Question about the Hoth battle...

[VT-16]

Uhm, the AT-AAs are profiled on Dr. Saxton´s site, and are part of the SW continuity. What they can or can´t do in a game is totally irrelevant as I´m merely referring to their appearance in a cut-scene. In other words, not their appearance while you play.

[The Original Nex]

"Plenty" being a dozen, tops. There were at least half a dozen AT-ATs, plus whatever supporting vessels they had

Actually, counting the number of T-47s visible in the ITW, puts the number at at least 15 speeders.

There's at least nine AT-ATs ("Blizzard 9" is the highest call sign mentioned) and probably more of each AT-ST, AT-PT, and AT-AR walker types.

[The Original Nex]

Uhm, the AT-AAs are profiled on Dr. Saxton´s site, and are part of the SW continuity. What they can or can´t do in a game is totally irrelevant as I´m merely referring to their appearance in a cut-scene. In other words, not their appearance while you play.

The fact that the ITW failed to acknowledge them is still a problem.

[Connor MacLeod]

"Plenty" being a dozen, tops. There were at least half a dozen AT-ATs, plus whatever supporting vessels they had.

Actually, counting the number of T-47s visible in the ITW, puts the number at at least 15 speeders.

There's at least nine AT-ATs ("Blizzard 9" is the highest call sign mentioned) and probably more of each AT-ST, AT-PT, and AT-AR walker types.

To my knowledge there is only a dozen pilots (Rogue Squadron/Rogue flight) that are qualified to run the speeders.

Edit: Plus Dash Rendar, who supposedly flew a snowspeeder in the battle of Hoth as well.

Edit 2: According to ITW, there were only 9 near the blast doors which were "prepared" for use on Hoth.. the other six were near the transports, which was on the other side of the base (suggesting they were not ready.)

Besides which, the novelization comments that there were only a dozen speeders that Luke lead against the AT-ATs. At most its 13 if one includes the one Dash Render supposedly flew.

[Gil Hamilton]

Uhm, the AT-AAs are profiled on Dr. Saxton´s site, and are part of the SW continuity. What they can or can´t do in a game is totally irrelevant as I´m merely referring to their appearance in a cut-scene. In other words, not their appearance while you play.

Whether they are from a cut-scene or not is irrelevant. It's still from a video game, which makes it a dramatically bad source, especially compared to Empire Strikes Back and the In The Worlds book, neither of which mention it, even though ITW gives a detailed map of the battle and the units involved, including all the units that weren't seen in Empire.

[Vympel]

I wonder if the Rebel defence emplacements would've been effective against AT-TEs ...

[Deathstalker]

I wonder if the Rebel defence emplacements would've been effective against AT-TEs ...

The Rebel's chances would be better. They could pick off the gunner on top and concentrate fire on the driver's cab. Combined with speeder attacks (excluding trip attacks, which would be nearly impossible) concentrating on the cab and gunner, odds are they would have been able to stop more AT-TEs.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Uhm, the AT-AAs are profiled on Dr. Saxton´s site, and are part of the SW continuity. What they can or can´t do in a game is totally irrelevant as I´m merely referring to their appearance in a cut-scene. In other words, not their appearance while you play.

Whether they are from a cut-scene or not is irrelevant. It's still from a video game, which makes it a dramatically bad source, especially compared to Empire Strikes Back and the In The Worlds book, neither of which mention it, even though ITW gives a detailed map of the battle and the units involved, including all the units that weren't seen in Empire.

No, you're clueless. So long as it isn't a game mechanic, its canon, and that canon with a C just like the ITW and ICS.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Connor MacLeod]

Uhm, the AT-AAs are profiled on Dr. Saxton´s site, and are part of the SW continuity. What they can or can´t do in a game is totally irrelevant as I´m merely referring to their appearance in a cut-scene. In other words, not their appearance while you play.

Whether they are from a cut-scene or not is irrelevant. It's still from a video game, which makes it a dramatically bad source, especially compared to Empire Strikes Back and the In The Worlds book, neither of which mention it, even though ITW gives a detailed map of the battle and the units involved, including all the units that weren't seen in Empire.

