Siege Tanks

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

I don't play Terran much, but it's still interesting to me since I play against them a lot (a friend of my brother's Terran ALL the time...)..

Did anybody else notice the Siege Tanks didn't seem to have a minimum range anymore? You can see it when the Immortals are attacking them, and maybe you might see it too earlier with the Zealots, but didn't notice it there... anyway, if there is a minimum range, it's a damn close minimum range... right?

Anyway, how do you think that will change gameplay? And in what other ways do you think the Siege Tank will change?

Though I hate playing against it most of the time, I agree it was a good choice to let it in... it's one of those classic units that can be really annoying in a fun way =P and some people would freak if it was removed, ofc....

[Fenix]

There was a minimum range, just the scripting was smart and spaced them so the ones in the back could target things up close to the ones in front.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Are you sure? I could've sworn I saw the ones in the front fire too... will have to look again when I get the right computer available, but I'll take your word on it for now...

Anyway, the rest of the discussion still goes right?

[Senator]

I'm sure there is a minimum range. Siege tanks jsut wouldn't be siege tanks without them!

If there is none, then they would be way too powerful. And they do splash damage so does that mean they will hurt themselves? I don't think so...

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Hmmya... I guess so =(

[PeterPetreli]

Hey, no minimum range siege tanks would be cool! Or at lest, they should have a melee attack. Give them blades or something that stick out when enemy is close!

[hellzor]

Hey people, i'm new to the forum.
It did seem like the siege tanks were shooting the immortals from a very close distance.
Especially the final 2 tanks. Hopefully they tweak this a bit....i've always liked the idea of countering siege tanks with close combat units by exploiting the minimum range.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Just looked at it again... and erhm you can't really tell if there is no minimum range, but it's at a very close distance - you can in fact see it better when the Zealots attack, you know, the failing attack, and when there's two Siege Tanks that are being attacked, and they're pretty close together, and the one shoots at the Zealots attacking the other... dunno if the distance is short compared to SC1 but... it looks close to me...

Like I said though, you can't tell if there's a minimum range at all, so there probably is.

[PeterPetreli]

I just watched it again as well and was jsut about to post exactly what whatsifsowhatsit posted but he beat me to it so there you go :)

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Hehe... yea well hellzor beat me to it, so don't feel too bad =P

[red_dragoon]

Welcome aboard hellzor. Made me watch the replay again too and yep, the two guys after you were right ::)

I think melee units like zealots can't be fired at close range with siege thanks. The immortals have small range so you can't tell if there is a minimum firing distance or not.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

But if there was, that would probably mean you'd have to kinda be directly against them (ie Zealots) to be inside that minimum range, from the looks of it...

[hellzor]

I like how you can kinda see the splash damage....in sc1 you had to kinda imagine it somewhat.
This is good when the tanks are spread out and the ones at the back fire at the zealots attacking the front ones.... and the splash damage destroys the tanks...very handy.

[TheDarkTemplar]

Tanks are powerful enough in my opinion, they don't need a melee attack or no minimum range. And logically it doesn't make sense not to have a minimum range, right?

[mc2]

Tanks only have a minimum range if it's in the siege mode. once the tank is reverted back to normal mode, it can attack units right next to them.
I think tanks should be replaced in SC2, this technology has been around since the 1900s, surely there's new & better ground military devices by the year 2504

[TheDarkTemplar]

I don't think so, I mean they are pretty damn powerful. That's like saying there should be something more technologically advanced than a nuke.

[mc2]

Yeah, when starcraft first came out, i said to myself: the protoss should have more powerful weapons then scarabs.
if you have a look the zerg gets infested terran with 500dmg, the terran gets nukes with 500dmg. So basically the most powerful protoss weapon is scarab with 125dmg. seems very unbalanced eh??

Anyway i think blizzard made the siege tank just a notch too powerful in the 1st place.....and with protoss....they've the mothership, so its good..

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Tanks are powerful enough in my opinion, they don't need a melee attack or no minimum range. And logically it doesn't make sense not to have a minimum range, right?


I agree! Especially since I barely play Terran myself anyway... xD


Yeah, when starcraft first came out, i said to myself: the protoss should have more powerful weapons then scarabs.
if you have a look the zerg gets infested terran with 500dmg, the terran gets nukes with 500dmg. So basically the most powerful protoss weapon is scarab with 125dmg. seems very unbalanced eh??


Hmmm, I don't really agree with that analogy... I mean, you gotta take a look at how you get these weapons...

Once you got the Ghost, it still takes a LOT of technology to throw a Nuke, and you can only use it once, and the enemy gets a pretty good shot at stopping it...

Once you got the Queen, you still gotta get a Command Center destroyed enough to infest it, AND you can also use each Infested Terran once to do that amount of damage.

Once you got the Reaver, which also takes some technology but not too much more than the Queen and certainly no more than the Nuke, each Scarab costs only 15 minerals, and you can keep the Reaver! You can even stock them up to 5 (or 10 with the upgrade everyone gets that gets Reavers)!

'Sides, Protoss got Carriers... =P

I love the Mothership though XD

[10-Neon]

You can't think of a unit's power in terms of damage/shot alone. In fact, damage/shot is almost useless for deciding anything. You have to take into account the cooldown between attacks and the unit's average lifespan as well.
When cooldown is taken int account, Siege Tanks are suddenly not very scary, and when life span is considered, Infested Terrans don't seem so powerful. Add to that things like hit points (Infested Terrans tend to die long before they can blow anything up when in direct fire) and tech level, and units all start looking the same. That is how balance works.
The Protoss don't have any units that do 500 damage in one shot, but they do have plenty of units that can do 500 damage in their expected lifetime and the fact that their units do more damage over their lifetimes than units of other races.

[reject_666_6]

^ You, sir, are an intelligent mammal. :D

[mc2]

hehe true. the thing is reavors are awfully slow and always require accompanying shuttles. they also have a slow cooldown time.
The SPLASH damage of nuke strike just makes the terran seem too powerful, and the siege tank too. and the ghost gets to cloak while pinpointing the nuke so it does take a while to send a detector over.
yes infested terrans, u can only use it once, still pretty powerful for a zerg, and quite cost effective compare to scourge.

[Fenix]

I <3 my infested Terrans....For the Overmind!

Nukes....It's overkill using them on anything but a command center, but it takes two or three nukes to kill a command center.

And if you front line Reavers, they suck. But, if you play them right, one Reaver can deal upwards of 2000 damage. Not to mention racking up kills like no other. I had one with something like 75 kills once.

[10-Neon]

The cost of the nuke includes:
Barracks: 150 -partially negated by the fact that it is useful beyond nuke tech
Academy: 150 -partially negated by the fact that it is useful beyond nuke tech
Factory: 200/100 -partially negated by the fact that it is useful beyond nuke tech
Starport: 150/100: -partially negated by the fact that it is useful beyond nuke tech
Science Facility: 100/150
Covert Ops: 50/50
Nuclear Silo: 50/50
Nuclear Missile: 200/200
Ghost: 25/75
-----
Minimum cost: 975/725

On top of that, you'll probably want:
Personal Cloaking: 100/100
Dropship: 100/100 - most players get some sort of detection towards their base entrances, walking in usually isn't an option unless you intend to hit the entrance itself.
-----
Bringing it to 1175/925.

And of course, I tend to include a Medic and Science Vessel as support, which adds another 150/275. Sometimes I even include a small group of Marines with an SCV to start working on a bunker in the enemy base, creating a beachhead for my cleanup squad.

Then...you have to make it into their base, hoping they haven't already scouted you and noticed the silo, deal with placing the nuke and surviving an attack from an army that is probably 525-725 minerals worth of units larger than yours. Even with splash, a nuke won't take out a player's most important buildings, meaning they still have the infrastructure to get back at you with force. After your first launch, unless your enemy is really thick, occupied, or crippled, they'll begin creating nuke countermeasures that will mean you won't be able to pull off many more hits, if any. You better hope you caused more than 1250 worth of combined resources worth of damage if you want the strike to pay off. Nukes are not any more powerful than anything else, as you can see, the act of scouting is much more valuable than the time, tech and resources put into its construction, as the successful detection of a nuke operation tends to lead to its downfall.

