Traveller Armour Values

[DaltonCalford]

Is it just me, or are the armour values in the game totally out to lunch?

An average rated (777) unarmed man, with brawling 1, can do up to 11 points of damage in a single punch. If he had any bonuses due to attributes, he could hurt a guy in combat armour.

If he was wielding a broadsword, and had broadsword-1 (no other bonuses) he could potentially do up to 29 points of damage, or, in other words, do 11 points more than what TL-14 battle dress can protect him from.

Why carry FGMP when TL2 weapons can take out the best armour in space?

Since damage is based upon the characters effect roll, which can be up to +4 just from the die rolls, then modified by skill, situation and attributes, you can get far higher numbers than what the basic weapon damage would lead you to believe.

I don't have much problem with the damage values of the weapons, just of the armour.

In many cases, the armour should be rated between +5 to +25 points higher than what it is.

(I'm sorry, but I don't think that a sword wielding barbarian should be able to damage a guy in TL-14 battle dress)

Any one else out there think that the armour values are not well thought out?

 

[aspqrz]

I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an understanding that weapons are designed to penetrate the armour that is around when they are designed, and that later developments in armour, even if nominally of the same "type" are tweaked so that they are actually much more effective.

Forex, with modern AT Shells, even with Composite Armour, there has been an ongoing race between the shell designers and the armour designers to upgrade the composites to defeat the then current AP rounds ... there's been at least three or four generations (probably more) since the 1980's.

Did you ever wonder why Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard did so badly against the Allies in GW1?

They were using AP shells two generations, at least, behind the composite armour the allies were using, even tho the shells had been designed to defeat composite armour. In the reverse, their composite armour was several generations behind what the allied AT shells were designed to defeat.

Probably what would work would be something like adding +1d of armour for each TL of difference between the armour and the weapon that was designed to defeat it, and subtracting -1d of damage from each TL of difference between a weapon and any armour it was not designed to defeat.

So, a TL6 3d Heavy Revolver against a TL8 Kevlar vest would do -2d damage (the Kevlar's better than anything it was designed to defeat at TL6).

If you were using it against tank armour, however, you would take -2d off because the weapon was not designed to defeat tank armour.

(Yes, in effect you're simply subtracting -2d in both cases, but the reasons are different).

I'd then suggest that if the penalty is due to armour improvements, then the weapon always be allowed to do 1d damage ... but if it is to do with weapon inappropriateness, then let the damage go down to (0).

(The mechanic is from BTRC's EABA rules, and is quite elegant in them, YMMV of course )

Phil

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I think the armour values are actually fairly well balanced. In a recent game Combat Armour was excellent protection against ACR bursts and grenades; conversely Cloth was of only mediocre value against gauss weapons and lasers. Any higher protection and the combats would take forever. Just because it is possible to roll high and greatly exceed armour, it doesn't mean that it is at all likely

 

[dlpulver]

Is it just me, or are the armour values in the game totally out to lunch?

An average rated (777) unarmed man, with brawling 1, can do up to 11 points of damage in a single punch. If he had any bonuses due to attributes, he could hurt a guy in combat armour.

If he was wielding a broadsword, and had broadsword-1 (no other bonuses) he could potentially do up to 29 points of damage, or, in other words, do 11 points more than what TL-14 battle dress can protect him from.

Any one else out there think that the armour values are not well thought out?

- It's a bit off, but I'm not too bothered by this.
- there is no detailed hit location or extensive blunt trauma mechanic in the Mongoose Traveller system. As such, a high die roll can represent hitting a weak spot and delivering a degree of blunt impact ; it doesn't have to indicate the armor actually cracked.
- second, in Classic Traveler you could indeed inflict some decent mayhem with a broadsword (albeit the CT broadsword was actually a two-handed sword).
- third, you can fanwank that the ultra-tech ceramics, synthetics, and plastics used in the armor, while good against guns, aren't quite as hot against melee weapons - at least around joints or the like. Presumably it's easier to stab the guy in the armpit which is covered by a thin layer of flexible ballistic fabric; on the other hand *shooting* such a location is kind of tricky.

That said, *realistically* blades should have crap penetration against metal and ceramics. Realistically, try this rule: "double armor all rigid (i.e., not cloth, mesh, etc.) armor against edged weapons"

 

[Golan2072]

I've opened a discussion about this and made suggestions in a previous thread.

 

[Myrm]

(I'm sorry, but I don't think that a sword wielding barbarian should be able to damage a guy in TL-14 battle dress)
Any one else out there think that the armour values are not well thought out?

