Armor, Movement, and Capacity was Re: DS3 design (long)

--- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, J L Hilal wrote:
> > 1)	I like the idea of selecting Armor Level for each side of the
> > vehicle in the design stage in place of the present fixed-relation
> > system.  However, this will require an increase in the capacity of
> > each size of vehicle (assuming the armor takes up capacity).  As a
> > baseline, I'd say a size 1 vehicle should have 10 capacity: 6 sides

> > of level 1 armor plus either an infantry fireteam or a turreted 
> > class 1 weapon.
> >
> 
> I too am in favor of more flexibility for armor ratings and values,
> but I am against armor taking up capacity.  I don't think I've ever 
> read of a case where armor took up *space* in a vehicle design.  
> What I've read leads me to believe that amror is *heavy* and thus 
> impacts speed.  It's the weight, having to be moved by the engine 
> (power plant) that causes the problem.
> 
> >
> > 4) I agree that a system needs to be developed where the triangle
> > of capacity-armor-movement all come into consideration during 
> > vehicle design without resorting to points costs.  We have been
> > experimenting with using the following:
> > i) Treat movement values as die types.  Base move values of 15 are
> > changed to 16 (=d8x2)
> > ii) Movement types that have both a "Fast" and "Slow" option use
> > the "Fast" value for vehicles size 2 or less, and the "Slow" value 
> > for vehicles size 3 and larger.
> > iii) When designing a vehicle, it is assumed that the movement and
> > capacity values represent a vehicle of a given size class with
> > maximum armor level.  For each level of armor less than the
maximum, 
> > the player may either a) increase movement by 1 die type or b) 
> > increase capacity by the vehicle size.  E.g. a size 4 vehicle has 
> > level 2 armor and a base movement of 10.  It may have a) increase 
> > movement 2 "die types" to 16, b) increase capacity by 2x(+4)= +8,
or 
> > c) increase movement 1 "die type" to 12 and also increase capacity 
> > by +4.
> >
> >
> 
> That's seems horribley arbitrary for a "generic" system which should
> be able to model more than the the Tuffleyverse.  My OGREs are NOT 
> size 2, but I will insist that they be "fast".  Further, there are 
> plenty of scenarios and genres where I want fast BIG vehicles.  
> Hammers Slammers hovertanks, the gzg grav tanks, and others.	Forcing

> them to be slow because it fits *your* world view makes this a much 
> less flexible system.

Yes, it is arbitrary.  That is because it is a patch for the existing
system.  A completely new system would be less so.

> 
> I still fail to follow how armor values effect capacity points.
> 
> Let's take a "fictional real world example".	Say that my M113 APCs
> are armored at level 2 because they're smallish.  I decide that I
want 
> to put in another infantry section.  How does reducing armor make
that 
> box any  bigger?
> 
> OTOH, if I wanted to make it more heavily armored, I could easily
> weld armor plates all over the surface of it.  It would likey drop to
> about 5 mph max speed, but I could do it.  And if I did, I could 
> *still carry a full squad of infantry*.
> 

Although the M113 is a good choice, your example is faulty.  For the
sake of discussion, I'll agree to call it Size 2, however, it does not
have Class 2 armor.  The RW armor of the M113 is resistant to
small-arms fire, but not impervious to them.  This fits the SG2 view of
Class 1 armor that is generally applied to DS2.  Thus, a
brand-spanking-new, fresh-out-of-the-box M113 is a Size 2 vehicle with
Class 1 armor, and the modifications of our patch are already included.

If you then want to modify the vehicle, we can talk about that.  As you
suggest, you can add applique armor to bring the vehicle up to class 2
armor.	However, you have now added a significant amount of weight to
the vehicle.  There are two possible results:

A) the heavier vehicle, with the same power pack, now is slightly
slower, represented by a reduction in movement rating.

B) upgrade the vehicle with a larger engine, improved suspension, etc..
 This takes up internal volume, i.e. capacity.

Now, for a better example of how the armor-movement-capacity triangle
can work, I can make up the bare bones of a new system off the top of
my head.

Premise 1: Vehicle pays capacity for movement type
Premise 2: Vehicle pays capacity for power pack (and thus move rate)
Premise 3: Armor value is selected, paid for indirectly through power
pack
Assumption 1: Size 1 vehicle has 20 capacity

I design a size 1 vehicle.

I need to select movement type.  The capacity pays for the wheels and
suspension, or tracks, or skirts, or grav, etc..  For the sake of the
example say HiMob wheeled costs 2 cap., tracked 3, grav 4, and hover 5
(arbitrary for now, somehow change values for larger size classes).  I
select HMW for 2 cap.

I need to select armor.  I decide that I am making a light armored car,
so I give it armor 1 on all 6 sides.

I now pay for the power pack. For the powerpack that I am using, it
costs 1 cap. per 2 movement for wheeled or tracked, 1 cap per 3
movement for hover, and 1 cap per 4 movement for grav (again, arbitrary
for now, and maybe some relation to vehicle size).  This is increased
at a rate of 1 cap. per 6 points of armor (arbitrary, changes with size
class, maybe move type also).  Since I have 6 points of armor, wheeled
movement costs 1+1=2 cap per 2 movement.  I want a fast vehicle, so
movement 12, and 12 cap.

Total is 2+12=14 cap, leaving 6 for things like weapons, FCS, ECM,
troops, etc.

A FCS at the Force Tech Level Quality would be 2 cap, while one at
(FTL-1) Quality might be 1.5 or 1 cap., and one at (FTL+1) Quality
might be 3 cap.  This leaves enough room for a single class 1 turreted
weapon, the free APSW, and maybe something else.  If I want to carry
troops, CBR, or comm gear, I probably need only minimal FCS for the
free APSW, or none at all (manual, pintle mount).

So formula is:
Mobility Type cost + Powerpack = Movement cost
and
Powerpack = Move x (Mobility Factor + ((Armor Factor Ratio) x Armor))
thus
MT + (M x (MF+((AFR) x A))) = Movement cost

J