PDA

View Full Version : The TIE Crawler


Heavyarms
01-29-2005, 05:58 PM
I've read alot about the TIE crawler in another thread, and didn't really want to interrupt the current conversation, so I thought I would post some thoughts/comments on it here. I do think it has a good purpose.

1. The TIE crawler can go where walkers can't. The treads on it allow it as a tank to be able to operate in areas with somewhat significant hill grades. It's a bad idea to try and take a AT-AT up a mountain pass or through a rather hilly area. AT-ST's might be able to, but it's hard for them too.

2. Cheap. Imperials seem to be about mass-producing cheap units. TIE hulls are made in massive quantities, right? So why not try it in a land vehicle? I think it's probably an experimental piece of junk, but you never know. Might be a good light tank. Probably not though because if it's like TIE fighters, it probably blows up quick.

3. Imperial IFV? I think it might be for this purpose because AT-ST's are scout mechs, and AT-AT's are assault mech. Therefore, a TIE crawler might serve this purpose.

Just my .02. Objections and other comments welcome.

Admiral Vostok
01-29-2005, 07:49 PM
As one of the major critics of the TIE Crawler's inclusion, I'd like to start off with my take on your points.

1. This is not true. Tracked vehicles are quite limited when it comes to where they can travel, and indeed in nearly all respects walkers would be much better and able to access far more places. You are aware that the AT stands for All Terrain, right? I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that AT-ATs and AT-STs would have problems going up hills, there is certainly no evidence for it.

2. This point isn't necessarily incorrect, but I just want to clarify: the Empire is not just about mass producing cheap units. If that was the case, such iconic units as the AT-AT and Star Destroyer would not exist. The Empire mass produces those units that are most effectively used en masse (namely infantry and fighter craft), but backs them up with incredibly powerful elite units. So it depends on whether you see the TIE Crawler as typically being deployed en masse or not. Personally I don't see it that way, particularly because even according to the EU surrounding the TIE Crawler it is a relatively ineffective vehicle.

3. I'm not sure what IFV stands for so someone else will have to respond to this one :o

sith4ever99
01-29-2005, 11:27 PM
If IFV stands for Imperial Fighter Tank, then the Imps have a effective/cool/powerful one in SWBattlefront. Go look at http://www.starwars.com/databank.

Jan Gaarni
01-29-2005, 11:31 PM
IFV = Infantry Fighting Vehicle?

That is a possibility, it certaintly doesn't look like it's capable of doing anything else. :rolleyes:

The TIE Crawler will be my absolute last resort unit anyway, that's for sure.
For when I want AT-AT's, but can't afford producing significant numbers of supporting AT-ST's.

One thing good about it which the walkers lack, it's easier to hide them for ambush purposes than ST's, and certaintly AT's. :p

DarthMaulUK
01-30-2005, 06:05 AM
It's unclear at this stage the cost of units but AT-AT's and AT-ST's will be expensive. TIE crawlers *could* be a cheaper alternative until you can afford to purchase the larger units.

Excellent topic for debate btw.

DMUK

Sithmaster_821
01-30-2005, 08:43 AM
I agree with the thread starter. They appear to be a forerunner to the walkers and a cheap, massable alternative once they are available. As Vostok said, the empire's army really is built on diametrically different poles that both work towards one goal: intimidation. On one hand you have your massive, powerful, expenive units like walkers and star destroyers and Death Stars that intimidate with their sheer size and power. On the other hand, you have cheap, massable units that intimidate through sheer numbers. And, as the empire progresses through the "ages", the big get bigger and the cheap get cheaper. I think that the TIE Crawler is an extention of this philosophy and they use the most recognizable symbol of the cheap but massable unit, the TIE fighter, to emphasize this.

Heavyarms
01-30-2005, 09:04 AM
EDIT: ^ He managed to post this before me, sorry if it sounds duplicate.

Yes, IFV in this sense stands for "infantry fighting vehicle." I originally thought it would be something like a M2A3 Bradley IFV. That Bradley has the capability to carry ten soldiers and drop them into a high-combat zone, and support at the same time. However, the TIE crawler does not appear to have any APC capabilities, upon closer inspection of some SSs. Therefore, I think it is now more of an infantry support weapon, cheaper and quicker than the walkers.

In response to the fact that the empire doesn't mass produce some cheap stuff, I actually thought of it in a new light. The empire likes to mass produce relatively inexpensive units, but is not afraid to spend its money on some large, expensive, powerful tech. It then likes to use these large, power units to instill fear in the hearts and eyes of those that get in its way. How many times have you seen a Star Destroyer inside a star wars game, and just said, " aw, ****!"? That's because the big units are supposed to scare you, and then they use those few matched up with the small and numerous. IMO.

Oops, one more thing. In regards to treads not being very good in terrain, maybe you should look at all main battle tanks produced since WWII. Every single tank produced, no matter the country, makes use of tank treads because of their excellent traction and their ability to make use of the great weight of the vehicle to keep a firing tank in one place. Otherwise, tanks on wheels would roll back 50 feet plus every time they fired. Also, have you ever noticed why in wintertime emergency vehicles have chains on their tires? Same concept, excellent traction in rough terrains.

So, what's that got to do with SW, you say? That makes TIE crawlers, as I said before, great at scaling mountains and stuff. Granted AT-ST's could probably get up there too. But, just another small addition. I wouldn't want to take a big AT-AT up into a mountain. Dangerous!!! Might be as you suggested as "all terrain," doesn't mean you want to use it on that terrain though.

Curt-Man
01-30-2005, 05:43 PM
i think you guys are underestimated the crawler, hey its kind of made of like durasteel and stuff so a blaster would propably not fare well against it, plus it has Two medium blaster cannons, light turbolaser cannon, so i think it would be kinda of powerful in groups. anything on its own isn't good, i mean even the death star was surrounded by tiefighters and star destroyers.

Darth Windu
01-30-2005, 08:40 PM
Okay, I've been away for a few days, so I will go ahead and respond as to why the TIE Crawler would never have existed in the first place, and why it makes a bad combat vehicle.

Heavy -
1. As Vostok said, no it can't. While tracks are useful in getting over soft terrain (the Scorpion AFV has less weight per area than a human adult male) and they can go well over cross-country, there is no need when you have the walkers, which seemed to have no problem at all in getting around on Hoth or Endor.

2. Cheap? No. Aircraft are very complex and very expensive machines. Although we do not know the costs of an AT-ST and a TIE Fighter, the Fighter would be a lot more expensive.

3. Again, no. The concept of an IFV is that it can carry troops into battle while protected inside the IFV, then deploy them and protect them. For this, the M-2 Bradley IFV has gun ports so the infantry can fire while inside the vehicle, has a 25mm Cannon to engage infantry and soft targets, along with a twin TOW launcher to engage hard targets like tanks or bunkers. The TIE Crawler has none of these features, and hence cannot be an IFV.


Sith - uh...the AT-TE was the forerunner to the Imperial walkers, not the TIE Crawler.

So, why is the TIE Crawler not feasible?
1. Aircraft are extremely complex, and never cheap. It would be cheaper and move convenient to simply build more AT-ST's than TIE Crawlers. In terms of the real world, this is why militaries around the world have more ground vehicles than they do aircraft.

2. Aircraft are inherently weak. This is because they have a limited amount of engine thrust, and they have to be able to take off, land and maneuver. Inm addition, the more armour you add, the less agile the plane gets, leaving it vulnerable to enemy fire. Hence, aircraft are NEVER as well protected as ground vehicles are.

