5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
71 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Guest
Guest
2 months ago

The MAVr A7 Broadsword-class Repulsortank reminds me of the Bradley light reconnaissance tank used by the United States Military

Cmdr Thunder
Cmdr Thunder
3 months ago

How big would you say this is? roughly

lossman
lossman
4 months ago

You should make an engineer variant sort of like a M1150 type thing.

Robert
Robert
7 months ago

What’s that ball in the front for?

Lily Retzer
Lily Retzer
10 months ago

Smells like Bradley in here.

Nathan
Nathan
1 year ago

how many troops could this carry

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

What’s the purpose of the big drum on the rear deck? I can only assume it’s pretty essential, since it blocks the turret from firing aft.

STONEhenk
STONEhenk
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Thermal Detonator:comment image

Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  STONEhenk

I highly doubt that.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Beat me to it.

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

fuel tank?

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  jean-luc
Matt
Matt
11 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

He may have taken inspiration from Soviet/Warsaw Pact block tanks that stored external fuel tanks on the back of the tanks to give them extended range. I believe the tanks could be quickly ditched if needed.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
11 months ago
Reply to  Matt

The mounting hardware looks way too substantial for that.

Noah
Noah
2 years ago

Tanks a lot

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

Regarding the rocket launcher, how do the rockets compare in size to, say, the concussion missile launchers on an A-Wing?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Well, as much as I love WEG, I’ve always felt their scaling system was broken. Putting Walkers (and by extension most armored ground vehicles) below starfighters made them almost laughably fragile. As such, I changed the system around to put Walkers above Starfighters, and close enough to the smaller capital ships to be able to threaten them (which fits with, among other things, the SPHA-Ts in AotC taking down the Core Ship).

Under that system, the basic WEG Starfighter concussion missile is a dumbfire rocket that inflicts roughly the same damage as a linked shot from the main guns of an AT-AT. More advanced missiles with homing / guided capability come at the expense of warhead yield.

So, roughly speaking, if the rocket launcher on the Broadsword fires approximately the same concussion missile, it’ll pack a slightly heavier punch (+1D in WEG) than the main gun, or slightly less of a punch in trade for the ability to fire-and-forget or to do Non-LOS attacks against targets being designated by its infantry detachment.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I would argue that the incidents we see on film of starfighters versus ground vehicles (pretty much the Battle of Geonosis in AotC) don’t conclusively prove the point, with no concrete method of measuring weapon yield vs. armor soak potential. The one EU reference of which I’m aware is in the X-Wing novel Isard’s Revenge, where four X-Wings have to work rather hard to bring down four AT-ATs. Granted, the X-Wings in question limited themselves to just lasers (saving their protorps for potential superiority duty later), but the AT-ATs were surprisingly tough kills, even for Rogue Squadron pilots. If there’s something I’m missing, I’m all ears.

I didn’t actually change the relationship between starfighters and capital ships all that much. The main change there was moving the smaller capital ships (basically anything smaller than a Victory SD) down a step (from +12D on the WEG scale to +10D), while compensating them with better point defense weaponry.

My thinking was that most Walkers (excepting smaller platforms like the AT-ST) are roughly equal in size to light space transports like the YT-1300. However, because they only operate on a planet’s surface, they have no need for hyperdrives, ion drives, or the sorts of acceleration compensators and artificial gravity necessitated by space travel in the SWU. Being the same size, however, allows them to pack in the same size power plant, be it fusion or hypermatter or whatever, but the reduced power budget resulting from the absence of all the different starships systems allows designers to put the power surplus into much heavier armor, shielding and weapons. It also ties into my theory about ground effect repulsorlifts utilizing a much more efficient “thrust” system, with the restriction that they must remain within a few meters of the ground.

The result is a vehicle that is much tougher, much more powerful and has a lot more deployment endurance than a starfighter, with the restriction that it has to be transported through space and down to the planet’s surface before it can truly be effective. Frankly, I feel heavy GAVs /have/ to be able to at least threaten small capital ships for them to be worth transporting and deploying at all. From a gaming perspective, it turns heavy GAVs like the AT-AT or Juggernaut from target props into major battlefield players.

