High Guard Armor Fix

[Plankowner]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Icosahedron:
I stumbled across the same problem 20 years ago. I didn't bother with a formula, I just decided that you could add as much armour as you wanted, but armour factor could never exceed Tonnage. It kept armour off fighters if nothing else.

I don't know, 20 points of High Guard armor on a 20 ton fighter sounds pretty formidable to me.

I assume that is not quite what you meant. </font>[/QUOTE]I can't speak for Icoshedron, but I interpreted what he said to mean the Size CODE limits armor. So a Size 1 ship would be limited to Armor 1 etc. That way a Size 0 fighter would not be allowed to be armored.

 

[Plankowner]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Icosahedron:
I stumbled across the same problem 20 years ago. I didn't bother with a formula, I just decided that you could add as much armour as you wanted, but armour factor could never exceed Tonnage. It kept armour off fighters if nothing else.

I don't know, 20 points of High Guard armor on a 20 ton fighter sounds pretty formidable to me.

I assume that is not quite what you meant. </font>[/QUOTE]I can't speak for Icoshedron, but I interpreted what he said to mean the Size CODE limits armor. So a Size 1 ship would be limited to Armor 1 etc. That way a Size 0 fighter would not be allowed to be armored.

 

[robject]

two sensibly designed TL15 fighters cannot hurt each other in HG! Neither fighter can deploy a factor 8+ weapon.

I always thought this was silly.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Icosahedron:
I stumbled across the same problem 20 years ago. I didn't bother with a formula, I just decided that you could add as much armour as you wanted, but armour factor could never exceed Tonnage. It kept armour off fighters if nothing else.

I don't know, 20 points of High Guard armor on a 20 ton fighter sounds pretty formidable to me.

I assume that is not quite what you meant. </font>[/QUOTE]I can't speak for Icoshedron, but I interpreted what he said to mean the Size CODE limits armor. So a Size 1 ship would be limited to Armor 1 etc. That way a Size 0 fighter would not be allowed to be armored. </font>[/QUOTE]This solution would solve the problem with fighters, though it would preclude fighters from having *any* armor. It would not really address the distortions for ships >5000 tons, but that's more of a wargaming (i.e. Trillion Credit Squadron) issue than a roleplaying issue.

However, it would mean that fighters carry no more armor than commercial ships boats. Maybe a more nuanced version would be to say that armor that exceeds the size code costs five times the tonnage (with attendent increases in cost) and cannot in any case exceed 5+size code. This would make it possible to have armored fighters, just not unkillable ones. So, a 20 ton TL15 fighter could have 5 points of armor for a cost of 30% of its tonnage -- 6 tons.

Such a fighter would be harder to kill, but not impossible to kill.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Icosahedron:
I stumbled across the same problem 20 years ago. I didn't bother with a formula, I just decided that you could add as much armour as you wanted, but armour factor could never exceed Tonnage. It kept armour off fighters if nothing else.

I don't know, 20 points of High Guard armor on a 20 ton fighter sounds pretty formidable to me.

I assume that is not quite what you meant. </font>[/QUOTE]I can't speak for Icoshedron, but I interpreted what he said to mean the Size CODE limits armor. So a Size 1 ship would be limited to Armor 1 etc. That way a Size 0 fighter would not be allowed to be armored. </font>[/QUOTE]This solution would solve the problem with fighters, though it would preclude fighters from having *any* armor. It would not really address the distortions for ships >5000 tons, but that's more of a wargaming (i.e. Trillion Credit Squadron) issue than a roleplaying issue.

However, it would mean that fighters carry no more armor than commercial ships boats. Maybe a more nuanced version would be to say that armor that exceeds the size code costs five times the tonnage (with attendent increases in cost) and cannot in any case exceed 5+size code. This would make it possible to have armored fighters, just not unkillable ones. So, a 20 ton TL15 fighter could have 5 points of armor for a cost of 30% of its tonnage -- 6 tons.

Such a fighter would be harder to kill, but not impossible to kill.

 

[flykiller]

less complex than your suggestions

they were complex?

limiting armor factor to hull size factor seems a good idea. quick, simple, fits existing rules, sufficiently accurate, works at all levels - sounds great. not what I do, but great for HG2.

Consider it borrowed.

sure. let me know how it works out.

 

[flykiller]

less complex than your suggestions

they were complex?

limiting armor factor to hull size factor seems a good idea. quick, simple, fits existing rules, sufficiently accurate, works at all levels - sounds great. not what I do, but great for HG2.

