tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I've just completed an analysis (and fix) of a *major* logical flaw in High Guard that causes some pretty strange tactics to be effective. In High Guard, each point of armor costs a certain percentage of tonnage (after a very modest "up front" penalty). The percentage varies with tech level, but not with hull size.
So, a 15 points of armor on a 20 ton TL15 fighter consumes 16% of tonnage -- 3.2 tons. The same percentage -- 16% -- is consumed by 15 points of armor on a 1 million ton dreadnought.
So incredibly high armor levels may be found on tiny fighters, which is completely non-intuitive. It also breaks the HG combat system, since clouds of ultra-high armored fighters must be engaged one at a time by spinal weapons to be destroyed.
The problem is the assumption that armor mass/volume scales linearly with volume. It does not. An analysis of spheres, cubes and 3D rectangular constructs reveals that when you double volume ("tonnage" in CT), you only increase surface area 1.6 times. This is why 50,000 ton wet navy battleships have far thicker armor than 5,000 ton destroyers. It's also why 70 ton MBTs can have far thicker armor than 10 ton APCs.
So here's my fix.
I started with the assumption that HG's armor percentages were roughly correct for 100,000 ton starships and then scaled armor values for other hull sizes from that point. Using a sphere as my assumed shape, and 14 cubic meters per “ton”, I calculated that if 1 point of armor on a 100,000 ton ship displaces 1000 tons, then the armor would be about 23cm thick. This gave me a basis to calculate the tonnage of armor for other sizes. (As an aside, the 100,000 ton sphere is 138m in diameter; a 1 million ton behemoth is 299m in diameter). Star Trek’s Fesarius would have been a 15 million ton starship in Traveller. The Death Star (~500km in diameter) would be about 5,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
[UPDATE -- SEE FORMULA POSTED AT THE END OF THIS THREAD FOR A FAR MORE ELEGANT SOLUTION THAN THIS CHART]
Hull Size...TL7-9....TL10-11....TL12-13....TL14+
10 ...80.4%....60.3%....40.2%....20.1%
20 ...64.8%....48.6%....32.4%....16.2%
30 ...57.0%....42.7%....28.5%....14.2%
40 ...52.0%....39.0%....26.0%....13.0%
50 ...48.4%....36.3%....24.2%....12.1%
60 ...45.7%....34.3%....22.9%....11.4%
70 ...43.5%....32.6%....21.8%....10.9%
80 ...41.7%....31.3%....20.8%....10.4%
90 ...40.1%....30.1%....20.1%....10.0%
100 ...38.8%....29.1%....19.4%....9.7%
200 ...31.0%....23.3%....15.5%....7.8%
300 ...27.2%....20.4%....13.6%....6.8%
400 ...24.7%....18.6%....12.4%....6.2%
500 ...23.0%....17.3%....11.5%....5.8%
600 ...21.7%....16.3%....10.8%....5.4%
700 ...20.6%....15.5%....10.3%....5.2%
800 ...19.7%....14.8%....9.9%....4.9%
900 ...19.0%....14.2%....9.5%....4.7%
1,000 ...18.3%....13.7%....9.2%....4.6%
2,000 ...14.6%....10.9%....7.3%....3.6%
3,000 ...12.8%....9.6%....6.4%....3.2%
4,000 ...11.6%....8.7%....5.8%....2.9%
5,000 ...10.8%....8.1%....5.4%....2.7%
6,000 ...10.2%....7.6%....5.1%....2.5%
7,000 ....9.7%....7.2%....4.8%....2.4%
8,000 ....9.2%....6.9%....4.6%....2.3%
9,000 ....8.9%....6.7%....4.4%....2.2%
10,000 ....8.6%....6.4%....4.3%....2.1%
15,000 ....7.5%....5.6%....3.8%....1.9%
20,000 ....6.8%....5.1%....3.4%....1.7%
25,000 ....6.3%....4.8%....3.2%....1.6%
30,000 ....6.0%....4.5%....3.0%....1.5%
35,000 ....5.7%....4.2%....2.8%....1.4%
40,000 ....5.4%....4.1%....2.7%....1.4%
45,000 ....5.2%....3.9%....2.6%....1.3%
50,000 ....5.0%....3.8%....2.5%....1.3%
55,000 ....4.9%....3.7%....2.4%....1.2%
60,000 ....4.7%....3.6%....2.4%....1.2%
65,000 ....4.6%....3.5%....2.3%....1.2%
70,000 ....4.5%....3.4%....2.3%....1.1%
75,000 ....4.4%....3.3%....2.2%....1.1%
80,000 ....4.3%....3.2%....2.2%....1.1%
85,000 ....4.2%....3.2%....2.1%....1.1%
90,000 ....4.1%....3.1%....2.1%....1.0%
