Ship's armor

[AnotherDilbert]

Don was pretty adamant that it was clear enough. Don was wrong. (obviously, given this thread.)

Apparently so...

But we face another probelm. Vehicles have no minimum armor, so, adding armor will be from a value of 0 (so with the maximum being TL x 5)?

I have to agree, that makes no sense either.

Maximum AV is 5xTL, +amount for Planetoids.

So at TL 15 we can use 98 cm of armour on a regular hull, but 4800 cm armour on a planetoid? That makes no sense, the planetoid armour is insignificant but we can add nearly infinite armour just because it is a planetoid?

Technically this means a 100 dT planetoid could add 4800 cm = 48 m ≈ 160' of armour on the outside and still be a 100 dT ship? I would call that a 50000 dT ship...



The only way to make sense of this is to make Armour maximum = MAX( TL × 5, Planetoid Armour ).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If so, at TL 10, any spaceship can have armor 90, while a TL 10 grav tank may only have up to armor 50. But if I state that my grav tank will also have space combat capacity, then the same tank can have armor up to 90...

If I look at the tables, it seems I cannot get a grav vehicle to actually fly with armour 90, so that might not be such a big problem.

E.g. the hull of a 10 dT (135 m³) vehicle with armour 90 weighs 6,8 × 2560 × 0,31 ≈ 5400 tonnes. To make it fly we need at least 6000 tonnes of thrust, requiring 120 m³ grav modules and 100 m³ fusion plant. That will not fly...

 

[McPerth]

Maximum AV is 5xTL, +amount for Planetoids.

Let's see how does this affect:

• Minimum TL for spaceships that would stay any lenght of time in space is 8, as at lower TLs the required AV 40 cannot be reached. As gravitiv (the earliest) maneuver drives are TL 9, no major problem (we might face some problem if using the pre-gravitic drives shown in HT/Challenge One Small Step, but the only efficient ones are TL 8, so allowing again for AV40).
• TL 11 spaceships (so Vilani Empire's) had a maximum AV of 55, so giving a defensive DM of -5 in damamge tables...
• At TL15, maximum armor is 75, so giving a defensive DM of -11. So many more weapons can damage them...

Add to this that reaching those levels of armor makes your ship very heavy (an AV15 ship is about 11 times heavier than an AV40 one), so making more difficult to achieve some agility...

And you see that ship survivalty in MT is even less than in HG...

Note that second sentence: "in the case of planetoid hulls..." This gives us the only specific case of exceeding the 5xTL limit.

Then the planetoids have an enourmous armor advantage, far beyond that they had in CT:HG...

Don was pretty adamant that it was clear enough. Don was wrong. (obviously, given this thread.)

I'm afraid this is true...

 

[McPerth]

I don't see any leniency needed.

We have to reason around this:

SPARE SYSTEMS
Spare systems may be installed in a craft to take over in the event that the main unit is disabled.
These are backup devices and may not be in operation at the same time as the main device. The higher-output device is the mainstay; the backup device does not consume fuel or power while it IS not in use. When the main device takes damage that reduces it below the level of the backup, the backup takes over. If the backup is then damaged, the main unit returns to action. Whichever unit has the highest current factor is the one In operation; when damage is received, it is applied to the unit in operation. Under no circumstances may a backup and main device be operating at the same time.

But several designs give us different endurances in combat and non combat opperations, be them because a combat booster power plant or because the PP is running at lower output in non combat opperations...

If I look at the tables, it seems I cannot get a grav vehicle to actually fly with armour 90, so that might not be such a big problem.

E.g. the hull of a 10 dT (135 m³) vehicle with armour 90 weighs 6,8 × 2560 × 0,31 ≈ 5400 tonnes. To make it fly we need at least 6000 tonnes of thrust, requiring 120 m³ grav modules and 100 m³ fusion plant. That will not fly...

At lower gravities it probably could be done (and probably at higher TLs too).

But that was not really the point, but showing that if MT wants to keep the same design for crafts and ships it must be consistent in those details, and the theoretical armor limits (those given on the rules) must be the same for all, even if in practice they are not due toor the reasons you have so clearly exposed.

 

[aramis]

The HG limit (TL AV) is also directly increased by planetoids.

