Imperial Army 50+ (sort of RAR)

[Junghalli]

I'm free to experiment? I'd go with droid armies. Given the rate that factory on Geonosis was cranking them out at, they look considerably more appealing from a logistics viewpoint than organic troops.

For normal soldiers, I'd take the B1s and make some serious improvements to them. Heavier armor and weaponry, and upgraded computers and software. I can think of no technological reason they couldn't be made just as competent as organic soldiers, if not moreso, and they could easily be given toughness, reflexes, and marksmanship that no organic soldier could possibly match.

For elite soldiers, bigger, beefier droids with personal shields, maybe something based vaguely on Darktrooper or Spacetrooper armor.

For support weapons and vehicles I'd just rip off modern Earth tank and self propelled artillery designs, upgrade them with SW tech, and take out the crew and replace them with droid brains.

[PainRack]

Regarding the B-wing, I wouldn't give much credence to game mechanics. Aren't they basically non-canon?

I'm not using pure game mechanics. The description of the B-wings kill ratios as well as their firepower from The New Rebellion.
They have more ion cannons in the description, and using WEG mechanics, their ion cannons are potentially superior.

PainRack, I thought it was the A-wing which could do that? The laser cannon there do have pivot mounts- which are also stated as being one of the reasons it's a hangar queen, ('the weapons mount has a high rate of mechanical failure and contributes to the craft's extremely high maintenance-to-flight ratio' complete ICS p 137); the B-wing's weapons look too structural for that. Almost certainly they are capable of the same off-axis fire as so many other things, but that's not a turret.

Game mechanics are very low canon, superseded by almost everything else, but if there's no more authoritative source they are the fallback position. Remember that a lot of the West End stuff was used as writing guide material by the early EU, and how much of that influences the reputation of things as we see them now.

You're referring to the upgraded A-wing mentioned in the Bacta War?
As for weapons, I'm referring to the auto-blasters, which certainly have some form of swivelling attached....... although I believe that ability is restricted to the B-wing/E, which has a gunner attached.

Similarly, Rebel Assault had the B-wing capable of off-axis fire by the blasters.

[fractalsponge1]

You neglect to mention that unlike the sim games, the B-wing can actually shoot behind it, similar to the improved Y-wing.

Off-axis fire does not equal being able to shoot behind.

And the addition of a gunner supposedly reduced further maneuverability and speed.

[Master_Baerne]

On the subject of dropships - I'm thinking that heavily armed and armored ones would be the best choice, since they could stick around after delivering troops and provide fire support.

Eleventh Century Remnant - The reason I put so many kinds of vehicles in each unit is because, frankly, their good for different things. The tracked vehicles and walkers would be used to penetrate shielded areas, after which the shielded repulsortanks (Incidentally, can you shield a walker? I've never heard of such a thing being done.) would take over the front line duty, allowing the walkers to rest and be replaced as needed. That's the only reason I remembered to include the engineers - Since I'd envisioned something of a "dancing" strategy, the lead constantly changing between vehicle types.

Which, on second thought, is far more likely to screw up unit cohesion and allow enemy forces the perfect opportunities for counterattacks. Oh well. Back to the old drawing board.

[Ekiqa]

In regards to aerial bombardment, and the old TIE Bomber, a new bomber was introduced by Thrawn, the Scimitar.

One problem I can see with repulsor units, is with heavy weapons produce great recoil, and extra weight ould have to be devoted to the craft so that it doesn't go backwards when firing. Walkers can get around that by transfering energy through their legs.

Also, isn't their anti-repulsor technology out their? Relying too much on repulsors would be a major problem in that case. And supposedly shields defeat replusors as well: imperial craft had to land outside the rebel shield on Hoth and walk in, and the AAT's on Naboo had to wait until the shield was destroyed before advancing.

[Master_Baerne]

I was operating under the assumptions that
a) You can shield repulsorlift vehicles but not walkers, since repulsortanks aren't in contact with the ground.
b) That the weight necessary to fix the recoil problem you mentioned would be provided in part by the shield generator itself.

[Agent Sorchus]

shielded Walkers and crawlers should be possible, after all a regular theatre shield is in constant contact with the ground. At-Ats apparently have enough armor they do not require shields, or their nominal role as battlefield transport was not deemed necessary of shields, or their really is some sort of restriction on non-repulsorcraft shields.

We really can't know though.

[PainRack]

You neglect to mention that unlike the sim games, the B-wing can actually shoot behind it, similar to the improved Y-wing.

Off-axis fire does not equal being able to shoot behind.

And the addition of a gunner supposedly reduced further maneuverability and speed.

*shrugs*........

I don't really agree with the image of the B-wing as a heavy fighter-bomber. Its still way better than the TIE bomber though.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

There is a cartoon series based reference to a shielded walker, the AT-XT; Republic era, a Rothana product, looks a bit like a rounded AT-ST and roughly fit for the same role.