3. They are unnecessary. The AT-AT and AT-ST performed all Imperial ground assaults, as we saw in the films. If the Crawler was so great, why didnt the Imperial use it? The AT-AT is slow, very heavily armoured and produced in small quantities, while the AT-ST is rather weak but still packs good firepower, and can be produced in large quanities, and hence they supplement each other.

As you all should know, SW combat (in the OT anyway) is based on the Second World War. What we have is basically-

AT-AT = Tiger / King Tiger Tank
AT-ST = Panzer III / IV / M-4 Sherman
TIE Cralwer = P-51 with Tracks

As I said, the AT-AT is a big beast that is difficult to destroy, while the AT-ST is there to be produced in large numbers and be expendable. The TIE Crawler though, is like getting a P-51 Mustang (or BF109, or P-47, or P-40 etc), taking the wings off, and adding tracks to it.

Because the P-51 was designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground combat, it lacks much armour, would be an expensive and time-consuimg modification, and it would also lack a turret, meaning that the entire vehicle has to move to engage an enemy, so if you are facing a fast-moving enemy or multiple enemies, you will lose the vehicle. In addition, it would lack the firepower to engage most enemy forces, because if you put a tank gun on it, the fighter would shake itself apart due to it not being designed to take those sorts of forces, and if you wanted to modify it so it could take it, that means even more money and more time, which defeats the point of being quick and cheap.

So therefore, the TIE Crawler is both wrong in concept, and unnecessary in the game. It would be a liability rather than an asset because it would be too thin-skinned to stand up against other ground vehicles (image a Mustang and a Tiger firing at each other), and wouldn't have the armament to make any sort of dent in the enemy units. It is also unnecessary in the game because the AT-ST is the small, quickly built unit that is used en masse while being backed up by the big heavy AT-AT.

Due to this, the TIE Crawler should not be in any SW ground combat game, and in fact should never have been introduced into EU either.

swphreak
01-30-2005, 09:41 PM
From the sw.com databank
An unlikely fusing of two vastly different vehicle types, the TIE crawler was a cheap, mass-produced ground combat vehicle....

In an attempt to break into new markets, the TIE crawler was conceived as a relatively inexpensive to produce and purchase compact assault vehicle (CAV). Its use of recycled componentry and designs helped cut costs and training time.

The TIE crawler has a pair of medium blaster cannons in the familiar "chin" mounts found on most TIE cockpits. Suspended below the cockpit ball is a retractable light turbolaser that provides the tank with respectable firepower.

Many TIE crawlers saw action in the Imperial Civil War on Coruscant, as squabbling warlords sought to take control of the former Imperial capital. After the fighting in the skies finished and the would-be Imperial conquerors sought to hold the land, many used the inexpensive TIE crawlers in wasteful ground campaigns.

The databank disproves your "TIE Crawlers = expensive" statement. Nothing you say can chnage that. The TIE Crawler will most likely be the cheap cannon fodder you throw at your enemy until you get the ATATs.

They are armed with 2 medium blaster cannons and 1 light turbolaser. I don't think the ATAT even has a turbolaser.

1. Aircraft are extremely complex, and never cheap. It would be cheaper and move convenient to simply build more AT-ST's than TIE Crawlers. In terms of the real world, this is why militaries around the world have more ground vehicles than they do aircraft.

2. Aircraft are inherently weak. This is because they have a limited amount of engine thrust, and they have to be able to take off, land and maneuver. Inm addition, the more armour you add, the less agile the plane gets, leaving it vulnerable to enemy fire. Hence, aircraft are NEVER as well protected as ground vehicles are.


The TiE Crawler is a ground tank, not an aircraft with treads welded on.

3. They are unnecessary. The AT-AT and AT-ST performed all Imperial ground assaults, as we saw in the films. If the Crawler was so great, why didnt the Imperial use it? The AT-AT is slow, very heavily armoured and produced in small quantities, while the AT-ST is rather weak but still packs good firepower, and can be produced in large quanities, and hence they supplement each other.

Unfortunately, post-ROTJ, I don't think Imperial warlords could get their hands on ATATs as easily as they could TIE Crawlers.

Alegis
01-30-2005, 09:53 PM
The game is located pre-IV, and in episode V it seems Luke is seing the AT-ATs for the first time. "Their armour is too strong for blasters", they were still experimenting on how to fight them.

Of course they existed before V, but in smaller quantities then I suppose, where the tank still had a big position. Any SW-fanatics, please correct me on this.

swphreak
01-30-2005, 10:01 PM
The only problem I can see with the TIE crawler would be that they were made after the movies. That would be a timeframe error on the developer's part. Not EU's fault.

Rogue15
01-30-2005, 10:19 PM
it could be just skirmish/mp only and left out of the campaign.

DK_Viceroy
01-31-2005, 12:00 AM
Windu is also not right in the head for thinking a TIE Fighter (which by the way is something like 10,000 credits cheaper than a J type 7 nubian Hyperdrive) expensive and complicated to Manufacture, as well as thinking of a B-Wing as weak since he did say all aircraft were weak.

I think I'll let Vostok lecture him there since he is after all the Air Whore:p

saberhagen
01-31-2005, 02:48 AM
I'm not really a fan of the TIE crawler but I don't have a huge problem with it either. SWGB had some pretty absurd units in it which didn't fit in with the films at all, but it was still a very good game. Even Battlefront, which is arguably one of the most "pure" Star Wars games made so far, has some EU stuff to add to variety and gameplay.

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 07:02 AM
Let me preface my comments by saying that I am very much looking forward to this game. Having said that, the whole notion of the TIE Crawler strikes mas as unlikely as seeing an F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter body mounted on an M1A2 Main Battle Tank chasis. Could they be mass produced? I guess so.

Much like the brim of a hat could be melded with the body of a sock to produce a ... sock-hat? But is such a combination effective? I have serious doubts.

...It was a dark time for the rebellion. Faced with the mounting costs of fighting a galactic war, the Rebel Alliance devised a scheme that held the promise of saving the war effort upwards of tens of credits. The plan was bold, imaginitive, and some would later describe as crazy.

With alliance soldiers falling victim to foot-heat exhaustion, worlds formerly firmly within rebel control, were slowly slipping away under the influence of the empire. With resources scarce, and the outcome of the struggle in the balance, Alliance Command sent down the order to execute the plan. Already having an excess of brimmed hats and socks, the two were mated, giving birth to the Sock-Hat (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v651/VagabondNomad/sock-hat.jpg). Later historians would argue that the concept was stillborn.

Yet, the tide did turn. Though the Sock-Hat was a spectacular fashion flop, Imperial units were so overcome with uncontrollable laughter at the sight of the so apparelled rebels that the empire soon lost control of several key worlds - worlds that proved decisive in the Alliance's ultimate victory over Endor...

swphreak
01-31-2005, 09:04 AM
But it's not an aircraft. It was designed to be a ground unit. If you saw a squad of cheap TIE Crawlers with their medium blaster cannons and light mounted turbolaser, you'd run for your life... unless you had a heavy tank with backup.

The whole idea is that it's cheap, and mass produced. I highly doubt an M1A2 and an F-22 welded together is cheaper. No it is not.

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 09:12 AM
To me, it just seems that it would be cheaper to make a metal box with a window in the front, and a chair inside, and then bolt that on top of the tracks, rather than to build a fully modeled TIE fighter command module, and then bolt that onto the tracks. If cheap is the driving factor, then that's how you do cheaper.