[starcraft2iscoming]

I WANT TO KNOW WHO BROUGHT SIEGE TANKS, ONTO MY BATTLE FIELD!! - Starcraft:Ghost tralier

[reject_666_6]

^ Yeah, I remember that line. That was a really cool trailer, very Blizzardish.

How many of you think that the Starcraft 1 Siege Tank's non-siege mode firing animation was pretty pathetic? I think it was as crappy as a Ghost's attack but with an even more dry sound. Opinions?

[l2k]

I second that... I can't even recall if I have been using the non-siege mode attack :-X

[reject_666_6]

Non-siege mode for half of my tanks as soon as enemy Zealots appeared was pretty common for me. It's just a simple, short *poof* with the Ghost's hitting sprite on the target. Not very tankish, and plus the cannon had dual-barrels, so they could either fire more devastating-looking shells and they could double the rate of fire but cut the damage in half (also with a cooler animation).

[starcraft2iscoming]

Everyone ether loves or hates this sound from the distance.

[WuHT]

Its like hearing AWPs in CS. Whenever siege tanks go off, you're looking out.

[KoN17]

It seemed though on the gameplay video, the siege tanks didn't have that much of a strong firepower in siege mode to whipe out most of those zealots :o :o :o

[reject_666_6]

As I said before:
1. They really need to change the model and the sounds of the tank.
2. They really need to make balancing issues, too many Zealots got through for a unit that's not supposed to be effective vs. tanks.

[mc2]

Or they can replace tanks altogether. I think a new unit that has similar power as tanks would be good. if blizzard wants they can always but the tank's weapon on a air unit :D

[reject_666_6]

What you talk about is heresy! Shun the non-believer! Shun!!!

But seriously, the tank is not just a specific unit, it's the whole idea of an armored vehicle of war. Removing the only tank unit in the game would be like chopping an army's right arm off...

[Inside Sin]

Hey, no minimum range siege tanks would be cool! Or at lest, they should have a melee attack. Give them blades or something that stick out when enemy is close!


That would be sooooooo BAD.

Mass tanks, but keep a little space between each one. INSTANT OWNED.

Equals, bad balancing. Try to think of that next post.

[starcraft2iscoming]

Tanks own, but they can be very unhelpful for defending bases sometimes. They do splash damage, and they can hurt you more than there real target! They can harm yoyr buildings, and kill your melee units, like a combination of siege tanks and firebats.

[mc2]

they are probably not going to replace tanks, i remember reading somewhere that 3 units from each race will be replaced, and tanks are not likely to be one of them, they should improve on the looks of it tho..

[coalescence]

they are probably not going to replace tanks, i remember reading somewhere that 3 units from each race will be replaced, and tanks are not likely to be one of them, they should improve on the looks of it tho..


I think thats a very stupid from blizzard looking at the fact that they're making a new game.

[mc2]

they'll have lots of balance issues to work out if they bring in too many new units

[TheDarkTemplar]

Clearly more than three units are out in each race, Blizzard have said that there will be the same number of units per race as in StarCraft 1, so with Protoss they've brought in:

Stalkers
Immortals
Mothership
Warp Ray
Phoenix
Phase Prism
Colossus.

That means bye bye to seven Protoss units from SC1

[coalescence]

Thats not my point. Its more the fact that they say: "every species gets 3 new units."
Just try to figure out what works out best and I don't give a rats ass about which army gets how many units replaced. Its just the statement; every army 3. Don't like that kind of bollocks.

Also,


they'll have lots of balance issues to work out if they bring in too many new units


How many work do you think someone has if they make a complety new game. And alot of developer do that, you know, making new games ;)
And theres still a **** lot of balancing to do with units, old or new. They introduced 7 new units already for the protoss. Its not like balancing a zealot is easier now than balancing a complety new unit.



Clearly more than three units are out in each race, Blizzard have said that there will be the same number of units per race as in StarCraft 1, so with Protoss they've brought in:

Correct me if I'm mistakin, but didn't they say that they weren't gonna make armies alot bigger. I think they will be slightly bigger.

[TheDarkTemplar]

No, I mean you have the same number of units to choose from, not the same unit cap. Yes, they've said they want armies to be bigger, but the choice of units remains the same ;)

[coalescence]

No, I mean you have the same number of units to choose from, not the same unit cap. Yes, they've said they want armies to be bigger, but the choice of units remains the same ;)


Sorry, I should have been more clearer, but that was exactly what I meant :)

[reject_666_6]

You don't have to be so aggressive about it. What kind of pathetic army would not have tanks in it? There are some units that not even Blizzard can account for if they take them out.

[coalescence]

You don't have to be so aggressive about it. What kind of pathetic army would not have tanks in it? There are some units that not even Blizzard can account for if they take them out.


Who is acting aggressive?

[reject_666_6]

Talk of **** and bollocks makes me imagine little elementary school British kids picking on each other...

<_<

>_>

Those guys freak me out! :'(

I still shall defend Tanks right to the very end!

[coalescence]

I was the one who sayd bollocks and I didn't say anything about the tanks, only that I thought the answer from blizz was stupid.

;D

;D Mother of all bollocks ;D

[Gold]

Have the sped up the change animation?
before the tanks took a little longer i think.
maybe they did it to promote rushing over base defence or something.
and in starcraft didnt the tanks say seige mode
or was that transformers?

[Shockfrost]

I think tanks should be replaced in SC2, this technology has been around since the 1900s, surely there's new & better ground military devices by the year 2504

I disagree - the Tank represents the best of Armored Ground Vehicles.

Something that moves fast, is hard to destroy, and deals lots of damage - that's a Tank.
Note the modern Siege Tank looks NOTHING like a real tank.
And also note it does wild n' crazy things like Siege Mode.

I think the Tank belongs in the postmodern Starcraft 2 world.
If for no other reason, because it was in Starcraft 1.

Also, these are the Terran we are talking about. Sporks came out and we didn't obsolete the spoons. We never obsolete ANYTHING; we let the enemy obsolete them by turning them to scrap, and get a bit more mileage out of em.
Heal, repair, and recycle.

We don't even obsolete our prisoners. We just re-use em' as glory boys.

[coalescence]

Also I think the terrans are not technologically advanced advanced for all terrain walkers (goliath is good, but can't cross rough terrain I guess) while the tracks of a tank can cross over everything.
And also, machine guns have been around longer (starting with the gatling guns from the 19th century I guess??? Correct me if I'm wrong), still a weapon you see in almost every sci-fi.

[reject_666_6]

I know this may sound corny, and take note that it is ;D, but why didn't the Terrans move to use lasers instead of bullets? I hate pew-pews but I'm just curious why they never did.

[mc2]

I think tanks should be replaced in SC2, this technology has been around since the 1900s, surely there's new & better ground military devices by the year 2504

I disagree - the Tank represents the best of Armored Ground Vehicles.

Something that moves fast, is hard to destroy, and deals lots of damage - that's a Tank.
Note the modern Siege Tank looks NOTHING like a real tank.
And also note it does wild n' crazy things like Siege Mode.

I think the Tank belongs in the postmodern Starcraft 2 world.
If for no other reason, because it was in Starcraft 1.


Let's look back 500 years from 2007....
in the 1500s, the Catapult was probably the most advanced weapon. Yes the 20th century tank is developed base on the catapult. But obviously the effectiveness is greatly increased.

Now let's look forward 500 years from 2007....
in the 2500s, humans would have deviced new ground vehicle weapons that look and operate very differently from tanks.

[reject_666_6]

Ever since the PC was first created, computing power had doubled every year. In 20 years, a computer becoming even more powerful will be redundant. In 500 years, they'll be roughly the same as 300 earlier. There are just some things that can't be refined any further. Has there ever been a better sword produced than the old samurai swords, 800 years ago?

[mc2]

^ LOL well the fire fighters have scissors sharp enough that it can literally cut through metal locks with ease. I'm sure the samurai sword (LOL tom cruise..) wasn't that advanced though. And lets not forget the diamond blade that can cut through glass without cracking :)

anyway back on topic to the siege tanks....maybe reject's idea of laser can be utilize more in terrans. or prolly blizzard doesn't want to give an impression that SC is a cheap copy of star wars...............

