Personal Armor Values Again

[hdan]

So I know a lot of pixels have been killed over this topic, but there don't seem to be any recent or even definitive (like that means anything in Traveller) rulings on this topic, so I'll bring up the old chestnut, but with a twist:


In your actual games, do you use the personal armor values as printed, double them, use a custom table of armor values, or something else?


Because it's fun to debate these things, I'll also start a discussion. Though I'm interested in the actual answer. (How does one make a poll?)

For those of you who might have missed this topic the few times it's been discussed before, the argument revolves around the perception that MgT armor is not protective enough against the weapons its meant to protect against. Look up weapon and armor at the same TL, and you find across the board that armor generally only blocks 1/2 the average damage of similar TL weapons.

Two of the most compelling (to me) solutions I saw while reviewing the list are:

* Double the armor values. Simple and easy.
* Armor blocks damage AND converts energy into Stun.

The second one needs some explanation. First, reduce incoming damage by the armor value as normal. Then for kinetic weapons, use the armor value again to reduce the damage BUT apply the armor as a separate Stun attack immediately afterwards.

Energy weapons don't have any of their damage converted, but you can layer Reflec to help with them, so it evens out some. (BTW - combat armor and BD already have reflec built into them IMHO.) Likewise, armor piercing reduces "Stun" as well.

An example makes this clearer (though it's still a bit convoluted)

A guy with Armor-3 is hit for 12 points of damage. His armor reduces that to 9.
Split the 9 again, with 3 (the armor value) becoming a "Stun" attack, and 6 becoming damage.
Apply the damage, then roll End under 3 to avoid going unconscious. Not a hard roll, except that you just ate 6 points of End damage.

Though possibly more realistic (A really hard piece of armor will protect you from real wounding, but you will likely get knocked out by the hit), I fear it would be too hard to adjudicate in play.


Any other ideas?

 

[locarno24]

In your actual games, do you use the personal armor values as printed, double them, use a custom table of armor values, or something else?

As printed. However, we just use the core rulebook gear rather than CSC weapons - which kicked over the balance quite a bit when it added armour piercing traits to lots of weapons without reducing their damage or increasing their cost/TL to match.

Look up weapon and armor at the same TL, and you find across the board that armor generally only blocks 1/2 the average damage of similar TL weapons.

Which, to my mind, is correct. Having less than a 50% chance of hurting someone unless they're tanked up like the juggernaut makes combat feel much less....real.
It's not especially heroic, but I like the fact that when guns start firing in traveller, 90% of players dive behind the nearest cover yelling "oh crud oh crud oh crud!!!".

I feel a round from an assault rifle should put you on your arse. Even if you're in a decent set of modern body armour, you're going to be bruised, winded and maybe break a rib (END damage - which will come into play when you next try athletics(endurance) checks).

Put the other way, Armour 3-6 represents a light flak vest or something of that order. It should not stop military-grade weapons of equivalent tech level dead; not least because it's generally not universally covering the wearer - traveller doesn't resolve hits to arms/legs/head seperately, instead the effect of your to hit roll adds to the damage because it represents a good aim and/or luck, and the ability to put a round/arrow/pulse onto a weak point or unprotected part of the body. As a result, a decent effect should be able to get most of an average damage roll past a generic 'bullet-proof vest'

Now I can see a seperate, distinct argument for really, really big stuff - artillery battle dres, for example, is somewhere between iron man hulkbuster and an appleseed landmate, and I will accept that this stuff should be immune to small arms fire. But then it generally clocks in at armour 15+, which means that to all intents and purposes it is - at least against bullets and gauss needles.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

I like the new armor options introduced in Central Supply Catalog where you can make statements like Protection 2 (8 against fire) or with Primitive armors Protection 6 (3 against projectiles). The idea of bleed thru damage via armor piercing was particularly cool to me. Critical hits and exhaustion are dealt with to some extent with the lowering of your actual stats and associated DMs during combat. That's how I play it.

That said, I can see where you want character survivability. If the optional rules Knockout Blow and Random First Blood are not enough, I might recommend adding some fudge factor to the Fatigue rules where some portion or all damage is applied to Fatigue (as well as stats). This way if the character is not dead or knocked out, they might still be weakened and out of the fight.

My primary motivation in not altering the Armor protection is that I use Traveller for low-tech (and fantasy) as well as high tech games and like mixing the two. I want combat to be deadly and adventurers have to think and sneak out of situations. Combat is the climax to the adventure. Or when things go really bad...