DK_Viceroy
01-31-2005, 09:21 AM
but it isn't a TIE fighter cockpit it's based on a TIE cockpit but it isn't an actual TIE Fighter cockpit. TIE Fighters are muck cheap so why does everyone think they're expensive:mad:

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 09:33 AM
It just seems like common sense to me that building a metal box with a window and a chair would be much cheaper to produce than a round, metal ball, with a crazy-hexoganal window-thingy in the front.

And it's true that we're talking about a "make believe" universe, but all this talk about TIEs being cheap to produce - I'd be interesting in seeing the financial statements upon which these assertations are made. Besides, if it is not an exact copy of the TIE command module, but is merely based upon it, then that implies a level of customization is involved, which is never cheaper.

This being the case, I can't see how one can say that a metal box would be more expensive than a customized TIE command module. Doesn't make sense.

Heavyarms
01-31-2005, 10:19 AM
there are no financial statements, but if you have fighters typically used to overwhelm their opponents, and they have no shielding, and they rely on solar power to pilot... 2+2=4.

DK_Viceroy
01-31-2005, 10:23 AM
ok a TIE Fighter wheigs in about 10,000 credits and Qui Gon had something like 20,000 credits and that couldn't even but a new hyperdrive.

Suffice it to say it's very very cheap, and the TIE Interceptor is double at 20,000 credits while the TIE Defender is 10,000 credits.

SirPantsAlot
01-31-2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by DK_Viceroy
ok a TIE Fighter wheigs in about 10,000 credits and Qui Gon had something like 20,000 credits and that couldn't even but a new hyperdrive.

Suffice it to say it's very very cheap, and the TIE Interceptor is double at 20,000 credits while the TIE Defender is 10,000 credits. Tie Defender is the strongest Tie, how can it be cheaper?

Jan Gaarni
01-31-2005, 10:48 AM
A TIE Fighter does not cost merely 10,000, more like 60,000 Cr for a basic TIE/ln (that's LN, not IN (in) which is the TIE Interceptor :) ).

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 10:48 AM
...Tie Defender is the strongest Tie, how can it be cheaper?...

That's what I was just about to say.

Regardless of the cost of a TIE command module, surely no one here is going to try to argue that it is cheaper to produce a TIE command module (customized or not), than it is to make a metal box with a square window in the front and a chair inside.

The metal box design is much simpler, and could be mass produced much more cheaply than a customized TIE command module. How can anyone argue otherwise?

DK_Viceroy
01-31-2005, 10:50 AM
I dropped a figure by accident TIE Defender is 100,000 credits 10 times that of a TIE Fighter and 5 times that of an interceptor, simple math from then on.

swphreak
01-31-2005, 11:04 AM
From the sw.com databank
TIE production was extremely modular and automated, as the Sienar foundries churned out countless starfighters to fuel the insatiable Imperial war machine.

It seems the Empire has no problem with producing the "complicated" TIE cockpit.

Why a box won't work for the crawler? Becuase it's not a TIE-like cockpit and it would look like a toaster with treads.


Star Wars is set in a fantasy world where technology far surpasses ours. Perhaps they can make the "coplicated" TIE cockpit just as easy as a box with a window.

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 11:06 AM
Ultimately, if cheap is the driver for the TIE Crawler, then I just don't buy it. Though the TIEs may be relatively cheap to produce, I just can't believe that it's the cheapest design choice for a tank's control module. Something more along the lines of the AT-AT head or any rudimentary metal box I could buy. But not a round, metallic command module, customized from that of a TIE fighter. That justification just pass the believability threshold, in my opinion.

Look, I've read the Dark Horse comics where the TIE Crawler was introduced - I belive it was Dark Empire. If I recall, the way they were introduced was as a desperate attempt by a dying empire to assemble a fighting force from their scavenged remnants. That I can buy. But given the choice, just about anything else would be superior to sticking a TIE command module onto some tracks and calling it a "tank".

All I'm saying here is that the way that TIE Crawlers appear to be used in this game is not only inconsistent with its use in previously established Star Wars mythology, but it also doesn't make sense in the context within which it is deployed.

swphreak
01-31-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
Star Wars is set in a fantasy world where technology far surpasses ours. Perhaps they can make the "coplicated" TIE cockpit just as easy as a box with a window.

The fault is not EU, but the developer's. Complain to them. There is nothing wrong with the TIE Crawler.

OverlordAngelus
01-31-2005, 11:09 AM
The way I see it.

TIE Fighters are made in pieces, solar panels, cockpit, engines, weapons etc.

So for the TIE Crawler what they do is take some TIE Fighter cockpits before they get weapons and engines and the other systems that are normally fitted onto the T/F. This leaves you with just a TIE Fighter cockpit with no systems (and think about it, whats going to be more expensive? A metal ball or the complex components that get mounted afterwards?).

Then they take the cockpit and attach it to the treads, mount the weapons etc giving you a TIE Crawler.

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
...Star Wars is set in a fantasy world where technology far surpasses ours. Perhaps they can make the "coplicated" TIE cockpit just as easy as a box with a window... I totally agree with you. Which is why I believe they could have come up with a command module that actually makes sense - something with very little "glass", and a much lower profile, to improve its surviviability. If it's so easy to make whatever they want, then there is absolutely not reason to employ the TIE cockpit into an environment where it not only offers no advantages, but rather has serious tactical liabilities.

SirPantsAlot
01-31-2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Vagabond
That's what I was just about to say.

Regardless of the cost of a TIE command module, surely no one here is going to try to argue that it is cheaper to produce a TIE command module (customized or not), than it is to make a metal box with a square window in the front and a chair inside.

The metal box design is much simpler, and could be mass produced much more cheaply than a customized TIE command module. How can anyone argue otherwise? A ball is more airodynamic

Jan Gaarni
01-31-2005, 11:20 AM
To be perfectly fair towards the TIE Crawler though, it's not just the EU that has introduced a questionable design. :)

Look at the laser dish, doesn't look very sturdy really, but can appearantly pack quite a punch if directed towards the right targets.

Obviously, an AT-AT is not it's right target, as we can safely deduce from watching ESB. :D

DK_Viceroy
01-31-2005, 11:21 AM
where did it say the TIE Crawler flew?

SirPantsAlot
01-31-2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by DK_Viceroy
where did it say the TIE Crawler flew? nowhere

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by SirPantsAlot
A ball is more airodynamic ... how is that relevant to it being mounted on tracks as a "tank"? On a TIE fighter, the small, spherical command module offers advantages due to its small profile, and relatively good field of view through its viewport. And its shape would offer some degree of aerodynamics in an atmosphere.

But since I doubt a TIE Crawler would exceed speeds of 120 kph, I don't see that being aerodynamic offers any real benefit. It's like saying that it has a non-stick cooking surface - that's great, except for the fact that you don't cook your meals on the armor of a TIE Crawler.

SirPantsAlot
01-31-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Vagabond
... how is that relevant to it being mounted on tracks as a "tank"? On a TIE fighter, the small, spherical command module offers advantages due to its small profile, and relatively good field of view through its viewport. And its shape would offer some degree of aerodynamics in an atmosphere.

But since I doubt a TIE Crawler would exceed speeds of 120 kph, I don't see that being aerodynamic offers any real benefit. It's like saying that it has a non-stick cooking surface - that's great, except for the fact that you don't cook your meals on the armor of a TIE Crawler. How do you know how fast it will be? A car needs to be airodynamic although it's on the ground.

