Greetings, Below are some armor rules I have made. I would like feedback and
other suggestions for armor. These do NOT replace the Kra'Vak armor rules.
These rules are for Human or Sa'Vasku technology.
Armor Rules by Brian Bell Tons: 1 Cost: 5 Provides: 5 points of protection in
a single arc Armor is purchased as other systems. For every ton of armor
purchased you get 5 armor points. These armor points must be applied to a
specific firing arc. When the ship recieves damage to an armored firing arc,
the damage is removed from the armor points first. Place armor points around
the ship diagram seperating them by the arc they cover. Armor points tons are
purchased just like other systems and apply agianst the tons that systems can
use. Armor is not subject to Threshold rolls. A needle attack ignores armor
(the
armor itself may not be attacked by a needle gun/missile). Screens above
level 1
and/or a reflex field may not be used on armored ships (Not enough
access points to generate that strength of shield). Ships that carry the Wave
Gun or Spinal Mount Nova Cannon may not armor the Forward section of the ship.
Total number of armor points may not exceed 5 times the number of rows of
damage points a ship has in a given arc. Example: An escort may have upto 10
armor points in any one arc (max 40 total armor points). A Crusier could place
upto 15 in any one arc (max 60 total armor points). A Capital could place upto
20 in a specific arc (max 80 total armor points). Armor points may be divided
throughout the ship. (i.e. if you only by 1 ton, it does not all have to go
into one arc).
Armor is not as cost effective as level 2+ Screens, but provides
additional protection for smaller ships.
> At 02:08 AM 11/3/96 +0000, you wrote:
These rules
> are for Human or Sa'Vasku technology.
Cool stuff. I've been racking my mind trying to come up with a way to
replicate Defiant's ablative armor from DS9. This looks like a good way to do
it. Thanks.
James
> Armor Rules by Brian Bell
Great idea but it changes the rules regarding fire. Shields and Armor in Full
Thrust prevent damage from enemy fire but they don't add to the basic damage a
ship can take. Also, 5 points of armor protection for 1 mass is
extremely generous. Maybe invert the mass/cost ratio (mass determines
decisions in ship construction never cost). Then try to determine exactly
how much armor is equivalent to level-1 shields, instead of giving the
ships more "hit points."
Date sent: 4-NOV-1996 08:55:19
> Armor Rules by Brian Bell
> Great idea but it changes the rules regarding fire. Shields and Armor
> Joe
I like the idea of extra hits, but agree that 5 points is generous. It would
be quite acceptable IMHO to allow a ship to use unused capacity for armour on
a 1 for 1 basis, improving the damage capacity at the expense of system
capacity. This would not have 'facing'.
BTW. Armour equivilant to level-1 screens is roughly 1/6 of the damage
capacity of the ship. (but this excludes the chance to loose it on a threshold
check)
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Adam Delafield, I.T. Officer | Bolton Institute, |
| #include "witty_saying" | Eagle Tower, |
| E-mail : ad4@Bolton.ac.uk | College Way, |
| Phone : +44 1204 528851 (ext 3163) | Bolton, UK. |
| Fax : +44 1204 399074 | BL3 5AE. |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+
> At 08:01 AM 11/4/96 +0000, you wrote:
5 points is probably too much but I would hate to lose facing with
armoring--that's the best part of this idea if you ask me. I love the
idea of systematically pounding one side of an alien battleship so we can
finally tear her guts out!!
Armor facing adds a new component to combat--maneuvering to keep
your weak side away from the enemy's batteries and those pesky fighters!
James
Date sent: 4-NOV-1996 11:44:22
Let's try that again.
> Armor Rules by Brian Bell
> I like the idea of extra hits, but agree that 5 points is generous. It
> 5 points is probably too much but I would hate to lose facing
> Armor facing adds a new component to combat--maneuvering to
Armour facing on a well designed sheet should be workable. (put a row of boxes
on each side of the ship diagram), but 5 is excessive. I don't think 1 mass
for 1 armour is too unbalancing, even though you get 4 damage extra. It is arc
dependant, and reduces your capacity. 1 or 2 armour provides an escort with
reasonable protection, and 6 for a capital (equivilant of level 2 screens) is
significant.