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I avoid combat in most situations in Traveller, rather than simulate a video game or play as Iron Man. If you are going for the Iron Man armor feel, you also need to add degrading armor to the game which Traveller doesn't have. Lately, I've been doing degrading armor and weapons in Traveller (good, fair, poor condition). I don't feel an armored suit should be the main character in an RPG, so armor doesn't last very long in my games.

 

[coldwar]

I use armour values as they are. They are pretty realistic to what they are designed to do. Stopping stab wounds.
I also see it as a GM's responsibility to say how it feels to be shot. Say, "You get hit in the stomach winding you, whilst several arteries burst under heavy trauma." Most likely a hit of 1-4 damage after armour helped save you.

Here's a quote from a set of armour, issued to Americans during the Vietnam war.
"This armour may save your life! When properly worn, it will protect vital areas from shell and grenade fragments which cause most combat casualties."

Modern armour in general, is not designed to protect a person from harm from the most common firearm of that period. I remember watching Top Gear a few years ago, Jeremy having to put on a heavy Flak Jacket whilst he drove a white souped up car (that needed to be destroyed). But, before he put it on, he read out the health warning on it. Remembering it roughly, it basically said, "This is not intended to save your life."
Pretty much most armour has one common purpose, to stop stab/slash wounds from blades.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Another vote for armour values as written in the core book (ignoring most of the CSC amendments). Armour is very useful, but doesn't make the wearer invulnerable. Main difference is we have greatly reduced the costs of the more advanced armours, basically combat armours at 20% of the "official" prices (so TL12 combat armour is 60,000Cr rather than 300,000 Cr), and battle dress at 10% (though have recently been tinkering around with the more advanced battle dress rules in the new Vehicle handbook, have greatly reduced the basic cost to achieve the same kind of effect). Have also added a cheaper "carapace" armour which offers the armour value of combat armour, and can function as an NBC suit, but lacks the vacc suit properties of combat armour. Have added a TL10 carapace which offers 10pts of armour for 10,000Cr, seemed to be a bit of a gap in the armour type table there. We also don't allow the "stacked" armours rule from the CSC.

We have a list of weapons which, broadly, follows core book, though I have added some extra weapons from CSC, often changing some of the stats. including modified damages where appropriate (basically, as per my post a while back about suggested errata in the csc). We do use some of the SAP/AP rules, but tend to limit it (e.g. no APDSFS-T gauss needles, gauss pistols have no enhanced penetration). All this seems to create a good game balance, e.g. at TL12 14 point combat amour is opposed by gauss rifles, which do an average of 14 + 4 (burst) + 4 (AP) = 22 - 14 (armour) = 8 pts penetrating. You don't want to get hit too often (or more than once, really). Wearers of lower tech armours are pretty vulnerable to higher tech small arms.

Egil

 

[CosmicGamer]

Another vote for armour values as written in the core book

Here too.

However I can understand someone who has more combat in their games wanting to make some tweaks. For example:

traveller doesn't resolve hits to arms/legs/head seperately, instead the effect of your to hit roll adds to the damage because it represents a good aim and/or luck, and the ability to put a round/arrow/pulse onto a weak point or unprotected part of the body.

While this concept helps with certain issues it still has problems. It doesn't acknowledge that a weapon that does little damage should just as easily be lucky or well aimed to hit a weak or unprotected location.

Not only is the combat in our games limited, but we often roll play combat and use alternate solutions for certain situations. Like a dagger from behind on an unsuspecting opponent. Pass the stealth roll and/or the opponent fails a recon check and a successful attack from behind on an opponent with an exposed neck equals a slit throat and dead. No roll for damage needed.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

However I can understand someone who has more combat in their games wanting to make some tweaks. For example:

traveller doesn't resolve hits to arms/legs/head seperately, instead the effect of your to hit roll adds to the damage because it represents a good aim and/or luck, and the ability to put a round/arrow/pulse onto a weak point or unprotected part of the body.

While this concept helps with certain issues it still has problems. It doesn't acknowledge that a weapon that does little damage should just as easily be lucky or well aimed to hit a weak or unprotected location.

Not only is the combat in our games limited, but we often roll play combat and use alternate solutions for certain situations. Like a dagger from behind on an unsuspecting opponent. Pass the stealth roll and/or the opponent fails a recon check and a successful attack from behind on an opponent with an exposed neck equals a slit throat and dead. No roll for damage needed.

For called shots (a player says he's going to chop off another character's hand with his cutlass or whatever), I'll divide the amount of damage the blade does by 6 and let the hand fall to the floor. That way, the one-handed man doesn't die from full-on 3D6+whatever of damage just for losing five fingers.