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 12:37 PM
Most tracked vehicles in our world don't exceed speeds of 45 miles per hour (72 kph). The TIE Crawler appears to be more massive than Earth's largest modern battletanks. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that a TIE Cralwer would travel at even slower speeds. If we assume a top speed of 30 miles per hour (48 kph), the aerodynamic drag at that speed will be very small, causing one to seriously consider its significance as a driver for a battle tank's design.

I still contend that a metal box, with sloped sides, and tiny slit window in the front, and a chair inside the box, would be just as aerodynamic, cheaper to produce, and offer tactical advantages not realized by a metallic ball.

If you just like the TIE Cralwer, that's cool. I'm not trying to get anyone to not like its look. All I'm saying is that, from a tactical, and cost-effective point of view, it really doesn't make sense. Especially when one considers the cost of replacing all the pilots lost in such a poorly designed "tank".

SirPantsAlot
01-31-2005, 01:18 PM
Besides, a box has sharp edges, someone might get hurt.

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 01:27 PM
The better to ... hurt you with, my dear. Wait, that's the point, isn't it :cool:

swphreak
01-31-2005, 01:39 PM
from sw.com/databank
Driving the tank treads at speeds of up to 90 kilometers per hour are twin Santhe SSct power generators.

The TIE Crawler does its job just fine. It is a cheap replacement until you can get the moola to buy the big guns.

I'm trying to explain to you why "more cost effective to build a toaster crawler" is a pointless argument. Your "tactical effectiveness" argument could be valid, but you have to understand what the TIE Crawler is. It is a cheap but very powerful alternative to the expensive and bulky AT-AT.

The End. Thank you, please come again.

Shok_Tinoktin
01-31-2005, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Vagabond
Most tracked vehicles in our world don't exceed speeds of 45 miles per hour (72 kph). The TIE Crawler appears to be more massive than Earth's largest modern battletanks. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that a TIE Cralwer would travel at even slower speeds. If we assume a top speed of 30 miles per hour (48 kph), the aerodynamic drag at that speed will be very small, causing one to seriously consider its significance as a driver for a battle tank's design.

That logic is flawed. It assumes that they can only make a tank that has propulsion equal to what we can produce on Earth. Presumeably, a society with more advanced technology can make something of equal mass and similar design go faster. So saying that bigger means slower is not necessarily true.

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 03:02 PM
I said one can reasonably assume. And I wasn't too far off from what the official information (http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/tiecrawler/) says. So it can go 90 kph (56 mph). Still not really fast enough to receive any significant aerodynamic benefit from having a spherical hull.

With regard to:...Your "tactical effectiveness" argument could be valid, but you have to understand what the TIE Crawler is. It is a cheap but very powerful alternative to the expensive and bulky AT-AT...And I'm saying that you can have a cheaper, and powerful alternative to an AT-AT that doesn't involve a TIE cockpit, and that also bestows tactical advantages.

Sorry, but I just never bought into the whole concept of the TIE Crawler, and I haven't seen any strong arguments here to justify it having a TIE cockpit, rather than having a more traditional command module that's both more simple and effective.

By the way, the TIE Crawler in the above link, looks much better than the TIE Cralwer in the game's screenshots. Notice that the pseudo-wings are not apparent in the databank screen shots.

Shok_Tinoktin
01-31-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Vagabond
I said one can reasonably assume. And I wasn't too far off from what the official information (http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/tiecrawler/) says. So it can go 90 kph (56 mph). Still not really fast enough to receive any significant aerodynamic benefit from having a spherical hull.

But its not reasonable to assume that despite dramatically improved technology, an equal amount of thrust would be provided. And I didnt mean to suggest that aerodynamics did have significance, I was only questioning the logic of your claim.

Heavyarms
01-31-2005, 03:13 PM
reading what it says in that databank, it's going to be a fast-attack, anti-infantry vehicle with some limited ability to beat vehicles back, probably a fast firing set of medium blasters with a powered single-shot alternate fire. It's downfall is its relative weakness because there is little armor on that tank. So, good for hit and run situations for the empire, and also for diversions. Also sounds like a good unit to use when you have forces drawn out, and you need a power snip in the back.

Shok_Tinoktin
01-31-2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Heavyarms
So, good for hit and run situations for the empire, and also for diversions.

When is the Empire ever in a hit and run situation?

swphreak
01-31-2005, 03:25 PM
Remember, the TIE crawler came post-ROTJ. The Empire is being beaten back, and losing resources to the New Republic.

I can see the TIE Crawler completely. All they're doing is taking the TIE cockpits and putting it to the TIE Crawler assembly lines. Why watse time to design some box when they can just use an existing design?

I really don't see how we're going to solve this. How about we wait til the game comes out and solve this during battle. :D

Shok_Tinoktin
01-31-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
Remember, the TIE crawler came post-ROTJ. The Empire is being beaten back, and losing resources to the New Republic.

Yeah, but I doubt thats how it will fit into this game, unless it is just designed to be used as a last ditch effort by the Empire if they are losing towards the end of the game.

Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
I really don't see how we're going to solve this. How about we wait til the game comes out and solve this during battle. :D

Good idea. :D

Vagabond
01-31-2005, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
...Why watse time to design some box when they can just use an existing design?... Gosh, I hope in a hyperspace-capable civilization that they've already invented the "box" :cool:

Heavyarms
01-31-2005, 05:39 PM
can someone also come up with a very controversial rebel unit? This is an interesting debate!

lukeiamyourdad
01-31-2005, 05:54 PM
Actually, in post RotJ situation, they must have relied on crappy last hope materials and designs.

It's like weapons created by the germans at the end of WWII.
I would compare the Tie Crawler with the King Tiger.
Krupp designed the turret for another chassis then the one created by Porsche.
Due to lack of materials and a losing war, they reused the turret and they put both together. They also used bad materials for the armor which made the side and rear armor very weak, even with the slope.

I see the Tie Crawler coming out of the same situation. You have lots of unused Tie Cockpits. You're in a desperate situation. No time for prestige weapons, gather what you can and fight with what you have.

Tactically, it sucks, just as the King Tiger tactically sucked. But it worked for their time.

Sithmaster_821
01-31-2005, 06:22 PM
I think that the King Tiger would be on the other end of the spectrum, but, yeah, similar idea.

The way I see it, its just the empire being economical. They cannot keep pace with the rebs quick and cheap tanks with their newly designed walkers, so they take overproduced cockpits, slap'em onto some treads, and bam, a cheap tank.

And remember, this is a video game about a made up universe. Things don't have to make sense. :D

swphreak
01-31-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
Yeah, but I doubt thats how it will fit into this game, unless it is just designed to be used as a last ditch effort by the Empire if they are losing towards the end of the game.

That may be the case, but it is not the TIE Crawler's fault, or the EU. It is the developer's fault.

Perhaps when EaW.net sends in a Q&A, we should ask about its role in the game.

Darth Windu
01-31-2005, 07:01 PM
luke - I agree about the use of the Crawler as a last-ditch weapon, but isn't this game supposed to be based during the films, particually between Ep3 and 4? If so, the TIE Crawler doesnt exist and is obselete.

Also, your example with the King Tiger is incorrect. In fact, during the initial design of the Tiger, Porsche and Henschel came up with ideas for the chassis (Krupp designed the turret) with the Porsche design using being more complicated and using electric transmission. Anyway, the Henschel design was manufactured.

