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 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: 12809
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:09 pm    Post subject: AT-AT Mk. II Reply with quote

AT-AT Mk. II
Craft: All Terrain Armored Transport
Type: Assault Walker
Scale: Walker
Length: 26 meters long, 23 meters tall
Skill: Walker Operation: AT-AT
Crew: 8, skeleton: 3/+10
Crew Skill:
Vehicle Blasters 5D
Walker Operation 5D
Passengers: 40 (troops) & 5 speeder bike scouts
Cargo Capacity: Normally none, but can carry 1 metric ton of cargo for every trooper (or speeder bike) not carried.
Cover: Full
Cost: Not available for sale
Move: 21; 60 kmh
Body Strength: 6D
Weapons:
    1 Head Turret
    Fire Arc: Front/Left/Right, but can only move one fire arc per turn (i.e. left to front, right to front, front to right or front to left).
    Crew: 1 (co-pilot or commander)
      2 Heavy Laser Cannon (fire-linked)
      Skill: Vehicle Blasters
      Fire Control: 2D
      Range: 50-500/1.5/3 Km
      Damage: 6D
      2 Medium Blaster Cannon (fire-linked)
      Scale: Speeder
      Skill: Vehicle Blasters
      Fire Control: 2D
      Range: 50-200/500/1 Km
      Damage: 5D

    Tail Turret
    Fire Arc: Rear/Left/Right, but can only move one fire arc per turn (i.e. left to rear, right to rear, rear to right or rear to left).
    Crew: 1
      1 Heavy Laser Cannon
      Skill: Vehicle Blasters
      Fire Control: 2D
      Range: 50-500/1.5/3 Km
      Damage: 5D
      1 Medium Blaster Cannon
      Scale: Speeder
      Skill: Vehicle Blasters
      Fire Control: 2D
      Range: 50-200/500/1 Km
      Damage: 4D

    1 Dual Heavy Repeating Blaster
    Fire Arc: Turret (+5 difficulty in front and rear arcs due to the AT-AT's legs obstructing shots)
    Scale: Character
    Crew: 1
    Skill: Vehicle Blasters
    Fire Control: 3D
    Range: 3-75/200/500
    Auto-Fire: 2D
    Damage 8D


Capsule:

It is a well-known military maxim that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. This statement can also be applied to combat vehicle design; a war machine that seems invulnerable in theory will often have unforeseen flaws that only appear when the vehicle is used for its intended purpose and the enemy learns to exploit those flaws.

The original AT-AT is a case in point. While it remains a formidable vehicle, the AT-AT has proven to have some glaring weaknesses; it is slow and ponderous, and has no weaponry covering its rear fire arc, is vulnerable to close-in attacks made at extremely close range (at or around its feet), and the slow turning radius of the head turret means that well coordinated Alliance units can swarm an AT-AT by attacking from multiple angles simultaneously. These vulnerabilities have been readily exploited by determined Alliance units, but Alliance troops have not been the only ones paying attention to the AT-AT's flaws. KDY's AT-AT production division has been collating data on the AT-AT's successes and failures from the moment it was first fielded, and now, in its first major upgrade, they have produced an AT-AT designed to counter the flaws that the Alliance had been exploiting for so long.

The main differences between the AT-AT and the AT-AT Mk. II are the addition of the tail and belly turrets. The tail turret replaces the AT-AT's rear observation station and incorporates the same weaponry mounted on the AT-AT's head (mounting a single cannon of each type rather than the double mounts on the head turret). The tail turret allows the AT-AT to both defend itself from attacks from behind and to engage targets in multiple arcs simultaneously, thereby increasing its defensive options.

The belly turret is installed at the midpoint of the AT-AT's underside, directly between the two sets of legs. Controlled by remote from within the AT-AT's body, it features a dual heavy repeating blaster cannon which is used to engage ground troops and light vehicles in close proximity to the AT-AT. While slightly hampered when firing at targets in the front and rear arcs (as the AT-AT's legs partially obstruct firing angles), the belly turret is deadly effective against targets around the walker's feet. In addition, the belly turret has proven particularly effective against Alliance combat airspeeders attempting to trip up AT-ATs with entangling cable attacks, as well as providing supporting fire to the AT-AT's ground troop contingent as they disembark into combat.

