| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:29 pm Post subject: Do We Really Need Two Juggernauts? |
 |
|
As part of this project, I've been going through and updating my stats to reflect various changes and house rules. I got somewhat sidetracked when I made it to the Juggernaut. Now, I really do like what Lucasfilm did with the Juggernaut in RotS, but they made it far larger (effectively doubled length, width and height, which gives it ~8 times the internal volume of the WEG version). I am decidedly not a fan of the "two different versions that look the same but one's way bigger retcon", so I'm thinking strongly about throwing out one version and keeping the other. Of the two, I'm leaning strongly toward keeping the HAVw-A6 (the film version) and discarding the HAVw-A5 (WEG version). A big part of my thinking is influenced by the work Fractalsponge has put in on his version, including inserting it into other scenes alongside his AT-SP and Chi-Class Heavy Landing Craft.
Now, if I were to go this route, my stats for the WEG Juggernaut would just get moved to the Recycle Bin post on my Index, so those of you who prefer to stick with WEG's version would still be able to access it.
But anyway, let me know what you think. I've got a few other things to work on before I get around to it.
_________________
"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 Jan 25, 2022 9:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10296
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: There are two film juggernauts |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | In Rogue One, the Empire also had a smaller juggernauts like the WEG version. So I would suggest recycling the WEG version and creating stats for the Rogue One version. |
I remember that; I went back to watch that scene just to be sure, and I didn't see any clear indicators of scale, just stripped of armament.
Frankly, if I up-size the stats, I'll likely have to make it Frigate-Scale, the way I did with the AT-SP...
_________________
"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: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd keep the size from ROTS, as that was really the only time we see it in film. The one from Rogue One seemed more like a stripped out one for prisoner transport...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10296
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2022 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | CRMcNeill, so you haven't done the RotS Juggernaut yet? I looked and couldn't find it. |
No, I haven't. If/when I do, it'll be posted on the Fractalsponge page, with links to the gallery he did for it. For now, the WEG Juggernaut is still up on my Index.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10296
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:40 pm Post subject: A multiplicity of Juggernauts |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | I've been going through and updating my stats to reflect various changes and house rules. I got somewhat sidetracked when I made it to the Juggernaut. Now, I really do like what Lucasfilm did with the Juggernaut in RotS, but they made it far larger (effectively doubled length, width and height, which gives it ~8 times the internal volume of the WEG version). I am decidedly not a fan of the "two different versions that look the same but one's way bigger retcon", so I'm thinking strongly about throwing out one version and keeping the other. Of the two, I'm leaning strongly toward keeping the HAVw-A6 (the film version) and discarding the HAVw-A5 (WEG version). A big part of my thinking is influenced by the work Fractalsponge has put in on his version, including inserting it into other scenes alongside his AT-SP and Chi-Class Heavy Landing Craft.
Now, if I were to go this route, my stats for the WEG Juggernaut would just get moved to the Recycle Bin post on my Index, so those of you who prefer to stick with WEG's version would still be able to access it.
But anyway, let me know what you think. |
Juggernauts
I still don't get why there should only be one Juggernaut. You added a third Victory-class star destroyer just to honor Fractal's take on it, and none of them appear in any films. There is a Juggernaut in RotS and there is a different one in Rogue One. The one in RotS was designated A6 because the WEG one is A5, so the WEG Juggernaut was retconned as the predecessor of the A6 and it makes sense that both of them were used by the Republic and the Empire. The A6 was a Clone Wars vehicle so the A5 may have been the standard before the Clone Wars. The Juggernaut in Rogue One is the A9, a successor of the A6, so it seems clear this is a post-Clone War Imperial vehicle (although according to Canon it is very early Empire).
If you look closely, the A9 is not just a reduced scale version of the A6. It is a different design/model. And there are indicators that provide a sense of scale. When Jyn Erso escapes out of the hatch only to find K2 waiting for her, you can see that she escapes out of the rear and a rear wheel is visible while K2 grabs her. That rear wheel is a bit taller than K2. And then knowing she comes out of the rear, you can look back in the film at the rear view of the ship and see the hatch she came out of, and see the same hatch from the inside when the Rebels come in and Jyn goes out of it. See the image and YouTube video below for starters. It is easier to see the wheel if you slow the video playing speed down.
| garhkal wrote: | | The one from Rogue One seemed more like a ...prisoner transport |
There also was an Imperial Juggernaut in The Mandalorian season 2, and it has been designated as a variant ("A9.2") of the one in Rogue One, but that is stupid because it is clearly a different design than both prior live action Juggernauts, with spaced-out wheels. That was designated as a cargo transport. StarWars.com vaguely lumps the Rogue One and Mandalorian juggernauts together and describes them as being for "cargo and prisoners" transport.
