What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?

[Rupert]

Rolling on the damage table is the armour penetration roll.

It's really not. It's not called that, it's never referred to as penetrating.

 

[Rupert]

I don't know what version/edition of the game you talk about. Mine is the one in the FFE Book Books 0-8 The Classic Books. On it, in page 52m wgere the USP is described, box 15 is named "Hull Armor", not "Hull Strenght"...

And so armor is useless for smaller ships, except against the smallest batteries (which may be good or bad, depending on your view of space combat)...

Not useless, considering that armour-15 removes 15 of the extra hits spinal mounts do (which negates them for up to a Particle Accelerator-P), and stops the first seven automatic criticals from being over-matched in size, making 100-199 DTon ships not take criticals from batteries up to facter-8. Oh, and what hits they do take suffer a +15 DM on the damage table, and so do nothing if they aren't spinal or nuclear missile hits. That's not 'useless' at all!

Do you accept there's a possibility of armor not being penetrated and fully stopping a hit (or several ones)? If you do, how is this represented in game, if not by the "no effect" result on the table, as there's no table to penetrate armor?

See above. But it has to stop each hit roll separately, and it can't just 'no sell' a hit by negating all those automatic criticals by pushing the damage roll up to 'no effect', because that's 'no effect' for that roll, not for the whole attack.

Even so, there are many factors intervening on the damage produced (or not). The exact span of time it is hitting, the hitting angle, where exactly of the ship it hits (more or less armored), etc.. This is, IMHO, what the damage roll means, and a no effect (22+) may well mean it has either only hit marginally, not penetrated armor (as if you roll a 22+ the ship is armored), etc. Spinals, being much larger, are more likely to damage and to produce more damage (represented by the multiple rolls). But the possibility for, even while hitting, doing absolutely no damage if the armor stops it is there…

Sure - armour reduces the number of hit rolls made, and each one could be pushed up to 'no effect' as well. There, it works as you think it should.

OTOH, I accept if the round is large enough (let’s say a naval artillery one), a smaller tank may be affected even if armor stops the shrapnel from it (e.g. being put upside down due to the force of the explosion vs the lighter weight).
I see, game wise, the reasoning under the auto criticals, even if no damage. It’s a way to give larger ships more survival chance: a heavy armored 200 kdt (rating R) Battleship will not receive criticals from a T rated PA, a 10 kdt destroyer/light cruiser/BR (K rated) will (and have his armor reduced by it, if it survives), but OTOH I see odd that armor cannot stop them, even if it stops all firing…

Armour can stop them, provided there's enough armour and the relative power of the weapon isn't too great. I'm not seeing a problem with a spinal-T getting an auto-critical on even a heavily armoured 10,000 DTon ship - that's a huge power disparity.

 

[Ekofisk]

Apologies in advance, I can't get the quote function to work the way i want it to. McPerth quotes in italics.

I don't know what version/edition of the game you talk about. Mine is the one in the FFE Book Books 0-8 The Classic Books. On it, in page 52m wgere the USP is described, box 15 is named "Hull Armor", not "Hull Strenght"...

I have a 1980 UK hardcopy. This may be adding to the problem

And so armor is useless for smaller ships, except against the smallest batteries (which may be good or bad, depending on your view of space combat)...

I wouldn't say useless, but yes; for a given armor value smaller ships are less well protected. I think this is a good thing. Others may disagree.

Do you accept there's a possibility of armor not being penetrated and fully stopping a hit (or several ones)? If you do, how is this represented in game, if not by the "no effect" result on the table, as there's no table to penetrate armor?

In general, yes but not in the case of criticals due to size/armor versus weapon factor. Look at the small craft damage definitions in Book 2 to see my reasoning.

 

[McPerth]

Apologies in advance, I can't get the quote function to work the way i want it to. McPerth quotes in italics.

Fixed

 

[Spinward Flow]

And so armor is useless for smaller ships, except against the smallest batteries (which may be good or bad, depending on your view of space combat)...

Yes and no ... it really depends on the threat matrix.
Depending on what you're up against, armor can make "all the difference in the world" or be inadequate to the task of protection, or anywhere in between on a continuum of possible outcomes.
Not every engagement is going to be TL=15 vs TL-15, after all.