Slightly rearranged the sections you wrote...No I have no problem with this in principle. Primarily because there is no 'area hit' definition which means you cannot hit weak points. I have no problem with the idea that a screaming barbarian who reaches the guy in sophisticated armour can stick a sword in a gap and fry the marine in their armour through a short circuit or reactor spill or just a weak point. For other armours simple trauma rather than penetration works as a potential explanation (heck platemail vs swords thats relevant let alone foldy ballistic armour). This game is d6 based and whole body targetted vs a single armour rating so you only have so much granularity in what you directly model and what you leave 'a series of unfortunate events abstracted into a single dice roll'.

That said I was a bit disappointed specifically on how low Battle Dress was in its armour. I just like the idea of that being 'more uber' says he descending into MMORPGspeak.

Why carry FGMP when TL2 weapons can take out the best armour in space?

Because you can burn the living daylights out of N screaming barbarians on the way in, N+Y from the rads as you fire the blasted thing, and you probably have a number of mates doing the same thing.

Those few who actually reach you to shoot with TL2 weapons will likely get shredded a little later by your support fire as well as your own. Then when they close to hand to hand range you are presumably not totally inactive, rads becomes oh so much fun and then there may in fact be a chance that your sophisitcated armour is not perfect when the TL2 nutters who have not been decimated and run away actually reach you.

I'd expect armour designers of that sort of armour to be designing it to fight comparable TL threats and the idea of weakness to swords gets left is not farfetched to me.

 

[LotusBlossom]

I think also that the blades mentioned in the book perhaps are considered to be of hi-tech materials, or at least the combat stats seem to be based on that.

I think if we are talking about an iron age broadsword, this could not be compared to a TL 14 molecule-edged--wotsit-sword, and effectiveness should be reduced.


I also am bewildered by the lack of weapon stats for different TL's.

Any money that if a TL 15 society made a slug pistol (for whatever reason) it will hurt more than a TL 7 one.


This carries through to the ship design rules also.

Beam Lasers are Beam Lasers are Beam Lasers. Huh?
How can this be? We know from our own history that weapons improve drastically even over 20 years. So why is a TL 10 Laser the same as a TL 15 one. The old High Guard has differences based on TL.

Same with drives in the current rules. No miniturisation for hi-tech designs.

I think the OP has highlighted some serious misgivings in this ruleset. I have only played it twice now...but I have the nagging feeling that all we are getting is a very basic set of guidelines and skeleton designs....

Hmm this has turned into a semi-rant on my part.

 

[DaltonCalford]

Well,

I can see this has been discussed before and that various solutions have been put forward.

I am going to put together my own list of armour values combined with weapon values.

I think the core rules are fine, but the equipment lists need some tweaking.

best regards

Dalton

 

[Shiloh]

I also am bewildered by the lack of weapon stats for different TL's.

Any money that if a TL 15 society made a slug pistol (for whatever reason) it will hurt more than a TL 7 one.

They do. Gauss rifles throw more damage downrange than chemical slugthrowers; they're capped by battery power and gun rail bulk/mass.

Traveller is generally grounded in realworld physics as far as its game engine can simulate it, but that means that for background, the terminal ballistics of a slug thrower round are pretty well understood by TL7, and the chemistry of propellants likewise. Increased TL won't make huge bounds in exothermic rapid-expanding-gas-producing systems because those systems are pretty much fully exploited by TL 7-8 anyway; the advances in destructiveness come from other sources: grav/plasma (superconductor) tech and battery tech.

Nothing to stop you adding supertech to slugthrower rounds, though, to have some sort of *active* deformation once armour is penetrated, to form ideal tissue-destruction shapes. These would only be incremental damage boosts though, I feel.

This carries through to the ship design rules also.

The book designs in MGT are quite basic. I'm sure some of the more completely developed predecessor variants of of the game have tonnage reduction and damage increases for higher-tech versions of some of the weapons involved.

We know from our own history that weapons improve drastically even over 20 years.

That isn't to say that this situation will always pertain. The British Army used pretty much the same standard line infantry longarm (and tactics) from the advent of the flintlock until the Martini-Henry breech loader, and they won most of their wars over that time.

 

[Myrm]

I also am bewildered by the lack of weapon stats for different TL's.

Any money that if a TL 15 society made a slug pistol (for whatever reason) it will hurt more than a TL 7 one.

The two main reasons I can come up with that might explain this are:
1) These are the core rules so they have simply tended to put in the 'average joe' for each weapon in the system. Some show TL differences, some do not.

2) I think that the assumption that a TL15 pistol would hurt more than a TL7 as a necessity is erroneous. New tech doesnt always meaning improvments in existing technology, it often means entirely new ways of doing things - hence gauss and laser weapons. Furthermore (ignoring limits of development) why assume the extra tech will go into hurting more.

