140 replies to this topic

[Falcorth]

Mantis, on 19 July 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Looks like dictionaries need to be handed out with forum memberships.

do excuse me i am dislexic

[The Boneshaman]

ou can kill any AT-AT or AT-ST by pushing them over or if you up root a tree and club them.
Battle mech,s can take a clubbing and stand back up BT wins both space and ground combat becuse I say so. Star wars is crap all the way around. Most tarded movie EVER!! In my opinion. I know not everyone feels the same I like Star Trek over Star Wars so in my opinion Star trek or BT would wipe the floor with star wars and think nothing of it. If any one feels differently well too bad. I reject your logic and substitute it for my own.

Edited by The Boneshaman, 19 July 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[Falcorth]

yes the AT's were flimsy at best... light armored 3 man crew

[Sidra]

Falcorth, on 19 July 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

yes the AT's were flimsy at best... light armored 3 man crew

AT-ST were lightly armored, the four legged AT-AT were heavily armored and armed powerhouses. Also just throwing that in where they were transports too, which carried extremely heavily armed troops

[XenomorphZZ]

I'm going with the AT-AT unless said mech is around/under the legs, Star Wars does not have silly range restrictions.

[sakkaku]

Sidra, on 19 July 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

AT-ST were lightly armored, the four legged AT-AT were heavily armored and armed powerhouses. Also just throwing that in where they were transports too, which carried extremely heavily armed troops

An AT-AT can be destroyed by a single proton torpedo or by an blaster cannon firing on the leg joints or neck (the speeders only had blasers, which were much weaker). They had to keep the starfighters in reserve to escort the transports though or it would have been a one sided ground battle until the TIEs arrived.

[Sidra]

sakkaku, on 19 July 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

An AT-AT can be destroyed by a single proton torpedo or by an blaster cannon firing on the leg joints or neck (the speeders only had blasers, which were much weaker). They had to keep the starfighters in reserve to escort the transports though or it would have been a one sided ground battle until the TIEs arrived.

True but you have to take in account the sheer power of a PT. The neck was a bit harder to hit than the leg joints though. Also you need to take how Battletech has the problem of range, where SW almost as soon as that thing can see you it can fire on you (at least for most vehicles, standard weaponry did have range but still very far range). The closest thing I can see dealing on par damage with their weapons is the PPC or a Gauss Rifle. Also you bring up the point of calling in the TIE, can you imagine being in a Mech and having a volly of TIE fighters and bombers raining death down o.e

[sakkaku]

Sidra, on 19 July 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

True but you have to take in account the sheer power of a PT. The neck was a bit harder to hit than the leg joints though. Also you need to take how Battletech has the problem of range, where SW almost as soon as that thing can see you it can fire on you (at least for most vehicles, standard weaponry did have range but still very far range). The closest thing I can see dealing on par damage with their weapons is the PPC or a Gauss Rifle. Also you bring up the point of calling in the TIE, can you imagine being in a Mech and having a volly of TIE fighters and bombers raining death down o.e

Maximum range for an X-Wing is a little beyond 2km in canon. That is splash your shields and do no damage range. Usual engagements are probably 250m to 1000m which is about the same range as BT. Volley fire weaponry if it did enough damage would be a serious issue for a SW fighter because the first few rounds would collapse the shields then the remaining rounds would chew through relatively unarmored airframe. TIEs would be hit hardest because a single flight of LRMs would probably destroy them or in the case of atmosphere knock them around enough to sheer the wings off. A single jagermech could spell doom to a flight of TIEs as the rounds will go straight through the fighter as TIEs don't fair well in even small particulate asteroid fields.

[Fetladral]

At-At's actually moved at 60 km/h you cn't go just off the movie. Of course it could only maintain that speed over flat stable terrain. But battletechs have the advantage in mobility and (maybe) firepower though with the At-At's weapons being nearly ship grade I don't know.

Can't find weight of an AT-AT anywhere though.

