5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
142 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MacAttack001
1 year ago

So…has anyone asked about procuring the STL files for this gorgeous tank? It would look awesome at scaled for Star Wars Legion on the game table! Even without stats for it, just to have the model on the table would be tremendous!!!

UnKnownGatekeeper
UnKnownGatekeeper
1 year ago

I do feel like the Empire only in it’s later years would realize that modular tanks or ships would be the key to victory on the various planets the Imperial Warlords were fighting on, and that the more organized, stronger Imperial Army or Stormtrooper Corps would just try to have a single heavy repulsorcraft for every single ground operation, just like all previous tanks we see. Fantastic models though!

Ryadra777
2 years ago

Fractal when you made this tank that big (The standard variant) I expect it to have duel LTL as its primary armament and I was right. But what I did not expect is what it look like and In my mind I was expecting it to look like this:comment image

Because I think it would give it a better hit accuracy then the one the Scythe is carrying. But what the reason for choosing the wide version instead of the tight version?

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Why should slightly dispersed guns have a penalty towards accuracy in SW? Even the Spitfire and Hurricane in the late 30s were able to set convergence points so that the wing guns were shooting at the same point at a given range. With the computing power available to a tank like this, fire control should be trivial.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Guns in the SWU might even be able to auto-adjust the convergence point based on the range-finder’s predicted range-to-target.

Kranky
2 years ago

Is it possible to hire you?

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  Kranky

WHO ME?!

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago

so i took the liberty of writing up some tech specs please feel free to comment, critique or add to this.
Specifications: Name/Type: HAVr A10 Scythe Heavy Repulsortank Designer/Manufacturer: Kuat Drive Yards Combat Role: Heavy Repulsortank Crew: 5: Commander, Driver + 3 Gunners Length: 25 Meters Propulsion: Repulsorlift 2m ceiling. Speed: 300 km/h Hull Rating: 200 RU Weapons: Primary Turret: (Battletank): Twin Turbolaser Cannons. (AA/Close Fire Support): Dual “Avenger” Vulcan Laser Cannons. Mass-Driver (Missile Carrier): 3 x Warhead racks (15 concussion missiles or 9 proton torpedoes each). Secondary: Front/Rear Turreted Twin Light Blaster Cannons, 2 x Side Sponson Twin Light Laser Cannons. Cargo: 250 kg Description: The bigger brother to the MAVr A7 Broadsword, The Scythe is only found in dedicated heavy armour units and deployed to the most important worlds or fiercest battleszones. Like the Broadsword it features a modular primary turret that can be equipped w/ a variety of powerful armaments. Secondary weapons were twin side mounted light laser cannons & front/rear turret twin blaster cannons. These armaments were sufficient for protection against lighter vehicles & infantry. Turret Armaments: Dual Turbolaser Cannons: Standard & most common was a twin turbolaser turret for the battle tank role. These guns are quite powerful but due to a low RoF unsuitable for use against groups of light vehicles or infantry. However they are the most all around turret weapons & can take care of most opposition. Dual Vulcan Laser Cannons: Known as the “Avenger or Dragon” this is the second most common configuration & often grouped w/ the other types for support. The Vulcan Lasers are capable of putting a literal stream of laser blasts on a small target. This made it equally useful for engaging airspeeders, groups of light vehicles & ripping apart infantry. The sheer volume of fire is capable of burning down most forms of cover w/ horrifying speed & decimating those hiding behind it. This made it exceptionally versatile in close support, urban warfare & local AA defence. Mass Driver: typically employed to provide direct & indirect fire support against bunkers, fortifications & buildings in urban environments. It can use various shell types, including standard explosive, bunker busting, sub-munitions, incendiary, fuel-airburst & EMP munitions. This made the mass driver extremely versatile in various support roles. Missile Carrier: The least common & versatile variant. It has three launch racks for concussion missiles or proton torpedoes. The racks are modular, & it can carry a mix of both types. The expense & limited ammunition meant this variant was mostly used for long-range bombardment or Heavy AA roles, protecting artillery & rear echelon units.

Fritz Soldat
Fritz Soldat
2 years ago

Instead of “3 gunners”, how about 1 gunner, 1 loader, and 1 radio/communications operator?