I think there does need to be an erratum for planetoids here; the issue being that the bonus is +3 or +6 HG AV...
which equates to Armor 50 or Armor 56 in striker (per the latest CT errata file I got from Don). So, it would be far more consistent to say "Minimum armor installed is 40; a planetoid adds 10 to installed AV, and a buffered planetoid adds 16. This allows use of installed AV 30 to meet the AV40 minimum for a planetoid, and AV 24 for a buffered planetoid."

But we already knew that MT is an errata monster.

 

[mike wightman]

Problem with this is, as I said, the world "added" on the maximum armor factor value.

Yup, added to what?
The planetoid and buffered planetoid rules are pretty clear - their base value can have the TLx5 added to the base value. Thus you can make a planetoid/buffered planetoid immune to all but meson weapons - just like in HG2.
It is also possible to armour a ship in HG to a point where everything but spinals and nukes are knocked off the damage table - AV 14. This can only be achieved in MT if there is a base value of hull to add the TLx5 to.

Starships have a minimum AV of 40. If we accept (as Mike says) that added value is above those 40, then ships can be immune to anything but mesons, as you say.

It's not my claim - I actually always use TLx5 as the limit. I just have a vague memory of errata that may help, the planetoid/buffered planetoid rule and finally FSotSI.

And as I said above, ships immune to all but meson fire at high enough TLs is a thing in HG.

But we face another probelm. Vehicles have no minimum armor, so, adding armor will be from a value of 0 (so with the maximum being TL x 5)?

If so, at TL 10, any spaceship can have armor 90, while a TL 10 grav tank may only have up to armor 50. But if I state that my grav tank will also have space combat capacity, then the same tank can have armor up to 90...

Correct - and according to the tech progression section in LBB4 Mercenary this is exactly what happens over time and rising TLs.

No leniency is needed. Many official designs have it endurance based on non combat needs, counting each day of combat as some days of endurance (see the Ships of the Black War appearing in Challenge #60 for examples).

Yup, there are no rules in the MT design sequence preventing you from building staged power plants - which is how we got around powering warship systems. It became an official rule in the Q&A.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So,

If we are consistent with Striker max armour should be 50 + TL, planetoid adding +3 or +6.

If we are consistent with HG damage reduction max armour should be 40 + 3 × TL, planetoid adding +9 or +18.

As written armour is perhaps max 5 × TL, or effectively unlimited for planetoids which seems silly.


It would make more sense to add the hard steel equivalents than the armour factors. Planetoid is AF 50 or 80 cm of steel (from the Armor Table on p63). TL 15 would allow us to add AF 75 or 698 cm steel. Together that would be 80 + 698 = 778 cm steel or AF 76. The Armor Combination Table from Striker gives the same result.


Either way house rules seems in order...

 

[McPerth]

So, it would be far more consistent to say "Minimum armor installed is 40; a planetoid adds 10 to installed AV, and a buffered planetoid adds 16. This allows use of installed AV 30 to meet the AV40 minimum for a planetoid, and AV 24 for a buffered planetoid."

Yes, this will probably be the best wording for it.

See that as rules are worded:

Armor Values: Planetoid is armor value 50. Buffered planetoid is armor value 56. Additional armor may be added to a planetoid, subtract the planetoid's current armor value modifler (from the Armor Table) from the desired new armor value mass factor

You cannot make planetoid ships under their basic armor, and as the armor modifier (I guess from its basic armor, not current one, that I don't know what it can mean), 80 is subtracted from AV modifier (for mass only, not for price, BTW) for planetoids and 135 for buffered planetoids.

But we already knew that MT is an errata monster.

Agreed.

Yup, added to what?
The planetoid and buffered planetoid rules are pretty clear - their base vale can have the TLx5 added to the base value. Thus you can make a planetoid/buffered planetoid immune to all but meson weapons - just like in HG2.

Yes, but in MT the planetoids (buffered or not) face another problem: mass.

As per tables in RM pae 63, a planetoid base mass is 1 ton per kl, and for buffered plantoi is 1.75 ton per kl (opposed to standard hulls, whose mass is reduced as the size increases but is at most about 40 ton/100 dtons, so about 0.03 tons/kl)

As this is then multiplied by the AV modifier, results are quite spectacular, even after the modifier subtraction told about above.

