Well it's kind of apples and oranges. Weight on the shuttle is at a premium
because you have to lob it out of the Earth's gravity well. That same chip
would just nick a 6" plate of Chobham Delta armor off
of an M1A2 Abrams. There are new polycarbonate/polyalloy armors that
make a mockery of even this in the U.S. DoD pipeline. I think that it is
reasonable to assume effective armors combined with structural redundancy that
could be effective in spatial warfare. For instance,
a Soviet designed/Iraqi T80 used by the Iraqis during the Gulf War
hit the forward Glacis plate of an M1A2 at a range of under a kilometer (a
122mm APFSDS round) and it just bounced off.. An APFSDS round (Armor Piercing
Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) Travels about 5200 fps. The round is several
Kilos in weight and made
of depleted uranium- a very dense metal that also burns when it hits
due to the collapsing Uranium penetrator, causing secondary explosive
effect....
Once weight is a secondary consideration, I think that armoring is VERY
plausible...
Gotta love technology, man...;-)
Armor seems kind of silly in a space combat game. I mean, a freaking paint
chip hit the quartz window of the space shuttle and cracked it. At the
velocities you could project any material in space, what kind of armor could
protect you from them? This, of course, assumes we use the knowledge of
materials we have today. I'm just curious what explination is given for the
use of armor?
> Gerald McVicker writes:
@:) Armor seems kind of silly in a space combat game. I mean, a @:) freaking
paint chip hit the quartz window of the space shuttle and @:) cracked it. At
the velocities you could project any material in @:) space, what kind of armor
could protect you from them? This, of @:) course, assumes we use the knowledge
of materials we have today. @:) I'm just curious what explination is given for
the use of armor?
Since no explanation is given for anything else, it wouldn't be fitting to
provide an explanation for armor.
In near-future terms, I guess you would have two potential threats:
radiation and solid objects. Against solid objects you would want to deploy
other solid objects; armor would consist of metal plates or maybe foam, water
or sand which would compact on impact and distribute the force of the object
across the hull. Reactive armor is also a possibility. Against radiation (and
particle beams) you want something that stops the stuff, again water is a good
idea, lead obviously has benefits here, maybe just mirrors would be effective
against some types of weapons. Who knows? The nice thing about FT is that we
don't have to worry about this stuff (unless we choose to but as far as I can
tell doing so just leads to a boring game).
> At 02:50 PM 27-05-97 +0100, Jerry McViker wrote:
What's the the explaination for screens? Personally I don't like screens and
in the senarios I design don't allow them (then again I've usually dictated
the actual ship designs to be used) but I do believe that materials science
will advance enough to keep pace with weapons technology, it certainly has for
the last hundred years or so. I fact since the first ships were iron cladded
(1857 I think....) armours have been constantly improved to the point were the
armours in use today (kevlar, chobam....) are designed to take strains that
the first armours would never have had to face.
Sci-Fi is all about what if's. I want see about what if there
were armoured space ships.
> In message <v03102801afb05c912d62@[157.182.134.208]> you wrote:
> Armor seems kind of silly in a space combat game. I mean, a freaking
The windscreen of a late 20th century civilian shuttle can't be compared to
high tech armour plating on a 24th century super dreadnaught.
> At the
Small point: Shields in FT only stop lasers. If it's assumed that kinetic
energy weapons (which shields have no effect on) are so deadly, then why is
anyone so stupid to bother using lasers? The very fact that lasers are used in
preference to KE weapons suggests that armour is capable of protecting from KE
weapons.
> This, of course, assumes we use the knowledge
I'm just curious why anyone would bother with shields and lasers. Given the
predominence of shields in the game, it makes more sense to use KE weapons,
and armour protects from both.
In a message dated 97-05-31 11:52:05 EDT, you write:
<< I'm just curious why anyone would bother with shields and lasers. Given the
predominence of shields in the game, it makes more sense to use KE weapons,
and armour protects from both. >>
Don't forget, KE weapons may only fire through 1 arc while Beam weapons may
fire through up to 3 arcs. Ships with KE weapons will tend to mount the
majority of their firepower through the front arc. This is a disadvantage
especially for higher mass ships with less manoeuvrability. Ships with beam
weapons have the advantage of being able to fire broadsides. The Kra'vak
somewhat offset this disadvantage because of their high manoeuvrability.
