NEW TERRAN GAMEPLAY. w/ new sound and unit portrait.

The SC1 portrait has a shot angling up towards the driver. In it you see some pretty massive goggles and what could be a helmet behind them. You say siege tanks are mainly for artillery so a small loss of vision wouldn't change much. Even in normal tank mode the computer would handle most things

If the battlecruisers overhead were fleeing theres a good chance you'd be forgiven especially if they gave an order for your forces to flee. Having more skilled drivers alive at the end of each engagment is probally a good thing =P.

In that situation i assumed that the main turret on the tank had been disabled, so that staying in the tank would not accomplish anything.

Terran command i'm fairly sure would say that a dead driver in a perfectly operational tank who can be replaced is alot better than a wounded driver in a wreakage.

One of the main reasons your wearing this helmet is to protect youself from shrapnel. Its not travelling as fast as a bullet shot directly at your head so it wouldn't be incredibly hard to design a helmet to withstand richochets or shrapnel. While the force to kill you if it hit you in the head is miniscule. Even a nasty scratch could be fatal due to blood loss.

In emergency situations they may not have time to inspect every tank. Also being strapped in to the extent that would save you if your tank rolled or took a direct hit would most likely be very intrusive and severly restrict movement.

As I stated above a seatbelt which could save you and not let your head hit anything would be very intrusive. A helmet would reduce the chance of your death. The siege tank chassis is well.... built like a tank =P. So rolling shouldn't damage it much but the bad side to this is that the contents inside would be moved around a lot more. Example in real life would be vehicles with a solid chassis as opposed to the normal crumple zone. People who get in high speed crashes in these vehicles normally experience a lot more injuries.

Yamatos do not delay the firing of normal weapon systems after it has fired nor does it move or damage the battlecruiser. It looks like more of a plasma or lasery thing so the kick would probally be negligible anyway. Even if there was a kick there would be ample warning before it happened and people could get strapped in, because it only happens a few times an hour while the siege tank would be firing multiple times a minute.

The speeds it would need to reach would be massive therefore very powerful engines, if i was an engineer worried about the kick (If it even has one) i would rig up certain engines to engage at the same time so that the push back is balanced by the push fowards since having a Battlecruiser and crew go flying whenever you shot a yamato would be alot more devastating than having a driver bump his helmet against the interior of his tank (Giving a chance of serious injury).

They are not designed for it but it can still happen, it can still be hit at range yes. But they are not always at range, i imagine that the most losses for siege tanks would be when they are overrun . Where alot more foriegn material may find itself being lodged threw the tanks armour.

If the whole hull is your helmet its fitted fairly losely and as you said things could shatter so you'd get part of your "metaphorical" helmet in your head =P.Of course in this situation you'd be using an umbrella indoors when hail was smashing through the building killing everyone and glass was shattering, acid rain was falling and your umbrella was made out of a tough and light military class alloy.

Seatbelts are different to helmets in that seatbelts do not really make you feel safer if your getting shot at, a helmet does, therefore people inside the tanks would wear a helmet even if they were so inclined to not where their seatbelt. I know you'll argue that helmets give a false sense of secruity thus making people disregard seatbelts but these drivers aren't exactly the most profesional or intelligent men in the army so i don't think that they'd all wear seatbelts anyway but a smart helmet would be worn.

 

Come on the portraits are designed to make the units look cool and give personality not to be practical,

plus, on a lore level, the Terrans have always customised their gear to make them unique to the user. This adds a little personality to everything in the Terran arsenal which makes them unique as a race. This can be seen in concept art of Findlay's marine armour, where there are pictures of women, number of kills and many other personal add ons that he has drawn onto his armour to make it his.

So that crewman not having a helmet or armour is not to say they all dont wear armour, there may be a standard battle gear for tank drivers its just that he has chosen not to wear it on a personal level, plus the designers thought it would make him look more bad ass. Hell if we get a close up concept art of a siege tank then we may see pictures of women drawn on them as well as other cool features such as kill counts and even names given by crews to a tank. I'd call my tank Vera

 

Yes he can. He's not in the line of fire, so what would it matter? There's obviously no military reason showing that they have to wear a helmet or armour. Just look at the Vulture's driver. A weird hat or bandana, the circular specs, hideous beard, plain shirt and leather jacket. Military reasons? I doubt it.

