| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2023 11:29 am Post subject: Re: Alliance Walker Corps |
 |
|
| Whill wrote: | | WEG didn't demonstrate this 'specific environments' concept very well. But thankfully you and your stats can capture it better. |
I’d certainly like to. I know the Miniatures Game had guidelines for how different vehicles handle different types of terrain, and I’d like to use that as a guideline for applying Modifiers to Terrain Difficulty on Movement Rolls. However, I’m somewhat stymied as to how exactly to handle the conversion math, and may just end up having to do an approximation. I know on some of my Walker stats, I’ve noted that they reduce all Terrain Difficulties by 5, but I don’t think I’ve kept up with that in my later stats.
| Quote: | | I feel the Alliance would even repurpose captured Imperial vehicles if they could crew and maintain them. The Alliance is so desperate for resources so they would take whatever they can get. |
Definitely, although some vehicles still won’t be a good fit with Alliance combat doctrine. Even with walkers, they’ll focus on light, fast stuff that can be more easily concealed in rough terrain. I have difficulty picturing how something like an AT-AT would be of any use to the Alliance.
| Quote: | | Now the Alliance having a fully operational "Walker Corps" – I have difficulty seeing that. |
I was using “corps” more in the sense of “a branch of a military organization assigned to a particular kind of work,” such as the US Army Corps of Engineers or US Army Medical Corps. It would be pretty much as you described, mainly administrative in nature, and would never deploy as a full Corps in the tactical or operational sense. However, all the walkers and walker crews in the Alliance would be nominally part of the Alliance Walker Corps.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: Alliance Walker Corps |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | I feel the Alliance would even repurpose captured Imperial vehicles if they could crew and maintain them. The Alliance is so desperate for resources so they would take whatever they can get. |
Definitely, although some vehicles still won’t be a good fit with Alliance combat doctrine. Even with walkers, they’ll focus on light, fast stuff that can be more easily concealed in rough terrain. I have difficulty picturing how something like an AT-AT would be of any use to the Alliance. |
I agree. And I left a verb out of my if clause above. Rebels might capture an AT-AT if they could crew, maintain, and deploy it. Even if they had a use for an AT-AT, it would be useless without a way to get it to the mission.
But I am not thinking within strictures of some Alliance combat doctrine. SpecOps could have a one-time use for an AT-AT, or just about any other vehicle. Like I said in my prior post, walkers could be "loaned" out on a "vehicle-by-vehicle basis for specific missions, most of the time not making it back from those." I'm not thinking of a unit of walkers that survive a lot of battles and continually get repaired and reused by the Alliance like other vehicles that would be a better fit for Alliance combat doctrine. Rebels are so desperate for resources that they would likely still be interested in some single-use vehicles for specific missions.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2023 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | While walkers certainly won’t be the vehicle of choice, there will be specific environments where they will be preferable. |
I can't think of any environments that would favor a walker over a repulsor vehicle. The only exception would be ocean environments, which would naturally favor submarines and submersibles over walkers.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | On top of that, since the Alliance doesn’t have access to normal procurement processes, they will likely have to make do with old military surplus, such as Clone Wars era vehicles like the AT-TE, -AP, -OT and -AV (or -XT, if you prefer). |
Normally I would agree with you, except that procurement methods change based on the type of actor. The Alliance, at least in theory, behaves as if it was a formal state. The Rebel sourcebook acknowledges that formal Alliance procurement is limited in what in can acquire legally, so most of it's procurement is...more needs-based and ad hoc. So in that sense, you are right. However, the Alliance does at least try to maintain standards and consistency. Further more, I can't see very many cells using walkers for all the reasons outlined. Walkers don't fit Rebel tactics and strategy.
_________________
The GM runs a living setting. Players unstick their own s***. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2023 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | I can't think of any environments that would favor a walker over a repulsor vehicle. |
Going strictly off game stats, there’s no reason for walkers to exist at all, yet they do exist in-universe, and are used in a wide variety of environments and circumstances where repulsorlifts would purportedly be superior. “Rule of Cool” may suffice as a meta-explanation, but no actual government is going to spend untold billions mass-producing a combat vehicle just because “it looks cool”. Sure, psychological effects are cited in the design of the AT-AT, but there are other, more concrete things it can do.
Thus, it behooves us as fans to deep dive and come up with practical reasons why something that seems so impractical at first glance actually is practical under certain circumstances.
I’ve put some thought into this, and there are a few possibilities:-As mentioned in the fluff for the Hoverscout, there are planetary environments where repulsorlifts don’t function well (for various reasons, like gravitic anomalies). This has led to speculation that artificial “repulsorlift jamming” to defend important installations from ground assault might be a thing, but it’s not canon AFAIK.