[TheDarkTemplar]

I wondered why they didn't take on the laser as well, but I'm glad Blizz stuck to the bullets. I also hate the "pew-pew's" ::)

[capthavic]

Are you sure? I could've sworn I saw the ones in the front fire too... will have to look again when I get the right computer available, but I'll take your word on it for now...

Anyway, the rest of the discussion still goes right?


I don't know how you could tell there were too many explosions, etc. for me

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

I know this may sound corny, and take note that it is ;D, but why didn't the Terrans move to use lasers instead of bullets? I hate pew-pews but I'm just curious why they never did.


I also wonder, although with their aircraft they did use laser a lot...

[Pix]

http://eu.starcraft2.com/screenshot.xml?2

Look above the lings, on the top right - there's two of them. Also on the far left, you can see one poking into the screen. And... yup, there's another. Middle, at the very top.

Now, they're facing the attacking lings, and they're coloured in the Terran colours, but they're not attacking.
Strange, no?
Anyone got any ideas/thoughts on what these strange things might be?

EDIT: It's a Seige Tank. Noted.

So, what are other people's opinions on this new look?
A good direction for the classic Seige Tank, or a step backwards?

~Pix~

[Shockfrost]

http://eu.starcraft2.com/screenshot.xml?2

Look above the lings, on the top right - there's two of them. Also on the far left, you can see one poking into the screen. And... yup, there's another. Middle, at the very top.

Now, they're facing the attacking lings, and they're coloured in the Terran colours, but they're not attacking.
Strange, no?
Anyone got any ideas/thoughts on what these strange things might be?

EDIT: In the other screenshots, such as this: http://eu.starcraft2.com/screenshot.xml?1 the strange building can be seen to fire upon enemies. It seems to attack with a large, slow but very explosive ball of flame... correct me if I'm wrong. This seems to be some new form of Terran static defence?

EDIT::
Although. What is that vehicle looking thing in screenshots 1 and 2, near the upper left parked near the Barracks?
New-style Vulture, anyone?

~Pix~


FIXED your screenshot link in my quote. You refer to screenshot 2.

And you are looking at a TERRAN SIEGE TANK, unfolded in siege mode. You can see its four wheel-like treads are holding it up.

[Pix]

That's the Seige Tank? Damn it's become so... ugly...
How does that thing move? It looked so static-defense-ish...
Ah well, that's a noobish mistake for me =P
So, what are other people's opinions on this new look?
A good direction for the classic Seige Tank, or a step backwards?
~Pix~

[Shockfrost]

That's the Seige Tank? Damn it's become so... ugly...
How does that thing move? It looked so static-defense-ish...
Ah well, that's a noobish mistake for me =P
So, what are other people's opinions on this new look?
A good direction for the classic Seige Tank, or a step backwards?
~Pix~

MANY people are complaining the Siege Tank is ugly.

[Fenix]

I've wondered that too......Realistically, if it was mounted on a ground vehicle, the alignment would be screwed over quite easily....Going over the slightest bumps would knock it out. Plus you have to consider the power source. It takes loads of power to charge up a laser offensively. It's just not feasible to carry that large of a power generator one a ground vehicle.

[Shockfrost]

I think tanks should be replaced in SC2, this technology has been around since the 1900s, surely there's new & better ground military devices by the year 2504

I disagree - the Tank represents the best of Armored Ground Vehicles.

Something that moves fast, is hard to destroy, and deals lots of damage - that's a Tank.
Note the modern Siege Tank looks NOTHING like a real tank.
And also note it does wild n' crazy things like Siege Mode.

I think the Tank belongs in the postmodern Starcraft 2 world.
If for no other reason, because it was in Starcraft 1.


Let's look back 500 years from 2007....
in the 1500s, the Catapult was probably the most advanced weapon. Yes the 20th century tank is developed base on the catapult. But obviously the effectiveness is greatly increased.

Now let's look forward 500 years from 2007....
in the 2500s, humans would have deviced new ground vehicle weapons that look and operate very differently from tanks.


A rolling device that deals intense damage from a distance.
I don't see much change from a Catapult at all.
Although the armor is a nice touch, and now there's an engine on board.
But adding modern developmental physics to a fantasy game is like adding oil to boiling water.

WTF are you trying to do?
Next you'll be complaining Protoss energy sources don't really exist.
=P

EDIT:
Sorry if that came off harsh, but there are three distinct styles of play here.
We have the Protoss, technology kings who have to deal with poor pole position and an adaptive enemy.

We have the Zerg, monsters that don't even use weapons, instead developing biological weapons...

And we have the Terran. Stodgy old military grunts who follow tradition and perform actions whether or not they are the best course, because they can.

They still wear current modern military uniforms. THOSE have changed DOZENS of times in 500 years.

They use stylized equipment that suggests it's just good enough to get the job done, and no better. The wiring peeks through on the Marine suit, and the assembly process is geared for efficiency and accuracy, not prettiness.

To provide that gritty, "On the spot" feel, the Terrans use things that other people don't.
Like field medics, crude combustion engine vehicles,

and the Tank.

Could they make better? Probably.
if they weren't swamped in internal beauracracy and whitelined to just get the project done.
For now, the new old model works.

[capthavic]

That's the Seige Tank? Damn it's become so... ugly...
How does that thing move? It looked so static-defense-ish...
Ah well, that's a noobish mistake for me =P
So, what are other people's opinions on this new look?
A good direction for the classic Seige Tank, or a step backwards?
~Pix~


It looks static-defense-ish because its deployed into siege mode. if you look closely in the pics or videos you can see the treads spread and steady the body. As for design looks yeah its not great but gameplay is more important to me.

[reject_666_6]

Yes, the Siege Tank is very ugly, like an elephant sitting down and spitting shells at enemies. They'll change it. Remember that people on battle.net forums have already made a petition to remove the Marine's shields, so they'll go frantic about this tank's looks.

[10-Neon]

Just for the record, just like I am in favor of the loathed Marine shield, I also like the Siege Tank's new siege mode. The textures aren't wonderful, but I like the model. It makes it feel more like the static artillery piece that it is when it is sieged.

[mc2]

It's alright, the siege tank has always been not-very-good-looking.
And how can they possibly make a tank look good? Give it the shape of a SUV?

[mc2]

haha you're very funny.
Seriously wouldn't they at least "try" to came up with new ground technology?

[Fenix]

Just for the record, just like I am in favor of the loathed Marine shield, I also like the Siege Tank's new siege mode. The textures aren't wonderful, but I like the model. It makes it feel more like the static artillery piece that it is when it is sieged.


I'm with you on the shield....It's pimp.



Anyhoo, I happen to like the new tank look...In Siege Mode, it makes sense for it to "pop up" onto it's treads.

[NotDeadYet]

I don't like the band of color on the end of the Siege Tank cannon. When the Tank is red, the cannon looks like a mouth.

[reject_666_6]

This is for the "New Face of Destruction - The Seige Tank Facelift" thread:
The red coloured tank looks too much like a Shoop Da Whoop. If anything, the most important thing that they should change about the tank is its cannon. It looks too smooth and toy-like.

This is for the "Siege Tank" thread:
I'm sure they "tried", but if you compare a Siege Tank to a modern existing tank, you'll see a huge difference. The concept of a Tank is never going to disappear, it's just the tank that might get some improvements every now and again...

[anothernut]

Siege tanks are my favorite unit in SC1, and I always thought they looked pretty cool in siege mode. I think the SC2 version is silly looking, like it was made out of legos. What a shame...

[Gold]

i think the change animation is to smooth, they should make it ruffer, i always imagine that most terran units is held together by chewing gum, and has been through alot, it would be cool if the tank opened up uneveningly or something

[capthavic]

Just for the record, just like I am in favor of the loathed Marine shield, I also like the Siege Tank's new siege mode. The textures aren't wonderful, but I like the model. It makes it feel more like the static artillery piece that it is when it is sieged.


I'm with you on the shield....It's pimp.



Yeah actually I had the same idea awhile back too.

