PDA

View Full Version : STATS: Imperial AT-AV - All-Terrain Anti-Vehicle Walker



Silberpfeil
3 January 2002, 05:29 PM
Nice design and nice drawing. And I too think it should be an AT-AT upgrade or variant designed after Hoth.

Deck
4 January 2002, 02:30 AM
<h2><font face="impact">AT-AV</font></h2><dl><b>Craft:</b> Imperial All-Terrain Anti-Vehcile Walker
<b>Type:</b> Anti vehicle assault walker
<b>Scale:</b> Walker
<b>Length:</b> 20.8 meters
<b>Skill:</b> Walker operations
<b>Crew:</b> 2, gunners: 3
<b>Crew Skill:</b> Vehicle blasters 5D+1, walker operation 5D
<b>Passengers:</b> 38 (troops)
<b>Cargo Capacity:</b> 1 metric ton
<b>Cover:</b> Full
<b>Cost:</b> Not available for sale
<b>Maneuverability:</b> 0D
<b>Move:</b> 21; 60 kmh
<b>Body Strength:</b> 5D+2
<dt><b>Weapons:</b>
<dl><dt><b>2 Heavy Laser Cannons</b>
<dd><i>Fire Arc:</i> Front
<i>Crew:</i> 1 (pilot or commander)
<i>Skill:</i> Vehicle Blasters
<i>Fire Control:</i> 2D
<i>Range:</i> 50-500/1.5/3 km
<i>Damage:</i> 6D
<dt><b>Medium Repeating Blaster Cannon</b>
<dd><i>Fire Arc:</i> Front
<i>Crew:</i> 1
<i>Scale:</i> Speeder
<i>Skill:</i> Vehicle Blasters
<i>Fire Control:</i> 3D
<i>Range:</i> 50-250/750/1.5 km
<i>Damage:</i> 5D
<dt><b>Heavy Repeating Blaster Cannon</b>
<dd><i>Fire Arc:</i> Back/left/right
<i>Crew:</i> 2
<i>Scale:</i> Speeder
<i>Skill:</i> Vehicle Blasters
<i>Fire Control:</i> 4D
<i>Range:</i> 50-500/1/2 km
<i>Damage:</i> 7D</dl></dl><p align=justify><font color=red><b>Capsule (EDITED!):</b></font> The All-Terrain Anti-Vehicle (AT-AV) walker is a variant of the well-known and infamous Imperial AT-AT assault walker. It was designed shortly after the Battle of Hoth, where the Empire successfully destroyed the Rebelís main base. A complement of AT-ATs devastated the base completely. However, the Empireís victory was not without losses. The Rebels used their manoeuvrable snowspeeders against the Imperial walkers, and where able to destroy some of the expensive assault walkers, including their crew and troopers aboard.
In order to avoid such unnecessary losses in future, the leadership of the Imperial Army decided to create a new assault walker that compensated this weakness against fast and manoeuvrable speeder. The result was the AT-AV, and anti-vehicle assault walker, similar to the AT-AT in design and performance.
Yet, the new walker varied in its weapon configurations. Instead of two front.mounted Mediam Blaster Cannons, as they are installed on the AT-AT, the AT-AV has two additional Repeating Blasters, perfect for fighting against airspeeders and other small vehicles, and defending the vehicle. There is one Medium Repeating Blaster which covers the front fire arc, while a second Heavy Repeating Blaster (tower) cover the back fire arc, as well as the two flanks.
Furthermore, the walker carries one full platoon of Stormtroopers (38 troopers), and has cargo space for up to one metric ton, which is usually used for the troopers special equipment. With this new walker design, the Empire would be able to avoid tremendous losses of these huge vehicles and safe its troopers. On some of the newer Imperial-II Star Destroyers, this new walker already replaces the AT-AT, but the replacement process is quite slow.</p>
<center><img src="http://www.highadmiral.de/sis/vehicles/at.gif"></center>

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? :)

Kayle Skolaris
4 January 2002, 03:36 AM
I think this is highly amusing. I'm working on a couple of Walkers right now myself!

BTW, I like it! My one complaint is that the hull is one pip inferior to the standard AT-AT and just eyeballing the picture there, it looks more heavily armored than a typical AT-AT.

Deck
4 January 2002, 04:05 AM
You're right, <b>Kayle</b>. My first outline of this walker had a hull of 6D+1. But I needed another reason that spoke for the AT-AT, because the Empire preferred the AT-AT. I know you're right with the hull, and that it <i>looks</i> stronger than that of the AT-AT. The only reason I could think of, is that the areas around the additional gun emplacements are very sensitive and thus weaker...

You found the only point where I was not sure with the stats! ;)

Kayle Skolaris
4 January 2002, 04:08 AM
Actually, I can think of a better reason for preferring the AT-AT. That neck looks damned near immobile!

Troy Henist
4 January 2002, 04:10 AM
Personally I can't see why they went from the AT-AV to the AT-AT.

If it was the other way round it would be better. Especially after what happened at Hoth. Like Starfighters I don't think they considered Speeders to be that much of threat, and after Hoth they feared that the AT-AT's weakness could be exploited again they built the AT-AV to nuetralise that threat.

