MT Armour uses no volume: Is this correct?

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
I've....noticed that armour seems to take no volume, but simply adds mass and cost. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

That's correct - it takes up zero volume, cos it's on the *outside* of the ship . It simply adds mass and has a cost. The higher the AF, the more mass is added with the consequential cost in MCr increase.

 

[mike wightman]

Sticking the armour on the outside makes the ship bigger for determining jump drive, maneuver drive, and jump fuel required though

 

[mike wightman]

Sticking the armour on the outside makes the ship bigger for determining jump drive, maneuver drive, and jump fuel required though

 

[mike wightman]

Sticking the armour on the outside makes the ship bigger for determining jump drive, maneuver drive, and jump fuel required though

 

[Gruffty]

I've always looked at the MT hull armour issue as a piece of Handwaveium - that the *thickness* of the armour (on the outside of the ship) is negligible when it comes to the J-/M-/PP-drives and the hull dTons.

But, once again, we hit the ol' brick wall with any ship/vehicle design system - which way to go with armour, personal preferences, etc, yaddahyaddah.

 

[Gruffty]

I've always looked at the MT hull armour issue as a piece of Handwaveium - that the *thickness* of the armour (on the outside of the ship) is negligible when it comes to the J-/M-/PP-drives and the hull dTons.

But, once again, we hit the ol' brick wall with any ship/vehicle design system - which way to go with armour, personal preferences, etc, yaddahyaddah.

 

[Gruffty]

I've always looked at the MT hull armour issue as a piece of Handwaveium - that the *thickness* of the armour (on the outside of the ship) is negligible when it comes to the J-/M-/PP-drives and the hull dTons.

But, once again, we hit the ol' brick wall with any ship/vehicle design system - which way to go with armour, personal preferences, etc, yaddahyaddah.

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Sticking the armour on the outside makes the ship bigger for determining jump drive, maneuver drive, and jump fuel required though

I knew you were going to say that See, I'm telescopic, me.......

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Sticking the armour on the outside makes the ship bigger for determining jump drive, maneuver drive, and jump fuel required though

I knew you were going to say that See, I'm telescopic, me.......

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Sticking the armour on the outside makes the ship bigger for determining jump drive, maneuver drive, and jump fuel required though

I knew you were going to say that See, I'm telescopic, me.......

 

[mike wightman]

That's a coincidense - I'm telepathetic

 

[mike wightman]

That's a coincidense - I'm telepathetic

 

[mike wightman]

That's a coincidense - I'm telepathetic

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by robject:
I was looking at those tables last night, searching for the formula that mapped armor to its volume... no wonder I never found it.

Here's the short example of an MT design I posted in the T5 playtest are here on CotI.

I chose cylinder configuration as this kept the maths simple, and only applied the minimum starship armour factor in MT (AF 40), which, in my opinion, is the same as armour Factor-0 in HG:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">100 dTon
Cylinder hull
unstreamlined:
Volume Mass MCr
1,350 40.00 0.134

TL-14
BSD
armour:
Multiply Mass by: 0.14
Mulitply Cost by: 1
= 1,350 5.6 0.134

MT Min. AF of 40:
Multiply Mass by: 33
Multiply Cost by: 33
= 1,350 184.8 4.4220</pre>[/QUOTE]This means that Bonded Superdense has:

Mass = 1.848 tonnes per dTon (184.8 tonnes mass/100 dTons);
Cost = MCr 0.04422 per dTon (MCr 4.422/100 dTons)

Can anyone refresh my memory with regards to the different armour types, masses, costs and volumes in Striker?

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by robject:
I was looking at those tables last night, searching for the formula that mapped armor to its volume... no wonder I never found it.

Here's the short example of an MT design I posted in the T5 playtest are here on CotI.

I chose cylinder configuration as this kept the maths simple, and only applied the minimum starship armour factor in MT (AF 40), which, in my opinion, is the same as armour Factor-0 in HG:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">100 dTon
Cylinder hull
unstreamlined:
Volume Mass MCr
1,350 40.00 0.134

TL-14
BSD
armour:
Multiply Mass by: 0.14
Mulitply Cost by: 1
= 1,350 5.6 0.134

MT Min. AF of 40:
Multiply Mass by: 33
Multiply Cost by: 33
= 1,350 184.8 4.4220</pre>[/QUOTE]This means that Bonded Superdense has:

Mass = 1.848 tonnes per dTon (184.8 tonnes mass/100 dTons);
Cost = MCr 0.04422 per dTon (MCr 4.422/100 dTons)

Can anyone refresh my memory with regards to the different armour types, masses, costs and volumes in Striker?

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by robject:
I was looking at those tables last night, searching for the formula that mapped armor to its volume... no wonder I never found it.

Here's the short example of an MT design I posted in the T5 playtest are here on CotI.

I chose cylinder configuration as this kept the maths simple, and only applied the minimum starship armour factor in MT (AF 40), which, in my opinion, is the same as armour Factor-0 in HG:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">100 dTon
Cylinder hull
unstreamlined:
Volume Mass MCr
1,350 40.00 0.134

TL-14
BSD
armour:
Multiply Mass by: 0.14
Mulitply Cost by: 1
= 1,350 5.6 0.134

MT Min. AF of 40:
Multiply Mass by: 33
Multiply Cost by: 33
= 1,350 184.8 4.4220</pre>[/QUOTE]This means that Bonded Superdense has:

Mass = 1.848 tonnes per dTon (184.8 tonnes mass/100 dTons);
Cost = MCr 0.04422 per dTon (MCr 4.422/100 dTons)

Can anyone refresh my memory with regards to the different armour types, masses, costs and volumes in Striker?

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Adding it to the MT craft design system requires you to know two things -

the surface area of the craft to be armoured

the thickness of the armour.

Then calculate armour voluma and subtract it from available hull space.

You could even armour different faces of the craft, just like in Striker

Surface area can be approximated/handwaved by counting the number of potential hardpoints.

Armor thicknesses, yes, Striker and the FFSses have that.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Adding it to the MT craft design system requires you to know two things -

the surface area of the craft to be armoured

the thickness of the armour.

Then calculate armour voluma and subtract it from available hull space.

You could even armour different faces of the craft, just like in Striker

Surface area can be approximated/handwaved by counting the number of potential hardpoints.

Armor thicknesses, yes, Striker and the FFSses have that.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Adding it to the MT craft design system requires you to know two things -

the surface area of the craft to be armoured

the thickness of the armour.

Then calculate armour voluma and subtract it from available hull space.

You could even armour different faces of the craft, just like in Striker

Surface area can be approximated/handwaved by counting the number of potential hardpoints.

Armor thicknesses, yes, Striker and the FFSses have that.

 

[mike wightman]

Ok, I'll bite

Nope, the number of hardpoints rule from Traveller is a hopeless approximation of surface area - in fact it's just flat out wrong.

Surface area could be used to give an accurate number of hardpoints for standard hulls, which would also allow armour volume to be calculated from hardpoints - but you have to derive your hardpoints realistically first.