On September 23 2012 12:04 Xaddy wrote: Challenge: Explain why the siege tank fires at an angle but that its shell hits the target instantly. Space-time warped projectiles?
Ohh this is challenging. I'm guessing the siege tank charges have a propulsion system after they have been initially fired from the barrel, which explains why these things shoot farther than it can see. Also, this propulsion-tracking system would be required to adjust for different gravity on different planets. In real life these things would take a few seconds to actually hit assuming seige tanks are firing from miles away in seige mode, since gravity and atmospheric drag would be the only thing that would be affecting acceleration after the shell is fired.
But I'll just blame the game animations that are quite not accurate for these things When in doubt blame the graphics.
On September 23 2012 03:14 Forikorder wrote: i think your forgetting that vultures still exist, just because there not in multiplayer doesnt mean they dont exist multiplayer has nothing to do with lore
ill assume you havent played the campaign, but vultures are an unlockable mission and i know theres one other mission where the opponent (the dominion) deploys vultures
Yes, vultures still do exist, I've played through single player campaign multiple times, but I'm speaking in terms of multiplayers when I talk about the designs in Terran arsenal. But the mission where the Vultures get unlocked is when Raynor gets the blueprints from Mira Han on the mercenary mining race mission, which is indicative that blueprints for these bikes have become rarer.
I have a general outline for the Reaper that's coming up in few days, but right now I feel really tired prepping for Midterms. Hope it'll be an interesting read :D
no thats not indicitave, Raynor is running a very rag tag crew that only had the blueprints for marines and had to get tohers as they went theres no evidence at all anywhere that indicates at all that in the actual starcraft universe vultures are any rarer
It's just my interpretation as to why they didn't make the continued production in MULTIPLAYER setting. People have differing take on lore, and if you have a more plausible take on its removal on multiplayer, be my guest Would love to see different perspectives.
On September 23 2012 12:14 WolfintheSheep wrote: Hellion analysis misses the obvious difference of mounted/mobile turret vs non-mobile launcher. The vulture's main weapon can only shoot in a forward direction, so it can only fire when the driver is moving directly at the target...a feature that basically makes it an exclusively hit and run vehicle. Sustained attacks would force you to move in a linear direction towards a potentially armed enemy.
The Hellion's turret can swivel, allowing it to strafe targets and "herd" enemy targets. Much like Military Jeeps with mounted guns, you can actively engage the enemy while maintaining constant movement and distance.
Yes, that's why I indicated the fuel source for the hellion's engine and its flamethrower is likely the same. It was likely designed that way to minimize the mass of the vehicle.
Also, the problem of firing a 100 meter flamethrower while moving of very high velocity is, that you can't aim liquid/gas based weapon at such velocity. It leads to very sloppy accuracy compared to projectile based weaponry like bullets on mounted miniguns. Continuous fire while in motion would deplete the weapon fuel really quickly as well compared to strong bursts of well aimed shots.
On September 23 2012 03:14 Forikorder wrote: i think your forgetting that vultures still exist, just because there not in multiplayer doesnt mean they dont exist multiplayer has nothing to do with lore
ill assume you havent played the campaign, but vultures are an unlockable mission and i know theres one other mission where the opponent (the dominion) deploys vultures
Yes, vultures still do exist, I've played through single player campaign multiple times, but I'm speaking in terms of multiplayers when I talk about the designs in Terran arsenal. But the mission where the Vultures get unlocked is when Raynor gets the blueprints from Mira Han on the mercenary mining race mission, which is indicative that blueprints for these bikes have become rarer.
I have a general outline for the Reaper that's coming up in few days, but right now I feel really tired prepping for Midterms. Hope it'll be an interesting read :D
no thats not indicitave, Raynor is running a very rag tag crew that only had the blueprints for marines and had to get tohers as they went theres no evidence at all anywhere that indicates at all that in the actual starcraft universe vultures are any rarer
It's just my interpretation as to why they didn't make the continued production in MULTIPLAYER setting. People have differing take on lore, and if you have a more plausible take on its removal on multiplayer, be my guest Would love to see different perspectives.
mutliplayer is not lore in any way
vultures are not in SC2 multiplayer because they didnt want them in thats all it boils down too they thought the hellion fit SC2 better
It states 77 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity.
1 kilowatt hour = 3 600 000 joules
After searching online I found that the energy is of yamato cannon is in the teratons where "tons" is a unit for energy specific to explosive force.
The energy relased 1 teraton of TNT is 4.18 x 10^21 joules
So take 3 (for the several teratons of force) x 4.18 x 10^21 (amount of energy in one teraton) / 3600000 (amount of joules in a kilowatt hour) x .77 (cost in dollars for kilowatt hour)
which yields $2 682 166 666 666 666.67 or a little over 2.5 quadrillion dollars.
desarrisc don't forget to cross post this on the B.Net forums! They received Ponera's threads pretty well so you should post it too! He actually started there first and then decided to double post everything on TL.
On September 23 2012 12:14 WolfintheSheep wrote: Hellion analysis misses the obvious difference of mounted/mobile turret vs non-mobile launcher. The vulture's main weapon can only shoot in a forward direction, so it can only fire when the driver is moving directly at the target...a feature that basically makes it an exclusively hit and run vehicle. Sustained attacks would force you to move in a linear direction towards a potentially armed enemy.
The Hellion's turret can swivel, allowing it to strafe targets and "herd" enemy targets. Much like Military Jeeps with mounted guns, you can actively engage the enemy while maintaining constant movement and distance.
Yes, that's why I indicated the fuel source for the hellion's engine and its flamethrower is likely the same. It was likely designed that way to minimize the mass of the vehicle.
Also, the problem of firing a 100 meter flamethrower while moving of very high velocity is, that you can't aim liquid/gas based weapon at such velocity. It leads to very sloppy accuracy compared to projectile based weaponry like bullets on mounted miniguns. Continuous fire while in motion would deplete the weapon fuel really quickly as well compared to strong bursts of well aimed shots.
Hence why Hellions don't fire while moving. Even stopping and starting, the design of Hellion weaponry allows for more constant assault than Vulture's.
There's one point to consider in the "why is the newer Crucio cannon weaker" debate; if one assumes that the single-player is a stronger source of lore than the multiplayer, in which balance has to come first, then the Crucio cannons are a tradeoff rather than a directly weaker piece of hardware. The Arclite cannon did what would be 35+35 armored in SC2 terms (medium units always slightly muck this conversion up, but eh) and in the single-player, the Crucio does 60 flat. In that sense, perhaps you could say that in exchange for doing slightly less damage to armored targets, the Crucio has far better performance against light. If you factor in the purchaseable upgrade from single-player then the Crucio cannon is downright beastly.
If you were going to use the multiplayer version, then the Crucio's higher rate of fire and better targeting system than the Arclite would probably be its advantages. Sheer firepower isn't always the only consideration.
In regards to the marine lifespan, when the medic was introduced in broodwar, they left us this little gem:
While expendable, the massive losses of terran Marines during the Great War began to become cost prohibitive. The Medic's use of chemical modifiers has greatly enhanced the survival rate of UED forces, lengthening the expected battlefield life expectancy to over nine seconds.
EPT
When in doubt blame the graphics.
Would love to see different perspectives.
![[image loading]](http://img.dailygame.co.kr/news/201112/attachments/20111218_1a5dfc09b0542065191abe721bb24ae6.jpg)