It probably would be simpler to keep the two separate, but when you’re trying to design a game rule around it, it pretty much needs to be a unified theory because you never know if the players are going to suddenly decide to throw you a curve ball.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Ah, that was the one I was forgetting. It’s actually worse than starfighter vs. walker; that weapon was the medium machinegun equivalent of an ion cannon, way less than starfighter-grade. It’s my understanding that they explained that one away by stating that the AT-ACT uses “electromagnetic tensor fields” to support its knee joints, and that what the ion cannon actually did was disrupt that tensor field, causing the knee joint to collapse on itself. Frankly, that sequence was, IMO, one of the more ridiculous parts of an otherwise decent film, but they did at least retcon it to something I’m content with. As someone who works in the transportation industry, I could go on about what a ridiculous design the AT-ACT is from a cargo transport perspective, but I’ll stay on topic instead.

At Geonosis, the LAATs are briefly seeing using their missiles and beam cannon to destroy the Hailfire droids that were attacking the AT-TE’s. However, I would argue that the Hailfires are designed as light, fast attack vehicles, and would not have the same sort of heavy armor found on something like an AT-AT or -A6.

It’s not my contention that ground vehicles should be able to scale up to the same sizes as capital ships. I am guilty of writing most of a crossover stat for a Mk. XXXIII Bolo as a Separatist planetary siege/defense platform, and there are EU examples of traditional watercraft (the Leviathan submersible aircraft carrier from the SWAJ #2 article A World To Conquer about planetary siege tactics), but I agree there has to be a physical limit that isn’t there for space craft. My point is more that, within their general size classification (Starfighters, Space Transports and Heavy GAVs), the Heavy GAVs will be tougher and mount heavier weaponry. This is not to say that a single Scythe would be capable of taking on cruisers, but rather, that a properly coordinated company of Scythes could successfully engage and destroy ships in the Corellian Corvette / Nebulon B size range, and could do so from dispersed positions that would deny said ship a specific target at which to return fire.

I’m assuming that this is what you meant by separating starship equivalency from starfighter equivalency. To clarify, I used “Starship” as the title for the level on my Scale System that encompases both starfighters and space transports, while the old Capital Ship level is subdivided into Frigate, Destroyer and Dreadnought.

As an aside, with regards to ground pressure, there are ways around that, as well. If my theory about repulsorlifts providing lift but not thrust is correct, ground vehicles (walkers, treads, wheels and such) could be fitted with weak repulsorlift systems that neutralize <1g of gravity, thus alleviating ground pressure issues while still retaining enough weight to actually stay on the ground. Acceleration compensators would still be useful for protecting the crew against combat damage, or even just keep them from getting thrown around in an -A6 charging across rough terrain. Treads that would normally tear themselves apart on something like a Bolo could be equipped with electromagnetic tensor fields in the track plates. Etcetera.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

The -ACT as a CEV is somewhat more plausible, or at least plausible in the sense that anything like the AT-AT would be plausible in the first place. If it had to be a walker, I’d think something like the AT-OT from RotS would be a better fit.

I would never try to make AT-ATs equal to starfighters; rather, AT-ATs and similar vehicles are more like modern tanks, with their primary weapon systems optimized for combat against other heavy GAVs. Starfighters are faster and more maneuverable, but also more fragile, and would need to mount heavy weaponry to have a chance of disabling or destroying them. Examples would be things like protorps or concussion missiles, the SWU equivalent of a GAU-8 Avenger gatling gun, or LTLs mounted on heavy fighters or converted light freighters. Walkers, on the other hand, would have difficulty engaging starfighters with their primary weapons (optimized for combat against other big, slow GAVs), and would need to depend on secondary weaponry (ala the cheek blasters on the AT-AT) or specialized platforms like the AT-AA or the gatling laser variant of the Scythe for defense.

And since “armor” options in the SWU aren’t merely physical, the AT-AT could also be some form of particle or magnetic shielding that is projected coterminously with the hull, or using the hull as a wave-guide of sorts. That sort of system could provide the equivalent protection of thousands of tons of armor. I suppose I could’ve been clearer earlier when referring to using the power surplus to carry heavier armor, I was also including the possibility of energy shields that effectively function as armor, as well.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Instead of being an infantry GPMG, the pintle mounted ion blaster on the U-Wing seems like it was probably hooked up to the U-Wing’s own reactor and heat dissipation grid, which puts it in a much more respectable weight class.

Saying that AT-ATs are “equal” to fighters isn’t very clear to me, with fighters running the gamut from dinkly little ETA-2 Actis all the way up to terrifyingly energetic TIE Defenders. The tradeoff that an AT-AT reactor makes is probably for power efficiency over a extended period of time over raw surge output. Land campaigns under hostile theater shields can last for weeks, if not months at a time, which forces your walker to be able to operate away from the supply chain, unlike most fighters.