Most of the information in the Wookieepedia entry of the Rogue One Juggernaut mostly comes from the FFG SW RPG sourcebook called Starships and Speeders. It indicates that "the A9 is, at its heart, an infantry fighting vehicle" designed as "an armored personnel carrier designed to carry troops into combat and protect those troops once deployed. Also, A9s are rarely, if ever, deployed alone. They are typically part of a larger armored formation that includes Juggernauts, walkers, and other smaller, faster assault vehicles." It also indicates that it can be reconfigured for prison transport. Nothing in Rogue One or any films contradicts any of this.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Do We Really Need Two Juggernauts? |
We need at least two, the A6 and the A9. And since the EU made WEG's A5 a predecessor of both live action film Juggernauts, to honor WEG like the EU did the aging A5s could still be in service on less important worlds of the Empire, and perhaps by the classic era they would be prone to breakdown.
Video: Jyn is rescued from the Juggernaut
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: A multiplicity of Juggernauts |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | I still don't get why there should only be one Juggernaut. |
It's more about the way they went about it. I'm okay with a much larger wheeled vehicle that operates on the same design and principle (as in, designed to deliver an assault infantry company directly into a fortified position, as opposed to just a reinforced platoon ala the WEG Juggernaut). I just dislike the "we'll take this vehicle design, make it twice as big in all three dimensions but have it drive backwards" approach they ended up taking with it.
| Quote: | | You added a third Victory-class star destroyer just to honor Fractal's take on it, and none of them appear in any films. |
The key difference there is that WEG had already established a precedent of using the same basic hull but fitting it out differently to perform different missions. When I stated the Fractalsponge Victory, I didn't make it 1800 meters long, but still externally identical to the smaller 900-meter-long Victory; I just expanded on WEG's concept of the Victory I and Victory II to make a third type of Victory that fills a different mission requirement.
| Quote: | | The A6 was a Clone Wars vehicle so the A5 may have been the standard before the Clone Wars. The Juggernaut in Rogue One is the A9, a successor of the A6, so it seems clear this is a post-Clone War Imperial vehicle (although according to Canon it is very early Empire). |
I have a problem with the timeline, though. From a military procurement standpoint, it's far more likely that, if they needed to repurpose what is essentially an old APC into an armored transport for non-front-line combat duties, they'd just strip some weapons and equipment off an older model (the A5), not just build a completely new vehicle on the exact same pattern.
| Quote: | | There also was an Imperial Juggernaut in The Mandalorian season 2, and it has been designated as a variant ("A9.2") of the one in Rogue One, but that is stupid because it is clearly a different design than both prior live action Juggernauts, with spaced-out wheels. |
I'd much prefer to tie that in with the Imperial Wheeled Troop Carrier from the old Force Commander tactical command game. The graphics for that thing have always been meh, and tying it to a vehicle seen in live-action nicely cleans up an internal loose end. Having that be an -A9 and the Rogue One Juggernaut be a surplused -A5 stripped of some armament makes more sense. It also ties in better with the timeline, as the Force Commander version would be in service during the classic era, and thus still in use as a transport by Imperial Remnant Forces post-Endor. There is also a long-standing military tradition of repurposing older APCs as armored cargo transports or support vehicles.
It also fits better with the vehicle designation of HCVw-A9; in the WEG system, armored assault vehicles - even those with infantry transport capacity - were called HAV, with the A standing for Assault. Having a separate designation for Carrier vehicles (as in, armored and can carry lots of stuff, but equipped with defensive armaments only) makes more sense.