No, you're clueless. So long as it isn't a game mechanic, its canon, and that canon with a C just like the ITW and ICS.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sorry, but no. The GCSN classification does not govern continuity. As I had it recently put to me, "the rules of evidence stand exactly as they always did."

Unless of course you're trying to erect some sort of quasi-religious hierarchy in SW analysis, that is.

[The Original Nex]

To my knowledge there is only a dozen pilots (Rogue Squadron/Rogue flight) that are qualified to run the speeders.

Agreed, just commenting on the actual ammount of speeders.

Edit: Plus Dash Rendar, who supposedly flew a snowspeeder in the battle of Hoth as well.

Edit 2: According to ITW, there were only 9 near the blast doors which were "prepared" for use on Hoth.. the other six were near the transports, which was on the other side of the base (suggesting they were not ready.)

Yep, and since some of the nine near the North Entrance were already leaving the base for battle, we can assume that the other three from Rogue Flight were already out of the drawing's view. The remainder of the snowspeeders seen were in the South Entrance hangars, and they would be destroyed becasue there was no room for them in the transports (as per the ESB Radio Drama).

Besides which, the novelization comments that there were only a dozen speeders that Luke lead against the AT-ATs. At most its 13 if one includes the one Dash Render supposedly flew.

Again, I agree.

[The Original Nex]

I wonder if the Rebel defence emplacements would've been effective against AT-TEs ...

The Rebel's chances would be better. They could pick off the gunner on top and concentrate fire on the driver's cab. Combined with speeder attacks (excluding trip attacks, which would be nearly impossible) concentrating on the cab and gunner, odds are they would have been able to stop more AT-TEs.

Well, lasers didn't seem do any more against AT-TEs in AotC, than they did to the AT-ATs in ESB, it took a well placed missile to the jointed midsection to take one out. AT-TEs are better suited for going against ground troops anyways, while AT-ATs seem to be designed more for heavy assault and siege.

[Gil Hamilton]

No, you're clueless. So long as it isn't a game mechanic, its canon, and that canon with a C just like the ITW and ICS.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The ITW book gave a complete map of the Battle of Hoth and listed all the type of units involved, including units that were not seen in the movie.

You are sounding like a fundie.:

"JUST BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR MY CLAIMS DOESN'T MEAN THEY AREN'T TRUE! AT-ATs WERE SUPPORTED BY AT-AA IN EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, EVEN THOUGH WE NEVER ONCE SAW ANY OF THEM OR THEIR EFFECTS THE ENTIRE BATTLE, NOR ANY DIALOGUE REFERING TO THEM, OR THE CANON MAP OF THE BATTLE FROM LUCASFILM WHICH LISTED EVERY TYPE OF UNIT THE EMPIRE DEPLOYED! BUT IT'S TRUE! THEY REALLY WERE THERE! ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!!!!!111111!"

Sorry, Illuminatus Primus, but faith based evidence doesn't count.

[Gunhead]

AT-AT is good weapon when enemy doesn't have long range firepower.
It's height negates a lot of natural obstacles and it can pour direct fire on enemy hardpoints. Up close it can get into trouble if highly mobile vehicles with plenty of punch are used. That's why AT-ST are needed. AT-AT also require air cover or AA support. Like Nex said, good for sieges and other targets that cannot dodge.

-Gunhead

[Illuminatus Primus]

Sorry, but no. The GCSN classification does not govern continuity. As I had it recently put to me, "the rules of evidence stand exactly as they always did."

Unless of course you're trying to erect some sort of quasi-religious hierarchy in SW analysis, that is.

Really? Want to provide that quote? Where Chee said it too? And praytell - if this is not how they govern continuity, what is it good for?

And quite frankly games were never said to be barely canon - it was always just said that game mechanics did not count, but everything else did. It was simply fan convention which shoved aside game sources. Game sources have always simply been EU level, which according to the recent classification is C canon. ICS and ITW have been explicitly labeled also as C canon.

