Yet another Battledress debate

[Klaus Kipling]

It IS easy to score +6 effect with an attack. A sniping character with DEX 9 (+1), Gun Combat (Rifle) 2, 1 round to aim (+3) will score a +6 Effect almost 50% of the time. This is with no Tech aids at all. Any PC who likes to snipe WILL have a higher DEX, higher skill, and some Tech aids (At least another +3 in bonuses, and probably more.) Achieving a +6 Effect is easy for a PC.

Again, only at short range, by which time the BD trooper has wasted the sniper with his superior firepower.

Notwithstanding, if you're adding mods to hit, the BD guy is adding mods to defence, like chameleon armour. With dodge and that the BD guy has a -5DM.

Basically, you're saying that an AR armed guy in a totally optimum position can hurt a guy in BD who is basically a sitting duck, probably hog-tied to the floor. Well, I'm cool with that. Kinda like a WW1 trooper running up to the tank, shoving his pistol into a viewport and emptying his clip. He's probably going to hurt someone inside. Not that it's going to be easy to do that vs a manned and maneuvering tank, just like our AR trooper is going to have trouble hitting a maneuvering and fighting back BD trooper.

It would still take 200 AR troopers to hurt 1 BD trooper. Your objections are based on totally unrealistic favourable conditions for the shooter. The only fair and consistent way to compare weapons and armour is average damage vs protection.

As an aside, did anyone think that the 'mech' was taken out too easily in District 9? While towards the end it was being hit by a Barret or equivalent, earlier on it was just facing AR armed troops, and was still taking minor damage? After all, an sf film is a much better comparison for an sf game than WW1.

 

[The Chef]

i did feel that Klaus, and why didn't it do the whole magnetic grab thing with all of those bullets.

but i suppose it makes for a more dramatic showdown

 

[Matrix Cypher]

That mech thing was a construction vehicle, not a battle vehicle. The magnetic bullet thing well it my have a power drain that requires a certain amount of time to charge the capacitors not sure about that.

Not sure where I heard that though.

 

[phavoc]

Another thing to consider when using lower-tech ballistic weapons against BattleDress is that even though the rounds might not be penetrating the armor, they can certainly damage anything external, such as gear, weapons, ammo feeds, etc.

In my days from the military I was in MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System). Our standard round consisted of bomblets, think cluster bombs. We were able to knock out soft targets easily, but not armored ones like tanks. However, tanks ARE vulnerable as far as their external fittings go. So that meant armored vehicles in the detonation radius pretty much could have their external gear blasted off - things like external fuel drum, gear tied to the rear of the turret, radio antennas, top-mounted machine guns, etc.

I'm sure even in the future you are going to have similar issues with gear. And while you might not be able to kill a soldier you could disable some of his gear. I think the FGMP and PGMP weapons are external, and thus would be more vulnerable to external attacks.

 

[justacaveman]

Assault Rifles have no range penalty out to MEDIUM range, and adding a telescopic sight extends the range to VERY LONG.

It certainly wouldn't take 200 guys with ARs to take out TL13 Battle Dress, just 3 or 4. If you're trying to make a point, it doesn't help your case when you exaggerate.

If you were trying to cross a WWI No Man's Land you would be subject to rifles and machineguns more powerful than an Assault Rifle, such as Auto Rifles, Medium Macheguns, Full Bore Rifles. All of these weapons do 3d6+3 damage, and there is a sniper rifle that does 4d6+4 damage (all up to LONG range). At 2+ Mcr. per suit, Battle Dress should be able to cross this battlefield and make it to the other side (about 1000 yards), or it's worthless. Using the standard rules this is highly unlikely.

The primary purpose of armour is to protect the wearer from things such as high velocity pieces of metal trying to cause all that red sticky stuff beneath the skin from leaking out all over the place. If it can't do that, it has no value on the battlefield.

The current rules would permit a M2HB .50 cal machinegun to easily take out a BMP. Not likely in real life. Armour is too weak.