Plus, why does everything with wheels have to be a Juggernaut, even if the only resemblance is that it has a multi-axle wheeled propulsion?
| Quote: | | We need at least two, the A6 and the A9. And since the EU made WEG's A5 a predecessor of both live action film Juggernauts, to honor WEG like the EU did the aging A5s could still be in service on less important worlds of the Empire, and perhaps by the classic era they would be prone to breakdown. |
| Quote: | | If you look closely, the A9 is not just a reduced scale version of the A6. It is a different design/model. And there are indicators that provide a sense of scale. When Jyn Erso escapes out of the hatch only to find K2 waiting for her, you can see that she escapes out of the rear and a rear wheel is visible while K2 grabs her. That rear wheel is a bit taller than K2. And then knowing she comes out of the rear, you can look back in the film at the rear view of the ship and see the hatch she came out of, and see the same hatch from the inside when the Rebels come in and Jyn goes out of it. See the image and YouTube video below for starters. It is easier to see the wheel if you slow the video playing speed down. |
Yeah, that still shot is probably the strongest evidence in support of a smaller version (but as per my above, I think the Rogue One version is actually an -A5).
Honestly, the history of the Juggernaut in the new EU makes me want to go down to the Lucasfilm offices with a flamer and start purging heresy and corruption (apologies for the WH40K reference). All these different, stupid versions with different letter designations and different sizes, yet all called Juggernaut or turbo-tank or something equally ridiculous and half-@$$ed.
While I do appreciate that Rogue One actually took the attention to detail to show us how people would actually get on or off the damn thing, it really flies in the face of my original problem with what the Juggernaut has become; to wit, that I HATE the "let's take this vehicle, double the dimensions, but keep the appearance exactly the same otherwise" approach. I may just squint my eyes a little at the Rogue One scene and picture it as the -A9 Carrier I described above.
And it really just sunk in how much I hate the Lucasfilm version being backwards from the WEG version, with the driver's cab reduced to an adjunct to the main body. And that spindly little sensor tower...
ARRRRGGH!!! I need to stop for a while...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10296
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2022 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: A multiplicity of "Juggernauts" |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | ARRRRGGH!!! I need to stop for a while... |
Thanks for your responses. Sorry this has been so frustrating. Take a break. I know I took this in a tangent from your original comment about retiring the WEG version from your canon to make way for the larger RotS version, but it seemed like you forgot about the Rogue One vehicle for the premise of your question.
| Quote: | | Plus, why does everything with wheels have to be a Juggernaut, even if the only resemblance is that it has a multi-axle wheeled propulsion? |
Oops.  Actually, the RO vehicle is technically called a "turbo tank" and not a juggernaut. It seems Wookieepedia has only categorized it as a juggernaut due to its obvious similarities to the original film juggernaut in RotS. I was calling it another juggernaut out of pure laziness on my own part.
But then Disney called the cargo transport vehicle on The Mandalorian a juggernaut, so...
| Quote: | | All these different, stupid versions with different letter designations and different sizes, yet all called Juggernaut or turbo-tank or something equally ridiculous and half-@$$ed. |
So, I'm guessing there have been other "turbo tanks" too. Oh well, can't win.
| Quote: | | The key difference there is that WEG had already established a precedent of using the same basic hull but fitting it out differently to perform different missions. When I stated the Fractalsponge Victory, I didn't make it 1800 meters long, but still externally identical to the smaller 900-meter-long Victory; I just expanded on WEG's concept of the Victory I and Victory II to make a third type of Victory that fills a different mission requirement. |
The Victory III is the same size. Roger. However, it is still the case that the Victory III is pure fanon when the Rogue One vehicle is film canon (and according to the polls, a beloved film among WEG fans).
| Quote: | | While I do appreciate that Rogue One actually took the attention to detail to show us how people would actually get on or off the damn thing, it really flies in the face of my original problem with what the Juggernaut has become; to wit, that I HATE the "let's take this vehicle, double the dimensions, but keep the appearance exactly the same otherwise" approach. |
| Quote: | | From a military procurement standpoint, it's far more likely that, if they needed to repurpose what is essentially an old APC into an armored transport for non-front-line combat duties, they'd just strip some weapons and equipment off an older model (the A5), not just build a completely new vehicle on the exact same pattern. |
As I've shown, not the exact same. But very similar yes.
