The Rancor Pit :: View topic

Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Register :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in

AT-XT -> AT-AV

The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> AT-XT -> AT-AV

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Dredwulf60
Line Captain

Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:23 pm Post subject:

CRMcNeill wrote:

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).

I do not want to derail your thread on walkers; but your mention of guerilla warfare and repulsorlifts reminded me of this excellent illustration of a concept for a 'Rebellion Army Armored Vehicle' which appears a repulsorlift troop carrier.

https://ilmchallenge.artstation.com/survivors/11244/

would you be interested in doing up some stats for that?

CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:59 pm Post subject:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

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

The AT-AP from RotS did it better; a fixed-forward mass driver cannon backed by a dorsal laser cannon turret and a ventral repeating blaster for use against ground troops.

It's not a bad looking vehicle at all; I'd just like to see what the artist could do with more guidance w/r/t combat vehicle design.

Naaman is likely better equipped to speak on this than I am, but a vehicle like this is hugely vulnerable in city fighting, if you can get around to its flanks or rear with an effective anti-armor weapon (the Finbat anti-walker missile comes to mind). It'd need to be escorted by infantry screening it on the ground, but its design prevents it from being able to provide fire support to the infantry anywhere other than a narrow frontal arc.

EDIT: The AT-ST is far better suited to this sort of duty, as it can pivot its head left or right to cover its flanks, and would require only one round for the legs to make a 90 degree turn and fire to its rear.
_________________
"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 Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:11 pm Post subject:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

Personally, I'd rather do a war-skiff, like a cross between the skiffs from RotJ and the US Navy's SWIC Boats, with gatling blasters and HRBs on the flanks and maybe an AGL mounted in the center, so it can super-fire over the blasters. Just the thing to have in reserve for SpecForce hot extracts, except that it works just as well on land as on the water.
_________________
"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

CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:23 pm Post subject:

Bren wrote:

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.

But even with intimidation factored in, the AT-AT could still move its head independently of its body and engage pretty much anything in its front fire arc. By design, the AT-ST is more of a mobile infantry support platforms that functions best if it has troops on the ground to screen for it, and the fact that it's so high off the ground means it brings its own high-ground with it (of course, the logistics of getting in and out for something as simple as going to the bathroom must be interesting, unless the walker crews wear the SWU equivalent of Depends under their clothes).

In fact, if my theory on airspeeders vs landspeeders is correct, that ground clearance is a big advantage walkers have over speeders, in that most landspeeders are limited to a couple meters off the ground, whereas walkers tower over them 15-20 meters up in the air with no loss of performance.

For my money, the best unofficial walkers in the fandom are Fractalsponge's AT-SW (Storm Walker), AT-SE (Shock Enforcer) and AT-SP (Siege Platform).

Quote:

Makes me think the distinctive whine of a TIE fighter was intentionally designed, like the siren on a Stuka dive bomber.

If nothing else, it's at least an unexpected fringe benefit.
_________________
"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

CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:29 pm Post subject:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

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

https://ilmchallenge.artstation.com/survivors/11154/

Where's the crew compartment? All those scouts standing there exposed...
_________________
"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

CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:31 pm Post subject:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

I do not want to derail your thread on walkers...

In that case, perhaps starting a different topic - in the Artwork section - would be appropriate...
_________________
"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

Dredwulf60
Line Captain

Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm Post subject:

CRMcNeill wrote:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

I do not want to derail your thread on walkers...

In that case, perhaps starting a different topic - in the Artwork section - would be appropriate...

Great idea! I think I shall. I hope to see you there.

Naaman
Vice Admiral

Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:55 pm Post subject:

CRMcNeill wrote:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

I'm sure Dredwulf has at least as much insight regarding MOUT/FIBUA.

And speaking of SWCC boats... I had some stats a while back for a vehicle I made that was inspired by the SWCCs and the 160th SOAR... I'll see if I can find it later.

Concerning the design of the walker, I would prefer that individual weapons have the capability to articulate independently, but a "cheaper" way to do it would be to have the whole crew compartment swivel 360 degrees on top of the body.

Ideally, however, you would have at least two vehicles that act as a squadron and share responsibility by covering different fire arcs. The most basic rule in the military is "360 security."

Dredwulf60
Line Captain

Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:02 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Indeed, it would be useful....but do you have an image of it?

I'm a pretty visual person and so are my (most?) players. A bunch of stats don't mean as much without the shared mental image for us. So in that respect, I'd much rather go with an a great image that I can fit into the game, even if it isn't 100% what I would have personally designed, or has some nonsense to it.
I'm pretty sure that's how most stuff got into Star Wars in the first place; Concept artists (not military engineers!) drawing a bunch of stuff and then they end up going with what the director wants....which often is the 'rule of cool!' Smile

Dredwulf60
Line Captain

Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:16 pm Post subject:

CRMcNeill wrote:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

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

Sure. All of that art was done by the artists themselves as part of a contest, having them work as if they were concept artists for the next Star Wars movie, so it is unknown how much military practicality is put into it besides making it Star-warsy and *badass*.