Add in Mark's sandcasters and Arc becomes Very important.
Thanks everyone for your great responses!
Here was my thinking:
Level 1 screens on a cruiser size ship saves the ship between 15-25
damage points in the typical games I have run.
Level 2 screens on a cruiser saves the ship between 20-35 damage
points.
Level 3 screens on a cruiser saves between 25-45 points of damage.
Escorts have lower averages and capitals higher. This averages to between 5 &
6 points per ton. Cost average is between
0.4-1.0
cost per point. Add to this that screens do not decrease in effect, and they
are
omni-directional. And I limited the amount of armor a ship can carry.
This is why I suggested 1 ton and a cost of 5 for 5 points of protection.
Level 1 screen is 3 tons, costs 25 and provides 15-25 points of
protection (average). 3 tons of armor cost 15 and provide 15 points of
protection. 5 tons of armor cost 25 and provide 25 points of protection.
If you have differnet averages for the amount of damage screens absorb, I
would love to know (everyone has a different level of luck). What would you
suggest as a good average for 1 ton? Remeber, they only cover one arc, do not
regenerate, and are usually gone by the time you have a threshold roll.
Someone suggested 1 point per ton (and cost of 1?). Would you trade 3 tons of
level 1 screens for 3 tons of armor for 3 armor points? Would you buy level 1
screens that weigh 25 tons? While I disagree with your suggestion, thanks for
it anyway!
> I would hate to lose facing with
Armor facing adds a new component to combat--maneuvering to keep
your weak side away from the enemy's batteries and those pesky fighters!<< My
2 goals were to provide additional protection for smaller ships and the above
mentioned tactics.
Date sent: 5-NOV-1996 08:55:20
> Thanks everyone for your great responses!
No problem.
> Here was my thinking:
5 tons
> of armor cost 25 and provide 25 points of protection.
Do your calculations take into account lost screens at threshold checks? This
significantly reduces the amount of damage screens can adsorb. Add in weapons
that ignore screens, and you can see that armour will have it's advantages.
Also, under clever command, level1 armour as you propose gives 20 points of
protection, not 5. (or did you intend to have the 5 points distributed over
various facings, which would be roughly equal to the 4 points over 4 facings I
suggested).
In addition, armour always protects, where screens still depend on a great
deal of luck. Removing a luck factor is always advantageous.
And as the new armour idea is not a 'ships hull as screens', then you should
not exclude the possibility that screens and armour may be combined,
particularly on a valuable asset such as a carrier.
And one last observation, the armour has to be breached before any threshold
checks must be made. 4 extra damage on the first row is far more valuable than
1 extra damage on each row for a capital ship, or any other class for that
matter.
> What would you suggest as a good average for 1 ton? Remeber, they
> Someone suggested 1 point per ton (and cost of 1?). Would you trade 3
I think we are at a slight misunderstanding here. 3 armour points on every
side of the ship. This is valuable, especially if you can maneuver well. I'm
unclear as to wether you meant 5 points on EVERY side, or that you have to
allocate all the points you buy. Remember also that the only way in the core
rules to increase your damage capacity is to buy a bigger hull. That is
extreamly expensive.
> On 4 Nov 1996, Brian Bell wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your great responses!
Hmm? Let's see - the average damage from 1 die against an unshielded
target
is 2/3; vs level-1 shields it is 1/2, vs level-2 shields it is 1/3 and
vs
level-3 shiels it is 1/6.
An unshielded light cruiser (mass 22, 11 dp) takes on average 16.5
_dice_
to destroy, provided it is not fired upon by other weapons than beams.
With level-1 shields, it needs 22 dice (ie, 3.7 dp saved by the
shields),
with level-2 shields it needs 33 dice (11 dp saved) and with level-3
shields it needs on average 66 dice to die (ie, 33 dp saved)... IF no shields
are destroyed by treshold checks.
The chance for all three shield generators of a level-3 ship to survive
the first treshold check intact is only about 58%, and the probability
that they all survive the second check too is only 17% - which, of
course, means that the 33 dp saved for the light cruiser in the example above
is
rather improbable.