I can see how it would be possible to shield something like a treaded tank, if it's possible to vary the geometry of the shield bubble; have an all round terrain- scanning lidar or something of the sort, retract the shield bubble where it's about to strike and attempt to repel or supercool the ground, extend it down again where there is no obstruction- at literally arms' length from the vehicle I doubt ECM would be fully effective.

Then again, from ground to starfighters, typical light vehicle shields don't seem to achieve very much. The one good example of effective shielding we seem to have is Obi-Wan's Aethersprite, which took extended streams of light ship blaster fire; that might have more to do with the weapon than anytrhing else.

I can easily concieve of how to disrupt repulsor tanks in flight, with some scaled- down version of the interdictor dome or possibly a simple tractor beam; not sure what the answer to that is, except 'get them first'- or possibly rely on joint service ops with the Marines who do use heavy walkers?

Shield domes actually seem less of a problem, given the rebel snowspeeders' performance iunder the one at Hoth; getting through the boundary seems to be a bigger problem than operating under it once there.

Partly shades of 40K coming back to me, and I offer this as an exercise in impracticality; mole missiles. Stick the likes of a plasma cutter or lightsabre blade on the nose (not literally, something similar) of a small scuttling droid and let it tunnel up from under.

Are hybrid vehicles worth having? I've never heard of one, but a repulsor/walker or repulsor/treaded combination could do the job, is there any known reason why they're impractical? Efficiency?

[Master_Baerne]

Having two drive systems would, of course, double the amount of space devoted to propulsion, while reducing the amount available for armor, weaponry, and other things by a like amount. The best compromise would seem to be tracked vehicles or particularly stable walker designs, such as the AT-TE. Perhaps the shield system you describe could be applied to tanks similar to modern ones, but with either proton-warhead shells or heavy laser cannons for turrets? The walkers, which seem to be easily airmobile, could be standard Marine equipment, while the heavier firepower and slightly reduced mobility of the tracked vehicles would be better suited to extended operations under regular Army command.

[PainRack]

I can see how it would be possible to shield something like a treaded tank, if it's possible to vary the geometry of the shield bubble; have an all round terrain- scanning lidar or something of the sort, retract the shield bubble where it's about to strike and attempt to repel or supercool the ground, extend it down again where there is no obstruction- at literally arms' length from the vehicle I doubt ECM would be fully effective.

Doesn't the AT-AT shows that some form of shielding effect already works on ground vehicles? Similarly, the LAAT shielding is applied over the skin.

Are hybrid vehicles worth having? I've never heard of one, but a repulsor/walker or repulsor/treaded combination could do the job, is there any known reason why they're impractical? Efficiency?

Different drive mechanicisms driving up weight and maintenance issues?

[Ender]

Ender, I know you know what you're talking about, so I wish you would; if you could go into more detail about which clone wars vehicles, and what, beyond the obvious carbines and grenades, is appropriate for defence and station fighting.

Ok. First, look at the population numbers. The Galactic empire has a total population of about 10^27 sapients. Now on average, most of the actual planets we see have a populaion of about 10^10. Not that that number is skewed because of heavy population planets like Coruscant. But even with a realistic estimate of Coruscant's population, and you assume there are thousands of worlds like it, that still is nowhere near enough. And if you exclude them, the average planetary population drops down to about 10^6. This means that most of the galactic population doesn't live on a planet. Which would suggest they live on some kind of space station. Which is rather sensible when you think about it. Further, Cardia had a population of 25 million, but Kyp is routinely said to have killed "billions", which means there were a lot of space workers burnt by the nova.

So if most of the population and infrastructure are in space, that's what you need to defend the most. That's why in any real space opera military, infantry should far and away dominate, with armored divisions, artillery, mortars, etc being after thoughts. And space station fighting is hugely different from planetary fighting. It would make city fighting look like a cakewalk. Very few open spaces, lots of equipment, small spaces, sharp corners, etc. Think back to the Death Star corridors we saw in ANH. Now imagine trying to fight a block by block battle in there. And oh, by the way, the defender can do whatever he likes to the environment. And that discounts the fact you need to land troops, and thus have to face of against anti capital ship weapons on the station but can't use our comparable guns because that would blow the entire thing up.

As for the vehicles and such, keep in mind that for an intergalactic war you are playing defense. That's a totally different ball game. I'd want to see a lot of SPHA type vehicles. Your -Ts kill any spaceship that peeks over the horizon, if they get to bombard you this fight can end real fast. I'd also want to see some kind of SPHA outfitted with a series of light lasers guns like the quads on the Falcon or a lancer to shoot down landing barges. More AT-AAs and mass production of the Hailfire droids to shoot down landing ships. Killing their troops before they land has priority over killing them once they have landed. Additionally to all that, I want to see lots of mobile theater shields. Go turtle, stay under cover to prevent them from hitting you. I believe there was a reference in a few CW stuff about such devices.