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  Fritz Soldat

It has 5 turrets and no crew loadable munitions; I don’t think a loader would have much to do other than control a turret.
The comms operator may be a good idea, though that is usually handled by the Commander in most modern tanks, iirc. Sci-fi generally seems to forget how many different radio settings a tank commander needs to avoid confusion.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

This being Star Wars, comms operation could be handled by a droid, who is probably better equipped to multi-task the radio settings than an organic being in the heat of battle.

Daib
Daib
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

And yet, every time we see a Rebel Base in the films, we see heaps of personnel assigned to do just that.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Daib

That’s a bit different than a front-line combat vehicle. Just because a live comm tech is appropriate in one scenario doesn’t mean it will the best fit for all of them.

jean-luc martel
jean-luc martel
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

ya, a full-blown base CIC with hundreds or thousands of personnel and lots of traffic need hands-on operators. but an individual AFV? not really unless a dedicated recon/scout/command role.

jean-luc
jean-luc
2 years ago
Reply to  Fritz Soldat

as TheIcthala points out this vehicle doesn’t have any old fashioned hand reloading (at least as far as i know). the artillery versions probably have an ordnance specialist but they aren’t the basic version above. FractalSponge: any words of wisdom here?

STONEhenk
STONEhenk
2 years ago

The sideguns are (or at least look) the same size as the heavy laser cannons on the AT-AT and Broadsword, so they can do serious damage even to heavier vehicles and base defences (like shield generators). I’m also feel your crew numbers are way to low. The AT-AT only have 3 crew because all the guns are directed forward. But the AT-TE with guns on all sides have 4 additional gunners to man this guns for a total of 7. I think Scythes are closer to 10 crewmembers than 5.

-Commander
-Primary Driver
-Secondary Driver/Sensor-officer
-2 Gunners for the primary weapon (these are very big)
-4 Gunners for the antipersonnel- and heavy lasercannon turrets
-Technician for monitoring and directing the power-generation and usage.

Jonathan C
Jonathan C
2 years ago

Sorry this is several months old, but if the mass driver is the 7th picture down, what do you reckon the 9th picture down (single canon, round, not as long) is?

Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan C

That is a Ion Cannon.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan C

That’s a warship grade light ion cannon. Similar to the ion cannons on the Aiwha-Class Corvette and Velox-Class Frigate.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

Ok that’s important

Jonathan C
Jonathan C
2 years ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

Ahh, I thought it was the same as the four cannons on the Stormtrooper and Assault Transports.

jean-luc
jean-luc
2 years ago

some background and specs would be nice. also whats the difference between the mass driver and artillery gun?

Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  jean-luc

Fractal said the mass driver IS a artillery gun.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

ok but is it more for direct fire vs long range indirect fire? the mass driver looks like a siege gun to me for demolishing bunkers and such. does the Artillery Gun use physical rounds or is more like a turbolaser?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

What if it’s both? Something with the range to be useful for artillery support in a sci-fi setting will probably have a pretty high muzzle velocity, which would make it usable as a direct-fire weapon, as well. It’s also possible that whatever driver is used to fire the shell (EM, gravity / tractor beams, etc) can vary said muzzle velocity for specific targets.

As far as energy vs. physical, how about an expendable one-shot directed energy weapon into an artillery shell? Best of both worlds.

jean-luc
jean-luc
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

single use energy cell sound like the Incredible cross section of the ATT.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  jean-luc

I didn’t say energy cell; I said energy ‘weapon’. Like the energy equivalent of a shaped charge that fires a directional blast of energy on detonation.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

So a HEAT round?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

More sci-fi than that. Something on par with the X-Ray Laser Weapon concept, or with laser anti-ship warheads from the Honor Harrington universe. HEAT is contact detonated; this would be more proximity detonated.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

So like a Wookiee Bowcaster round? Sheathes a physical round in plasma?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

No. A disposable, single-shot turbolaser inside an artillery shell. The cannon lofts the round over the horizon and/or intervening obstacles, and once the shell is close enough, with a line of sight to its target, it detonates and fires a single turbolaser blast as the shell annihilates itself.

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Wait, wait, wait… It doesn’t disintegrate. The casing and spent power cell continue through the ballistic trajectory and slam into whatever’s there!

**BOOM**

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

Considering the energy levels involved, a low velocity kinetic impact would be an afterthought at that point.

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

You’ve gotta think of it in terms of what a great visual it’d be!

