Scaled Armor - Book 5 Variant

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Imix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
From a strict game balance perspective, can a 100 or 200 dTon ship (like most players have) afford yet another space penalty in their over crowded hulls. Since most small starships cannot operate at a profit with their current passenger/cargo capacity, the real game effect will be to push ships further into the red or leave them without the option of armor.

Well, I don't believe that they will be left "without the option of armor", but rather "with lighter armor options".</font>[/QUOTE]According to Supplement 7 [Traders and Gunboats], the Type S Scout/Courier is one of the most common starships within the Imperium and has a cargo capacity of 3 tons. If spaceman Spiff wanted to buy a brand new 100 dTon TL 15 Type S courier with 1 point of armor, High Guard would require him to sacrifice 2% of the ship (2 dTons) to armor. This would reduce his cargo capacity to only 1 dTon, but Spiff could do it. In fact, he could even uparmor his ship to armor factor 2 by sacrificing all 3 dTons of cargo.

If I understand your rules correctly, YOU would require Spiff to sacrifice 2.15 times 2 dTons (4.3 dTons) for factor 1 armor. Since Spiff cannot give up 5 dTons without removing some critical component (fuel, drives, crew capacity, etc.), this would appear leave spiff with three options:

remove the cargo and one stateroom
reduce the ship to jump 1
abandon the option of armor.

Have I misunderstood something?
Is it really such a game imbalance for a scout ship have one point of armor to defend itself?

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Imix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
From a strict game balance perspective, can a 100 or 200 dTon ship (like most players have) afford yet another space penalty in their over crowded hulls. Since most small starships cannot operate at a profit with their current passenger/cargo capacity, the real game effect will be to push ships further into the red or leave them without the option of armor.

Well, I don't believe that they will be left "without the option of armor", but rather "with lighter armor options".</font>[/QUOTE]According to Supplement 7 [Traders and Gunboats], the Type S Scout/Courier is one of the most common starships within the Imperium and has a cargo capacity of 3 tons. If spaceman Spiff wanted to buy a brand new 100 dTon TL 15 Type S courier with 1 point of armor, High Guard would require him to sacrifice 2% of the ship (2 dTons) to armor. This would reduce his cargo capacity to only 1 dTon, but Spiff could do it. In fact, he could even uparmor his ship to armor factor 2 by sacrificing all 3 dTons of cargo.

If I understand your rules correctly, YOU would require Spiff to sacrifice 2.15 times 2 dTons (4.3 dTons) for factor 1 armor. Since Spiff cannot give up 5 dTons without removing some critical component (fuel, drives, crew capacity, etc.), this would appear leave spiff with three options:

remove the cargo and one stateroom
reduce the ship to jump 1
abandon the option of armor.

Have I misunderstood something?
Is it really such a game imbalance for a scout ship have one point of armor to defend itself?

 

[jarednoble]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Imix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
[snip] leave them without the option of armor.

Well, I don't believe that they will be left "without the option of armor", but rather "with lighter armor options".</font>[/QUOTE]According to Supplement 7 [Traders and Gunboats], the Type S Scout/Courier is one of the most common starships within the Imperium and has a cargo capacity of 3 tons. If spaceman Spiff wanted to buy a brand new 100 dTon TL 15 Type S courier with 1 point of armor, High Guard would require him to sacrifice 2% of the ship (2 dTons) to armor. This would reduce his cargo capacity to only 1 dTon, but Spiff could do it. In fact, he could even uparmor his ship to armor factor 2 by sacrificing all 3 dTons of cargo.

If I understand your rules correctly, YOU would require Spiff to sacrifice 2.15 times 2 dTons (4.3 dTons) for factor 1 armor. Since Spiff cannot give up 5 dTons without removing some critical component (fuel, drives, crew capacity, etc.), this would appear leave spiff with three options:

remove the cargo and one stateroom
reduce the ship to jump 1
abandon the option of armor.

