| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The most glaring one for me was a Clone Wars episode where Mace Windu was in command of a clone unit on Ryloth. He was moving his AT-TE's single file along a narrow path cut into the side of a mountain when he came under fire from some spider droids that disabled the lead AT-TE, pinning the others in place where they were in danger of being picked off. At that point, he led a small unit of AT-RTs to drive off the Separatist forces (which they did with relative ease). What threw me was that a wise commander would've recognized the possibility of an ambush and dispatched his fast light forces (AT-RTs and possibly air mobile troops delivered by LAATs) to capture and hold that position to prevent even the possibility of an ambush. I saw the possibility the second the AT-RTs were revealed (safely stored inside an AT-TE), and it just ruined the entire episode for me that Mace Windu was supposed to be a great general and a tactical genius, but I could out think him with a bag of Cheetos in one hand...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | ...and it just ruined the entire episode for me that Mace Windu was supposed to be a great general and a tactical genius, but I could out think him with a bag of Cheetos in one hand... |
Too much time practicing Vaapad. Not enough time playing Djarik. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
So what would be a good repulsorlift vehicle on the same scale as AT-ATs? I'm picturing something like an enlarged version of the AT-TE with repulsorlift "pods" replacing the legs, plus a large turret in the forward dorsal position (like the AT-TE) to serve in the anti-vehicle role. The main issue for such a vehicle (IMO) is that there would be need to be some sort of back story as to why such a vehicle exists alongside the all-terrain AT-ATs. What sorts of limitations on both AT-ATs and their repulsorlift counterparts require them to exist side-by-side with a similar vehicle with a different propulsion system. The idea that I'm currently toying with is that walkers can be deployed directly into combat while repulsorlift craft require some degree of set-up time (tuning the engines to operate in a specific gravity field, or something), so that AT-ATs are preferred for the initial landings, but are quickly replaced with the faster, more capable repulsorcraft as soon as they are available for duty.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
So what would be a good repulsorlift vehicle on the same scale as AT-ATs? I'm picturing something like an enlarged version of the AT-TE with repulsorlift "pods" replacing the legs, plus a large turret in the forward dorsal position (like the AT-TE) to serve in the anti-vehicle role. The main issue for such a vehicle (IMO) is that there would be need to be some sort of back story as to why such a vehicle exists alongside the all-terrain AT-ATs. What sorts of limitations on both AT-ATs and their repulsorlift counterparts require them to exist side-by-side with a similar vehicle with a different propulsion system. The idea that I'm currently toying with is that walkers can be deployed directly into combat while repulsorlift craft require some degree of set-up time (tuning the engines to operate in a specific gravity field, or something), so that AT-ATs are preferred for the initial landings, but are quickly replaced with the faster, more capable repulsorcraft as soon as they are available for duty. |
Maybe a heavy weapons version of the floating fortress, built on the same chassis?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Maybe a heavy weapons version of the floating fortress, built on the same chassis? |
I thought about that but discarded it, as the Floating Fortress only has capacity for 10 troops. An AT-AT equivalent vehicle would have to carry 40 troops minimum and still mount heavy and medium weaponry.
On a related note, I've been playing around with the idea of an improved AT-ST with the main cannon mounted in a dorsal turret, the secondary weapons mounted in a smaller turret under the chin, and a small passenger space with enough room for 5-6 troopers who embark and deploy using a "fast-rope" system. I've also considered adding some sort of auxiliary reulsorlift system for use in emergencies to keep the walker from tipping over, but I'm not sure how I feel about that, as the Ewoks had to get pretty inventive before they started bringing the AT-STs down...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oddly enough, now that you suggested it, I put some more thought into the Floating Fortress. With the Empire's preference for modular designs, perhaps there could be multiple versions of the Floating Fortress, each using the same basic platform and exterior design. The existing version is supposed to have an onboard sensor package to aid it in precision targeting in a cluttered environment (like a city), but what if the package was removed to make room for more troops? I've been considering two different versions of the AT-AT: a standard version and a command version with an armored internal pod (ala the Mobile Command Base) from which the unit commander would direct both the AT-ATs and their embarked troops, plus any escorting vehicles. I'm thinking three variants for the Floating Fortress: Patrol (the stock version), Command (as described above) and Battle (troop carrier with heavy weapons and seating room for an infantry platoon, ala the AT-AT).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indecision. AAARGH!
So I put some more thought into it, and I started wondering if, rather than the Floating Fortress, a better idea would be an upgraded Juggernaut with repulsorlifts instead of wheels. It's already got the weaponry and the transport capacity, and a repulsorlift drive system would go a long way towards alleviating the Juggernanut's lack of maneuverability. As far as the scanning tower, I was thinking of upgrading it so that it was remotely operated from within the body, and could be retracted into the body during combat (like a periscope).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another discrepancy: Special Missions are not represented in the OB at all above the battalion level. I had a thought for that that ties in with a larger reorganization concept...
IMO, Special Missions troops are the Imperial Army equivalent of Airborne or Light Infantry; still regular troops, but better trained and capable. There are four different kinds of division-level units in the ImpSB: Armored, Mobile, Reinforced and Line, with Reinforced being a more heavily armed version of Line. The book specifically mentions that the Imperial Army is considering upgrading all Line units to Reinforced, as Line units are proving to be ineffective against Rebel units.
