using spaceships for battletech-style tactical mecha combat

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Eh, it's not a lot low; it's around 1.5 lb/sf, which is DR 2.7 for RHA.

it goes all the way up to 3 for the high end armors in low tech. I don't know how "steel" those are... though we are talking TL4, I just don't know how high middle ages steel armor compares to TL6 industrial tank armor. Or mere TL5 "Iron" armor.

So the low-tech comparison isn't nearly as egregious as the high tech armors, you are right, but its also not close to competitive.

If you want to say the the armor values for spaceships should be doubled, not tripled, that's probably also a good value.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericthered

it goes all the way up to 3 for the high end armors in low tech. I don't know how "steel" those are...

Even low-tech armor has too high DR for its weight (for the same coverage reasons as high tech armor), it's just less egregious about it. In general armor for characters is just better than armor for vehicles.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by ericthered

If you want to say the the armor values for spaceships should be doubled, not tripled, that's probably also a good value.

The armour values for spaceships made using Spaceships are quire reasonable.

If you want to use those rules for making tanks you need to assume that the tank is smaller than a spaceship of the same mass, and reduce its SM level a step or so and increase its DR by some factor.

As for personal armour, either nerf it to fit, or just accept that for playability reasons it's rather better than it really should be. Note that the body armour building rules in Pyramid have some strangely good values because of this.

[AlexanderHowl]

A lot of the harm caused by damage to living beings is in the form of bleeding and shock. Armor DR reduces both by blunting the initial force of a blow, which is why it seems so good. Of course, that means that armor DR should be reduced for entities that do not suffer from either, but it would likely be a needless complexity for most games.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Rolando

yes, a half a ton battlesuit have about 100 to 200 DR.
A combat mecha have 150
A 1970 tank have 1500

isn't that absurd?

A WWII warship might have 12 inches of steel armour. A modern one might have some kevlar splinter protection. Isn't that absurd?

In Spaceships combat, armour is somewhat useful against beams, but it really doesn't help much against missiles.

[Rolando]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

A WWII warship might have 12 inches of steel armour. A modern one might have some kevlar splinter protection. Isn't that absurd?

In Spaceships combat, armour is somewhat useful against beams, but it really doesn't help much against missiles.

I'm ok with spaceships with low armor. It makes sense in a way as you and others mention, also about the density and need to fly, etc.

I'm talking about tanks and mecha (land and space).

It is a bit confining to make all TL9 a dodge era. Weapons won the arms race during TL8, 9 and 10, so so until some force fields are invented you better make light vehicles and dodge.

That is more limiting than anything designed before for vehicles in GURPS. Specially considering it is a universal and generic system. It's ok because it is a system to design space ships, not tanks nor mecha (no matter how many pyramid articles are bolted o it).

That is why I'm thinking of simply handwave everything or almost everything until a real land vehicle design system is designed (or better yet, a Generic Universal Vehicle Construction System).

Multiplying armor by 3 or 12 is just handwaving it with extra steps. Better to take the weapons and design the vehicles with enough armor as to be equivalent, an extrapolation from WWII/modern combat to model the anime of sci fi "reality" of the setting.

Edit:
Something else, in the previous vehicle construction system if I wanted to design a ship with 12" of TL8 advanced laminated armor the system show me the results and where compatible to a recreation of a modern ship... If I wanted it, no handwave involved. The current system have a hard time trying to reproduce a vehicle in an official source.

[AlexanderHowl]

That would make beam weapons completely useless in space combat though, forcing people to depend on guns and missiles for space combat, and it would not really represent the reality of the situation. I think that the solution that would represent reality the best would to be to allow the solution that I suggested previously, allowing sloping armor for one facing per hull section, with a maximum DR multiplier being (Armor Components * 2) and the cost multiplier being equal to the DR multiplier for that facing of that hull section. Of course, this would meaning that facing would matter even more than in does in Spaceships combat, but facing matters a lot against armored vehicles in real life anyway.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Even low-tech armor has too high DR for its weight (for the same coverage reasons as high tech armor), it's just less egregious about it. In general armor for characters is just better than armor for vehicles.

I consider the low-tech body armor to be the core of what sets armor values, given that its the DR I end up referencing the most, despite playing in all sorts of settings. I actually find it a bit low: historically armor was pretty effective, but that's opening a completely different can of worms.

Suffice it to say, I don't think that doubling spaceship's armor is a "handwave", its bringing it up to the standards of the top level of personal armor. Tripling is generous, but there are situations where generosity is called for.

And yeah, the ultra-tech armor and the "late TL8" armors are pretty generous. With the Ultra-tech armors I usually consider it to be an option for setting where armor technology catches up to weapons somewhat, and make it unavailable for settings where I don't want that to be the case.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Suffice it to say, I don't think that doubling spaceship's armor is a "handwave", its bringing it up to the standards of the top level of personal armor. Tripling is generous, but there are situations where generosity is called for.

A very simple modelling of a mid-20th century battleship's armour scheme on a 30,000 tons ship (SM+11) using TL7 steel armour gets results that are too good actually, and only partly because the model I used didn't allow for interior anti-splinter protection, armoured barbettes, etc. If you make armour materials better so that they match personal armour, the armour of ships, aircraft, and spaceships will be far too good.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Rupert

A very simple modelling of a mid-20th century battleship's armour scheme on a 30,000 tons ship (SM+11) using TL7 steel armour gets results that are too good actually, and only partly because the model I used didn't allow for interior anti-splinter protection, armoured barbettes, etc. If you make armour materials better so that they match personal armour, the armour of ships, aircraft, and spaceships will be far too good.

How many armor systems did you use? what values where you expecting?