If the threat matrix is "1 turret batteries" then the highest weapon code factors you can face will be:

• Missiles code: 3 @ TL=13+
• Beam Lasers code: 4 @ TL=13+
• Pulse Lasers code: 3 @ TL=13+
• Plasma Guns code: 3 @ TL=12+
• Fusion Guns code: 5 @ TL=14+
• Particle Accelerators code: 2 @ TL=15

Since small craft can only mount 1 turret, in 1v1 combat between 2 small craft these are the "highest threats" that can be encountered at any TL.

Therefore, Armor: 10 is sufficient to protect Hull: 0 small craft from automatic critical hits when taking fire from weapons of up to code: 5.

Whether the small craft are equipped with enough Agility and Relative Computer Size to be able to attack and NOT MISS each other is a different issue. When dealing with tech level mismatches (TL=11 vs TL=13, for example), there can be design choices that favor different strategies (armored/slow vs glass cannon/nimble, for instance).

There is a limit to how powerful a computer model can be (usefully) installed into a small craft, due to the demands for EP by the computer, maneuver drive agility and weapon systems. As computer models get bigger, they not only require more tonnage (and get more EXPENSIVE) but require more EP to sustain them ... which in turn requires larger and larger power plants (which get EXPENSIVE too!) ... until reaching a breaking point where you just can't continue the progression to higher tech levels and still "make things fit" into a small craft form factor anymore.

At that point, you have to start making compromises ... because you can't have everything in a single package.

The LBB S9, p26 Heavy Fighter exemplifies this thinking and these compromises in action.

In fighter on fighter 1v1 action, an opponent is unlikely to have any weaponry exceeding code: 4 (as explained above). Plasma Guns and Fusion Guns can be "safely discounted" as small craft weapons due to their short range, making them "ineffective offensively" in LBB5.80 combat at Long Range ... and all LBB5.80 combats start at Long Range, regardless of who wins initiative. Against code: 4 weaponry in a Hull: 0 small craft, Armor: 8 is "adequate to the task" of preventing automatic critical hits from TL=13+ triple beam laser turrets organized as single batteries each.

In other words, the Heavy Fighter, as written, has "just enough" armor for its most likely mission tasking ... and no more.

The Heavy Fighter also has a model/7 computer (but no bridge to keep the tonnage down, so it functions as a model/6 computer) which will be sufficient to overmatch "most" opposition the TL=15 Heavy Fighter might encounter in the small craft displacement regime. Even though a model/6 computer has a minimum tech level of 12, it would be exceedingly difficult for a small craft to be able to mount a model/6 computer + bridge @ TL=12-14 and still have sufficient EPs for maneuver agility and weapons so as to carry out the fighter mission role. Therefore, the TL=15 Heavy Fighter with its (effectively) model/6 computer is very likely to overmatch lower tech level fighters in Relative Computer Size ... which is thus a tremendous advantage.

Take that same 50 ton Heavy Fighter up against a 1k+ ton Destroyer of almost any variety and the Heavy Fighter will be pretty seriously outclassed (as it should be in a 20+ to 1 displacement disparity). The threat matrix of 10+ turrets (coupled with model/7+ computers) changes rather dramatically the possible threat matrix for the Heavy Fighter when it comes to "shoot to kill" engagements. So it can be somewhat fairly assumed that the mission role of the Heavy Fighter is to deal with "ACS type threats" rather than to be used against "BCS type threats" in whatever capacity the Heavy Fighter is being employed. So long as the mission tasking is against "lower end" threat matrix stuff, the Heavy Fighter will excel. As soon as you start pitting the Heavy Fighter against "higher end" threat matrix stuff, it starts losing effectiveness as a combatant rather rapidly.

However, even if a Heavy Fighter can't (reasonably) be expected to go 1v1 with 1k+ Destroyer classes as a combatant, it can still perform all kinds of Fleet Useful roles, including patrol, deep strike, reconnaisance and system defense support missions quite effectively ... because Knowing Is Half The Battle.