 

[Strithe]

I use armour values as they are. They are pretty realistic to what they are designed to do. Stopping stab wounds.

You're mostly right. A better phrasing would be that they're designed to prevent incapacitation from glancing or peripheral hits from the common sidearms of the day.

For iron-age socities that's a dagger or shortsword, for the modern era its handguns, light rifles, and shrapnel.

As written the armor values in the rulebooks do a good job of this.

An unarmored human has the chance to be dropped by a single shot or burst from the following weapons as follows (assuming Effect 0):

Autopistol = 2% (average damage 7.5 / hit)
Rifle = 16% (average damage 10.5)
Assault Rifle burst = 63% (average damage 14.5)
Shotgun = 55% (average damage 14)
ACR Burst = 84% (average damage 16.5)
Gauss Rifle Burst = 90% (average damage 18)

The autopistol and rifle will take two hits to knock you down, everything else is likely to drop you with a single hit.

Add TL 7 Cloth Armor, and the chances go as follows for a one-hit drop:
Autopistol = 0% (average damage 4.5)
Rifle = 2% (average damage 7.5)
Assault rifle burst = 25% (average damage 11.5)
Shotgun = 5% (average damage 8)
ACR Burst = 50% (average damage 13.5)
Gauss rifle burst = 66% (average damage 15)

Much better, you're likely to take a hit and keep functioning from everything but the Gauss rifle.

Wear a TL 8 Flak Jacket (protection 6), and it gets even better:
Autopistol = still 0% (average damage 1.5)
Rifle = 0% (average damage 8.5)
Assault rifle burst = 5% (average damage 8.5)
Shotgun = 0% (average damage (2)
ACR Burst = 16% (average damage 10.5)
Gauss Rifle Burst = 34% (average damage 12)

Even better. It'll take 2 hits typically to put you down with most long guns, and it you can typically take 7 hits from a Shotgun or 10 hits from the autopistol. This seems about right.



If you're using CSC weapons, don't forget to use CSC armor rules as well. Pay particular attention to the armor layering rules on page 133.

Your TL10 infantryman could go with the following:

Torso Protector: Protection 8, mass 8 kg, Cr 1,000
Improved Cloth Armor: Protection 2.5, mass 1 kg, Cr 500
Light Infantry Helmet: Protection 1.25, mass 2 kg, Cr 75
Heavy Arm Protector: Protection 0.5, mass 2 kg, Cr 150
Heavy Leg Protector: Protection 0.75, mass 2.5 kg, Cr 200

Total Protection: 13
Total Mass: 15.5 kg, 19 kg with a light ACR (a fairly realistic "fighting load" for a soldier).
Total cost: Cr 1,925, 2,950 with a light ACR.

So, factoring in the values from CSC weapons you've got the following chances incapacitation from a single shot or burst (with average damage)

Autopistol (3d6-3): 0% (no damage)
Submachinegun burst (3d6+1): 0% (no damage)
Rifle (3d6 SAP): 0% (no damage)
Assault Rifle burst (3d6 + 4 SAP): 0% (damage 2.5)
Light ACR w/DSAP, burst (3d6 + 6 AP): 0.5% (damage 6.5)
Gauss Rifle burst (4d6 + 4 AP): 10% (damage 9)

On average, you'll be able to walk through handgun, SMG, and rifle fire, I didn't even bother with the shotgun because this suit is virtually immune to Shotgun fire.

Only burst-firing rifles are likely to put you down, on average taking 6 assault rifle hits, 3 light ACR hits, or 4 gauss rifle hits to do so.


A TL8 trooper (roughly today) probably has the equivalent of an improved Flak Jacket with a ballistic vest, and a ballistic helmet for 9 protection.

He's also pretty well protected, on average taking no damage from pistols or shotguns, and only an exceptionally high Shotgun hit will do damage (with buckshot anyway).

For the rest:
SMG Burst: 0% (2.5 damage) 6 hits to incapacitate
Rifle: 0% (2.5 damage) 6 hits to incapacitate.
Assault Rifle Burst: 0.5% (6.5 damage) 3 hits to incapacitate
Light ACR burst w/DSAP ammo: 16% (10.5 damage) 2 hits to incapacitate
Gauss Rifle Burst: 44% (13 damage) 2 hits to incapacitate

Again, this seems reasonable to me.