Of course the CL is a rather stupid example since I wouldn't put level-3
screens on it, but still... I think you overrate level-1 screens by
lots, and level-3 would probably be in the lower part of your interval
in my experience.
Does someone have time to work out the correct average effect of shields
on a ship which only gets fired upon by beams, taking treshold checks into
account? I'd like to do it, but it'll have to wait 'til some time next year...
> Here was my thinking:
We don't need to do this, we can calculate the upper limit of average
mathmatically. If we take the biggest cruiser (mass=36) and determine how many
dice of damage it takes to kill it (assuming no attacks by screen penetrating
weapons and no screens are hit due to threshold points) we will get an average
of the upper limit. Here it is:
Level 0 Screens: 27 dice do the necessary 18 points of damage. Level 1
Screens: 36 dice do the necessary 18 points of damage. Level 2 Screens: 54
dice do the necessary 18 points of damage. Level 3 Screens: 108 dice do the
necessary 18 points of damage.
So now if we take the difference in dice and calculate the average damage
those dice would have done, we will get the maximum average saved:
Level 1 Screens: The 9 extra dice needed would have done 6 points on avg.
Level 2 Screens: The 27 extra dice needed would have done 18 points on avg.
Level 3 Screens: The 81 extra dice needed would have done 54 points on avg.
So you can see that the upper limit averages that I have calculated differ
greatly from what you are experiencing.
> This averages to between 5 & 6 points per ton. Cost average is
I get maximum averages of:
Level 1 Screens: 2 points per ton w/cost average of 4.17 points per
point.
Level 2 Screens: 3 points per ton w/cost average of 2.78 points per
point.
Level 3 Screens: 6 points per ton w/cost average of 1.39 points per
point.
> Add to this that screens do not decrease in effect, and they are
5 tons
> of armor cost 25 and provide 25 points of protection.
This limited arc protection could justify the cost benefit of the armor.
I
personally like the idea and to my knowledge the only thing armor protects
against that screens do not are Rail Gun rounds, all other screen penetrating
affects also penetrate armor.
> If you have differnet averages for the amount of damage screens
My averages differ as shown above.
As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
Actually I despise the whoel idea of Kravak armor.
Here's my idea for a replacement rule. Just buy it like any other system.
Since you devide your mass by two and get one weapon and one structure box per
2 Mass units. Buy a structure box instead.
Armor: Mass: 1 Cost: 2
Place the extra structure box on the bottom row first and then add them to
each upper row so that the top row is never greater than the next etc. This
means that you have another box to absorb damage and delay threshold checks
that much more often.
I'd never even heard of Armor (John Steakley, IIRC) but it showed up in my
bookstore with a cover boasting "The Classic, back in print" and the cover was
the kind of picture that should have been on Starship Troopers or The Forever
War or StarGrunt II.
I recommend it for the tactics, technology, and the lead character of the
first section of the novel. Not your typical hero, but very good at what he
does. A nice commentary on the bureaucracy, as well.
In many ways, a more believable picture of future war than Cobra (Timothy
Zahn), though Zahn's society is more believable to me, and his aliens are
better fleshed out.
On Mon, Jul 14, 1997 at 7:19:23 PM, tmcarth@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tom McCarthy)
wrote:
> I'd never even heard of Armor (John Steakley, IIRC) but it showed up
_Armor_ has not appeared in all bookstore this time around. I saw it in
Boston back in April, but I don't think I have seen it down here yet.
The first edition showed a guy in power armor about to club a giant
ant-thing
over the head with his rifle. [This is vaguely reminiscent of a scene in the
book where they run out of ammo and have to go hand-to-hand.] IIRC, the
caption read "What price impregnable armor vs. implacable foe?"
A very fine read.
Note that the other Steakley book that was mentioned, _Vampire$_, also
stars
the same two characters from _Armor_, Felix and Jack Crow. The
publishing info page has a cryptic reference to the duplication of characters.
The current FT "armor" seems to me to simulate Traveler
sandcasters--omnidirectional, one box protects the same whether for a DD
or SDN, and it's ablative.
How about "real" armor? For example, 1% of hull mass for each face protected,
stops 1 point of damage from every weapon, not subject to threshold checks and
doesn't reduce rerolls.