About the SW fighters some had decent armoring. The ties didn't because the empire believed in quantity over quality.

http://starwars.wiki...mored_Transport

Edited by Fetladral, 19 July 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[Sidra]

sakkaku, on 19 July 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Maximum range for an X-Wing is a little beyond 2km in canon. That is splash your shields and do no damage range. Usual engagements are probably 250m to 1000m which is about the same range as BT. Volley fire weaponry if it did enough damage would be a serious issue for a SW fighter because the first few rounds would collapse the shields then the remaining rounds would chew through relatively unarmored airframe. TIEs would be hit hardest because a single flight of LRMs would probably destroy them or in the case of atmosphere knock them around enough to sheer the wings off. A single jagermech could spell doom to a flight of TIEs as the rounds will go straight through the fighter as TIEs don't fair well in even small particulate asteroid fields.

Aye but one, they are waisting a tone of LRM's on just TIE's and also I'm only talkign small fighters, not to mention the Star Destroyers (or super star with their giant shield strengths). I do admit TIE's are weak BUT they are meant to be fast weak cannon fodder. The Defenders and interceptors are a whole nother matter. I'm just going how you have a huge tech leap from one universe to another that is all I'm making my point on

[Elijah Saint Jude]

I think 40k owns both.
Just sayin

[Sidra]

Elijah Saint Jude, on 19 July 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

I think 40k owns both.
Just sayin

Now THAT would be a battle, SW vs 40K xD I would be tough to say what one

[pvtbryan]

Alture White, on 19 July 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Fleet of Star Destroyers....nuff said.

pfft... you're obviously unaware of the Leviathan II class...

Star Destroyers are for little boys ;P

[JP Josh]

this thread

look if its a ground only battle because of whatever reason lets just think both sides got reatarded commanders and they fight with only ground viechles then the faver goes to battle tech but combined arms the faver goes to the star wars side just because of one facter and thats the star destroyer good firepower ok speed has a flight of smaller fighter craft and other things in the bay and sheer numbers. and all the crap empire has. rebels only one cause they were everyWHERE. and the empire was retarded and squandered its resources on the death stars.

[sakkaku]

Sidra, on 19 July 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Aye but one, they are waisting a tone of LRM's on just TIE's and also I'm only talkign small fighters, not to mention the Star Destroyers (or super star with their giant shield strengths). I do admit TIE's are weak BUT they are meant to be fast weak cannon fodder. The Defenders and interceptors are a whole nother matter. I'm just going how you have a huge tech leap from one universe to another that is all I'm making my point on

Defenders were never mass produced. At most you would have a flight of 4 deployed. Interceptors suffer from the same weaknesses as the tie fighter and only gains speed and some firepower.

[Sidra]

pvtbryan, on 19 July 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

pfft... you're obviously unaware of the Leviathan II class...

Star Destroyers are for little boys ;P

I laugh at your ship with my Eclipse XD

http://starwars.wiki...ass_dreadnought

sakkaku, on 19 July 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Defenders were never mass produced. At most you would have a flight of 4 deployed. Interceptors suffer from the same weaknesses as the tie fighter and only gains speed and some firepower.

It also had heavier shields and better agility. But you can also go how Proton Torpedos and the Heavy lasers and Quad laser cannons for sheer firepower on capital ships, some vehicles and even frigates and transports had

[dnelre1]

keep in mind that the imperial era walkers are all transports, and the atat doubles as an assault artillery, and the atst doubles as a scout. republic era walkers however would be more suited for anti-armour duty. the all terrain tactical enforcer was designed for combat, and the name really says it all. and the atxt experimental walker, although produced and used only in some numbers, would carve deep holes in any armour based foe, like the battlemechs. star wars would win on pure firepower. mobility is vastly superior on battlemachs though, as the fastest at, the atst goes at 90 km/h. would make for a decent scout killer though

[Drunktank]

...and Superman could totally kick Spidermans *** even though Spiderman is way cooler!

[Gorith]

As stated star wars came first but in a straight vehicular battle I think battlemechs would decimate the at line of walkers. With that said I think 40k titans would eat them both.

[Stonefalcon]

Alture White, on 19 July 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Fleet of Star Destroyers....nuff said.

I raise your Star Destroyers with Sun Crusher. Battletech wishes it could compete with Star Wars on a technological level.