Lets look at the humble handgun from the late 1800s to now. Frankly they pretty much do the same damage as before - slug calibres and lengths are much the same really the .45 is still a .45 and you shoot someone it does the job. Thats not to say the TL changes from the 1800s to now have seen no development or improvment in the handgun, but the things that have changed include such things as accuracy, efficiency of the powder, better reliability, new materials for weight and balance - not necessarily damage.

Actually my immediate quickfix for this would be to institute some kind of TL based DM for the To Hit roll. For more detail, something along the lines of the computer retrotech rules might fit better than say upping the damage. For total detail - a weapon building system with each stat modified from a base yielding a resultant TL and cost.


Actually - the THREE main reasons that might explain this are (sorry for the pythonising):

3) As the tech levels change weapons do change. Bow - musket - rifle to ACR to gauss rifle is one example, within the 'same gun' the rifle to ACR change represents tech improvements on a single weapon. So, at a basic level in the core book you do see a TL curve.

Beam Lasers are Beam Lasers are Beam Lasers. Huh?
How can this be? We know from our own history that weapons improve drastically even over 20 years. So why is a TL 10 Laser the same as a TL 15 one. The old High Guard has differences based on TL.
Same with drives in the current rules. No miniturisation for hi-tech designs.

Point 1 above deals with this most suitably to my mind. Miniaturisation as a concept is in the computers so its been thought of and carried in from previous expressions of Traveller and you mention High Guard - I'd hope, nay expect, to see this sort of thing in the detailed High Guard supplement. The ship build system acknowledges that is is a core system.

The core rules, I feel, are just that - as you alluded to. However if I may ask - think of how much detail this is asking to add and wonder if it could have gone into one book and how goes someone draw the line. How many supplements would there be to get this information in - look at your High Guard comment - you are comparing the Mongoose Core Rules with a previous edition plus a supplement. OK for one supplement you could have added it...but go through all the rules and add all those supplements in all possible places (more careers from Mercenary, detailed ship design, 'gear galore', vehicle rules just to start) and suddenly the requested core becomes, well, bloated.

 

[LotusBlossom]

The core rules, I feel, are just that - as you alluded to. However if I may ask - think of how much detail this is asking to add and wonder if it could have gone into one book and how goes someone draw the line. How many supplements would there be to get this information in - look at your High Guard comment - you are comparing the Mongoose Core Rules with a previous edition plus a supplement. OK for one supplement you could have added it...but go through all the rules and add all those supplements in all possible places (more careers from Mercenary, detailed ship design, 'gear galore', vehicle rules just to start) and suddenly the requested core becomes, well, bloated.

I think it needs 1 table. Thats all. Could be generic bonuses for all weapons beyond base TL, groups by category. 12 lines or so.
And another table for components for ships, shrinking them or making them more effective as TL increases.
All of which was done before in the old days and was rather nice I thought.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I think it needs 1 table. Thats all. Could be generic bonuses for all weapons beyond base TL, groups by category. 12 lines or so.
And another table for components for ships, shrinking them or making them more effective as TL increases.
All of which was done before in the old days and was rather nice I thought.

It was done partially, patchily, or not at all, and was usually quite half-assed, IMHO, back in the 'old days'.

Tech level progression is not linear, nor constant.

A TL3 katana could easily slice through TL7 body armour and cut a man from sternum to crotch. A TL7 pistol might knock him down, maybe wound him, unlikely to outright kill him. It will, howver, probably stop the katana wielding nutter from reaching him in the first place, with enough shots.

A knife is far, far deadlier than a bullet. This will probably always be so. Bullets tend to knock organs out of the way; knives tend to slice em up and cut arteries. However, if the knife wielder cannot close to knife range he's had it. This is the advantage of firearms. Plus they make a nice loud bang good for scaring people.

I seriously recommend leaving the armour values alone, unless you have a thing for endless dice rolling and combats that take hours to play out.

 

[Myrm]

The core rules, I feel, are just that - as you alluded to. However if I may ask - think of how much detail this is asking to add and wonder if it could have gone into one book and how goes someone draw the line. How many supplements would there be to get this information in - look at your High Guard comment - you are comparing the Mongoose Core Rules with a previous edition plus a supplement. OK for one supplement you could have added it...but go through all the rules and add all those supplements in all possible places (more careers from Mercenary, detailed ship design, 'gear galore', vehicle rules just to start) and suddenly the requested core becomes, well, bloated.

I think it needs 1 table. Thats all. Could be generic bonuses for all weapons beyond base TL, groups by category. 12 lines or so.
And another table for components for ships, shrinking them or making them more effective as TL increases.
All of which was done before in the old days and was rather nice I thought.

My point was not that any of these ideas could be done in one table but that you could argue that they should add a vast number of such tables into the core if you said 'its just one table' for each. That would lead to a bloat of the core book, and at some stage Mongoose have had to go through and decide what they can keep.

