MT Armour uses no volume: Is this correct?

[Scott Martin]

Hello

I've been looking at the MT design rules in the ref's manual, and noticed that armour seems to take no volume, but simply adds mass and cost. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

This is really an issue for shattered ships of the ... er I mean Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium, where some ships appear to have *50 meters* of armour thickness. Admittedly some of them ignore the (40+TL*5) max rating for armour but even so, this would result in more than 50% of the ship volume being armour...

Is this an artifact of MT design, or am I being blinded by the "quality" of the supplement?

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

Hello

I've been looking at the MT design rules in the ref's manual, and noticed that armour seems to take no volume, but simply adds mass and cost. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

This is really an issue for shattered ships of the ... er I mean Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium, where some ships appear to have *50 meters* of armour thickness. Admittedly some of them ignore the (40+TL*5) max rating for armour but even so, this would result in more than 50% of the ship volume being armour...

Is this an artifact of MT design, or am I being blinded by the "quality" of the supplement?

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

Hello

I've been looking at the MT design rules in the ref's manual, and noticed that armour seems to take no volume, but simply adds mass and cost. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

This is really an issue for shattered ships of the ... er I mean Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium, where some ships appear to have *50 meters* of armour thickness. Admittedly some of them ignore the (40+TL*5) max rating for armour but even so, this would result in more than 50% of the ship volume being armour...

Is this an artifact of MT design, or am I being blinded by the "quality" of the supplement?

Scott Martin

 

[mike wightman]

Correct, MT armour takes no volume. I think the rationale was that the armour is on the outside so the interior volume remains the same - overlooking the fact that this would increase the overall hull displacement tonnage for jump drive, jump fuel, and maneuver drive.

But then High Guard2 is just as bad. A 400t SDB can have an armour factor of 15, the same as a 100,000t battleship.
The SDB will have used 64 dt, while the battleship has used 16,000 dt.

 

[mike wightman]

Correct, MT armour takes no volume. I think the rationale was that the armour is on the outside so the interior volume remains the same - overlooking the fact that this would increase the overall hull displacement tonnage for jump drive, jump fuel, and maneuver drive.

But then High Guard2 is just as bad. A 400t SDB can have an armour factor of 15, the same as a 100,000t battleship.
The SDB will have used 64 dt, while the battleship has used 16,000 dt.

 

[mike wightman]

Correct, MT armour takes no volume. I think the rationale was that the armour is on the outside so the interior volume remains the same - overlooking the fact that this would increase the overall hull displacement tonnage for jump drive, jump fuel, and maneuver drive.

But then High Guard2 is just as bad. A 400t SDB can have an armour factor of 15, the same as a 100,000t battleship.
The SDB will have used 64 dt, while the battleship has used 16,000 dt.

 

[Scott Martin]

I just found this odd, given that Striker calculated volume for armour, and MT is fairly obviously striker-derived.

HG has a number of issues, heavily armoured fighters were one of them. Fortunately this is a (relatively) easy one to resolve by simply making armour factors linear to armour thickness. As a result a 200 kDt battleship can have more armour thickness than the width of said fighter. Of course, the fighter is unlikely to come under fire by weapons designed to damage that battleship

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

I just found this odd, given that Striker calculated volume for armour, and MT is fairly obviously striker-derived.

HG has a number of issues, heavily armoured fighters were one of them. Fortunately this is a (relatively) easy one to resolve by simply making armour factors linear to armour thickness. As a result a 200 kDt battleship can have more armour thickness than the width of said fighter. Of course, the fighter is unlikely to come under fire by weapons designed to damage that battleship

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

I just found this odd, given that Striker calculated volume for armour, and MT is fairly obviously striker-derived.

HG has a number of issues, heavily armoured fighters were one of them. Fortunately this is a (relatively) easy one to resolve by simply making armour factors linear to armour thickness. As a result a 200 kDt battleship can have more armour thickness than the width of said fighter. Of course, the fighter is unlikely to come under fire by weapons designed to damage that battleship

Scott Martin

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[aramis]

Adding an armor thickness to volume is fairly easy, as the multiplier is in mm of steel equivalent.

It's not, however, part of MT... and is the biggest drawback to MT craft design.

 

[aramis]

Adding an armor thickness to volume is fairly easy, as the multiplier is in mm of steel equivalent.

It's not, however, part of MT... and is the biggest drawback to MT craft design.

 

[aramis]

Adding an armor thickness to volume is fairly easy, as the multiplier is in mm of steel equivalent.

It's not, however, part of MT... and is the biggest drawback to MT craft design.

 

[mike wightman]

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

 

[mike wightman]

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

 

[mike wightman]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.