The Eta and Delta series I'm less optimistic about- they could move, they were great flying machines, but I think the TIE series' big tradeoff was for heavier cannon. Most of what they sacrificed they did so for greater firepower- witness their relatively successful performance against Rebel heavy fighters on screen.

TIE might pack more firepower then the Delta 7 (I need to redo my measurements) and packs more firepower than the Alpha series (again, would need to check but those cannons were small) it definitely has less firepower than the Eta series. Firepower is proportionate to cannon volume (eg the guns on the ISD mk1 having 4x the power of those on the mk2), and the guns on the Eta were far bigger. Additionally, the Eta could also fit into a hyperdrive ring, an important benefit. Given that they combine the strengths of heavy fighters and microfighters, I wonder why they were ditched.

If I were really given a free hand, I'd look into bringing droid starfighters into the mix.

As far as heavy fighters go, there is the current Starwing, which I rate highly and would like to see more of.

Yes, and it's cousin the missile boat. But I just like the look of the ARC-170

More later, including "Why the B-wing sucks"

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ok. First, look at the population numbers. The Galactic empire has a total population of about 10^27 sapients.

I really wish you wouldn't state interpretations or suppositions from vague or conflicting evidence as bold assertions.

Now on average, most of the actual planets we see have a populaion of about 10^10. Not that that number is skewed because of heavy population planets like Coruscant. But even with a realistic estimate of Coruscant's population, and you assume there are thousands of worlds like it, that still is nowhere near enough.

How do you figure? 10^16 or 10^17 are within tolerances for Coruscant. Conservatively speaking you could have thousands and thousands of worlds and bring that up to 10^20. And 10^27 is way too high, that figure is just based on your personal fix for the conflicting numbers for galactic population, by using the short scale for Coruscant and the long British scale for quadrillion when it refers to the whole galaxy. That mechanism is not undisputed or indisputable.

And if you exclude them, the average planetary population drops down to about 10^6. This means that most of the galactic population doesn't live on a planet. Which would suggest they live on some kind of space station. Which is rather sensible when you think about it. Further, Cardia had a population of 25 million, but Kyp is routinely said to have killed "billions", which means there were a lot of space workers burnt by the nova.

I tend to agree in principle (there should be higher average populations for major worlds and states, and the only way to fix this in egregious cases like Alderaan or Corellia is off-world space colonies), but not to the degree you're taking it.

Firepower is proportionate to cannon volume (eg the guns on the ISD mk1 having 4x the power of those on the mk2), and the guns on the Eta were far bigger.

While that might be a tempting short-hand relationship, can it really be established that its a hard-and-fast one, and that cannon volume is always correlated to wattage output? Is the relationship IRL so neat between energy and cannon mass? For instance a cheaper or more reliable gun might be bigger and less powerful, relying on simple material science to absorb and carry away waste heat, while a smaller gun might be more powerful, but more dependent on active and sensitive (and expensive) systems. I think there are relationships there, but why should we assume in-universe relationships should be so ideal and simplistic when they are not in real life? Especially in this case because strictly speaking, your analysis would have the TIE phase-in be completely counter-intuitive. The evidence where possible should not be interpreted such to make the big picture make less sense, and less face value sense.

[Ender]

Ok. First, look at the population numbers. The Galactic empire has a total population of about 10^27 sapients.

I really wish you wouldn't state interpretations or suppositions from vague or conflicting evidence as bold assertions.

So the statement that "100 quadrillion" is 10^27 is an interpretation now? Funny, that is what the books say.

How do you figure? 10^16 or 10^17 are within tolerances for Coruscant. Conservatively speaking you could have thousands and thousands of worlds and bring that up to 10^20. And 10^27 is way too high, that figure is just based on your personal fix for the conflicting numbers for galactic population, by using the short scale for Coruscant and the long British scale for quadrillion when it refers to the whole galaxy. That mechanism is not undisputed or indisputable.

Demonstrate that 10^27 is not 100 quadrillion then if you want to say I am wrong.

I tend to agree in principle (there should be higher average populations for major worlds and states, and the only way to fix this in egregious cases like Alderaan or Corellia is off-world space colonies), but not to the degree you're taking it.

We have multiple sources saying Kyp killed billions. We have sources placing Cardia at 25 millions. GO ahead and explain how this is a discrepancy of my making.

Firepower is proportionate to cannon volume (eg the guns on the ISD mk1 having 4x the power of those on the mk2), and the guns on the Eta were far bigger.