If the armor goes away (like current armor) when hit, then it is too
expensive. A mass 100 ship (BC) gets 1 armor for all arcs at 1% using the
current armor. A mass 200 ship gets 1 armor for all arcs at 0.5% currently. A
mass 33 DD could 'real' armor 3 sides for 1 mass. A mass 20 FF could 'real'
armor 5 sides for 1mass.
If it does not go away when hit (like MT Kra'Vak armor), then it is too
powerful. Except for rerolls, it would negate beams,
pulsers, and stingers at long range (class-1 beams at its only
range) as well as fighters.
'Real Armor' counter proposal: Gain 2 pips of 'Real' armor per 1% of ship
mass. Pips must be applied to a specific arc. It is then treated as the
current armor, execpt the attack must be through the protected arc for the
'Real' Armor to be effective. 'Real' armor must be purchased in 1 mass
increments (no partial mass). You may not have more pips of 'Real' Armor than
mass. You cannot have more 'Real' Armor than mass (prevents mass 10 ships with
20 pips of 'Real Armor').
In response to my hasty proposal this morning,
Bell, Brian K <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil> declaimed:
> If the armor goes away (like current armor) when hit, then it is too
I was thinking of permanent armor. Minimum mass is 1 per armored face.
> If it does not go away when hit (like MT Kra'Vak armor),
Perhaps increase the cost to 2% (minimum/face is still 1 mass) per point
of damage stopped per attack.
And it doesn't negate them--you can always roll 6's, even if you don't
get a
4-6 on the reroll for extra damage (obviously this doesn't cover Indy or
Beth). For a 100mass BC to have 6 arc coverage, that costs 12 Mass.
Or possibly everything isn't covered--the armor might be below the first
hull row. You could have different costs per hull row covered...
> 'Real Armor' counter proposal:
The difficulty with this is that it's ablative.
> Laserlight wrote:
> The current FT "armor" seems to me to simulate Traveler
The basic idea is fine, but has two serious problems in FT/FB:
- You need to roll damage for each weapon separately, including beams.
Rolling separate damage each beam/Pulser battery aboard 10+ ships slows
the game down a *lot* - other weapons aren't affected since they only
roll one die each anyway. (If you deduct 1 pt. of damage from every
beam *die*, you effectively remove beams and Pulsers from the game -
thus I assume that you didn't mean this!)
- The balance between the weapons goes out the airlock - you'll have to
re-do all weapon costs from scratch.
(Yes, I've tried a very similar system. No, I didn't carry through with
re-balancing everything...)
Later,
> On Thu, 12 October 2000, "Laserlight" wrote:
> The current FT "armor" seems to me to simulate Traveler
I thought Phalon vapour shrouds simulated sandcaster-like devices?
How about these for ideas?
Don's Perminent Armor:
Set the mass at, say 1% per facing per point of defense. Set cost at say 3 or
so per mass. (just for figuring...) Higher tech armors: Just increase the cost
per mass, and decrease the% per point of defense. Lower tech armors: just
lower the cost per mass, and increase the% per point of defense.
(Probably total up the mass of all armor points, then figure cost.)
A) Accumulated damage. First, keep track of how much damage each facing stops.
Every time the ship gets hit there, add the new damage, and make a die roll.
Whenever the die roll is less than the "accumulated damage", reduce that
facing's Armor defense by 1 point. Reset the Accumulated damage each time one
point is lost.
B) Inherrent defense. This idea is simpler. First, any damage that is less
than half the Armor's defense, is compleatly absorbed. (round fractions down.)
Second, any damage from 1/2 to full armor defense, is absorbed, but the
armor looses one point of defense. (Again, round fractions down.) Third, any
damage that does more than the Armor's defense, goes right through, AND
reduces the armor 1 point of defence.
Both ideas assume that the damage is being totaled up before applying it to
the armor.
Both of these ideas make armor perminent, but it can be "whittled away". Means
those dreadnoughts will not be safe forever.0
On the negative side, one now has to keep track of which directions each
attack comes from, and applying it to the proper side(s) of each ship.
I favor idea B myself...