101 FRONT LINES OF A WORN TORN PLANET
Camera pans across the valiant tank crew of a HAVr A10 Scythe as it gets one last shot off before exploding violently.
Camera POV from behind advanced artillary shell as it splits open, revealing a miniature turbo laser that swivels mid-flight to release a powerful blast that destroys the command centre hidden behind a fortified blast shield at the periphery of the shot as the rest of shell heads straight for a battalion of enemy troops.
Camera from behind enemy troops shows shell smashing through their ranks sowing destruction as it plows into them.

It’s something straight out of the prequels!

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

Having an actual internal turbolaser is way more sophisticated than I’m envisioning. Remember, this is supposed to only be used once, so it’d be better to use some sort of terminal guidance mechanism to steer the shell than to include a separate internal aiming mechanism.

I’m picturing something like the Power Guns from Hammer’s Slammers, where solid state ammo is converted into a linear energy discharge. So, from front to back, the shell consists of a guidance package, reactant, single-shot blaster to ignite the reactant, and read guidance package, with the shell casing being just strong enough to contain the blast for a fraction of a second.

So, the round gets lofted over a target, the guidance system goes into terminal guidance mode and steers so that the nose aimed at the target, the blaster fires a shot into the back of the reactant mass, which then detonates in a linear energy discharge in line with the orientation of the shell casing (which essentially serves as a /very/ temporary barrel). Enough residual energy is released from the blast that the casing explosively detonates, showering any exposed troops underneath the blast with molten shrapnel. Way more effective than a randomly crashing spent casing.

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

That’s very well reasoned and perhaps the best way to capture such a device within the realm of reality. The only thing I would argue is that the energy released is more likely to vaporize the shell casing than to cause any effective secondary effect. Maybe it’d work if there were a multi-layered casing with an inner shield casing that directs the beam protects a middle layer of gas or some type of reactive material that then blasts the outer (shaped for effect?) casing away after the shot, but before it can vaporize.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And then the butt of it slams into the enemy ranks, scattering pieces of droids everywhere, the wailing head of a B1 Battle Droid sails high into the air then comes careening down onto the head of a T-series Tactical Droid that then exclaims, “Your attempt at aerial combat is 100% disappointing.”

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

LOL. That would be a fun scene. With Clone Wars restarting, we can only hope…

My mention of molten shrapnel was more of a nod to your suggestion of the spent shell causing damage from physical impact; I think any shrapnel effects would be incidental at best. I’m more partial to the case vaporizing.

Jean-Luc
Jean-Luc
2 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

you make this thing sound like a Funnel from Mobile Suit Gundam.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Jean-Luc

I don’t see how you get that. A Funnel is essentially a reusable attack drone; this concept is just an artillery shell that’s fired from a cannon and air bursts over a target, firing a powerful energy blast in the process. It’s fired once, and blows up. Terminally guided artillery shells exist today, so it’s reasonable to assume something like it will exist in the SWU.

jean-luc
jean-luc
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

HEH, okay.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

My original concept was much smaller: basically a solid-state turbolaser in a tube that locks onto the barrel of a blaster rifle. Kinda the SWU equivalent of a rifle-launched grenade. In that case, though, the tube is tough enough to survive intact so it can be manually removed.

From there, other applications of energy weapons with solid state ammo present themselves: missile warheads, space mines, even starship cannon (like the guns on the Invisible Hand in RotS, with ammo feeds and ejecting spent casings when they fire).

LazerZ
LazerZ
2 years ago

I think the 1-H just became obsolete.

Valiran9
Valiran9
2 years ago

Biiig tank. I love it! You make the best original designs! Have you ever considered doing a model of the S-1 FireHawke from the old Star Wars Adventure Journal? The silhouette makes it look like one of the more sensibly designed vehicles in Star Wars media, and it would be great to see your take on it.

Noah
Noah
2 years ago

The AT-AT in pic 40 looks so sad.

The one in pic 38 looks like it’s about to get slapped by the tank.

CT2222
CT2222
3 years ago

Did somebody say A-10? BBBRRRRRRRRRTTTT!!!

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
3 years ago
Reply to  CT2222

This place drifts closer to reddit every single day.

CT2222
CT2222
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Admit it,you laughed.
Also,what were the different weapons? I could tell with the AA Pod and the Dual Heavy Guns,but the others confused me.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  CT2222

well to answer that i wrote up some tech specs and short background. and yes i called them “avenger” Vulcan lasers with you in mind.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  CT2222

VULCAN MEGA BLASTER! BRRRRRRT!

