach a propane tank to either side of its 'beak' with long funnels directed toward the enemy unit, I think that really might work. Mind you, there would have to be some thick glass protecting the pilot from flames redirected by the wind, or somesuch, but... it has potential.

[Sheliek]

How about the Hellion, instead of using a flamethrower, shoots incendiary grenades? Low-range splash damage, and it makes sense against the Zerg, which is the only reason (I assume) the Terrans are using it.

It's basically the vulture with wheels at that point, but it's still different enough to be unique.

[pure.Wasted]

How about the Hellion, instead of using a flamethrower, shoots incendiary grenades? Low-range splash damage, and it makes sense against the Zerg, which is the only reason (I assume) the Terrans are using it.

It's basically the vulture with wheels at that point, but it's still different enough to be unique.

Well, most people like the Hellion's gameplay but not its appearance, so this is kind of fixing what ain't broke, and breaking what's fixed.

[Sheliek]

Well, most people like the Hellion's gameplay but not its appearance, so this is kind of fixing what ain't broke, and breaking what's fixed.

Oh, sorry. I got that backwards.