Yet another Battledress debate

[Infojunky]

And for the record I like the fact that a Gauss Rifle is a creditable threat to BD.

So do I. I also like the fact that so is a heavy machine gun, a wrecking ball, or a garbage truck...

Wrecking Ball, now I hadn't thought of that......

On a side not I believe a Garbage Truck has been written up under every edition. (Not Sure about T5, but it doesn't count because its not out) :twisted:

 

[tneva82]

I'm just wondering how the Imperium can afford Battle Dress for hundreds of thousands of Marines at these prices. I realize that the Imperium is enormous with hundreds of billions of citizens, but even their resources aren't infinite.

This assumes those prices are what goverments pay...However those are more of ballmark figures for what _player_ characters will be paying for them. Which, seeing as how they aren't exactly common equipment but instead rare military-only equipment they need to get via black market, is obviously going to be higher than what goverment(who are the ones producing them effectively) pays for them.

Why would goverment pay for producing them as much as players need to pay to get hands on one via black market(assuming there's even one available which 99% of times isn't).

 

[justacaveman]

I would buy the inflation argument except for the fact that the price of most other high tech equipment in traveller hasn't been subjected to such inflation. Most of the weapons and equipment in MGT are about same price as in CT. TL13 Battle Dress in CT cost Cr 200,000 and an FGMP-14 cost Cr 165,000 (weapon & power pack). In MGT TL13 Battle Dress costs Cr 2,000,000 and an FGMP-14 costs Cr 100,000 (ammo is only Cr 500).

CT Battle Dress doubled your STR, gave you unlimited END for carrying etc., and gave you a +2 Initiative bonus. MGT Battle Dress gives you +4 STR & DEX

Battle Dress increased in cost by x 10.

 

[justacaveman]

The prices listed in the book were always the base prices of the equipment. You could get a discount for buying in volume if you were outfitting a licensed Mercenary Company etc.. If anything the Imperium would actually pay more because they would be purchasing special support equipment and lots of spare parts and suits.

There has to be 100s of thousands of Imperial Marines. The Imperium is enormous, with 100s of billions of citizens.

The active duty United States Marine Corps is over 200,000 personnel with a good percentage of them infantry, and the United States has only about 300 million citizens. If I recall correctly, most of the forces the Imperium has are Marines and Navy. Army troops are typically maintained by subject worlds, and only move to other worlds to support Imperial operations after the the Marines have secured landing sites. The Imperium controls space.

 

[BP]

Comparing MGT Battle Dress to CT would also need to involve comparing combat and skill handling - all of which are different - so this is sort of apples and oranges... And MGT Battle Dress does effect encumberance (Strength DM) and Initiative (whole group with Expert Tactics). Benefiting Dex makes sense, I do think not benefiting End is odd.

The old CT Battle Dress was more like Sigorny Weaver's or the Matrix 3 outfits... doesn't really make sense for a 26 kg suit. Also keep in mind that Mercenary adds several other benefits unique to Battle Dress - plus variations that allow for mounted weapons...


As for cost - re: other thread - Core states for Combat Armour and, by extension, Battle Dress - generally not available on the open market. So the price is assumed to be gray/black market - and greatly inflated.


Your variation on the TU may require a different mind set. Being from a CT generation - I know I first balked at the price (and figured errata)! In fact, this is one of the first things I looked at. But I looked into it further and figured it was a conscious design call...

 

[justacaveman]

No, they had pictures of Battle Dress and it's the same as now. Weights too. The expansion books in CT had higher tech lighter versions of both Combat Armour and Battle Dress. See Striker. This is also where they introduced Hi-Energy weapons (PGMPs etc.).

And this stuff was never available on the open market unless you were on a low law level, high tech planet. Costs listed in the book are before adjusting for law level for everything not just some things at random. It is up to the GM to determine what is available. Not an artificial increase in the price for no stated reason.

In the the OTU Marines have Battle Dress and there are a lot of them. 100s of thousands.

I've played this game since 1980 and Marines have Battle Dress. It's in plenty of the books from CT til now (It's Canon).