In the months leading up to the Battle of Endor, KDY fielded the AT-AT II on a trial basis with several elite Imperial Army and Stormtrooper Walker units. The resulting vehicle was considered a resounding success by both the walker crews and the troops they supported, and KDY immediately went to full production, completely phasing out production the older AT-AT I. While the Empire's loss at the Battle of Endor has caused great turmoil among the Imperial leadership, KDY continues to produce AT-AT II's, and Imperial ground forces are slowly phasing out the older model AT-AT as more AT-AT II's become available.

Disclaimer: The only changes I made to the basic AT-AT stats were the addition of the two new weapon turrets, as well as arranging the stat block in a manner I liked. Since the original AT-AT stat did not list a price, and the only new components were the aft turret (which uses the same weaponry as the head turret) and the belly turret, I chose not to calculate a new price.

In-Game Use: I don't know about your campaign, but in mine, the PCs have learned very well how to capitalize on an AT-AT's vulnerabilities. I wrote up this version to include weaponry that makes those vulnerabilities much more difficult to exploit. YMMV.

EDIT: Changed the height and length to match the Curtis Saxton estimates (based on film evidence) from the Star Wars Technical Commentaries.

EDIT 2: Changed some of the weapon damages to reflect fire-linking bonuses and penalties
_________________
"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 Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:10 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Darth Ginzain
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the concept. I'd suggest making the tail turret a double medium blaster cannon instead of one of each. At-At's don't run and a big rear facing cannon will have limited use. Whereas a double multi-purpose turret in the back with side firing capabilities would be better served for anti-air/anti-speeder work. For the belly turret, I'd suggest moving it to the head. There's a lot of moving parts in underacarriage of a walker. To put a moving gun mount with power feeds and fire control in that area would be pretty complicated. The rear area of the head has plenty of room for a downward/backward facing heavy repeater.

A note on tactics. At-At's are big heavy vehicles that pack more firepower then a heavy tank platoon and carry's an assault platoon and a scout lance. At-At's should be attached to Company size units at the least. Two At-At's, 4 At-St's, two assault platoons, and either a repulsorlift platoon or an armour platoon and the two lances of scouts makes for a powerful company. My point being, all the other elements in the company should be responsible for protecting the At-At's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12809
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darth Ginzain wrote:
I like the concept. I'd suggest making the tail turret a double medium blaster cannon instead of one of each. At-At's don't run and a big rear facing cannon will have limited use. Whereas a double multi-purpose turret in the back with side firing capabilities would be better served for anti-air/anti-speeder work.


Under the current scale system, walkers get overpowered by Starfighter-scale weaponry as it is. I went with one big gun / one medium gun not just for defensive purposes, but also to augment the main guns in the head by allowing the tail guns to engage smaller Walker-scale targets on the flanks, which would free up pressure on the head weapons if engaged by multiple enemies in multiple fire arcs.

EDT: I also use a modified Scale system that uses uniform 4D steps, with Starfighter and Walker being basically the same scale.


Quote:
For the belly turret, I'd suggest moving it to the head. There's a lot of moving parts in underacarriage of a walker. To put a moving gun mount with power feeds and fire control in that area would be pretty complicated. The rear area of the head has plenty of room for a downward/backward facing heavy repeater.


I considered it, but ultimately there is just as much going on under the AT-AT's chin as there is under its belly. The chin area is almost entirely taken up by the AT-AT's main cannon (which have a visible recoil when firing, which means anything mounted underneath the head has to be positioned so as to not interfere with the recoil action of the main cannon).

My idea for the upgrade positioning is loosely based on the AT-AT swimmer, seen here:


Note the tail turret mounted high on the rear, with the belly turret low and centered between where the legs would be mounted in a regular AT-AT


Quote:
A note on tactics. At-At's are big heavy vehicles that pack more firepower then a heavy tank platoon and carry's an assault platoon and a scout lance. At-At's should be attached to Company size units at the least. Two At-At's, 4 At-St's, two assault platoons, and either a repulsorlift platoon or an armour platoon and the two lances of scouts makes for a powerful company. My point being, all the other elements in the company should be responsible for protecting the At-At's.


