Author Topic: New Armour System  (Read 2926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20470 times
New Armour System
« on: March 21, 2008, 07:16:38 AM »
I haven't been completely happy with the armour system for a while. The problem is that in the early and middle tech levels, increasing the amount of armour is expensive and with the power of many weapons it doesn't make that much difference. One of the best armour damage systems I have seen in a game was in FASA's Renegade Legion series, which used a grid of boxes for each of six armour facings. Damage from different weapons was in different shapes, so a Laser drilled a single column of damage straight into the armour, a Neutron Particle Cannon did more damage but in a triangle shape, while an Electron Particle Cannon did wide, flat damage. This created situations where a ship might take damage early in a battle but then survive several crunching hits that hit undamaged armour, or a powerful ship might have a weak spot due to several concentrated hits in the same location.

Yesterday, adding something along these lines to Aurora was just an idea I had been considering for a while but I looked at the possibility of coding it and it proved relatively easy to implement. The changes to the game are as follows:

Armour Levels are now multiplied by four, compared to the existing game, while using the same amount of armour. So the Tribal class destroyer below is exactly the same as it was before, in terms of components, costs, etc., except the armour level is four instead of one.

Code: [Select]
Tribal class Missile Destroyer    5950 tons     380 Crew     706.8 BP      TCS 119  TH 360  EM 420
3025 km/s     Armour 4-29     Shields 14-300     Sensors 10/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 27
Magazine 180    Replacement Parts 5    

Nuclear Pulse Engine E7 (9)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.70    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 120,000 Litres    Range 51.9 billion km   (198 days at full power)
Beta R300/10.5 Shields (9)   Total Fuel Cost  95 Litres per day

Mk 2 VLS Single Cell Launcher (60)    Missile Size 3    Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes    MF Reload 3.7 hours
SPG-1 Missile Fire Control (2)     Range 21.6m km    Resolution 20
Katana Anti-Ship Missile (57)  Speed: 16700 km/s   End: 21.4 minutes    Range: 21.5m km   Warhead: 5    MR: 15    Size: 3
Recon Drone (3)  Speed: 3300 km/s   End: 321.4 minutes    Range: 63.6m km   Warhead: 0    MR: 10    Size: 3

SPS-375/75 Active Sensor (1)     GPS 3750     Range 37.5m km    Resolution 75
SPS-32/16 Active Sensor (1)     GPS 320     Range 3.2m km    Resolution 16
SQS-2 Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 10     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  10m km

It also gains a new concept, which is the "width" of the armour. Unlike Renegade Legion, there are no facings in Aurora so the armour is one solid block. The width of the block is equal to the total armour strength required divided by the level of the armour. Because of its size and armour level, the Tribal needs armour equal to strength 117 (which is 14.6 tons of composite armour). Therefore it has an armour width of 117/4 = 29.25 (rounded to 29). This creates an armour block for the Tribal class as shown below. This screenshot is taken from a new tab on the Ship window.



Shown below is the state of the armour after receiving a hit from a nine point missile warhead



As multiple hits come in, they will hit already damaged sections of armour. In this case, a second 9-point missile hit lands 3 columns to the right, leaving the armour looking as it does below. The point of damage from the first column affected by the second hit is in the same armour column as the fourth column of the original hit, increasing damage in that column from 2 to 3, the second column of the second hit (2 points) was in the same location as the fifth column of the first hit (1 point) so that column also has 3 points of damage. The third column of the second hit (3 points) lands in an undamaged column, doing three points of damage, etc.



A third hit lands in the already damaged section of armour and four points of damage penetrate. From this point on, internal damage is treated just as before.



Here is the armour of a Tribal that has suffered five hits from strength-10 warheads



Any armour level from 1 upwards can be selected, which gives far more granularity than before in terms of armour protection. An v2.6 armour level 3 ship is equivalent to an v2.5 armour level 0.75 ship in terms of tons of armour required. A ship could have 6 levels of armour in v2.6, which is equal to armour level 1.5 in the existing game. Freighters, colony ships, etc will come down in size a little because they can have level 1 armour, which is 1/4 that in v2.5 and half the "thin-skinned" concept I implemeted for v2.6.

Different weapons will also have different damage "shapes", such as lasers having less width and more penetration, and I will be creating these over the next few days. It also gives scope for new weapons that are distinguished by their damage shape. If a weapon with a wider shape than the total armour width hits a ship, the extra columns of damage wrap around and damage sections already damaged by the same hit.