[coalescence]

i think the change animation is to smooth, they should make it ruffer, i always imagine that most terran units is held together by chewing gum, and has been through alot, it would be cool if the tank opened up uneveningly or something


Maybe do that when theyre damaged, but again, it would take too much power from your pc :(

[Pix]

I would agree with shields if they used them effectively - battered down Zerglings with them, etc. (Although I doubt this would happen).
I prefer the gritty look of the Terrans, too. Down with the cartoon Seige Tank!
~Pix~

[Remy]

Siege tanks and marines look like toys now.Â* Ugly.

Might as well give them little red blinky lights as weapons, just like children's toys.Â* Give them those really annoying noisy crazy sounds too, the kind that almost make your head blow up.

[coalescence]

Siege tanks and marines look like toys now. Ugly.


Amen, same thing with buildings (both protoss and zerg) and battlecruisers. They really should make everything more curved and in proportion.

[Gold]

if you zoom in on them you can see more detail, they have shading and stuff
they jsut need to dampen how bright those colours are, give them some battle scares

[coalescence]

I was talking about the shape, it sucks.

[Pix]

It reminds me of that... oh... what is it?
That thing in Legend of Zelda that pops up out of bushes and shoots seeds xD
Little help...?
~Pix~

[coalescence]

It reminds me of that... oh... what is it?
That thing in Legend of Zelda that pops up out of bushes and shoots seeds xD
Little help...?
~Pix~


Which part?

[Pix]

It's called a "Kukuru Shrub" or something...
But yeah, Seige Tanks remind me of that.
~Pix~

[Singuris]

Siege tanks and marines look like toys now. Ugly.


agreed they look like things out of a cartoon

[Gold]

if thye could make all marines as detailed as tychus, it would be good
but no one could play, lets jsut hope they see waht needs to be changed, and not ignore people like us, we only love the game.

[coalescence]

It's not the details, its the shape. it sucks.

[Gold]

you mean jsut the tanks though yeah?
i think marines look cooler than before
but i more or less agree with you on the tanks

[coalescence]

I mean about everything, protoss and Terran buildings, marine, battlecruisers, siege tanks. The only things that look cool are the protoss and zerg units and the reaper.

[Gold]

they havnt changed battlecruisers, much.
sound just like personal preference.
I think everything is looking good except terran, they need to dirty terran up a bit, most of the buildings look like lego, whenever a building gets up to fly it turns suddenly in mid air and then slowly flys off, maybe thats not to bad for the barracks, but watch after the zealots get killed (or maybe after the immortals die) the cammand center flys away for some reason, it looks so silly.
they definetley need to make it less plastically.

[Remy]

It's called a "Kukuru Shrub" or something...
But yeah, Seige Tanks remind me of that.
~Pix~


Pix, I think you talking about the Deku Shrubs.

I'm not 100% sure that it's "Deku Shrubs" but I'm 99% sure that it was "Deku" in the name. Everything was deku, deku tree, deku stick, deku seed, etc.

[10-Neon]

Pretty close, it's Deku Scrub.

Anyway...

If you saw the Siege Tanks before StarCraft's release, they were pretty ugly too, they had big swatches of color that made them look a bit toyish. There are a couple of them in the screenshots on the game's box, I believe. Just remember, Blizzard is one of the game industry's biggest perfectionists. They won't let an unfitting unit ship.

[Remy]

Care to explain infested terrans? ;D

They sure suck like hell. I would mention queens too, but they "arguably" are useful so...

[mc2]

Infested terrans don't suck like hell. you just need to find a good opportunity to get them and use them :P
Well it's hard charging Infested terrans into an enemy's base by themselves. usually I'd use infested terrans when im having a zergling + hydralisk rush.
Bunkers? Siege Tanks? Reavers? Lurkers? Ultralisk? Are they in the way? stopping the advancement of your rush team? well throw in some infested terrans and problem solved!!!
I suppose the hard part is to infest a half damaged command centre.

Anyway the queen can be useful. parasiting enemy overlord or workers are very helpful because you can always keep an eye out on their base :D Or parasite those little critters and they'll likely to explore the map for you :D
Spawn broodings are the best to take out siege tanks. the range is very high and death is instantaneous. If you do it in the middle of a cluster of tanks, they'll shoot each other out :D

[starcraft2iscoming]

Dumb seige tanks. Who would hire a guy to pilot a Tank who would shoot the enemy, 2 inches apart from an friendly unit?

[Zombine]

Dumb seige tanks. Who would hire a guy to pilot a Tank who would shoot the enemy, 2 inches apart from an friendly unit?

not hired, conscripted. besides, it might be computer auto targeting, in which case you have to remember that blizzard made SC back in the dark ages for PC's (a.k.a. winedoze 95)

[Remy]

Infested terrans don't suck like hell.


Infested terrans suck like hell.

I've personally used them in real multiplayer games in almost every way possible, and they suck like hell. They go against the very nature of Zerg play. Most cases involved one of my friends playing Terran building me a CC.

You can never send more than one at a time, not even with other types of units. The first infested terran that detonates always takes out his buddies following behind him. Even if you send only one at a time, you'd still have to pull all your other units back as to not lose them to your own infested terran. Popping multiple darkswarms just to send a single infested terran at a time isn't in a Zerg player's best interest.

The only realistic use I found for them that didn't hurt myself was dropping a single infested terran at a time. It takes them a short time after being dropped to get ready and blow up on workers, it's not instantaneous as soon as they are dropped. Slowly dropping a single unit at a time also isn't the best strat in the world that late in the game, and this is at 100 minerals and 50 gas a pop.

Almost every single time that I put them to some use was a game that I would've won without using them anyway. The worst part about infested terrans is their accessibility. I've found my way around this with my friends who play Terran, but they still suck like hell.

[Zombine]

and the one use i can see for infested terran is that they retain the ability to lift off building+ they can burrow. Using them as landlines isn't necessarily the best thing, but they make good quick work of land units in choke points.

as for lifting off,land the command center behind an enemy base, and start pumping out units during your assault from the front. split the fronts, and you instantly have a major, a 2 front assault. it stopped Hitler, it stopped WW1, it stopped napoleon.

[Remy]

Even with me getting my CC to infest from my friend who provides it, the game's already kicked into hive tech(tier 3 tech) by the time you get some infested terrans ready to use. It is near impossible at that point to have an opponent come assault your choke without detectors. That would just be one of those games that you would've won anyway.

How do you go about pulling off flying the slow ass CC into an enemy base that late in the game? Not to mention to be able to land one, then sit there quietly and produce infested terrans. I don't mean to offend in anyway, but I fail to see why you wouldn't just drop a bunch of lings, hydras, lurkers, defilers in there and end the game, whenever you're in that kind of situation.

[sordid]

THAT is a siege tank. Those things in the demo vid were pathetic.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h78/wiley_n/ST.jpg

[Zombine]

Even with me getting my CC to infest from my friend who provides it, the game's already kicked into hive tech(tier 3 tech) by the time you get some infested terrans ready to use. It is near impossible at that point to have an opponent come assault your choke without detectors. That would just be one of those games that you would've won anyway.

How do you go about pulling off flying the slow ass CC into an enemy base that late in the game? Not to mention to be able to land one, then sit there quietly and produce infested terrans. I don't mean to offend in anyway, but I fail to see why you wouldn't just drop a bunch of lings, hydras, lurkers, defilers in there and end the game, whenever you're in that kind of situation.

The landing behind has worked before, but it is true that its hard. Not necessarily for main base assault, but its the same as landing a barracks. Its something you do as a distraction if nothing else, and then you simply mock them afterwards.

As for detecting, do you really always bring an observer or science vessel around when playing against zerg? excuse me for saying so, but that seems excessive. throw a few lings on top, let the enemy underestimate you if nothing else. draw them in with a few units.

[mc2]

That picture of a siege tank looks just like the ones in SC1, if you look at them in a birds eye view from above, it'll look just like that, like a toy tank. Besides they can't make the tanks too big in game, as least it can't be bigger than a battlecruiser.

