Approved Vehicle REC-FC/12 Force Application Vehicle

[Republic Engineering]

OUT OF CHARACTER INFORMATION

• Intent: To create a new Force Application vehicle.
• Image Source: Leon Woon Ir Vin - Artstation Link.
• Canon Link: Not applicable.
• Restricted Missions: If required.
• Primary Source: Repurposed Canon articles.

PRODUCTION INFORMATION

• Manufacturer: Republic Engineering Corporation.
• Model: REC-FC/12 Force Application Vehicle.
• Affiliation: Republic Engineering Corporation | The Golden Company | Closed-Market.
• Modularity: Yes; Weapon Mount(s), Armour Plating, Enamel Coating, and Rotary Tires. (Variable Loadouts Listed Below.)
• Production: Mass-Produced.
• Material: Ballistic and Circuitry Impregnated Glasteel, Durasteel Armour Plating, Titanium Reinforced Skeletal Frame, Mytoflex Heat Sinks, Hardened and Textured Rubber (Carbon Nanotubes.), Various Vehicle and Electronic Insulating Components.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

• Classification: Wheeled Landcruiser.
• Role: Variable; Scout, Anti-Aircraft/Vehicular/Personnel, Armoured Transport, Recovery and, Aggressive Reconnaissance.
• Length: 7 Metres.
• Width: 4 Metres (Tires Included.)
• Height: 4.5 Metres (Weapon Mount Included.)
• Size: [Average.]
• Approximate Mass: 4 Metric Tons.
• Weight: [Average]
• Minimum Crew: One Driver.
• Optimal Crew: One Driver, One Gunner.
• Propulsion: Four Wheeled.
• Engine Unit(s): Compact Fusion Drive
• Secondary Power Plant(s): Retractable Solar Ionization Panels and Conversion Module.
• Maximum Speed (Atmospheric): 150 Km/H
• Speed: [Fast.]
• Maneuverability: [Average.]

Armaments: [Average.]

• Rotary Repeating Blaster Cannon with Integrated Plasma Generator. (overhauled to Modern Standards.) [Aurek Loadout.] Or,
• Twinned Concussion Missile Pod (Six Tubes, Twenty-Four Missile Magazine*.** Slow rate of fire.) [Besh Loadout.] Or,
• Single Barreled Gauss Cannon (Mass-Driver with a Twenty Round Magazine**.***) Slow rate of fire.) [Cresh Loadout.]

* Possible Missile Variants: Standard Concussion Missiles, Homing Concussion Missiles, Seeker Cluster Missiles.
** NOTE: One Missile/Muntion Variant per Magazine.
*** Possible Gauss Munition(s): Various Ferromagnetic Slugs,Repulsor Balls,Plasma-encased Shells.

Defenses: [Low.]

• Standard [Military-Grade] Armour Plating.
• Integrated Ionic Insulation Mesh.
• Chaff and Flare Launchers.

Squadron Count: Twelve FC/12 FAV’s [Average.]
Passenger Capacity: Three including Optimal Crew.
Cargo Capacity: [Small.] 40 Kilograms. (Personal Equipment and Survival Tools.)
Consumables: Emergency Provisions (One Week.)

STANDARD FEATURES

• Standard Damage Control and Hazard Systems. [Vehicle, Military-Grade.]
• Standard Life Support System(s) [Vehicle, Military-Grade.]
• Standard Navigational System(s) [Vehicle, Military-Grade.]
• Standard Sensors and Targeting System(s) [Vehicle, Ground-Penetrating, Military-Grade.]
• Standard Communication Suites (Long and Short.) [Vehicle, Military-Grade.]
• Holonet Transceiver and Decryption and Encryption Network(s)
• Standard Environmental Control System(s) [Vehicle, Military-Grade.]
• Integrated Floodlight(s).
• Versatile Suspension System.

SPECIAL FEATURES

• Modular Turret System. (Internal Holographic Display and Gyroscopic Control System.)
• Versatile Suspension and Four-Wheel Drive System.
• Carbon Nanotube Reinforced Tires.
• Integrated Ionic Insulation Mesh. (Moderate Resistance to EMP and Ion attacks.)

