High Tech's low damage for rifles and LMG

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

<shrug> you're caught in a teime warp sort of situation. You're using armor that's only about 10 years old to stop bullets from guns that are 60+ years old.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Also, note the Advanced Body Armor stats are representative of an armor which in reality probably doesn't work that well.

Yep - the ABA armor might be more "10 seconds into the future" than "10 years ago". The writeup was based on the information that was publically available at the time, but during the playtest IIRC it was being re-tested by the government to see if it really justified the rating it had been given.

I think the stats reflect the company's claims about their "Level V" armor that are still so "super secret" that they don't have official certification that it's level V yet :P

EDIT: "After being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC test results and provided Army-supplied data of vest failures from a May 2006 test, the technical expert solicited by NBC to certify its test backed away from his staunch defense of Dragon Skin and stated that the vests "weren't ready for prime time.""

EDIT: Overall, it appears the vests are not durable - they're less defeated by bullets, and more by being worn under operative conditions. Especially in heat.

[trans]

In Kromm's modern secret-agent campaign http://dr-kromm.livejournal.com/ the characters often aim for the legs if the opposition is expected to have body armor.

[atorres]

Originally Posted by knarf

Another point worth raising is whether or not this is flexible armor. Because an attack can still hurt someone in flexible armor even if the attack doesn't actually penetrate.

Yes, that's another unclear point about ABA... if it is concealable, it should be flexible... but I'm not sure. Anyway blunt trauma isn't that big concern.

[atorres]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Yep - the ABA armor might be more "10 seconds into the future" than "10 years ago". The writeup was based on the information that was publically available at the time, but during the playtest IIRC it was being re-tested by the government to see if it really justified the rating it had been given.

EDIT: Overall, it appears the vests are not durable - they're less defeated by bullets, and more by being worn under operative conditions. Especially in heat.

What about cold... antartica's cold ? :)
I'm sure that any armor is somewhat ablative after some time taking damage ... have no idea WHEN for ABA.
I think that the stats of Gurps ABA are not that far in the future. In fact, 10 seconds in the future are helmets with 30 DR, (i saw in wikipedia...not reliable source). The weapons are still in the past, maybe because the current treats do not have access to modern defense. Or maybe because higher caliber modern weapons are not listed by high tech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_.26_Carbines

For instance what would be the stats of Colt 9mm SMG using 9x19mm ammno? Is the damage lower because of the short sized ammno (less powder?) ... probably like MP5. You see, MP5 with 2d+2 pi can barely hit in the head of someone using a ballistic helmet (DR 12 +skull 2=14 == max damage). MP5 used to be a badass weapon ... :)

AK-47 is 5d+1, max dam of 31 < ABA

One nice rifle is the old FAL. By gurps it does 7d damage. If I intend to play against ABA, that looks like the only weapon I would like to use :) Are old cold war rifles just MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than modern rifles against ABA?
(But hey... US don't use FAL! what would be the equivalent nowdays?)

If I go to the Armor Piercing path, all damage will be pi-. That means I will have to halve damage that penetrates, except on brain/vitals.

My biggest concern is how much close to the real thing is this?

And of course, there are the sniper weapons... they are still unbeatable.
EDIT: And ... hit the legs... where is the drama?

[martin_rook]

Originally Posted by atorres

EDIT: And ... hit the legs... where is the drama?

I imagine anyone who has been shot in the leg would attest that there is quite a lot of drama involved...

And you can always go for the face.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by atorres

EDIT: And ... hit the legs... where is the drama?

Ask Dr. House. Not a GSW (IIRC), but still all the same drama.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by atorres

One nice rifle is the old FAL. By gurps it does 7d damage. If I intend to play against ABA, that looks like the only weapon I would like to use :) Are old cold war rifles just MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than modern rifles against ABA?
(But hey... US don't use FAL! what would be the equivalent nowdays?)

If I go to the Armor Piercing path, all damage will be pi-. That means I will have to halve damage that penetrates, except on brain/vitals.

My biggest concern is how much close to the real thing is this?

Armies optimize to fight the foes they expect to fight, and most organized armies these days fight against guerillas and insurgents that don't wear armor. So a 5.56mm round fire from a carbine that does 4d+1 is plenty to take down an unarmored fighter.

The insurgents do have to fight against people in advanced body armor, and they do tend to shoot relatively low or use explosives. So that is pretty close to the real thing.

From a slightly more gamist perspective, big rifles that barely penetrate armor and that have a lousy wounding effect are a good thing. The PCs' foes, often semi-skilled, have to hit many times to take out the PCs, while the (presumably) more skilled PCs can go absorb the skill penalties to shoot the unarmored legs or face. The alternative, where armor is weak and damage past armor is high, causes very high PC mortality. Try running a 1920s gangland shoot-out with everyone carrying Tommy guns (3d-1 pi+) while the effective armor is in the 0-4 DR range. People will die quickly.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by atorres

Yes, that's another unclear point about ABA... if it is concealable, it should be flexible... but I'm not sure. Anyway blunt trauma isn't that big concern.

So, as people have been not quite outright saying, as I understand it the ABA is the author's rendition of this stuff based on the information they had at the time of writing.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by atorres

Are old cold war rifles just MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than modern rifles against ABA?

"higher power and higher calliber" certainly. It's not specifically against ABA, they punch huge holes in everything equally :D

I believe one of the reasons for the trend towards smaller ammo is weight, which is logistics, which is how you win wars ;) but another is human rights concerns IIRC.

[chandley]

A good "patch" for the ABA is to call it poor quality and use the armor damage rules (treat it as rigid armor, its basically modern scale armor). It'll pretty reliably stop the first bullet, but you gotta start sweating after that. Give it HT 10, and note that most deployed troops CAN'T maintain it, not having access to spectra/kevlar thread, replacement scales, etc.

That seems to cover most of the issues raised with this armor. Note, rich adventurers might still be just fine with it though, buying a new vest every month or two (or after being shot) being a small price for the DR...