Author
|
Topic: AT-AA
|
Apocalypse Stormtrooper Posts: 60 Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 29 March 2000 03:45 PM
Did WEG ever publish stats for AT-AA, or did this first appear in Force Commander? If it's not in a WEG book, has anyone made stats for it? (I am assuming it would have a gun similar to the CoMar Tri-tracker)------------------
IP: Logged |
Armage Bedar Emperor Posts: 477 Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 29 March 2000 04:14 PM
I have it... Craft: KDY's All-Terrain Anti-Aircraft Walker Type: Anti-aircraft walker Scale: Walker Length: 22.3 meters Skill: Walker ops: AT-AA Crew: 2, gunners: 1 Crew Skill: Vehicle weapons 4D, walker ops 4D+1 Cargo Capacity: 10 metric tons Cover: Full Cost: NAFS Manueverability: 1D+2 Move: 30; 90 kmh Body Strength: 3D+2 Weapons: Flak Cannon Fire Arc: Turret Crew: 1 Skill: Vehicle weapons FC: 2D Fire Rate: 1/3 Range: 25-50/100/200 Blast Radius: 1/3/5 Damage: 5D/3D/1D (in blast radius) Capsule: A fast-moving mobile anti-aircraft weapon that's the scourge of Rebel flying units. The AT-AA has a flak pod that sits on a walking shell. It's an indispensable unit used to protect units and structures from air attack.
------------------ - Armage Bedar The STATS Man Administrator, SW-RPG HoloNet Discussion Forums Imperial Technology Systems IP: Logged |
Ubiqtorate Trooper Posts: 487 Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 29 March 2000 07:46 PM
Did you make those up, Armage, or were they published earlier?And the blast radius on the flak cannon: that's in meters, right? --Ubiqtorate IP: Logged |
Templar Trooper Posts: 83 Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 29 March 2000 07:58 PM
He made it up, and has been ignoring feedback from the list about it.Sorry, but it has less armor than an AT-ST, not more. ------------------ Oh Lord, grant that we may always be right, for Thou knowest we shall never change our minds. IP: Logged |
Armage Bedar Emperor Posts: 477 Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 29 March 2000 10:22 PM
Unless you can give me more justification as to why I should change it other than LEC said so, I stand by my decision.If not, just change it yourself for your own campaign. You ARE planning to USE these in your campaign, right? ------------------ - Armage Bedar The STATS Man Administrator, SW-RPG HoloNet Discussion Forums Imperial Technology Systems IP: Logged |
Apocalypse Stormtrooper Posts: 60 Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 30 March 2000 12:05 AM
The only reason i could think of was because in Force Commander the AT-AA has less armor than the AT-ST.Yeah, I'm planning on using these at some point in the near future. My PCs rarly use starfighters for ground support, but i have used AA guns before, which posed a serious threat to them (to their surprise ) ------------------
IP: Logged |
Kayle Skolaris Trooper Posts: 674 Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 30 March 2000 02:45 AM
Hrmmm... In the game the AT-AA has less armor than an AT-ST. The AT-AA was invented specifically for the game making it the only reliable source for "official" information about it. No, I couldn't imagine what justification he might have for such a claim... (heavy sarcasm)------------------ Suspenders of Disbelief: For When the Harsh Weight of Reality Threatens to Drag the Trousers of Our Imagination Down to the Unforgiving Floor of Mundanity! IP: Logged |
Kayle Skolaris Trooper Posts: 674 Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 30 March 2000 02:47 AM
As for AA being a problem for PCs, while I've never had occasion to use it much in Star Wars it HAS come in awfully useful in other games. Never underestimate the destructive capability of several hundred 30mm depleted uranium rounds moving at hypersonic velocity...------------------ Suspenders of Disbelief: For When the Harsh Weight of Reality Threatens to Drag the Trousers of Our Imagination Down to the Unforgiving Floor of Mundanity! IP: Logged |
Thrawn Trooper Posts: 125 Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 30 March 2000 05:46 AM
I used AA one time, and one of my players was almost killed, his starfighter exploded with himin it, at a hight of 50 meters. He spend 4 weeks in a bacta tank after than. Thats why I plan to use AA more often. And for the AT-AA I must say Great Work Armage.------------------
IP: Logged |
Armage Bedar Emperor Posts: 477 Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 30 March 2000 06:53 AM
My rationale was that if the AT-AA was less armored than the AT-ST, it would have no real redeeming characteristics. It isn't a terror weapon (which is what walkers are used for), and other ground-based laser defense systems are more adequate to deal with starfighters and airspeeders.So, if it doesn't have more armor than an AT-ST, what is its redeeming characteristic? ------------------ - Armage Bedar The STATS Man Administrator, SW-RPG HoloNet Discussion Forums Imperial Technology Systems IP: Logged |
Webb Trooper Posts: 7 Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 07 April 2000 05:59 AM
Can't say I've played Force Commander (being a heathen Mac user and all), but I've heard enough hype to have a vague idea what the AT-AA is (particularly after reading everyone's comments). I have a suggestion for Armage if he's looking for ways to give this beast a comparative advantage... without irritating certain people on the whole armor issue.  1) Give a special fire control bonus on the flak cannon for tracking targets over a certain altitude to simulate a dedicated air search/targeting sensor suite (a fairly common feature on this thing's real world equivelants). Or dictate that it can detect airborne foes at longer ranges than an AT-ST. 2) Price. If it doesn't do anything better than the AT-ST, then make it cheaper, easier to mass produce and/or simpler to maintain in the field. When you're trying to mount a major war effort, any one of these three features could merit fielding these craft... and if it has all of them, well, it's quickly going to turn into /someone/'s best friend.  Of course, I'm not an authority on the thing, so I'd be interested to know wether or not these sound like valid suggestions. Webb IP: Logged |
Armage Bedar Emperor Posts: 477 Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 07 April 2000 07:27 AM
Just the kind of thing I'm looking for, Webb!1) Conversely, I could give a bonus to low-altitude targets due to range. Either way, it sounds good. How does +1D strike you? 2) Agreed - but the Empire seems to think price is no object. There really isn't a big benefit to lowering the price - the Empire can still crank them out no matter what. ------------------ - Armage Bedar The STATS Man Administrator, SW-RPG HoloNet Discussion Forums Imperial Technology Systems IP: Logged |
Webb Trooper Posts: 7 Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 08 April 2000 12:06 AM
Hmm. Yeah, that extra 1D would go a long way towards making hell for the flyboys.I just had another thought... AT-AT's and AT-ST's really aren't designed to fire upwards at high angles (eg straight up), making them somewhat helpless against higher altitude attackers. More importantly, neither can turn on a dime, and they all have front arc weapons, making them somewhat clumsy for chasing down starfighters. So even that one little turret on the AT-AA can go a long way towards covering an envelope that neither of the larger two walkers can reach, making them a good compliment to them. And if it's possible for a fighter to obscure its profile among ground clutter by flying extremely low... then they're putting themselves into the envelopes of the AT-AT and AT-ST. As for the whole price thing, you have a pretty good point. The Imps do take a 'cost is no object' approach a lot of the times... but some items in their inventory do seem to be built with economy in mind. The TIE fighter would be the obvious example... they're outclassed in /every/ way by the TIE Interceptor, but still, they're employed in mass. And one of the big perks of the Loronar Strike Cruiser is that it's quick to construct and easy to repair. Another potential comparative advantage, particularly when dealing with spacemobile forces: the AT-AA takes up less space in a landing barge, making it easier to get to the planet's surface. Webb IP: Logged |