To compare mass, based on a Bonded Superdense AV 70 ship (planetoid2/buffered2 would be by using Aramis suggestion above):

1000	19660	704970	901530	359100	538650
10000	190260	7049700	9015300	3591000	5386500
50000	729330	35248500	45076500	17955000	25932500
100000	1141560	70497000	90153000	35910000	53865000

[TD]Hull size (dtons)[/TD][TD]non-planetoid[/TD][TD]Planetoid[/TD][TD]Buffered[/TD][TD]Planetoid2[/TD][TD]Buffered2[/TD]

And non-planetoid ships can have it reduced by configuration...

As you see, planetoids are manyfold more massive than other ships, so limiting (if not outright forfeiting) their agility (even for short time) and making them quite vulnerable to meson fire (as HG2 did not use mass as a separate factor and agility depended on dtons, this problem was not there).

It is also possible to armour a ship in HG to a point where everything but spinals and nukes are knocked off the damage table - AV 14. This can only be achieved in MT if there is a base value of hull to add the TLx5 to.

It's not my claim - I actually always use TLx5 as the limit. I just have a vague memory of errata that may help, the planetoid/buffered planetoid rule and finally FSotSI.

Problem here is that in MT, depending on how do you read the rules, they are absolutely immune also to PA spinals and nukes (if the 40+TLx5 is used) or they are vulnerable to most weapons (if the TLx5 is used), so calerly changing the paradign of HG2 one way or the other...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, but in MT the planetoids (buffered or not) face another problem: mass.

No?

I have always assumed armour is calculated as usual, using the base hull weight from p62. It makes no sense whatsoever to modify the planetoid mass by the armour type modifier.

So, a 1000 dT planetoid with TL 14 Armour 70:
Planetoid mass: 1000 × 13,5 × 1 = 13500 tonnes.
Armour mass: 310 × 0,14 × ( 453 - 80 ) = 16188 tonnes.
Total hull mass: 13500 + 16188 = 29688 tonnes.

Armor Values: Planetoid is armor value 50. Buffered planetoid is armor value 56. Additional armor may be added to a planetoid subtract the planetoid's current armor value modifler (from the Armor Table) from the desired new armor value mass factor.

 

[McPerth]

No?

I have always assumed armour is calculated as usual, using the base hull weight from p62. It makes no sense whatsoever to modify the planetoid mass by the armour type modifier.

So, a 1000 dT planetoid with TL 14 Armour 70:
Planetoid mass: 1000 × 13,5 × 1 = 13500 tonnes.
Armour mass: 310 × 0,14 × ( 453 - 80 ) = 16188 tonnes.
Total hull mass: 13500 + 16188 = 29688 tonnes.

I'm afraid you calculate it wrongly (otherwise so do I).

See RM page 63 point 10:

Multiply hull weight and hull price (...) by the armor table modifier

So, for the 1000 dton planetoid you put as example:

• Basic hull weight: 1000x 13.5 x 1 = 13500 tons
• Armour modifier: (453-80) x 0.14 = 52.22 (where do you take the 310 from, BTW?)
• Final hull mass: 13500 x 52.22 = 704970 (as shown in my table)

See that if the armor weight was only added, it wil lbe the same for a 100 dton ship or a 100000 dton one...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I have always assumed armour is calculated as usual, using the base hull weight from p62. It makes no sense whatsoever to modify the planetoid mass by the armour type modifier.

So, a 1000 dT planetoid with TL 14 Armour 70:
Planetoid mass: 1000 × 13,5 × 1 = 13500 tonnes.
Armour mass: 310 × 0,14 × ( 453 - 80 ) = 16188 tonnes.
Total hull mass: 13500 + 16188 = 29688 tonnes.

So, for the 1000 dton planetoid you put as example:

• Basic hull weight: 1000x 13.5 x 1 = 13500 tons
• Armour modifier: (453-80) x 0.14 = 52.22 (where do you take the 310 from, BTW?)
• Final hull mass: 13500 x 52.22 = 704970 (as shown in my table)

See that if the armor weight was only added, it wil lbe the same for a 100 dton ship or a 100000 dton one...

