The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

AT-AT Mk. II
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> AT-AT Mk. II Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12631
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon The Lion wrote:
Which brings me to the AT-AT's transport capacity. One word: huge. As we suspected, the canon value of 40 troopers and 5 biker scouts seems to be an understatement, and a serious one at that. Developing a deckplan based on the new cannon height of 22.5m, I was able to pretty handily fit in the 5-man scout lance, 4 deck officers, and no less than 76 troops - two full platoons according to the 2e Imperial Soucebook - with a bit of space left for stowing additional equipment, like a few heavy repeaters for heavy weapon squads. That's a lot of man-power.


Perhaps the extra room could be used to hold a slice of the company-level support element described in the Imperial Sourcebook, not just of the personnel, but the support droids and various supplies for an extended operation. There could be room for a tech station or a medical bay. Based on what is seen in ESB, I'm betting a five-vehicle AT-AT platoon (4 standard transports and 1 command variant) would serve as transport for an augmented drop company, complete with their support element.


Quote:
And the vehicle seems big enough that a modified version actually could carry two AT-STs internally instead of the troops, like the writeup claims, but I'll have to work on that to make sure.


My only issue there is deployment. If you have two AT-STs folded up inside, where is the heavy lifting gear needed to unload them? I can see a cargo variant of the AT-AT being capable of carrying that kind of bulk cargo, but it just seems too cumbersome to really work with a standard AT-AT.


Quote:
On the other hand, the writeup looks to be overly optimistic concerning the AT-AT head's fire arc. Taking into account the width of the head, the body and the length of the neck, I see no way the head could be able to cover the side fire arcs. It has enough freedom of movement for the weapons to cover the front arc nicely, despite being fixed. However, the only way I could see the head even peeking into a side arc, let alone covering it all, would be for the neck to be able stretch to about three times normal length, and be flexible like a tentacle while at it. In short, I don't believe the fire arcs are correct.


You mean WEG got it wrong!?!?!

Maybe the tail cannon should have equal armament as the head, but be responsible for covering the other three arcs instead...
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12631
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've always felt that a better replacement for the AT-AT would be an enlarged version of the AT-TE, say, with the AT-TE design (lower to the ground, on six legs instead of four) but with similar dimensions to the AT-AT. Replace the AT-TE's turret with something like an AT-AT's head, but because it's turret mounted, it can spin to cover all four fire arcs. Put the smaller secondary weapons in a turret-on-turret configuration so that it can engage smaller targets independent of the main turret. Then mount 3-4 heavy repeating blaster turrets around the perimeter for close-in defense and ground support. A vehicle like this would be more stable than and have wider fire arcs than the AT-AT, while retaining similar troop capacity and weapon strength.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kira Firestorm
Sub-Lieutenant
Sub-Lieutenant


Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why not just refer to the AT-AHT??? (all terrain armoured heavy transport)....
_________________
"To find our future, we must look to our past"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12631
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kira Firestorm wrote:
Why not just refer to the AT-AHT??? (all terrain armoured heavy transport)....


Link?
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12631
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kira Firestorm wrote:
Why not just refer to the AT-AHT??? (all terrain armoured heavy transport)....


You mean this here?

Two reasons:

1) It doesn't fix the problems already mentioned (fire arc for the head, lack of stability in a trip situation, etc.)

2) It's from the wrong era, 100+ years after the classic era, which is where I game almost exclusively.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kira Firestorm
Sub-Lieutenant
Sub-Lieutenant


Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well it was just a suggestion, why not use that as a basis for a new version that eventually leads to the AT-AHT developement...thinking longterm here.
_________________
"To find our future, we must look to our past"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon The Lion
Commander
Commander


Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kira Firestorm wrote:
why not use that as a basis for a new version that eventually leads to the AT-AHT developement...thinking longterm here.


The proposed AT-AT Mk2 is effectively pretty much exactly that.

crmcneill wrote:
I've always felt that a better replacement for the AT-AT would be an enlarged version of the AT-TE (...)


Yes, pretty much. The AT-TE is an all-around better, more sensibly designed vehicle: proportionally lower ground presure (more feet), vastly better stability, lower siluette for better use of terrain cover and quicker, more user-friendly troop deployment, superior fire arc of main armament, superior number and coverage of secondary armament. And it still looks pretty neat. In comparison, the AT-AT is just a goofy, inefficient waste of resources. The Empire would be much better off just up-scaling the TE. Unfortunately, Palpatine and is entire crew ware much too fond of terror weapons, powerful and scary, but not very sensibly designed.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon The Lion
Commander
Commander


Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, here's the first release version of the deckplan for the body of the standard AT-AT Mk.1.



The small chairs are standard personel seats with safety harnesses. They are used by the deck officers (2 per level) and scouts (upper level). The big chairs are intended to fit a trooper in full armor and gear, including backpack. They have lock-down safety harnesses, weapon racks, and built-in backpack and weapon charging ports.

On the upper level, the small room up front is an armory, intended for storing weapons for any heavy weapon teams transported.

The bike garage has storage racks, stowing the bikes two high by the walls, and refuelling equipment.

The area with the safety-stripe border on the upper level is not an elevator, but rather only a slide-open hatch. The bikes move through it under their own power. There are also three winches mounted on the ceiling above it, to move immobilized bikes, and also for the troopers from the upper level to reppel down, for faster deployment.