While that might be a tempting short-hand relationship, can it really be established that its a hard-and-fast one, and that cannon volume is always correlated to wattage output? Is the relationship IRL so neat between energy and cannon mass? For instance a cheaper or more reliable gun might be bigger and less powerful, relying on simple material science to absorb and carry away waste heat, while a smaller gun might be more powerful, but more dependent on active and sensitive (and expensive) systems. I think there are relationships there, but why should we assume in-universe relationships should be so ideal and simplistic when they are not in real life? Especially in this case because strictly speaking, your analysis would have the TIE phase-in be completely counter-intuitive. The evidence where possible should not be interpreted such to make the big picture make less sense, and less face value sense.

All I pointed out is that the much larger cannon is also much more powerful. I did not attribute a specific ratio to it. The "4x" figure comes fromt he fact that both vessels share the same powerplant and 64/16=4, meaning that if the full reactor power is channeled through the guns, those on the mk1 will be 4 times more powerful. This is wholly different from quantifying the exact relationship between volume and and yield.

There is the consistent demonstration that larger weapons are more powerful eg: SPHA-T, Munificient, ISD mk 1 vs mk 2, compound "superlasers" etc. This positive correlation is too great to be ignored, even if the specific nature of it is unknown.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ok. First, look at the population numbers. The Galactic empire has a total population of about 10^27 sapients.

I really wish you wouldn't state interpretations or suppositions from vague or conflicting evidence as bold assertions.

So the statement that "100 quadrillion" is 10^27 is an interpretation now? Funny, that is what the books say.

When you use short scale in every other measurement, and then long scale once, it counts as a non-intuitive fix. At the very least you could clarify that the sources indicate "100 quadrillion" which you are taking to be 10^27 as opposed to 10^26 (which is actually 100 quadrillion in the long scale) or 10^17. Your usage is not what is provided by the source, but a derivation on your part. I don't have a problem with that, but you should clarify that and state your reasoning outright (to be rejected or accepted by others) than simply stating it as if that is what is provided.

How do you figure? 10^16 or 10^17 are within tolerances for Coruscant. Conservatively speaking you could have thousands and thousands of worlds and bring that up to 10^20. And 10^27 is way too high, that figure is just based on your personal fix for the conflicting numbers for galactic population, by using the short scale for Coruscant and the long British scale for quadrillion when it refers to the whole galaxy. That mechanism is not undisputed or indisputable.

Demonstrate that 10^27 is not 100 quadrillion then if you want to say I am wrong.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it is not very transparent for you to state that as if the sources provide "10^27" as opposed to "100 quadrillion." Your opponents should have the ability to challenge your assertions.

I tend to agree in principle (there should be higher average populations for major worlds and states, and the only way to fix this in egregious cases like Alderaan or Corellia is off-world space colonies), but not to the degree you're taking it.

We have multiple sources saying Kyp killed billions. We have sources placing Cardia at 25 millions. GO ahead and explain how this is a discrepancy of my making.

I think heuristically, that 10^27 is irreconcilable with observed forms of society in SW. Where are any of these space colonies? Especially if they contain 99.99+% of the population?

There is also the case, as with all historical attributions, of one source being wrong, exaggerated, or using particular definitions (say, citizens as opposed to temp workers and permanent residents, or not including armed personnel, but merely the civilian population).

All I pointed out is that the much larger cannon is also much more powerful. I did not attribute a specific ratio to it. The "4x" figure comes fromt he fact that both vessels share the same powerplant and 64/16=4, meaning that if the full reactor power is channeled through the guns, those on the mk1 will be 4 times more powerful. This is wholly different from quantifying the exact relationship between volume and and yield.

Whoa wait. Which too ships have the same powerplant? The TIE and the Eta? If that is so, shouldn't putting the entire reactor wattage through the guns give the same overall firepower? Furthermore, Dr. Saxton indicated that unlike large warships, fightercraft can only put a fraction of the energy output through to the guns as opposed to engines (which might be integrally connected to the reactor, rather than energy being transferred from the reactor to the drives as in large starships). Namely, that the Eta and the like puts out the equivalent of many MT/sec at full acceleration while the guns only fire Kt/sec.

There is the consistent demonstration that larger weapons are more powerful eg: SPHA-T, Munificient, ISD mk 1 vs mk 2, compound "superlasers" etc. This positive correlation is too great to be ignored, even if the specific nature of it is unknown.

Agreed. I'd like it if you qualified your analysis on the fighters.

[Ender]

When you use short scale in every other measurement, and then long scale once, it counts as a non-intuitive fix. At the very least you could clarify that the sources indicate "100 quadrillion" which you are taking to be 10^27 as opposed to 10^26 (which is actually 100 quadrillion in the long scale) or 10^17. Your usage is not what is provided by the source, but a derivation on your part. I don't have a problem with that, but you should clarify that and state your reasoning outright (to be rejected or accepted by others) than simply stating it as if that is what is provided.

While I screwed up the notation, the rest of this I reject. Firstly I primarily use long notation for figures in SW, and thus feel the accusation that I make it a special case is outlandish. How else do you reconcile the statements of Coruscant's population if you do not use long notation? Beyond that it is entirely reasonable to use a valid meaning for a figure.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it is not very transparent for you to state that as if the sources provide "10^27" as opposed to "100 quadrillion." Your opponents should have the ability to challenge your assertions.