Ryadra777
3 years ago

So Fractal I do understand why you didn’t name it Claymore because it sound Scottish. But what about Greatsword?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Because it’s already called the Scythe?

Ryadra777
3 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I know that I’m just asking Fractal what his thoughts on Greatsword as a name and if he want to choose it or not before choosing Scythe as the final name.
Although I bet Fractal thinks Greatsword would probably also sound scottish like Claymore.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

honestly, scythe does seem appropriate when you look at the firepower this thing is packing.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago

All of a sudden, I’m wondering what this vehicle would look like with the Flak Pod from the AT-AA. I always thought the Pod was better explained as an armored housing protecting whatever sort of weapon they could fit inside it.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago

Fractal, is there any sort of etiquette or procedure for posting or linking game stats for your creations?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

No problem, I’m somewhat new here, and I didn’t want to presume. To clarify, are you okay with linking to game stats on other sites, so long as the actual stats don’t get posted here?

Shaun
Shaun
3 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I’ve mentioned it before, but there’s a thread on the FFG forums that has given (and in some cases revised) stats for Ansel’s ships. I’d start there.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

I saw that, but I do WEG, not FFG. Even with the game out of print, there is still a thriving community out there, producing new content, fanbooks, etc.

LazerZ
LazerZ
2 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

Inactive, though I’ve been thinking of taking up where Winchester3 left off.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago

Fractal, relating to the discussion of Scythe vs. LAAT, how do you conceptualize the difference between airspeeders and landspeeders? It’s part of the canon that both vehicle types use the same system (repulsorlifts) to operate, yet one is forced to stay close to the ground while the other can reach low orbit. I have my own theory on this, but I’m curious what distinction you make.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

My theory, for what it’s worth…

While both landspeeders and airspeeders utilize the same system (repulsorlifts) to generate lift, they use different systems to generate thrust. Landspeeders utilize a traction field drive, essentially a wide-angle tractor beam projected from the underside that latches onto the ground and pulls the vehicle along, thus requiring that they remain close to the ground. Airspeeders (and starships), on the other hand, utilize an omni-directional impeller that can move the speeder in any direction, either through a directional gravity field or some sort of inertial flux drive. Neither system is particularly fast, however, and achieving high speeds requires the use of booster engines, ion drives, etc.

Basing it on two different drive systems plays into your points on Cost and Mass by simply using in-universe fiat to state that the tractor drive system used on landspeeders is smaller / less energy intensive / whatever to justify packing on lots more armor and/or diverting power to shield generators, with the limitation that heavy ground vehicles using the repulsor / traction combo still require landing ships to get them down to the surface.

Just my .02 credits.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

so the mas driver vs the artillery gun. do they both use Physical rounds or is the artillery gun more of a turbolaser? also technical specs?

Anonymous
3 years ago

You know Fractal with the size of the Scythe I wonder do you think there would be a Theta barge variant to carry this tank and it variants if it were store in destroyer sized ships alongside with a another variant that carry a AT-SE?

Anonymous
3 years ago

So Fractal since you have made variants of the Scythe I was wondering when you are going to make the variants of the broadsword IVF that you mention earlier like the APC, Indirect fire and a proper tank? And also if you are going to do that sooner or later if is possible that you could do a flak variant as well?

Nikolai
Nikolai
3 years ago

I think that the turret siting so high up off of the top of the vehicle makes the turret a really large target, what if the turret sat lower in the tank so that the elevation adjustment arm wasn’t in view as much? This is just an idea that occurred to me and I still think that the tank looks phenomenal.

Anonymous
3 years ago

So Fractal this tank is around 25 meters in length as you said before right?

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
3 years ago

Oh wow, this thing is huge!

Mr. Legends is best canon
Mr. Legends is best canon
3 years ago

I think the sabertank would be a great escort for this tank

Anonymous
3 years ago

So Fractal about the flank variant was is also used for anti-air attacks?

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Ich weiß es nicht. Ich kann kein Deutsch sprechen oder lesen.

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Attacking from the flank to caught them by surprise?

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

So just found out that flak and anti-air is basically the same thing and also whoops didn’t think this though to know that I type in flank instead of flak that quite the brain fart. well now I feel very stupid. sorry for wasting you time Fractal.

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Although speaking of flak I wonder what would a flak variant of the Broadsword be like? would it have a quad laser cannon like the one on the Chi heavy dropship or something?

