Keeping up with Armor

[Evil Aardvark]

If anyone cares, oobleck is an example of a non-Newtonian fluid [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid ]. There's a bunch of them, and they're fun to read about, make and play with (it helps if you have kids at home to give you an "excuse").

 

[Evil Aardvark]

So....

My players came up with this:

Fireproof suit
TL10 Cloth
TL12 Cloth
Boarding Vacc Suit

For total protection of 25 - doable?

The argument is, TL10 cloth is worn like clothing, thus the Fireproof suit and TL12 cloth can go under it, then the Vacc suit goes over the top of all that since a Vacc suit can be worn over clothing.

Hard to argue with it based on descriptions alone and little to no guidance in the mechanics. My concern is with situations like this, it gets to be a challenge to challenge characters that can get to such high protection levels. Most flora/fauna can't penetrate that, and my derelict ship with the yellow-musk zombies was not even a nuisance, though it was still fun.

I just thought I would bounce this off of folks and see what fell out.

George

I would happily let people do this. Then I'd impose a massive penalty to all physical actions because your arms will stick straight out at your sides like you were doing an impression of Rio's Christ the Redeemer. And forget getting anything from a pocket or a holster at your waist - those locations are now inaccessible. Basically, they'd be Tellytubbies, good only for running in circles, laughing, falling-down and flailing like an inverted turtle.

 

[MonsterX]

Basically, they'd be Tellytubbies

Bullet-proof Tellytubbies!

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

So....

My players came up with this:

Fireproof suit
TL10 Cloth
TL12 Cloth
Boarding Vacc Suit

For total protection of 25 - doable?

The argument is, TL10 cloth is worn like clothing, thus the Fireproof suit and TL12 cloth can go under it, then the Vacc suit goes over the top of all that since a Vacc suit can be worn over clothing.

Hard to argue with it based on descriptions alone and little to no guidance in the mechanics. My concern is with situations like this, it gets to be a challenge to challenge characters that can get to such high protection levels. Most flora/fauna can't penetrate that, and my derelict ship with the yellow-musk zombies was not even a nuisance, though it was still fun.

I just thought I would bounce this off of folks and see what fell out.

George

I would happily let people do this. Then I'd impose a massive penalty to all physical actions because your arms will stick straight out at your sides like you were doing an impression of Rio's Christ the Redeemer. And forget getting anything from a pocket or a holster at your waist - those locations are now inaccessible. Basically, they'd be Tellytubbies, good only for running in circles, laughing, falling-down and flailing like an inverted turtle.

I would likely impose negative DMs to Dexterity etc. Sort of like wearing 3 layers of cold weather clothing... at some point you become the stay-puff person...

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Andrewmoreton]

I find the application of the word NO to the more stupid and munchkin like player ideas works wonders. At least give me some creativity and originality when trying to cheat the universe

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Thinking about this some more, I would let them combine TWO without penalty, but more than that it gets harder and harder to do anything.

 

[J. L. Brown]

I'm solidly in the 'Protection offered at a particular TL is the best available' camp. Anything more than one layer carries hefty penalties in encumbrance, fatigue, and penalties to skills and attributes. If the players insist, then I will probably allow them to benefit from two layers -- the strongest layer provides full value, then the second strongest provides a fraction (50%? 33%?) of its' usual benefit. If the players want better protection vs energy weapons, or radiation, or some other specific threat then they can do that for a small fee -- by making a trade off; losing a slightly greater amount of some other form of protection.

 

[Geir]

Related to the above, yeah - the armour available has already been through optimisation, so it should be as good as it gets. And without a doubt there should be some non-linear relationship with stacked armour to consider. Best thing to look at is the 'Additional Padding' modification in the 2023 Central Supply Catalogue (p. 20). Basically for a +1, you get DM-1 to DEX checks (including attacks) and 5 kg more mass.

Now, completely different types of armour, for instance reflec and cloth, which stop different things, they could stack just fine. But wearing a flack jacket over cloth and draping a cloth trench coat over that... yeah, no... (The Cloth Trench Coat is my fault - it can be worn over one other armour (not two!), but that's mainly because it looks cool). I should have added a stacking rule where each layer only adds half the Protection, but didn't really think of it - plus it probably would have gotten edited out as too complex... (if so, consider: a Diplovest gives +3 and a trench coat +6, so if the trenchcoat only added +3 instead, then the combo would be no better than the trench coat alone - so instead, maybe take the highest value and only half the lower and get 6+1.5 and round down to 7? See, messy.) So anyway, take the rules as written but...

