Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-18-2010, 12:52 PM   #291
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Why does UT concealable armor suck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexington View Post
Apparently the rocket takes a while to accelerate to full speed.
I thought a lot of designs use a cold-gas or spring launch.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 12:57 PM   #292
lexington
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Why does UT concealable armor suck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
I thought a lot of designs use a cold-gas or spring launch.
That would make sense, and make it harder to trace back to the shooter, but GURPS gyrocs all seem to be based on the Gyrojet which had that problem. I suspect the reason is that launching the rocket then having it fire would make it impossible to hit without a guidance system.
lexington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 12:59 PM   #293
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Why does UT concealable armor suck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexington View Post
That would make sense, and make it harder to trace back to the shooter, but GURPS gyrocs all seem to be based on the Gyrojet which had that problem. I suspect the reason is that launching the rocket then having it fire would make it impossible to hit without a guidance system.
At any rate, the only reason I can see why you'd want to try to modify a gyroc to be stealthier is if you lack any better technologies for sniper weapons.

Last edited by sir_pudding; 05-06-2012 at 03:27 AM.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 01:14 PM   #294
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Why does UT concealable armor suck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexington View Post
That would make sense, and make it harder to trace back to the shooter, but GURPS gyrocs all seem to be based on the Gyrojet which had that problem. I suspect the reason is that launching the rocket then having it fire would make it impossible to hit without a guidance system.
I'm pretty sure modern unguided LAWs can have seperate launch and flight propulsion.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2010, 11:47 AM   #295
Tinman
 
Tinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York City
Default Re: Why does UT concealable armor suck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
I'm pretty sure modern unguided LAWs can have seperate launch and flight propulsion.
It's not used for sniping (ie. Hitting a targets head at 100+ yds).
It is used to hit a gigantic tank -somewhere- and at much shorter range.
Tinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2015, 10:01 PM   #296
dagothdoom
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Default Re: Why does UT concealable armor suck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Because the stats are portraying and old and accepted but probably false belief about Gauss weapons.

It was once thought that Gauss ammo could be cheap because the magnetic fields would be more forgiving than metal barrels and the acceleration would be more nearly constant without the huge initial shock off conventional weapons.

This is somewhat parallel tot he old belief that cannister loads for blackpowder cannon could be made up of random junk. That's not true either.

What prototype testing with Gauss rounds seems to show is that fineness (and therefore a major component of expense) of manufacture is proportional to projectile speed. The faster your projectile goes, the more a minor imperfection can deflect the course.

Then of course there's impact speed. That stresses a projectile equally regardless of what it was fired from.

So Gauss ammo that is cheap out of proportion to its' size and velocity is wrong. You'll need to adjust it yourself of course.
The gauss ammo is only this projectile. The EPEP(was it EPEP? something like that) ammo would need this if it fired pr jectiles at that velocity, AS WELL as the propellant to do so. That's why the EPEP is more expensive. Perhaps too much so, but in no way would the same projectile plus propellant be cheaper than just the projectile
dagothdoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2015, 03:45 PM   #297
David L Pulver
AlienAbductee
 
David L Pulver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the UFO
Default Re: Why does UT concealable armor suck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksmith View Post
The best TL 10 concealable armor has a DR of 18/6 with the 18 only against pi and cut while the best tl8 concealable armor is 35/5 with the 5 being only against crushing attacks. So what gives?

Why does armor in the future suck so much, or at least be unable to be concealed?

Also it seems that the electromagnetic version of guns is not better than the ECT version with APEP ammo. Maybe for a couple like the Gauss Shotgun and pistol shotgun, but say for the anti material rifles, the ECT version does better damage.
1) I think Shawn has already covered this - there was a lot of hype about Dragonscale-type armor.

I've gone over manufacturers figures for concealable body armor, areal density, and square feet of coverage, and have determined that I'm satisfied with the realism of the ULTRA TECH figures as representative of a significant advantage over anything now available or likely available in the near future.

Besides possibly over-inflated Dragonscale-type armor characteristics - and it's worth noting that this is a case unsettled enough that has seen ongoing legal action and discussion among US lawmakers, among other things - other differences mostly relate to different opinions by GURPS authors on hit location size.

Most real concealable armor vests cover a smaller fraction of the torso or even upper torso's surface area than its entire area. There is no set rule in GURPS regarding this, and optional rules for more nuanced partial coverage and so on were often added after UT and HT came out.

In general, UT concealable armor likely assumes a larger area of coverage (most of the torso) than HT concealable armor (somewhat less of the torso).
In fact, the UT DR numbers are probably _too high_ and the HT numbers _a bit more too high_ for the stated area, but since this likely ALSO true of ALL armor in GURPS, it's not a big thing.




2) The EM guns have certain advantages other than raw penetration. It would be quite possible to build better gauss guns that were optimized for penetration rather than small caliber and low ammo weight. Should my ambitions be realized, and various health crises and other problems stop getting in the way, the ability to build them should eventually be made available, at which point I expect a zillion different gauss weapons with widely varying performances and lethalities should be practical.
__________________
Is love like the bittersweet taste of marmalade on burnt toast?
David L Pulver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2015, 08:04 PM   #298
Joseph Paul
Custom User Title
 
Joseph Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Default Re: Why does UT concealable armor suck?

Hope you take a turn for the better soon.
__________________
Joseph Paul
Joseph Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.