2nd counter proposal:
'Real Armor': Armor masses 1% of ship mass per arc covered
- armor mass = arcs covered * (ship mass * 0.01)
- Minimum mass of 1
- Must be purchased in 1 mass units (no fractions).
Effect:
- Against attacks that have a combined to-hit and damage roll, subtract
1 from the to hit roll of each die. A roll of 6 always hits.
- Against attacks that have a seperate roll for damage, subtract 1
point from each damage die.
- Does not protect against area attacks (Phalon plasma, Nova Cannons,
Wave Guns) unless all 6 arcs are armored.
- Against Leech style weapons (Leech Pods), it provides 1 point of
protection for the first round, but not for subsequent rounds; per leech
weapon that hits. Armor is NOT reduced with damage. Armor is not subject to
needle attacks. Armor is subject to threshold checks from DAMAGE (not EMP),
but is at one level lower than other systems (like core systems) because it is
less subject to catestrophic failure. Each arc is treated seperatly for
threshold checks. Armor may NOT be applied in multiple layers (i.e. no effect
for armoring the same arc more than once). May NOT be combined with "standard
armor".
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> 'Real Armor':
This is a bit easier to balance, yes:
> Armor masses 1% of ship mass per arc covered
Sounds very low for the effect it has. See below:
> Effect:
[rest snipped]
Compare this with level-2 screens:
* Effect vs beams is identical (-1 to the die makes rolls of "5" and
"6" cause 1 pt of damage; natural 6s always re-roll), EXCEPT that the
armour is considerably less likely to be degraded by threshold checks * Armour
seems to stop Needle Beams from taking out systems (they'll still inflict hull
damage on rolls of "6" though)
* Degrades D6-damage weapons more than level-1 screens degrade beams
* Can be combined with screens to give the same effect as the hated FT2
level-*3* screens - but with less vulnerability to thresholds
All in all, this armour is *much* more powerful than level-2 screens,
so needs to cost correspondingly more, or use more Mass. (Except
against K-guns, of course - reducing their "damage rolls" by 1 makes
them *more* likely to inflict double damage, not less.)
If you retain the Mass values given above, it's worth over 20xMass -
the protection given is massive, and the armour Mass over which you can
distribute this cost is very small. I haven't had time to look at what it'd be
worth if it used more Mass, sorry.
Regards,
> 2nd counter proposal:
[snippage]
> Armor is subject to threshold checks from DAMAGE (not EMP), but is at
This is the only one that I don't agree on. I think that armor should take
thresholds just like everything else. KISS
> -----Original Message-----
Sorry, I was unclear in my statements. When I stated that a "6 always hits" I
was trying to state the following: A roll of a '6' is always treated as a roll
of a '6'. So a roll of a '6' with a beam weapon does 2 points of damage and
allows for a penetration roll; a roll of a '6' with a needle beam still
destroys the targeted system; etc. I was unclear. When I stated 'Unaffected by
needle beams' I meant to say cannot be targeted by needle weapons'. Your
comment about combining with screens is correct. There would have to be a
prohibition against combining with screens (PSB, not enough emmiters can be
mounted with 'real' armor???).
I also forgot to address K-Guns. For K-Guns damage, treat
K-Guns as 1 class less than thier rating (minimum of 1).
Do not subtract 1 from the damage roll.
Your estimate of 20xMass cost value seems high. Remember that we are
addressing limited arcs of protection. Assume for argument sake that an
average pilot can maneuver so that he can place 3 arcs between his ship and
the enemy forces, while still bringing 66% of his weapons to bear.
