Why would you need combat armor when you can get a boarding vacc suit at 1/10 the cost? Yes, you need the Vacc Suit skill (which brings up the question of which is correct for combat armor: the TMB errata or CSC), but regardless, I think something is missing here. Maybe combat armor comes with expensive electronics and camouflage systems?
Combat armor vs boarding vacc suits
- Thread starter apoc527
- Start date
Well a quick look at CSC tells me that a boarding Vacc Suit has 8 points of armour and Combat Armour has 12 points, thats a good enough rationale for me (unless I misreadit!).
Besides Combat Armour looks cooler!
.
Edit: Ok a second glance showed the improved boarding Vacc Suit has the same armour as standard combat armour, you have a point there.
Besides Combat Armour looks cooler!
.Edit: Ok a second glance showed the improved boarding Vacc Suit has the same armour as standard combat armour, you have a point there.
RandyT0001
Mongoose
Vile said:What kind of camo do you need for boarding actions?BP said:
Well, the best combat armor camo setting for boarding actions makes you look like a pacifist Hiver carrying a screwdriver and mop.
I'm interested in what will be in Power Armor.
Regardless, however, combat armor is grossly overpriced unless it comes with a host of "free" upgrades compared to other suits. Otherwise, all kidding about military pricing aside, it simply isn't worth equipping troops with it. (I don't want to dig up all the old discussions about battledress, combat armor, and how a cheap weapon can kill the expensive soldier--I get those, but this thread is really meant to be a direct comparison of unpowered suits that seem to be fairly similar in performance.)
So, what do I think combat armor should have free?
At a minimum, some kind of HUD. It should also probably have a medical function of some kind. Built-in camouflage (eventually nano-optical camouflage) would also make sense. A jump pack or gravbelt would also be appropriate, but maybe not for every suit. Obviously some kind of comm suite must be built into the helmet systems. Finally, the "extra life support" should be extremely simple to install on a mission-specific basis. It should come with webbing to support various kinds of gear, and probably have a hardpoint for storage of a single tac missile launcher or something (I suppose that's getting into the optional realm).
The bottom line is that I have no problem with "200,000 Cr" as the sales price as long as it's justified by built-in extras. If it's just literally a "milspec" version of an improved boarding vacc suit, then what military in its right mind will buy combat armor!?!?!
Regardless, however, combat armor is grossly overpriced unless it comes with a host of "free" upgrades compared to other suits. Otherwise, all kidding about military pricing aside, it simply isn't worth equipping troops with it. (I don't want to dig up all the old discussions about battledress, combat armor, and how a cheap weapon can kill the expensive soldier--I get those, but this thread is really meant to be a direct comparison of unpowered suits that seem to be fairly similar in performance.)
So, what do I think combat armor should have free?
At a minimum, some kind of HUD. It should also probably have a medical function of some kind. Built-in camouflage (eventually nano-optical camouflage) would also make sense. A jump pack or gravbelt would also be appropriate, but maybe not for every suit. Obviously some kind of comm suite must be built into the helmet systems. Finally, the "extra life support" should be extremely simple to install on a mission-specific basis. It should come with webbing to support various kinds of gear, and probably have a hardpoint for storage of a single tac missile launcher or something (I suppose that's getting into the optional realm).
The bottom line is that I have no problem with "200,000 Cr" as the sales price as long as it's justified by built-in extras. If it's just literally a "milspec" version of an improved boarding vacc suit, then what military in its right mind will buy combat armor!?!?!
apoc527 said:
This sounds like another oversight in the books. If you break it down logically, combat armor should come with more features and function, as well as armor factor... However, just going by the labels, a boarding vac suit probably should be designed to be more survivable in zero-atmosphere conditions, and be more about self-sealing and keeping the person alive.
But, I think I'm just going to chalk it up to poor editing and oversight. One way to fix it would be to just make the cost of the two suite equal and toss out the books pricing.
