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-XT -> AT-AV
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> AT-XT -> AT-AV Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12477
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:51 pm    Post subject: AT-XT -> AT-AV Reply with quote

So, I like the look of the AT-XT, but there is no way a production combat vehicle will be named "Experimental" (the 'X' in -XT). If a government is shelling out the credits needed to produce this thing in sufficient numbers to be deployed in a galaxy-wide war, it is well past the experimental stage.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I prefer - wherever possible - to fill in the gaps in the EU rather than making up something completely new. One of the unicorns I've been chasing w/r/t filling in said gaps is the AT-AV (All-Terrain Attack Vehicle). It's only mentioned once (in Children of the Jedi, where Leia mentions that she named one of her pet pittins AT-AV), and that's it. Personally, I like to think that the name didn't just happen in a vacuum, and that there was an actual AT-AV out there somewhere.

So, what I'm thinking is making the AT-AV the production version of the AT-XT, as a predecessor to the AT-ST.

A few initial details:
    -A 2-being crew, seated tandem in the cockpit, with the rear seat above and behind the front.

    -A chin turret that combines the grenade launcher and dual blaster found on the "cheek" mounts of the AT-ST

    -A main dorsal weapons mount that is either modular or can be switched out between missions as needed. A few possible options might include...
      -Dual Laser Cannon
      -Dual Ion Cannon
      -Concussion Missile Pods
      -Proton Mortars
      -Rapid-Fire Blaster Cannon (for air defense or for use against light vehicles or infantry)
      -Scout (combined sensor array and sensor mask)
      -CommScan (command vehicle with expanded sensors and communication systems)
      -Tractor Beam (obstacle removal)
The concept is a single vehicle from the Clone Wars era (will likely be in Alliance service as of the OT era) that can serve as a combined arms force, or serve as screening and escort vehicles for a force of AT-TEs and AT-APs.

One thing I'm waffling on is whether or not to make them as good as AT-STs. If I go that route, my reasoning is that, as of the end of the Clone Wars, the Imperial military cut individual unit quality and capability in favor of mass-produced units that operated best as part of an integrated unit, and that AT-AVs were just a little too capable and expensive to fit into that mindset.

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
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12243
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you are wrong on Leia talking about it in children of the jedi. IIRC it was when she held up in her sanctum with Acbar in the jedi academy and had that sqiddy automiton protecting her against those spider walkers (the AT-MT)..
_________________
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: 12477
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
I think you are wrong on Leia talking about it in children of the jedi. IIRC it was when she held up in her sanctum with Acbar in the jedi academy and had that sqiddy automiton protecting her against those spider walkers (the AT-MT)..

Nope, I'm right.
_________________
"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 Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:31 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12243
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you wish to make a vehicle based on a pet in effect, dog..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2573

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think he wants to take a vehicle designation that has not yet been assigned to any in-universe vehicle (that has actually been seen in a source, rather than merely referenced), and apply it to a vehicle that HAS been seen but that should be beyond it's experimental stages.

Since noone has actually seen an ATAV, why not just assign that nomenclature to the production version of the ATXT?

What do you envision with respect to the rapid fire blaster cannon? Speciically you mentioned air defense and light vehicles.

Would "air defense" mean defense against air speeders or starfighters? And by extension, if we are talking about shooting down starfighters, couldn't it also easily destroy most ground vehicles ("light" or otherwise)?

FWIW, the .50 BMG was designed as an anti-aircraft round, so it's not entirely out of the question that a weapon could conceivably be used in a mult-role set up (effective against a wide range of target types, or in D6 terms, being useful at across several scales of combat).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12477
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I think he wants to take a vehicle designation that has not yet been assigned to any in-universe vehicle (that has actually been seen in a source, rather than merely referenced), and apply it to a vehicle that HAS been seen but that should be beyond its experimental stages.

Since no one has actually seen an AT-AV, why not just assign that nomenclature to the production version of the AT-XT?

Nice to see that someone comprehends what I'm getting at.

Quote:
What do you envision with respect to the rapid fire blaster cannon? Specifically you mentioned air defense and light vehicles.

Would "air defense" mean defense against air speeders or starfighters? And by extension, if we are talking about shooting down starfighters, couldn't it also easily destroy most ground vehicles ("light" or otherwise)?

FWIW, the .50 BMG was designed as an anti-aircraft round, so it's not entirely out of the question that a weapon could conceivably be used in a multi-role set up (effective against a wide range of target types, or in D6 terms, being useful at across several scales of combat).

I'm not sure yet. These are going to be written up in my scale system as Speeder-Scale, so their weapons would actually need to be pretty formidable if they were to be used against full-up starfighters. Mostly I was just throwing out different possible mission types that might be found in a multi-role formation of these things. But one common feature is that they're all going to have a chin turret combining a twin light blaster cannon and a grenade launcher; it's the dorsal turret where most of the changes will be made. If I do go with the anti-air variant, it'll probably be a mix of enhanced sensors, a dual blaster cannon and maybe a four-pack of guided missiles (although the missiles may be a bit too high-tech for mass production in the SWU).

As far as the .50 BMG round, I'm pretty sure that the dual triple-blasters on the Z-95 are composed of six HRBs (roughly M2 equivalents). The dual light blasters on the chin turret are going to be the next step up, IMO: roughly equal to 20mm cannon. I suppose a quad-.50 equivalent of four fire-linked E-WEBs could be a pretty nasty AA weapon, as well as shredding light vehicles and infantry.
_________________
"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
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2573

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In real world terms, the .50 is pretty versatile. I do tend to think of the EWHB as analogous to it in pretty much every respect.