Then, after fighting the Soviets, the Germans wanted a better tank, and again Porsche and Henschel designed prototypes, with Porsche again going for the complicated design. However, Porsche was so convinced they would get the contract they made 50 turrets and 90 chassis. Subsequently, Henschel won (not enough copper for the Porsche idea) and so the first 50 King Tiger's had Porsche turrets, while the 90 chassis were made into Elefant Tank Destroyers which failed because the Germans forgot to give it any secondary armament, but that is beside the point.

The Tiger and King Tiger were hugely successful. On the battlefield, the King Tiger was almost impossible to destroy (making it the equivalent to the AT-AT) and there is even one recorded example of one, yes one, Tiger holding up an entire allied division, killing 25 tanks before the Tiger was destroyed.

As I was saying though, basically you have
Tiger/King Tiger = AT-AT
Panzer III/IV = AT-ST
Bf109 with tracks = TIE Crawler

Frankly, making something like the Cralwer is economically irresponsible and a tactical disaster.

Shok_Tinoktin
01-31-2005, 07:06 PM
Oh, I know its not the EU or TIE Crawlers fault. I'm not even sure it is innappropriate to have it in the game. All I'm saying is that you cant rationalize it being in the game by saying that it is ideal for hit and run tactics, when the idea behind the Empire in the game seems to not be hit and run tactics. I think we are gonna have to wait and see how everything plays out in order to know how it will or will not work. I just dont think there is enough information yet to jump to a definitive answer about whether or not it should be there.

Heavyarms
01-31-2005, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
Oh, I know its not the EU or TIE Crawlers fault. I'm not even sure it is innappropriate to have it in the game. All I'm saying is that you cant rationalize it being in the game by saying that it is ideal for hit and run tactics, when the idea behind the Empire in the game seems to not be hit and run tactics. I think we are gonna have to wait and see how everything plays out in order to know how it will or will not work. I just dont think there is enough information yet to jump to a definitive answer about whether or not it should be there.

You realize "hit and run" doesn't necessarily have to be a huge drop in, kill something, escape real fast tactic, right? It can be something as small as taking a small force (such as some TIE crawlers) and bringing them from another direction after removing them from the main force, blast an important target/objective, and move back to the main force. Not everyone's idea of "hit and run", but it still is it none the less. I never said the Empire was hit and run army, it isn't. I said this unit is good for this situation, shok.

Shok_Tinoktin
01-31-2005, 08:04 PM
nonetheless it is not the Empire's style to use this kind of tactic. its the Empire's style to crush with an overwhelming force. the Empire at this time is not likely to mass produce a unit that is only used in special cases. and i didnt mean to imply that you implied the empire was a hit and run army, i was just trying to figure out why a unit with this specialization would be used by the empire at this time, and why it is in there. i'm not saying that i dont think it should be in there. i have no problem with it being in the game, honestly. i'm just tossing ideas around, and hoping that we can figure out some rationalization that makes the most sense. if that made any sense.

Darth Windu
01-31-2005, 08:08 PM
Heavy - but that isn't 'hit and run'. The sort of tactic you are talking about there is more a diversionary strike, or even simply a small division of forces, but it is not 'hit and run'.

swphreak
01-31-2005, 08:46 PM
Windu: This isn't WW2 or Earth. The idea of the TIE Crawler is perfectly valid. Also, how does something that doesn't exist become obsolete? Wow that was fast!

As I said, it is the developer's fault for putitng it in, not the poor little Crawler's.

saberhagen
02-01-2005, 03:23 AM
I think it's completely spurious to compare Star Wars starfighters to 20th century aircraft. The concept of aerodynamics doesn't apply to Star Wars. These are starfighters ie. they are primarily used in space where there is no atmopsphere. When they enter a planet's atmosphere they use repulsorlifts (a completely fictional technology!) to keep them off the ground. Lift is not generated by the combination of forward thrust and aerofoils like it is on earth.

Since TIE fighters don't need to be aerodynamic and don't have any problems with thrust to weight ratio, they don't have to be as expensive as aircraft as we know them.

Vagabond
02-01-2005, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by saberhagen
I think it's completely spurious to compare Star Wars starfighters to 20th century aircraft. The concept of aerodynamics doesn't apply to Star Wars. These are starfighters ie. they are primarily used in space where there is no atmopsphere. When they enter a planet's atmosphere they use repulsorlifts (a completely fictional technology!) to keep them off the ground. Lift is not generated by the combination of forward thrust and aerofoils like it is on earth.

Since TIE fighters don't need to be aerodynamic and don't have any problems with thrust to weight ratio, they don't have to be as expensive as aircraft as we know them. Starfighters still experience aerodynamic drag in an atmosphere, which slows them down and introduces instability to their handling characteristics - repulsorlift or not. In this respect it is relevant.

Vagabond
02-01-2005, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
...Actually, in post RotJ situation, they must have relied on crappy last hope materials and designs.

It's like weapons created by the germans at the end of WWII.
I would compare the Tie Crawler with the King Tiger.
Krupp designed the turret for another chassis then the one created by Porsche. Due to lack of materials and a losing war, they reused the turret and they put both together. They also used bad materials for the armor which made the side and rear armor very weak, even with the slope.... I totally agree with this. In the scenario described here, the birth of the TIE Crawler makes absolute sense, as I alluded to earlier in the thread. But again, this is post-Return of the Jedi. And the game takes place mid-saga, which is inconsistent with what we know. That's one issue.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
...I see the Tie Crawler coming out of the same situation. You have lots of unused Tie Cockpits. You're in a desperate situation. No time for prestige weapons, gather what you can and fight with what you have.... What doesn't make sense for me here is the fact that some production manager would be so inept as to order, say, 1 million TIE cockpits, and only 500,000 sets of wings. Why in the world would there be so many extra TIE cockpits "lying around"? That doesn't pass the "sniff" test for me. That's the other issue.

Jan Gaarni
02-01-2005, 06:44 AM
I wouldn't exactly compare the King Tiger to the TIE Crawler.

I'd compare it to the Sherman perhaps rather than one of the heaviest and strongest tanks during the 2nd World War. :)
Except the weapon system on the TIE Crawler sounds alot more impressive than what the Sherman had.

The only tank that competed with the King Tiger was the Russian tank, T# something (forgot it's number, even though I saw a program about them only a few days ago :D ). And the King was a result of the encounter that the germans did with the Russian one, so technically, the King (not Elvis) is the competitor. ;)

It's true though, that the Tigers main weakness was the rear, but straight on shells just bounced off it (except on the Russian front, there they had a better chance of knocking them off than on the western front I believe, not just by outnumbering the german tank force). The sides weren't all that shabby either.


The King Tiger II again was an even bigger beast of a tank. :p




You know I got to thinking, cause maybe my comparison isn't exactly good either, so perhaps a mix? The Sherman tank, with the Tigers 88mm gun mounted on it? :D
Would probably flip the Sherman over when firing though. :p

Hrrmm, anyway, back on topic (yeah right, as if that will happen now for the next couple of posts ;) ).

swphreak
02-01-2005, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Vagabond
But again, this is post-Return of the Jedi. And the game takes place mid-saga, which is inconsistent with what we know. That's one issue.

Like I said earlier, that's the developer's fault. Stop hurting the poor crawler!

SirPantsAlot
02-01-2005, 09:36 AM
Maybe they aren't available at the begining of the game.

lukeiamyourdad
02-01-2005, 06:19 PM
King Tiger? Undestructible? I think not.

Size does not equal tactical advantage. The main problem with the King Tiger was its humongous size. Being so big, conceilment was not a very good option. You could spot it from quite far away.