With flying a infested CC into enemy's base and start pumping out infested terrans, it usually only work if you have the cheat operation cwal on. Usually producing them is too slow to be able to make the attack viable.

[Remy]

The landing behind has worked before, but it is true that its hard. Not necessarily for main base assault, but its the same as landing a barracks. Its something you do as a distraction if nothing else, and then you simply mock them afterwards.

As for detecting, do you really always bring an observer or science vessel around when playing against zerg? excuse me for saying so, but that seems excessive. throw a few lings on top, let the enemy underestimate you if nothing else. draw them in with a few units.


Landing a rax and landing an infested CC isn't the same thing. One is early-game, while the other one is much later at tier 3 tech.

As for detecting, yes I really do always bring observers or science vessels when I play against Zerg. Especially when I'm assaulting their choke. It is 100% guaranteed that they'll have lurks at choke. This is late in game when infested terrans are already accessible, why would you set yourself up for headache and the need to bring some anyway. Not to mentioned burrowed lings/hydras out farther that could take out your high templars or siege tanks.

In fact the most generic textbook build for Toss when you don't want to immediately choose a path after cybernetics, between reaver tech and templar tech, is to just get some observers first.

[Singuris]

i don't know why any of you would think that infested Terran strategy is a good idea personally i think they aren't worth the hassle the only way you can get some use out of them is to drop them out of an overlord even then not so much.

THAT is a siege tank. Those things in the demo vid were pathetic.


:powerup: couldn't have said it better myself dude. They need to make them look badass or else there are gonna be a lot of unhappy people....


got one unhappy guy right here come one those 6 tanks in the video of game play where touched by a few zealots in sc1 never would have happened

[overmind]

the seige tank is fine very terran(but they shouldn't have changed the look) the marine sheilds are stupid(the suits are supposed to have the armour but a bayanet for melee units would be cool) and infterrans are effective if you can use them right(its like argueing zealots suck becouse you can't use them right) besides nydus worms look like they will go brilliantly with Infterran(they did come up not on creep didn't they?)

[Remy]

I'm very interested to hear what your idea is on how to use infested terrans "right."

[mc2]

I've just played several games using Zerg and Infested Terrans are particularly useful at breaking the choke point defenses of a wall of siege tanks.

What you do is charge a massive wave of hydralisks into the Terran opponent's base (as usual). When all the siege tanks and marines in bunkers are too involved in taking out the hydras, you send in around 6 Infested Terrans. Don't worry most of their defenses don't even notice the approaching ITs. Then BOOM, most of the siege tanks are eradicated and your hydralisks swarm in. Say goodbye to the base.

And Remy since you are good at microing mutalisks I'm sure you are also going to be good at microing infested terrans ;)

Last but not least, infested terrans can also be used against reavers, photon cannon, sunken colony and ultralisks in similar situations.

[Remy]

Call me old school, but I would just darkswarm in those situations.

How did you get infested terrans to even make it up to the enemy when they have 20 HP less than hydras? The siege tanks should be able to take them out easily in most situations. Infested terrans are one shot for a sieged tank. If the tanks are staggered, it wouldn't be easy to pull off even if it's just off of the splash damage.

I've given on them a long time ago after I've conducted my own extensive testing/research. They suck like hell in my book, even til today. But if you can stand the pain of getting them, and then make them work for you, then hey all the more power to ya. ;)

[zeratul11]

siege tanks are the best! destination. tantarararaan tantarararaan. heheh

their normal attack (not in siege mode) should be chage in sc2, it should look powerful. in sc1 i dont like the way they fire when not in siege mode.

[Singuris]

all around infested terran are the blow but you could overlord drop them couldn't you

[Remy]

all around infested terran are the blow but you could overlord drop them couldn't you


Yes, you could.

[overmind]

you don't send them all in clustered or one explosion and you lose the whole lot you send them in spaced and be prepared to lose a few.
distractions also help.
you aim for important structures not just units etc.(a pylon hit should allow the rest of them to get in some do some long term damage).
when playing against zerg build a nydus canal and pour them over.

[Singuris]

all around infested terran are the blow but you could overlord drop them couldn't you


Yes, you could.


only problem is all the trouble you would have to go through for it to work.
Although I have only played zerg in the campaigns I think infested terran are the blow

[Associate]

A siege tank without a minimum range would do fine in my opinion as other sides appears to have many new units intended for countering some classic Terran strategies, What I'm concerned about is the reduced firing rate of the siege tanks, I watched the video and it took the siege tanks roughly 5 seconds to fire another round! I mean it doesn't take them that long to fire their cannons in the previous game, Now, with the Protoss having access to their new Immortals which unlike the previous Dragoons have a "hardened" shield against powerful attacks, the Terrans are probably more at risk. I don’t like to remember the unbalances I've seen from the previous game which made me quit the game even though I really liked playing SC, Blizzard should make efforts to make sure the game is tightly balanced

[Remy]

only problem is all the trouble you would have to go through for it to work.
................. infested terran are the blow


Exactly. QFT

[Nikzad]

giving siege tanks no minimum range would be way too unfair
if you think about it, siege tanks are very well balanced as it is...if anything, they are unbalanced in their favor

siege mode gives a tank extra range and attack, but sacrifices mobility, and is vulnerable to units that can run straight up to it (excluding air vulnerability, since this doesn't vary between modes)

now, if you take away the minimum range, your only negative is inability to move. this may seem like something very big, but if you think about it, why would they need to move? (take sc1 for example) they would have to move to avoid stuff like plague, psionic storm, etc. but who can even get in casting range without being incinerated?

not to mention, when a game gets to that point where terran has teched up to tanks, zealots and zerglings are necessarily as handy as they were at the earlier stages to use to counter

[T-man]

What I'm concerned about is the reduced firing rate of the siege tanks, I watched the video and it took the siege tanks roughly 5 seconds to fire another round! I mean it doesn't take them that long to fire their cannons in the previous game

Remember that the game was played at half-speed or Normal speed, not Fast or even Fastest as I (and most people probably) play at. This speed difference could have a huge effect on attack rate.

[Singuris]

What I'm concerned about is the reduced firing rate of the siege tanks, I watched the video and it took the siege tanks roughly 5 seconds to fire another round! I mean it doesn't take them that long to fire their cannons in the previous game

Remember that the game was played at half-speed or Normal speed, not Fast or even Fastest as I (and most people probably) play at. This speed difference could have a huge effect on attack rate.


should not matter what the speed was it would all unfold the same and in sc1 that would have never happpened the siege tanks should be left as is although un siege mode could use some work

[Oiyzas]

Call me a stickler, but I absolutely refuse to use the new Siege Tanks until they stop looking like toys made of plastic and rubber. The new tank model blows it.

[[LightMare]]

there is a price to pay for a lack of minimum range: serious damage inflicted on your tanks, and they go bye bye

[LoserInLosing]

Mininum Range is definately there, if not siege tanks would suicide emselves.

[mc2]

Call me a stickler, but I absolutely refuse to use the new Siege Tanks until they stop looking like toys made of plastic and rubber. The new tank model blows it.


Unfortunately as it is, the new siege tank will look like plastic toys again. They simply can't make it look "ass-pwning" because we look at it high from above in the game, that's why it looks small and cheap. The reason why most people, including me thinks tanks are big bad ass machines is because we always see them high above us in movies and tv. But in reality they'll always look cheap if you zoom out. Just compare the size of a tank with the marine and you'll know how big they really are :) Besides the mothership looks kind of lame too (looks like a turtle) so don't feel bad about the tanks :)

[Singuris]

I liked the mother ship it was like an eldar craft world it looks like it has a city inside

[paragon]

The US Military has been considering replacing the main gun of tanks with a missile launcher. This way it doesn't have to turn its top around to shoot at things. And missile can be fired farther. And missiles explode. They should make the siege tank fire a barrage of missiles (think Calliope Sherman but more accurate). In Siege mode it could plant itself and turn the missile launcher so it faces up so it can fire farther while in regular mode it could fire them like the Goliath does.

And the current tank is ugly. Ugly ugly ugly. I'll be sure to import the Project Revolution siege tank because that actually looks like a siege tank, not a little kid's drawing of a siege tank.

