| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: | | 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. |
As a person who moves heavy stuff for a living, I can assure you that the fewer steps you have to take when loading and unloading make it exponentially easier to get it done quickly. I know you had suggested putting heavier retractable cranes at the side bay doors, and keeping the cargo right there where is can be loaded and unloaded is much simpler. After all, stormtroopers can move from their seats to the doors under their own power.
| Quote: | | 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 d*mn if I can tell you why. |
A slide? A fireman's pole, perhaps? There has to be some way to get up to the upper levels, and stairs are a pretty common method. They have them on planes, trains, ships and cars. I figure the stairs would be located forward, near the base of the neck. For troop deployment, the troops on the lower deck would move aft toward the bay doors and the troops on the upper deck would file down the stairs and fall into line behind them, almost like a stick of paratroopers aboard a transport aircraft.
| Quote: | | The belly turret I wanted to be remotely operated from the new cockpit. The head weapons gunner would stay in the head. |
Or maybe the belly turret station could be co-located with the gunnery station for the rear turret. It's possible the rear turret could be remotely manned as well.
I'm also unsure whether the vehicle commander should be stationed in the head or the new cockpit, but I'm leaning towards the head. In almost all modern armored vehicles, the vehicle commander is stationed in the main weapons turret with the gunner, for a variety of reasons.
| Quote: | | 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. |
I actually picture a next generation walker being something like the AT-TE, but on a larger scale, with a dorsal turret reminiscent of an AT-AT head (with similar weaponry, but able to rotate 360 degrees), and an AT-AT's troop transport capacity.
_________________
"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: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On a similar note, since I like your reasoning for having an armory, I would put the armory on the lower deck under the stairs.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | A slide? A fireman's pole, perhaps? There has to be some way to get up to the upper levels, and stairs are a pretty common method. They have them on planes, trains, ships and cars. I figure the stairs would be located forward, near the base of the neck. For troop deployment, the troops on the lower deck would move aft toward the bay doors and the troops on the upper deck would file down the stairs and fall into line behind them, almost like a stick of paratroopers aboard a transport aircraft. |
There are two perfectly servicable ladders already built into the design. They have stairs on planes, trains, ships and cars, true. But not on tanks and IFVs. Well, there are no tanks or IFVs big enough to need them, yeah. I don't know. There's just something about the idea that rubs me wrong out of all proportion with the detail's importance. I would much prefer ladders plus fireman's poles for quick descent during troop deployment.
| crmcneill wrote: | | It's possible the rear turret could be remotely manned as well. |
Not a good idea, I think. The belly turret is remotely operated because it's the only way to mount it where it is. Placing an operator inside would require that he either boards the turret from outside the vehicle, with no internal connection to the rest of personnel spaces, or else a massive rebuilding of the drive train and chassis to provide said internal connection. The tail turret has no such problem. Placing it's control station anywhere but inside itself would be a completely unnecesary waste of space.
| crmcneill wrote: | | I'm also unsure whether the vehicle commander should be stationed in the head or the new cockpit, but I'm leaning towards the head. In almost all modern armored vehicles, the vehicle commander is stationed in the main weapons turret with the gunner, for a variety of reasons. |
In all modern armored vehicles placing the commander in the turret provides him with a 360 degree field of wiev, both through visors and by physically standing up out of the hatch. Giving the commander 360 degree vision is no problem with modern technology wherever he sits, sure. But when the turret rotates, the commander may be facing a different way, but he has 360 vision anyway, and is still in the same place relative to the whole craft. Not so in the AT-AT head, which does not rotate in place, but instead swings side to side on a neck. Also, modern armored vehicles generally do not have more than one turret for him to command. Again, do as you like, but I'm not convinced. But it's not like we have to agree on every detail, right?