-Line of Sight: Landspeeders appear to be limited to within a few meters of the ground. There’s no official reason given for this, and I have my own theories as to why, but it does allow walkers an advantage in that they carry their own high ground around with them; their sensor horizon is further out and they are better equipped to make enfilade attacks against targets than would something closer to the ground (I consider this to be an incidental advantage, not the primary reason for the design).
-Stealth: Landspeeders are dependent on a constantly operating anti-gravity effect, which will almost certainly have some form of detectable sensor signature. A walker standing still under cover will thus be less detectable than a similarly sized vehicle simply by dint of not emitting a repulsorlift field. Both will likely have some sort of detectable reactor emissions, but it will be easier to conceal the Walker, all other things being equal. There are other possibilities, but my point stands: there must be practical, in-universe reasons why walkers exist, and why they are superior to repulsorlifts in certain situations. If there weren’t, they wouldn’t be used on screen at all. Yes, most Rebel cells won’t be able to make use of them. However, some may, depending on circumstances and operational necessities. It’s also worth noting that there are large troop contingents aboard Alliance warships, where walkers would be useful as rapid-deployment heavy weapons support for planetside attacks and the like. So no, walkers are not ideal for the Alliance. But not ideal ≠ useless.
| Quote: | | Normally I would agree with you, except that procurement methods change based on the type of actor. The Alliance, at least in theory, behaves as if it was a formal state. |
It may have some of the trappings and organization of a formal state, but it lacks the territory, tax base, material supplies, infrastructure and basically everything else that would be required for a “normal” procurement process (as in, putting out bids to companies, legal contracts, legislative oversight, etc). Any “legal” procurement will be second-hand, through fronts or other sleight-of-hand. And it will be a lot easier to maintain standards and consistency by buying surplus military equipment, of which Clone Wars-era equipment will be the most plentiful.
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Wed Aug 09, 2023 12:40 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
I’ve put some thought into this, and there are a few possibilities:[list]-As mentioned in the fluff for the Hoverscout, there are planetary environments where repulsorlifts don’t function well (for various reasons, like gravitic anomalies). This has led to speculation that artificial “repulsorlift jamming” to defend important installations from ground assault might be a thing, but it’s not canon AFAIK. |
Don't forget Repulsor minefields!
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | -Line of Sight: Landspeeders appear to be limited to within a few meters of the ground. There’s no official reason given for this, and I have my own theories as to why, but it does allow walkers an advantage in that they carry their own high ground around with them; their sensor horizon is further out and they are better equipped to make enfilade attacks against targets than would something closer to the ground (I consider this to be an incidental advantage, not the primary reason for the design). |
Plus being higher, they generally will see/detect stuff earlier.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | -Stealth: Landspeeders are dependent on a constantly operating anti-gravity effect, which will almost certainly have some form of detectable sensor signature. A walker standing still under cover will thus be less detectable than a similarly sized vehicle simply by dint of not emitting a repulsorlift field. Both will likely have some sort of detectable reactor emissions, but it will be easier to conceal the Walker, all other things being equal. |
Though a walker in motion, is more likely MORE 'noisy" than a similar repulsor vehocle.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Don't forget Repulsor minefields! |
Minefields definitely have their uses, but they can be reduced simply by sending in drones or decoys to detonate individual mines. Repulsorlift Jamming (if it exists) is a much more enduring solution, as the individual jamming emitters don't blow up if a repulsorlift vehicle gets too close.
| Quote: | | Though a walker in motion, is more likely MORE 'noisy" than a similar repulsor vehicle. |
In absolute terms, certainly, although at vehicle combat ranges, it's debatable how useful that would be.
Also, w/r/t the larger discussion, here is a short essay from the Star Wars Technical Commentaries on the roles walkers play on the battlefield.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | Don't forget Repulsor minefields! |
Minefields definitely have their uses, but they can be reduced simply by sending in drones or decoys to detonate individual mines. Repulsorlift Jamming (if it exists) is a much more enduring solution, as the individual jamming emitters don't blow up if a repulsorlift vehicle gets too close.
|
Depends on what those mines are set for/.. IMO the field of a drone, is no where as big/strong etc, as a repulsor field of a combat vehicle..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Depends on what those mines are set for/.. IMO the field of a drone, is no where as big/strong etc, as a repulsor field of a combat vehicle.. |
But the obvious counter is to build light drones with outsized repulsorlifts to produce a larger signature than their size would normally generate.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2023 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
OR just use walkers, so you don't have to get into that 'who can counter whom' angle..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2023 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | OR just use walkers, so you don't have to get into that 'who can counter whom' angle.. |
That's the overall point I'm getting at; walkers will be more useful in some situations than will repulsorlifts.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2023 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Plus walkers can STOMP folks. Repulsors can't!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