Complete aside: I'm a strong proponent of the Rule Zero method of running Traveller, or any TTRPG: if it seems wrong or doesn't match what you want, change it - just be consistent and communicate it clearly. RAW does - or at least should - matter for writers (keep this in mind if submitting a JTAS article) but not for Referees running any particular campaign where the mantra should be "That's not how we're going to do it in MTU", or more to the point "That's dumb, we're not doing that". And that goes to everything from character generation, to D1000 limits, to armour stacking.) This will cause a problem with rules lawyer-type players, but in my mind, they're going to be a problem no matter what - if you have to ask "Are we here to have fun or to argue?" then that question answers itself - unless arguing is fun for everyone around the physical or virtual table.

 

[Condottiere]

The true story of the Kelly Gang Armour | Did it work? Who made it?

The Kelly Gang armour is an Australian icon - but how was it made?

Legend has it, it was made over a stringy bark log by the gang themselves, but historians and blacksmiths say all the evidence points to it being done by a professional blacksmith in a forge.

In this 2003 story from ABC TV’s Catalyst program we finally find out the truth, as history meets science. It follows the armour of Joe Byrne, Ned Kelly’s second in command, on a journey of discovery from Glenrowan to the ANSTO’s nuclear reactor in Sydney. There a team of scientists and historians finally shed some light on how the famous armour was made.

 

[WHULorigan]

I would happily let people do this. Then I'd impose a massive penalty to all physical actions because your arms will stick straight out at your sides like you were doing an impression of Rio's Christ the Redeemer. And forget getting anything from a pocket or a holster at your waist - those locations are now inaccessible. Basically, they'd be Tellytubbies, good only for running in circles, laughing, falling-down and flailing like an inverted turtle.

Or like the younger brother Randy in his snow coat in the American Movie "A Christmas Story" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Story ).

 

[MasterGwydion]

By general principal what is sold over the counter or available to militaries should give the best available protection for the given limitations of the particular set. The value shouldn't be trivially improved just by chucking on extra layers without some significant practical disadvantages. Otherwise what would stop another vendor from simply selling a superior composite. Always assume the "standard" is somewhere on an optimal intersection of price, protection and practicality curves.

In principal I would only allow small (logarithmic) improvements in armour values for multiplying up armour and add a lot more encumbrance and agility penalties.

The rule for going outside, in reality, in the cold is layering, so layering works in reality, otherwise thermal underwear would not be a thing.. It just screws things up in game mechanics

 

[Vormaerin]

Layering would work "in reality". But game mechanics don't reflect the encumbrance, heat, and other issues that layers of armor would result in. As with a lot of things, playability is an important factor.

 

[J. L. Brown]

The rule for going outside, in reality, in the cold is layering, so layering works in reality, otherwise thermal underwear would not be a thing.. It just screws things up in game mechanics

Apples to oranges; layering is the preferred approach to dealing with extreme cold, so that the wearer can remove a layer or layers (and some of the insulation value) in order to cool off during exertion. Nor is there an uniform everyday need for dealing with extreme cold; some days are warmer.

The underlying point is not that 'more armor = less protection'. Right now in 2020's Terra, we can make sheets of rolled homogeneous steel more than a meter thick; and that is far more protective than the aramid fiber armor in wide military use -- but nobody wears meter thick steel plating. Why?

All of the militaries, special forces, mercenaries, insurgents, and other vast multitudes have been seeking combat advantages, and the armor available at each TL is it. That is the most protection which can be practically put on a functional body; any further armor protection imposes a trade off which is deemed too steep to be worthwhile.

 

[Condottiere]

Point defence.

Or pointed offence.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Apples to oranges; layering is the preferred approach to dealing with extreme cold, so that the wearer can remove a layer or layers (and some of the insulation value) in order to cool off during exertion. Nor is there an uniform everyday need for dealing with extreme cold; some days are warmer.