An additional possibility woud be to have a "heavy" (for scale) single-barrel weapon on the dorsal mount along with a limited capacity (somewhere between 1 and 4 shots, maybe) missile tube/magazine for the incidental anti-tank/anti-aircraft/ant-bunker support that may or may not be needed, but is available just in case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12477
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
An additional possibility would be to have a "heavy" (for scale) single-barrel weapon on the dorsal mount along with a limited capacity (somewhere between 1 and 4 shots, maybe) missile tube/magazine for the incidental anti-tank/anti-aircraft/ant-bunker support that may or may not be needed, but is available just in case.

I see that more as the realm of the Clone Wars-era AT-AP, some of which did make it into Alliance service. If the Alliance ever did deploy a full-up Walker combined arms unit, I see it being composed primarily of Clone Wars-era equipment, with AT-TEs and AT-APs as the core, modified AT-OTs as the support elements and my proposed AT-AVs as the screening elements.

The thing is, though, that walkers don't really have the mobility relative to repulsorlifts to engage in the armored equivalent of guerilla warfare with the Empire. It's not that they won't do it if they have to, but something light and fast like an AT-AV that can hit and fade against light Imperial Walkers units like AT-STs and AT-DPs will be much more useful, as well as more strategically mobile (like fitting a small force of walkers onto a GR75 modified as a troop transport).
_________________
"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
Dredwulf60
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 717

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about doing up some stats for THIS walker?

(Scroll down a few images)
https://ilmchallenge.artstation.com/survivors/11252/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5757
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
So you wish to make a vehicle based on a pet in effect, dog..

CRMcNeill wrote:
Naaman wrote:
I think he wants to take a vehicle designation that has not yet been assigned to any in-universe vehicle (that has actually been seen in a source, rather than merely referenced), and apply it to a vehicle that HAS been seen but that should be beyond its experimental stages.

Since no one has actually seen an AT-AV, why not just assign that nomenclature to the production version of the AT-XT?

Nice to see that someone comprehends what I'm getting at.

There's no need to be insulting, guys.

Dredwulf60 wrote:
How about doing up some stats for THIS walker?

(Scroll down a few images)
https://ilmchallenge.artstation.com/survivors/11252/

There is some nice computer art there.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12477
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dredwulf60 wrote:
How about doing up some stats for THIS walker?

(Scroll down a few images)
https://ilmchallenge.artstation.com/survivors/11252/

First impressions, it's very cool. However, I see some versatility issues, particularly in that all the guns are basically fixed forward with no way to pivot to a new target without angling the walker's entire body.

This does, however, remind me of an idea I came up with a while back: picture this, with a chin turret up front, a dorsal heavy weapons turret on top and a troop compartment in the back, with drop-line deployment capability, so that the troops can deploy without the vehicle having to kneel in 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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3755
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
First impressions, it's very cool. However, I see some versatility issues, particularly in that all the guns are basically fixed forward with no way to pivot to a new target without angling the walker's entire body.
Hey we are talking about vehicles that fall down and explode when tripped. Laughing Versatility is hardly the most important design criterion. And the picture does look kinda intimidating in an over-gunned Warhammer sort of way. I think intimidation, far more than practicality or utility is the most important Imperial military design criterion.

Makes me think the distinctive whine of a TIE fighter was intentionally designed, like the siren on a Stuka dive bomber.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2573

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Dredwulf60 wrote:
How about doing up some stats for THIS walker?

(Scroll down a few images)
https://ilmchallenge.artstation.com/survivors/11252/

First impressions, it's very cool. However, I see some versatility issues, particularly in that all the guns are basically fixed forward with no way to pivot to a new target without angling the walker's entire body.

This does, however, remind me of an idea I came up with a while back: picture this, with a chin turret up front, a dorsal heavy weapons turret on top and a troop compartment in the back, with drop-line deployment capability, so that the troops can deploy without the vehicle having to kneel in place.


Considering the skill level of the artist and the level of detail on the machinery, its a bit curious that the artist did not account for any rotational provisions in the design of the vehicle. He was otherwise very conscientious about including lots of engineered-looking elements that reinforce the verisimilitude of the overall design.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dredwulf60
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 717

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.
Quote:


Considering the skill level of the artist and the level of detail on the machinery, its a bit curious that the artist did not account for any rotational provisions in the design of the vehicle. He was otherwise very conscientious about including lots of engineered-looking elements that reinforce the verisimilitude of the overall design.


In that respect, It's kind of like a WWII tank destroyer...with legs.

I think the artist crossed an AT-AT with Metal Gear!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dredwulf60
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 717

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Dredwulf60 wrote:
How about doing up some stats for THIS walker?

(Scroll down a few images)
https://ilmchallenge.artstation.com/survivors/11252/

First impressions, it's very cool. However, I see some versatility issues, particularly in that all the guns are basically fixed forward with no way to pivot to a new target without angling the walker's entire body.

This does, however, remind me of an idea I came up with a while back: picture this, with a chin turret up front, a dorsal heavy weapons turret on top and a troop compartment in the back, with drop-line deployment capability, so that the troops can deploy without the vehicle having to kneel in place.


Here is another interesting walker design;
designated as a 'dagobah swamp walker'.

https://ilmchallenge.artstation.com/survivors/11154/
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  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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