T5.10: Ship's armour?

[AnotherDilbert]

Has anyone figured out how ship's armour works in T5.10?

As far as I can see the different tables say definitely contra-dictionary things.

Examples:
What is the AV vs Pen for a layer of TL-10 Shell? (The Armor table on p280 says 10, the Shell table on p282 says 5.)
With an Anti-Kinetic anti-layer? (The example on p54 says AV×10, the text at the bottom of p54 seems to say TL×10.) (The Coatings and Anti-Layers table on p74 says TL×10, the same table on p286 says TL×1.)

 

[Licheking]

Armour is by TL, Shell should read TL/2 or TL 10 would be 5. Polymers are the same but can heal. Plate os TL, while charged is TLx2 when charged. I forget what Asteroid is.

The various Anti-Coatings change the value based on what they are good or bad against and are usually multipliers or divisers.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The various Anti-Coatings change the value based on what they are good or bad against and are usually multipliers or divisers.

Quite, those are the basics, but exactly what is the AV vs Pen of a layer of Charged with and without an anti-Kinetic anti-layer?

 

[Spartan159]

The table on pg 74 says TL *2 for Charged, anti-kinetic would raise that to TL *10.

BTW I have issues (And frankly think it's an errata) with the Charged vs heat. Charged is supposed to be powered plate. I think that vs heat should be TL *200, not *20.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The table on pg 74 says TL *2 for Charged, anti-kinetic would raise that to TL *10.

That is perhaps consistent with p74 and p287, but not p280 (TL×100) and p286 (TL×1)?

That the TL multiplier of the base layer is superseded by the multiplier of the anti-layer (and not added or multiplied) is probably implied by (B2 p54-55):

Anti-Layers
Any Layer can be designated as an Anti-Layer with added protection against a specific form of attack. Its abilities against other attacks is unchanged. Designating a Layer as an Anti-Layer imposes no additional cost or tonnage.
In some cases, an Anti-Layer confers no additional protection: Anti-Blast provides no additional protection to Plate (since Plate already provides x10 against Blast). On the other hand, Anti-Blast confers an improvement on Shell (which ordinarily has x5 against Blast).

But not consistent with (B2 p54):

A TL-12 ship with Structure= Polymer has Armor Layers built with Polymer. It has a base AV= TL/2= 6. One or more Layers can be designated Anti-Blast, which confers a multiplier x10 (AV= 60) against Blast, Bullet or Frag. Its AV against other attacks remains the same.

And if an anti-layer does not change anything else, why does all anti-layers have massive AV vs Heat, as specified on p75 and p287, but not even hinted at on p74 and p280?

BTW I have issues (And frankly think it's an errata) with the Charged vs heat. Charged is supposed to be powered plate. I think that vs heat should be TL *200, not *20.

Agreed, that is remarkable, but it is consistent between p74, p280, and p285. (And T5.09.)

But if (which is unclear) that is superseded by the AV vs Heat of the anti-layer, it is basically irrelevant.

 

[Spartan159]

Agreed, that is remarkable, but it is consistent between p74, p280, and p285. (And T5.09.)

Consistent error is consistent. I've thought about this for a while now but was hoping it would be fixed in T5.10. I've changed it IMTU.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Consistent error is consistent. I've thought about this for a while now but was hoping it would be fixed in T5.10.

Since it is consistent and longstanding, I can only assume it is intended.

I've changed it IMTU.

It's your game...

 

[Spartan159]

I believe there was a comment at some point by someone of "It also has to make sense". It makes no sense for Charged to be weaker than plate or shell to heat. I will post it in the errata section and see how far it gets later today.

My TU is heretical anyway so...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I believe there was a comment at some point by someone of "It also has to make sense". It makes no sense for Charged to be weaker than plate or shell to heat. I will post it in the errata section and see how far it gets later today.

Perhaps Charged needs some weakness, otherwise it is always better than any other type. Previously (T5.09-) is was only available at TL14, but now it's available from TL-9 (as Xperimental Charged Aluminium). The extra cost is negligible.

