How do you prefer your body-armor rules to work?

[robject]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
Mmmm single roll!
<SNIP>
Say you roll a 10, so pen = 2.
Damage therefore = 6 x 2 = 12 points.

That would be slick.
<SNIP>
On the other hand, that means highly skilled folks have a chance of a critical hit... hmmm not bad.

You have looked at Dalton's system right? This is similar to what he proposed, and it looked like it worked quite well.

It was quite slick, but I prefer battledress to be proof from small arms, which means that I need to have penetration rules...

Scott Martin </font>[/QUOTE]Arr, yes I can see that. Looks like pen here ain't really pen, so to speak.

 

[rhoneycutt]

I'm thinking of using one die as hit location die
In MT, high rolls mean more damage, so:

6= head
5= chest
4= gut
3= leg
2= arm
1= flesh wound

I'll have to try it out sometime

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Agreed.

I once used a combat system for Traveller that had:

a to hit roll

a hit location roll

an armour penetration roll

a damage roll.

I now only use two - roll to hit and roll for damage.

(and I've toyed with the idea of a single roll...)

I've done the single roll route. The better hit roll more damage, roll and look damage up on a table or each 10% under equates to 10% of a maximum weapon damage.

Actually found to be slower than two rolls one to hit one damage, for the follwoing reason: I had to keep track of the number rolled to hit and look up on a table or remember the mechanic (no big deal for me). I have few dice so if I had 10 bad guys say I'd have to write down the hit number for the first five say then roll again. Very slow for me. With hit or miss it's binary.

I still like armor reducing damage. To bring back in lethality, one could include aimed shots and/or the hit location dice incorporated into the hit roll and/or a critical hit system. I personaly uallow aimed shots/hits at reduced chance to hit and use a critical hit system (if you get doubles and hit its a critical hit).

Armor just reducing chance to hit conflates too many things for me and makes it harder for those attacks which need only "touch" especially for armor which actually slows you down making you easier to hit if not hurt.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I was thinking of dividing stats by 3, round up to get the damage track

Then roll to hit, for each point you exceed your target number by you add 1 to the weapon's base damage rating (which is its CT number of damage dice), armour subtracts 1 per point of armour rating.

Interesting, so would you use Dexterity for guns say and Strength for blades? I base damage on Strength for blades, but have guns fixed.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
...I prefer battledress to be proof from small arms, which means that I need to have penetration rules...

Here, here. This very thing is what led me to prefer armor reducing damage and penetration rules.


Three posts and up above 500, now to return to another few months of work.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Ptah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I was thinking of dividing stats by 3, round up to get the damage track

Then roll to hit, for each point you exceed your target number by you add 1 to the weapon's base damage rating (which is its CT number of damage dice), armour subtracts 1 per point of armour rating.

Interesting, so would you use Dexterity for guns say and Strength for blades? I base damage on Strength for blades, but have guns fixed. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Str and Dex would provide their usual DMs for the to hit roll.

I haven't tried this out in a real game yet, but it should be fairly quick, no tables to look up, maths limited to addition and subtraction

 

[aramis]

I like the process in MT, just not the chosen breakpoints.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Ptah:
I've done the single roll route. The better hit roll more damage, roll and look damage up on a table or each 10% under equates to 10% of a maximum weapon damage.

That reminds me of FUDGE, which had a single-roll attack system (actually, two synchronus rolls - attacker rolls an attack roll, defender rolls a defense roll), in which the number of damage points equaled the weapon's damage factor, plus the number of points the attacker has beat the defender on the attack roll, minus the target's armor factor.

I still like armor reducing damage. To bring back in lethality, one could include aimed shots and/or the hit location dice incorporated into the hit roll and/or a critical hit system. I personaly uallow aimed shots/hits at reduced chance to hit and use a critical hit system (if you get doubles and hit its a critical hit).

I like this approach, though I'd use a somewhat different critical-hit mechanism (I'm using Sup4's UGM system, see my sig for a summery I've made for this system).

