| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:06 pm Post subject: Floating stupidity... |
 |
|
Im coming up with an adventure where the characters will be 'trapped' in a small city surrounded by the Empire (that is aware of the presence of 2 jedis), with an ISD in orbit. Im planning on having several floating fortresses hover over the city searching for the characters. When reading about the fortresses something struck me, a humungous design flaw! The fortresses dont have any weapons firing downwards! They have a roof turret with two heavy blaster cannons. What are they fighting? Air units?
From the Imerial Sourcebook.
Primarily used to extinguish uprisings in occupied urban areas, the Floating Fortress addresses some of the logistic problems faced by the
cumbersome AT-AT walker. This vehicle is compact enough to glide easily between the buildings of a crowded inner-core city, yet it generates
as much fear and terror as its four-legged counterpart.
I know SW vehicles are full of 'logical holes' but this is a bit too much..
Shouldnt this mean a focus on anti-personell weapons, and weapon placements on the bottom of the fortress or at least on the sides?
My idea was to switch the turret to the bottom, perhas making it retractable if landing is needed. And then add a couple of light repeating cannons (E-web type weapons) for anti-personell duty. This can be an adaptation to the role the floating fortresses got in the field, perhaps the original design was meant as a mobile tank-killer on the drawing board, but those enemies never materialized.
What do you thing of that idea... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orgaloth
Vice Admiral
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 3754
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It does state in the stats
| Quote: |
Altitude Range: Ground level-2 meters |
So it doesn't fly over the buildings, it moves down the streets, hence the gun placement.
_________________
"I take orders from just one person: Me!"
"You know, sometimes I amaze even myself."
Du Cass' Dream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orgaloth wrote: | It does state in the stats
| Quote: |
Altitude Range: Ground level-2 meters |
So it doesn't fly over the buildings, it moves down the streets, hence the gun placement. |
Meh! Why doesnt it say that in my 2nd ed sourcebook? Perahaps they didnt think of it at that time..
Then the whole concept goes down the drain. Its an repulsor tank, not a Floating Fortress (Which to me at least, means floating a bit higher than a wookie).
Thanks for the 'logic' in placing guns on the roof though.
I think Ill have to invent the Ubrikkian HAVr A9 Floating Fortress Mk. II anyway though... 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orgaloth
Vice Admiral
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 3754
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The stats i have are from Gry's vehicle stat book, and he got the stats for the Fortress from Imperial Sourcebook (pages 72-73). Just so you know.
_________________
"I take orders from just one person: Me!"
"You know, sometimes I amaze even myself."
Du Cass' Dream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unless those turrets have a great depression range, even being able to go down to ground level is not goign to allow them to shoot someone within say 10 meters.... Which is why to me the turret should be under as well, and the celing should be much higher, say ground to 40 meters..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember reading somewhere, but I'm not sure where, that the turret could depress to -20 degrees or so. Obviously, depending on how wide, long and tall the fortress is would all depend on the areas of "blind spots" for the weaponry.
I always thought that the thing the Floating Fortress could do (since is sort of looks like it was designed that way) was to ram things and collapse buildings and such. So sure, you might be able to get under their top guns, but I never figured there was too much that could probably stop the floating fort. It would just run through whatever got in the way. People, vehicles, buildings...whatever.
I would assume it's designed more as intimidation than outright firepower. If it really wanted to unleash some firepower, it would just back up until the target is outside the blind spot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobenhotep
Commander
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 333
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
who is to say that if you get under it that it might act like a giant zone control repulse hand... that would be nasty, and not just in die codes...
it probably acts as what we in modern terms call an ifv, or infantry fighting vehicle. infantry covers the blind spots. when it gets done they get inside and they leave.
why not just make up a higher flying version with a belly turret or two. call it a MK II or something. if it helps you tell the story do it.
_________________
D&D 5e DM and WEG Star Wars GM for two kids who will hopefully carry on with RPGs for years to come
The Chijawa said so, that's why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | | I always thought that the thing the Floating Fortress could do (since is sort of looks like it was designed that way) was to ram things and collapse buildings and such. |
Exactly. I don't think this is a meant to be an anti-personal weapon. It blows holes into the walls of buildings and such. Can maybe blast the floor out from under an enemy sniper or something. It can shoot at vehicles at enough distance.
And even if you did get underneath it, what would you do to it? It's still heavily armored under there even if it can't shoot at you. Then soldiers could pop out of it to take you on. I don't see it as having a design flaw. It does what it was designed to do (including intimidation). It is a floating fortress, not anything else.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | | I remember reading somewhere, but I'm not sure where, that the turret could depress to -20 degrees or so. Obviously, depending on how wide, long and tall the fortress is would all depend on the areas of "blind spots" for the weaponry. |
Looking at the fortress and given its length Id say that the cannons are 6,5 meters above ground when the fortress is at its lowest (or landed). Also looking at the actual turret configuration and placement the cannon can hit the ground about one vehicle length in front of it, probably two lengths behind and shorter to the side. The fortress is 17,4 meters long.
| Quote: |
I always thought that the thing the Floating Fortress could do (since is sort of looks like it was designed that way) was to ram things and collapse buildings and such. So sure, you might be able to get under their top guns, but I never figured there was too much that could probably stop the floating fort. It would just run through whatever got in the way. People, vehicles, buildings...whatever. |
Ok, here whacky star wars design perhaps comes in. Designing a repulsorcraft to ram buildings? What if they collapsed upon
the fortress? Also, with that altitude, and if the fortress is supposed to navigate between even rather low rise buildings, dropping on top of it and disabling its cannons cant be that hard. Then you just leave a Thermal Well on top of it as you leave... 8)
| Quote: |
I would assume it's designed more as intimidation than outright firepower. If it really wanted to unleash some firepower, it would just back up until the target is outside the blind spot. |
Still no reason for not having antipersonell weapons, or at least smaller cannons with more fire control...
I think Ill leave the turret on top, increase flight level to at least 20m and add two small turrets with light blaster cannons (E-webs) on the underside. That way the floating fortress finally lives up to its name and reputation... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bobenhotep wrote: | who is to say that if you get under it that it might act like a giant zone control repulse hand... that would be nasty, and not just in die codes...
|
Are there rules somewhere? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Akari
Commander
Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 256
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think its really more of an anti-vehicle or anti-structure fortress, or some sort of armored troup transport. AT-ST's usually do their job of anti-personel quite well, unless they are threatened by teddy bears. 
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin Franklin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Akari wrote: | | AT-ST's usually do their job of anti-personel quite well, unless they are threatened by teddy bears. |
Ah, I get it. Its the classic 'two torbedoes down the reactor ventshaft cant hurt us' design flaw..(related to the 'What can a group of teddy bears do to us design flaw)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