Do you accept there's a possibility of armor not being penetrated and fully stopping a hit (or several ones)? If you do, how is this represented in game, if not by the "no effect" result on the table, as there's no table to penetrate armor?

That's why for every 2 factors of armor code, 1 automatic critical hit from an overmatch of weapon code vs hull size code is negated ... except against meson guns (which ignore armor). This has been cited multiple times from LBB5.80, p41, which I will quote here again for the benefit of anyone who does not have easy access to LBB5.80.

Critical Hits: All batteries whose weapon code exceeds the size code of the target ship will inflict (if they hit and penetrate) automatic critical hits equal to the size difference. For example, if a missile battery of factor 9 hits a size 4 ship, it will (in addition to any other damage) inflict 5 critical hits. These critical hits are reduced in number by one for each two factors of armor the target ship has; round odd numbers down. Meson gun hits are not reduced by armor.

In a lot of combats, the hull size code will tend to exceed the weapon code.
200 ton Traders (Hull: 2) versus mixed triple turrets (sand/laser/missile) in ACS type "merchant on pirate" engagements, where the weapons are unlikely to exceed battery code: 2 @ TL=13+ for each turret. In such encounters, the number of automatic critical hits will be zero ... so rolling zero times on the critical hit table (first) before proceeding to Surface Explosion/Radiation/Interior Explosion results (second) makes perfect sense.

However, for some combats, the weapon code is very likely to exceed the hull code.
50 ton Modular Cutters (Hull: 0) with no armor (Armor: 0) will take 1 automatic critical hit from even a code: 1 mixed turret (sand/laser/missile) weapon battery hit ... or 2 automatic critical hits from a code: 2 @ TL=13 mixed turret (sand/laser/missile) weapon battery hit. These automatic critical hits need to be resolved before rolling on the Surface Explosion/Radiation/Interior Explosion results tables.

Consequently, unarmored small craft are extremely vulnerable to weapons fire in ways that unarmored big craft are not.
There are two (well, two and a half) possible solutions to this problem:

• Sufficient agility plus relative computer size to make successful hits "almost impossible" to achieve.
• Sufficient armor to make automatic critical hits "not happen" and most Surface Explosion damage results survivable.
• A mix of both (this is the most difficult to achieve, hence why it's something of a "half option").

Armor can help mitigate the risks of automatic critical hits as well as the "severity" of damage taken via "normal" Surface Explosion/Radiation/Internal Explosion rolled results ... but there is a LIMIT (tech level divided by 2) to how much armor can protect against these threat factors in a small craft (Hull: 0) form factor.



So the moral of the story is ... don't stick a laser on a Modular Cutter and think you've suddenly got the ultimate fighter ready to take on the galaxy local star system. You DON'T have a purpose built combat fighter ... you've got an armed transport ... which are very different things. Getting those two things confused can end ... rather badly ...

 

[McPerth]

That's why for every 2 factors of armor code, 1 automatic critical hit from an overmatch of weapon code vs hull size code is negated ..

This also happens with the multi rolls due to spinals, and the armor keeps affecting those rolls too...

 

[whartung]

Ok, so looking at my HG program, I implemented Critical hits as discussed here (that is, they just Hit, vs having to survive the damage roll).

But here's another conundrum.

Spinal Mounts: All spinal mount weapons which hit and penetrate inflict one
extra damage roll (on each appropriate table) for each letter by which their size
exceeds 9. For example, a particle accelerator with a code of A gets 2 rolls on both
the surface explosion and radiation tables; a factor of B receives 3 rolls, etc. The
number of extra rolls is reduced by one for each factor of armor the target ship has
(but a weapon always gets one roll). Meson guns are not reduced by armor.

Then, right after:

Critical Hits: All batteries whose weapon code exceeds the size code of the
target ship will inflict (if they hit and penetrate) automatic critical hits equal to the
size difference. For example, if a missile battery of factor 9 hits a size 4 ship,
it will (in addition to any other damage) inflict 5 critical hits. These critical hits are
reduced in number by one for each two factors of armor the target ship has; round
odd numbers down. Meson gun hits are not reduced by armor.