Strengths:

• Skirmisher, or Raider. (Optimized for Hit and Run Tactics.)
• Highly Adaptable. (Variable Loadout Depending.)
• Integrated Ionic Insulation System.
• Resilient and Burst-proof Tires.

Weaknesses:

• High-Speed. (Prone to Rollovers.)
• Ice Steering. (Poorly Optimized to Maneuver over purely Frozen surfaces.)
• Exposed Suspension System.
• Weak Underbelly Armour Plating. (Susceptible to Mines, and Etc.)

DESCRIPTION

The REC-FC/12 Force Application Vehicle is a Four-wheel drive, All-terrain utility vehicle that was capable of surmounting any obstacle with ease. This was due in part to the versatile suspension system(s) that operated independently of one another, which had allowed the vehicle to - for the lack of a better word - clamber over an obstacle that has given their tire’s purchase. This was also further enhanced by the tires themselves. Having moved away from the ancient style of inert-gas pockets that lined the interior of the textured rubber tire, the FC/12 came equipped with the superior and resilient structure afforded by a single-unit nanotube skeleton. This not only gave them the smoothness of the ride and buoyancy offered by the archaic variant of tires, but was durable enough to roll through situations that would leave other wheeled vehicles disabled, or otherwise vulnerable.

Such a result was achieved by the departure from inert-gas pockets, as they had a habit of bursting when pierced or penetrated by conventional means, like spike traps and their many variants. Without the pockets, the extended barbs would merely cut through the material and leave the overall integrity of the tire relatively intact, making them extremely durable in comparison to their predecessors. However, this durability would only benefit the FC/12 when faced with the conventional road traps, as plasmatic weapons would melt the rubber if discharged in a concentrated fashion. The same could be said of an enemy target, if they managed to get within melee range, using a vibroweapon to inflict significant lacerations that alter the tire’s overall aesthetic.

While it’s exterior systems were impressive, the actual marvel lay within the interior mechanisms. The forward viewport was heavily tinted to give off the appearance of blending in with the external armour plating and was subsequently impregnated with holographic circuitry. The integrated lattice of circuits allowed the windshield to present the operator with a plethora of information that would be able to alter and optimize their performance in the field. This was done through the combination of ground-penetrating sensors, along with the various modules one would expect to find in a standard, military-grade sensor package. As the display was entirely holographic, an operator was able to customize the screen in accordance to their personal preferences; which could range from having only the basics projected - to an overwhelming screed that forcibly drew their attention from one corner of the glasteel pane to the other.

Naturally, only pre-loaded programs were retained and were unable to be swapped out during combat scenarios. In addition to the glasteel viewport, there was a single gyroscopic cradle that was mounted in the centre of the vehicle that was linked to the pintle-mounted turret - which permitted the gunner to operate the installed loadout - without fear of being targeted by hostile snipers and would-be assassins. As this system had taken up a considerable amount of space, it's transporting capabilities were severely crippled, leaving only enough room for three passengers. Sadly, due to the constraints and overall design of the vehicle, the interior was cramped and did not allow for its complement to move about the internal compartment freely. With that being unadvisable due to the "breakneck" speeds anyways, it was considered to be a worthwhile sacrifice for its optimal performance on the battlefield.

 

[Iona Immarya]

Under Review.

 

[Iona Immarya]

[member="Arcanus Sunstrider"] Hello there! I will be looking over the sub and working on it with you today! I must say, I really like the amount of detail you put in this, nicely done and the stats, themselves, are all solid.

Alrighty, lets get started:

• Role: Variable; Scout, Anti-Aircraft/Vehicular/Personnel, Armoured Transport, Recovery and, Aggressive Reconnaissance.

Which loadout is which? I'm assuming the gauss is vehicular, rotary cannon is personnel and missile launcher is AA, but if possible, could you make that clearer in your sub?​

​

Armaments: [Average.]​

• Rotary Repeating Blaster Cannon with Integrated Plasma Generator. [Aurek Loadout.] Or,
• Twinned Concussion Missile Pod (Six Tubes, Twenty-Four Missile Magazine.) [Besh Loadout.] Or,
• Single Barreled Gauss Cannon (Mass-Driver) [Cresh Loadout.]