Consider it borrowed.

sure. let me know how it works out.

 

[far-trader]

You know I like this simple, elegant, kind of modification. Armor factor limited to size factor. Yep, consider it stolen for potential inclusion here as well

Just have to work out any potential cascade issues. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[far-trader]

You know I like this simple, elegant, kind of modification. Armor factor limited to size factor. Yep, consider it stolen for potential inclusion here as well

Just have to work out any potential cascade issues. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

Whilst I appreciate the lengths some forumites have gone to for precision and realism, I have always preferred a Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) approach. I like the rough and ready idea of limiting armour to something like Size code +1 with some sort of Tech level modifier.

This would allow some armour to be installed on fighters if you wanted (think WWII Zero - no/little armour vs WWII Spitfire - some armour plate in vulnerable areas). It would also figure in something for higher Tech Level fighters and the types of material used for the armour.

So maybe a max armour factor of Size +1 ,with and additional allowance of +1 per tech level over 10 say.....just a thought!

 

[pendragonman]

However, it would mean that fighters carry no more armor than commercial ships boats. Maybe a more nuanced version would be to say that armor that exceeds the size code costs five times the tonnage (with attendent increases in cost) and cannot in any case exceed 5+size code. This would make it possible to have armored fighters, just not unkillable ones. So, a 20 ton TL15 fighter could have 5 points of armor for a cost of 30% of its tonnage -- 6 tons.

Such a fighter would be harder to kill, but not impossible to kill.

No reason fighter should have armor. You are basing your assumption of the fighter actual being hit.

Notice the following issues:

Fighters are size code zero so minus 2 to hit.
Fighters are (normally) 6-g acceleration, so a slightly larger PP can easily give an agility of 6, so a further minus 6 to hit.

On the plus side, all there is is the computer difference. So the best possible plus to hit is plus nine for a model 1 on the fighter and a model 9 on the ship. Anything more sophisticated on a fighter will reduce the plus to hit. Also, look at the net affect if both the target and the firer are fighters.

Armored vs infantry weapons fire is one thing. Armored to survive ship's weapons are another.

Further, there is nothing that says that you can't have an "armored bathtub" to increase crew survivability. It is just that the fighter itself is rendered unable to continue combat when hit. Whether unable to continue combat means that the fighter (or at least most of it) survives to return to the carrier or that the crew is able to punch out in survival bubbles is a GM's prerogative to decide. However, having fighters that are armored so as to be able to withstand a hit from ship's weapons and continue to complete the mission is just not logical.

Fighters are meant for attrition warfare. Fighters are built way faster than capital ships, are way cheaper than even patrol cruisers, and able to control larger portions of space at one time than a single ship (12 CT 10dton fighters cost 216 MCR ~.9 months to build each and don't actually require shipyard space to build. A type T patrol cruiser costs 221 MCR, and takes 16 months to build. The fighters each have a crew of 1 (for a total of 12 individual targets) the patrol cruiser has a crew of 10 in one larger target.)

 

[flykiller]

Further, there is nothing that says that you can't have an "armored bathtub" to increase crew survivability.

hg2 specifically disallows that. but, if discreet armor is allowed then new damage tables must be created allowing for discreet hit locations based on hull shape (or actual deck plan), aspect, weapon type, weapon size, etc. which is what I do, but it's not good for a quick and simple game.

 

[Icosahedron]

I don't know, 20 points of High Guard armor on a 20 ton fighter sounds pretty formidable to me.

I assume that is not quite what you meant. [/b]</font>

I can't speak for Icoshedron, but I interpreted what he said to mean the Size CODE limits armor. So a Size 1 ship would be limited to Armor 1 etc. That way a Size 0 fighter would not be allowed to be armored.[/QUOTE]

Hey guys, I must have missed the remainder of this thread first time round.
What I actually meant was that the Armour factor cannot exceed the tonnage of the armour, so if you put two dtons of armour on your fighter, you have armour factor 2 max. (I've not got the book open, so don't take me literally on the example).

Edit: Doh! I think that should have been a multi-quote. Maybe one of the nice computer-whiz moderators can fix it for me?

 

[tbeard1999]

No reason fighter should have armor.

Most military vehicles in the real world are better protected than similar civilian vehicles. If you want that to be the case in Traveller, then there must be some provision to allow fighters to be armored. Unfortunately, High Guard makes it FAR too easy to armor fighters.

