for clarification: Ship Armor at level 12

[jwpacker]

So you're building a ship, and you get to the point of determining how much armor to put on her. You read the rules and see that armor is subtracted from the damage rolls of the weapons that hit you. You look at the weapon tables and you pause...

If you take 12 points of armor, you are immune to any laser or missile - anything that might be carried by a civilian craft, for example. If you take radiation shielding, you're even immune to *nuclear* missiles. And a particle accelerator is going to have a pretty tough time, with only above-average hits doing any damage at all.

"Sir, the pirate ship is gaining on us, and he's fired four missiles now. They're sure to hit!"
"Send them a digital raspberry and continue on course at a sedate 1G."

Am I missing something? Is there any way for a 2d6 weapon to even begin to scrub away some of that armor? Or should every single warship, and most frontier traders, have 12 points of armor on them?

 

[BP]

One can easily have enough armor to stop any handgun bullet ever made... it just can get costly and hard to move. This seems to be the idea - with enough armor, puny lasers and missiles don't stand a chance... it's time to move to torps and the heavy guns is all.

No different than pitting a tank against, say, a police car or even armored limo...

12 points of armor puts a serious dent in a civilian budget and operating economics.

 

[jwpacker]

Okay, I'll buy that for civilian craft. It can get expensive, but you know full-well that PCs are going to want it as an upgrade to their free traders with only 4 points of armor, stock.

The Agashaam class destroyer only has four points of armor, as does the Azhanti High Lightning. That just doesn't make a lick of sense - no more armor on those ships of war than on a stock trade ship?

 

[BP]

The players will want a spinal mount too... ('well, what if we strap the free trader to it?') :lol:

The AHL is an older design, so probably a meta game reason for that - but, even in the RW, just because one can have a certain amount of armour doesn't mean it is justified... modern naval vessels often implement 'all or nothing' armour. That means lots of heavy armour on critical components (way overkill in most circumstances), but virtually nothing on less critical areas. Doesn't mean that all those critical areas can't eventually amount to a kill. But the cost and performance penalty of having more armour - despite virtual guarantees against many classes of weapons - make it undesirable.

In the case of MgT, the armour, after all, doesn't protect against other weapons and especially doesn't provide any real guarantee against capital ship weaps (spinals).

For many (most) ships, 12 points of armour is costly and inefficient for their primary mission. Yes, it is 100% effective against lower end stuff, if one has the paranoia and coin to purchase it with those trade-offs - and that actually seems ok. If you want to take them on you are gonna have to invest more.

 

[BP]

P.S. - there are also TL limits to the amount of points of armour.

 

[jwpacker]

Yes, I can totally get behind the idea of strapping the Free Trader to the spinal particle accelerator - you can use it for combat and propulsion!

I guess what I don't get is the number of ships in the books that fling dozens or hundreds of missiles that, well, can't hurt a good many ships at all, and even then only if they're flinging around nukes. The Ghalalk class armored cruiser, for example has 50 missile bays and 70 triple missile turrets, with the ability to toss, what, 810 missiles at a time, not one of them able to do damage to anyone with armor at rating 6, and nukes useless against a 12. Even some fighters would shrug off that otherwise nasty storm of ordinance.

I think they'd have done better to make armor more like CT- where to have a rating of 14 - the minimum to shield yourself against anything less than a rating 9 battery - would take between 15 and 60 percent of your tonnage, depending on TL, and be impossible below TL 14, and even then, a nuke or a pulse laser would still have a chance of doing some damage.

 

[BP]

I don't get into most of the capital ship designs... from a game play perspective they are of little value to me. Even the standard rules and weaps are adjusted IMTU (more emphasis on CIWS).

No idea what ship you are referring to (book & pg). What other weapons does the it have? Having hundreds of useless ordinance to throw around doesn't mean that it doesn't have other weapons that would be effective against a well armoured opponent.

 

[apoc527]

Barrage rules create a somewhat different effect with large missile swarms, but yes, you are not incorrect. That's why I have houserules for missiles. Personally, I think the missile damages in MGT are a mistake. In CT, missiles did "1d6 hits" while a laser did "1 hit." If you convert the hits to d6s of damage, then the laser does the MGT standard 1d6 while the missiles OUGHT to do 6d6 (or 1d6x1d6 which is basically the same).

At any rate, I also add Effect to damage in ship combat, which tends to make things a bit more interesting.

 

[far-trader]

Just to clarify and throw a couple more creds in the kitty...

...In CT, missiles did "1d6 hits" while a laser did "1 hit."

In CT LBB2 to be specific. CT HG/LBB5 changed that and standard missiles were effectively 1 hit just like a single beam laser while nukes had a big bonus (pretty effectively multiple hits). For this and other reasons I'm convinced CT LBB2 missiles were nuclear warheads or very high velocity kinetic kill (though KK are not supported by the movement rules).