> In message <970602124801_813589287@emout17.mail.aol.com> you wrote:
> In a message dated 97-05-31 11:52:05 EDT, you write:
That's very true, though is somewhat offset by the fact that railguns will do
more damage against shielded targets than beam weapons do, so you don't need
as many railguns as you need beams (an A'battery has a slightly longer range,
but against a
shields-3 target, a mass 1 railgun does more damage at <30"
than a (mass 3) A battery).
Beams do work out to be better against unprotected targets though.
There armor rules I have been toying with for some time.
Two levels of armor, level 1 and level 2. Armor is available to all ships.
Level 1 armor costs no mass, and adds 25% to the basic hull cost. Armor is
figured by multiplying the damage points of the ship by.20. The result is the
number of 'extra' damage boxes available. These boxes act like a layer of
reactive or ablative armor, taking all damage before the "real" ship is hit.
Loss of armor boxes does not produce threshold rolls.
Level 2 armor is figured in a similar fashion, except that it costs an extra
50% of the basic hull cost and damage points are multiplied by.40 instead of
.20.
The effect so far has been that any ship with armor does benefit. Although
smaller ships get only a small degree of protection, it costs very little.
Large ships on the other hand gain strong amounts of damage taking potential,
but the cost is greatly increased.
For every man, there is but one true love in his life. His only task, is to
recognize it, and cherish it for all time.
I've been re-thinking armor and Kra'Vak systems for the last few weeks.
This is what I have come up with:
1: Armor does not protect against beam weapons (or anything else that sheilds
prtect against). 2: Armor is shown by 50% more damage boxes. Costs for armor
remain the same, however crusiers pay for armor level 1, capital ships always
pay for armor level 2. (ie armored crusiers and capital ships get 2 damage
boxes per 3 mass)
This has not been play tested, but I think it will work. Let me know what you
think.
and who says armor has to be any one kind?
It could be made of metal, ceramic, crystals, organic... and in solid plates,
spaced/honeycombed, scaley [sp-?] with gooey self-healing gunk between
layers.
Maybe we can start creating Armor Classes and what kinds of weapons work best
against them. Beams may be able to punch through some types while other armor
types just bounce beams off. A Wave Blast may melt other kinds like tissue
paper in front of a blow torch.
Hey, this is getting to be fun!!
Sincerely
> At 3:50 PM -0500 6/6/97, John M. Huber wrote:
Sounds like Dirtside II. Each class of weapons has a slightly different
performance against each class of armour. And that performance varies by
range. I think that's exactly the sort of system you're looking for.
> Michael Brown wrote:
What was this about a set of mission cards in MS Word? I am interested if you
are willing to send me a copy of the file too? How extensive are they?
Thanks
> In message <970606202941_102156.2721_HHO29-1@CompuServe.COM> you wrote:
> I've been re-thinking armor and Kra'Vak systems for the last few
Why not? Okay yes, I can see your reason being a desire for game
balance, but IMO there should be a damn good real-world reason why
this is the case (there's possibly a disagreement in idealogy here, since I
have difficulty with mystical energy fields which are tougher than good old
solid matter).
> 2: Armor is shown by 50% more damage boxes. Costs for armor remain
Shouldn't that be 3 per 4?
> In message <9706062050.AA14084@omnifest.uwm.edu> you wrote:
> and who says armor has to be any one kind?
Something I've been playing with is different types of beam weapons -
lasers and particle beams.
Lasers do normal damage. Particle beams do double damage BUT particle beams
suffer badly against armour (or shields if you really want to use the damn
things). Something like any armour counts as one level better.
The problem is the d6 versus max of 4 possible armour levels (0-3),
which gives a rather coarse system which makes giving small bonuses to certain
weapon types rather difficult.
I believe that the different types/levels are a good idea for a detailed
few ship games. But if your group deals with large numbers of ships
this could become a chore to keep track of. I my self have experimented with
different weapon and armor types/effects. some are great.. But all
depends on the over all scale you plan to play your games. If you play on a
planetary scale then would a shield type on one ship realy make that big a
difference? But on the converse side if you plan on playing a scenario where
there are only a few ships present ( a recure or break out type game)
then the detail could make a difference). Look at your games in
perspective. The point is fantasy... (to have fun)
CMC
> The problem is the d6 versus max of 4 possible armour levels (0-3),
I found that, too, in some things I had been playing with, and then I noticed
a couple of options people posted a while back for various modifications to
weapons effectiveness being applied to the effective
range of the weapon itself. So instead of a -1 modifier to a beam
weapon for some reason, apply a penalty of +6" or even +12" to the
range from the firing ship to target. I kinda like this a bit better. This
would be then the 'effective range' as opposed to the 'true range'.
Mk