If he was an actual concept artist, you'd have someone else review it and make suggestions before it every made it to the screen. Or maybe not....

Remember the TX-225 GAVw "Occupier" combat assault 'tank' in Rogue One?
Anyone with military experience must have face-palmed as hard as I did when I saw...but....there it is! All official-like.

Quote:

Naaman is likely better equipped to speak on this than I am, but a vehicle like this is hugely vulnerable in city fighting, if you can get around to its flanks or rear with an effective anti-armor weapon (the Finbat anti-walker missile comes to mind). It'd need to be escorted by infantry screening it on the ground, but its design prevents it from being able to provide fire support to the infantry anywhere other than a narrow frontal arc.

Yep. No arguments there friend. But it doesn't mean the Empire wouldn't build it anyway! Maybe it IS the Imperial successor to the AT-AP...meant for long range direct fire support to a walker force. But sometimes you have to move in with what you got...like an M1A1 going downtown Ramadi!

CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:17 pm Post subject:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

Remember the TX-225 GAVw "Occupier" combat assault 'tank' in Rogue One?
Anyone with military experience must have face-palmed as hard as I did when I saw...but....there it is! All official-like.

Oh God, don't remind me. If I were to prioritize the stats I have yet to do for Rogue One, the "Occupier" would be somewhere in the trash can next to the desk upon which I am compiling the list.

Rogue One is definitely my favorite of the current crop of Disney films, but I so wish they could've given us a canon Floating Fortress instead. Close quarters in a city is where the Fortress was supposed to excel, but instead we get a tank with actual treads (even though the GAVw- designator is for Wheeled vehicles) with no weapons in its rear arc.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, if the Empire needed a big gun follow-on to the AT-AP, they'd build Fractalsponge's All-Terrain Shock Enforcer. It's better in all respects, IMO.

As I said, I like the general look of it, and if its weapons were turret mounted, I'd be all up for writing a stat for it, especially since it reminds me of a concept I've wanted to do for a long time, but can't find the art for it. Bu it's just not close enough.
_________________
"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

Bren
Vice Admiral

Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:24 pm Post subject:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

Remember the TX-225 GAVw "Occupier" combat assault 'tank' in Rogue One?

What a Flak Gun tank that doubles as a cargo hauler doesn't seem a practical design for urban combat to you? Laughing

The Clone Wars battles that we see in the movies, the animated movie, and in many of the TV episodes seem to use tactics that would not be amiss in the age of Napoleon or WWI trench warfare attack. And if you look at the WWI British Mark IV tank it has a pair of impractical sponson guns on the sides, kind of like the TX-225. Though the rotation on the TX-225 guns makes it look like it is supposed to be an anti-air speeder weapons platform.

CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:32 pm Post subject:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

Indeed, it would be useful....but do you have an image of it?

Well, take the skiff from Jabba's palace and throw a bunch of guns on it, with a few performance mods to turn the thing into a decent escape vehicle.
_________________
"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

Dredwulf60
Line Captain

Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:05 pm Post subject:

CRMcNeill wrote:

Dredwulf60 wrote:

Indeed, it would be useful....but do you have an image of it?

Well, take the skiff from Jabba's palace and throw a bunch of guns on it, with a few performance mods to turn the thing into a decent escape vehicle.

OK.
I'll let you know when it is done.

CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:52 pm Post subject:

Bren wrote:

The Clone Wars battles that we see in the movies, the animated movie, and in many of the TV episodes seem to use tactics that would not be amiss in the age of Napoleon or WWI trench warfare attack.

Very true. IMO, Clone Wars and Rebels actually did more harm than good w/r/t being able to treat Star Wars as even halfway-serious sci-fi. My knowledge of military tactics is strictly second-hand, so I can't claim to be any sort of expert, but even then, some of what was seen on-screen is laughable.

The moment that stands out to me is an episode of Clone Wars...

My reaction? Hey Mace, if they were that easy to defeat, why didn't you have the AT-RTs deployed beforehand to take and hold the high ground to keep your AT-TEs from being destroyed when they were at their most vulnerable? I've never worn a uniform in my life, and even I saw that one.

Quote:

And if you look at the WWI British Mark IV tank it has a pair of impractical sponson guns on the sides, kind of like the TX-225. Though the rotation on the TX-225 guns makes it look like it is supposed to be an anti-air speeder weapons platform.

IMO, sponsons make a bit more sense if they aren't manned, as it allows them to pivot and swivel to cover a much greater degree of arc. Of course, the only extant vehicle that I think would be improved by sponson mounted guns is the TIE Crawler...
_________________
"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

Display posts from previous:

	The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 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