Of course, effect is going to skew things a great deal. Taking the assault rifle for example:
Effect 1 = 2% (7.5 damage) 2 hits
Effect 2 = 5% (8.5 damage) 2 hits
Effect 3 = 9% (9.5 damage) 2 hits
Effect 4 = 16% (10.5 damage) 2 hits
Effect 5 = 25% (11.5 damage) 2 hits
Effect 6 = 38% (12.5 damage) 2 hits
Effect 7 = 50% (13.5 damage) 2 hits
Effect 8 = 63% (14.5 damage) 1 hit

Personally I don't think it's the armor values that are really the problem. If the PC's keep getting slaughtered by well-equipped enemies or they seem to be dropping armored opponent's too easily I think it may have more to do with the way modifiers stack and add to damage. If you take enough time to aim and have the right weapon mods and/or cybernetics you can insta-drop enemies that are behind cover.

First and foremost: I'd improve the COver DM's, I'd suggest:
Light Cover (25% coverage) -1
Medium cover (50%) -2
Heavy (75%) -4
Near total (90%) -6

In this way if your target is behind near-total cover all that you're going to achieve by maxing out your aiming bonus is negating that cover. In this way you have more of an incentive to use cover.

I'd also cap the bonus damage from Effect at six. This means that at best all you're ever going to do is effectively add an extra die of damage to your attack. You won't be able to one-shot drop a guy in battledress with your maxed-out sniper using a musket, but using a gauss Rifle it's still a possibility.

If you want to get even more devious, rule that DM's of the same type don't stack: I'd suggest that the types be limited to Characteristic, Skill, circumstances (cover, visibility), and Gear. Only the highest +'s and the lowest -'s apply.

 

[hdan]

You're mostly right. <snip>

Thanks Strithe, that was very illuminating and gives me some good tools for planning out appropriately challenging violent encounters.

 

[coldwar]

just read something mentioned here that burst shots are dangerous. But as far as I understand burst shots can only ever do up to 2d6 damage.

 

[Old timer]

No, that is incorrect. In traveller the damage for fire arms works out like this. Assuming we are using a ACR that does 3d6 damage and has a auto rating of 6.
A single shot will do the weapons damage plus the effect of the hit roll.
A burst fire will do the weapons damage, plus the weapons auto rating and also the 'effect' of the hit roll, so in this case assuming an effect of 0, the damage would be 3d6+6, against one target.
For an auto fire attack, you would roll a number of dice equal to the weapons auto rating, in this case 6, and divide the dice into pairs and add all relevant mods. If each pair of dice are a hit (8+ after mods), damage would be the weapons damage plus effect.
This is explained on page 62 of the CRB combat section.

 

[coldwar]

Thanks for pointing it out, misread it then.

 

[locarno24]

In game terms, single shots are good for 'snap' combat, where multiple targets are appearing and disappearing, as it has the least impact on your initiative (and therefore reduces the chance of someone popping out and shooting you in the vulnerable bits before your go next turn).

Full auto is best either for difficult targets (many rolls to hit) or mobs, but eats ammo like its going out of fashion and catastrophically drops your initiative - which means (a) you'll go last and (b) may not be able to dodge.

Suppression fire pins people down, preventing them from shooting back. Ish. I've never understood why there's a penalty to hit with it, though, as surely landing fire 'vaguely near' is easier than actually hitting someone. In practice, I don't think wasting one person's fire in return for DM-1 penalties are worth it compared to - err - just shooting someone.

Bursts are for aimed 'killshots' - intended to put several slugs/bolts/needles into one point on a target, and is a good way of punching through heavier armour.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

The rule/option makes sense to me. It has a effect of adding Initiative penalty equal to Effect for current and next Combat Round and the stated -1 to skill checks for the current AND the next Combat Round. Combined with Auto Fire as allowed in the rule, this keeps multiple enemies down due to the one action by keeping enemy down and allowing your team to act more freely

Common movie trope:
Hero A: "If I can get to the other side of the room, I can trip the switch and open the gate"
Hero B: "OK. I got you covered."
Hero B lays suppression fire on enemy.
Enemies are suppressed for 7-12 seconds (current round AND next Combat Round)
Hero A runs across room (Minor Action), trips switch(Free Action), runs back (sacrifice Major Action for 2 Minor Actions)

 

[locarno24]

Right. I agree with suppressive fire existing; it's an important part of intense combat. The way it works isn't too hot in game, though:

I only apply the penalty to someone I 'hit'.
Furthermore, since the initiative penalty is equal to the effect, and there's a DM-1 to hit, you tend to find there's little to no effect on most hits anyway - seriously, unless you're tricked out with major skills and gear, how often do you get an effect of three or more?
Which means that there is a relatively limited initiative penalty - more importantly, probably a lower initiative penalty than you're going to suffer for firing a weapon on full auto.

