The TIE Crawler

[DK_Viceroy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[DK_Viceroy]

where did it say the TIE Crawler flew?

[SirPantsAlot]

Originally posted by DK_Viceroy

where did it say the TIE Crawler flew?

nowhere

[Vagabond]

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]

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]

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]

Besides, a box has sharp edges, someone might get hurt.

[Vagabond]

The better to ... hurt you with, my dear. Wait, that's the point, isn't it

[swphreak]

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]

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]

I said one can reasonably assume. And I wasn't too far off from what the official information 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]

Originally posted by Vagabond

I said one can reasonably assume. And I wasn't too far off from what the official information 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]

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]

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]

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.

[Shok_Tinoktin]

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.

 

Good idea.

[Vagabond]

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"

[Heavyarms]

can someone also come up with a very controversial rebel unit? This is an interesting debate!