I need to know more about these weapons as all three weapons with, presumably, different purposes and ideal targets aren't really talked about in the rest of your sub and yet they all have the same rating.​

​

For instance, what about the rotary cannon makes it have the same rating as a Gauss cannon or 48 Concussion Missiles? I would like to see a bit more information such as, what kind of missiles are they? How many are surface-to-air? How many are AT? How many are HE? How high of a yield? How strong of a guidance system? How fast can they be fired? How rapidly can the Gauss cannon fire? How slow is its reload? How potent is the rotary cannon? How long can it fire before it suffers from overheating? What ranges are you looking at for each?​

• Weak Underbelly Armour Plating.

A weak under/top armor plating is very common for vehicles, considering this one already has a weak, overall, plating, what about the underbelly of this vehicle makes it so much more vulnerable that it should be singled out compared to the rest? Is it 'paper' thin and so very susceptible to mines? What happens if it is hit there? Just a few extra details about it. ​

This not only gave them the smoothness of the ride and buoyancy offered by the archaic variant of tires, but was durable enough to roll through situations that would leave other wheeled vehicles disabled, or otherwise vulnerable.​

Like what? ​

While it’s exterior systems were impressive, the actual marvel lay within the interior mechanisms. The forward viewport was heavily tinted to give off the appearance of blending in with the external armour plating and subsequently impregnated with holographic circuitry, which allowed the Operator to read over the sensorial data presented to them at a glance. This also allowed for heavy customization to the programming and the projectors, which made things more comfortable as the FC/12 changed from one driver to another. Naturally, only pre-loaded programs were retained and were unable to be swapped out during combat scenarios. ​

Can you elaborate a bit on this?​

 

[Republic Engineering]

[member="Iona Immarya"] - To be honest, any of the loadouts that I’ve listed can be employed in any role that is required. While it’s true that a rotary blaster cannon would be useful in an anti-personnel position, the weapon is still capable of dealing with vehicles and aircraft, though to a less-effective degree than say a gauss cannon/mass driver, or a concussion missile pod. The same could be said of the weapons above as well.

So, I’m afraid that it isn’t possible to follow through with your request. As I’d be placing all three loadouts to every role - which is basically what’s already written down in the submission.

As for the weapons, it seems you’re going a bit overzealous on the details of something that utterly doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things because I or anyone else using this submission isn’t the one(s) calling the damage. Nevertheless, I’ll expand on the details using canon examples - since I don’t feel like exerting the effort to make separate submissions for every turreted weapon when a generalized weapon type should suffice.

Weak rear and underbelly armour are typical for any combat vehicle, both in Star Wars and in Real Life. It’d be pretty foolish to have thinner plating on the top of the vehicle, as that’s where a lot of enemy fire would be coming from - mostly in urban environments. As well, having thicker armour on the top allows for the vehicle to withstand any detrimental environmental hazards, like rockslides, etc - naturally buckling when the pressure and breaking point are reached.

So, when it comes fleshing out the weakness to fulfill your request, I assumed that it was common sense, due to the fact it’s weaker than the rest of the plating encompassing the entire vehicle. I won’t be fleshing out the diameter of the plating, not pouring more effort into something that’s utterly pointless in the end - due to the fact I’m trusting those that I’ve permitted use this submission to call their damage accordingly. If the mine is stated to shred through durasteel or cause some damage (mine variant depending), it’ll burst through the plating and possibly kill the FC/12’s occupants or leave them grievously wounded.

As for the tires, one would assume that they’d be able to clamber over anything that their tires can get a grip on. Again, common sense would dictate that the FC/12 wouldn’t be able to climb over a perpendicular barricade, without some sort of incline to offset the difference.

With the Glasteel display, I’m not sure entirely what I could expand on. It’s a holographic HUD that can be customized like Icons on an IRL PC’s desktop to match an operator's preference.

 

[Iona Immarya]

[member="Arcanus Sunstrider"]

To be honest, any of the loadouts that I’ve listed can be employed in any role that is required. While it’s true that a rotary blaster cannon would be useful in an anti-personnel position, the weapon is still capable of dealing with vehicles and aircraft, though to a less-effective degree than say a gauss cannon/mass driver, or a concussion missile pod. The same could be said of the weapons above as well.