Obi-Wan's Jedi fighter in AotC was intentionally designed to be reminiscent of an Imperial star destroyer, and they are vastly different scales. Is that fighter in your canon?
| Quote: | | I'd much prefer to tie that in with the Imperial Wheeled Troop Carrier from the old Force Commander tactical command game. The graphics for that thing have always been meh, and tying it to a vehicle seen in live-action nicely cleans up an internal loose end. |
I've never seen that vehicle before. I have no attachments to it, and it doesn't look cool to me now. But whatever works for you.
| Quote: | | Having that be an -A9 and the Rogue One Juggernaut be a surplused -A5 stripped of some armament makes more sense. |
| Quote: | | Whill wrote: | | If you look closely, the A9 is not just a reduced scale version of the A6. It is a different design/model. And there are indicators that provide a sense of scale... |
Yeah, that still shot is probably the strongest evidence in support of a smaller version (but as per my above, I think the Rogue One version is actually an -A5). |
So, do you think I could use the RO vehicle as the live action model for your A5 stats?
| Quote: | | And it really just sunk in how much I hate the Lucasfilm version being backwards from the WEG version, with the driver's cab reduced to an adjunct to the main body. And that spindly little sensor tower... |
When you say Lucasfilm version, do you mean the one in RotS only has a different orientation?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2022 10:38 pm Post subject: Re: A multiplicity of "Juggernauts" |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | I know I took this in a tangent from your original comment about retiring the WEG version from your canon to make way for the larger RotS version, but it seemed like you forgot about the Rogue One vehicle for the premise of your question. |
I had originally dismissed the Rogue One vehicle because, when I rewatched the scene, I hadn't been able to see any details that spoke to scale, so it was easy to pass it off as an -A6 that had been stripped for use in a more non-combat role. However, the still photo you provided and the description of Jyn's interaction with K2-SO makes it much harder to do so.
| Quote: | | Actually, the RO vehicle is technically called a "turbo tank" and not a juggernaut. |
The RotS one is categorized as a turbo-tank, as well, IIRC. The EU has a tendency to make up borderline nonsensical names (the Juggernaut doesn't meet the technical definition of "tank", nor does it appear to have a "turbo" as part of its drive system) and reuse them haphazardly.
| Quote: | | However, it is still the case that the Victory III is pure fanon when the Rogue One vehicle is film canon (and according to the polls, a beloved film among WEG fans). |
True, but I can love Rogue One for its excellent story while still opine honestly that vehicle design was one of its biggest weak spots. The U-Wing, for example: every ship in the OT and DT that was equipped with S-Foils had (or at least could be argued to have) them for a purpose, either for cruise / combat (X-Wing, B-Wing, ARC-170, etc.) or for flight / landing. The U-Wing's S-Foils don't appear to exist for any other reason than to give it S-Foils, as there is no discernible pattern as to when they are or aren't used. The ship is seen to make hyperspace jumps, space flight and atmospheric flight with the S-Foils in either position. IIRC, it consistently lands with them fully forward, but because of the ship's design, there doesn't appear to be a physical need for it to do so beyond not taking up too many parking spaces. There are other problems I have with the design, but that will suffice as an example.
There are other examples: the "Occupier" tank, the TIE Striker, even the Delta-Class shuttle. Rogue One (and tbh the Disney films in general) failed in the vehicle design department. Most of the vehicles in the new films are missing some essential aspect of purpose in their design, as though the designers thought purely in terms of "what looks cool and unique and different?" but never got as far as "is it useful and functional for the mission in which it will be used?" The Rogue One Juggernaut fails similarly for me. Disney had all the original imagery used for the -A6 in RotS, but they got lazy on the scaling, even though they got so many other things about the film right.
| Quote: | | As I've shown, not the exact same. But very similar yes. |
Yes, but to be clear, it's a lot easier from a practical standpoint to cut weapon emplacements out of an existing hull (since the vehicle in question won't need them any more) and weld new hull plating in to cover over the resulting hole than it would be to design a new vehicle built from the ground up that just leaves those weapons out.
| Quote: | | Obi-Wan's Jedi fighter in AotC was intentionally designed to be reminiscent of an Imperial star destroyer, and they are vastly different scales. |
There's a big difference between "reminiscent" and "looks exactly like, just bigger." I can look at the Aethersprite and recognize that it has similar lines to an ISD without thinking it's blatant plagiarism.
| Quote: | | Is that fighter in your canon? |
It is, but I'm not happy about it. I much prefer the later fighter models of the Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith. I've long believed that, for the sorts of missions they tended to go on, Jedi would be better served by using a one-crew armed scout/courier, with good sensors, high speed, defensive weaponry and shields to go with onboard living and working spaces (which can also be used as a safe and secure setting for high-level meetings and negotiations), as well as the ability to carry small amounts of cargo, passengers and/or prisoners without needing to arrange for alternate transport. They wouldn't be cheap, but cost isn't exactly an issue for the Jedi Order, and if AotC shows us one thing, it's that a well-equipped transport (Slave One) in the hands of a good pilot can stand up to a single-pilot starfighter, even in the hands of a Jedi. Add to that the internal hyperdrive would allow them to enter a system and not be tied to the same exit point (i.e. where they left their hyperdrive ring parked, vulnerable to destruction and/or theft).