This has come up once or twice before. Unfortunately, there are no official guidelines as to how to integrate AT-ATs into the Imperial OB presented in the Imperial Sourcebook. The general consensus seems to be that the tanks presented in the various sources are more the equivalent of Stryker light-armored vehicles in the US Army, while massive vehicles like the AT-AT and the Juggernaut fill the roll of both tanks and IFVs, while lighter walker-scale vehicles fill the roll of CFVs. Based on the films, and looking for applicable comparisons in the Imp SB, we can see five AT-ATs with an unknown number of AT-STs in support (only one is seen). Five AT-ATs fits with the standard Imperial Armor platoon (four combat vehicles and one command vehicle, although the support vehicle is not present), so, with one platoon per walker, the result is one AT-AT platoon supporting one stormtrooper company.

I agree that the other vehicles (AT-STs, AT-AAs, etc.) should be tasked with defending the walkers, yet in the assault on Hoth, the Walkers still suffer 40% losses when assaulting the Rebel lines, so apparently something isn't working with those tactics.
_________________
"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: 12809
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, along with the AT-AT upgrade, I've been considering a similar upgrade to the AT-ST. The big changes I'm considering are:
-Moving the main and secondary cannon into a dorsal turret that can cover 360 degrees.
-Putting the grenade launcher into a chin turret with a dual medium repeating blaster for close-in work.
-Adding a small passenger bay in the rear for a half-squad of dismount troopers. The troopers would deploy from the rear using the auto-rappel system seen on the AT-AT in the Incredible Cross-Sections book.
-Making the cockpit air-tight by replacing the viewports with a smaller version of the AT-AT view strip, with AT-AT-type bulges on either side of the cockpit featuring added sensors and lateral viewports.

I'm just not fully settled on how I want it to look, or on the placement of the weapons. Should the body be fixed forward, or still capable of swiveling (just re-centered to accommodate the dorsal turret and the rear troop compartment)?

I definitely want to include the passenger capacity. The description of the AT-ST in the Star Wars sourcebook was specific that AT-STs were vulnerable to deadfalls, tripwires and mines, and as such should be preceded by infantry to clear obstacles. By upgrading the AT-ST's sensors and allowing it to carry its own troops, it can deploy independently. Additionally, giving AT-ST's a troop transport capacity, they can be deployed in the Imperial OB as the equivalent of a Repulsorlift unit.

Thoughts?
_________________
"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
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2028
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dunno, I think adding too much to the AT-ST will add too much weight and make balancing the thing too difficult.

I like the idea of rearranging and/or changing the weapons, but adding people to it seems like the wrong way to go, especially since a repulsor tank would be a better fit.

Maybe we need better repuslor tanks?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12809
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
I dunno, I think adding too much to the AT-ST will add too much weight and make balancing the thing too difficult.

I like the idea of rearranging and/or changing the weapons, but adding people to it seems like the wrong way to go, especially since a repulsor tank would be a better fit.

Maybe we need better repuslor tanks?


Maybe, but I don't want to abandon the walker concept so quickly when it features so strongly in the films. An alternate possibility would be to lower the AT-ST's hull so that it sits between the legs instead of above them, thereby lowering the center of gravity to offset the effect of the added weight on the balance.

Also, I've always felt that there should be a house rule of some kind whereby walker vehicles have advantages in rough terrain, either in the form of dice bonuses or reduced difficulties to terrain modifiers. This would be a nice off-set to their low speed and poor maneuverability.
_________________
"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
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2028
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Make a new walker? Star Wars needs a Bradley, IMHO.

And IIRC walkers struggle with harsh terrain, no? I thought their only real advantage was their height.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12809
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
Make a new walker? Star Wars needs a Bradley, IMHO.


I used to feel the same way, and then there was a topic a while back about the Imperial Army OB and various Imperial Army vehicles, and the conclusion was reached (based on film evidence) that, rather than having separate tank and IFV-equipped units, the armies of the SWU seem to prefer one big vehicle that performs the functions of both, with other, smaller, faster vehicles performing the cavalry/scout mission as escorts. This doctrine applies to both their army and navy.

With that in mind, I went with the idea of an AT-ST upgrade, although with all of the changes, I am amenable to calling it something different. The AT-AS (All Terrain Armored Scout), perhaps?


Quote:
And IIRC walkers struggle with harsh terrain, no? I thought their only real advantage was their height.