_________________
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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: | | There are two perfectly servicable ladders already built into the design. They have stairs on planes, trains, ships and cars, true. But not on tanks and IFVs. Well, there are no tanks or IFVs big enough to need them, yeah. I don't know. There's just something about the idea that rubs me wrong out of all proportion with the detail's importance. I would much prefer ladders plus fireman's poles for quick descent during troop deployment. |
I'm not saying take the ladder out, but stairs offer utility that ladders can't in the form of speed (someone in decent shape can actually run up or down stairs much faster than they can climb a ladder), plus the fact that stairs don't require hands to climb (which might come in handy for combat troops carrying weapons).
| Quote: | | In all modern armored vehicles placing the commander in the turret provides him with a 360 degree field of wiev, both through visors and by physically standing up out of the hatch. Giving the commander 360 degree vision is no problem with modern technology wherever he sits, sure. But when the turret rotates, the commander may be facing a different way, but he has 360 vision anyway, and is still in the same place relative to the whole craft. Not so in the AT-AT head, which does not rotate in place, but instead swings side to side on a neck. Also, modern armored vehicles generally do not have more than one turret for him to command. Again, do as you like, but I'm not convinced. But it's not like we have to agree on every detail, right? |
One obvious practical advantage is that the AT-ATs head already has a commander's station in it. Moving the pilot and copilot to the new cockpit already takes up some room on the upper floor, and leaving the commander's station where it is means that new room doesn't take up quite as much space
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I'm not saying take the ladder out, but stairs offer utility that ladders can't in the form of speed (someone in decent shape can actually run up or down stairs much faster than they can climb a ladder), plus the fact that stairs don't require hands to climb (which might come in handy for combat troops carrying weapons). |
We'll have to agree to disagree on the stairs. If I ever continue work on the deckplan, I'll see about putting them in, but you'll excuse me for not having them in the version I use for my game. If nothing else, I think they'll take up too much space.
| crmcneill wrote: | | One obvious practical advantage is that the AT-ATs head already has a commander's station in it. Moving the pilot and copilot to the new cockpit already takes up some room on the upper floor, and leaving the commander's station where it is means that new room doesn't take up quite as much space. |
First, I always thought of the co-pilot as actually being the gunner, so I think he should stay in the head either way.
Second, by that logic, the head already has a pilot station in it, too. Why move the original crew at all? Is there really that much of an advatage to it to justify the needed rebuilding of the vehicle and limiting of transport space? Because the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced this change is not really necessary, especially if you insist on keeping the commander in the head anyway.
_________________
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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: | | We'll have to agree to disagree on the stairs. If I ever continue work on the deckplan, I'll see about putting them in, but you'll excuse me for not having them in the version I use for my game. If nothing else, I think they'll take up too much space. |
Fair enough. As I said, I don't have a problem with the ladders; I just don't think they are sufficient to meet the needs of moving quickly and efficiently between the upper and lower decks.
| Quote: | | First, I always thought of the co-pilot as actually being the gunner, so I think he should stay in the head either way. |
Works for me.
| Quote: | | Second, by that logic, the head already has a pilot station in it, too. Why move the original crew at all? Is there really that much of an advatage to it to justify the needed rebuilding of the vehicle and limiting of transport space? Because the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced this change is not really necessary, especially if you insist on keeping the commander in the head anyway. |
My original suggestion for moving the pilot station into the main body is that it would simplify things for the pilot, in that he would be afforded a fixed perspective for navigating the vehicle, rather than having to deal with a constantly shifting perspective as the AT-AT's head moves about to engage targets. The commander, on the other hand, doesn't need to be seated in a fixed position relative to the vehicle to do his job more effectively (as evidenced by modern armored vehicles), and he already has a commander's station in the walker's head. If you want him moved up into the hull, that leaves a big open space in the head when space is already being lost by the addition of the tail turret, so if the commander isn't there, something needs to be there in his place.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | My original suggestion for moving the pilot station into the main body is that it would simplify things for the pilot, in that he would be afforded a fixed perspective for navigating the vehicle, rather than having to deal with a constantly shifting perspective as the AT-AT's head moves about to engage targets. The commander, on the other hand, doesn't need to be seated in a fixed position relative to the vehicle to do his job more effectively (as evidenced by modern armored vehicles), and he already has a commander's station in the walker's head. If you want him moved up into the hull, that leaves a big open space in the head when space is already being lost by the addition of the tail turret, so if the commander isn't there, something needs to be there in his place. |
While moving the pilot to the body would eliminate the shifting perspective problem, wouldn't it also put him way too high to effectively judge the immidiate terrain the vehicle is about to step on, with no way of looking down, especially with the head being in the way? Sure, technological solutions - like simple viewscreens - could deal with this problem, the same they do for the commander... But if so, couldn't the same solutions be applied to the shifting-head-perspective problem and allow him to stay in the head?
As to something needing to be put in the space vacated by the pilot and commander if they are moved, how about additional power capacitors, to allow up-gunning the head, or just additional sensors?