They could've done that and still made it look reminiscent of a star destroyer.
| Quote: | | I've never seen that vehicle before. I have no attachments to it, and it doesn't look cool to me now. But whatever works for you. |
Force Commander is the source for several vehicles I rather like, such as the AT-AA and the Theta-Class Landing Barge, and there are a couple others with potential, as well. It's hit and miss, but there's enough solid ideas there that some of it is salvageable. Combining those two didn't really occur to me until I was writing up that last post, but I always like it when I can tie up two loose strings to make a more cohesive canon whole.
| Quote: | | So, do you think I could use the RO vehicle as the live action model for your A5 stats? |
I think you'd have to modify the stats somewhat to reflect weapons that are on the A-5, but that appear to have been removed from the Rogue One version (the two side-mounted heavy laser cannon), but that's consistent with a "demilitarized" version converted into a ground transport for a prison planet. You'd also need to remove the rules I did for the scanning tower, since the Rogue One version doesn't appear to have it either.
Ironically, if one were to use the -A6 as a baseline for the Rogue One version, those two side weapons would be best kept on it, as on the -A6, they're heavy repeating blasters for anti-personnel work (comes in handy for fending off escaped prisoners trying to hijack one of the transports) as opposed to heavy anti-vehicle lasers on the -A5.
| Quote: | | When you say Lucasfilm version, do you mean the one in RotS only has a different orientation? |
WEG and the few EU depictions (mostly in comic books) of the Juggernaut prior to RotS always treated the boxy end of the Juggernaut as the "front", with the more bulbous main body opposite as the tail. Revenge of the Sith flipped this; every time we see the Juggernaut in RotS, it's moving "tail forward". This is somewhat mitigated by WEG stating that it had a full set of controls on both ends, as it was often easier from a practical standpoint (such as in tight quarters somewhere like, oh, a massive forest) to simply drive the vehicle in reverse than it would be to turn it around. But the Nu-Canon seems to have taken the idea that the "tail" is now the "front" and run with it, as seen in Rogue One. I have a tentative theory to explain this, but I haven't worked all the pros and cons of it yet. Short version: the "box" cab is better equipped for "over-the-road" driving, while the "tail" cab at the opposite end is better protected and equipped for combat assaults. I haven't fully worked out the details, but I'm sure I'll think of something.
_________________
"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: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to give you an idea how muddled the Juggernaut vehicle class is, Wookieepedia has no less than eight different vehicles that are either carbon copies of or share a strong familial resemblance to the original WEG Juggernaut, plus one from the Clone Wars that's actually a six-legged walker. This includes two that are actually tracked, not wheeled, but use some of the same hull components, despite the fact that the original Juggernaut (as found in various Hindu traditions) referred variously to either the god Jagganath (literally, "world lord") or his massive wheeled chariot. The word passed into more common Western usage because of British observation of the massive temple carts that were the centerpieces of parades used in religious ceremonies to celebrate Jagganath.
But of course the Lucasfilm storygroup is populated by unimaginative, plagiaristic, lazy dolts with no sense of tradition, symbolism or history, who would apparently use "Juggernaut" as the name of Emperor Palpatine's pet cat rather than have an original thought or innovative idea that didn't make the canon even more of a muddled mess than it already is.
EDIT: Now, I can certainly see there is a case to be made for collectively calling all heavy wheeled armored vehicles Juggernauts in-universe, but that's a far cry from making them all basically the same vehicle with a few cosmetic changes and weapon differences.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 595
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:44 am Post subject: Re: A multiplicity of "Juggernauts" |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Is that fighter in your canon? |
It is, but I'm not happy about it. I much prefer the later fighter models of the Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith. I've long believed that, for the sorts of missions they tended to go on, Jedi would be better served by using a one-crew armed scout/courier, with good sensors, high speed, defensive weaponry and shields to go with onboard living and working spaces (which can also be used as a safe and secure setting for high-level meetings and negotiations), as well as the ability to carry small amounts of cargo, passengers and/or prisoners without needing to arrange for alternate transport. They wouldn't be cheap, but cost isn't exactly an issue for the Jedi Order, and if AotC shows us one thing, it's that a well-equipped transport (Slave One) in the hands of a good pilot can stand up to a single-pilot starfighter, even in the hands of a Jedi. Add to that the internal hyperdrive would allow them to enter a system and not be tied to the same exit point (i.e. where they left their hyperdrive ring parked, vulnerable to destruction and/or theft).