While I screwed up the notation, I hardly think expecting people to bounce between numbers and words is a great challenge to be overcome if they want to debate the figure.

I think heuristically, that 10^27 is irreconcilable with observed forms of society in SW. Where are any of these space colonies? Especially if they contain 99.99+% of the population?

I think the converse is true. There are 20 million intelligent species in the Empire/Republic. If there are only 10^17 individuals that works out to a mean of a few billion for each. Yet we know that many species hold full populations on multiple planets, that there are a number of Coruscant style worlds, including some entirely populated by a species of alien in the outer rim. As for the observed forms of society, we routinely see space stations that mass the better part of a moon constructed to serve as shipyards, refineries, mining stations etc. Do you think they are largely empty? The Art of Episode 1 describes how the Trade Federation primarily represents those being who live on Trade Federation space stations across the galaxy. We have species like the Verpine who have converted their asteroid belt into habitable space - when I ran the numbers with destructionator XII in another thread, being that spread out with that many materials it is difficult to justify anything not on the 10^16+ scale for that single system. We know that clones were not sterilized, and it seems like every 3rd one is knocking up some groupie who has a thing for guys in white armor. Given the scale of the clone wars, that should severely skew the genetic makeup of the human population in future generations. Yet most people don't look part Maori. From where I sit, it is a LOT harder to justify the smaller figure. Coruscant alone could hold 100 quadrillion in short form.

There is also the case, as with all historical attributions, of one source being wrong, exaggerated, or using particular definitions (say, citizens as opposed to temp workers and permanent residents, or not including armed personnel, but merely the civilian population).

One hundred quadrillion is actually pretty consistent. Only two sources that don't back it AFAIK are the ROTS novel which states "uncountable quadrillions" and the AOTCICS which talks about quintillions of engineers.

All I pointed out is that the much larger cannon is also much more powerful. I did not attribute a specific ratio to it. The "4x" figure comes fromt he fact that both vessels share the same powerplant and 64/16=4, meaning that if the full reactor power is channeled through the guns, those on the mk1 will be 4 times more powerful. This is wholly different from quantifying the exact relationship between volume and and yield.

Whoa wait. Which too ships have the same powerplant? The TIE and the Eta?

No, the ISD mk1 vs mk2. I thought that was rather clear.

Agreed. I'd like it if you qualified your analysis on the fighters.

What, the B-wings? Or comparing the Delta-Alpha-Eta-TIE series?

[Vympel]

The RotS novel quote is "uncounted quadrillions" rather than uncountable, which could easily be consistent with 100 quadrillion.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Just to catch up with this before it becomes necromancy;

I was thinking of a heavily repulsor- based order of battle partly for high speed manoeuvre in open field conditions, but also ecumenopolis or major city targets. I doubt a treaded or walker vehicle is going to be particularly good at dealing with freedom fighters on the three hundredth floor...hm, there's a cheesy movie to be made in there somewhere. No matter.

The population figure, there is definitely space infrastructure, there are skyhooks around Coruscant, there's Centrepoint, there are the yards at Kuat, the Star Forge over Lehon, there's Bespin- but all of the obvious examples (apart from the skyhooks, I'll admit to those)seem to be there for some industrial or economic purpose. They're not empty, but they're also not primarily habitats.

Why assume that all species are equally- or at all- fortunate? There are twenty million sentient species, and frankly most of them aren't that impressive; Ewoks? Gungans? Why can there not be only a few billion of each of them on average, some with more, some with even less? There are a lot of less developed worlds in the mid and outer rim, and a concentration of major worlds in the core. I think a lopsided distribution of population fits that.

Is it not possible that the member species of the Trade Federation have economic power out of proportion with their numbers? They were heavily involved in manufacture and banking, and used largely droid automation for the former.

On the Aethersprite, two interesting comments, the quad cannon are explicitly stated to be 1 kiloton per shot maximum (nothing about rate of fire though) and

Tarriff barriers and embargoes between the galaxy's sectors prevent direct competition[...] in years to come Kuat will gain a near monopoly on warship contracts, although rival Sienar will win most government business for starfighters. Thus the technically excellent Delta-7 will be extinct in ten years...

That suggests that the Aethersprite was killed by politics far more than by performance- but it still raises the question, why was the TIE fighter considered a worthy replacement? Were the political imperatives so strong that any piece of crap would do as long as it came from Sienar, or was it close enough that the politics simply tipped the balance?

If there's something other than firepower that the TIE/ln might be better than the Aethersprite at, I can't think of it. Actually, the Aethersprite would be a superb surface support platform- small, agile, tricky to hit, enough firepower to kill most surface vehicles- and TIE series starfighters, probably.