While we’re definitely in agreement with the AVRE walker thing, I think that AT-ATs aren’t made entirely of heavy metals, but rather of lighter composites designed to maximize the strength to weight ratio. Supplemental repulsorlifts for heavy vehicles still might make sense as well, for the occasional swamp/sand/ice crossing.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

What you’re suggesting would certainly facilitate much longer bursts (it’s clear from the scene that it’s an automatic energy weapon, as opposed to an ion blazooka), which would be more effective at boosting peak damage than would an equivalent burst from a GPMG (ion energy would have a tendency to accumulate at the point of impact as opposed to ricocheting off). Boosting the power of individual shots, however, would require that the weapon’s manufacturer deliberately overengineered the firing chamber and barrel on the off-chance that someone would pintle-mount it on a vehicle. At that point, it’d be more plausible to simply design a bigger ion repeater that is specifically for pintle-mount applications, whether on a vehicle or an E-Web type tripod.

Again, I don’t think AT-ATs and other similar heavy GAVs are equal to starfighters; they’re more comparable to light transports ala the YT-1300 or Lambda, but more heavily armed and armored. Because of that similarity in size, walkers are able to mount similarly sized power plants, but without the hyperdrives, sublight drives and all the other accoutrements that go into a starship. As such, they’re able to divert that power to other uses, while still maintaining energy for multi-month deployments. In the EU, light transports often had endurance ratings of 2-3 months, and still were equipped with hyperdrives, realspace drives, acceleration compensators capable of neutralizing thousands of g’s and so on and so forth. A similarly sized GAV mounting the same size power plant but with a reduced energy budget will be able to mount heavier weapons, armor and shielding and still have several months worth of fuel.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

To clarify, what is seen in Rogue One is in the same rough size range as an M60 or MG42, not the larger frame E-Web repeater seen in TESB. If the idea is an ion weapon that can be pintle mounted and used to engage the heaviest targets possible, why mount a relatively small frame weapon? If nothing else, aren’t ion cannon supposed to be larger and bulkier than their blaster / laser counterparts?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

A caveat on the YT-1300 / Lambda is that making them powerful is certainly possible (see the Millennium Falcon and the Delta-Class Escort Shuttle) but that certainly doesn’t mean such ships will be inexpensive or commonly available.

My thinking on the -ACT is that it’s not intended as a front-line combatant, and as such it doesn’t have the same damage soak capacity that would be found in an AT-AT. In game terms, even though a Walker (+8D in Scale) has an automatic +2D advantage in damage resistance against Starfighter Scale weapons (at +6D), it can still be damaged by the 6D Strength Laser Cannon on an X-Wing if its Body rating is 3D (Walker-Scale) or less. On top of that, Starfighters get an automatic +2D Scale bonus to hit the larger, clumsier walkers, and there are optional rules that allow good Gunnery rolls to boost damage. So a competent X-Wing pilot could aim specifically for a known weak point on an -ACT for maximum damage potential.

Apologies for lapsing into WEG-speak, but it’s the lens through which I see the SWU, so I tend to fall back on it when arguing technical points.

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

don’t forget the door gunner!

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

does this tank have a shield generator?

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

would it be fair to compare them to real life 70mm rockets?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

How do you see the Broadsword’s mission in light of the Scythe? Is it used as a scout / outrider for Scythe units, or deployed on its own? With regard to the Order of Battle in the Imperial Sourcebook, would the Broadsword be considered the Light Tank or the Medium Tank?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

That’s why the potential use as a Scout came immediately to mind, seeing as how the M2 Bradley IFV and the M3 Bradley CFV are essentially the same vehicle. With some minor modification for recon (additional sensors, and maybe some stealth equipment), the Broadsword could capitalize on its smaller sensor signature – along with greater relative speed and maneuverability – to run point for Scythe units.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Now that I think about it, with the Scythe in the picture, would the Broadsword be more along the lines of the Stryker IAV?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Okay, so based on the variants you’ve already described, the Broadsword as-published would be more along the lines of a LAV-25, just with more troop capacity and the a rocket launcher to augment the main cannon and the coaxial MG. That, in turn opens up the door to parallel variants from both the Stryker and LAV-25 families. Which is quite a lot…

Dan
Dan
2 years ago

Shouldn’t it have more weapons, like on the hull?

