Re: SG: Close Assault Combat and armour

Phillip spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> Hello,
>	In the current draft of StarGrunt powered armour infantry gain a
*2
> multiple for their armour.  This is partly to reflect the effects of
the
> hydro/pneumatic strenght enhancement the armour provides.  However, we
> should consider some other factors as well, particularly the benefits
of
> normal body armour.  We know that body armour does help in hand to
hand
> combat (those guys running around in full plate did it for a reason),
but
> in StarGrunt if we have a regular soldier in partial light armour (d6)
and
> another regular soldier in Full Light armour (d8) they both roll a D8
> (quality die) with no multiple.  Then the outcome of their fight is
> resolved by who rolled the higher die...

I'm tempted to point out that powered armour may get those benefits 
for reasons you don't suspect - huge damage on their HTH due to the 
strength, but also amazing targeting systems and incredibly fast 
movement - they are hard to hit, since they sprint like the wind, and 
they can cut you down real well with on board weapons. All this is 
reflected in their bonuses. 

Since close assault is shotguns, grenades, SMGs, autofire, bayonets, 
karate, hitting people with entrenching tools or monomolecular 
vibro-saws, it covers a lot of terrain. I'm thinking that the 
difference between partial armour and light armour probably makes 
little difference to an autoshotgun or grenade (due to the area of 
the target), probably don't help much versus flamers, and in HTH may 
well be insignificant (it might even be argued in FAVOR of the 
lighter armoured opponent - he's faster and less encumbered and that 
is in many ways these days more important than the armour). Any 
serving grunty of today will tell you his body armour helps to 
protect him from fragmentation and somewhat from concussion, but 
won't do much against a sharp blade, an AP slug, and in most cases 
without inserts, won't do much against standard rifle ammo. And it 
won't help a lot versus flamers. But it protects agains the threats 
it was meant to counter well. The trade off is 4-10 lbs, plus the 
extra heat, plus a loss of some amount of manouvreability. 

>	I have two possible solutions:
>	The first is that the combat multiple is based on the die type
for the
> armour.
>	Armour type		armour die		combat mutiple
>	None			D4			2/3
>	Partial 	D6			1
>	Partial Full	D8			4/3
>	Powered Lt		D10			5/3
>	Powered Hvy		D12			2

It's an interesting idea. But are we up to this 5/3rds kind of math? 
(Okay, I'm one to talk...) Why not just a die modifier?
 
>	The second solution is to modify the "Am I dead yet?" roll that
takes
> place after close assault and give modifiers for body armour type.

This might be reasonable, although I think you'd have to consider 
None, Partial/Full, Powered as your options. Powered gets some 
benefit in the 'stand-back-up' roll as they have the medical thingies 
built in. The argument against what you have suggested is HTH is 
intense, close range, uses weapons armour does not defend well 
against, and (from gaming end) it can be resolved quicker. 

>	Personally, I think the first option is better.  I would
apreciate other's
> reactions and suggestions.

I'm interested to see replies to my comments too. I'm advancing the 
'party line' here I think. I don't even know if I agree entirely with 
it. It may be that someone more in the know than I will suggest that 
armour is helpful in HTH/CA. I'd be more in favour of giving a 
negative die shift to the troops with weaker armour and not then 
having to do more math. This means it boils down to who has better 
armour and the better armoured are harder to kill hence you get one 
negative die shift (which can be compensated for by good Close 
Assault Weapons). How's that for a counter offer?

Tom.