Back on topic, my own take; I started from the regimental level intending to work outwards in both directions, and ended up with a division containing four combat regiments plus support.

Divisional assets, workshop and foundry droid pool, field hospital, counterorbital artillery (four firing batteries of eight convergence beam artillery turbolasers on heavy repulsor chassis), two squadrons of fighter-bombers, TIE/sa if necessary, ideally Hunter, Starwing or, the only Rebel type I would consider prying from their cold, dead hands, the X-wing (originally offered for sale to the Imperial military anyway.)

Each regiment, heavy armour batallion, light armour batallion, mech infantry batallion, cavalry batallion, artillery batallion. Fill in command and control, logistics, staff elements- they ought to be there. The assumption is that the unit will be cut off and thrown back on it's own resources, so they take at least two months' spare parts and stores with them. Shouldn't happen, but plan for the worst.

The heavy armour batallion consists of four companies of eighteen (four platoons of four plus command, exec) gunships as theorised earlier.

The light armour batallion of four companies of twenty- six (four platoons of six plus command, exec) T-47 or upgraded version, rebel airspeeders, with armament changes. Strip the tow harpoon, replace with PLX or similar. Forward, in place of the twin medium blaster cannon, either upgrade to higher power, lower rate of fire laser, grouped light blaster cannon to spray light vehicles and infantry, or convergence beam ball turrets, remote controlled from the gunner's seat.

The mech infantry batallion aren't really; something like the existing armoured personnel carrier seen in Rogue Squadron III, although heavily updated and uparmoured- I like the look of the thing but it's performance seems to have been pathetic.
Each carrying a payload of droids rather than human or other live infantry- urban operations are just too damned dangerous. Four droideka if they can be made cheaply enough, four ASN-121 (Zam Wessell's droid) with something more like an actual weapon- fit them with an E-11 instead of that silly canister/worm thing, and eight foldaway B1 battle droids.
4 companies of 18 (4 to a squad plus command and exec).

Cavalry are one and two man repulsor vehicles, two companies each of 64 two man swoops, pilot and gunner with pintle mount infantry support weapon (each 4 platoons of 4 squads of 4 units), possibly with an assassin-droid dismount, two companies of speeder bikes, 4 platoons of 4 squads of 8 bikes, half equipped with a small cannon for use on terrain and light vehicles, half with an infantry weapon on an eyeball sight.

Regimental artillery support batallion would have what mobile shields are available attached to it, it's the closest an almost entirely mobile force has to a solid base.

Tactical missile fire can be done by the gunships, and missiles are likely to be more use in an urban environment given the tech level- they seem able to dodge round obstacles on their way to the target, meaning less collateral damage and less wasted ammo. Very heavy artillery are kept at divisional; what about a mix of mass driver tubes (smart shells of course) and navy standard light turbolasers? Aerospace defence if the mount is anything like up to the same standard, firepower sufficient to cope with most heavy things that get in the way. Two companies- each four platoons of four- of each.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just to catch up with this before it becomes necromancy;

I was thinking of a heavily repulsor- based order of battle partly for high speed manoeuvre in open field conditions, but also ecumenopolis or major city targets. I doubt a treaded or walker vehicle is going to be particularly good at dealing with freedom fighters on the three hundredth floor...hm, there's a cheesy movie to be made in there somewhere. No matter.

Wasn't it discussed earlier that their are systems/environments that may interfere with repulsor vehicles? If so, its not wise to be overly dependent on them.

I might go so far as to recommend specialized forces for dealing with urban fighting on a Coruscant-type world, its such an extreme environment.

Back on topic, my own take; I started from the regimental level intending to work outwards in both directions, and ended up with a division containing four combat regiments plus support.

Divisional assets, workshop and foundry droid pool, field hospital, counterorbital artillery (four firing batteries of eight convergence beam artillery turbolasers on heavy repulsor chassis), two squadrons of fighter-bombers, TIE/sa if necessary, ideally Hunter, Starwing or, the only Rebel type I would consider prying from their cold, dead hands, the X-wing (originally offered for sale to the Imperial military anyway.)

Personally I think you're underrating the Rebellion's starfighters. If their's one area where the Rebellion is portrayed as being at least on par with the Empire, its starfighters.

Each regiment, heavy armour batallion, light armour batallion, mech infantry batallion, cavalry batallion, artillery batallion. Fill in command and control, logistics, staff elements- they ought to be there. The assumption is that the unit will be cut off and thrown back on it's own resources, so they take at least two months' spare parts and stores with them. Shouldn't happen, but plan for the worst.

Redundancy and self-sufficiency will be costly, but wise.

The heavy armour batallion consists of four companies of eighteen (four platoons of four plus command, exec) gunships as theorised earlier.