They could've done that and still made it look reminiscent of a star destroyer. |
You're not wrong, but there are Just Two Things you should consider:
Lucas is a speed-freak; he LOVES fast cars. This is reflected in the affections/preferences for starfighters.
If you need to be able to get somewhere quickly, or to get in & out of a place quickly, which are you gonna take? The muscle car, the truck or the Winnebago?
Ultimately Mister Lucas decided that a small starfighter fit be needs of the story better than the other options, which i have no doubt were at least considered on the drawing board, if not on the table.
I fail to understand your logic that there needs to be as few iterations as possible for a thing or type of thing. IRL it simply isn't true.
We do this with everything.
Cars. Trucks. Boats. Aircraft. Computers. Calculators. Guns. Houses. Factories.
Design evolution is inescapable. As a student of Drafting & Design this was something i was aware of before my first class in that program.
Look at Dump Trucks. First there are two broad categories, based on whether or not there is articulation between the Cab and the Truck Bed/main body. Then there are Nine or more types, the majority of which are the ones most of us see in any city.
Then there are the BIG INDUSTRIAL models, which range from the size of a house to size of multiple houses, making the so-called "Monster Trucks" seem like toys.
IF you wish to discard the First Example of a Juggernaut Tank in SW Lore, i can't stop you. I know better than to try.
I do fear, however, is that one of your pet peeves is getting the better of you. May i suggest doing something relaxing, before mulling it over some? And do try to take the long view, and not make a decision in haste. I speak from experience, there are more than a few actions i've taken, and grown to regret immensely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The answer to both your points is simply this: form follows function. A dump truck takes the form it takes because of the specifics of the job it does, as in, it needs a cab for the driver and a big dump bed to haul lots of stuff. That general form can be duplicated at varying scales because of what the dump truck is supposed to do. The same does not apply to the Juggernaut; the mission of high-speed frontal assault of enemy positions does not require it to take the exact physical form that it does. If anything, the RotS version is a downgrade; the increase in size (and attendant increase in reactor output) would allow it to mount light turbolasers and pack an even heavier punch when assaulting enemy positions. But of course, the designers at Lucasfilm couldn't be bothered to think that far ahead.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Ray
Commodore
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 1743
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol, Western Arm, Milky Way
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Having smaller and larger versions of armoured vehicles has been around for a long time. Remember that Star Wars is, mostly, WWII *IN SPACE*!
So, the smaller one would be likely used like Armoured Scout Cars and Escort Vehicles for Logistics "Trucks", while the larger one would be the more up-armed Armoured Cars used when they couldn't get enough "Tanks" (Walkers) or couldn't use Walkers for whatever reason.
There's also the possibility that, as we saw in Solo, those Juggernauts can be put in front/behind "trains" and pushed/pulled by the engines to provide front and rear fire support, which was another purpose for armoured cars of various designs.
Finally, while tanks don't do nearly as much damage to roads as most people think (less than armoured cars because of greater displacement), I bet Juggernaughts do less damage to roadways than walkers do.
Why not speeders? Because, well, speeders can't be built big enough to do the job walkers/ground vehicles can do. Also, speeders don't work in every environment, be it because of the temperature (Hoth) or because of gravitational irregularities (Imperial Sourcebook.).
Also, they're cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's not the point I was making. It's perfectly feasible to have vehicles with similar characteristics and different sizes, but less so to have one be an effective carbon copy of the other, just doubled in all dimensions (as is the case with the WEG Juggernaut and the RotS Juggernaut). In WW2, for instance, the US Army fielded both M3 Lee Light Tanks and M4 Sherman Medium Tanks. Both were equipped with turreted main armament, were armored and used treads for propulsion. However, no one looking at a picture of the two side-by-side would mistake one for the other.
It's not that there wouldn't potentially be multiple classes of wheeled vehicles, it's that they would be visually distinct from each other, not just different in size.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