This is going to make ships considerably harder to destroy, which also reduces the power of the new missiles in comparison to beam weapons because the beam weapons will eventually get through the armour while the missile weapons are limited by their numbers. It also opens up some additional tactical options as fighter weapons will now eventually penetrate ship armour

Although this is a major change, I am not going to restart my current campaign because I can set the armour levels for each class to match the existing armour tonnages.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2008, 09:15:35 AM »
You mentioned previously that you might change mesons because of their ability to penetrate armor.  I would actually leave it alone as they still only do one point of damage.  I don't know if you have played around with meson's mutch, but that one point cap on damage can actually be significant when hitting larger systems.  If the system is not automatically destroyed then the meson's become less effective.

I tried this out using as a target a 400 HS ship.  The first design had a lot of smaller, individual systems, especially the power plants and weapons.  The second design had one really big powerplant that had a htk of 4 or 5.  All of the weapons were in turrets and had larger htk as well.  The result was that the second design took almost three times the damage to put out of action.

With your new armor scheme mesons will do some damage, but as a ship gets hammered the damage done by weapons penetrating armor will catch up fairly quickly.

I also like this change because it extends the range in which weapons are a threat.  Previously the ranges where the damage was only one resulted in an area that a ship could survive in indeffinatly while being hit.  One other advantage is that it now becomes impossible to armor a ship up enough to ignore lighter missles, and torpedo's.

Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Brian »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20470 times
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2008, 10:47:50 AM »
Quote from: "Brian"
You mentioned previously that you might change mesons because of their ability to penetrate armor.  I would actually leave it alone as they still only do one point of damage.  I don't know if you have played around with meson's mutch, but that one point cap on damage can actually be significant when hitting larger systems.  If the system is not automatically destroyed then the meson's become less effective.

It sounds as if you have used mesons more than I have so I will take your advice and leave them alone for the moment.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2008, 05:12:33 PM »
I like this a lot.  It neatly addresses the issue of invulnerable ships because of armor that is just heavier than the incoming fire.  I've exploited that trait even though I didn't like it.  

I presume that it will require shipyard time to repair damaged armor.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Charlie Beeler »
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2008, 06:43:22 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Brian"
You mentioned previously that you might change mesons because of their ability to penetrate armor.  I would actually leave it alone as they still only do one point of damage.  I don't know if you have played around with meson's mutch, but that one point cap on damage can actually be significant when hitting larger systems.  If the system is not automatically destroyed then the meson's become less effective.
It sounds as if you have used mesons more than I have so I will take your advice and leave them alone for the moment.

Steve


They are actually my prefered point defence weapon, with the added bonus that even significantly higher tech/larger ships have to be carefull about coming into close range of them.  In addition because of how the old armor rules worked their effective range was no all that lower against ships than the comparable lasers would be (1 point damage by a laser that does 3 or 4 points effectivly negated by armor also reduced their effective range significantly.)

Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Brian »
 

Offline Arwyn

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2008, 08:29:48 PM »
Thats a very interesting idea, and one I like. (BTW, I loved Renegade Legion, and Centurion, and Leviathan, some of the best space games from the 80's IMO)

It also means that ship damage and combat is going to be a bit more random, and less grinding. A couple of solid missile hits can really do internal damage, or they may just slowly scour the hull down. I like the idea, and even better if its simple to code!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Arwyn »
 

Offline Þórgrímr

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 863
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • The World of the Gunny
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2008, 08:13:38 AM »
I love this idea! Leviathan was my second favorite space game just behind SFB. I always did like their usage of armor.

Are you going to use the concept of different types of damage patterns and the possible 'widowing' of armor?



Cheers, ??rgr?mr
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Þórgrímr »
Sic vis pacem, para bellum
If you want peace, prepare for war
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2008, 09:33:07 AM »
The new armor was intially discussed in things thread:
http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?t=1071

I think Steve is looking at not using widowed armor. But...I agree it was one of the things I liked about the concept.  The variance of application of damage by the different weapon systems is the other.  It has a more realistic feel.