Many consider the King Tiger as nothing more then a huge moveable bunker.
As a matter of fact, its unreliability along with low-speed forced many crews to destroy their own King Tiger after it ran out of fuel.

I know about reports of Tiger I and King Tiger destroying tons of tanks before they could come close enough to shoot. One such example is a small group of 12 Tigers annihilating 600(might be too much, I'll have to check it out, I think it might have been 300 only) Shermans before they even got a chance to shoot.

Also, Tiger I performed much better then King Tiger. Its armor was made from good materials but th one of the King Tiger was made with whatever was left(I think it was an alloy of nickel+something else, not nearly as strong as the Tiger I's plating).

But this is all irrelevant to the topic so let's get back to that shall we?


I only compared King Tiger and the Tie Crawler because of the salvaging of equipment, not because of firepower.
I barely mentioned a bit of tactical inneffectiveness for the King Tiger.

Focus on the good part of a post people!

lukeiamyourdad
02-01-2005, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Vagabond
What doesn't make sense for me here is the fact that some production manager would be so inept as to order, say, 1 million TIE cockpits, and only 500,000 sets of wings. Why in the world would there be so many extra TIE cockpits "lying around"? That doesn't pass the "sniff" test for me. That's the other issue.

Well, in their defense, they might have ordered say 1 000 000 Tie Fighters but found out they had already enough or not enough pilots but they needed a ground assault vehicle. Then, they salvaged what they had.

Darth Windu
02-01-2005, 06:48 PM
Phreak - but the point here is that OT COMBAT IS BASED ON THE SECOND WORLD WAR!!! Look at any documentary where Lucas describes how he developed the combat in the OT, and he says that he got it from watching old WW2 combat tapes to re-create both the fighter attack on the Falcon and also to re-create the fighter combat for the assault on the first Death Star. Simply take a look at the other two films and you will see i'm right. This then means that WW2 is relevant, because it is from WW2 that we can figure out what sorts of weapons the Rebels and Empire would have that we didnt see, and how they would be used.

luke - again, no. The King Tiger was never designed for stealth, mainly because it was really big and really powerful. Although you are right in that they ran out of fuel and had unreliable transmission, they were used as single units to slow down advancing allied units, and did so very well. In terms of being indestructable, they almost were, being the most heavily armed and armoured tank of the entire war apart from the Maus. Also, the Tiger had better armour than the King Tiger? Um...no. In terms of armour thickness, the King Tiger had almost double the thinkness of the Tiger, and it also had far greater ballistic protection because the armour was sloped due to the influence of the T-34 and its performance against German armour. I don't know where you get your facts from but I recommend a new source.

With the Crawler, I would agree with you luke but I keep coming back to "set between Ep3 and Ep4". If it was set after Ep6, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, although I would still call it the 'suicide machine'. But it simply doesn't make sense to have it between Ep3 and 4.

Jan - you are probably thinking of the T-34/85, although I would be thinking the KV-1 would have been more effective.

lukeiamyourdad
02-01-2005, 06:57 PM
And I recommend you stop looking at things at face value, something you have done the second you got into this forum.

I know about the thickness of the King Tiger's armor and the slope. Yet it got pumelled by side shots from field guns. Why? Materials.
You do realize that not every metal or alloy is as strong as another right? Thus why I made the statement about King Tiger's armor being weaker. The sloped helped it but Tiger I did not have any and repelled shots more the well.

With the Crawler, I would agree with you luke but I keep coming back to "set between Ep3 and Ep4". If it was set after Ep6, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, although I would still call it the 'suicide machine'. But it simply doesn't make sense to have it between Ep3 and 4.

Will you start reading other people's posts for ****'s sake? People have constantly said that the game BEGINS, BEGINS between Ep.3 and 4. You should learn to listen other people. Geez...it's not like you can't read or you don't understand english or something...


Phreak - but the point here is that OT COMBAT IS BASED ON THE SECOND WORLD WAR!!! Look at any documentary where Lucas describes how he developed the combat in the OT, and he says that he got it from watching old WW2 combat tapes to re-create both the fighter attack on the Falcon and also to re-create the fighter combat for the assault on the first Death Star. Simply take a look at the other two films and you will see i'm right. This then means that WW2 is relevant, because it is from WW2 that we can figure out what sorts of weapons the Rebels and Empire would have that we didnt see, and how they would be used.

And we are talking about ground combat are we? Where did he mention he got every battle from WWII?
He only used tapes for the dogfights.
Thus you cannot make a direct link between Star Wars OT ground combat and WWII ground combat.
Oh and yes it is very relevant. I mean, all of the combat in Star Wars is based on WWII. I mean, those Ewok Catapults and one man glider throwing rocks...I mean wooo...

FroZticles
02-01-2005, 07:17 PM
WWII discussion goes on the off-topic board we talking about Tie Crawlers and not whether the battles are based from WWII which I highly doubt only the X-wing formations and some dogfights and thats it plus you must admit the dogfights in OT were not spectacular like the Opening battle in Episode 3 will.

lukeiamyourdad
02-01-2005, 07:31 PM
Nothing will beat Endor. Nuff said.

FroZticles
02-01-2005, 07:42 PM
Holding onto the classics is good but you cannot say the dogfights in Endor were better when there was hardly any dogfights at all....

Darth Windu
02-01-2005, 07:48 PM
luke - any tank would get pummelled by field guns because they are artillery, and hence must have a high muzle velocity to lob their projectiles, hence the instand conversion of the 88mm AA gun to the best AT gun of the war. Also, materials dont make much difference. Sure, the Tiger's may have had better metal, but the sloping and thickness of the King Tiger far offset that.

Also, when are you going to start listening? The people on this board can say all they want about the game's timeline, but the fact remains that PETROGLYPH and LUCASARTS say that the game is SET BETWEEN EP3 AND EP4, not starts.

In terms of ground combat, opening your eyes would help. Certainly I cannot make a direct link, but to anyone with half a braincell it makes sense. As for the Ewoks, of course they fight differently because they have different weapons, it would be like the Italians fighting the Ethiopians just before WW2. Therefore, my comparison stands.

FroZ - this is about the TIE Crawler, and how is in no way resembles either the Tiger or King Tiger. As for battles, so you think that Lucas took the space battles from WW2 footage and then created a completely new and original way of waging war? I think not. Even if he didnt use WW2 ground combat footage, the footage from Ep4 would have been used as a base from which to build, and hence it is correct to say OT combat is based on WW2.

lukeiamyourdad
02-01-2005, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
luke - any tank would get pummelled by field guns because they are artillery, and hence must have a high muzle velocity to lob their projectiles, hence the instand conversion of the 88mm AA gun to the best AT gun of the war. Also, materials dont make much difference. Sure, the Tiger's may have had better metal, but the sloping and thickness of the King Tiger far offset that.

Materials ARE important. If I take a foot of aluminium and 6 inches of steel, which one do you think is better? Even with slope. (Not that the King Tiger's armor was made of aluminum, just as an example)

Originally posted by Darth Windu
Also, when are you going to start listening? The people on this board can say all they want about the game's timeline, but the fact remains that PETROGLYPH and LUCASARTS say that the game is SET BETWEEN EP3 AND EP4, not starts.