 

[The Chef]

actually the purpose of armour is to stop the person getting hit possibly surviving, not by making them bullet proof, just more likely to live.

battledress is an armoured spacesuit geared to reduce the likelyhood of death from shrapnel and small arms. its powered so the wearer can carry heavier ordanance and to support the weight of the suit.

i have never taken from anything i've read with traveller that bd is a substitute for a tank... or else why do we still have armoured vehicles running around.

As i said right at the very begining, the first principle of suviving a fight is not to be shot at... moving behind cover, using the terrain to reduce your chance of being hit.

if as a GM you have a problem with the way armour is presented, then change it. arguing for the sake or argument really isn't getting anyone anywhere

Chef

 

[justacaveman]

It's not supposed to substitute for a tank. However a modern IFV such as a Bradley could take out a COMPANY (About 10 vehicles) of WWI tanks (TL5). WWI tanks were IMMUNE to infantry carried small arms of the time. You seem to be confusing the capabilties of these vehicles with modern tanks. A modern Main Battle Tank such as an Abrams would be IMMUNE to anything carried by a WWI tank (a very lucky hit might take out a track).

TL13+ Battle Dress shouldn't even be the equal of a Bradley IFV, but it definitely should outclass a pathetic WWI tank. Basic TL13 Battle Dress without a single option costs the equivalent of an M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank does today.

Imperial Marines would have to be prepared to fight against Low Tech armies that outnumber them 100 to 1, with little or no heavy equipment. Battle Dress needs to be a Force Multiplier, not an expensive coffin. I don't believe it is an excessive requirement to need a Heavy machinegun, anti-tank rifle, a LAW, or some other heavy weapon to destroy it. Even small arms can damage it, but it should be an extremely rare circumstance that allows it to happen.

 

[Dave Chase]

...

The current rules would permit a M2HB .50 cal machinegun to easily take out a BMP. Not likely in real life. Armour is too weak.

I take it that you have never watch a 50 cal machine gun fire on light and med armored vehicles before.

If you mean a 50 cal could do a one shot, one kill on the said vehicles, then you would be correct that can not be done in RL.

But a 50 cal machine gun could mess up the day of many vehicles even tanks. Of course it will not destroy the tank but it could really mess up some of the outside parts.

Dave Chase

 

[justacaveman]

While you can mess up the external fittings, the current crop of BMPs has armour that is proof against .50 Cal machineguns. Yes if you fire enough ammo you can damage even a tank, but it takes LOTS of hits to do so. The main point however, is that small arms can't penetrate the armor. It takes a .50 Cal weapon using SLAP ammo to penetrate A BMP's armour, and is only effective against the sides and rear. I'm using this vehicle only as an example, since it is well known to most people. A BMP has twice the armour thickness of a WWI tank, and the armour is better designed. Battle Dress only needs to be as effective as the WWI tank against small arms. It should remain vulnerable to .50 cal or better weapons so as to not be too powerful. A TL6 Heavy Machinegun firing a Burst of DSAP ammo would still cut it to shreds (Average damage of 17 points + 6 burst + Effect, and ignoring 10 points of armor.).

 

[Klaus Kipling]

It certainly wouldn't take 200 guys with ARs to take out TL13 Battle Dress, just 3 or 4. If you're trying to make a point, it doesn't help your case when you exaggerate.

No exaggeration, just simple mathematics.

To achieve an 18 on 3d6 is 1 in 6 x 6 x 6, or 1 in 216, or 0.46%.

Therefore, statistically, in order to guarantee a max damage hit you will need over 200 troops firing that assault rifle. In actual fact, you would need 216.

Making arbitrary claims about DM's and Effect can't be statistically tested, as there are as many possible negative DM's as there are possible positive. Statistically they cancel each other out. So we are left with damage vs armour, and in that case, you will need over 200 troopers to achieve it. Actually, alot more, as they have to hit as well.

If you still think I'm exaggerating, please prove to me mathematically how I am.

And please mathematically show how 3-4 AR armed troops can take out a BD trooper. You have shown no evidence to back this up.