Have I misunderstood something?
Is it really such a game imbalance for a scout ship have one point of armor to defend itself? </font>[/QUOTE]While I don't think factor 1 armor can be considered much protection, your point is fair. For the most constrained ship designs this rule might make the difference between factor 1 armor and none.

However, there are a few additional factors to consider.
1) The scout/courier as shown is definitely not a TL15 HG design, so HG armor doesn't currently apply. If you want to build a "new" TL15 scout, you can do a lot better than just 3 tons of cargo - try 22.

2) The reason the book 2 scout is one of the most common designs is the fact that it is cheap and standardized - and has been fulfilling the same role for many years. It is the VW Beetle of the Traveller universe - even though there are many better cars available for almost any task, the VW Beetle can still be encountered all over the world - not so much in the US these days.

3) I don't think it makes any sense to retrofit armor onto an existing design - certainly trading volume from an existing system to install new or upgraded armor.

 

[jarednoble]

Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Imix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
[snip] leave them without the option of armor.

Well, I don't believe that they will be left "without the option of armor", but rather "with lighter armor options".</font>[/QUOTE]According to Supplement 7 [Traders and Gunboats], the Type S Scout/Courier is one of the most common starships within the Imperium and has a cargo capacity of 3 tons. If spaceman Spiff wanted to buy a brand new 100 dTon TL 15 Type S courier with 1 point of armor, High Guard would require him to sacrifice 2% of the ship (2 dTons) to armor. This would reduce his cargo capacity to only 1 dTon, but Spiff could do it. In fact, he could even uparmor his ship to armor factor 2 by sacrificing all 3 dTons of cargo.

If I understand your rules correctly, YOU would require Spiff to sacrifice 2.15 times 2 dTons (4.3 dTons) for factor 1 armor. Since Spiff cannot give up 5 dTons without removing some critical component (fuel, drives, crew capacity, etc.), this would appear leave spiff with three options:

remove the cargo and one stateroom
reduce the ship to jump 1
abandon the option of armor.

Have I misunderstood something?
Is it really such a game imbalance for a scout ship have one point of armor to defend itself? </font>[/QUOTE]While I don't think factor 1 armor can be considered much protection, your point is fair. For the most constrained ship designs this rule might make the difference between factor 1 armor and none.

However, there are a few additional factors to consider.
1) The scout/courier as shown is definitely not a TL15 HG design, so HG armor doesn't currently apply. If you want to build a "new" TL15 scout, you can do a lot better than just 3 tons of cargo - try 22.

2) The reason the book 2 scout is one of the most common designs is the fact that it is cheap and standardized - and has been fulfilling the same role for many years. It is the VW Beetle of the Traveller universe - even though there are many better cars available for almost any task, the VW Beetle can still be encountered all over the world - not so much in the US these days.

3) I don't think it makes any sense to retrofit armor onto an existing design - certainly trading volume from an existing system to install new or upgraded armor.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Have I misunderstood something?
Is it really such a game imbalance for a scout ship have one point of armor to defend itself?

You should really design the scout completely using High Guard rules, that gives it a lot more cargo space or space to allocate armour to

Trying to add High Guard components to LBB2 designs can be tricky because of the basic design system differences.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Have I misunderstood something?
Is it really such a game imbalance for a scout ship have one point of armor to defend itself?

You should really design the scout completely using High Guard rules, that gives it a lot more cargo space or space to allocate armour to

Trying to add High Guard components to LBB2 designs can be tricky because of the basic design system differences.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
You should really design the scout completely using High Guard rules, that gives it a lot more cargo space or space to allocate armour to

Trying to add High Guard components to LBB2 designs can be tricky because of the basic design system differences.

In all practicality, a Scout Ship would probably be built to around TL 12 standards to allow Jump 2 but maximize the number of worlds that a ship with no Engineer to maintain it can be serviced on. Low TL Components tend to eat up a lot of room and cost in High Guard. The primary strength of Book 2 is to provide TL 15 like performance at “Average” Tech levels.

