Posted by: Iranon
« on: January 24, 2016, 03:56:18 PM »It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it!
Say you consider replacing a design with one that fills the same role but is twice as big.
If it's twice as capable and you'd build half as many, armour becomes more efficient - you save weight, or you gain thickness.
If it isn't any more capable and you'd build the same number (commercial engines, many but low-tech weapons etc), armour becomes less efficient - you need more of it, or you lose thickness.
For capital ships, one gigantic battlestar makes better use of a given amount of armour armour than 1 beam battleship and 1 heavily armoured carrier of similar combined capability.
However, one beam battleship and one unarmoured carrier make even better use of the same armour tonnage, if you can get away with it.
Say you consider replacing a design with one that fills the same role but is twice as big.
If it's twice as capable and you'd build half as many, armour becomes more efficient - you save weight, or you gain thickness.
If it isn't any more capable and you'd build the same number (commercial engines, many but low-tech weapons etc), armour becomes less efficient - you need more of it, or you lose thickness.
For capital ships, one gigantic battlestar makes better use of a given amount of armour armour than 1 beam battleship and 1 heavily armoured carrier of similar combined capability.
However, one beam battleship and one unarmoured carrier make even better use of the same armour tonnage, if you can get away with it.