MT Armour uses no volume: Is this correct?

[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.

 

[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.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Ok, I'll bite

Tasty bait gets more fish.

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

You're right of course: hardpoints is an approximation of volume. Which is actually handy, since I'm trying to calculate armor volume

(More correctly, I'm trying to do it without bothering with surface area).

Alternately, I can gladly accomodate surface area mapping to hardpoints, as long as the formula maps 1 hardpoint per 100 tons of volume...

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Ok, I'll bite

Tasty bait gets more fish.

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

You're right of course: hardpoints is an approximation of volume. Which is actually handy, since I'm trying to calculate armor volume

(More correctly, I'm trying to do it without bothering with surface area).

Alternately, I can gladly accomodate surface area mapping to hardpoints, as long as the formula maps 1 hardpoint per 100 tons of volume...

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Ok, I'll bite

Tasty bait gets more fish.

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

You're right of course: hardpoints is an approximation of volume. Which is actually handy, since I'm trying to calculate armor volume

(More correctly, I'm trying to do it without bothering with surface area).

Alternately, I can gladly accomodate surface area mapping to hardpoints, as long as the formula maps 1 hardpoint per 100 tons of volume...

 

[mike wightman]

Won't work though, unless the surface area required for hardpoints gets less as the volume of ship gets bigger

If you want to use hardpoints as a simplification for surface area it can be done in the background and each standard hull size rated for hardpoints, which can then also be used to determine armour volume.

 

[mike wightman]

Won't work though, unless the surface area required for hardpoints gets less as the volume of ship gets bigger

If you want to use hardpoints as a simplification for surface area it can be done in the background and each standard hull size rated for hardpoints, which can then also be used to determine armour volume.

 

[mike wightman]

Won't work though, unless the surface area required for hardpoints gets less as the volume of ship gets bigger

If you want to use hardpoints as a simplification for surface area it can be done in the background and each standard hull size rated for hardpoints, which can then also be used to determine armour volume.

 

[Anthony]

If you want to calculate armor volume without bothering with surface area, 1 cm of armor has a volume of approximately 0.02 * (volume in dtons^2/3) dtons. The minimum armor value of 40 is 33.6 cm of steel or 2.4 cm of bonded superdense. Thus, on a 1 dton ship it would take up 0.048 dtons or 4.8% of the hull. On a 1,000 dton ship it would take up 4.8 dtons or 0.48% of the hull.

This is why the handling of high guard armor in Striker/MT is incoherent. A given armor value, as a percentage of the hull, is not a constant armor thickness.

 

[Anthony]

If you want to calculate armor volume without bothering with surface area, 1 cm of armor has a volume of approximately 0.02 * (volume in dtons^2/3) dtons. The minimum armor value of 40 is 33.6 cm of steel or 2.4 cm of bonded superdense. Thus, on a 1 dton ship it would take up 0.048 dtons or 4.8% of the hull. On a 1,000 dton ship it would take up 4.8 dtons or 0.48% of the hull.

This is why the handling of high guard armor in Striker/MT is incoherent. A given armor value, as a percentage of the hull, is not a constant armor thickness.

 

[Anthony]

If you want to calculate armor volume without bothering with surface area, 1 cm of armor has a volume of approximately 0.02 * (volume in dtons^2/3) dtons. The minimum armor value of 40 is 33.6 cm of steel or 2.4 cm of bonded superdense. Thus, on a 1 dton ship it would take up 0.048 dtons or 4.8% of the hull. On a 1,000 dton ship it would take up 4.8 dtons or 0.48% of the hull.

This is why the handling of high guard armor in Striker/MT is incoherent. A given armor value, as a percentage of the hull, is not a constant armor thickness.

 

[mike wightman]

In first edition High Guard armour was a bit different, here's the table for anyone who hasn't seen it:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">code TL Tons Cost
0 - - -
1 7 100 1.0
2 8 90 1.2
3 9 80 1.0
4 10 70 0.8
5 11 30 1.2
6 12 25 1.0
7 13 40 0.6
8 14 20 0.5
9 15 15 0.4</pre>[/QUOTE]Tons is the armour tonnage required to get the armour factor per 1000t of ship.