My TU is heretical anyway so...

We all house-rule to some extent, so we are all heretics.

 

[Spartan159]

Perhaps Charged needs some weakness, otherwise it is always better than any other type. Previously (T5.09-) is was only available at TL14, but now it's available from TL-9 (as Xperimental Charged Aluminium). The extra cost is negligible.

We all house-rule to some extent, so we are all heretics.

When Steel came along Iron as an armor was dropped like a hot potato. I would fully expect that as armor advances in the far future that the military would demand the best regardless of the price, while the civilians would do with a balance of effectiveness for cost, which since all armor now has the same volume and is "free", although the cost is in cargo room. I suspect that most commercial shipping would have only the first layer anyway.

You don't think that TL availability is enough?

BTW, Advanced Aluminum-9 is not unnamed Experimental Charged-11

Starship armor has been "balanced" overly much in my personal opinion just from the restriction of actual Tech Level Stage Effects if nothing else.

Eh, this is just as bad as discussing Star Trek/Wars technology. :coffeesip:

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on specific purpose and protection required.

There are transitional stages, much like that of good quality bronze versus poor quality iron.

 

[Timerover51]

When Steel came along Iron as an armor was dropped like a hot potato. I would fully expect that as armor advances in the far future that the military would demand the best regardless of the price, while the civilians would do with a balance of effectiveness for cost, which since all armor now has the same volume and is "free", although the cost is in cargo room. I suspect that most commercial shipping would have only the first layer anyway.

Actually, when steel became more widely available, there was about a 10 to 15 year period where the merits of wrought iron verses steel armor verses a compound armor of steel and wrought iron were argued out. King's Warships and Navies of the World 1880 has an extensive discussion of the various armor and gun tests of the period. While the military can demand the best regardless of the price, the government has the final say, and the miltary may not get what they want. The British government was renowned for being parsimonious when it came to expenditures on the Navy. The battleship HMS Inflexible of the 1870s was what they Royal Navy wanted for follow-on ships. What they got were two marginally cheaper vessels that were smaller, and are widely regarded as the two worst battleships ever built for anyone, much less the Royal Navy. The Inflexible took 7 years to build, between the cost and arguments over the design, so was borderline obsolescent when completed. She did achieve a rare feat for a Royal Navy Victorian battleship of firing her guns in anger during the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882. Her captain at the time was this individual named Jackie Fisher.

Fortunately for the Royal Navy in World War One, Fisher's demands for ships were vetoed by the government. He wanted a navy composed of battlecruisers, destroyers, and very large submarines, and nothing else. He never did understand about ship costs verses government budgets.

Edit Note: As for merchant ships, armor is a waste of money as it generates no revenue, but only adds to costs. I go with having the basic ship hull, and that is it. A merchant ship is not in the business of fighting, but earning money.

 

[Condottiere]

While it could be argued as to whether Fisher should have kickstarted off a naval arms race, he modernized the Royal Navy just in time for the start of the Great War, and possibly forced the German Navy to expend it's resources on the manufacture of a class of warships that British industry could outbuild them at.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

When Steel came along Iron as an armor was dropped like a hot potato.

Quite, but we do we have Plate as an option? If it is completely superseded by Charged, just remove it an unnecessary clutter.

BTW, Advanced Aluminum-9 is not unnamed Experimental Charged-11

Are you comparing Plate vs Charged? Of course they are not the same?

Charged Aluminium is available at TL-12, that is the base TL. Experimental is available 3 TLs earlier, so TL-9. Advanced is available three TLs later, so TL-15.

Apart from the fancy name Advanced Charged Aluminium-15 works exactly like Experimental Charged Kinetic-15, at least according to b2 p285.

Starship armor has been "balanced" overly much in my personal opinion just from the restriction of actual Tech Level Stage Effects if nothing else.

I have no idea what that means, given that tech stages have no effect whatsoever on armour values.