_________________
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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: | | While moving the pilot to the body would eliminate the shifting perspective problem, wouldn't it also put him way too high to effectively judge the immidiate terrain the vehicle is about to step on, with no way of looking down, especially with the head being in the way? |
Well, considering he is already at least 15 meters off the ground, will a few more meters make that much of a difference? I know when I was training to drive a semi-truck it was disorienting to be so much further off the ground than I was used to when driving a normal car, but now it is second nature, so it could just be a matter of training. Plus, the design of the cockpit / cab on the Mk.II could include side windows or other viewports to give the pilot the perspective he needs. I've always felt that walker control and interface systems were not direct, in that the driver wasn't directly controlling the legs, but rather was using controls to instruct a basic droid intelligence what direction to go and how fast to go there. The droid intelligence would then use its own scanners to survey the ground immediately ahead and decide where the best place to step would be, as well as providing feedback to the driver about potential hazardous situations.
| Quote: | | Sure, technological solutions - like simple viewscreens - could deal with this problem, the same they do for the commander... But if so, couldn't the same solutions be applied to the shifting-head-perspective problem and allow him to stay in the head? |
It certainly could. Moving the pilot up to the main body was just an off-hand remark initially. If the AT-AT's control interface is as I described above, moving the pilot up to the main body would be even less necessary, since a droid "auto-pilot" would be doing all the hard work with regard to vehicle locomotion.
| Quote: | | As to something needing to be put in the space vacated by the pilot and commander if they are moved, how about additional power capacitors, to allow up-gunning the head, or just additional sensors? |
Possibly. I suppose we would need to settle on whether or not to move them at all before making that decision.
_________________
"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: 14033
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
| Quote: | | Also what is the cover bonus the gunners get for them if any? |
Probably just 1/4 cover. |
Why not give them a 'blast shield' like our gunners on our turret mounts (vehicles) get so they have more like 50% cover?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I've always felt that walker control and interface systems were not direct, in that the driver wasn't directly controlling the legs, but rather was using controls to instruct a basic droid intelligence what direction to go and how fast to go there. The droid intelligence would then use its own scanners to survey the ground immediately ahead and decide where the best place to step would be, as well as providing feedback to the driver about potential hazardous situations. |
I remember you made this suggestion before. I didn't comment in that thread, but I think I agree. More than any other vehicle, walkers would benefit from being / need to be "drive-by-wire".
| crmcneill wrote: | | It certainly could. Moving the pilot up to the main body was just an off-hand remark initially. If the AT-AT's control interface is as I described above, moving the pilot up to the main body would be even less necessary, since a droid "auto-pilot" would be doing all the hard work with regard to vehicle locomotion. |
In that case, I think it would be best to just leave the original crew as is, in the head.
_________________
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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: |
| Quote: | | Also what is the cover bonus the gunners get for them if any? |
Probably just 1/4 cover. |
Why not give them a 'blast shield' like our gunners on our turret mounts (vehicles) get so they have more like 50% cover? |
Just to clarify, there are actually two different weapons here; the belly turret mentioned in the original stat post (which is remotely controlled from inside the AT-AT) and the swing-out heavy repeaters mounted at the AT-AT's side doors. The swing-outs are Leon's addition, so they weren't something I put a lot of thought (or stat writing) into, even though I like the idea. Based on the artwork, they didn't seem to have a blast shield, so I just figured any cover for the gunner would be provided by the weapon itself. I don't see any issue with adding a blast shield, though.
_________________
"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: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: | | In that case, I think it would be best to just leave the original crew as is, in the head. |
Agreed. Putting the driver in the walker's main body can be reserved for more advanced, less "stupid" designs. 
_________________
"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: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With that decided, the only real changes left to the floorplan on the AT-AT Mk.II would be the tail turret, the control station for the belly turret, and where to relocate the speeder bikes.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I broke down and did some experimental fiddling with the Mk.1 deckplan - no hard work, just some cut & paste - to see about moving the bikes to the lower level as standard.
And, well, there's a "problem". That being, if we do that, the bikes can be racked 3 high instead of 2 (higher ceiling), which means they also take up less floor space, which, together with removing the floor hatch, means we get back even more floor space for troops. I'd say something like an additional squad - 8 to 10 people.
_________________
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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Or a flight of stairs?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