And you have a strange argument. You say it's not too weak or too expensive. But it's so expensive and rare because it's so powerful. If it's so powerful as to be game changing, why is it so easy to kill someone wearing it?

Just because they deliberately upped the price by 10 times doesn't mean it was a good idea. They didn't up the the price of Hi-energy weapons, and those are much more game changing than a suit of armour that you can hardly wear anywhere, and can be destroyed by a single shot by one of those Hi-energy weapons.

 

[BP]

No, they had pictures of Battle Dress and it's the same as now. ...

Oh - by

The old CT Battle Dress was more like Sigorny Weaver's or the Matrix 3 outfits... doesn't really make sense for a 26 kg suit.

I was refering to capabilities not appearance :lol:

 

[phavoc]

Here's my take on the primary differences between BattleDress and Combat Armor:

The fact that Battledress is "powered" means that the fatigue is greatly lessened on the soldier from not having to lug around the many kilos of weapons and gear he is schlepping with him. If you are wondering what I mean by this, try lugging around 60lb pack (and that's light...), another 20lbs of gear (helmet, clothes, equipment bandoliers, weapon, gas mask). Now add in your flak vest (I think they are around 15-20lbs now). All of this gear is heavy, and moving around in it is very tiring after a while. I would have loved having a powered exo-skeleton in my days in the army!

The second thing I think that should stand it apart is the electronics that should be built-in. A TL15 BattleDress suit should have an extremely robust set of electronics - radar, 360 degree displays, a smart AI that you can program with pre-set functions, electronic sensors, etc. All of the neat and deadly things that you should be able to cram down and power into an armored suit.

So while some of these features could be added to combat armor, and I'm sure they would, in BattleDress they are all there, the soldier is trained to use them like he breathes, so he's gonna be more deadly (in theory) than someone who does not train to live in their armor.

As for the low-tech vs. high-tech debate... well, where to start! Like it was pointed out before, some things might be able to shrug off attacks, but can still be effected by lower-tech weapons. An early 37mm Anti-Tank gun has no chance of penetrating the Chobram armor on a M-1 tank. However... if you hit the tank from the side, those TL-8 treads are gonna be blown apart, the road wheels potentially damaged or destroyed, and you have a vehicle that is 3 TL's above you that is now disabled and out of action.

The same would go for space combat. Missiles would get better, smarter, faster, but a 40 kiloton nuclear detonation is a 40 kiloton nuclear detonation. So if you were able to HIT a TL 15 starship with a TL7 nuke, its still dead or damaged.

That's the fun of things... using your head to figure out how THIS or THAT might happen whilst you are playing.

 

[Jame Rowe]

No, they had pictures of Battle Dress and it's the same as now. ...

Oh - by

The old CT Battle Dress was more like Sigorny Weaver's or the Matrix 3 outfits... doesn't really make sense for a 26 kg suit.

I was refering to capabilities not appearance :lol:

I have been thinking that TL 10-11 should have a Battledress that actually IS Sigourney Weaver's Aliens machine.

 

[Gee4orce]

My take on Battle Dress is simple - it's Combat Armour that's got enough armour on it to make it impervious to all conventional small arms fire, as well as good protection against support weapons. Unfortunately, this much armour is so heavy that it necessitates power assistance in order for the user to actually be able to move.

In other words, the power is there to overcome a problem (weight), not as a means to it's own end (enhancing the user's capabilities).

 

[locarno24]

My take on Battle Dress is simple - it's Combat Armour that's got enough armour on it to make it impervious to all conventional small arms fire, as well as good protection against support weapons. Unfortunately, this much armour is so heavy that it necessitates power assistance in order for the user to actually be able to move.

Fair enough as a concept; the complaint is that this isn't reflected in its behaviour; a guy in battledress will go down to what can be described as small arms (although armour 18 will stop any 3D6 weapon, so modern rifles won't do much).

I don't think anyone has a major problem with heavy support weapons like an M2 0.5" or a Barratt killing someone in battledress. It's roughly man-sized armour, so you've got at best an inch or so of metal or ceramic plate.

Since both of those weapons can take out a light or medium armoured vehicle, without invoking serious hand-waving materials science you can't justify having the order-of-magnitude greater protection to laugh off a hit like that.

