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.

As one of the major critics of the TIE Crawler's inclusion, I'd like to start off with my take on your points.

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

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

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

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).

IFV = Infantry Fighting Vehicle?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 :) ).

...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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

To be perfectly fair towards the TIE Crawler though, it's not just the EU that has introduced a questionable design. :)

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

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

where did it say the TIE Crawler flew?

Originally posted by DK_Viceroy
where did it say the TIE Crawler flew? nowhere

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.

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.

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".

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Remember, the TIE crawler came post-ROTJ. The Empire is being beaten back, and losing resources to the New Republic.

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

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

Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
Remember, the TIE crawler came post-ROTJ. The Empire is being beaten back, and losing resources to the New Republic.

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

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

Good idea. :D

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

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