Add to that the fact that any 'one table fix' stands a good chance of being replaced in a full advanced system it becomes an anachronism especially if as is common that there are several books with rough content planned way ahead - we know High Guard is coming so to me I prefer to do a temporary fix for my games than lose space ni the core thats devoted to a patch. YMMV obviously.

 

[LotusBlossom]

If you consider adding 2 tables to be "bloating" then who I am to argue... :shock:

Let's hope High Guard remedies the situation. Hell, let's pull all the stops out and go for a whole page of tech increment bonuses. It might set the release schedule back by....2 hours.....but I can live with that for huge variety such a simple amendment would give to the game.

 

[Myrm]

If you consider adding 2 tables to be "bloating" then who I am to argue... :shock:

I didnt suggest that adding just 2 tables is bloat so the shock is rather misplaced.

Go back to my point of there being a number of such issues in the core rules where just one or two tables will do it and the ramifications of alll those getting in and hence line-drawing in what goes in or out of the core.

 

[LotusBlossom]

Well if these are

'issues', they should of been dealt with really, during play testing.

I am enjoying the game and I think its really nice done in places, but I am also feeling a little like a playtester at times. It's not complete, not even for 'core' rules.
Just look at the number of questions on this forum, asking quite important questions, because such things were omitted.

Surely a RPG system dealing with technology advances should have tables that show various +/- factors, even if simplified.

Adding a few extra pages to the rulebook, giving the game more variety, I can only perceive as a positive.

There is concise, there is simple and there is incomplete.

Right now, I am thinking the latter more and more. What do others feel?

I hope the next books fill the gaps, as it's still great to have another chance to be playing Traveller again.

 

[Myrm]

Well if these are 'issues', they should of been dealt with really, during play testing.

Im suggesting that they did and drew the line at points where the decided they had a functional system and left a certain amount to us, the players. Its not just the table this thread is discussing that could be added, but any number of extra pieces of information that they would have had to decide 'do we keep it or leave it for this or that expansion' on multiple occasions.

It's not complete, not even for 'core' rules.

I think this boils it down to this where we differ in opinion. I think its perfectly complete as a core set of rules. I don't know if you have seen the Traveller 0 book, but there is a very cut down system, its much more simple, but its still a working system - it falls in the gap between simple and incomplete for me - its works but its very limited, butthen that is supposed to be.

Also you simply cannot do everything in core rulebooks, but commercially and practically. No matter what you put in, someone somewhere will have their just one extra that they feel should have gone in...GW/FFG's Dark Heresy had this - that game had no vehicle rules in it, but it had an intro adventure - that decision provoked considerable argument based essentially on what the arguers in question found most useful.

Surely a RPG system dealing with technology advances should have tables that show various +/- factors, even if simplified.

Its an option, yes, would it add something to the core rules, yes, might it be redundant given a related supplement is planned, well maybe as customers we are guessing there. Is it required in the core book when the core book provides a variety of weapons scattered across those technology advances. I think not, your wish to have that table included suggests you are likely to disagree with that.

The problem Mongoose has is they undoubtedly had X amount of space with which to please as many people as possible and we all have different priorities on stuff we want in there....they have to choose to cut out what will alienate the least amount of people to the least degree. Adding pages to a book is not as simple as 'oh sod it, bung a few extra into the printer'.

 

[Paladin]

I think also that the blades mentioned in the book perhaps are considered to be of hi-tech materials, or at least the combat stats seem to be based on that.

I think if we are talking about an iron age broadsword, this could not be compared to a TL 14 molecule-edged--wotsit-sword, and effectiveness should be reduced.

The weight of the weapons is negligible during game play. Have you had a PC opt not to take a sword because of a 1-2kg difference? Retracting blades maybe.

I also am bewildered by the lack of weapon stats for different TL's.

Any money that if a TL 15 society made a slug pistol (for whatever reason) it will hurt more than a TL 7 one.

Agreed. I'm hoping another supplement will expand on it.

This carries through to the ship design rules also.

Beam Lasers are Beam Lasers are Beam Lasers. Huh?
How can this be? We know from our own history that weapons improve drastically even over 20 years. So why is a TL 10 Laser the same as a TL 15 one. The old High Guard has differences based on TL.

Same with drives in the current rules. No miniturisation for hi-tech designs.

I think the OP has highlighted some serious misgivings in this ruleset. I have only played it twice now...but I have the nagging feeling that all we are getting is a very basic set of guidelines and skeleton designs....

I'm guessing this will be dealt with in Supplement 2: Traders & Gunboats
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1573&qsSeries=
and a bit in Fighting Ships:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1574&qsSeries=