So, Mike, how are the extra Spinal hits handled?

The way I read that, if I have B mount, I get 3 rolls on the damage table. One for the initial hit, and two more for being a Spinal Mount greater than 9 (B - 9 = 2). 3 rolls on the damage table. But, how is that done? Do I not get those extra rolls if the first hit is bounced by the armor? Is that how you interpret this?

I've always interpreted that as a Spinal gets several rolls on the table. "1 + 2 = 3 total rolls", certainly not "roll the first one, and if it doesn't get "No Effect" then roll the rest". Is that how you play that?

Do you play it that if they get an Interior Explosion on the first roll, that all of the extra rolls are rolled on the Interior Explosion table (since the first one obviously penetrated). If the first roll does damage, can none of the others be "no effect" since it "penetrated"? I don't think that makes any sense either.

I mean, they're spinals! They're powerful! They beat the stuffing out of ships, and one way they do that is by the rolling thunder of their big guns hammering the ship.

And also note, that this is on the "Surface explosion table". In "wet navy" battle ship parlance, that tells me they're blasting the open gun positions, the antennas, and crew above deck. They're not "penetrating" the ship to the "interior" explosion table. They're not getting past the surface of the ship into the soft and gooey insides.

So I think these two rules need to be reconciled, because the wording is essentially the same. Goose and Gander and all that.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The way I read that, if I have B mount, I get 3 rolls on the damage table. One for the initial hit, and two more for being a Spinal Mount greater than 9 (B - 9 = 2). 3 rolls on the damage table. But, how is that done? Do I not get those extra rolls if the first hit is bounced by the armor? Is that how you interpret this?

Or to make an even more extreme example of the phenomenon at issue ... consider the effects of (flickering) Black Globes on Meson Guns.

Phsyical armor is "ignored" by meson guns, but flickering Black Globes apply a +2 DM to damage rolls the same way that armor does per 10% increment in flicker factor to ALL weapons, including meson guns (that typically "ignore armor"). Therefore, game mechanically speaking, a Black Globe code: 5 being operated at a 50% flicker rate equipped craft could theoretically be hit (penetrating meson screen and configuration) by a Meson-T spinal mount ... roll 12 on the dice for the first damage roll, add +10 to the result for the 50% flicker on the Black Globe ... and achieve a damage result of 22 = No Effect on the Interior Explosion damage table.

Ordinarily, the expectation is that a Spinal-T weapon needs to make 19 rolls on the respective damage tables (19 surface + 19 radiation for Particle-T spinals, 19 interior + 19 radiation for Meson-T spinals).

Under the above scenario, it isn't even "actually (physical) armor armor" involved, it's just a black globe screen "behaving like armor" game mechanically (in a way that actual armor isn't allowed to).

So to @whartung's example, because the first damage roll yielded No Effect, does that invalidate the subsequent 18 damage rolls that should have been happening?



But we can take this question even one step further.

What if the Black Globe: 5 running at 50% flicker rate was installed on a 3k ton Destroyer capable of J4, so it has 60 tons of jump capacitors in its jump drive which can store up to 2160 EP before overloading (and vaporizing the ship), which at 50% flicker is sufficient to absorb THREE hits from a Meson-T before having a problem. A 3k ton Destroyer has a hull code: C. (LLB5.80, p42-43)

Spinal-T is 15 hull code steps above Hull: C ... so the Meson-T hit should inflict 15 automatic critical hits onto the 3k ton Destroyer. (LBB5.80, p41)
Do those 15 automatic critical hits due to hull size vs weapon code not happen because the "first" damage result rolled on the Interior Explosion table yielded a result of 22 = No Effect ... even though no "actual armor" of the physical variety was involved in producing that result?



I know that the above scenario is both farfetched and highly improbable in the particulars, but that is intentional. This extreme edge case is being offered to highlight the stress testing of the game mechanics and order of operation for how those game mechanics are supposed to work and be applied in ALL cases, not just this unique individual example. Intellectual honesty demands a consistent order of operations under all conditions and contexts, even if the results the order of those operations produces are highly improbable.