10-14-2016, 12:41 PM | #61 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
Quote:
Hard steel isn't very good armor in general; it's too brittle. If they meant face-hardened steel, maybe. |
|
10-14-2016, 01:21 PM | #62 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
Quote:
So similarly those descriptors ("Good", "Cheap", "Hard", "Strong", etc) are given with that assumption in place, and in any case are really only generic and relative terms for the article. So yeah I agree it's likely hardened steel that's suitable for use as armour, and not the hardest steel it's possible to make ignoring other relevant properties TBH I've always assumed that DR per inch as a game stat for describing the effectiveness of armour isn't just a measure of hardness but of overall ability to resist penetration. So a really hard but brittle steel wouldn't necessarily have high a DR per inch value in GURPS anyway. However if your saying that even with the above assumption in place the best Iron for armour at those TL's should top out at 55, then I guess you and David Pulver have drawn different conclusions. Last edited by Tomsdad; 10-14-2016 at 01:54 PM. |
|
10-14-2016, 02:26 PM | #63 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
That 52-55 range is iron with no significant flaws. If it's doing better than that it's actually steel or alloy (note: while typical alloying materials aren't isolated until TL 5, it's possible to produce alloys earlier because of natural impurities in specific iron sources -- for example, meteoric iron contains nickel).
|
10-15-2016, 02:04 AM | #64 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
Quote:
Out of interest what calculations are you're using to derive DR per inch values from real world materials here? It would be interesting to see the mechanism behind this. Of course the problem here is that's just one variable when it comes to assigning game values to historical and generic materials described in the article. Anyway cheers for your info TD |
|
10-16-2016, 03:25 AM | #65 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
Wasn't using calculations per se, I was using historical armor figures which rated nickel-steel as about 30% stronger than iron as armor. Of course, that was mostly studying naval armor, at thicknesses vastly greater than any personal armor ever imagined, and may not be precisely equivalent to RHA, but it seemed a credible approximation.
|
10-16-2016, 05:19 AM | #66 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
Quote:
Cheers TD |
|
10-25-2016, 03:50 AM | #67 |
Join Date: Sep 2016
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
So...go with Pyramid on high-tech versions of low-tech armor? When should I use the different TL7-8 steels from Pyramid #85 and Low-tech II?
|
10-25-2016, 06:19 AM | #68 |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
Whenever you think they should be available within those TLs and depending on the resources of who's doing it, I'd say. Ultimately they are just a guide to what's possible at those TL's
|
10-25-2016, 08:37 AM | #69 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
Quote:
When dealing with LT or UT stats are based off of an arbitrary and gamist system that has become detailed and relatively internally consistent over the years. Penetration of LT armor is seldom checked against hard numbers (because there are very few) and Gurps wounding mechanism is obviously not maximally simulationist. It is to be hoped that the latest edition of LT has brought some better educated estimates but they just aren't as reality checked as the numbers in HT. They realistically can't be. When not dealing with RW verifiable numbers go with whatever you prefer and/or whatever works better for your game.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
10-25-2016, 03:08 PM | #70 |
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Re: High/Ultra-Tech Versions of Low-Tech Armor
I remember in my old thrust vest that the sides would be the worst place to aim, as the thrustvest inserts and the vest were designed to overlap there!
|
Tags |
armor, armour |
|
|