If Gil's right about the "barely admissible" game sources, surely he can produce a quote saying such. Because this way it just seems he's trying to wave off a source he doesn't like.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No, you're clueless. So long as it isn't a game mechanic, its canon, and that canon with a C just like the ITW and ICS.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The ITW book gave a complete map of the Battle of Hoth and listed all the type of units involved, including units that were not seen in the movie.

You are sounding like a fundie.:

"JUST BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR MY CLAIMS DOESN'T MEAN THEY AREN'T TRUE! AT-ATs WERE SUPPORTED BY AT-AA IN EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, EVEN THOUGH WE NEVER ONCE SAW ANY OF THEM OR THEIR EFFECTS THE ENTIRE BATTLE, NOR ANY DIALOGUE REFERING TO THEM, OR THE CANON MAP OF THE BATTLE FROM LUCASFILM WHICH LISTED EVERY TYPE OF UNIT THE EMPIRE DEPLOYED! BUT IT'S TRUE! THEY REALLY WERE THERE! ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!!!!!111111!"

Sorry, Illuminatus Primus, but faith based evidence doesn't count.

Its not faith-based evidence.

If it is not explicitly contradicted and other sources filled in other units elsewhere, than they were there. You cannot use their absence in another source to contradict their presence in annother. The absence proves nothing other than the former source did not include those units.

Your characterization would be correct if there was NO evidence of AT-AAs. If they were placed at Hoth by Force Commander, it contradicts nothing and they were there.

[Robert Walper]

I was under the impression visuals like these directly from the movies (highest canon) overrides other evidence where there is other attack vehicles in the area? I recall only seeing one other vehicle during the battle; that being one AT-ST?

[Batman]

*snippy images*
I was under the impression visuals like these directly from the movies (highest canon) overrides other evidence where there is other attack vehicles in the area? I recall only seeing one other vehicle during the battle; that being one AT-ST?

While I'm uneasy on the admittance of game material -it's the lowest level of canon you can get, and that's including digging- all those pictures prove that there were no AT-AAs in those pictures. Unless you can make a reasonable case that saw absolutely everything of that battle?
The ITW map, however, is another issue, assuming it DOES explicitely give a complete list of all units involved (haven't got it unfortunately).

[Robert Walper]

*snippy images*
I was under the impression visuals like these directly from the movies (highest canon) overrides other evidence where there is other attack vehicles in the area? I recall only seeing one other vehicle during the battle; that being one AT-ST?

While I'm uneasy on the admittance of game material -it's the lowest level of canon you can get, and that's including digging- all those pictures prove that there were no AT-AAs in those pictures. Unless you can make a reasonable case that saw absolutely everything of that battle?
The ITW map, however, is another issue, assuming it DOES explicitely give a complete list of all units involved (haven't got it unfortunately).

Then where are they? Cloaked? I mean come on, we see scenes of the AT-AT's throughout the entire battle, and there's no escort vehicles in sight. The only other vehicle we see is one AT-ST making a run for the base (I always assumed this was the one that carried Vader and his Storm Trooper escort). Everything about the battle suggested the Imperials were making an attack from a single direction, including the Rebels mustering all their forces towards that one direction. AT-AT's are big, but not that big to the point where other vehicles would be pinpricks on the ground.

Also, we get excellent bird eye views of the battle from the Snow Speeders making their attack runs. We even get really large wide angle shots on their approach on very flat terrain where you'd think we'd see at least some of these other support vehicles?

[VT-16]

Simple. None of the walkers mentioned in this thread existed in 1980. AT-PTs, AT-ARs and AT-AAs all came much later, so from my point of view, they´re all equally viable. (At least in a C-canon context )

[Illuminatus Primus]

Then where are they? Cloaked? I mean come on, we see scenes of the AT-AT's throughout the entire battle, and there's no escort vehicles in sight. The only other vehicle we see is one AT-ST making a run for the base (I always assumed this was the one that carried Vader and his Storm Trooper escort). Everything about the battle suggested the Imperials were making an attack from a single direction, including the Rebels mustering all their forces towards that one direction. AT-AT's are big, but not that big to the point where other vehicles would be pinpricks on the ground.