A mass 100 ship has armored 3 arcs (using 3 mass). The effects of an ememy
weapon through the armor would be:
Weapon Roll (per die)
Weapon 1 2 3 4 5 6
Beam - - - - 1 2p
Salvo Missile - 1 2 3 4 5
Submunition Pack - - - - 1 2p
Needle Beam - - - - - 1n
P-Torpedo - 1 2 3 4 5
Nova Cannon 1 2 3 4 5 6
Wave Gun 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fighter (Most) - - - - 1 2p
Fighter, Attack - - - 1 1 2p
Fighter, Torp - 1 2 3 4 5
MT Missile (Std) - 1 2 3 4 5
K-Gun, C1 2 1 1 1 1 1
K-Gun, C2 2 1 1 1 1 1
K-Gun, C3 4 4 2 2 2 2
K-Gun, C4 6 6 6 3 3 3
K-Gun, C5 8 8 8 8 4 4
K-Gun, C6 10 10 10 10 10 5
MKP - - - - 4 8
Scatterpacks - - - - 1 2
Stinger - - - - 1 2p
Lance Pod - 1 2 3 4 5
Pulser - - - - 1 2p
Plasma 1 2 3 4 5 6
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
[Ka-snip - if you've forgotten Brian's proposal, check the archives]
> All in all, this armour is *much* more powerful than level-2 screens,
OK, that's quite a difference - makes the armour equivalent to
level-*1* screens vs beam dice instead of level-2, and doesn't stop
precision needle damage.
> I also forgot to address K-Guns. For K-Guns damage, treat
The cost of armour just went up further still... K2s are completely
gutted; for K3s it's only equivalent to level-2 screens vs beams, and
then the effect falls slowly until it's no worse than level-1 screens
for the K6.
> Your estimate of 20xMass cost value seems high. Remember
The 20xMass was calculated on a straight "-1 to the die" for beams
(ie., equivalent to level-2 screens rather than level-1 screens),
without taking any of the other weapon types into account (that pushed the
cost closer to 30xMass). With the above adjustments, it's not quite
that drastic - still bad, but not quite *that* bad.
I did remember the limited arcs. They are a major cause to the problem, not a
solution to it.
> Assume for argument sake that an average pilot can
Assuming the ship's weaponry is designed for it and you're playing
Vector, that's trivial - at least unless you're massively out-engined,
but in that case you've got a serious advantage in firepower anyway.
It's not as easy in Cinematic, but if you have at least thrust-4 you've
got a decent shot at it there as well. If you use assymetric weapon loadouts
it becomes fairly easy. All in all, it's a pretty safe
assumption that the armour will point in the direction of the enemy -
and it's almost as safe to assume that close to 100% of the weapons, rather
than a mere 66% of them, will do so as well.
You also need to remember the threshold factor. This armour is *much* harder
to knock out than screens, both because of the delayed check
(checks as core systems) and because each side checks individually -
which means that the chance of losing *all* armoured sides is extremely low.
Even if you can't repair the armour with DCPs (couldn't see any note about
that in your previous post, but it sounds logical), the risk of losing all
armour protection (assuming 3 or more armoured sides) is less than that of
losing all screen protection.
Let's fill in the rest of the table you began:
> A mass 100 ship has armored 3 arcs (using 3 mass). The
Weapon Roll (per die) Survivability increase:
Weapon 1 2 3 4 5 6
Beam - - - - 1 2p 26%
Salvo Missile - 1 2 3 4 5 40%
Submunition Pack - - - - 1 2p 26%
Needle Beam - - - - - 1n 100%
P-Torpedo - 1 2 3 4 5 40%
Nova Cannon 1 2 3 4 5 6 0%
Wave Gun 1 2 3 4 5 6 0%
Fighter (Most) - - - - 1 2p 26%
Fighter, Attack - - - 1 1 2p 38%
Fighter, Torp - 1 2 3 4 5 40%
MT Missile (Std) - 1 2 3 4 5 40%
K-Gun, C1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0%
K-Gun, C2 2 1 1 1 1 1 129%
K-Gun, C3 4 4 2 2 2 2 69%
K-Gun, C4 6 6 6 3 3 3 48%
K-Gun, C5 8 8 8 8 4 4 38%
K-Gun, C6 10 10 10 10 10 5 20%
MKP - - - - 4 8 33%
Scatterpacks - - - - 1 2 33%
Stinger - - - - 1 2p 26%
Lance Pod - 1 2 3 4 5 40%
Pulser - - - - 1 2p 33%
Plasma 1 2 3 4 5 6 0%
The "survivability increase" is the number of extra shots needed with
that weapon type to kill the target when it's protected by the armour -
ie, it is equivalent to (avg. dmg without protection)/(avg.dmg with
protection)-1.
