Vehicle Design, Armour Query

[Cutter]

On page 12 of Civilian Vehicles there is an example which reads,

"... we have a vehicle with a Base Armour of 7 and 2%
of its M3 allocated to armour made from Advanced Composites.
This gives a total of 17 armour points on each facing (7 base
+ 10 additional)."

Shouldn't the total armour be 23 if you use the table of page 13 to derive the Armour Points per 1% of M cubed?

Or am I missing something?

 

[rust]

Or am I missing something?

If so, we are both missing the same something.

By the way, the example at the bottom of page 12 has the same problem,
there 2 % of the van's M3 in Light Alloys give 8 points of armour, while
according to the table on page 13 those 2 % should give 12 armour points.

 

[atpollard]

I have a draft version of the system from its development days, so my example was different from yours, but ...

... In Step two, the box configuration gave a modifier to the vehicle armor rating (o.8 in the draft).
Did you apply the armor multiplier for a box configuration?

 

[rust]

I have a draft version of the system from its development days, so my example was different from yours, but ...

... In Step two, the box configuration gave a modifier to the vehicle armor rating (o.8 in the draft).
Did you apply the armor multiplier for a box configuration?

Yep, it is a part of the calculation of the example.

The problem seem to be the differences between the values used in the
examples and the values in the table on page 13. I suspect that either
the examples or the table are from a draft version.

 

[atpollard]

The problem seem to be the differences between the values used in the examples and the values in the table on page 13. I suspect that either the examples or the table are from a draft version.

From what little was quoted in the top post, I get the impression that BOTH changed from the draft. Apparently, a typo crept in.

 

[rust]

I have not yet worked much with the system, but as far as I can see it
is sound, only the examples (which I usually only look at when I have
a problem to understand the system) seem to have some quirks, the
table on page 13 makes sense.

 

[AndrewW]

The problem seem to be the differences between the values used in the examples and the values in the table on page 13. I suspect that either the examples or the table are from a draft version.

From what little was quoted in the top post, I get the impression that BOTH changed from the draft. Apparently, a typo crept in.

They did change some stuff around a bit in the design system from the earlier material.

 

[Cutter]

So assuming the table on page 13 is correct and the example is flawed, the example van on page 27 should have Armour Light Alloys 13 (18 vs Lasers)?

 

[rust]

So assuming the table on page 13 is correct and the example is flawed, the example van on page 27 should have Armour Light Alloys 13 (18 vs Lasers)?

In my opinion, yes.