at-at verses...

master_yoda · Post by **master_yoda** » 2002-08-23 01:57am

Metal gear RAY off Metal Gear Solid 2:Sons Of Liberty.they are in a very hilly
area and they start 900 metres away from each other.Also there is a lot of deep lakes in between them (considering Ray is amphious)
Who wins?

Imperial Federation · Post by **Imperial Federation** » 2002-08-23 02:14am

I doubt it's missiles have that much punch, so the AT-AT would obliterate it from afar, maybe as it tried to jump in the river.
RAY's only chance as I see it would be to get close enough to swipe the AT-AT with it's tail and trip it. Assuming it's the Marine model, because the Navy RAY sucks serious ass.

master_yoda · Post by **master_yoda** » 2002-08-23 02:33am

Imperial Federation wrote:I doubt it's missiles have that much punch, so the AT-AT would obliterate it from afar, maybe as it tried to jump in the river.
RAY's only chance as I see it would be to get close enough to swipe the AT-AT with it's tail and trip it. Assuming it's the Marine model, because the Navy RAY sucks serious ass.

yes but remember the ray model is an anti metal gear model.
so I would expect armour peircing missles would probably do some damage.I agree,it would need to go underwater to survive and hide there for awhile.

Imperial Federation · Post by **Imperial Federation** » 2002-08-23 02:36am

master_yoda wrote:
Imperial Federation wrote:I doubt it's missiles have that much punch, so the AT-AT would obliterate it from afar, maybe as it tried to jump in the river.
RAY's only chance as I see it would be to get close enough to swipe the AT-AT with it's tail and trip it. Assuming it's the Marine model, because the Navy RAY sucks serious ass.

yes but remember the ray model is an anti metal gear model.
so I would expect armour peircing missles would probably do some damage.I agree,it would need to go underwater to survive and hide there for awhile.

Yes, but unless Metal Gear REX (the target of anti-MGs) has the equivalent armor of an AT-AT, those missiles wouldn't do much.

master_yoda · Post by **master_yoda** » 2002-08-23 02:45am

yeah true.What metal gear could beat an AT-AT??

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-08-23 03:03am

The thing about the AT-AT is that if someone can simply go around it, it's dead. And if something has enough firepower to blast craters into the ground, just aim right under the AT-AT, and it's dead. The Empire should have put some other form of defense on the AT-ATs. If it could hold insane amounts of weight, why not just put small turrets on the sides and rear or even one medium turret on top of its "back" with full rotation? Or both?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-23 07:11am

The thing about the AT-AT is that if someone can simply go around it, it's dead. And if something has enough firepower to blast craters into the ground, just aim right under the AT-AT, and it's dead. The Empire should have put some other form of defense on the AT-ATs. If it could hold insane amounts of weight, why not just put small turrets on the sides and rear or even one medium turret on top of its "back" with full rotation? Or both?

Its a Troop Carrier not a mobile assult platform CommandoJoe
Next your going to be complaining the Landing Craft at Normandy did not have Anti-Sub Torps so the designers must be idiots

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2002-08-23 08:08am

Is the AT-AT allowed it's normal complement of troops and equipment? Because if it does, it can have Stormies open a side hatch and cover the sides (and maybe the back) with E-Webs.

Lt. Nebfer · Post by **Lt. Nebfer** » 2002-08-23 09:52am

What next Clan Elamentles? hate those little buggers(untill i found you coud aim with the mouse...)

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-08-24 12:33am

If an AT-AT is an APC, I demand to see what the Imperials call a MBT!!!