Sorry if I was unclear.

I calculate the armour as a regular hull, so 310 comes from the Space Vessel Hull Table on p62 for a 1000 dT hull.

Using your method, what is the mass of a planetoid with Armour 50? Armour 51?

You multiply the planetoid hull mass by the armour type modifier, which I am not comfortable with, it makes no sense to me.

 

[McPerth]

Sorry if I was unclear.

Not as much as rules themselves :CoW:

I calculate the armour as a regular hull, so 310 comes from the Space Vessel Hull Table on p62 for a 1000 dT hull.

OK, I see your point, but that is like having two different layers of armor added toguether. If so, one could claim to also make a ship with 2 added layers (each armor value 20) instead of one AV 40, so the multiplier being 5.95 per layer (so 10.9 once added) instead of 33 for the single AV 40 hull (or to puarmor your ship with 30 AV more by adding an outer armor Shell, whose multiplier would be 14.1 (added from the basic 33), instead of the 453 for an AV 70 hull)...

And as a minor issue, if you were right on this, why the config modifier to armor is NA (if allowed, it should be a dash). IMHO this hints that planetoids (incluiding buffered ones) work different, but I agree that is argueable...

Using your method, what is the mass of a planetoid with Armour 50? Armour 51?

You multiply the planetoid hull mass by the armour type modifier, which I am not comfortable with, it makes no sense to me.

I've alwys guessed the mass of a planetoid with armor 50 be as if using a modifier of 1 (as being the basic one). If you increase it to 51, the multiplier would be 87.2-80, so 7.2, which, IMHO, makes some sense...

 

[McPerth]

To add to the mess...

By reviewing Don's consolidated errata (2013 versión), in page 27 we find:

Page 63, Step 6, Planetoid Configurations (clarification): The armor value mass factor is in fact the armor value mod (refers to the Mod column on the Armor Table in Step 9).

I frankly cannot understand what this sentence means...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not as much as rules themselves

That we can easily agree on.

OK, I see your point, but that is like having two different layers of armor added toguether. If so, one could claim to also make a ship with 2 added layers (each armor value 20) instead of one AV 40, so the multiplier being 5.95 per layer (so 10.9 once added) instead of 33 for the single AV 40 hull (or to puarmor your ship with 30 AV more by adding an outer armor Shell, whose multiplier would be 14.1 (added from the basic 33), instead of the 453 for an AV 70 hull)...

Not really. I'm adding several layers of armour that adds up to 453 [cm of steel] which means Armour 70.

In this case I'm adding Planetoid: 80 [cm of steel] (Armour 50) + Added armour 373 [cm of steel] (Armour 67) = 453 [cm of steel] (Armour 70).

I do not add the Armour values directly.

I've alwys guessed the mass of a planetoid with armor 50 be as if using a modifier of 1 (as being the basic one). If you increase it to 51, the multiplier would be 87.2-80, so 7.2, which, IMHO, makes some sense...

That would make hull mass:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1×0,14×(1) = 1890 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1×0,14×(87,2-80) = 13608 tonnes
Armour 70: 1000×13,5×1×0,14×(453-80) = 704970 tonnes

And at TL12:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1×0,26×(1) = 3510 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1×0,26×(87,2-80) = 25272 tonnes

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. TL affects the basic mass of the planetoid? A slight increase in armour makes the hull 7 times heavier?


My method gives:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(80-80) = 13500 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(87,2-80) = 13812 tonnes
Armour 70: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(453-80) = 29688 tonnes

And at TL12:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,26×(80-80) = 13500 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,26×(87,2-80) = 14080 tonnes

My calculations places a layer of armour on the outside of the planetoid, without modifying the planetoid itself.
That makes more sense to me...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A regular hull (without configuration modifier, e.g. 4) gives:
Armour 50: 310×0,14×(80) = 3472 tonnes
Armour 51: 310×0,14×(87,2) = 3784 tonnes, difference 312 tonnes
Armour 70: 310×0,14×(453) = 19660 tonnes, difference 15876 tonnes

My planetoid method gives:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(80-80) = 13500 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(87,2-80) = 13812 tonnes, difference 312 tonnes
Armour 70: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(453-80) = 29688 tonnes, difference 15876 tonnes

So, with my method adding more armour to a planetoid cost exactly as much as adding the same amount of armour to a regular hull. It's just the base planetoid that differs.