I don't have a problem with fighters being somewhat better protected than (say) civilian shuttles. Indeed, I kinda like having to balance protection, speed and armament. So for me, limiting armor to the ship's size code won't work.

In the Real World, surface area -- the primary determinant of armor mass -- simply does not scale proportionally with volume. Unless that is addressed, High Guard's design system is illogical. And while I'm always in favor of simple rules, I don't really find that basing armor tonnage on hull size adds much more complexity than the other solutions. Yet it handles the problem in a realistic way and avoids some of the anomalies in the other suggestions.

 

[atpollard]

In the Real World, surface area -- the primary determinant of armor mass -- simply does not scale proportionally with volume. Unless that is addressed, High Guard's design system is illogical. And while I'm always in favor of simple rules, I don't really find that basing armor tonnage on hull size adds much more complexity than the other solutions. Yet it handles the problem in a realistic way and avoids some of the anomalies in the other suggestions.

While I agree from a physics standpoint, as always, the devil is in the details.

How would you estimate the surface area of a ship like the Florian Scout?

or an X-wing Fighter?

Any rules system will require some level of inaccuracy to be playable (otherwise we are creating a computer simulation).

How would you propose estimating surface area for complex shapes?

Would some abstract system like 2 x (Plan View Area + Side View Area + Front View Area) work?

 

[tbeard1999]

While I agree from a physics standpoint, as always, the devil is in the details.

How would you estimate the surface area of a ship like the Florian Scout?

or an X-wing Fighter?

Any rules system will require some level of inaccuracy to be playable (otherwise we are creating a computer simulation).

How would you propose estimating surface area for complex shapes?

Would some abstract system like 2 x (Plan View Area + Side View Area + Front View Area) work?

The formula that we wound up with in this thread assumes a sphere. So there is *some* distortion for non-spherical configurations*, but nothing like the amount of distortion in the original High Guard model. I suppose that you could refine the approach by having separate equations for different hull configurations. But that is too much hassle for too little gain for me.

And since High Guard has no mechanism for determining ship length, width, etc., your suggested methodology won't work with High Guard "as is".

*When I proposed this fix, I compared the results with various cubic configuarations. I don't recall there being enough difference to worry about.

 

[Ishmael]

how about basing volume on bounding box times 'n', where 'n' is a number relating to form. Cubic; 'n'=1, sphere: 'n'=.5236. Frontal area follows a similar idea and drag coefficient can be related to "n" ( Cd=1.2 for flat face...Cd=.2 for sphere ) as well; cube/flat=faced is high and decreases as 'n' decreases ( can take finess ratio into consideration too. ).
I'm not certain, but I think the total energy from drag is about 2% of the energy absorbed by renetry, so a blackbody sim can find out when ship melts ( max 2900C?
but most likely lower for lower tech materials?).
Total surface area follows the same idea but becomes increasingly inaccurate as finess and thickness ratios move away from 1.

I worked it all out once, but lost my notes and my memory might be bad
just tossing out ideas

 

[tbeard1999]

how about basing volume on bounding box times 'n', where 'n' is a number relating to form. Cubic; 'n'=1, sphere: 'n'=.5236. Frontal area follows a similar idea and drag coefficient can be related to "n" ( Cd=1.2 for flat face...Cd=.2 for sphere ) as well; cube/flat=faced is high and decreases as 'n' decreases ( can take finess ratio into consideration too. ).
I'm not certain, but I think the total energy from drag is about 2% of the energy absorbed by renetry, so a blackbody sim can find out when ship melts ( max 2900C?
but most likely lower for lower tech materials?).
Total surface area follows the same idea but becomes increasingly inaccurate as finess and thickness ratios move away from 1.

I worked it all out once, but lost my notes and my memory might be bad
just tossing out ideas

The problem is that High Guard has no mechanisms for determining a ship's dimensions, so a dimensioning system would have to be created. It would have to be properly integrated with the various hull configurations. At the end of the day, it seems to me like an awful lot of work for a very modest benefit.

 

[tbeard1999]

While I agree from a physics standpoint, as always, the devil is in the details.

How would you estimate the surface area of a ship like the Florian Scout?

By the way...that's a good looking ship.

--Ty

 

[infojunky]

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.

And that's a problem? It looks like a scalar solution that meshes with the general USP factors of the weapons.

Remember it's USP-Size code for number of Critical, with a armor reduction of 1 crit per two armor. Or an armor level of 18 is needed for "perfect" protection from bay and turret weapons.....