[Major Willy]

I wish Siege Tanks had a Siege Mode Upgrade or Missile Turret Upgrade.

Depending on which you get, that's the mode you get on your tank. You couldn't move in Turret mode like Siege.

[Steve22x]

I think giving the tanks an aa missile upgrade would completely get rid of the goliath which would tempt all terran users to just mass with practically all tanks. Personally I love the tank which is unparalleled in its brute force and range.

[Major Willy]

And I have -1 power level for coming up with ideas and things that may go on in SC2 along with other people voicing their thoughts.
THANKS RANDOM PERSON THAT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES BY POWERING DOWN OTHERS.

Sorry that caught my eye. But on topic, I specifically meant that you could only upgrade your Tanks one way per game.
You go Turret, or Siege. That is dependant on what your enemy is doing and building.

[Singuris]

after watching the game play video for sc2 ( the part at the end) a few times it looks like it did better not in siege mode

[Major Willy]

Yeah I found normal mode for Siege Tanks in both Starcraft games more attractive than when in their Siege mode.

[StarFan]

Call me a stickler, but I absolutely refuse to use the new Siege Tanks until they stop looking like toys made of plastic and rubber. The new tank model blows it.

I like the look of the SC1 tanks better than the new ones as well. For these SC2 tanks, the non-siege mode looks ok but when they turn into siege mode they look like puff balls on the ground. Their cannons look like lips with red lipstick on them!

[paragon]

Actually the current tank in normal mode looks perfectly fine to me. And remember the Steam Tank from WC3, that unit had 3 different looks throughout the beta/game/expansion. So there is still hope for the Siege Tank.

[Major Willy]

I honestly don't mind the Tanks now when I watched the video again.

People won't be laughing when their base has a sudden lack of buildings.

[Singuris]

Yeah, I guess now i don't really care how the tank looks, because when you win who cares how it looks, if it just one the game for you.

[paragon]

Yes, and the blood and steel of the terran army will prevail over the prissy protoss with their shiny pristine bases and the slimy zerg with their bone weapons. And they will do it with a goofy looking siege tank.

[UchihaItachi0129]

lol i agree the tanks look funny, but it doesn't mean they suck.

[Lemonparty]

Doesn't change the fact that the designer that made is an idiot (no I couldn't do better, he still sucks)

[paragon]

i could do better and I think it sucks in siege mode
regular mode is fine especially the attack, looks awesome

[capthavic]

I don't think it looks goofy but improvement is always good. The graphics/art style aren't quite as important to me as the gameplay.

[paragon]

i think they are both important aspects of the game. gameplay being more important but graphics also being an important aspect. obviously I would not buy a game with ****ty gameplay no matter how good the graphics are but I would also not play a game with ****ty graphics no matter how good the gameplay was unless the graphics had nothing to do with the gameplay (solitare, poker, etc...)

[beBoy]

I just watched the gameplay video and the tanks were actually switching targets (especially the middle tanks) as the Immortals were moving in, so I think there are minimum range for tanks still.

[capthavic]

I understand what you are saying Paragon but I don't think they look ****ty. The game looks fine to me and I can't wait to play.

BTW beBoy your quote isn't quite right.

[Ishe]

The look horrible in seige mode i hope people are complaing onver on the bnet forums they need to change the look.

[DKutrovsky]

In siege mode it looks more like an artilery than a sieged tank. Keep in mind the actualy Siege tank is a mobile artilery, not a Tank with an artilery aspect

[capthavic]

Actually it's both, it's a tank that can also be deployed as an artillery unit as well.

That's why it's called a siege TANK.

[DKutrovsky]

Its main purpose is to siege things imo. Its more of an artilery than a tank, it is both but its more the siege part, imo that is.

[marinepower]

Minimum range was there for a reason. If bliz decided to take it out, it would only be because they are still developing the game. Bliz seems bent on trying to make the game perfect, and It's impossible for a tank to shoot a target 3 feet away from it's current position.

If this is permanent, then tanks will be at a benefit, as they can still shoot their close-ranged attackers that will undoubtly destroy them anyways without any negative drawback.

[capthavic]

True but I just see it as a hybrid. The tank mode is just as useful IMO. Anyway it should look more like artillery when in siege mode because it is.

[Ych9]

Sorry if I sound too excited. I'm not sure if this is worthy for a new post. But here it goes.
Siege Tanks are getting a remodel!!!

http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?fn=sc-general&t=197971&p=1&#post197971

I'm just soo happy they are because they were soo ugly when they were in Siege Mode. I'm sure many of you guys are going to be happy to see this news. Siege Tanks model was one of my biggest concern in SC2 because they were too damm ugly. Now, I'm just excited they are actually going to remodel it. I can rest in peace knowing that they are actually going to make the Siege Tank a cooler looking model.


Bonus 300 minerals for yet another good find.  Good job on finding us info.

Also rewarded the [misc] Worker Drone item for recent contributions providing this community with an anbundance of new information.  We appreciate your efforts.

[Exterranminator]

Good finding, man.

[[LightMare]]

i like the siege tank how it is

[Exvasion]

Are you sure this amounts to them getting a remodel? I can't be sure since all Karune said was "[noted]". I hope they do remodel it though.

[burkid]

Ych9 you are on a roll! youve found every single new thing in the 3 days!

[FlyingTiger]

well he just noted it so its a possibility

[capthavic]

Yeah I was gonna say that really wasn't a definitive answer. But it is possible since, as we all know, nothing is final.

[zeratul11]

wow. thanks ymca

[noted] = [remodeled]

[paragon]

OMG KARUNE NOTED YOUR POST WTF BBQ LOL HAX FTW FFS PBS ZOMG

that doesn't mean it WILL be remodeled. That means that the will probably change the end of the gun for siege mode and keep the rest.

[paragon]

probably because they are renders of high poly models at various angles

IF blizzard would just do bakes of high poly models then starcraft 2 would look amazing and everything would be cool. INSTEAD they are taking the quick and easy way out and doing straight texturing via tablet or, if they're ballsy like me, a mouse.

[burkid]

paragon, can you just let us know whether you are a guy or a chick now, because no one knows lol. and your tabasco girl avatar is decieving. if you're a guy that is.

[tweakismyname]

lol [noted]

that doesent mean for sure but i still think they will change it

[FlyingTiger]

paragon, can you just let us know whether you are a guy or a chick now, because no one knows lol. and your tabasco girl avatar is decieving. if you're a guy that is.


if you click on paragon's profile, below the avatar, it says "She's hot." It prolly means that paragon is a guy. Unless paragon is a lesbian lol

[paragon]

yes, i'm a lesbian

[capthavic]

"That's right, I'm a gay robot" - Church

[burkid]

so paragon, you are a girl? i alway assumed you were after i bought the sig because your deviantart page has your avatar set as a girl.

[Meloku]

normally I'd apologize for getting off topic... but... ><

anyways, scroll down the battle.net page and look at the tank saying "I'm not a cartoon!" I laughed soo hard.

[zeratul11]

wow! paragon is a she?... i dont think so.

if shes a girl and she look like the one in "her" avatar. then shes the perfect girl ever... gamer, graphic artist, plays starcraft, has 2000 plus post, knows a lot of stuff etc. shes something else, not your typical kind of girl. <--impossible to find a girl like this one ::)

thus paragon is a guy. i bet my life on that. :P

[Nikzad]

paragon is a guy.

he is too smart to be a woman.

jk. (about the woman thing)

[Shadowdragon]

I hope siege tanks get a longer barrel. The short double barrel in the original made it look more like a toy than a threat. I mean, come on. It's supposed to be the most powerful ground weapon ever designed by human engineers, right? So why do they have guns the size of a coke?

http://homepage.mac.com/cheethorne/Starcraft/images/siegetank.jpg
or
http://cnc2sw.planetcnc.gamespy.com/stuff/cnc3/info_mammoth.png

Seriously, which one looks better?

[UchihaItachi0129]

paragon's a CROSS DRESSER! HOT DAMN didnt see that coming did ya?

anyways horray for the remodelling. they looked cute. but i want cool ^^

[paragon]

Seriously, which one looks better?