The thing people are arguing against is the relative increase in protection on contemporary (2009) body armour compared to the cost increase, with the comment that the Imperium must really care about the well-being of its men if its spending that much on its principle infantry force.


I suppose it's a matter of perspective; how often are you (the purchaser) facing fragmentation and TL7 equivalent small arms compared to nasty directed energy fire?

I suppose it's the ultimate cop-out; if the rulebook and the GM disagree, then the rulebook is wrong. If you feel battledress should be cheaper, then voila: it is.

 

[Infojunky]

Ok, does anyone add levels of Powered Armor beyond Battledress?

 

[Treebore]

Ok, does anyone add levels of Powered Armor beyond Battledress?

Yes.

I ran a game about 20 years ago where one of my players was a scientist. I had them find a world made of nano tech creatures. They never realized it was an Ancients experiment gone out of control. Still, the scientist spent years and millions of credits researching how to communicate and/or control these nano creatures. Eventually he figured out how to get them to do things he wanted them to do, including take on the shape of battle dress armor, and even build in the components themselves.

So he started equipping his personal forces with these nano tech battles suits that not only built themselves but repaired themselves. By the time the group disbanded he was making break through's on having the nano bots repair bodily injury.

 

[Infojunky]

Ok, does anyone add levels of Powered Armor beyond Battledress?

Ok I admit I am a huge fan of Shirow's visions of post modern military hardware.

I have yet to figure out if I can do them under the current vehicle design system.

 

[Galadrion]

Hm... Okay, granted that battle dress is emblematic for the Imperial Marines: who says that every Marine has a suit of battle dress? Combat jets can be considered emblematic of the USAF, after all, and the USAF doesn't have anywhere close to one jet per member. (Currently a little over half a million members, counting ready reserves and Air National Guard, with a total of just over 8,000 "aircraft" IF you count UCAVs, cruise missiles and ICBMs. Call it about a sixty-to-one ratio, though if you just go by active duty members versus manned aircraft it's probably close to a hundred to one.)

I would say that the majority of Imperial Marines do not regularly use battle dress. They may get some exposure in basic training, but only a small number get issued it on any regular basis.

 

[justacaveman]

Just like a small number of any military force are actually combat troops.

As big as the Imperium is, it HAS to have 100s of thousands of Battle Dress equipped Marines.

 

[Treebore]

Just like a small number of any military force are actually combat troops.

As big as the Imperium is, it HAS to have 100s of thousands of Battle Dress equipped Marines.

Or at the very least 100's of thousands TRAINED to wear it. I agree, in all liklihood, that a comparatively small number are actually wearing the suits at any given time.

So since all Marines get Battle Dress 0 by default they all probably get some training in boot camp, or some follow up school, and those with skill 1 or higher wear them a lot.

The good news is the actually number can be whatever a given GM wants to say it is. If you want there to be 10,000,000 Marines wearing TL 15 Battle Dress then they are. IF the GM wants it to only be 1,000 it can be.

 

[BP]

Looking at the char gen for Marines - the Service Skill gives all career marines Battle Dress-0. The skill is on the Officers table and 2 of the 3 specialist tables. To be sure - only support personnel are likely not to have Battle Dress-1 or above... so conservatively at least 60% probably more like 85% (since officers get equal chance) could be trained and equiped with custom fitted Battle Dress as part of their standard gear (especially shipboard troops).

While 2 MCr seems to be an outrageous price (I thought so at first) - put in perspective (cost percentage for Imperium), it doesn't seem bad at all...

• High Guard capital ships troop counts: Battleship carries ~13% Marines (500); Monitor ~15% (120); Cruiser ~21% (250) Note: Escorts and Carriers have 0 troops (seems strange).
  
  Assuming every Troop is a Marine and every one is equiped with Battle Dress at MCr 2 each, that is 0.7% cost of Battleship; 1.4% of Monitor; 0.9% of Cruiser.