As you can plainly see in the current Siege Tank portrait, he's not wearing his dirty pyjamas, nor anything that's equally as stupid. If he got out in his uniform, along with all the other Siege Tank drivers, not only would the commander not be angry, but even if he was, he wouldn't go around and massacre the entirety of his Siege Tank drivers.

Well apart from such a perfectly laid out time-delay explosion, whether the driver was wearing armour or not, he'd be killed by the Hydralisk, as the Hydralisk isn't going to stop attacking after firing a single spine. The driver would obviously not be wearing anything close to the standard of even the Marine's armour and would also be relatively unarmed, so let's recap on this scenario. Quick, instant death from a single volley of spines, or surviving long enough to witness such a horrifying beast hurling volley after volley of spines into your chest which only penetrate about half the distance, due to the armour, so you'll be lying there, unable to move and bleeding to death with next to nothing to shoot back at the Hydralisk with.

@ marinefreak. Paragraph by paragraph.

Looking back at it, the Siege Tank driver did have goggles, but didn't have a helmet. The thing behind his head was just for his headpiece. Either way he wasn't wearing them for some reason, probably, by the looks of them, because they restricted visibility, so what makes you think that they'd wear the helmet? They're protected by the Tank anyway.

Battlecruisers wouldn't give the order to flee. They wouldn't issue any additional orders and just leave, like in that cinematic in StarCraft1 or BroodWar, I forget which. All they'd be concerned with is holding the Zerg back for as long as possible. Having more skilled drivers would be a good thing, yes, but having skilled drivers who desert their posts and flee who now know that they can get away with it, isn't.

Well, if the main turret has been disabled, for some reason, wouldn't it be more effective to remain inside the Tank and meet whatever comes at you in the choke point that is the Tank's door? It'd be much easier and more beneficial than running out into the open battlefield, yanking the Marine's gun from his cold, rigor mortis-stricken hands.

The Tank wouldn't be so flimsy due to fixing a fairly small but exploitable design flaw that it would otherwise be able to perfectly survive what would have blown it to pieces it to pieces if they had fixed it. Basically, a Tank that didn't have its design flaw fixed wouldn't be able to come out of situation unscathed when one that had had its design flaw fixed wouldn't have been completely wrecked. Besides, if it's so much easier for the driver to die, it's not a good thing. If the Tanks are just sitting there, unmanned, then the likelihood of losing the battle would have just increased by a fair amount, in which case they'd lose the Tanks anyway. However, if the drivers didn't die so easily, then they'd still be there, perfectly functional and holding off the enemy, then the likelihood of them winning the battle would have increased, in which case they'd get the Tanks back anyway. If they're able to win without any manned Tanks, or at least with far fewer manned Tanks than they'd otherwise have, what's the point in having them at all?

I still don't understand where all this ricocheting and shrapnel is coming from. If your Tank is hit so hard that internal pieces are breaking off your interior at high speeds, I don't think the shrapnel would be the greatest of your concerns. What it was that blew open the entire right side of your Tank would probably be of more importance to you at that time.

You don't think there'll be anyone checking the Tanks before they go out into battle? What do you think the build time's for? Besides, as I've said, that would actually be a very important aspect of ensuring that drivers, and therefore the Tanks last as long as possible with as much control as possible. I never said that some restraints would save you if you rolled.

Restraints would not save you if your tank rolled, and neither would a helmet. If your Tank rolled, even if the Tank did end up relatively unharmed, the crew and the people standing around the Tank would be dead. The restraints would keep you in the one place, just like a car seatbelt. Car seatbelts aren't so intrusive that they stop you from driving the car, so why would it stop you from driving a tank? Again, helmets would not save you or help in the slightest in this situation.

I just had to quote this part:

There is a massive kick with the Yamato Cannon. You can see that by how much is absorbs the recoil. Delaying normal weapons has nothing to do with it, seeing as neither the Battlecruiser's nor the Tank's weapons systems are delayed.

Case and point. Plenty of time to get strapped in. They're not going to be running around putting on helmets now, are they? There's no need for a helmet.

About the Battlecruiser's thrusters, they wouldn't instantly accelerate them to such speeds. It would be a gradual thing. All other forces acting upon the Battlecruiser in order for reverse thrusters to function properly would have to be exactly the same in all instances. Seeing as they're fighting in space and on different planets under different conditions, it'd be far, far easily just to absorb the recoil.