Uh the siege tank does actually. And it looks like the C&C one is a is a rip off of the siege tank.

anyways, the starcraft 2 siege tank has a longer barrel than that siege tank

[Shadowdragon]

I don't know, I think it still looks to close to a toy (with the paint at the tip of the barrel in siege mode). I still havn't found a siege tank for starcraft 2 in tank mode though. Anyone know where to find one?


P.S.
I like this one most:
http://www.starcraft.org/fanart/digital3D/176

[Itsmyship]

Hahaha...kinda funny how this topic is half yay remodel and half Paragon's a she!! :P

Anyways, on the remodel. Damn, we've been having a whole stream of news coming in lately! Hmmm...can't wait to see the new model though! Hope it has a kick ass gun on it ;D

[FlyingTiger]

I don't know, I think it still looks to close to a toy (with the paint at the tip of the barrel in siege mode). I still havn't found a siege tank for starcraft 2 in tank mode though. Anyone know where to find one?
P.S.
I like this one most:
http://www.starcraft.org/fanart/digital3D/176


It looks like an apc/mobile artillery combo. It doesn't have that siege tank look.

[paragon]

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/img_4664536.html

siege tank in tank mode

[burkid]

oo 4 barrels. 2 per attack?

[UchihaItachi0129]

hmm looks that way. i'd rather it shoot one at a time. then it'd have a faster fire rate and a continuous stream. or all 4 at once so i might kill something that 2 at a time couldn't, before it gets too close.

[zeratul11]

4 barrels! the siege tank look better than the other models in this post.anyway i think we should make an artwork for the siege tank. im going to draw one my version. ^^

[paragon]

I've never seen the top 2 "barrels" actually fire. maybe they're just fancy range finders that look like barrels.

[UchihaItachi0129]

isn't the screen shot from a video. maybe you can see them fire in the video.

[Shadowdragon]

tank mode is quite a big improvment...

[Remy]

Good job once again Ych9.

I definitely think [noted] is 100% Blizzard changing the look of the siege tank.


tank mode is quite a big improvment...


The tank mode looks the same to me, what's the big improvement?


I don't know if I can make comments like this as a mod, but Paragon is a guy.

[Tym29]

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/talon_grenade1.jpg
possible inspiration for the current siege tank design

Being able to load marines on or in the tank seems like an obvious solution to the tanks Achilles’ heal in siege mode.

[ArchLimit]

Awesome find, Ych9! Don't worry about not thinking it's "interesting" enough. Something like this was very well worth knowing. The siege mode look was one of my biggest concerns as well. This makes me feel much better. Great job!

[Shadowdragon]

the improvment is mainly in the barrel. It looks less like a can of coke now.

[zeratul11]

so shes a lesbian? hahah.

siege tank should look high tech (less screw, metal and stuffs) and not too rusty and metallic in starcraft 2. 8)

[JudicatorPrime]

Meh, don't really care... I hope they make it less cartoonish than it is/was...

[Hadean]

Wow. Paragon, if you ever swing for the opposite team you have alot of would be courters. Lmao.

I've never seen the tank out of siegemode once until now. And it looks amazing. And YCH if you managed to convince blizz to fix up the Siege Tank, you're a god.

[GuiMontag]

lol, the games still only prealpha, all units will slightly change between now and when the game ships.

[Avrorius]

Hi everyone, i was wondering is it just me or the units and especially ST look kinda ala Warcraft 3- fantasy-style? Wasnt the kinda realistic-look-feel of the first SC one of the things that made SC great and so different than all the rest out there, besides all the other advantages of course (Balance, gaeplay, units, heroes, story...like everything:):)) It just seems to me like its about to become just the opposite of what it used to be (qua DESIGN at least, i dont know much of the other elements for now)? anyone? ??? ;) :-\

[Nikzad]

Yes, it is WC3ish, but I am reluctant to call SC1 realistic. I think gritty-cartoon-ish is more suitable

I mean, marines exploded and their heads popped off, no matter what the method of death ;D

oh and welcome! :powerup:

[stat]

well they will change the overall look of the siege tank now not only its barrel. =)

[TheFearless]

there should be a minimum range cuz it's the weakpoint of the siege tank

[Avrorius]

Yeah TNX Nikzad! preciate it, you right bout the look, i've kinda exagurated :) But even so, the overall look-mood of the PrimeSC was/is great, and i'd hate to see it change to somtn like WC ;) :)

[DontHate]

huh? what do you mean? the siege tank has a minimum range in siege mode. if u mean in tank mode that's dumb.

[Gasmaskguy]

The new siege tankdesign looks really sweet! Only thing thats a little strange is that it glows green around the cannon... looks like its gonna start firing green lasers

[Remy]

I agree that the new model looks amazing, but I also agree that the green is really awkward on the siege tank. I think they should change the green to orage or red.

[burkid]

it could just be changed to match team color.

[Nikzad]

yeah or it could be a marker of whether or not they have a certain upgrade

*side note* I tried to register at bnet forums to post my idea about visual changes to units to signify upgrades, but it wouldn't let me get past the "rules" disclaimer...I kept on clicking I agree, but it would just refresh the page no matter how many times I clicked. anyone else have this problem/know how to fix it/want to post my idea and just reference me if i can't do it?

[burkid]

i dont know what happened, but that exact thing happened to me when i tried to sign up for IGN.

[Gasmaskguy]

hmm it would be nice if that glowing started only when you had their attack att lvl 3. protoss units could, instead of having the bluish shield that you see whe they get hit, have a purple one at lvl 3..

I dunno, i just think it would be useful to see how badass a unit is.
Marines could get that bajonet just for the looks when they have attack lvl 3...

Altough, not a nesessary function, just cool to see when a unit have their ultimate stats...

[Tym29]

Not a bad idea... though you can just click on one to see its stats. but just looking IS easier.

[BnechbReaker]

that's a good idea Gasmaskguy, a further step would be each upgrade give small additions to the unit model but that might be too much work

[Gasmaskguy]

hehe thanx Tym29 and BnechbReaker

[Gasmaskguy]

This may be a double post... but, I made the last post in August lol!

The sensor tower is now officially revealed, and in one of the videos, you can see a bunch of siege tanks firing rapidly at two barracks. They fire really, REALLY fast! When the camero zooms out, you can actually see them shoot (not only the explotion from the hit) and its twice the speed, if not faster!

So, I guess it does much less damage now. what do you think? 60? 50?
Also, this means that less damage will be spilled when shooting zerglings etc. No more ultra overkill. This is perfect for the siege tank when countering small units. yay! ^_^

[Heavyarms2050]

I have no way of backing this up. But if you look at that one footage (sensor tower update) of the Red terrans attacking the blue barracks, I'm assuming that those add-on are low tier, thus their build time are relatively fast. In the video, the bottom/left barrack started building the add-on for a good 5-6sec thus the hp should be at least between 35-50hp. And judging by the tanks formation when they attack the buildings, the first shot was fired from a single tank and it manage to completely destroy the add-on. Thus i conclude that Siege Tank's main cannon do more than 30 damage. If i have to take a guess, it around 45-50 damage points

[Tavisman]

I hope they haven´t nerfed the siege tanks damage, cause that was the thing, that made them good against units with lots of armor. For instance, fully upgraded ultralisks were almost fully protected against marine attacks, taking very little damage from each attack. Thats why the tanks should have high damage, and slower firing speed. I´m not saying, that I don´t like the shorter cooldown of the tanks, but if the tanks had high damage, AND short cooldown, then that would make them too powerful. However, it could be an (costly) upgrade to reduce the cooldown, like a passive stim pack. It should also change the tanks appereance, to quickly signal the attacking player of stronger resistance.

edit: of course the upgrade wouldn´t halve the cooldown, just shorten it.

[DE.50]

I like the higher fire rate, I think it makes more sense that the siege tank would be able to shoot as fast as it does in normal mode as opposed to siege mode. I also like the new gun/barrel in siege mode, just looks a lot better imho, although I think the siege tank itself is just slightly too bulky.