The new game will take place in the Star Wars universe all right, but its actual events will take place between the not-yet-released film Episode III and the 1977 film Episode IV (better known simply as Star Wars, the first movie in the original trilogy). The action will take place in the same galaxy and will include tours of duty on such planets as Hoth, Endor, Tattooine, and Dagobah

Set a few years before the events of Episode IV A New Hope, the game will let players rewrite history as well as experience the aftermath of Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith, the creation of the Rebel Alliance, and Darth Vaderís rise to power.

Posted by Phreak.

Anyway, I'm sure you are also against the inclusion of the Calamari Cruiser, the Tie interceptor, Airspeeder, A-Wing, B-Wing, Medium Transport and the Escort Frigate?
I mean, time frame error here!

But anyway, it makes you rewrite history. And if Hoth, Endor and Dagobah is included, then the game must span over the entire OT saga.




Originally posted by Darth Windu
In terms of ground combat, opening your eyes would help. Certainly I cannot make a direct link, but to anyone with half a braincell it makes sense. As for the Ewoks, of course they fight differently because they have different weapons, it would be like the Italians fighting the Ethiopians just before WW2. Therefore, my comparison stands.

Your comparison does not stand. You cannot make a good enough link. It's like saying a cake is a dairy product because I used milk to make it.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
FroZ - this is about the TIE Crawler, and how is in no way resembles either the Tiger or King Tiger. As for battles, so you think that Lucas took the space battles from WW2 footage and then created a completely new and original way of waging war? I think not. Even if he didnt use WW2 ground combat footage, the footage from Ep4 would have been used as a base from which to build, and hence it is correct to say OT combat is based on WW2.

For god sake's...
Like I said, I'm not talking about a ressemblance between the Tie Crawler and the Tiger I/II's performance.

Like I said, OT ground combat does not ressembles WWII ground combat. You can stretch it a lot and then try and make a comparison but you cannot make a solid conclusion.

Darth Windu
02-01-2005, 10:17 PM
luke - I never said materials aren't important, just that the thickness of the King Tiger's armour and the sloping far offset any difference in quality of materials.

As for timeline, to an extend yes and to an extent no. Basically, if LA wants to include all of those units, the game shouldn't be set between Ep3 and 4. If they want to set it between Ep3 and 4, those units shouldnt be in the game. What has happened here is that they have included as much film material as possible, which is great and is what they should do, but they've made the mistake of trying to capitalise on the release of Ep3 by setting the game between 3 and 4, when they should simply set the game during the OT. It makes for a better story line, less continuity errors, and overall a more believable game.

BTW it is not the 'Medium Transport', they are specifically referred to as 'Heavy Transports' in ESB. I should also point out that if you knew anything about WW2 ground combat, you would see that OT ground combat in fact is based heavily on it. Point in fact here, why is it that Imperial troops and Rebel troops never fire their weapons on automatic? Simple. Because during WW2, the rifles issued to the infantry of all sides with the exception of weapons such as the MP-40, were all exclusively semi-automatic weapons like the M-1 Garand and the M-1 Carbine.

DK_Viceroy
02-02-2005, 01:24 AM
there's been double posts galore:p

Looks like I;ve got a lot to respond to:D

The King Tiger using softer materials near the end of the war actually had better armour than the Tiger 1 because the softer metals helped to arrest momentum of a shell fired at it, They were gathered in strength for Wacht Am Rhein and were very succesful and caused a lot of shock, if they'd had the King Tiger 3-4 years earlier we'd all be doing the hitler salute. It's only Soviet Contender was the IS-2 or sometimes reffered to as the JS-2.

Blame Petroglyph for the TIE Crawler being in the wrong time frame, the Chariot LAV was around well before that and was actually better.

Windu define what is going on in your twisted mind so that we all may know how you think OT combat is based on WW2 combat and you need to give examples and lots of them or admit you are wrong and shut the hell up about OT being related to WW2.

saberhagen
02-02-2005, 02:39 AM
Films are art/entertainment in a visual medium. The fact that the appearance of the Star Wars films was inspired by footage of WWII does not mean that combat in the Star Wars universe is exactly the same as combat in WWII.

lukeiamyourdad
02-02-2005, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu

I should also point out that if you knew anything about WW2 ground combat, you would see that OT ground combat in fact is based heavily on it. Point in fact here, why is it that Imperial troops and Rebel troops never fire their weapons on automatic? Simple. Because during WW2, the rifles issued to the infantry of all sides with the exception of weapons such as the MP-40, were all exclusively semi-automatic weapons like the M-1 Garand and the M-1 Carbine.

BS. That is really a weird comparison. The modern M16 has a single shot capability and so does the M14. Modern assault weapon being sold freely in the US are semi-automatic.
BTW, why wouldn't there be any SMG-ish weapon if it was really like WWII?
You cannot make a direct link therefore you rely on nothing more then possible coincidences.

Jan Gaarni
02-02-2005, 05:36 AM
Ok ok ok, I know I kinda started this debate (and I was mixing the 2 Tigers together too :( ), but if you like to discuss how strong the King Tiger and the Tiger 1 is, take it to the Off-Topic. God know's it needs abit more life over there. ;)

For the "OT combat is same as WWII combat" debate, that's another Off-Topic debate you guys can have in there.

Let's get back on track, shall we?


BTW it is not the 'Medium Transport', they are specifically referred to as 'Heavy Transports' in ESB.
Han calls a Destroyer for Cruiser, don't really see your point here. :rolleyes:

Juggernaut1985
02-02-2005, 06:48 AM
Anyone notice that Lucas has the Nazis in every one of his movies in some form or another?

Windu may be on to something, although he may twist it to be wrong.

SirPantsAlot
02-02-2005, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Juggernaut1985
Anyone notice that Lucas has the Nazis in every one of his movies in some form or another?

Windu may be on to something, although he may twist it to be wrong. Ok, that's just WAY off subject.

lukeiamyourdad
02-02-2005, 07:24 AM
All the bad guys have british accents.

>_>

DK_Viceroy
02-02-2005, 07:40 AM
That's because he got half of the actors from Britian:p

Heya Jugg, I never though I'd hear anyone say that Windu is on anything except crack cocaine maybe. No one can be that stubborn or ignorant naturally

Jan Gaarni
02-02-2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
All the bad guys have british accents.

>_>
yeah .. don't put more into it than there is. ;)

And it's not all of them either, just most of them.

OverlordAngelus
02-02-2005, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
All the bad guys have british accents.

>_>

So do quite a few of the good guys too.

lukeiamyourdad
02-02-2005, 04:51 PM
And I wasn't serious...

That's why people use smileys...>_>

Jan Gaarni
02-02-2005, 09:54 PM
It wasn't as much towards you rather towards others. :)




The effect of a smilie is alot better percieved if you actually use a smilie face though. ;)

Darth Windu
02-02-2005, 11:26 PM
Jan - although yes, Han does call an ISD a cruiser, the term 'cruiser' is used for basically any warship in the OT really, even the PT. However, they are also correctly referred to as Star Destroyers whereas the Transports are referred to only as "Heavy Transports". Ergo, another example of how EU gets things wrong, to go alongside the very poorly thought-out TIE Crawler.

Vagabond
02-03-2005, 05:30 AM
Finally, somebody else who thinks the TIE Crawler, in the competition for survival, would be selected for extinction.