Times like this makes me wish all the source books were in three-hole binders to make errata less painful.
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
I have been dealing with this exact problem in something that I have been working on.
There are several items that specifically say can be installed on Armour. Vacc Suits are NOT armour, so these items (like integral Grav Belts) cannot be added to Boarding Vacc Suits.
The Improved Boarding Vacc Suit has essentially the same armour rating as the Improved Combat Armour, but at a much lower price. It is the ability to have add-ons (integrated weapons etc) that makes the difference.
For most people, Boarding Vacc Suits are good enough and offer almost the same protection as Combat Armour.
There are several items that specifically say can be installed on Armour. Vacc Suits are NOT armour, so these items (like integral Grav Belts) cannot be added to Boarding Vacc Suits.
The Improved Boarding Vacc Suit has essentially the same armour rating as the Improved Combat Armour, but at a much lower price. It is the ability to have add-ons (integrated weapons etc) that makes the difference.
For most people, Boarding Vacc Suits are good enough and offer almost the same protection as Combat Armour.
Baron_Vulk_Morden
Mongoose
A far simpler way to put it is that a boarding Vacc suit is just a really tough space-suit, while Combat Armour is what Stormtroopers and Clone Troopers wear in the movies.
justacaveman
Mongoose
1 benefit that Combat Armour has is that armour weight doesn't count against your carrying capacity.
The original boarding vacc suit weight list in mercenary has it alot heavier though. CSC reduced the weight greatly without changing any other stat. Originally an improved boarding vacc suit would have been 28 kg, not 14... and in my games I have them as such, meaning they can only be effectively used in Zero gravity, whereas combat armour is designed for all gravity. This has proved to be a very good compromise. Though apart from HEV suits, my party don't use vacc suits as armour, but as space suits/armour from space hazards.
justacaveman
Mongoose
So you're going to add more errata? :twisted:
Tends to be the case even today:
1) Obsolesence - most military gear is designed for a 20+ year service life, and to be supportable and upgradeable throughout that period (massive increase in cost and difficulty the moment computers get involved - you try getting compatible spare parts and software patches for a 1990 computer today!)
2) Economies of scale - Even the most optimistic arms company doesn't plan on selling very many units of anything - a buy of a few hundred platforms or a few thousand 'black boxes' of equipment. Compare to a civilian vehicle with a production run of tens of thousands (or more) and you look ridiculously expensive.
3) One of the many variations on the 80/20 rule - being 20% better in a critical area can easily make a unit cost 80% more...... even a small increase in protection without compromising other features and size is something you pay through the nose for, but the binary nature of modern combat makes it worth it - 80% capable usually means 100% dead.
4) The less charitable (if more commonly held and not entirely unjustified) view - military procurement is the most obvious example of equipment procurement purely by a government customer. Given wildly varying requirements, bureacracy, long development times and the perceived right to demand whatever changes you like from the government side, and the obvious temptation to milk a garuanteed and massive budget for all its worth on the contractor side, and you're hard pressed to find any government project, from olympic facilities to warships to civil service IT, that doesn't end up massively over time and cost.
Agreed, the weight was always the important factor...
locarno24 said:
Coming from a military background, some of which involved procurement, this is by far and away the biggest factor. The military asks for something then changes the spec after a while which always costs a lot. We then bring the equipment into service and find our needs weren't fully articulated, resulting in an never-ending modofication programme, again at a hug cost. The biggest issue (from a UK perspective) is that all our people tend to move around and we lose the corporate experience. Plus, I can buy a bolt to use in my car for pennies. If I want exactly the same bolt made to military aircraft spec it will cost 100s of times more. Not necessarily because I'm getting ripped off (well perhaps a bit of that) but because the bolt supplier is adding on a 'risk' figues because they are now responsible for supplying something that meets aircraft specification and if it fails, they are going to be in all sorts of trouble. So this Risk factor vastly increases the cost compared with the cost of an item that may not perform any better and that I bought for pennies.
Similar threads