95,000 ....4.1%....3.1%....2.0%....1.0%
100,000 ....4.0%....3.0%....2.0%....1.0%
105,000 ....3.9%....3.0%....2.0%....1.0%
110,000 ....3.9%....2.9%....1.9%....1.0%
115,000 ....3.8%....2.9%....1.9%....1.0%
120,000 ....3.8%....2.8%....1.9%....0.9%
125,000 ....3.7%....2.8%....1.9%....0.9%
130,000 ....3.7%....2.7%....1.8%....0.9%
135,000 ....3.6%....2.7%....1.8%....0.9%
140,000 ....3.6%....2.7%....1.8%....0.9%
145,000 ....3.5%....2.7%....1.8%....0.9%
150,000 ....3.5%....2.6%....1.7%....0.9%
155,000 ....3.5%....2.6%....1.7%....0.9%
160,000 ....3.4%....2.6%....1.7%....0.9%
165,000 ....3.4%....2.5%....1.7%....0.8%
170,000 ....3.4%....2.5%....1.7%....0.8%
175,000 ....3.3%....2.5%....1.7%....0.8%
180,000 ....3.3%....2.5%....1.6%....0.8%
185,000 ....3.3%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
190,000 ....3.2%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
195,000 ....3.2%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
200,000 ....3.2%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
205,000 ....3.1%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
210,000 ....3.1%....2.3%....1.6%....0.8%
215,000 ....3.1%....2.3%....1.6%....0.8%
220,000 ....3.1%....2.3%....1.5%....0.8%
225,000 ....3.1%....2.3%....1.5%....0.8%
230,000 ....3.0%....2.3%....1.5%....0.8%
235,000 ....3.0%....2.3%....1.5%....0.8%
240,000 ....3.0%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
245,000 ....3.0%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
250,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
255,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
260,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
265,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.4%....0.7%
270,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.4%....0.7%
275,000 ....2.9%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
280,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
285,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
290,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
295,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
300,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
350,000 ....2.6%....2.0%....1.3%....0.7%
400,000 ....2.5%....1.9%....1.3%....0.6%
450,000 ....2.4%....1.8%....1.2%....0.6%
500,000 ....2.3%....1.8%....1.2%....0.6%
550,000 ....2.3%....1.7%....1.1%....0.6%
600,000 ....2.2%....1.7%....1.1%....0.6%
650,000 ....2.1%....1.6%....1.1%....0.5%
700,000 ....2.1%....1.6%....1.0%....0.5%
750,000 ....2.0%....1.5%....1.0%....0.5%
800,000 ....2.0%....1.5%....1.0%....0.5%
850,000 ....2.0%....1.5%....1.0%....0.5%
900,000 ....1.9%....1.4%....1.0%....0.5%
950,000 ....1.9%....1.4%....0.9%....0.5%
1 mil. ....1.9%....1.4%....0.9%....0.5%
The percentage given is the percentage of tonnage required for 1 point of armor at the given tech level. Multiply this by the number of armor points desired. For simplicity, you might want to round these fractions off to the nearest 0.25% or 0.50%.
--Ty
This solves the problem of cast-iron fighters, although it does make heavy armor less costly for large vehicles. This is realistic, however.
This also makes it much harder for small escorts to have much armor, which gives civilian ships (i.e. what the players probably have) a better chance against the authorities.
The surface area relationship holds true for cubes and rectangular solids, although the latter can have more surface area than a sphere. I wouldn’t get into the effect configuration has on armor. Since spheres have the lowest surface area by volume; the result would likely be nothing but spherical starships, which look silly.
To get a better formatted table, you can copy this into Word and Replace (Edit menu: Replace...) the four periods with tabs (the tab character is ^t) for formatting. Then do the same replacement for three periods.
