12-19-2010, 12:42 AM | #41 | |
Forum Pervert
(If you have to ask . . .) Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere high up.
|
Re: [Spaceships] Armor Density
Quote:
We have an equal probability of hitting something relevant in a given section. Sure, a cargo bay may take up 500%+ of the volume of a stardrive, but if you hit something in the much more compact stardrive it's likely to be relevant, where a lot of shots can pass through the cargo bay and hit nothing. So, the game abstraction is simply that you have an equal change of hitting something relevant in large, relatively diffuse system, as you do in a compact, dense system. It doesn't presume that they have identical volume. You're more likely to hit something vital in a compact system then you are in a larger one. Hence the identical chance for damage. |
|
12-19-2010, 03:01 AM | #42 |
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Not in your time zone:D
|
Re: [Spaceships] Armor Density
Each segment of the design has equal mass, but volume is a variable, as is surface area. The real numbers would be a pain to work out and not very gameable.
The surface areas for floorplans would suggest armour averages three times the density of non-armour segments, therefore, volume is not the same. I like Trachmyr's idea (although, based on the surface area required for the given dDR for steel armour, I figure the relative density as 0.7). Following on from that simple idea (modify SM for targeting and armour), Sphere's should have armour for +1SM. If all other shapes could be said to fall into a "ballpark" surface area; a sphere would fit the diamond:) And something from old VDS: cheap armour is 1/2 price, -1 SM; Expensive +2cf, +1SM; Advanced +9cf, +2SM.
__________________
"Sanity is a bourgeois meme." Exegeek PS sorry I'm a Parthian shootist: shiftwork + out of country = not here when you are:/ It's all in the reflexes |
Tags |
spaceships |
|
|