So, I’m afraid that it isn’t possible to follow through with your request. As I’d be placing all three loadouts to every role - which is basically what’s already written down in the submission.

A rotary cannon can be employed against vehicles, infantry and fliers through weight of fire, I understand that, however, you have three different weapons listed which, as you are purposely listing variants, are designed to excel in certain fields, no? To better let you tailor your loadout to better face what you may come across. As such, I would like you to list each variant's primary purpose, or, if you prefer, the target they were designed to excel against. I do not feel this is an unreasonable request as not only will it make it easier for people viewing the sub to know which variant they should take at first glance for their post or missions, it also helps organize it .

As for the weapons, it seems you’re going a bit overzealous on the details of something that utterly doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things because I or anyone else using this submission isn’t the one(s) calling the damage. Nevertheless, I’ll expand on the details using canon examples - since I don’t feel like exerting the effort to make separate submissions for every turreted weapon when a generalized weapon type should suffice.

Devil is in the details. The reason we have armament ratings is to better understand the desired weapon's damage and effect, writing out also lets people who are using this, and those are it is being used against, better understand the weapon's effects and drawbacks to better RP with them.

If this is a powerful Gauss Cannon designed to go up against heavy armor then an average rating isn't going to cut it for such a light classification of vehicle. If these missiles are high yield and capable of engaging even heavy gunships then it would be difficult to warrant a light vehicle having such an armament as average.

So, while you may feel just the 'name' of the weapon is enough to suffice, I do not. You understand what you want these weapons to do. Someone coming across the sub may have a different intrepration of your weapon's strength and weaknesses then you did because, without some level of detail on what they do or how they preform, it makes it very open ended.

So, I am asking you to describe some of the weapon effects and drawbacks to make this a more flushed out submission.

Weak rear and underbelly armour are typical for any combat vehicle, both in Star Wars and in Real Life. It’d be pretty foolish to have thinner plating on the top of the vehicle, as that’s where a lot of enemy fire would be coming from - mostly in urban environments. As well, having thicker armour on the top allows for the vehicle to withstand any detrimental environmental hazards, like rockslides, etc - naturally buckling when the pressure and breaking point are reached.

So, when it comes fleshing out the weakness to fulfill your request, I assumed that it was common sense, due to the fact it’s weaker than the rest of the plating encompassing the entire vehicle. I won’t be fleshing out the diameter of the plating, not pouring more effort into something that’s utterly pointless in the end - due to the fact I’m trusting those that I’ve permitted use this submission to call their damage accordingly. If the mine is stated to shred through durasteel or cause some damage (mine variant depending), it’ll burst through the plating and possibly kill the FC/12’s occupants or leave them grievously wounded.

A common weak point for many armor is the top of the armor, especially, the top of the turret, if you wish to engage the more Real Life aspect of it.

Click Here for a diagram of the top armor of the Mekava MkIV tank, a tank that is more armored 'all-round' then many because it was designed for urban environments, yet, its armor gets thinner the closer you get to the top. This is common. Most vehicles, especially the higher you get, tend to have armor concentrated mostly on the front as it is expected to be protected by friendlies on its flanks and rear. Now, this is not to say your vehicle cannot have impressive top armor, but, in general, the top armor doesn't tend to be impressive. This is also why some more specialized anti-tank weaponry, such as the FGM-148 Javelin, is designed to strike a target in its top armor.

Back onto your sub, I am not asking for you to list out how thick each armor is or demand the equivalence rating in RHA. What I asked was, due to your sub's low armor rating, that means, overall, its armor is weaker then a normal vehicle of its class, so, instead of bottom, you could very well have just listed its armor, in general, as you listed just the bottom, I was curious as to if there was a specific reason you did this. That was all.

As for the tires, one would assume that they’d be able to clamber over anything that their tires can get a grip on. Again, common sense would dictate that the FC/12 wouldn’t be able to climb over a perpendicular barricade, without some sort of incline to offset the difference.

Apologies, I should have extrapolated my question more. When I asked that, I meant more, how tough are these tires? I know they would be more resistant to heat, but could they, say, drive over a standard spike trap or other obstruction?

With the Glasteel display, I’m not sure entirely what I could expand on. It’s a holographic HUD that can be customized like Icons on an IRL PC’s desktop to match an operator's preference.