Also, we get excellent bird eye views of the battle from the Snow Speeders making their attack runs. We even get really large wide angle shots on their approach on very flat terrain where you'd think we'd see at least some of these other support vehicles?

I suppose the concept that the Imperials may have had waves, may have attacked along different vectors on either side of mountain ridges, or that some armor might not have been clustered within a kilometer each other is wholely impossible and verboten. Pardon me. Despite the fact that this concept was regularly proposed by many game depictions of the Hoth battle.

One forwarded idea was once it became apparent that the Rebels were not fielding starfighters the AT-AAs were left behind in order to advance more quickly.

And while it is amusing to harp on my percieved errors, are you going to put up and show us some calculations that your tactic is viable, or are you just going to prop it up and leave others to do your homework for you, Walper?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Then where are they? Cloaked? I mean come on, we see scenes of the AT-AT's throughout the entire battle, and there's no escort vehicles in sight. The only other vehicle we see is one AT-ST making a run for the base (I always assumed this was the one that carried Vader and his Storm Trooper escort).

The games depicted attempted attacks on the transport fields and ion cannon, which was not located beside the shield generator.

And your AT-ST idea is clearly moronic: ROTJ makes it obvious no more than three people could fit in an AT-ST. Not to mention that the dialog makes it obvious Vader was landing directly once the shield was down.

[Robert Walper]

And while it is amusing to harp on my percieved errors, are you going to put up and show us some calculations that your tactic is viable, or are you just going to prop it up and leave others to do your homework for you, Walper?

I lack the technical expertise to provide calcs to determine what kind of blast would be required to knock the AT-AT's over. I didn't claim to possess this expertise either.

That said, it doesn't make the question any less valid.

Considering a AT-AT will fall over on it's side of it's own accord when damaged, they are hardly the immobile mountains some might claim them to be. I've pointed out they have a very high center of gravity, and that the surface area design (much larger surface area near the top of the vehicle) of a AT-AT makes for knocking them over with a large blast wave a plausible tactic IMO.

Those more versed in physics and with more education related to this matter feel free to correct me if need be.

[The Original Nex]

I was under the impression visuals like these directly from the movies (highest canon) overrides other evidence where there is other attack vehicles in the area? I recall only seeing one other vehicle during the battle; that being one AT-ST?

There's nothing in the films saying that the AT-ATs and AT-STs are the only walkers deployed. Unless the film explicitly contradicts the EU, the EU stands.

[Robert Walper]

Then where are they? Cloaked? I mean come on, we see scenes of the AT-AT's throughout the entire battle, and there's no escort vehicles in sight. The only other vehicle we see is one AT-ST making a run for the base (I always assumed this was the one that carried Vader and his Storm Trooper escort).

The games depicted attempted attacks on the transport fields and ion cannon, which was not located beside the shield generator.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but has little to do with my original question and proposed tactic. If anything, employing the tactic of knocking the AT-AT's over with a blast wave frees up all those Rebel forces to deal with these supposed other assaults going on.

And your AT-ST idea is clearly moronic: ROTJ makes it obvious no more than three people could fit in an AT-ST. Not to mention that the dialog makes it obvious Vader was landing directly once the shield was down.

True enough. Forgot that specific line of dialogue.

[Robert Walper]

I was under the impression visuals like these directly from the movies (highest canon) overrides other evidence where there is other attack vehicles in the area? I recall only seeing one other vehicle during the battle; that being one AT-ST?

There's nothing in the films saying that the AT-ATs and AT-STs are the only walkers deployed. Unless the film explicitly contradicts the EU, the EU stands.

And how does not seeing these other walkers/vehicles with the AT-AT's on open, flat, white terrain not consitute evidence they are not there?

If we're going to suggest they are engaging Rebel forces elsewhere, great. What has that got to do with my proposed tactic of dealing with the AT-AT's? Knocking them out of the fight allows the Rebels to deploy their forces against the other battle zones (assuming they exist).