Fighters probably shouldn't have their fire degraded by partial armour (they
can after all use secondary movement to get into the right arc, once they've
figured out where that is), and missiles should probably only suffer the
penalty half the time. Even with those changes, it's a
pretty impressive survivability boost - around 30% on average (judging
from the ship designs I've seen to date beams/ pulsers/ stingers are by
far the most common weapons used), though of course it depends a bit on
what weapons your enemy use. If he uses smaller K-guns, missiles,
P-torps etc it gets higher; against a fleet with nothing but PBLs and
fighters it isn't worth anything. A 30% survivability increase is worth ~15%
higher NPV.
When the difference in threshold vulnerability has been accounted for,
Level-1 screens affect the survivability by:
Weapon Roll (per die) Survivability increase:
Weapon 1 2 3 4 5 6
Beam - - - - 1 2p 21%
Pulser - - - - 1 2p 21%
Stinger - - - - 1 2p 21%
Fighters (most)- - - - 1 2p 21%
Fighters (atk) - - - 1 2 2p 14%
Plasma 1 2 3 4 5 - 36%
No protection against the other weapon types.
Not only does the screen protect against considerably fewer weapon
types (6 of 23 vs 16 of 23, using your categories - though it does
cover the most common ones), but it also gives less protection against the
types screens and armour both protect against due to its higher vulnerability
to thresholds
If the enemy uses beam-style weapons exclusively the survivability
increase becomes 21%; if he uses screen-skipping weapons it gets lower.
I'd estimate an average of 15-18% from the designs I've seen; an ship
with level-1 screens should (on average cost) cost 8-9% more than a
ship with the same hull and weapons but no screen.
OK, so how much should the armour cost? The screen uses up 5% of TMF or 3
Mass, whichever is more; arnouring 3 sides uses up 3% of TMF, minimum
1 or 3 Mass depending on whether the minimum was per side or in total -
you didn't state this in the previous post.
Assume for simplicity an "average" ship - 30% hull, Thrust-4, FTL,
human weapons/screens, no fancy sensors or similar; TMF 100. This ship
costs 340 pts (assuming no FB-style armour, since it can't be combined
with this armour type). Let's further assume that this is the actual
*value* of the ship, rather than just its cost :-/
If this ship is given a level-1 screen, its value increases by 8-9% to
about 370 points. It's TMF goes up to 107 (due to the increased
engines), and its NPV increases to about 366 pts - pretty close to what
it should be.
If it is given armour, its value increases by ~15% to about 390 points. The
TMF increases to 106, and everything *exept* the armour now costs 350 points
total. The armour must carry the remainder of the ship's
value, ie. 390 - 350 = 40 pts; it takes up 4 MASS (3% of 106, rounded
up - I assume you clump all sides together before rounding, since you
didn't specify this in the original post and rounding them separately
makes the Mass thresholds even worse), so it needs to cost about 40/4 =
10 x MASS.
Probably a bit higher, actually - this particular ship started right on
a Mass threshold. Had the original unarmoured ship been TMF 96 instead
- ie., on the other side on that Mass threshold - it only need 3 MASS
of armour, its value increases from around 326 to around 407 pts and the
armour needs to cost 14xMASS to bring the ship up to its real value. The truth
is somewhere inbetween; my guess is 12xMASS for this
toned-down armour version. If you want to bring the value down, you
need to increase the armour Mass.
In my first cost estimate - the one that landed on 20xMASS - I had
assumed that beam dice inflict "- - - - 1 1p" (ie., the armour is
equivalent to level-*2* screens), which means a survivability boost of
almost 70% against the majority weapon type and a value increase of
25-30% (I counted conservatively, so used 25%). For the TMF 100 ship
above that would've made the value around 425 pts, giving an armour value of
19xMASS in the extreme low case; for the TMF 96 ship it makes the armour worth
25xMASS in the extreme high case.
Later,
> I wrote:
> If it is given armour, its value increases by ~15% to about 390
Um, no. The value increases to around 375 pts, which gives the armour value of
14xMASS. The 407 pts figure came from the first calculation;
that's what gives you the 25xMASS figure below. Sorry 'bout that :-(
> In my first cost estimate - the one that landed on 20xMASS - I had
Regards,