The TIE Crawler

[Heavyarms]

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]

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

[sith4ever99]

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]

IFV = Infantry Fighting Vehicle?

 

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

 

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.

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

it could be just skirmish/mp only and left out of the campaign.

[DK_Viceroy]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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?