EDIT: 1981 editions for both above, the earlier versions might have been different, I know HG1 did damage differently but don't recall the effect re missiles, I don't recall what the treatment in the early LBB2 was but it might have been different as well.

 

[apoc527]

And let's not even discuss Special Supplement 3: Missiles...

 

[jwpacker]

At any rate, I also add Effect to damage in ship combat, which tends to make things a bit more interesting.

I'd been looking for a ruling on this in the various books, but think I'd like to implement that as well. It adds a little more randomness to the process.

Barrage rules create a somewhat different effect with large missile swarms

I'll definitely give these a look. I don't know that I've read through them, yet, not having had anyone involved in that level of fighting just yet.

And let's not even discuss Special Supplement 3: Missiles...

CT? Mgt? I'm not sure I've ever seen this mentioned before...

 

[far-trader]

And let's not even discuss Special Supplement 3: Missiles...

CT? Mgt? I'm not sure I've ever seen this mentioned before...

CT... though I wonder, it might be hammered into fitting MgT. Basically it was a design system for missiles. Pick your components and fit them into the standard missile size or build bigger (torpedo like) missiles for more punch. It was an insert in an early JTAS magazine, now available through FFE in the CD-ROM (JTAS one for sure, might be in the CT one as well but I don't recall).

...oops, I discussed it a little

 

[jwpacker]

The more I think about this, the more I think I may have to house rule some things when it comes to space combat.

I'm a little concerned with the gap between missiles and torpedoes.

Missiles are a twelfth of a ton - call it 80kg - and do 1d6, while a basic torpedo does 4d6, but weighs 30 times as much. And there's a crazy rule that says you can't put a torpedo barbette on a small craft, but nobody seems to bat an eye at putting a small missile *bay* on a small craft.

And, taking a second to threadjack myself - have you noticed that buying a high-tech version of a weapon can reduce the weight, but that it's only ever used that way on bays - you never see any 3-ton barbettes or .6 ton turrets, now do you?

 

[AndrewW]

Missiles are a twelfth of a ton - call it 80kg - and do 1d6, while a basic torpedo does 4d6, but weighs 30 times as much. And there's a crazy rule that says you can't put a torpedo barbette on a small craft, but nobody seems to bat an eye at putting a small missile *bay* on a small craft.

You can carry individual torpedoes on a small craft though so no real need for a barbette.

And, taking a second to threadjack myself - have you noticed that buying a high-tech version of a weapon can reduce the weight, but that it's only ever used that way on bays - you never see any 3-ton barbettes or .6 ton turrets, now do you?

Not as much need to reduce the tonnage for barbettes or turrets, just use the higher tech for weapon upgrades instead.

 

[jwpacker]

You can carry individual torpedoes on a small craft though so no real need for a barbette.

Yeah, my only beef there is that you use up a weapon slot for each one, so you have to have a 90 ton ship to mount four of them. Why yes, I do want to mount four torpedoes on a small craft.

Not as much need to reduce the tonnage for barbettes or turrets, just use the higher tech for weapon upgrades instead.

True, though putting a TL11 Particle Beam Barbette on a small craft might actually benefit from having ti only be 3 tons instead of 5, and I like the idea of a vicious little stinger craft making use of just that sort of armament.

 

[zozotroll]

Okay, I'll buy that for civilian craft. It can get expensive, but you know full-well that PCs are going to want it as an upgrade to their free traders with only 4 points of armor, stock.

The Agashaam class destroyer only has four points of armor, as does the Azhanti High Lightning. That just doesn't make a lick of sense - no more armor on those ships of war than on a stock trade ship?

A couple of points to drop on your PCs when they wnt to upgrade armor. First, you cant add it to an existing hull. Why not? Because you cant just deduct the volume from your gargo bay, unless you just want a big chunk of armor in one end of your hold. You would have to move every single component around inside the hull to make the needed changes. Remeber you are talking 15% of your total volume, not a trivial amount. And they cant add it to the outside, that would be adding to the existing volume of the ship, requireingf new Power plants, J and M drives and new amounts of fuel besides.

Same thing with radiation shielding. It probably has to be mixed into the hull materiel at construction to work, cant add it later.

And there is the problem of time. If you enforce the time per MCR to make those additions, your PCs are likely to be loafing planetside for some months while all this is going on, if you even allow it.

So, they design the ship they want with 12 pts armor and rad shileding, and have to pay a huge chunk up front, and then dont get thier ship for a very long time. Then when they do get it, it has reduced cargo capacity, so it is harder to make enough to keep up with payments.

In the game I am a player in right now, me and my partner just ordered the ship we want, it took most of the priofits from the last game year, and we wont see it for another game year. Many players I have known over the years would not do that.