Jan Gaarni
02-03-2005, 05:58 AM
Hey, there's atleast 4 of us, Vagabond. ;)
Including you.

stingerhs
02-03-2005, 07:15 AM
just a note: the concept of a treaded vehicle does not indicate go-anywhere capability. when was the last time you've seen a treaded vehicle travel over very rocky terrain or travel through a swamp??

if you can't name any, then there's a good reason why: vehicles with treads easily get stuck in deep mud and cannot travel over rocks. sure you could try, but you also face the other big disadvantage of treaded vehicles: the treads could come off. in combat, the treads of a tank are always the weakest point of the vehicle. kill the treads, and the tank is a sitting duck.

treads are also limitted in speed. there are several african countries that use wheeled tanks that travel in excess of 50-60 mph. currently, the only treaded tank that can match that is the M-1 (not the M-1A1 or the M-1A2, those are speed governed @ 45mph). it recorded a top speed of 70mph while competing for the job as the next american MBT back in the late 1970's, and only served as the base for the production MBT, which was the M-1A1. the only way it achieves that speed is with a turbo-shaft engine, which also makes the Abram a gas hog. and the african tanks use diesel engines, and require much less fuel.

the idea of a treaded tank is a european concept, designed for northern europe where the battlefields were projected to be.

treads are also much more complex, and thus much more expensive. (and now i'll connect this rant to the thread ;) ) if the empire was really desperate, why didn't it use a wheeled chassis instead of treads?? its cheaper, requires fewer parts, and provides more tactical advantages on most battlefields than a treaded design. of course, the answer is simple: most europeans and americans can't stand the idea of any tank not having treads, thus the EU created a cheap tank that has treads.

Jan Gaarni
02-03-2005, 08:11 AM
There's one thing I can think of that a tracked vehicle is capable of doing that is a plus for the Crawler: It can turn on a dime ... errr, credit? :D

A wheeled has a harder time doing that, atleast a thte speed of the tracked vehicle.

And since those guns on the TIE Crawler is pretty much fixed, it would need to aim by turning the entire chassis.

Heavyarms
02-03-2005, 08:47 AM
the reason why tracks are used is because if you have a wheeled tank... well... you had better have a really good parking brake. The tracks dig it in in order to stop it from rolling far back, and a wheeled vehicle would. Also, you couldn't fired a wheeled tank driving unless the gun faced backwards, and even then it wouldn't be a good idea. Also the fact that with today's MBT's, it would require some big tires in order to keep the chasis from blowing the tires.

Vagabond
02-03-2005, 10:49 AM
I do have to confess that I think treaded tanks are cooler - but I still think the TIE Crawler makes about as much sense as a porcupine juggling water balloons.

However, regarding wheeled tanks in Star Wars, lest we forget:

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/artofrev/2004/10/artofrev20041011.html

http://www.jed1kn1ght.fsnet.co.uk/-=matt=-worldofstuff/sw/ships/juggernaught.jpg

swphreak
02-03-2005, 12:53 PM
And you know it is like impossible for the Juggernaught to turn, right? It has a really poor turning radius. Which is why it can drive both ways.

Plus, it it outdated compared to the ATATs and TIE Crawler.

stingerhs
02-03-2005, 06:11 PM
It can turn on a dime ... errr, credit? :D

A wheeled has a harder time doing that, atleast a thte speed of the tracked vehicle.

And since those guns on the TIE Crawler is pretty much fixed, it would need to aim by turning the entire chassis.
the ability to spin or turn a treaded vehicle is done by either having both treads tractioning in oppostite directions (spinning) or have one tread moving faster than the other (turning). a wheeled vehicle can do this if given the proper drivetrain, but most wheeled vehicles (aka, cars) simply rotate the wheels to turn.
the reason why tracks are used is because if you have a wheeled tank... well... you had better have a really good parking brake. The tracks dig it in in order to stop it from rolling far back, and a wheeled vehicle would. Also, you couldn't fired a wheeled tank driving unless the gun faced backwards, and even then it wouldn't be a good idea. Also the fact that with today's MBT's, it would require some big tires in order to keep the chasis from blowing the tires.
if your using a 4x4 drivetrain, then you will have this problem. make it a 6x6 or even an 8x8 drivetrain, and the problem is solved as long as you have a good suspension.

DK_Viceroy
02-03-2005, 11:38 PM
I think they should put the Chariot LAV in instead since it was in the timeline concerned and it's repulsorlift and it wouldn't cause as much of an argument.:p

Vagabond
02-04-2005, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
And you know it is like impossible for the Juggernaught to turn right? It has a really poor turning radius. Which is why it can drive both ways.

Plus, it it outdated compared to the ATATs and TIE Crawler.

Perhaps, but I hear it can turn left amazingly well :cool:

swphreak
02-04-2005, 02:08 PM
*mumbles something about sarcasm and grammar*

It is still a sucky tank. During the Galactic Civil War, it is obsolete. It could be used in the game as a unit....

Vagabond
02-04-2005, 02:57 PM
Just for the record, I'm not necessarily an advocate for the Juggernaught. I'm merely citing it as an example of a wheeled vehicle in Star Wars.

Admiral Vostok
02-04-2005, 11:19 PM
Well much has gone on in this thread since my last visit.

There are just a few issues I want to address:

1. To those who still think tracked vehicles are more terrain-capable than the curiously named All Terrain walkers, your logic is faulty. Yes, tracked vehicles in our modern world can go more places than untracked vehicles. But that is because we don't have walker-type vehicles. If we did they would go more places than tracked vehicles. Think of the average infantryman, they can go over much more varied terrain than a tracked vehicle. The technology in Star Wars allows AT-walkers to move in much the same way as an infantryman, or in the case of the AT-AT as cavalry. So yes, tracked vehicles trump wheeled vehicles, but walkers trump the lot.

2. The Classic Trilogy is not simply based only on World War 2. Certainly A New Hope is based on World War 2 fighting styles, but the others I would argue are not. To me the Battle Of Hoth is more intentionally reminiscent of World War 1: the fact of trench warfare and the extraordinary power of vehicles over men goes hand in hand with ideas of the Great War. Return of the Jedi is intentionally similar to Vietnam: Guerilla warfare and the triumph of primitives over a technologically advanced foe.

As a side note this thinking has come to me recently in the form of yet another thesis of my Star Wars Scholarly nature. I believe George Lucas has tried to capture a different period of history in each battle; as mentioned above ANH=WW2, TESB=WW1, ROTJ=Vietnam, but looking back we can see that the very formal and orderly battle lines of the armies in TPM refer back to the ancient battles of Greece and Rome, while the masses of infantry led by heroic knights and backed by powerful seige weapons in AOTC is reminiscent of Medieval warfare. The glimpse of the space battle we see in the ROTS teaser shows two huge cruisers alongside each other letting loose their fire salvos, much like the Man O Wars seen in the Napoleonic period.

Dagobahn Eagle
03-11-2005, 10:18 AM
That's not a bad idea.

Back on Crawlers, though: Why not have them? I want as many different units to select from as possible, as long as it does not hurt balance or diversity, and as long as it's clear to me which vehicles do what (take Empire Earth - it's not always clear which units to use, to say the least).

TIE Crawlers are probably OK in battle. AT-ST drivers have a better overview and the AT-ST has grenades and rockets as well as lasers (although it might not have them in this game), but the Crawler is still a fairly neat vehicle.

anton_138
09-23-2005, 01:34 PM
my only question on the issue is why would a ground vehicle need ion engines? i've only ever heard/read of ion engines being used for flight. so if a TIE-crawler has no ion engines, how can they call it a TIE series?

Jan Gaarni
09-23-2005, 02:15 PM
It's a TIE cockpit with tracks strapped on it. :)

You do the math. :D


Welcome to LucasForums, Anton!

I hope your stay will be a pleasent one. :)