 

[McPerth]

That we can easily agree on.

Not really. I'm adding several layers of armour that adds up to 453 [cm of steel] which means Armour 70.

In this case I'm adding Planetoid: 80 [cm of steel] (Armour 50) + Added armour 373 [cm of steel] (Armour 67) = 453 [cm of steel] (Armour 70).

I do not add the Armour values directly.


That would make hull mass:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1×0,14×(1) = 1890 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1×0,14×(87,2-80) = 13608 tonnes
Armour 70: 1000×13,5×1×0,14×(453-80) = 704970 tonnes

And at TL12:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1×0,26×(1) = 3510 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1×0,26×(87,2-80) = 25272 tonnes

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. TL affects the basic mass of the planetoid? A slight increase in armour makes the hull 7 times heavier?


My method gives:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(80-80) = 13500 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(87,2-80) = 13812 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,14×(453-80) = 29688 tonnes

And at TL12:
Armour 50: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,26×(80-80) = 13500 tonnes
Armour 51: 1000×13,5×1 + 310×0,26×(87,2-80) = 14080 tonnes

My calculations places a layer of armour on the outside of the planetoid, without modifying the planetoid itself.
That makes more sense to me...

I must admit you have a point, but this same layer of armor must be heavyly braced to the planetoid itself, so modifying its inherent weight (though probably not so much)...

What is clear is that we have errata material here, even if only for clarification (as I said, what is in the Consolodated Errata confused me more than clarified anything).

And how do you solve the price? In this case, the modifier for the inherent armor is not subtracted...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I must admit you have a point, but this same layer of armor must be heavyly braced to the planetoid itself, so modifying its inherent weight (though probably not so much)...

I assume that bracing is included in the armour mass, just as it is in the same armour mass in a regular hull.

What is clear is that we have errata material here, even if only for clarification (as I said, what is in the Consolodated Errata confused me more than clarified anything).

I have just tried to make sense of the vague hints that are the rules (with HG and Striker as additional clues).

Do we have any canonical example of a planetoid with added armour?

And how do you solve the price? In this case, the modifier for the inherent armor is not subtracted...

I calculate the cost of the planetoid and the added armour separately in the same way as the mass.

Armour 70 mass: 1000×13.5×1 + 310×0.14×(453-80) = 29688 tonnes
Armour 70 cost: 1000×13.5×(Cr 10+75) + MCr 1.35×1×(453-80) = MCr 1.1475 + MCr 503.55 ≈ MCr 504.7

Where MCr 1.35 is the base price of a 1000 dT hull from p62.

 

[McPerth]

Armour 70 mass: 1000×13.5×1 + 310×0.14×(453-80) = 29688 tonnes
Armour 70 cost: 1000×13.5×(Cr 10+75) + MCr 1.35×1×(453-80) = MCr 1.1475 + MCr 503.55 ≈ MCr 504.7

Where MCr 1.35 is the base price of a 1000 dT hull from p62.

Do you also subtract the 80 from the 453 for Price? see that it is only told to do in the mass...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Do you also subtract the 80 from the 453 for Price? see that it is only told to do in the mass...

Yes, that I have deduced largely on faith. Since armour more or less costs the same per unit of mass, it makes sense to continue to pay the same cost per mass for the added armour to a planetoid.

 

[McPerth]

I assume that bracing is included in the armour mass, just as it is in the same armour mass in a regular hull.

But in non-planetoid hulls, the armor is the hull, while in planetoids, following your way (as I say, I see logic on it), it's an added shell over the hull, not part of it. That's why I talked about needed bracing that is not needed in other hull configurations.

Do we have any canonical example of a planetoid with added armour?

Not for MT ,AFAIK.

The only canonical planetoid (buffered in this case) ship I'm aware about is in CT:S9 (page 44), but, aside from being CT (and so mass is not a factor) it has no armor above the integral for a buffered planetoid (and BTW, its lack of meson screen makes it quite vulnerable to Meson fire).