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan

Fractal model it as a heavy IVF not a pure tank check the hatch at the back.

Road Warrior
Road Warrior
2 years ago

Did you adjust your texture material? I see what you have done for the glass material but the hull material looks like you tweaked it somehow. It looks really really good. This tank and your gamma class look like model kits instead of cgi now.

If you are still experimenting with texturing have you had any luck/experience with area specific decals for unit markings and things like that?

If I have asked you this before apologies.

JAMESMCGR
JAMESMCGR
2 years ago

Is the skirt just armor to protect the repulsorlifts?

Anonymous
2 years ago

By away Fractal what is MAVr stand for? Is it medium attack vehicle repulsor?

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

A probably stands for armored.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

It doesn’t say on Wookieepedia but, as I recall, the RotS ICS states HAVw to mean Heavy Assault Vehicle – wheeled. It would follow that MAVr would be Medium Assault Vehicle – repulsorlift.

STONEhenk
STONEhenk
2 years ago

Are the side-mounted weapons (dual blaster cannon, rocket pod) interchangeable with the side-mounted weapons of the AT-ST (dual blaster cannon, grenade launcher)?
I think it make sense when they have some modular weapon systems which can be fitted on several vehicles.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago

Is that a small troop compartment in the back, or just the crew entrance?

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

In the last iteration it was described as an IFV with capacity for a single squad, sort of like a hybrid between a Bradley and a Merkava. I’d love to see a full MBT variant that traded out that capability for more power generation and an LTL main armament. Something designed in the closing stage of the Clone Wars to go hull-down behind a ridgeline and engage hundreds of AATs pouring through a Space Fulda Gap.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

If that hatch allows full walking egress, this thing must be huge compared to an Earth IFV. A TOS-1 Buratino style MRLS platform would be cool to see, but I wonder if there’s room in the order of battle for a more conventional mass driver/howitzer platform to provide a more sustained stream of indirect fire.

Definitely more hyped about the heavy tank in the pipeline. Since the HAVw Juggernauts range from about 20 meters in length with the A5 to 50 on the A6 and the HAVr A9 Floating Fortress fulfills the command & control role at 17 meters, a true heavy tank on the larger side of that size range could potentially accommodate MTL. Exciting stuff.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

The final fractal heavy tank should have a name beginning with C for continuity’s sake, as a worthy successor of the Crusader, Cromwell, Churchill, Chieftain, Comet, Centurion, Caernarvon, Conqueror, Chieftain, and Challenger(s). Don’t succumb to the the temptation to make it a redesigned S-1 Firehawk.

Personally, I suggest the designation of HAVr A8 Claymore.

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Damn and this tank is already larger than the baneblade superheavy tank from Warhammer 40K at 13.5 meters in length. (Funny enough this tank is at the same height as the baneblade)

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

True but still even without the skirt the broadsword is still longer than the baneblade at 15 meters in length.
Also since you said the heavy tank you are making is at around 25 meters in length it make me wonder how big would your super heavy tank would be and I think that super heavy would a tank version of the AT-SP right Fractal?

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Oh then what your idea on the super heavy repulsor tank then Fractal?

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Right good point although I was thinking the super heavy tank would be at 30-35 meters in length (Like the P.1000 ratte) but since you said there isn’t any that will never happen ever.
Well at least i get to see your heavy tank model sooner or later.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Star Wars is full of superheavies. Surely seeing Fractal’s 4K Assertor should satisfy the desire to compensate for …. other shortcomings for those inclined to do so.

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

I was talking about superheavy land vehicles not warships but I won’t denied I’m quite satisfy with the Assertor.

countvertex
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

For size comparison I can provide a rigged Stormtrooper (blender format) that I modeled from scratch. Just drop me a note if you like to use it.

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Sweet can wait for those variants.
by away when you said the Indirect fire will have a VLS box do you mean the Vertical launching system? If so then will the box be like the silos on the DX-9 or the Alpha Starwing?
Also how about another variant like a Anti-air tank with a quad laser cannon like the ones on the Chi Barge will it work?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Also possibly:
Recon variant – Remove turret and replace with mast/arm mounted sensor & target designation pod used to look over/around cover. AP pods only for weapons, with some troop space sacrificed for comm-scan and stealth systems. Normally carries 2-4 dismount scout/marksmen.