Down the road I can see some of the armor technologies not neccessarily adding more protection per ton, but possibly being more reistant to specific types of weapons damage.  And by extention more vulnerable to others as well.  Not something for a first rollout of new rules though.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Charlie Beeler »
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Þórgrímr

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 863
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • The World of the Gunny
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2008, 02:40:50 PM »
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The new armor was intially discussed in things thread:
http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?t=1071

I think Steve is looking at not using widowed armor. But...I agree it was one of the things I liked about the concept.  The variance of application of damage by the different weapon systems is the other.  It has a more realistic feel.

Down the road I can see some of the armor technologies not neccessarily adding more protection per ton, but possibly being more reistant to specific types of weapons damage.  And by extention more vulnerable to others as well.  Not something for a first rollout of new rules though.


Charlie, thanks for the link.  :D



Cheers, ??rgr?mr
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Þórgrímr »
Sic vis pacem, para bellum
If you want peace, prepare for war
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2008, 06:43:30 AM »
How about some chance that when turrected weapons are fired that they hit close together.  I was thinking a 25% chance that they hit within 3 spaces of each other.  It would simulate the nature of a turret where the weapons are close together and presumbably firing simultaneously.

It would also give a reason for someone to decide to put large lasers in turrets.  Currently I find that turrets just get to big to put my heavy lasers in a turret.

Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Brian »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20470 times
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2008, 11:21:51 AM »
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
I like this a lot.  It neatly addresses the issue of invulnerable ships because of armor that is just heavier than the incoming fire.  I've exploited that trait even though I didn't like it.  

I presume that it will require shipyard time to repair damaged armor.

Yes, armour will now be damaged and repaired like other systems.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20470 times
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2008, 11:22:55 AM »
Quote from: "??rgr?mr"
I love this idea! Leviathan was my second favorite space game just behind SFB. I always did like their usage of armor.

Are you going to use the concept of different types of damage patterns and the possible 'widowing' of armor?

There will be different damage templates for different weapons but there won't be widowed armour.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20470 times
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2008, 11:27:12 AM »
Quote from: "Brian"
How about some chance that when turrected weapons are fired that they hit close together.  I was thinking a 25% chance that they hit within 3 spaces of each other.  It would simulate the nature of a turret where the weapons are close together and presumbably firing simultaneously.

It would also give a reason for someone to decide to put large lasers in turrets.  Currently I find that turrets just get to big to put my heavy lasers in a turret.

Interesting idea, although it would actually be quite difficult to do given the current mechanics because turrets are treated just as a multiple-shot weapon, such as railguns, when in reality one uses concurrent shots and the other uses consecutive shots. I probably won't do this for the next version because I want to concentrate on just getting the new armour mechanics working but its defintely something to consider for the future.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline kdstubbs

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • k
  • Posts: 81
new Armor
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2008, 01:18:05 PM »
Gentlemen,
     The comment on lasers getting too large for turrets sparked an idea.  In reality--which this isn't--battleship navies put up to 18 inch guns into double and triple turrets.  That would have interesting concepts for naval warfare in aurora, I would hate to see what a 650 mm (21inch) laser turret would do to smaller ships let alone modern SDs.  Especially if they were using some type of Magnetic beam steering systems for the lasers.--which would get rid of the slew rate problem for really large beam weapons.  However, the idea of main gun turrets, ala HMS Dreadnought or the USS North Carolina (The first real all big gun ships wer laid by the US and Japan, but Great Britain launched her Dreadnought first, thus giving her name to the class)  (Note, just moved can't find my History of Seapower to confirm that it was the USS North Carolina that started the US Dreadnought type).  Point is Big Gun turrets with some type of fast techno-babble steering system would not face the need for mechanical slewing of the turret to track the target.  It could make for some interesting ship design concepts.

Steve, I like the Armor concept--leads to the natural development of amorphous armor that automatically repairs armor damage--but reduces total armor thickness over time.  Would not be instantaneous repair, but would allow the ship to rotate on its axis to take the damaged armor out of the line of fire while it tried to repair itself--probably a high tech level system.


Kevin
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by kdstubbs »
Kevin Stubbs
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20470 times
Re: new Armor
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2008, 03:13:59 PM »
Quote from: "kdstubbs"
Steve, I like the Armor concept--leads to the natural development of amorphous armor that automatically repairs armor damage--but reduces total armor thickness over time.  Would not be instantaneous repair, but would allow the ship to rotate on its axis to take the damaged armor out of the line of fire while it tried to repair itself--probably a high tech level system.

Self-repairing armour sounds like an interesting idea. Maybe a basis for bio-technology ships.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Steve Walmsley »