If the Tank is overrun, it's dead anyway, regardless of whether the driver is wearing a helmet. If you're going on about how a Tank would come out of a roll relatively unscathed, such a Tank wouldn't have bullets and pieces of shrapnel penetrating the hull.

About your response to my umbrella analogy, why would your umbrella be designed to be made of such a material that can withstand massive chunks of hail, shattered glass and acid rain when the building your inside is not? Regardless of anything the Tank's hull, or the building, is going to be made out of stronger and higher grade materials than your helmet, or the umbrella, so if things are smashing through it, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, your helmet isn't going to do much.

Driver's don't need to feel safer by wearing a helmet when they're being shot at as they've got the tank around them! If a helmet makes you feel safer when they're shooting directly at you, imagine how much safer you'd feel in a reinforced battle tank when they're not even shooting at you, as they're shooting at the tank. If such drivers are so inclined as to not wear a seatbelt, then they would not wear a helmet. You see in any situation that requires a helmet or head protection, like bike riding, construction sites, chemistry pracs, etc, people still don't always wear helmets, so saying that they'd be more useful because the drivers would just unbuckled their seatbelt is pointless because they'd just take off their helmets as well, especially seeing as the helmets don't do anything, whereas seatbelts would.

 

I don't think the helmet to the siege tank would be meant for safety as much as it would be meant as a tool.

For example, the F-35s are going to be equipped with a heads up display system that will not be seen on the control panel, but on the visor of the helmet. With all the sensor information going to the visor, the pilot will literally, only have to turn their head, and they will be able to locate any enemy targets, even when it is directly beneath the plane.

Obviously this feature would be more advantagous to a fighter plane, however, that's not to say that the siege tank drivers would not be equipped with similar equipment to get the job done. When in seige mode, especially, it would probably be useful, so to get coordinates right and to not accidentally take out their own guys by accident.

Just a hypothesis as to what the helmet is for.

 

I do not want to make a double post but nobody answered over my question.I would like to hear at least a few speculation.
What it can be a new unique super weapon for de Battlecruiser, or other extras.

 

from the color of it, it looks like it is a normal command, and not a ability

 

^ looks like the battlecruiser is building interceptors.

 

It's threads like these that make me wish I was a mod again...

Please stick to the subject and not inconsequential debates about minor details that aren't really integral to ANYTHING AT ALL

I don't mean this in an aggressive way, it's just really exhausting to read such large and well organized points to realize that it wasn't really that enlightening. Put your great debating skillz to more productive uses guys, you put a lot of work and effort into your posts

 

Game looks great, very impressd with the gamespeed above all. The Thors do look alittle clunky, but I guess it fits thier clunky, awkward role of anti-air? Thor still needs to be reconsidered, if you ask me. The Battlecruisers look amazing, thier attack is great, the portrait is awesome; very impressed. I like the tanks too, reminds me of Gears of War for some reason, the portrait that is.

 

Nice find, looks like the jackle is taking the place of the bat.

 

I put up a translation of Savior's interview on the Youtube page if anyone's interested. He doesn't really say much though.

 

Just let us now when you do mate

 

I already did, it's up on the Youtube site as a reply. I posted under "sillysmy." But Savior really doesn't say much of anything.

 

Yeh i just saw it, thought he would of said more about the game

guess he saves the stuff that he thinks needs fixing for blizzard

 

It sounded to me that Savior was saying that "it's not that the game is bad..."(as opposed to actively saying that it's good), almost with a sense of reluctance just to be officially neutral for the public record. But then again, whenever I heard Savior giving one of his interviews, it never made me drop what I was doing.

Although I'm a Zerg player and I like Savior just fine, I wish they get Nada(? I think that's his screen name, Lee Yoon Yul) to test the game. Only if Nada was still as good as he was before...

 

Yes, Nada would be great, and Lee is Nada. I think his understanding of the game is the greatest of all pro-players. But I still like Savior much more.

On the other hand, Savior has a big understanding too, and he is one of those few players that train all races. He once said in an interview that when playing a big match against someone like bisu, he trained with protoss as much as with zerg. He did that to know the timing. So his understanding is big too.

 

I'm thinking Nada over Savior not so much because one exhibits a greater understanding over the other, but because Nada is much more likely to try some non-textbook funky strat and tactical micro.

 

Yes but I was more thinking who "we" would like to have a look at the game, and give us his view on the game. I think the deeper the understanding the better this review would be.