Then why call them All-Terrain? Their height might be an advantage, but the Juggernaut isn't that much shorter when compared side-by-side.
_________________
"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
Darth Ginzain
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've always liked the Hoverscout for Mechanized Infantry. I ran a game years ago where the players were a squad of Stormtroopers and they rolled around in a Hoverscout. 10 man squad. 4 for the Hoverscout and 6 dismount infantry. Basically the same as a Bradley.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12809
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darth Ginzain wrote:
I've always liked the Hoverscout for Mechanized Infantry. I ran a game years ago where the players were a squad of Stormtroopers and they rolled around in a Hoverscout. 10 man squad. 4 for the Hoverscout and 6 dismount infantry. Basically the same as a Bradley.


I've actually bumped several vehicles up from Speeder to Walker scale, which makes them much more formidable. Looking at the vehicles found in the first three sourcebooks (the SW Sourcebook, the Imperial SB, and the Rebel Alliance SB), I've made the following changes
    Cloud Cars (all) - Starfighter
    Mobile Command Base - Walker
    Command Speeder - Walker
    Hoverscout - Walker
    Freerunner - Walker

I've also played around with making the Imperial Heavy (and Super-Heavy, which is mentioned, but no stats are provided) Repulsortanks Walker-Scale as well. Under my scale system, with Speeders at +4D and Walkers and Starfighters at +8D, it makes the differences in scale steps much more important with regards to vehicle combat.
_________________
"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
lurker
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 411
Location: Oklahoma

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
jmanski wrote:


And IIRC walkers struggle with harsh terrain, no? I thought their only real advantage was their height.


Then why call them All-Terrain? Their height might be an advantage, but the Juggernaut isn't that much shorter when compared side-by-side.


To me, their "All-Terrain" is like our modern fighter/attack air craft (either fast mover or helo platforms) "all weather". You add some new radar and other technology toys, call it "all weather", show some videos of it performing in a touch of weather (in a very scrubbed training environment) and everyone loves it. However, you put them in the real world, with multiple unknowns and friction points, around mountains and other significant terrain, and things change. All of a sudden ‘all weather’ becomes 'all weather except for ceilings below X, visibility of y etc etc etc '.

I hate to think how many times I had to reiterate that to Army COs I worked with when they assumed the all weather air craft in our AOR would in fact fly in 'all weather'. When the truth was all the assets went away if even mediocre weather was within 50 miles of our area ... However, even with those weather issues, there were units that would push the safe weather envelope to the very edge (especially the Marine super cobra and the USAF hog units, they were amazing!!!!).

With that, I could picture there being average AT-AT units that would look for excuses not to use their AT-ATs in difficult terrain. “We’d love to cover you on that assault, but … there is no way we can cover that N sector of the base. Those washes and ravines are just too dangerous for our walkers … Maybe we can drop the troops at the edge of the ravines and they force march that last 2 KM to cover that section of the base”

Then there would be one or 2 units that are famous for going into terrain that no one else would dare to take the AT-ATs. “Oh you are hitting that base, yeah that will be sticky. Especially with those ravines to the N … but I bet that area is less defended … and I have a pilot that is amazing at finding a path through anything. Yeah we can have 1 AT-AT assault that sector and be ready to surprise anyone trying to escape from the main base…”

The rebels just need to know which is which, and have good enough spy support to know who is operating in their area


As for your AT-AT Mk II, I like the idea of making the additions. It's kind of like the additions to the flying fortress in WWII, see a weakness from a couple of sorties, cut a hole in the air plane and stick in another MG and see if that helps ... That said, I'd hate to be the guy using the 'belly' turret on your plan (with the legs etc in the way), but it does cover the most glaring weakness of the AT-AT.

crmcneill wrote:

...

I agree that the other vehicles (AT-STs, AT-AAs, etc.) should be tasked with defending the walkers, yet in the assault on Hoth, the Walkers still suffer 40% losses when assaulting the Rebel lines, so apparently something isn't working with those tactics.



For that, I'd say the Army staff would just shrug their shoulders and say "sucks to be one of them" ... They use clones, have a seemingly limitless amount of troops and equipment etc. I can't see the Empire being worried about combat losses as long as the base fell. It sounds harsh (especially to me with my background) but that is just the mindset I picture them having.
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12809
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lurker wrote:
That said, I'd hate to be the guy using the 'belly' turret on your plan (with the legs etc in the way), but it does cover the most glaring weakness of the AT-AT.