We are fighting sword worlders, and with thier heabvy armor we are getting rid of most of our missle launchers, and converting them to particle beams, barbettes where we can afford the size penalty, but in most cases by the time we dump ammo, we are almost even swaps.

Owen

 

[jwpacker]

First, you cant add it to an existing hull. Why not? Because you cant just deduct the volume from your gargo bay, unless you just want a big chunk of armor in one end of your hold. You would have to move every single component around inside the hull to make the needed changes. Remeber you are talking 15% of your total volume, not a trivial amount. And they cant add it to the outside, that would be adding to the existing volume of the ship, requireingf new Power plants, J and M drives and new amounts of fuel besides.

This is a good point. For after-market changes, adding armor leads to a scene with an oil-soaked coverall wearing mechanic telling them all this, and ending with "...it would probably be cheaper to buy a whole new ship, to be honest..." and them dealing with the nostalgia associated with their first ship, and the cost and time associated with a custom design.

It does still leave the question of why there isn't a standard "frontier trader" that includes rad shielding and 12 points of armor, but at least for games that are already in play, it's self-limiting.

 

[zozotroll]

Take a stock Free trader. The 12 pt armor reduces cargo capacity by 22%, ups total cost 10% and monthly maintenence by 10%. Radiarion shuielding costs no space, but costs 50MCR, which when you consider the ship without it is only 36mcr is a huge increase. More than double your monthly mortgage, and more than double monthly maint costs.

And unless you have a lot of pirates with nuke missles, and PB Barbettes, it may never be needed.

I have not had that much problem shooting down incoming missles, so not a lot of need to worry about them.

You could just about by a stcok fat trader for what your rad shilded free trader costs. Players may want it but they are going to cry when they have to pay for it.

Owen

 

[atpollard]

Am I missing something? Is there any way for a 2d6 weapon to even begin to scrub away some of that armor? Or should every single warship, and most frontier traders, have 12 points of armor on them?

I wanted to give this some thought before responding.
The real-world equivalent to a civilian missile would be a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG), and the real-world equivalent to a civilian beam weapon would be a 50 caliber SMG (neither are available in the USA, but both are commonly available for Convoy escorts in places like Somalia or Afghanistan).

So the question becomes is it unreasonable to assume that one could build (as in possible to build) an armored car capable of shrugging off a RPG or 50cal attack? I think that it is. Expensive overkill for most situations, buy not beyond technical possibility.

And your corollary question, should all military combat vehicles (tanks and AFVs) be designed to shrug off these weapons? Again I think that the answer is 'Yes".

 

[BFalcon]

I think you also need to look at the costs though - a 50% increase in the cost of one design means that for every 3 you originally intended to buy, you'd lose 1 of them for the same budget. You then need to ask yourself if it's worth having ships or vehicles that can be unbeatable but only in one place at a time - by the time they arrive, your lighter and faster attackers have moved onto another target. A good analogy would be the speed difference of cruisers vs battleships - sure, they'd lose in a straight fight, but they'd be able to run away quickly before the pursuing battleships could get into effective weapons range... yet the cruisers could (almost) pick their targets with impunity.

There should also, in my mind, be a getout clause in any case: a 1 in whatever chance that damage will find its way into the ship - a gun barrel, a sensors panel (needs light armour panelling to see out, yet needs to be accessable for maintenance from within), a view port or whatever - that they couldn't armour to the same level without negating its usefulness. If nothing else, you'd hit the ship's engines with a massed fleet so leave it dead in space, before arranging for tugs or similar to tow asteroids into a collision course with the ship - while blanketing any sensors with broad-spectrum EM radiation to kill their weapons-aiming and navigation capabilities. Alternatively, once you've killed their comms and navigational capability, just leaving them dead in space would be a cruel fate too - limited food, water and fuel would mean that the crew would die, leaving a ship that you could come back later and claim for your own, if you felt that it was worth having... maybe, stripped out, you might feel it was useful as a monitor for a home system...

For historical precedents, just look at the operations related to the Bismarck and Tirpitz for the lengths an enemy will go to in order to negate a high-cost, high-profile enemy vessel (not least the destruction of a destroyer and the loss of life in order to destroy the only dry dock able to repair the Tirpitz along the Atlantic coast in Operation Chariot, which then left the Tirpitz anchored in a Norwegian fjord for the rest of its days, rather than use the only other available dry dock in northern Germany). If a ship is worth enough to its operators and/or is dangerous enough, the enemy WILL find a way to negate it... if nothing else, they'll find a way to remove all fuel sources, if possible (I'm assuming here that such an armoured ship wouldn't have a vunerability like fuel scoops and would be relying on fleet auxilleries for refuelling). Food supplies would be another weakness, as would the life support supplies.