The Empire did build the Lancer and Escort Carrier due the success Rebel starfighters were having against them.

Deck
5 January 2002, 12:11 PM
Hey, <b>Silberpfeil</b>, why is your reply at the top of this thread? That's wierd... :D

Concerning the time of introduction of the walker, being the following of the AT-AT model due to the Rebels' sucess against them, sounds like a good idea, really. I edited the capsule of the original post.

Thank you all for your input! :)

Silberpfeil
5 January 2002, 01:41 PM
:: Looking up from his datapad ::

Wasn't me!!! I didn't do anything wrong! Please I'm not guilty!!!! Why don't you believe me? Cuz I'm a slicer??!! :p

Seriously, I've got no idea why my post is on top. And since I don't know anything about programmation I didn't hack the system nor did I find a glitch. Well may be we did find one after all ... :D

The Admiral
5 January 2002, 03:53 PM
Deck, mano, you posted without letting me get a sneak preview first?! What did I do?!!!

ANYway,,,

Nice. No problems with the stats or anything, but a minor thought regarding Imperial policy. I'd say a hypothetical reason why this lost to the AT-AT is that the Imperials tend to make no one vehicle / system self reliant. An AT-AT relies on other craft to support it, and defend from small fast vehicles. This is generally because the Empire doesn't want anyone to just wander off with them. The same is true of TIEs, sure, a pilot can just leave the battlefield in one, but they can't land properly, they can't re-fuel or re-arm without more effort than it's worth. TIE pilots are reliant on other units. AT-ATs are reliant on other units.

The AT-At is crushingly good at taking on enemy ground forces. I mean really, no shoot, nothing on the ground stands much of a chance. They really kick Ewok. They got drubbed a bit on Hoth because they were deployed without neccesary support. But this does seem to be the way the Empire handles things, several different elements combined to make an effective fighting force, that keeps them reliant on each other, and therefore, to the chain of command.

With regards the Lancer and Escort Carrier;

The Lancer is a prototype test bed vehicle; hardly any of them were ever made. Their popularity stems mainly from being avaiable in the iSb and being supprted by the X-Wing series, but according to their write ups, the odds on anyone ever seeing one is seriously remote.
The Escort Carrier is one of the biggest mistakes WEG ever made in their long line of not thinking through their ship stats. 300 meters for 72 TIEs? C'mon, get serious, the thing's a giant block 300 meters long, and all it can support are some poxy guns and 72 TIEs? TIEs are TINY.

(Damn, still ranting,,, grrr,,,)

Kayle Skolaris
5 January 2002, 04:02 PM
Actually Escort Carriers are 500 meters long...

The Admiral
5 January 2002, 04:10 PM
Frel me, you're right.

Well, it just goes to show my point even more, you lay 72 tie fighters nose to tail, you have roughly a quarter of this ship's length. That doesn't even account for it's width and height.

WEG never knew the value of the meter,,,

Kayle Skolaris
5 January 2002, 04:13 PM
Actually 72 TIE fighters lined up one in front of the other comes out to 453.6 meters. Obviously, an Escort carrier should be able to carry at least 10 wings, not the measly one wing it does carry.

Lost Jedi
5 January 2002, 05:55 PM
well the carrier had to hold alot of other things, troops, shuttles, replacement parts, fuel, consumables, the crew, even after all that stuff you probably could add and an additional 4 or 5 wings

Lokar
5 January 2002, 07:28 PM
*Looks at the top of the post.*

Someone call Robert Stack, we have a Unsolved Mystery here.

My opinion the Escort Carrier should have either been made a bit smaller or at least another wing or maybe some blastboats.

Anyway, the real reason I posted, good stats Deck. I do agree that it looks like the AT-AV looses it's neck mobility. If you think about it that could be a improvment since it eleiments one of it's weak points. Does the desgin (with the rear gun and all) remind anyone else of the walkers in the old NES version of ESB?

Kayle Skolaris
5 January 2002, 08:12 PM
Actually the thing reminds me most of this: http://www.swrpgnetwork.com/files/images/vehicles/atic.jpg

Lokar
5 January 2002, 08:19 PM
I think Mordin did some stats for that pic a while back. Its somewhere over in the Network's main site I think.

Kayle Skolaris
5 January 2002, 08:24 PM
Of course it is! How do you think I managed to dig it up so quickly? :D

Deck
7 January 2002, 12:33 PM
It's the <i>All-Terrain Ion Cannon</i> which this pic refers to. There's a similar walker with slightly different stats on <i>DLOS</i>.

But back to the topic. You're all right with the maneuverability of the neck. It's pretty immobile. While the AT-AT was able to move it's head from front to the left or right fire arc (max. angle: 90 degrees to each side), the AT-AV can only cover the front fire arc with a maximum angle of 45 degrees to each side.

"... This immobility prevented the vehcile to be part of all Star Destroyers' ground complement, and the Empire got back to the original AT-AT walker using AT-STs a flank covers."

Thanks for all the great ideas! :)