Actually, I went with the idea of having the turret remotely controlled from a station inside the AT-AT, similar to modern remote turrets on M1A2's and Stryker vehicles.


Quote:
For that, I'd say the Army staff would just shrug their shoulders and say "sucks to be one of them" ... They use clones, have a seemingly limitless amount of troops and equipment etc. I can't see the Empire being worried about combat losses as long as the base fell. It sounds harsh (especially to me with my background) but that is just the mindset I picture them having.


This is possible, but the Empire is not completely void of innovation. The TIE Interceptor was developed in response to TIE/ln losses against Rebel starfighters, as were much of the advanced TIE types. Another factor will be how well KDY markets the upgrades to the Army. It could even be a completely separate vehicle. Since the Imperial OB includes an Armored battalion in an Assault Regiment (and includes Assault Regiments in both Line and Assault Battlegroups, which are essentially infantry units), and the AT-ST's description has it as a weapon that operates best when supporting and supported by ground troops, I could see AT-STs being assigned to those units with a different, more independently capable walker vehicle being deployed in support of AT-ATs.

With regards to walkers being all-terrain vehicles, I still think there is something to it. Quadrupedal based locomotion is one of the most well-rounded forms of propulsion with regards to the variety of terrain it can handle, even though injuring or damaging one of the legs greatly hampers movement. While the Rebel SB describes the cable attack, it provides no rules for it, so we have to either guess or house rule how such an attack would be carried out.

I know in the 1E-to-2E conversion appendix, several vehicle types took hits on the speed conversion without any real bonuses in return, and the vehicles that took the biggest hits were all ground-contact vehicles (walkers, tracked, wheeled and hover). I've always felt that these vehicles would be better equipped to handle rough terrain, and should have some form of terrain difficulty modifier or something to represent their added "off-road" ability that was picked up at the expense of their speed.
_________________
"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
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2421

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
So, along with the AT-AT upgrade, I've been considering a similar upgrade to the AT-ST. The big changes I'm considering are:
-Moving the main and secondary cannon into a dorsal turret that can cover 360 degrees.
-Putting the grenade launcher into a chin turret with a dual medium repeating blaster for close-in work.
-Adding a small passenger bay in the rear for a half-squad of dismount troopers. The troopers would deploy from the rear using the auto-rappel system seen on the AT-AT in the Incredible Cross-Sections book.
-Making the cockpit air-tight by replacing the viewports with a smaller version of the AT-AT view strip, with AT-AT-type bulges on either side of the cockpit featuring added sensors and lateral viewports.

I'm just not fully settled on how I want it to look, or on the placement of the weapons. Should the body be fixed forward, or still capable of swiveling (just re-centered to accommodate the dorsal turret and the rear troop compartment)?

I definitely want to include the passenger capacity. The description of the AT-ST in the Star Wars sourcebook was specific that AT-STs were vulnerable to deadfalls, tripwires and mines, and as such should be preceded by infantry to clear obstacles. By upgrading the AT-ST's sensors and allowing it to carry its own troops, it can deploy independently. Additionally, giving AT-ST's a troop transport capacity, they can be deployed in the Imperial OB as the equivalent of a Repulsorlift unit.

Thoughts?


Well it is a Scout Transport, so Id stay away from tucking on too much weight..

This was up a year or so ago IIRC...Hey it was even my thread..
http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3196&highlight=atst

I switched the secondary guns to a character-scale medium repeating blaster, made the grenade launcher character scale and lowered the speed a bit..
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12809
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone ever considered allowing more advanced bipedal walkers have emergency repulsorlift systems that kick in to help right the walker when they sense an imminent trip? Maybe even something that would allow a walker to make a repulsor-assisted jump to clear difficult terrain? Humans and other bipedal creatures are able to pick themselves back up after a fall, but a bipedal walker has no such ability.
_________________
"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
Darth Ginzain
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I recall in the Clone Wars movie, the AT-TE's climbed a nearly 90 degree cliff. Now that's all terrain. Also implies there is some kind of adhesive on their feet.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 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