The underlying point is not that 'more armor = less protection'. Right now in 2020's Terra, we can make sheets of rolled homogeneous steel more than a meter thick; and that is far more protective than the aramid fiber armor in wide military use -- but nobody wears meter thick steel plating. Why?

All of the militaries, special forces, mercenaries, insurgents, and other vast multitudes have been seeking combat advantages, and the armor available at each TL is it. That is the most protection which can be practically put on a functional body; any further armor protection imposes a trade off which is deemed too steep to be worthwhile.

Saying these armors are the best you can get for the TL and using modern Earth as an example isn't really valid. The armors worn by Our militaries are not the best armors that can be made at Our TL, it is simply the best armor that governments are willing to pay for. We could put every soldier in the equivalent Coalition Dead Boy Armor from the Rifts RPG with today's TL. You just can't do it economically and war is all about how much fiscal value a society puts on a single life. So that trade off that you are talking about is economic, not physical.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Saying these armors are the best you can get for the TL and using modern Earth as an example isn't really valid. The armors worn by Our militaries are not the best armors that can be made at Our TL, it is simply the best armor that governments are willing to pay for. We could put every soldier in the equivalent Coalition Dead Boy Armor from the Rifts RPG with today's TL. You just can't do it economically and war is all about how much fiscal value a society puts on a single life. So that trade off that you are talking about is economic, not physical.

What part of "That is the most protection which can be practically put on a functional body; any further armor protection imposes a trade off which is deemed too steep to be worthwhile." fails to account for economic factors in the trade-offs under consideration?

Also, we do not yet have the technology to make Dead Boy armor. Link to the 'Heavy' version here: https://www.lawner.org.uk/rpg/rifts/armour/deadboy1.html

Leaving aside the 'mega-damage' nonsense, the features are: Sealed against vacuum and other hostile environments; five hour oxygen supply; heat protection up to 300 C; suit damage and functionality monitoring system; life support system with heating, cooling, humidity control, and computer interface to control it all; detection, filtration, and purging (in case of a leak, I suppose) of contaminated air; significant protection vs Radiation; an 80 dB loudspeaker; and a 8 km radio. All of which fits into a package of of less than 10 kg. We cannot even put the non-armor systems into a package that small.

The armor that militaries issue to their troops today is the best we can do at our TL. Technology Level is not just about stuff some ivory-tower type can dream up, it is about what can be produced locally. Production and economics are at the very heart of what a TL represents; and if we cannot economically mass-produce anything better, then we are at our TL limit -- and all the small-batch, super expensive stuff that may serve as counter-examples just reinforce this in that they represent prototypes beyond our current abilities.

And, of course, RIFTS -- like Traveller -- absolutely failed to take into account that 'embrace the suck' is a major part of infantry life, and wearing the armor is part of the suck. It is heavy, uncomfortable, and makes it impossible to reach some of the spots that itch. A defining feature of soldiering is the following of orders -- eating the swill in the company mess, carrying heavy stuff, wearing uncomfortable equipment, etc; the armor issued to soldiers would have non-soldiers noping out pretty quickly when the perceived threat was gone. The idea that folks will happily add extra bulk and weight and acheive something the brass was unwilling to order soldiers to do seems a little fantastic.

 

[Condottiere]

Why New Russian Body Armor is Completely Useless

It's the world's most advanced body armor and it will be fielded by Russia starting in 2025. Meet Sotnik, the lightest, most cutting-edge armor that will do the impossible and stop a .50 caliber round dead in its tracks. The best part of all is that this brand-new high-tech armor won't cost Russia a penny. Check out today's epic new video that exposes the truth behind Russia's new elite body armor.

To be fair, if you look like you're wearing body armour, your comrade who isn't, may more likely be targetted.

 

[MasterGwydion]

What part of "That is the most protection which can be practically put on a functional body; any further armor protection imposes a trade off which is deemed too steep to be worthwhile." fails to account for economic factors in the trade-offs under consideration?