Armor just reducing chance to hit conflates too many things for me

Please elaborate on these things

...and makes it harder for those attacks which need only "touch" especially for armor which actually slows you down making you easier to hit if not hurt.

How many attacks in CT only need to "touch" a target?

Currently, I'm thinking of a damage-dice-absorbing armor ala T4, with critical hits bypassing armor, though I might accept a Striker-style penetration roll instead of the damage roll, with damage being abstract (Striker wounds) instead of directly applied to characteristics.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
I've done the single roll route. The better hit roll more damage, roll and look damage up on a table or each 10% under equates to 10% of a maximum weapon damage.

That reminds me of FUDGE, which had a single-roll attack system (actually, two synchronus rolls - attacker rolls an attack roll, defender rolls a defense roll), in which the number of damage points equaled the weapon's damage factor, plus the number of points the attacker has beat the defender on the attack roll, minus the target's armor factor.</font>[/QUOTE]

Interesting, I've heard of the name FUDGE but never seen the rules.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Armor just reducing chance to hit conflates too many things for me

Please elaborate on these things

</font>[/QUOTE]

OK two actually.

It conflates chance to be hit and damage together to give a chance to damage. In more mil speak it conflates target susceptability and vulverability.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...and makes it harder for those attacks which need only "touch" especially for armor which actually slows you down making you easier to hit if not hurt.

How many attacks in CT only need to "touch" a target?</font>[/QUOTE]
Not any canon ones that I can think of.

In general when armor reduces chance to be hit I see no disadvantage to wearing armor. One historical "disadvantage" is you are less agile, able to dodge, etc. so easier to "hit" be it by a weapon or something else you need to avoid.

Currently, I'm thinking of a damage-dice-absorbing armor ala T4, with critical hits bypassing armor, though I might accept a Striker-style penetration roll instead of the damage roll, with damage being abstract (Striker wounds) instead of directly applied to characteristics.

Sounds good. I like the ideas of criticals bypassing armor, especially if a weapon is in a certain class. I'd hate to see a low TL bronze spear hurt someone in full battledress.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Ptah:
In general when armor reduces chance to be hit I see no disadvantage to wearing armor. One historical "disadvantage" is you are less agile, able to dodge, etc. so easier to "hit" be it by a weapon or something else you need to avoid.

I've only been shot at a couple of times in my life, but I can tell you from those experiences that you don't "dodge" anything, and the only relevance of "agility" is how fast you can hit the ground.

Armor in CT adds encumbrance, which is enough for me.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Ptah:
OK two actually.

It conflates chance to be hit and damage together to give a chance to damage. In more mil speak it conflates target susceptibility and vulnerability.

Why is that a problem? The problem with existing mechanisms is mostly that the chance is independent of attack penetration and power. For example, if using Striker penetration values, I would probably have weapons ignore armor less than its rated pen, and add (armor-pen) to the difficulty of hitting targets with superior armor (i.e. if you would normally require 8+ to hit, against a target in AV 18 battledress, when using a penetration 4 rifle, you need a 22+). In addition, I'd use a partial penetration value for any attack with a penetration no greater than the armor.

In general when armor reduces chance to be hit I see no disadvantage to wearing armor.

For the most part, the only disadvantage to armor is reduced tactical and strategic mobility due to encumbrance.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
In general when armor reduces chance to be hit I see no disadvantage to wearing armor. One historical "disadvantage" is you are less agile, able to dodge, etc. so easier to "hit" be it by a weapon or something else you need to avoid.

I've only been shot at a couple of times in my life, but I can tell you from those experiences that you don't "dodge" anything, and the only relevance of "agility" is how fast you can hit the ground.

Armor in CT adds encumbrance, which is enough for me. </font>[/QUOTE]Certainly. I'm not thinking so much about gun combat as blade combat and situations that might call for quick action, like getting out of an air lock before the door closes, who gets a first strike, etc.

I'm not up on CT encumberance rules so maybe all that is covered via those rules.

I tend to use rules across genres and have some non-canon weapons IMTU where a touch is enough. I also like a way to give a zero chance of being hurt by certain weapons if you have enough armor on. These things drive my preference more than CT not meeting my simulationist needs.