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Right, Falk is german and the short form of Flugabwehrkanone which essentially translates to anti air gun/ cannon

Hecatomb
Hecatomb
3 years ago

This thing is bad ass, very nice! I particularly like the modular turrets for different weapon loadouts.

Anonymous
3 years ago

So since the Broadsword is the A7 while the Scythe is the A10 I wonder what the A8 & A9 would be?

JFKrol2
JFKrol2
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Prototypes that were abandonedm just like many British cruiser tanks designs in 20ies and 30ies

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

The HAVr-A9 Floating Fortress is a WEG creation used primarily for urban occupation and pacification. The design is somewhat problematic, but the model does exist.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/HAVr_A9_Floating_Fortress

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

And, while the A8 has no official assignment, I ended up using it to game stat a Repulsorlift variant of the A6 called the Behemoth. Take it for what it’s worth…

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I felt that the body of the A6 was more appropriate for a repulsorlift conversion. A repulsorlift AT-AT would just end up looking like a fish-out-of-water AT-AT Swimmer.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Ah, yes. My thinking was that repulsorlifts offered advantages in speed and maneuverability that weren’t offered by either the AT-AT or the A6. Since combat vehicle doctrine in the SWU was based around one large multi-purpose platform, with assorted lighter vehicles as escorts, there was a gap in the known vehicle types for a repulsorlift vehicle in the same size and mission range as the AT-AT and A6. I’m not particularly innovative when it comes to picturing new vehicles, so I basically took what was available (the A6) and made a newer, modern repulsorlift version, along with variants for artillery, command & control, transport, etc.

I pictured it as the centerpiece of Imperial Army ground assault doctrine, with medium and heavy repulsortanks operating as escorts. AT-ATs would be more the province of rapid-deployment forces based aboard Star Destroyers and the like.

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Then what would the AT-SW repulsor equivalent be Fractal?
Also hope you get back to finishing that vehicle sooner or later.

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Interesting although Fractal I meant to say I hope the ‘Ground Support Vehicle’ is finish sooner or later, sorry for mistaking it with the AT-SW (which I’m very aware it was finish a long time ago).

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Also that heavier tank from Empire at war is a 2-M.
By away the AT-ST/DP repulsor equivalent being the Sabre is that Sabre the same as the TX-130T?

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Well the thing is both the TX-130 and the 2-M have Sabre in their name Also known as individually the TX-130 Saber-class fighter tank and the 2-M Saber-class repulsor tank.

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

So then to make things clear the TX-130 is a repulsor equivalent to the AT-ST/DP and the 2-M is a repulsor equivalent to the AT-SW.
Also to be honest I would let the 2-M keep it’s Sabre Class name but change the TX-130’s Sabre Class to Dagger Class.

Ryadra777
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

As for the size the 2-M is bigger at 10 meters in length while the TX-130 is 8.2 meters in length same for the imperial upgraded TX-130T.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Interesting. I had seen that one, but based on what you have so far, I was under the impression that it was an air support platform, with MAAV standing for Medium Altitude Assault Vehicle. By saying “surface,” are you saying it’s actually a ground vehicle, or more of an aerospace platform?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I think most of our differing opinions at this level is going to boil down to the lense through which we view the SWU. Mine is heavily influenced by the WEG game, and a lot of my “technobabble” has developed in an attempt to explain various rule and stat choices made within the game. My view of the distinction between airspeeders and landspeeders is a case in point, as WEG stats made no distinction between various kinds of repulsorlifts, but limited landspeeders to an altitude of 1-2 meters, without ever clarifying why. Making the distinction between lift and thrust methods opened the door to explaining why ground vehicles exist at all in an environment with functional counter-grav, in that the traction field drive used on landspeeders was smaller and more efficient, allowing larger and more heavily armored landspeeders to be built.

In the case of the A6, WEG’s write-up stated that it was very fast in a straight line, but had to slow to a crawl when making any sort of turn or maneuver. The AT-AT had no such restriction but was limited to 1/3 to 1/4 of the A6’s speed. As such, there was room for a vehicle that could do both. A repulsorlift A6 would have much greater speed than the AT-AT without the maneuverability limitations of the A6, making it a much better fit for maneuver warfare than either of the others, and the traction drive system allowed it to be much more heavily armed and armored than any equivalent airspeeder / starship would be.