 

[mike wightman]

In first edition High Guard armour was a bit different, here's the table for anyone who hasn't seen it:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">code TL Tons Cost
0 - - -
1 7 100 1.0
2 8 90 1.2
3 9 80 1.0
4 10 70 0.8
5 11 30 1.2
6 12 25 1.0
7 13 40 0.6
8 14 20 0.5
9 15 15 0.4</pre>[/QUOTE]Tons is the armour tonnage required to get the armour factor per 1000t of ship.

 

[mike wightman]

In first edition High Guard armour was a bit different, here's the table for anyone who hasn't seen it:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">code TL Tons Cost
0 - - -
1 7 100 1.0
2 8 90 1.2
3 9 80 1.0
4 10 70 0.8
5 11 30 1.2
6 12 25 1.0
7 13 40 0.6
8 14 20 0.5
9 15 15 0.4</pre>[/QUOTE]Tons is the armour tonnage required to get the armour factor per 1000t of ship.

 

[Scott Martin]

So to try and get a handle on the size of problem converting a FF&S like system to and from MT, how many ships (outside "Shattered Ships") had an AV greater than 60? What is the highest AV that you have seen in a ship used in an actual campaign?

If 60 is the "upper end" of armour, than I can probably swing conversion (actually I can probably manage up to ~75 for cap ships without too much trouble) but the over 80 insane-o ranges will be problematic.

If they exist.

I'd like to know one way or the other before I even consider a possible conversion path...

Aramis? Anthony? Sigg?

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

So to try and get a handle on the size of problem converting a FF&S like system to and from MT, how many ships (outside "Shattered Ships") had an AV greater than 60? What is the highest AV that you have seen in a ship used in an actual campaign?

If 60 is the "upper end" of armour, than I can probably swing conversion (actually I can probably manage up to ~75 for cap ships without too much trouble) but the over 80 insane-o ranges will be problematic.

If they exist.

I'd like to know one way or the other before I even consider a possible conversion path...

Aramis? Anthony? Sigg?

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

So to try and get a handle on the size of problem converting a FF&S like system to and from MT, how many ships (outside "Shattered Ships") had an AV greater than 60? What is the highest AV that you have seen in a ship used in an actual campaign?

If 60 is the "upper end" of armour, than I can probably swing conversion (actually I can probably manage up to ~75 for cap ships without too much trouble) but the over 80 insane-o ranges will be problematic.

If they exist.

I'd like to know one way or the other before I even consider a possible conversion path...

Aramis? Anthony? Sigg?

Scott Martin

 

[mike wightman]

Outside of FSotSI I can't find any higher than 50G, but they are both cruisers.

I think what confused me when I first started with MT ship design and armour is the rule that says you can add armour up to TL x 5, but in the design tables it says spaceships have a minimum hull of 40. At first I thought the TL x 5 was in addition to the 40 (for a max. AV of 115 at TL15).

Still doesn't explain the AVs in FSotSI though

 

[mike wightman]

Outside of FSotSI I can't find any higher than 50G, but they are both cruisers.

I think what confused me when I first started with MT ship design and armour is the rule that says you can add armour up to TL x 5, but in the design tables it says spaceships have a minimum hull of 40. At first I thought the TL x 5 was in addition to the 40 (for a max. AV of 115 at TL15).

Still doesn't explain the AVs in FSotSI though

 

[mike wightman]

Outside of FSotSI I can't find any higher than 50G, but they are both cruisers.

I think what confused me when I first started with MT ship design and armour is the rule that says you can add armour up to TL x 5, but in the design tables it says spaceships have a minimum hull of 40. At first I thought the TL x 5 was in addition to the 40 (for a max. AV of 115 at TL15).

Still doesn't explain the AVs in FSotSI though