I've also been indoctrinated to seperate susceptability from vulnerability, too much time working on USAF funded stuff.

 

[aramis]

Having been shot at (and missed), agility really only matters about not being in the open for the next shot, and being able to return fire.

Dodging am on-target bullet is a nigh-impossible thing, at best turning a graze into a clothing-only hit, at least with modern supersonic rounds.

I HAVE successfully dodged arrows.

"evasive maneuvering" is simply a means of making a hit harder, and it does work... but it's not a "reaction" but a precaution.

 

[marvo]

As a gearhead I like the MT rules the best, but as a gamer and GM who has run MT I have found it slows the game to a crawl. Not my favorite in real life at all. Reducing damage seems to be the most logical. Reducing 'to hit' does not make sense for balistic weapons.
The only situation I can think of where you could 'dodge' a bullet is where your position was being strafed by tracer fire at night.

 

[kafka47]

Taken from Wikipedia's Blackmoor entry...

Hit Location System

Regions of a character's body were assigned their own hit points (HP). If any of the specific regions "died", the character would be crippled or killed. Therefore, vulnerable areas such as the head had fewer HP, and less critical ones, such as the legs, might have as many HP as the character itself. These rules covered a wide variety of creatures, from humanoids to fish. Characters had a greater chance to hit another character's upper body than the head or lower body. This chance was adjusted based on the character's height and weapon reach.

Now simplfy it for Tiny, Small, Medium & Large opponents, I think we would have a winner. Armour being something that protects a portion with a rating.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Marvo:
As a gearhead I like the MT rules the best, but as a gamer and GM who has run MT I have found it slows the game to a crawl. Not my favorite in real life at all. Reducing damage seems to be the most logical. Reducing 'to hit' does not make sense for balistic weapons.

Actually, it does, somewhat. Against a target whose main armor is impervious to your weapon a reduction in hit probability can reflect the chance of hitting a less armored location.

 

[rhoneycutt]

I don't think armor should affect hit probability.
Having good armor doesn't make bullets miss...just bounce off. To me, thats a funtion of pen vs av, with the energy that gets through doing the damage.

I like MT and think its pretty quick
the amount you make roll by is damage multiplier with an exact roll being 1/2
the math for penetration isn't too bad either

What I think is funny, is that many people don't do the "first aid" rules... a light wound can get really bad if first aid isn't done successfully, and fairly quickly. That's where the lethality really is.

as always..just my opinion

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Against a target whose main armor is impervious to your weapon a reduction in hit probability can reflect the chance of hitting a less armored location.

True, but what of situations where you are completely armored, say battledress? I just assume that with battledress you would be impervious to many forms of attack.

The "to hit" approach IMHO works well in situations where all weapons reasonably in use have a chance to penetrate the "armored" foe,especially if that armor is not complete, and function such that more than a touch is enough. Where you can make that assumption, say a game based on medieval combat with historic weapons and armor coverage, modern settings where body armor is not impervious and rarely worn with complete coverage, etc. it holds and is a smooth game mechanic.

When you start to mix and match technologies, add new technologies, add some attacks where touch is enough, etc. it can break down. To me, YMMV, a person in full TL 12 armor, may be vulnerable to TL 12 weapons, but should be impervious to most personal, if not all, TL 3- weapons.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Ptah:
True, but what of situations where you are completely armored, say battledress? I just assume that with battledress you would be impervious to many forms of attack.

Practically speaking, battledress will be thicker on the head and vitals, thinner on the limbs, and have distinctive weak points on the joints. Sufficiently weak attacks will never penetrate, but the minimum thickness is a lot less than the average.

 

[aramis]

Marvo:
If MT is slowing to a crawl, then you're doing something DRASTICALLY wrong...

I've found the fastest way to speed it up to to precalc pens for each range (thus negating Atten Calcs).

I've found no faster system in a Traveller core book. (Striker/AHL doesn't count, either... but it is faster still.)