While these numbers don't account for all the Marines, with SBDs, Naval Bases, etc. nor the cost of weapons and support craft, etc. - Battle Dress would seem one of the most important pieces of gear - so these price percentages don't seem too high - given the fact that these are basically elite protection/assault forces used to protect the highest dollar/survival critical assets of the Imperium (its fleets and its authority).

 

[phavoc]

My take on Battle Dress is simple - it's Combat Armour that's got enough armour on it to make it impervious to all conventional small arms fire, as well as good protection against support weapons. Unfortunately, this much armour is so heavy that it necessitates power assistance in order for the user to actually be able to move.

Fair enough as a concept; the complaint is that this isn't reflected in its behaviour; a guy in battledress will go down to what can be described as small arms (although armour 18 will stop any 3D6 weapon, so modern rifles won't do much).

I don't think anyone has a major problem with heavy support weapons like an M2 0.5" or a Barratt killing someone in battledress. It's roughly man-sized armour, so you've got at best an inch or so of metal or ceramic plate.

Since both of those weapons can take out a light or medium armoured vehicle, without invoking serious hand-waving materials science you can't justify having the order-of-magnitude greater protection to laugh off a hit like that.

The thing people are arguing against is the relative increase in protection on contemporary (2009) body armour compared to the cost increase, with the comment that the Imperium must really care about the well-being of its men if its spending that much on its principle infantry force.

One thing to consider is that when original Traveller came out, materials science wasn't as advanced as it was today. So the concept of massive mainfrmes taking up tons of space in a spaceship was considered "realistic" Today we can easily imaging people carrying around a petabyte storage device in their pocket a 100 years from now.

The same should hold true to something like battledress. Sure, today we think modern arms, like a 20mm round, should penetrate batteldress cause it isn't thickly armored. But who knows what they might have at TL-13 or 14? It might be just a mm thick armore, but it has the capability of transferring kinetic energy from one point on the suit to EVERY point, thus the armor REACTS much differently. A 1mm armor thickness could translate into a 1000 times that, more or less. Therefore the absolute thickness doesn't matter.

Personally I like to think of BattleDress as a light scout tank on legs. It should be able to take some massive punishment and keep on going. But weapons at the same or greater tech level are designed to defeat it, which makes the argument more based on the type of damage it gets as opposed to a straight TL argument.

 

[phavoc]

My take on Battle Dress is simple - it's Combat Armour that's got enough armour on it to make it impervious to all conventional small arms fire, as well as good protection against support weapons. Unfortunately, this much armour is so heavy that it necessitates power assistance in order for the user to actually be able to move.

air enough as a concept; the complaint is that this isn't reflected in its behaviour; a guy in battledress will go down to what can be described as small arms (although armour 18 will stop any 3D6 weapon, so modern rifles won't do much).

I don't think anyone has a major problem with heavy support weapons like an M2 0.5" or a Barratt killing someone in battledress. It's roughly man-sized armour, so you've got at best an inch or so of metal or ceramic plate.

Since both of those weapons can take out a light or medium armoured vehicle, without invoking serious hand-waving materials science you can't justify having the order-of-magnitude greater protection to laugh off a hit like that.

The thing people are arguing against is the relative increase in protection on contemporary (2009) body armour compared to the cost increase, with the comment that the Imperium must really care about the well-being of its men if its spending that much on its principle infantry force.

One thing to consider is that when original Traveller came out, materials science wasn't as advanced as it was today. So the concept of massive mainfrmes taking up tons of space in a spaceship was considered "realistic" Today we can easily imaging people carrying around a petabyte storage device in their pocket a 100 years from now.

The same should hold true to something like battledress. Sure, today we think modern arms, like a 20mm round, should penetrate batteldress cause it isn't thickly armored. But who knows what they might have at TL-13 or 14? It might be just a mm thick armore, but it has the capability of transferring kinetic energy from one point on the suit to EVERY point, thus the armor REACTS much differently. A 1mm armor thickness could translate into a 1000 times that, more or less. Therefore the absolute thickness doesn't matter.

Personally I like to think of BattleDress as a light scout tank on legs. It should be able to take some massive punishment and keep on going. But weapons at the same or greater tech level are designed to defeat it, which makes the argument more based on the type of damage it gets as opposed to a straight TL argument.