I will agree that armour does err towards weaker than stronger - this is for game purposes. Adding a couple of points of armour, at any level, double or triples (or even more) the amount of combat rounds required to conduct a firefight. I have tested this in actual play, as initially I too felt armour values were too low. I added a couple of points at most, and the result was the lengthiest combat I've run, with the PC's not being damaged at all (one was in combat armour, one in an armoured vac suit, with gauss weapons), and the enemy (in armoured vac suits and ACRs) only taking 1 or 2 points of damage at a time.

This occurred because the average damage is statistically the most likely damage to get, while max damage is highly unlikely. I instantly readjusted the armour values back to the RAW and since then all my combats have lasted a perfect 3-6 rounds, given more or less equal forces, not the 20-25 rounds (and over an hour of real time) of an armour increased value.

OK, here's another comparison. Modern battle armour for troops is quite impressive. However, a US Marine is still vulnerable to a TL1 spear. In fact, a TL3 musket could still hurt a modern trooper in armour, if it hit him in the face or hands, or where the armour is weak.

Is it really inconceivable that 200+ soldiers, even if they've only got spears, are going to be no threat whatsover to a tropper in BD, when we know it is not a tank or an AFV - it's powered armour, no more, no less.

(BTW, the D9 suit/walker/mech is unlikely to have been just a work suit, it being armed with energy weapons and all).

(Another film example: Robocop being shot at by his police colleagues - he gets messed up good and there's a lot less than 200 guys shooting at him...)

 

[CosmicGamer]

To achieve an 18 on 3d6 is 1 in 6 x 6 x 6, or 1 in 216, or 0.46%.

Therefore, statistically, in order to guarantee a max damage hit you will need over 200 troops firing that assault rifle. In actual fact, you would need 216.

If you still think I'm exaggerating, please prove to me mathematically how I am.

This following assumption may be what is wrong.

Making arbitrary claims about DM's and Effect can't be statistically tested, as there are as many possible negative DM's as there are possible positive. Statistically they cancel each other out.

First, since it is stated that the DM's and Effect can't be statistically tested, how can you make the assumption that they offset? Maybe statistically the chance for positive DM's occurs more often. Maybe it's negative DM's. Just because you can't figure out how to calculate it.... I'm no math wizz to be able to give the exact figures, but, to me, I believe this isn't something you can just sweep under the rug and ignore.

Lets take a situation where the results are known better. Every roll of six is offset by a roll of one statistically so there is no need to ever roll dice, just make the result 3.5 x the # of dice?

Don't know if that example helps or not. I'm trying to illustrate
1) that the results might never (ever see a die with a 3.5 on it?) be the average so all results need to be considered (a roll of 7 occurs less than 17% of the time on two dice)
2) If the outcome is always known, the game would be quite boring. The unexpected extremes can make the game interesting.

Next, unless the combatant is a fool, they know it will be hard to take out someone in battledress so they will most likely not engage them unless they have 'the upper hand'. Something like waiting till the battledress person is out in the open without cover while the shooter(s) are in cover taking careful aim before ambushing.

For my own amusement, I'm going to use this example and the following assumptions
Wait to attack until Battledress wearer is
In the open (cover DM 0)
Not moving quickly (<10meters = DM 0)
Environment is not optimum, dark or foggy or extreme, but no combination of negative effect (-1 DM)
Range is optimal (0 DM)
weapon = AutoRifle 3d6 damage Auto 4
Using burst fire (+4 to damage)
Standard ammo
Sights (+1 DM)
Max aiming is +6DM
Ambush gives attackers initiative
Skill level 2, no Dex DM

So, attacker gets +2(skill) +0(dex) +6(aim) +1(sights) -0(cover) -0(movement) -1(dodge) -1(environment) -0(range) -0(target stance) for +7
An 'average' roll to hit of 7 (7(roll)+7(DM's)=14) would result in an effect of 6.
For damage, lets use that average of 3.5 per die I spoke of earlier and say damage = 3.5+3.5+3.5(roll) + 4(burst) +6(effect) = 20.5
So for each shooter, 2.5 points of damage gets through the armor?