Also, we do not yet have the technology to make Dead Boy armor. Link to the 'Heavy' version here: https://www.lawner.org.uk/rpg/rifts/armour/deadboy1.html

Leaving aside the 'mega-damage' nonsense, the features are: Sealed against vacuum and other hostile environments; five hour oxygen supply; heat protection up to 300 C; suit damage and functionality monitoring system; life support system with heating, cooling, humidity control, and computer interface to control it all; detection, filtration, and purging (in case of a leak, I suppose) of contaminated air; significant protection vs Radiation; an 80 dB loudspeaker; and a 8 km radio. All of which fits into a package of of less than 10 kg. We cannot even put the non-armor systems into a package that small.

The armor that militaries issue to their troops today is the best we can do at our TL. Technology Level is not just about stuff some ivory-tower type can dream up, it is about what can be produced locally. Production and economics are at the very heart of what a TL represents; and if we cannot economically mass-produce anything better, then we are at our TL limit -- and all the small-batch, super expensive stuff that may serve as counter-examples just reinforce this in that they represent prototypes beyond our current abilities.

And, of course, RIFTS -- like Traveller -- absolutely failed to take into account that 'embrace the suck' is a major part of infantry life, and wearing the armor is part of the suck. It is heavy, uncomfortable, and makes it impossible to reach some of the spots that itch. A defining feature of soldiering is the following of orders -- eating the swill in the company mess, carrying heavy stuff, wearing uncomfortable equipment, etc; the armor issued to soldiers would have non-soldiers noping out pretty quickly when the perceived threat was gone. The idea that folks will happily add extra bulk and weight and acheive something the brass was unwilling to order soldiers to do seems a little fantastic.

Most of that stuff is already accomplished by deep water diving suits that have been around for 30+ years. The only issues you have are weight, and radiation shielding. Look at the modern space suits that are being developed as cutting edge tech for Our TL. They do all of those things except the weight and the being bullet resistant. That is at Our TL. Technically Dead Boy armor would be more TL 10 or higher since the Coalition Military uses fusion power in their vehicles, or what Traveller would call Fusion+. But the basics of that armor could be built today, it would just cost like a million bucks or more per suit. Human life on Earth in Our world doesn't have much value so it is not worth it to spend a lot of money to protect it. It is doable. That is not a function of TL that We do not have that. In a society of the same TL as current Earth, but where the loss of a single sophant life due to combat is a tragedy of the highest order, then you would see that armor in common use.

My point is that TL does not say what is the economic value of protecting one life. That is something that no game stat does. In a society where life has no value and death in battle is to be hoped for, no armor of any type would be "economically feasible". The opposite is true of a society where every death is considered an unrecoverable and unacceptable tragedy.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Most of that stuff is already accomplished by deep water diving suits that have been around for 30+ years. The only issues you have are weight, and radiation shielding. Look at the modern space suits that are being developed as cutting edge tech for Our TL. They do all of those things except the weight and the being bullet resistant. That is at Our TL.

No, stuff that is under active development is not 'at our Technology Level'. If we had the existing technology and production capacity to make those items, then they would not be 'under development'.

And both underwater suits and vacuum-protection suits fail in crucial ways:
1} They provide no armor protection;
2} They are extremely cumbersome and difficult to move around in;
3} They weigh FAR too much.

The CA-4 Dead-Boy armor cited above weighs 20 pounds. A US Army kevlar vest & ceramic inserts (does not include helmet, legs, or environmental protection) comes out to 26 pounds. A Space Shuttle suit weighs 310 pounds. A modern deep-diving hard suit (the Exosuit) weighs in at 530 pounds -- and check out the wonderful manual dexterity the wearer has! There is simply no way whatsoever for us to make anything like the dead-boy suit today.

Even if we cut a space suit down to only on tenth of its' current mass, we would be over-weight -- and then we would need to add yet more weight to add armor.

And societies where 'every death is considered an unrecoverable and unacceptable tragedy' do not field armies. Those societies which do, are faced with the idea of spending an infinite amount on a single super-soldier (who would still lose because they can only be in one place at a time), or divide up their existing, finite budget on building the most effective fighting force they can manage. In the latter scenario, every soldier who becomes a casualty is a drain on war-fighting resources, so it makes sense to keep your soldiers (as much as the nature of war allows) from becoming casualties. But keeping your soldiers from dying is pointless if they cannot defeat (or even threaten) the enemy, so not all of the available budget will be spent on armor.

It is a very reasonable approximation that military-issue armor is the best that can be managed within very real limits.