The point is that on most worlds, the 100 dTon and 200 dTon ships will be hard pressed to use armor under this proposed rule change. Are indestructable dreadnaughts really so important to YOUR campaign that it is worth forcing the frontier merchant fleet to be unarmored (or nearly so)? I find that the HG Critical Damage rule for weapons attacking ships smaller than their weapon factor tends to render small ships dangerously vulnerable already. Under your rules a 100,000 dTon super merchant ship with just a few percent dedicated to armor (Armor Factor 1 in the old HG rules) could sail through most planetary navies and some sub-sector navies with impunity. Is that the goal?

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
You should really design the scout completely using High Guard rules, that gives it a lot more cargo space or space to allocate armour to

Trying to add High Guard components to LBB2 designs can be tricky because of the basic design system differences.

In all practicality, a Scout Ship would probably be built to around TL 12 standards to allow Jump 2 but maximize the number of worlds that a ship with no Engineer to maintain it can be serviced on. Low TL Components tend to eat up a lot of room and cost in High Guard. The primary strength of Book 2 is to provide TL 15 like performance at “Average” Tech levels.

The point is that on most worlds, the 100 dTon and 200 dTon ships will be hard pressed to use armor under this proposed rule change. Are indestructable dreadnaughts really so important to YOUR campaign that it is worth forcing the frontier merchant fleet to be unarmored (or nearly so)? I find that the HG Critical Damage rule for weapons attacking ships smaller than their weapon factor tends to render small ships dangerously vulnerable already. Under your rules a 100,000 dTon super merchant ship with just a few percent dedicated to armor (Armor Factor 1 in the old HG rules) could sail through most planetary navies and some sub-sector navies with impunity. Is that the goal?

 

[Ptah]

I think an original goal was not so much to make dreadnaughts more powerfull but to make fighters and missiles less powerfull, factor 4 armor taking the same % space on a 1 ton missile as a 10 ton fighter as a 100 ton scout. The scale proposed by Imix could always be shifted to place the 100 ton scout as the calibration point.

My preferred house-rule for classic canon ships is to presume that these designs have been around so long that in addition to cost savings you get space savings as components have bee specifically designed to fit exactly into these hulls with the maximum space efficiency. Add an extra 1-3% of volume and most problems are solved. Or trade cost savings for space savings, due to the use of "after-market" components.

 

[Ptah]

I think an original goal was not so much to make dreadnaughts more powerfull but to make fighters and missiles less powerfull, factor 4 armor taking the same % space on a 1 ton missile as a 10 ton fighter as a 100 ton scout. The scale proposed by Imix could always be shifted to place the 100 ton scout as the calibration point.

My preferred house-rule for classic canon ships is to presume that these designs have been around so long that in addition to cost savings you get space savings as components have bee specifically designed to fit exactly into these hulls with the maximum space efficiency. Add an extra 1-3% of volume and most problems are solved. Or trade cost savings for space savings, due to the use of "after-market" components.

 

[jarednoble]

Originally posted by atpollard:

In all practicality, a Scout Ship would probably be built to around TL 12 standards to allow Jump 2 but maximize the number of worlds that a ship with no Engineer to maintain it can be serviced on. Low TL Components tend to eat up a lot of room and cost in High Guard. The primary strength of Book 2 is to provide TL 15 like performance at “Average” Tech levels.

The point is that on most worlds, the 100 dTon and 200 dTon ships will be hard pressed to use armor under this proposed rule change.

And the 'average' budget-designed ship, designed to the least common denominator - will not be armored anyway

Are indestructable dreadnaughts really so important to YOUR campaign that it is worth forcing the frontier merchant fleet to be unarmored (or nearly so)?

[snip]

Under your rules a 100,000 dTon super merchant ship with just a few percent dedicated to armor (Armor Factor 1 in the old HG rules) could sail through most planetary navies and some sub-sector navies with impunity. Is that the goal?