The light armour batallion of four companies of twenty- six (four platoons of six plus command, exec) T-47 or upgraded version, rebel airspeeders, with armament changes. Strip the tow harpoon, replace with PLX or similar. Forward, in place of the twin medium blaster cannon, either upgrade to higher power, lower rate of fire laser, grouped light blaster cannon to spray light vehicles and infantry, or convergence beam ball turrets, remote controlled from the gunner's seat.

The mech infantry batallion aren't really; something like the existing armoured personnel carrier seen in Rogue Squadron III, although heavily updated and uparmoured- I like the look of the thing but it's performance seems to have been pathetic.
Each carrying a payload of droids rather than human or other live infantry- urban operations are just too damned dangerous. Four droideka if they can be made cheaply enough, four ASN-121 (Zam Wessell's droid) with something more like an actual weapon- fit them with an E-11 instead of that silly canister/worm thing, and eight foldaway B1 battle droids.
4 companies of 18 (4 to a squad plus command and exec).

Cavalry are one and two man repulsor vehicles, two companies each of 64 two man swoops, pilot and gunner with pintle mount infantry support weapon (each 4 platoons of 4 squads of 4 units), possibly with an assassin-droid dismount, two companies of speeder bikes, 4 platoons of 4 squads of 8 bikes, half equipped with a small cannon for use on terrain and light vehicles, half with an infantry weapon on an eyeball sight.

Regimental artillery support batallion would have what mobile shields are available attached to it, it's the closest an almost entirely mobile force has to a solid base.

Tactical missile fire can be done by the gunships, and missiles are likely to be more use in an urban environment given the tech level- they seem able to dodge round obstacles on their way to the target, meaning less collateral damage and less wasted ammo. Very heavy artillery are kept at divisional; what about a mix of mass driver tubes (smart shells of course) and navy standard light turbolasers? Aerospace defence if the mount is anything like up to the same standard, firepower sufficient to cope with most heavy things that get in the way. Two companies- each four platoons of four- of each.

My main complaints with this plan would be as follows: over-dependency on repulsors and light flying vehicles which means that shields plus point defense will likely shred your force, and too few infantry. Given that you'll need to police a huge area, and that basic battledroids are going to be canon fodder in a major field engagement, you should probably have a larger droid infantry force. I'd almost go so far as to say that you've rebuilt the Imperial Air force, while ignoring the Army.

[PainRack]

Hmmm..... Is there any form of non repulsor/aerial transports in the Empire?
If not, do you think the Empire should acquire some?

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmmm..... Is there any form of non repulsor/aerial transports in the Empire?
If not, do you think the Empire should acquire some?

I don't know. Its not so much the use of repulsor vehicles for his air force though, as it is the fact that his air force is also his army.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Argh, Explorer just ate a reply-

Romulan, where are you getting 'air force' from? That's a nonexistent branch. Imperial Navy (with the Imperial Starfleet as the main striking formation within that, possibly) Imperial Army in charge of surface operations, Marines, Starfighter Corps. No air force.

We see the Imperial Marines use walkers, we see their ancestors use walkers; the Army already seems to be fairly heavily repulsor based.

Since when was mobility a bad thing? How long do you want ground operations on a battlefield the size of a planet to take? Being able to move freely across the surface of a planet is a good thing- it's a damned sight better than the alternative. The enemy faces the choice of surrendering the overwhelming majority of the planetary surface and trying to make a set piece of it, or dispersing or remaining dispersed in which case they get locally overwhelmed and shot up faster than they can move to support each other.

Thirty-two starship- dismembering heavy artillery pieces. One hundred and twenty-eight (thirty-two attached to each regiment) six megaton naval dual-purpose LTL, one hundred and twenty-eight artillery mass drivers. Two hundred and eighty-eight gunships, most of which will be fitted with mass driver missile launchers throwing hundred kiloton rounds. Light, indeed.

There are numerous alternatives and supplements to repulsorlift; some speeder bikes also have a fuel- burning, air breathing jet engine, there's the Mekkun Hoverscout hovercraft, there was Wessell's air-ionising speeder, pursuit swoops- mainly used by the police to catch civilian traffic offenders- have a small ion engine booster backing up their repulsor unit, the speeder Anakin stole in the beginning of AOTC has a very interesting engine setup- looks like a turbojet, labelled as a turbojet in the complete ICS, but the only fuel tank I can find holds deuterium. Either it burns water, or we're looking a a nuclear fusion- electric turbofan.

However, while there are worlds that have anomalies that interfere with repulsorlift, I feel reasonably certain that most of the places the army will be wanting to fight over will have mass. There's much less of a guarantee of an untainted atmosphere, still less of one that behaves itself and doesn't rain and throw sandstorms at you.