If I were to stat your MAAV, based on what I see so far, it wouldn’t be as tough as the AT-AT or A6, but would have the advantage of speed, maneuverability and the ability to self-deploy from orbit.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Actually, I misspoke earlier. I didn’t base my A8 on the A6, but on the smaller A5 from the ImpSB.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

And yeah, I can definitely see your point on game stats. As much as I love the WEG system, it’s broken in a lot of ways, and I’ve gone pretty far down the rabbit hole insofar as using house rules to correct perceived flaws. I never agreed with WEG’s decision to use a Scaling system that made Walkers “smaller” than Starfighters and Starships, and I’ve long since juggled the Scale system to accommodate. However, I still end up viewing the SWU through the lens of the game background, a limitation you obviously don’t feel bound by.

One thing I think game stats DO do well is provide some answers to the various theoretical arguments that occur in your comment blocks, as to whether or not vehicle X would beat vehicle Y, and so on and so forth. Of course, that would be dependent on both a solid game system and an accurate stat, which (much as I hate to admit it) is not exactly WEG’s strong suit.

JamesMCGR
JamesMCGR
3 years ago

So Fractal, who would win between this and an AT-AT? I’m putting money on this guy. this is one of the coolest things I’ve seen all week.

JamesMCGR
JamesMCGR
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Ok how about the AT-SP? Or the big two legged walker?

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  JamesMCGR

You mean the AT-SE. (All-Terrain Shock-Enforcer) And being more a battle vehicle than the AT-AT I bet it stand a better chance against this repulsortank and at best equal since Fractal said this repulsortank has the power equivalent to the AT-SE.
As for the AT-SP 1 on 1 no chance that behemoth would rip it to scrap metal.

JamesMCGR
JamesMCGR
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Cool, thanks for clearing that up.

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

By away Fractal I wonder how many Scythe heavy tanks would you need to take down a single AT-SP like 3-4?

mrdmiller
mrdmiller
3 years ago

was looking at this and i started wondering what would it look like if 1 had a mobile shield projector to protect any infantry or lighter vehicles it is placed with

Anonymous
3 years ago

So Fractal about the Mass Driver Cannon how powerful is it and what kind of projectile it is firing?

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

OK and if the artillery variant was carrying seismic charges then it would be devastating although how many would it carry?
As for carrying missiles didn’t you already made a missile platform variant which look like it also carried starfighter grade explosives and could fire from long range?

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Classic, always more folks asking Fractal to be an RPG sourcebook.

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Right Fractal sorry for asking something you don’t know. I get very curious on things that I find interesting or got my interest like the ammo for the Mass Driver that I mention. Guess I’m getting greedy for information I like to know.

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

OK I just rethink about the missiles use on this tank variants just to clear things up for me.
I know for the fact that the mass driver variant using missile (Which I think is most likely concussion missiles) will be long range non-line of sight fires. But I now think the missile launcher variant is for short range line of sight fires.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

I don’t expect Fractal to be an RPG sourcebook; I write my own stats. However, in the interests of accuracy, I would love it if there was a place to find hard information insofar as dimensions and general armament. I’ve done up D6 stats for several of the vehicles and ships found on this site, but I’ve had to guess far too much to feel comfortable with it.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

That’s fair, although I expect there are some people who are right now wondering if they have $1,600 lying around anywhere. I wouldn’t need anywhere near that level of detail, though, as I agree that a lot of stat writing for gaming purposes would boil down to personal opinion. I’ve written stats for several of your creations already, with plans for several more; it’d just be nice to know they are “right.”

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Well I’m not asking Fractal about the stats of his models just for my RPG. (Which I have no interest on making it)
I’m just asking him because his ideas to me just make sense and the way he talk about them seem to sound like he experience on how these vehicles work and plan them out carefully and that what I like about him because it help me understand his ideas and the roles he give to each different vehicles he make better. (I hope anyone understand this and if not then sorry for my bad wording and/or reasoning)
Also Fractal that 29.6 meters would most likely be the Scythe tank’s length right?

Ryadra777
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Well again I did answer my question but for the Scythe’s length and width it look like is the size of the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte if not larger.
While it is just over 5 meters shorter than the Ratte’s hull (which is 35 meters long but it would be 39 meters long if I included the forward guns) it is just almost 7 meters wider than the Ratte (Which is 14 meters wide).

Shaun
Shaun
3 years ago

Damn she is BIG.

This would also make for a decent recovery vehicle platform. Swap out the main and secondary weapons for manipulator arms and/or a tractor beams and keep the point defence guns and you’ve got a engineering vehicle.