Well, I think my original write-up included the comment that this was originally developed while thinking in the context of a small-ship universe. So no, 100,000 dTon super merchants don't even enter the picture.
However, a few points:
1) There is no reason that the 100,000 dTon super-freighter would need to have a high armor rating - you can still build an armor factor 2 ship.
2) Economic interests still govern ship design and purchase. The AF 2 ship is still cheaper than the AF10 design, and has more free tonnage for cargo or other uses.
3) Does YTU see a lot of armored civilian designs? It would not surprise me if construction of heavy armor is regulated in the same way as large weaponry (think spinal mounts)

Go back to the first few paragraphs of the first post. A 100,000 dTon ship allocating some % of its volume to armor should be better protected than a 100 dTon ship allocating a similar %. The High Guard construction system glosses over this. I think I've shown that it doesn't have to be hard to change this.

Obviously any system or rule change can have in-game effects, which are worth debate and discussion.

 

[jarednoble]

Originally posted by atpollard:

In all practicality, a Scout Ship would probably be built to around TL 12 standards to allow Jump 2 but maximize the number of worlds that a ship with no Engineer to maintain it can be serviced on. Low TL Components tend to eat up a lot of room and cost in High Guard. The primary strength of Book 2 is to provide TL 15 like performance at “Average” Tech levels.

The point is that on most worlds, the 100 dTon and 200 dTon ships will be hard pressed to use armor under this proposed rule change.

And the 'average' budget-designed ship, designed to the least common denominator - will not be armored anyway

Are indestructable dreadnaughts really so important to YOUR campaign that it is worth forcing the frontier merchant fleet to be unarmored (or nearly so)?

[snip]

Under your rules a 100,000 dTon super merchant ship with just a few percent dedicated to armor (Armor Factor 1 in the old HG rules) could sail through most planetary navies and some sub-sector navies with impunity. Is that the goal?

Well, I think my original write-up included the comment that this was originally developed while thinking in the context of a small-ship universe. So no, 100,000 dTon super merchants don't even enter the picture.
However, a few points:
1) There is no reason that the 100,000 dTon super-freighter would need to have a high armor rating - you can still build an armor factor 2 ship.
2) Economic interests still govern ship design and purchase. The AF 2 ship is still cheaper than the AF10 design, and has more free tonnage for cargo or other uses.
3) Does YTU see a lot of armored civilian designs? It would not surprise me if construction of heavy armor is regulated in the same way as large weaponry (think spinal mounts)

Go back to the first few paragraphs of the first post. A 100,000 dTon ship allocating some % of its volume to armor should be better protected than a 100 dTon ship allocating a similar %. The High Guard construction system glosses over this. I think I've shown that it doesn't have to be hard to change this.

Obviously any system or rule change can have in-game effects, which are worth debate and discussion.

 

[atpollard]

Thank you for taking the time to address my questions. I agree that x% of ship = y points of armor no matter the size has credibility problems.

I think (for my universe) your cure may be worse than the disease. Good luck, and we will agree to disagree.

 

[atpollard]

Thank you for taking the time to address my questions. I agree that x% of ship = y points of armor no matter the size has credibility problems.

I think (for my universe) your cure may be worse than the disease. Good luck, and we will agree to disagree.

 

[atpollard]

After thinking about this for a whole day, I think the fault lies in HOW armor reduces damage. It is the basic HG damage matrix that is broken.

Turret weapons should destroy tens of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 100 to 1000 dTons should reduce damage by tens of tons per point of armor.

Bay weapons should destroy hundreds of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 1000 to 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by hundreds of tons per point of armor.

Spinal weapons should destroy thousands of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of over 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by thousands of tons per point of armor.

That's my thought.

 

[atpollard]

After thinking about this for a whole day, I think the fault lies in HOW armor reduces damage. It is the basic HG damage matrix that is broken.

Turret weapons should destroy tens of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 100 to 1000 dTons should reduce damage by tens of tons per point of armor.

Bay weapons should destroy hundreds of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 1000 to 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by hundreds of tons per point of armor.