Just had an interesting thought about droids; assume the vehicle is basically an uprated version- dorsal turret holding light antivehicle weapon and automortar, horns holding repeating blasters- and ditch the B-1s, try this; something like Han Solo's training remote, scaled up to maybe 25-30cm diameter, to mount standard weight pistols. Back those up on a fifty-fifty basis with assassin droid types using a mounted version of the E-11, and how many of them do you think you could get in a three metre by two and a half metre by one and three quarter metre space? Couple of hundred, maybe?

[PainRack]

Argh, Explorer just ate a reply-

Romulan, where are you getting 'air force' from? That's a nonexistent branch. Imperial Navy (with the Imperial Starfleet as the main striking formation within that, possibly) Imperial Army in charge of surface operations, Marines, Starfighter Corps. No air force.

That was his point.... You essentially created an Imperial airforce.

Since when was mobility a bad thing? How long do you want ground operations on a battlefield the size of a planet to take? Being able to move freely across the surface of a planet is a good thing- it's a damned sight better than the alternative. The enemy faces the choice of surrendering the overwhelming majority of the planetary surface and trying to make a set piece of it, or dispersing or remaining dispersed in which case they get locally overwhelmed and shot up faster than they can move to support each other.

Because there are unique environments and defences against repulsorlift vehicles. Therefore, placing too many of your eggs in one basket= bad.

Similarly, there are probable advantages to non repulsor vehicles. Increased support and thus heavier weapons(note how the TF repulsor tanks rock when firing their cannons) and the possibilitiy of emission control when faced with repulsors vehicles.

I don't know. Its not so much the use of repulsor vehicles for his air force though, as it is the fact that his air force is also his army.

To be honest, my reply wasn't linked to Remmant..... Given the advantages of airmobility and repulsors, do you think the Empire should invest in ground based transports?

[fractalsponge1]

Given the advantages of airmobility and repulsors, do you think the Empire should invest in ground based transports?

You mean like AT-ATs and Juggernauts? At first I thought you were talking about non-repulsor airmobile vehicles, but now I'm not so sure.

Because there are unique environments and defences against repulsorlift vehicles. Therefore, placing too many of your eggs in one basket= bad.

Presumably the unit outline by remanant would not be the only type of unit; seems like just one variant for an airmobile division. You'd have other specialist units with tracked/wheeled/walker vehicles to operate through theatre shields or in gravitationally odd environments. How cheap/common are repulsorlift-disrupting barriers anyway (apart from just a plain theatre shield)?

I was wondering if beneath the normal infantry/mech infantry/armor/airmobile etc. division between units, you would have specializations based on mobility type. i.e. walker/tracked/wheeled units for operations in a heavy theatre shielded/gravitically odd environment, and repulsorlift for general use. I.e. within a general purpose division, have a repulsor mech infantry brigade and walker mech infantry brigade and repulsor and walker armor brigades. Keep the pooled divisional assets, and make the maneuver regiments modular within the organization. Example: take the "mechanized infantry" regiment of repulsordroids, make hordes of those, and farm them out en masse to proper infantry divisions for urban operations. A repulsordroid horde could be carried in any given platform - need mass infantry for set piece under the shield? Make a droid dispenser on a walker chassis.

Another question would be how much automony you could/want to give the repulsordroid units given the budget available. You want them to be cheap enough to use en masse, but not so dumb you're wasting repulsorlift units. Though I suppose even if they were B1 dumb, you would derive major advantages from them being so fast and hard to hit. Still, seems like you'd probably want a high degree of organic supervision, even if the politics let you deploy mass droids a generation after the Clone Wars.

[PainRack]

You mean like AT-ATs and Juggernauts? At first I thought you were talking about non-repulsor airmobile vehicles, but now I'm not so sure.

Oops...... Should had clarified more. I was thinking alongside the lines of SW equivalent of trucks and trains. You know. We seen shuttles and other transports in the SWU, but they're mostly repulsor or aerial based.

I was wondering if beneath the normal infantry/mech infantry/armor/airmobile etc. division between units, you would have specializations based on mobility type. i.e. walker/tracked/wheeled units for operations in a heavy theatre shielded/gravitically odd environment, and repulsorlift for general use. I.e. within a general purpose division, have a repulsor mech infantry brigade and walker mech infantry brigade and repulsor and walker armor brigades. Keep the pooled divisional assets, and make the maneuver regiments modular within the organization. Example: take the "mechanized infantry" regiment of repulsordroids, make hordes of those, and farm them out en masse to proper infantry divisions for urban operations. A repulsordroid horde could be carried in any given platform - need mass infantry for set piece under the shield? Make a droid dispenser on a walker chassis.

SW shits heavily on our modern type of definition. What is an airmobile division? Their equivalent of AirCav has LAATs transporting in AT-TEs. That's how airmobile their heavy vehicles are. Throw in examples like transports landing in SPHAT and Loronar Turbolaser batteries battle ready and our traditional examples break down.

Similarly, given the firepower of Juggernauts and Flying Fortresses, its gets harder to seperate between mechanised and armoured units.