[DontHate]

i see the higher fire rate, but i think that's the tank in normal mode. seems like it becuase when they move they dont take time to unsiege. Also, if they do accually do that, i would not like it. the reason i like the tank is becuase it does so much damage. It's also another reason why to chose siege mode instead of tank mode. Now there barely seems to be a difference other than siege mode doing more damage, which is stupid.

[Gasmaskguy]

i see the higher fire rate, but i think that's the tank in normal mode.


what, are you blind?! ;D (no offence)
take a look again. ^_^
when the camera zooms out, you clearly see that they are in siege mode when firing fast.

[ninerman13]

Yeah I just watched the video real carefully - the tanks are definitely in normal mode. The higher rate of fire makes sense for normal mode as long as it's not too strong. The Siege Tank is meant to be deployed to out range and pummel the enemy. In normal mode, it just needs to defend itself. I like it.

Edit - To clarify the video, pay attention only to the Siege Tanks. As the buildings are destroyed and the tanks move fully into view, there is no unpacking animation, and what appeared to be the deployed treads are actually just un-deployed. Take a look for yourselves!

Also - Siege Mode = Siege Mode. Normal Mode = Tank Mode. Sorry for the confusion.

[Gasmaskguy]

wait... with normal mode, you mean siege mode? huh...? Why cant you guys just call it siege and tank mode?! :P

[ninerman13]

@ Gasmaskguy - I edited my post to clarify, but normal mode = tank mode, not siege mode.

[DE.50]

I agree, after carefully watching the video they are in normal/tank mode. Also, I don't like the shot animation for normal mode. There is too big of an explosion, and the giant puff of smoke on the shot is unnecessary. We have smokeless rounds right now, why wouldn't they have them in SC2?

On another note, if the normal mode damage is around 30, and reportedly the siege damage is around 100, with maybe 10 or more range, I think that is more then enough of an improvement to justify using siege mode more than normal mode.

[Heavyarms2050]

I like the animation for the normal mode, but i think it would be better if the smoke was more of a very light gray color

[Gasmaskguy]

i think that the attack animation in siege mode is much cooler.

[lurkers_lurk]

right now they are seeing if the tank can be balance with a range of 13 in seige mode.

[BirdofPrey]

Could the video with the siege tanks firing really fast just have been sped up for display purposes?

[Heavyarms2050]

nah, if you look at the scv movement, they move at the same pace of other sc2 demos

[WuHT]

I have trouble telling apart the impact-animation of the attack of the siege tank in normal mode vs siege mode (probably going to sound different).

Something that deals 100 damage shoudl at least look more devasting than something that does 30 damage.

[Ursawarrior]

ummm..... just to let you know, the siege tank wasn't in siege mode in the movie, thats why it shoots faster.....

[WuHT]

im' pretty sure the majority of posters here came to the conclusions seeing as how the siege tanks move after firing and destroying the last barrack! Even then it's firing too fast for my taste (which are very much favouring anything SC-like).

[ekulio]

I'm really not feeling the power of the siege tank in the video. I need to FEEL THE POWER!

I'd rather it fired slower and did more damage. FOOM....POW you know?

[Gasmaskguy]

i see the higher fire rate, but i think that's the tank in normal mode.


what, are you blind?! ;D (no offence)
take a look again. ^_^
when the camera zooms out, you clearly see that they are in siege mode when firing fast.


I am sorry DontHate, I am the one being blind (no offence to myself either). I can now see that they are in tank mode. I was confused since the explosions on the barracks looked like arclite explosions... man they should change how the tank mode attack explosion looks like....

[Heavyarms2050]

I think the reason why they increase the fire rate so the tank can become somewhat an "anti-heavy swarm" unit

[Gasmaskguy]

I think that they did that to make them more useful in tank mode, cause in SC1 tank mode was pretty useless for its price, siege mode was something you couldn't be without in SC1. You probably cant be without siege mode in SC2 either, but its just ridiculous that a normal tank would "suck" :P

[Unentschieden]

In SC they could have called it artillery and removed the "tank" modes attack ability, there would hardly be a difference. (necessary balancing assumed)

[Themacman]

Or they could make the tank a bit stronger in tank mode? If they made it shoot faster in tank mode it be stronger, there is noting wrong with the dmg it does?

[Gasmaskguy]

Is it just me or is the Siege Tank a lot shinier than before?
(And compare it to the original design too :P)

[Overling]

It is improving.

[TerranGod]

wow!!!
AWESOME!!!

the old one sucks arse
the 2nd one is ok
the 3rd one
NOW THATS BEYOND

[DKutrovsky]

could just be graphic/visual options but it could be an improvement, its definately looking better.


Now if they only get a better sound of the siege mode shot, closer to the sound of a tank in sc1, that would be great...

[Pyrodaimon]

I don't like it shinier. Makes my computer lag to much. If there's something that really makes comps lag it is lighting.

I hope there's an option to reduce the lighting or else gameplay won't be much fast.

[DKutrovsky]

im positive there will be such an option

[Heavyarms2050]

i still dont like those prongs sticking out the cannons

[Dinoxe]

Blizz needs to change what the stabalizers look like, Im not to thrilled about them hooking into the ground

[Wlck742]

I just want them to get rid of the X.

[Heavyarms2050]

i'm actually starting to like the x because after looking at the animation of the siege tank of SCI a million times, its rather dull and plain.

[Hodl pu]

Hey just a random thought... What do you guys think would happen if you Sieged on top of a submerged supply depot? Would it magically teleport to the side or glitch and receive a siege depot (an attacking supply depot because the tank is stuck inside)?

[DE.50]

I think that anything in a solid state (siege tanks in siege mode or buildings, although that is highly unrealistic) should be destroyed by a supply depot emerging from the ground, and units that can move should just be moved to one side. I don't see it possible that Blizzard would forget about a potential glitch like that.

[Chax424]

Yeah, I'm guessing if there is a unit above a submerge supply depot the depot just won't raise.
If things exploded or died...auugh, I could see myself making that mistake many times.
But I'm all for a Seige Depot...that'll be a test for me when I first get my hands on the campaign editor.

[DE.50]

I am definitely looking forward to the maps people are going to be making with the new higher powered map editor.


Is it just me or is the Siege Tank a lot shinier than before?
(And compare it to the original design too :P)


The siege tank design has advanced a lot since the beginning, and I think it look soooooo much better now. The cannon in the first one looks like a suction cup, and the darkness of the second one makes it look plain and ordinary. Definite props for Blizzard as they continue to improve the game.

[Bizarro_Paragon]

Hey guys, I was just checking out the new Nomad update on starcraft2.com (http://starcraft2.com), and there's one thing that I noticed.

One of the best ways to counter a Siege Tank in original SC was with Melee units, if you could get them close enough. Dropping DTs amongst a group of tanks usually did much to cause havoc against someone with no backup plan (or a backup plan that you just blew up). But in this new update, we can clearly see the one Siege Tank firing at the revealed DTs much closer than it seems like it should be. The last shot it fires (to the right), it fires at a unit that looks like it's essentially right up against it, and several of it's 'upward' shots look like they're close as well.

So what gives? Is it just a trick of the eyes? Am I crazy go nuts? Have we known this for months, and I'm just really behind?

If not, how will this impact how Siege Tanks are played?

EDIT: Or maybe, the Siege Tank isn't even deployed, and I'm just that dumb. ;D

[EonMaster]

Bizarro, thats because it's not deployed into siege mode. If you look at it, it is still in its regular, mobile form so it can attack units close up to it.

[Bizarro_Paragon]

Hahaha so it is :good:. I was wondering why it was shooting so fast. I suppose I'm not used to this new model yet, I automatically associate that gigantic barrel with siege mode.

Ah well. I got over-excited, I can deal with that. Good job, Bizarro. Way to represent.

[EonMaster]

lol, its understandable. When I first saw it, I thought it was in siege mode because of the large cannon. But I realized that the tracks weren't spread out and still in a non-sieged form. So I realized it was still unsieged.

[Reaper87]

I think they shouldn't have minimum ranges because if one fires at the enemy that's doing a melee attack it'll damage the tank.

REAPERS ROCK!!!!!!

[DarkTemplol]

Even so, it'll make the tanks too powerful, and Seige Mode needs that disadvantage.