Also, fantastic work.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I guess the big advantages over a LAAT would be the ability to take a few hits from crew-served weapons, operational endurance/stowage for the dismounts, and an electronic warfare fit designed for surface-level fighting rather than upper atmosphere combat drops. Plus, it would probably be cheaper.

I still kind of want to see the tank destroyer variant that Bannon proposed, which puts the biggest possible turbolaser for the chassis on a casemate mount to deal with AT-SP breakthroughs. Scythe is a good name for this beauty, although I was thinking Claymore.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Well the LAAT could probably take hits from E-WEBs, but we do see LAATs exploding all the time in the cartoons from shoulder-fired missiles and gun emplacements roughly between the size of a 20mm and 37mm FlaK cannon. Those seem like things that wouldn’t really bother a Namer… I mean Scythe heavy APC. LAATs definitely seem to rely more on maneuverability for survivability when operating in atmosphere, even if they might seem to have the power budget for reasonably substantial shielding. Perhaps their lighter frames prevent stronger tensor fields from being used, which this beast wouldn’t have an issue with.

It’s interesting how you’ve wholly embraced the Republican Roman title naming scheme for heavy warships, but Scotland doesn’t make the cut. ECR might be a bit insulted, if he’s still out there.

Just to throw a few more ideas out there, but maybe Falcata for a light tank, and Glaive or Sarissa for a tank destroyer?

Valoren
Valoren
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

If we’re talking about the 2003 clone wars cartoon series, then no. The LAAT were only blown apart by hailfire missiles (not surprising considering they can one shot AT-TEs). The shoulder-fired missile that took out the LAAT transporting Fordo’s commando didn’t actually hurt anyone inside the craft despite being a direct hit on the crew compartment, which would suggest the armor stood up. Otherwise in other clone wars materials, they are almost always destroyed by starfighters (like the nantex) or by large flak emplacements (like the CIS walking cannons).

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

The in-universe explanation is that “Latin” is actually Kuati (as in Kuat Drive Yards), much like how the Greek alphabet (Lambda-Class Shuttle and all) is the Tionese alphabet. The use of Latin names comes from the official names of KDY ships featured in the prequels (the Acclamator and the Venator), as well as others mentioned in EU material (the Tector). So it’s not that Fractal has “embraced” the Republican Roman language, it’s that he’s following the pattern set by Lucasfilm in naming their canon warships.

Shaun
Shaun
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Scythe is also more utilitarian and reflects the multi-role capabilities better than something that’s specifically a weapon… My two cents.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Unless the Empire is fighting itself, I don’t see why you would need a Tank Destroyer variant to use against AT-SPs. Is there a vehicle on the Alliance side that’s the equal of an AT-SP? If anything, it’d be more realistic to see a Tank Destroyer variant of the KAAC Freerunner being used by the Alliance against Scythe-Class vehicles.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

It’s difficult to picture the necessity, though, without having a concrete idea of what it would be used against. In the absence of an actual image to work with (say, a Separatist equivalent of the AT-SP), it’s hard to really conceptualize the threat that would require a Tank Destroyer vehicle to respond to it.

Shaun
Shaun
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Oh for sure. Not sure what the power req’s are for a tractor beam or three, but manipulator arms/grapplers would definitely suit a smaller power plant that would let you potentially swap out interior space for more storage or a dedicated service bay. I could also see the dorsal surface getting upgraded with an actual deck and/or dorsal hanger. And let’s not for get the giant f——g plow on the front. Can’t have an engineering vehicle without a ridiculous plow!!

[And yeah, I know it’s floating several meters above the ground, it still needs a plow.]

Shaun
Shaun
3 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

Also, up votes for the comscan/command variant… The LAVr Chariot has always been a favourite of mine and heavy version sounds like fun.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

The classic Renegade Legion game had some much better ideas for Combat Engineering Vehicles than a physical plow. Possibilities include a gravity-based mine sweeping tool (a wide angle tractor beam set to push rather than pull), a planar laser used to cut down solid obstacles (trees, rock columns, etc) and a sapper cannon that fired burrowing projectiles to crater the ground (to create hull-down positions for vehicles) or to destroy underground bunkers.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Or perhaps an IFV mounting the same turret as the Broadsword, with the saved internal space used for troop seating…

Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

What about the IFV variant that replace the duel light turbolasers with another duel heavy laser cannons and have a second aft hatch right next to it for a platoon.