Does any of this make sense?

So how many attackers would be needed? With average stats, 2 characteristics would be 14 points. 14/2.5 = 6 guys to take out someone in battledress in an ambush in one round, on 'average'?

If it is not an ambush and the attackers only get one minor action for aiming, the results are quite different with an average damage of zero.

So, taking just the averages (which I already said is nowhere near the absolute result) you get a single battledress being taken out in a well organized and timed ambush of 6 but also battledress being very impervious when not being ambushed. I kinda like those 'average' results.

This also explains why some people think battledress is too weak (able to be taken out in one round [with certain calculations]) while others think it is too strong (walking around impervious [with certain calculations]).

 

[BP]

This is great guys - thanks bunches! I must say - my own reservations about possibly low armour values have been overcome.

1. They make sense to allow game play to move at a proper pace.
   
2. BattleDress is not technically - but is practically - immune to small arms fire and quite good against most other firepower.
   
3. Being more 'realistic' to cover all contingencies would bog down the game mechanics - when a Referee can step in at any time with modifiers.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

First, since it is stated that the DM's and Effect can't be statistically tested, how can you make the assumption that they offset? Maybe statistically the chance for positive DM's occurs more often.

I meant that they were essentially unknowable; there's too many factors that can combine in too many different ways for it to be worthwhile including them statistically.

Your later example is not really comparing like with like. The auto-rifle guys are basically in an almost perfect position, while the guy in battle dress is a prize chump. By rights he'd have spotted the ambush minutes before using his superior sensor array and wasted them from extreme range with orbital artillery. If the auto troops can get a BD soldier into such a position, in the game, then they should get their mods for a model takedown and superior tactics.

A lone BD trooper out of contact with his unit and with a malfunctioning EW suite deep in enemy territory is in a big pile of doo-doo.

 

[BP]

...Your later example is not really comparing like with like. ...

Pretty sure that was his intent!

As for DMS - I would agree with him - statistically DMs may be assumed to cancel out - but statistically, planned attacks are going to occur from a position of maximized advantage whenever it can be helped.

I thought his example backed up your prior post - even including DMs.

...A lone BD trooper out of contact with his unit and with a malfunctioning EW suite deep in enemy territory is in a big pile of doo-doo. ...

He can always try to sell his suit

• You guys think this is great - I can hook you up with a whole bunch more - just follow me back to my stash in the woods back yonder...

 

[CosmicGamer]

...Your later example is not really comparing like with like. ...

Pretty sure that was his intent!

True that. Most of this thread has been about not comparing like with like, hasn't it? Klaus, didn't you compare 200 troops firing assault rifles to one person in battledress? Yes, I gave the smaller group some brains and had them lie in wait. You'll note I did not make them supermen though. No dex bonus. Only skill level 2. However, I did give them average Int too!

I'll repeat

unless the combatant is a fool, they know it will be hard to take out someone in battledress so they will most likely not engage them unless they have 'the upper hand'

or a death wish.

Use fire and smoke to hinder sensors, hit and run from multiple directions to try and divide the enemy and lure them into an ambush, spam the airwaves with noise to disrupt communication and active sensors... I'm not an expert in military tactics, but I'm sure there are many ways of giving the higher tech folks a hard time of it.

Personally, I've wondered how a paint gun would work good against high tech. Covering the face to block vision, covering sensors so they don't work... Use some kind of glue substance and maybe you can gum up the joints.

 

[justacaveman]

For my example I was using the rules from CSC. In the CSC an Autorifle does 3d6+3 damage and ignores 2 points of armour using standard ammunition.
My assumptions were:
Attacking from ambush (No intiative roll until attack is revealed.).
Attackers aim for 1 round prior to firing (+3 DM ), and 1 minor action in firing round (+1 DM ).
+2 Skill
+1 DEX bonus
No other mods
Firing a burst (+4 damage)
Target wearing TL13 Battle Dress (armour 16)

Attackers have a total attack bonus of +7, + an average roll of 7 =14 (6 Effect ).
So damage = 10.5 (average of 3d6) + 3 + 4 (burst) + 6 (effect) = 23
The armour absorbs 16 - 2 (14) damage for 9 damage per shooter. 2 shooters needed.
If the attackers didn't have extra time to aim, and only had the 1 minor action for aiming they would need 3 shooters, with no DEX bonus they would need 4.
I believe my estmate of 3-4 attackers taking out Battle Dress was quite generous (to the Battle Dress).