So, a 15 points of armor on a 20 ton TL15 fighter consumes 16% of tonnage -- 3.2 tons. The same percentage -- 16% -- is consumed by 15 points of armor on a 1 million ton dreadnought.
So incredibly high armor levels may be found on tiny fighters, which is completely non-intuitive. It also breaks the HG combat system, since clouds of ultra-high armored fighters must be engaged one at a time by spinal weapons to be destroyed.
The problem is the assumption that armor mass/volume scales linearly with volume. It does not. An analysis of spheres, cubes and 3D rectangular constructs reveals that when you double volume ("tonnage" in CT), you only increase surface area 1.6 times. This is why 50,000 ton wet navy battleships have far thicker armor than 5,000 ton destroyers. It's also why 70 ton MBTs can have far thicker armor than 10 ton APCs.
So here's my fix.
I started with the assumption that HG's armor percentages were roughly correct for 100,000 ton starships and then scaled armor values for other hull sizes from that point. Using a sphere as my assumed shape, and 14 cubic meters per “ton”, I calculated that if 1 point of armor on a 100,000 ton ship displaces 1000 tons, then the armor would be about 23cm thick. This gave me a basis to calculate the tonnage of armor for other sizes. (As an aside, the 100,000 ton sphere is 138m in diameter; a 1 million ton behemoth is 299m in diameter). Star Trek’s Fesarius would have been a 15 million ton starship in Traveller. The Death Star (~500km in diameter) would be about 5,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
[UPDATE -- SEE FORMULA POSTED AT THE END OF THIS THREAD FOR A FAR MORE ELEGANT SOLUTION THAN THIS CHART]
Hull Size...TL7-9....TL10-11....TL12-13....TL14+
10 ...80.4%....60.3%....40.2%....20.1%
20 ...64.8%....48.6%....32.4%....16.2%
30 ...57.0%....42.7%....28.5%....14.2%
40 ...52.0%....39.0%....26.0%....13.0%
50 ...48.4%....36.3%....24.2%....12.1%
60 ...45.7%....34.3%....22.9%....11.4%
70 ...43.5%....32.6%....21.8%....10.9%
80 ...41.7%....31.3%....20.8%....10.4%
90 ...40.1%....30.1%....20.1%....10.0%
100 ...38.8%....29.1%....19.4%....9.7%
200 ...31.0%....23.3%....15.5%....7.8%
300 ...27.2%....20.4%....13.6%....6.8%
400 ...24.7%....18.6%....12.4%....6.2%
500 ...23.0%....17.3%....11.5%....5.8%
600 ...21.7%....16.3%....10.8%....5.4%
700 ...20.6%....15.5%....10.3%....5.2%
800 ...19.7%....14.8%....9.9%....4.9%
900 ...19.0%....14.2%....9.5%....4.7%
1,000 ...18.3%....13.7%....9.2%....4.6%
2,000 ...14.6%....10.9%....7.3%....3.6%
3,000 ...12.8%....9.6%....6.4%....3.2%
4,000 ...11.6%....8.7%....5.8%....2.9%
5,000 ...10.8%....8.1%....5.4%....2.7%
6,000 ...10.2%....7.6%....5.1%....2.5%
7,000 ....9.7%....7.2%....4.8%....2.4%
8,000 ....9.2%....6.9%....4.6%....2.3%
9,000 ....8.9%....6.7%....4.4%....2.2%
10,000 ....8.6%....6.4%....4.3%....2.1%
15,000 ....7.5%....5.6%....3.8%....1.9%
20,000 ....6.8%....5.1%....3.4%....1.7%
25,000 ....6.3%....4.8%....3.2%....1.6%
30,000 ....6.0%....4.5%....3.0%....1.5%
35,000 ....5.7%....4.2%....2.8%....1.4%
40,000 ....5.4%....4.1%....2.7%....1.4%
45,000 ....5.2%....3.9%....2.6%....1.3%
50,000 ....5.0%....3.8%....2.5%....1.3%
55,000 ....4.9%....3.7%....2.4%....1.2%
60,000 ....4.7%....3.6%....2.4%....1.2%
65,000 ....4.6%....3.5%....2.3%....1.2%
70,000 ....4.5%....3.4%....2.3%....1.1%
75,000 ....4.4%....3.3%....2.2%....1.1%
80,000 ....4.3%....3.2%....2.2%....1.1%
85,000 ....4.2%....3.2%....2.1%....1.1%
90,000 ....4.1%....3.1%....2.1%....1.0%
95,000 ....4.1%....3.1%....2.0%....1.0%
100,000 ....4.0%....3.0%....2.0%....1.0%
105,000 ....3.9%....3.0%....2.0%....1.0%
110,000 ....3.9%....2.9%....1.9%....1.0%