Note the heavy repeaters on swing arm mounts by the doors. They can provide covering fire and "landing zone" suppression, same as similiar weapon mounts on troop transport helicopters.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12631
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks good so far.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12631
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any more thoughts on this, Leon?
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Leon The Lion
Commander
Commander


Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, has it really been more than a year already?

I'm sorry, but I guess that's it for me. The graphic project is basically dead, for various reasons ultimately comming down to me just not feeling like putting in the work right now. Honestly, it's been ages since I felt like putting in the work for any deckplanning project. A combination of burnout, laziness, and plain better and more rewarding things to do, like actually running my SW game, my Zir'An game, or finally playing the Mass Effect trilogy.

Probably should have let you know sooner. I apologize.

The stats you have already figured out, nothing much to add there, I think. The Mk.1 carries 76 troops, a biker scout lance and 4 deck officers. The Mk.2 must either loose the biker scout lance or cut the troop capacity down to half and maybe change in order to move the cockpit into the main body and install the "tail" turret.

For my own SW universe, I just decided that, now that Palpy is pushing up daisies and Thrawn, a much more sensible person, not to mention Tactical Genius! (tm), is running things, the Empire does in fact go back to the much more sensible AT-TE design.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer


Last edited by Leon The Lion on Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12280
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surprised i never commented on this before.

Only one comment so far..

On the 'side mounted' Heavy E-webs.. Why are they down to 7d damage vice the normal 8d they should be at?
Also what is the cover bonus the gunners get for them if any?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12631
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon The Lion wrote:
Probably should have let you know sooner. I apologize.

It's all good. If your deckplan muse strikes again, I expect I will still be here.

Quote:
The stats you have already figured out, nothing much to add there, I think. The Mk.1 carries 76 troops, a biker scout lance and 4 deck officers. The Mk.2 must either loose the biker scout lance or cut the troop capacity down to half and maybe change in order to move the cockpit into the main body and install the "tail" turret.

As far as your deckplan for the Mk.I, I would change the following for the Mk.II:
-Replace the armory with the cockpit, including seats for pilot, copilot and commander (or maybe pilot and commander)
-Upper deck is primarily crew seating, with the cannon mounted aft.
-Lower deck has crew seating along the wall with open area in the middle for the speeder bikes and cargo storage
-Troop transport capacity is cut to 40 (as per the WEG stats) to justify the missing space.
-Stairwell connects the upper and lower decks rather than have the cargo hatch. Possibly putting the control station for the belly blaster underneath the stairs...

Quote:
For my own SW universe, I just decided that, now that Palpy is pushing up daisies and Thrawn, a much more sensible person, not to mention Tactical Genius! (tm), is running things, the Empire does in fact go back to the much more sensible AT-TE design.

I'm on the fence with this, especially now that I'm pretty close to a design that I like for the Mk.II
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12631
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
On the 'side mounted' Heavy E-webs.. Why are they down to 7d damage vice the normal 8d they should be at?

Because they incorporate the Auto-Fire rules that ZzaphodD and I collaborated on. They have a 2D Auto-Fire rating that can be split between damage, accuracy or counter-MAP when shooting at multiple targets.

Quote:
Also what is the cover bonus the gunners get for them if any?

Probably just 1/4 cover.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Leon The Lion
Commander
Commander


Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
If your deckplan muse strikes again, I expect I will still be here.

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave! Razz


crmcneill wrote:
As far as your deckplan for the Mk.I, I would change the following for the Mk.II:
-Replace the armory with the cockpit, including seats for pilot, copilot and commander (or maybe pilot and commander)
-Upper deck is primarily crew seating, with the cannon mounted aft.
-Lower deck has crew seating along the wall with open area in the middle for the speeder bikes and cargo storage
-Troop transport capacity is cut to 40 (as per the WEG stats) to justify the missing space.
-Stairwell connects the upper and lower decks rather than have the cargo hatch. Possibly putting the control station for the belly blaster underneath the stairs...

I wanted to keep the bikes on the upper level and keep the floor hatch, to minimize the amount of changes needed to be made to the structure. Although moving them downstairs would certainly make deploying and recovering them easier. Maybe I should look into moving them down in the Mk.1 too, sometime. And... Stairs? I don't know. I can't really articulate why, but for some reason it feels like a terrible idea to me, even aside from it being another, IMO, unnecessary structural change. But damn if I can tell you why. The belly turret I wanted to be remotely operated from the new cockpit. The head weapons gunner would stay in the head.


crmcneill wrote:
Leon The Lion wrote:
For my own SW universe, (...), the Empire does in fact go back to the much more sensible AT-TE design.

I'm on the fence with this, especially now that I'm pretty close to a design that I like for the Mk.II

Do what you think is right for your own SWU, absolutely. The Mk.2 is a sensible refit for the Mk.1, making it less terrible. But that's the crux of the matter for me: all the Mk.2 does, is make the absolutely terrible design of the Mk.1 just slightly less terrible, but it's still plenty terrible enough. The AT-AT is simply a terrible design for a combat vehicle. The only thing it got going for it over the AT-TE is the troop capacity. Everything else about it sucks Jawa socks. It's a terrifing, but impractical and silly weapon in a long line of terrifing, but impractical and silly weapons, so beloved by Palpy and his cronies. So for myself, I'll probably use the Mk.2 as a refit for surviving Mk.1's, but the AT-AT will no longer be produced, relegated to second line duty, and ultimately slowly faded out in favour of a less stupid machine.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0