A -1 to enemy skill checks is okay, but if they're less interested in garnering a high effect than in just passing the test - i.e. just shooting you - it's only going to help so much.

Essentially, my main problem is "why is firing at someone with a weapon set to fully automatic not going to have a suppressive effect anyway?"

Anywho.....going rather catastrophically off-topic, so never mind.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Right. I agree with suppressive fire existing

I'm against rules that reduce role playing but realize that some rules are needed to simulate reality. I think the suppression rules in the Mercenary book go too far and, at least in part, this is something to be role played. Why can't it be left up to the player, and the GM for NPCs, to role play ducking for cover? Your putting the chance of ignoring the bullets in the hands of the attacker instead of the possibly highly experienced combat vet who realizes these wild shots will probably not (by the rules it is impossible) hit them and even if they do, his combat armor is quite good at stopping rounds from a handheld slug thrower.

The book itself addresses this

There are some situations and instances that can make a target so unshakable that they do not care about Suppression fire, and will not be harried by it.

Some examples are given but while there is a specific suppression rule there are no specifics for resisting. End result to me: Role play it and the rule, as written, is not very useful.

What's next, a rule that has a dice roll decide if the PCs surrender or run if they are outgunned and out manned?
+1DM for each member of the opposition that has a weapon that does 1d6 damage more than the best weapon of your team
+1 DM if you are out manned 1.5 to 1
+2 DM if you are out manned 2 to 1

Silliness. This is a game for role playing what an individual thinks, feels, and does and not a tabletop combat game to statistically determine the reactions of a group of combatants.

 

[hdan]

The rule/option makes sense to me. It has a effect of adding Initiative penalty equal to Effect for current and next Combat Round and the stated -1 to skill checks for the current AND the next Combat Round. Combined with Auto Fire as allowed in the rule, this keeps multiple enemies down due to the one action by keeping enemy down and allowing your team to act more freely

I like that idea.

I wonder if we really need suppression though, if we modify Dodge just a little to add the maximum Effect of a full-auto attack to every dodger's initiative penalty. So the penalty to initiative for a dodge is 2+Attack Effect. The same would work for area of effect attacks.

This also handles the "not affected by suppression" cases - if you don't choose to dodge, you're not affected. Though you may find yourself dead.

I suppose being able to force fully covered enemies to delay is useful and cinematic though. So we need to add a rule that someone actually kneeling or prone behind cover is also affected by the effect of any full-auto shots aimed towards them, though the actual shot cannot harm them while they stay down, and they do not suffer the other penalties of having reacted.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I wonder if we really need suppression though, if we modify Dodge just a little to add the maximum Effect of a full-auto attack to every dodger's initiative penalty. So the penalty to initiative for a dodge is 2+Attack Effect. The same would work for area of effect attacks.

This also handles the "not affected by suppression" cases - if you don't choose to dodge, you're not affected. Though you may find yourself dead.

As you point out, in a way suppression already existed - perhaps a bit limited but the rest can be role played. All the way up to a character hiding behind cover doing nothing but scream "Oh my god, were all going to do die!"

The rule/option makes sense to me. It has a effect of adding Initiative penalty equal to Effect for current and next Combat Round and the stated -1 to skill checks for the current AND the next Combat Round. Combined with Auto Fire as allowed in the rule, this keeps multiple enemies down due to the one action by keeping enemy down and allowing your team to act more freely

Remember, the opposition can use these same rules on the PCs.

 

[locarno24]

I wonder if we really need suppression though, if we modify Dodge just a little to add the maximum Effect of a full-auto attack to every dodger's initiative penalty. So the penalty to initiative for a dodge is 2+Attack Effect. The same would work for area of effect attacks.

This also handles the "not affected by suppression" cases - if you don't choose to dodge, you're not affected. Though you may find yourself dead.

Part of the issue is that one stat I've always felt Traveller lacking is something akin to Willpower or Nerve; "you're shot at, make a check to avoid being pinned down" makes sense to me.

I agree with Traveller not having a charisma/charm type stat* - I prefer having players actually think their way through a social interaction rather than just throw dice at it, but the whole point of fear/pinning/insanity/hypnosis/etc is that it's taking control away from you, and hence resisting it is as worthy of a check as is a strength test to keep a door open.

* Yes, all right, SOC. But that's not quite the same as other stats - it's more of an indicator. Making a SOC test for a social interaction is more akin to using your social status to convince the grubby little peasant to stop bothering you than actually trying to converse with them...