I would like to convert the basic Line division into a Special Missions division, and change the name to something appropriate (I'm leaning toward Ranger). The Reinforced Division would then become the Line Division, and Mobile and Armored Divisions would remain basically unchanged. The Special Missions Divisions would fulfill rolls similar to things like the US Army Airborne, Air Mobile and Light Infantry Divisions, particularly with the Light Infantry Division's ability to break itself into smaller components (usually company or platoon sized units) and fight a dispersed and irregular battle, much like the basic Special Missions units do in the ImpSB.
I'm also considering replacing the Auxiliary Division with an Aviation Division, which provides airspeeder support for any of the four main corps types...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | Indecision. AAARGH!
So I put some more thought into it, and I started wondering if, rather than the Floating Fortress, a better idea would be an upgraded Juggernaut with repulsorlifts instead of wheels. It's already got the weaponry and the transport capacity, and a repulsorlift drive system would go a long way towards alleviating the Juggernanut's lack of maneuverability. As far as the scanning tower, I was thinking of upgrading it so that it was remotely operated from within the body, and could be retracted into the body during combat (like a periscope). |
The Juggernaut is awful big, though. Bigger than a walker. Large size is generally a disadvantage for fighting vehicles, all other things being equal. If you wanted a Juggernaut to be remotely maneuverable, it would probably need an articulated body...
As a side note, what about a hybrid vehicle? A walker body mounted on a floating fortress chassis? They're roughly the same size...
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | The Juggernaut is awful big, though. Bigger than a walker. Large size is generally a disadvantage for fighting vehicles, all other things being equal. If you wanted a Juggernaut to be remotely maneuverable, it would probably need an articulated body... |
Not that much larger. Looking at the side-by-side comparison in the ImpSB, they are roughly the same size. As for maneuverability, repulsorlifts would facilitate that rather nicely, as a repulsorlift equipped vehicle would be capable of much tighter turns (possibly even turning within its own length, like a tracked vehicle).
| Quote: | | As a side note, what about a hybrid vehicle? A walker body mounted on a floating fortress chassis? They're roughly the same size... |
Considered it, but ultimately discarded it. At this point, I'm waffling between the repulsor-Juggernaut idea and the more standard Tanks / IFVs mix described in the ImpSB
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Oddly enough, now that you suggested it, I put some more thought into the Floating Fortress. With the Empire's preference for modular designs, perhaps there could be multiple versions of the Floating Fortress, each using the same basic platform and exterior design. The existing version is supposed to have an onboard sensor package to aid it in precision targeting in a cluttered environment (like a city), but what if the package was removed to make room for more troops? I've been considering two different versions of the AT-AT: a standard version and a command version with an armored internal pod (ala the Mobile Command Base) from which the unit commander would direct both the AT-ATs and their embarked troops, plus any escorting vehicles. I'm thinking three variants for the Floating Fortress: Patrol (the stock version), Command (as described above) and Battle (troop carrier with heavy weapons and seating room for an infantry platoon, ala the AT-AT). |
In an earlier thread called 'floating stupidity' I put forward the idea of a fortress with a higher altitude limit and ventral weapons (also added a couple of anti personell weapons).
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | In an earlier thread called 'floating stupidity' I put forward the idea of a fortress with a higher altitude limit and ventral weapons (also added a couple of anti personell weapons). |
Hmmm. Intriguing. What kind of altitude range are you thinking here? Did you ever come up with stats? I probably wouldn't use it as a replacement for the repulsor-tank or the AT-AT, but it certainly sounds like it would do a much better job on the occupation / garrison side of things than the existing Floating Fortress does. In a way, it could almost be a support platform like the AC-130 Spectre...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | In an earlier thread called 'floating stupidity' I put forward the idea of a fortress with a higher altitude limit and ventral weapons (also added a couple of anti personell weapons). |
Hmmm. Intriguing. What kind of altitude range are you thinking here? Did you ever come up with stats? I probably wouldn't use it as a replacement for the repulsor-tank or the AT-AT, but it certainly sounds like it would do a much better job on the occupation / garrison side of things than the existing Floating Fortress does. In a way, it could almost be a support platform like the AC-130 Spectre... |
Actually, until someone pointed out the very low altitude limit I always pictured the fortresses floating menacingly above while our heroes tride to hide either in the crowd or in houses. A bit like the scene with the flying HunderKillers in the Terminator movie. That also goes well with the idea of all those sensors. I always saw them as pacifiers (through terror) and in the role of hunting out enemies in cities.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | If you wanted a Juggernaut to be remotely maneuverable, it would probably need an articulated body... |
Doesn't each wheel turn independently of the others? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16204
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Actually, until someone pointed out the very low altitude limit I always pictured the fortresses floating menacingly above while our heroes tride to hide either in the crowd or in houses. A bit like the scene with the flying HunderKillers in the Terminator movie. That also goes well with the idea of all those sensors. I always saw them as pacifiers (through terror) and in the role of hunting out enemies in cities. |
I agree. I like the visual of a Floating Fortress casting shadows on a street as it moves overhead ominously. Maybe equip the onboard squad with jet packs so they can hop out and float down to street level in seconds...
I think the Darth Maul Shadow Hunter novel mentioned a similar piece of tech that acted as fire support for police units on Coruscant. It was manned by droids, but it would hover overhead while police were engaged in traffic stops or arrests or whatever...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
