SG2: rule book example vehicle armor

Anyone have a good idea as to why the example vehicles in the rule aren't
fully armored? Most all of them are Size 3 but have Armor 2. According to the
rules they could have Armor 3.

> Anyone have a good idea as to why the example vehicles

Maybe, as in the FT books, they are not "rules optimized" designs. They
*could* be enormously better - with Superior FC systems, EW, Decoys on
every one, etc. But that would be boring. And besides, if you look at RL
armoured vehicles, say the LAV for example, it *could* have a lot more armour,
but the designers chose not to for a bunch of reasons... It has enough for the
mission it was designed for, at the time it was designed, within the budget
limits of the customers buying it.

The Rulebook examples include the NAC Phalanx which is big, but wheeled. Look
at a modern "big but wheeled" armoured vehicle, like the Italian Centauro B1
(which is a "Tank Destroyer" that carries a 105mm tank gun on
an 8 wheel chassis).  It has a weight in the 24,000kg class - half that
of
the tanks carrying the same gun - but you can carry it in much smaller
aircraft. Maybe the wheeled NAC designs follow a similar design philosophy
- they do have to be lugged around rather large areas of space,
afterall... The NSL and FSE vehicles are GEVs, so you can imagine the
designers not producing them with maxed out armour (and weight).

Anyway, my $0.02

I have to agree with Adrian here. This is the feel I get from the SG rules;
Jon has given it a 'feel' rather than optimised the vehicles in every case.

A size 3 APC is that size so it can carry 10 or so troops and a decent weapons
fit to give it a fighting chance against other light vehicles or provide fire
support to the infantry inside. Sure it could carry Level 3 armour but it
wouldn't fit in with the 'feel' of an APC (RL equivs like Warrior or such do
have good armour but these are in the MICV class rather than simple battle
taxi style). APCs are still vulnerable to infantry weapons; maybe not
necessarily front on but from side or rear small arms continue to be a threat.

Rob Deakin designed and sculpted a BMP-60 which has Level 3 Armour on
front but only Level 1 on the side! Front towards enemy etc!? Encourages the
crew
commanders to head TOWARDS the enemy eh ;-)

If everybody starts playing APCs with level 3 Armour all round then we get
an on table arms race as platoons start carrying GMS/Ls instead of Ps
etc
etc etc.....

But you play with whatever the crowd you game with wants. Strenghts and
weaknesses built into a game design give these vehicles flavour that adds to
the game play. Oh, by the way Robs BMP-60 only mounts two pintle SAWs
.....
doesn't like bumping into other Armoured vehicles much, but it does encourage
the infantry with GMS or IAVR to get out and kill teh enemy AFV when they do!

Cheers,

owen G

> -----Original Message-----

One reason is cost. If you cost the vehicles using DS, then the 1 reduction
in armour saves 25-40% of the vehicles cost.  Always a priority when
you're the lowest bidder.

Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander

> -----Original Message-----