115,000 ....3.8%....2.9%....1.9%....1.0%
120,000 ....3.8%....2.8%....1.9%....0.9%
125,000 ....3.7%....2.8%....1.9%....0.9%
130,000 ....3.7%....2.7%....1.8%....0.9%
135,000 ....3.6%....2.7%....1.8%....0.9%
140,000 ....3.6%....2.7%....1.8%....0.9%
145,000 ....3.5%....2.7%....1.8%....0.9%
150,000 ....3.5%....2.6%....1.7%....0.9%
155,000 ....3.5%....2.6%....1.7%....0.9%
160,000 ....3.4%....2.6%....1.7%....0.9%
165,000 ....3.4%....2.5%....1.7%....0.8%
170,000 ....3.4%....2.5%....1.7%....0.8%
175,000 ....3.3%....2.5%....1.7%....0.8%
180,000 ....3.3%....2.5%....1.6%....0.8%
185,000 ....3.3%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
190,000 ....3.2%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
195,000 ....3.2%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
200,000 ....3.2%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
205,000 ....3.1%....2.4%....1.6%....0.8%
210,000 ....3.1%....2.3%....1.6%....0.8%
215,000 ....3.1%....2.3%....1.6%....0.8%
220,000 ....3.1%....2.3%....1.5%....0.8%
225,000 ....3.1%....2.3%....1.5%....0.8%
230,000 ....3.0%....2.3%....1.5%....0.8%
235,000 ....3.0%....2.3%....1.5%....0.8%
240,000 ....3.0%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
245,000 ....3.0%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
250,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
255,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
260,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.5%....0.7%
265,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.4%....0.7%
270,000 ....2.9%....2.2%....1.4%....0.7%
275,000 ....2.9%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
280,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
285,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
290,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
295,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
300,000 ....2.8%....2.1%....1.4%....0.7%
350,000 ....2.6%....2.0%....1.3%....0.7%
400,000 ....2.5%....1.9%....1.3%....0.6%
450,000 ....2.4%....1.8%....1.2%....0.6%
500,000 ....2.3%....1.8%....1.2%....0.6%
550,000 ....2.3%....1.7%....1.1%....0.6%
600,000 ....2.2%....1.7%....1.1%....0.6%
650,000 ....2.1%....1.6%....1.1%....0.5%
700,000 ....2.1%....1.6%....1.0%....0.5%
750,000 ....2.0%....1.5%....1.0%....0.5%
800,000 ....2.0%....1.5%....1.0%....0.5%
850,000 ....2.0%....1.5%....1.0%....0.5%
900,000 ....1.9%....1.4%....1.0%....0.5%
950,000 ....1.9%....1.4%....0.9%....0.5%
1 mil. ....1.9%....1.4%....0.9%....0.5%
The percentage given is the percentage of tonnage required for 1 point of armor at the given tech level. Multiply this by the number of armor points desired. For simplicity, you might want to round these fractions off to the nearest 0.25% or 0.50%.
--Ty
This solves the problem of cast-iron fighters, although it does make heavy armor less costly for large vehicles. This is realistic, however.
This also makes it much harder for small escorts to have much armor, which gives civilian ships (i.e. what the players probably have) a better chance against the authorities.
The surface area relationship holds true for cubes and rectangular solids, although the latter can have more surface area than a sphere. I wouldn’t get into the effect configuration has on armor. Since spheres have the lowest surface area by volume; the result would likely be nothing but spherical starships, which look silly.
To get a better formatted table, you can copy this into Word and Replace (Edit menu: Replace...) the four periods with tabs (the tab character is ^t) for formatting. Then do the same replacement for three periods.