Spinal weapons should destroy thousands of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of over 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by thousands of tons per point of armor.

That's my thought.

 

[jarednoble]

Originally posted by atpollard:
After thinking about this for a whole day, I think the fault lies in HOW armor reduces damage. It is the basic HG damage matrix that is broken.

Agreed...High Guard combat resolution (notably damage resolution) is unsatisfying.

Turret weapons should destroy tens of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 100 to 1000 dTons should reduce damage by tens of tons per point of armor.

Bay weapons should destroy hundreds of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 1000 to 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by hundreds of tons per point of armor.

Spinal weapons should destroy thousands of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of over 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by thousands of tons per point of armor.

That's my thought.

An interesting idea - My guess is that supporting it would require a complete re-do of the High Guard damage system, possibly the whole combat system. It might require minor changes to the construction system, and most certainly a move away from the restrictive USP as the definitive ship record

Don't get me wrong - none of these things are necessarily bad - but they are definitely disruptive. I would be interested in seeing a HG combat system that is a little more realistic or balanced in its resolution and I think your suggestion is an interesting place to start.

 

[jarednoble]

Originally posted by atpollard:
After thinking about this for a whole day, I think the fault lies in HOW armor reduces damage. It is the basic HG damage matrix that is broken.

Agreed...High Guard combat resolution (notably damage resolution) is unsatisfying.

Turret weapons should destroy tens of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 100 to 1000 dTons should reduce damage by tens of tons per point of armor.

Bay weapons should destroy hundreds of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 1000 to 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by hundreds of tons per point of armor.

Spinal weapons should destroy thousands of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of over 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by thousands of tons per point of armor.

That's my thought.

An interesting idea - My guess is that supporting it would require a complete re-do of the High Guard damage system, possibly the whole combat system. It might require minor changes to the construction system, and most certainly a move away from the restrictive USP as the definitive ship record

Don't get me wrong - none of these things are necessarily bad - but they are definitely disruptive. I would be interested in seeing a HG combat system that is a little more realistic or balanced in its resolution and I think your suggestion is an interesting place to start.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by atpollard:
After thinking about this for a whole day, I think the fault lies in HOW armor reduces damage. It is the basic HG damage matrix that is broken.

Turret weapons should destroy tens of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 100 to 1000 dTons should reduce damage by tens of tons per point of armor.

Bay weapons should destroy hundreds of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 1000 to 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by hundreds of tons per point of armor.

Spinal weapons should destroy thousands of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of over 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by thousands of tons per point of armor.

That's my thought.

I like the idea.
Expanding the USP to allow for three different armour types should be easy enough

I've suggested expanding the USP before somewhere, but the reason for that was so that turret weapons and bay weapons can be clearly identified in the USP.

As it stands at the moment the USP doesn't tell you weather the attacker is using turret PAWs/energy weapons/missiles or bay mounted ones.

It also allows ships to carry the same spinal and bay weapon types, or have bay missiles and turret missiles etc.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by atpollard:
After thinking about this for a whole day, I think the fault lies in HOW armor reduces damage. It is the basic HG damage matrix that is broken.

Turret weapons should destroy tens of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 100 to 1000 dTons should reduce damage by tens of tons per point of armor.

Bay weapons should destroy hundreds of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of 1000 to 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by hundreds of tons per point of armor.

Spinal weapons should destroy thousands of tons of ship at a time. Armor on ships of over 10,000 dTons should reduce damage by thousands of tons per point of armor.

That's my thought.

I like the idea.
Expanding the USP to allow for three different armour types should be easy enough

I've suggested expanding the USP before somewhere, but the reason for that was so that turret weapons and bay weapons can be clearly identified in the USP.

As it stands at the moment the USP doesn't tell you weather the attacker is using turret PAWs/energy weapons/missiles or bay mounted ones.

It also allows ships to carry the same spinal and bay weapon types, or have bay missiles and turret missiles etc.