 

[BP]

...In the CSC an Autorifle does 3d6+3 damage and ignores 2 points of armour using standard ammunition...

CSC effectively gives Autorifle a minimum 8 pts damage to armoured targets?! (3d +3 +2).

On the face of it that does sound a bit skewed... if this is the case, I wonder how this effected playtesting?

 

[AndrewW]

...In the CSC an Autorifle does 3d6+3 damage and ignores 2 points of armour using standard ammunition...

CSC effectively gives Autorifle a minimum 8 pts damage to armoured targets?! (3d +3 +2).

On the face of it that does sound a bit skewed... if this is the case, I wonder how this effected playtesting?

Well, it's not like every item in it (or anywhere near) gets tested out by the playtesters.

 

[justacaveman]

All modern rifles using standard ammo are Semi-Armour-Piercing (SAP) in CSC. Anti-Armour ammo makes them Full AP, and DSAP ammo makes them Super AP. It doesn't say what TL the particular ammo types are, but I would limit Anti-Armour to TL5+, and DSAP to TL7+.

SAP = 1/2 point of armour ignored per die of damage.
Full AP = 1 point of armour ignored per die of damage.
Super AP = 2 points of armour ignored per die of damage.

I was kind to the Battle Dress. If the shooters equipped themselves with DSAP ammo (A sensble thing to do if you're ambushing Battle Dress.), they would have done an additional 4 points of damage each hit.

BTW, the base price for Battle Dress does not include any sensors at all(At least according to the description.).

Ambushes can be successful against higher tech enemies. It happens all the time in the real world. Just because they're lower tech, doesn't mean they're dumb. Arrogance will get you killed no matter how good your equipment is.

 

[Iron Warrior.]

Before anyone gets antsy about me necroing a dead thread, I did a bing search for traveller batteldress and found this thread.

I do just so happen to have a few comments on traveller battledress and a comment re what I saw on this thread.

First off, should battledress be immune to all 'small arms' including assault rifles of the same tech level? How about light ordnance like an anti armor grenade launched from an underbarrel grenade launcher?

I'm working to convert a traveller setting to a different set of rules and need some basic guidelines on what batteldress should be resistant to and what it should not be.

As to some comments here, in heinlein's starship troopers the power armor was not invulnerable, and a non powered trooper could kill a man in power armor, it happened a couple times in the book.

In haldeman's far superior forever war, most power armor troops carried weapons that could easily defeat comparable power armor, at close range a 'laser finger' punched right thru tauran power armor, no problem there, boss.

As to the advantages of power armor, it kept you alive in places where nothing else could, like cryogenic worlds, deep space, etc. it was also proof against a lot of small stuff, no worrying about tearing that suit on a sharp jagged edge or something.

It also provided you with increased load bearing, you can tote a light ordnance weapon no problem. Add in sensors, a good computer to aid you in various tasks, built in comms, etc. and it was a real force multiplier.

So even if it can't stop a direct close range hit from the equivalent of, say a .50 cal sniper rifle it's still a damn good system. It also kept people comfortable, and don't sneer at that! A soldier who's at a comfy temperature is more effective than one who's sweating profusely in sweltering heat and barely resisting heat stroke!

As to a burst of autofire stopping it when a single shot can't, I'm not sure about that. If a single round bounces, a burst isn't too likely to get thru unless it's at such rapid speed that the rounds produce a 'drill" effect, and most personal weapons might not do that.

But in general would you say that a suit of battledress should be proof against an equivalent tech assault rifle? How about the AR can only affect it on a critical hit? What about a light grenade launched from an underbarrell launcher?

I just need some general guidelines here.