Just on its general abilities as I wasn't really able to get a read on what it 'does' from your sub. Does, for instance, it tell the driver the angle of the ground they are driving on and give them a probability of slipping? Or is it more, interactive to better allow them to manage their comm systems?

 

[Iona Immarya]

[member="Arcanus Sunstrider"] So, I was talking to the other Judges about it because if you are against writing more details and the details aren't that important considering you didn't spend any time writing specifics about them [if they were stronger or weaker then standard]. Is it fair to assume these are 'bog' standard star wars versions of each type?

 

[Republic Engineering]

[member="Iona Immarya"] - Tossing my reply to your previous post aside, they were supposed to be the "bog" standard variant of each weapon. If they were anything more, I would've been sure to include the required links to either the canon articles or approved factory submission(s).

 

[Iona Immarya]

[member="Arcanus Sunstrider"] I assumed they could be more since you were very detailed with your submission and that would follow into the weapon systems. I apologize that this was not the case and that I assumed it was so.

So, all I ask is a little clarity on the tire durability and if the HUD is more of a user friendly thing that helps the driver better manage the interior systems, like comms, or if it is more something that calculates issues with terrain and relays that to the driver for better performance, or a bit of both.

Once I know those, and you've put those in your sub, I will have no problem pushing this on.

Also, for the future, when you write strengths and weaknesses, each strength and weakness should have its own description about it such as, 'Weak underbelly armor - Like most vehicles, the armor on the belly of the vehicle is thinner then the rest, making it more susceptible to mines or other blows that strike it.' It should be something people can look at and note without having to read the entire sub to understand. But as I already have a solid idea about it, I'm not going to push that for this sub.

 

[Republic Engineering]

[member="Iona Immarya"] - As requested, I will expand on the durability of the tires, but when it comes to the HUD's capabilities - it covers both of the points you've listed and more. Naturally, as that will require clarfication despite them being listed in the standard features section, I'll flesh out the description further.

Regarding the strengths and weaknesses, perhaps you should bring that to the attention of the Factory Admin, as that will require an alteration/extrapolation on the already provided template.

​

Nevertheless, I will tag you again here when the parts are written and edited in.

 

[Iona Immarya]

[member="Arcanus Sunstrider"] Thank you, I'll await your tag.

I thought your list format was fine. It was a RPJ that told me it needed to be written out. If you like, I can bring it up to see if a minor change to the format can't be added directly requesting a brief summary of each strength and weakness.

 

[Hailyn]

[member="Iona Immarya"] - As requested, I will expand on the durability of the tires, but when it comes to the HUD's capabilities - it covers both of the points you've listed and more. Naturally, as that will require clarfication despite them being listed in the standard features section, I'll flesh out the description further.

Regarding the strengths and weaknesses, perhaps you should bring that to the attention of the Factory Admin, as that will require an alteration/extrapolation on the already provided template.

​

Nevertheless, I will tag you again here when the parts are written and edited in.

Items such as

Skirmisher, or Raider. (Hit and Run Tactics.)

Should provide the full context of what makes it a strength. The strengths and weaknesses should be a self-contained list that should give a reader the ability to briefly summarize the pros and cons of the submission at a glance, it should not require the reader to read this list and then re-read the full submission to obtain the context behind what a specific strength is, or what the specific strength is referring to.

 

[Republic Engineering]

[member="Iona Immarya"] - Edits have been made.

[member="Nadja Keto"] - As I mentioned earlier, perhaps that's something that needs to be brought up to the Factory Admin, as the very template itself states that weaknesses or strengths are only required to be listed in list format. You're going far off base by expecting someone to flesh those out, when it isn't required. Per the template, that's exactly what the purpose of the description is.

 

[Iona Immarya]

Awesome. Pending Factory Mentor Review.

[member="Jamie Pyne"], [member="Nadja Keto"], [member="Taryc Ap'Irae"]

 

[Zef Halo]

Integrated Ionic Insulation Mesh.

Add this to Defenses too please so I can stamp this.

[member="Arcanus Sunstrider"]

 

[Republic Engineering]

[member="Therran Graush"] - Done.

 

[Zef Halo]

<p>Approved.</p>