30 replies to this topic

[Huntsman]

Recently I started a table top game based on a game system I'm in the process of developing. Before doing so, I gave some thought to making combat more realistic. In many game system in fact, armor allows the wearer to avoid damage rather than absorb it. Even in Mechwarrior games however, armor just seems to simplistically add extra hitpoints/absorb more damage.

The following is an excerpt from the beta version of my own players handbook for the game I'm creating. Obviously you'll note it's not written for the Battletech universe, but it should provide with a good idea of my thoughts on the matter.

Do you feel this is a more realistic ballistics vs armor system, and would it translate well into a mechwarrior PC game?

Armor Rating (AR): Effectiveness of a barrier or armor in providing protection from incoming fire
0....no protection
1...protects against non-magnum, non-AP rounds
2...protects against handgun rounds including .50 and .357 magnum
3...protects against all handgun rounds including .44 magnum
4...protects against semi-AP rifle rounds up to 4.6, 5.56, and 5.7 ammo
5...protects against semi-AP rifle rounds up to 6.8 and 7.62
6...protects against AP rifle rounds up to .338 Lapua Magnum
7...protects against .50 BMG
8...protects against small bore cannon fire
9...protects against medium bore cannon fire
10...protects against large bore cannon fire

Examples of Each AR:
0: drywall
1: type 2a vest
2: type 2 vest
3: type 3A vest
4: type 3 vest (ceramic plates)
5: concrete, brick wall, technical vehicle, M5 armor
6: type 4 vest (ceramic plates)
7: light armored vehicle (Hummer)
8: APC or other moderately armored vehicle
9: fighting vehicle armor (Bradley)
10: main battle tank armor (Abrams)

Ballistic Rating (BR): Effectiveness of a projectile in overcoming a barrier or armor
1: non-magnum, non-.50 handgun ammo
2: .50 and .357 hangun ammo
3: .44 magnum hangun ammo
4: 4.6, 5.7, 5.56
5: 6.8 and 7.62
6: .338 Lapua magnum
7: .50 BMG
8: 20mm cannon
9: 40 mm cannon
10: 120 mm cannon

• If the BR exceeds the AR, the projectile completely defeats the armor, and the AR is reduced by 1.
• If the BR is = to the AR, the armor withstands the attack, and only half damage is dealt to the wearer, but there is a cumulative 10% chance the armor is damaged, and the AR reduced by 1.
• If the BR is 1 point less than the AR, ¼ damage is dealt to the target with a cumulative 10% change the armor is damaged, and the AR reduced by 1
• If the BR is 2 points less than the AR, no damage is dealt to the wearer, but there is a cumulative 10% chance the AR is reduced by 1.
• If the BR is 3 points or more less than the AR, no damage is done to the armor, nor its wearer

[Haeso]

Realism side, yes it's odd that thick armor simply sloughs off rather than stops attacks, very clearly in the books you heard of certain 'Mechs with armor so thick attacks just seem to bounce off. Tank armor works on the same principle, it's designed to deflect shots rather than absorb them.

However in practice without combined arms, this leads to one thing: Mount as many of the largest weapon you can and ***** everything else. It goes a long way towards making the game one dimensional. And even assuming no customization, it just means only a handful of variants are viable.

Does an assault truly need to be invincible to the majority of light/medium 'Mechs? I would be in favor of very high amounts of armor reducing the incoming damage by a small amount, but not a binary Damage/No damage. There should never be a point where armor utterly defeats any weapon, gameplay wise it favors larger weapons too heavily, and you get silly **** like WoT where the largest of tanks are all but indestructible to anything but another equal.

[Huntsman]

Well, in my system armor will do one of 4 things:

- be completely ineffectual (trying to stop a 20mm round with a flak jacket as an extreme example)

- reduce damage with the possibility of armor damage that makes the armor less effective

- negate damage with the possibility of armor damage that makes the armor less effective

- negate damage without any chance for armor damage (firing a 9mm handgun at a main battle tank as another extreme example)

[Haeso]

I read that, but the extreme examples do nothing to say how it would actually work. All I see here from the gameplay side of things is "Make each point of armor worth more than the last" rather than a consistent line - a Curve.. I fully understand the realism aspects, what I'm saying is you need to take into account how this particular realistic system effects the game. All it would do, barring no other changes, is make heavies/assaults far tougher.

Edited by Haeso, 05 December 2011 - 09:54 AM.

[God of War]

Peopel pls: Stop those senseless Armor/Ballistic/Penetration-Discussions!

This is at least the 6th thread covering this topic and all are argumenting with realism but who cares with realism???
The Battletech univers has ist own rules wenn it comes to physic and technology so there is no point in swinging the
"Let´s be Realistic"-Mace!

[AlanEsh]

This game is going to play more like a sim than a TT game, so you probably should just embrace the "realism" side of things because it's a factor.

God of War, on 05 December 2011 - 11:21 AM, said:

Peopel pls: Stop those senseless Armor/Ballistic/Penetration-Discussions!

This is at least the 6th thread covering this topic and all are argumenting with realism but who cares with realism???
The Battletech univers has ist own rules wenn it comes to physic and technology so there is no point in swinging the
"Let´s be Realistic"-Mace!

[Xanquil]

Wouldn't work well for MWO, battletech has never been even remotely realistic. As for your own game your numbers are way off. In addition it dosn't take into acount materal+armor slope+thickness vs round speed+hardness+special(HEAP rounds) so sadly it is just another abstract system not even close to realistic.
Trust me Im a Gulf war vet. Haveing personaly watched a t72 riped apart by a mark 19 gernade lancher,and a .50cal rip thrugh a bradly killing it with 2 shots. Your ar10 can be breached by weapons much lower than what you think.(.50cal can indeed do damage to an abrams). I have seen armor melted off in slabs, and body armor stop things it "can't".

In order to go for realism you will end up boging your game down to the point of takeing an hour to do 30 seconds of in game fighting.
That and realism in combat sucks.

[Dlardrageth]

Haeso, on 05 December 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

I read that, but the extreme examples do nothing to say how it would actually work. All I see here from the gameplay side of things is "Make each point of armor worth more than the last" rather than a consistent line - a Curve.. I fully understand the realism aspects, what I'm saying is you need to take into account how this particular realistic system effects the game. All it would do, barring no other changes, is make heavies/assaults far tougher.

It would actually turn MWO into some clone of the retarded WoT mechanisms, just with Mecha. Sure recipe for profit to clone something that at least on the NA market was anything but a smashing succes...

It will be hard enough to balance out the game so light and medium Mechs will not simply become cannonfodder for the assult ones in order to be ROFLstomped. Some might actually covertly want that, all the joy of Newb-killing and what not.

I, for once, would find that utterly boring if assaults (and eventually heavies) were the only competitive classes. Sure to not bother with a game that would be so "crypto-BT" like that. Some stuff in MW4 was already borderline immersion-breaking. If we start with Mech armor absorbing ballistic weapons fire for some strange reason, why stop there? How about reflective armor that can mitigate laser fire? Or why not a time-dilation field that allows you to just sidestep the second before you get hit? Or whatever... Sounds nice and well on paper (or forum), but has nothing to do with BT, sorry.

[TheRulesLawyer]

#1 reason never to touch a penetration based model- It will make light mechs useless.

I don't want to do WoT's "Bigger always wins" mechanic over again. Realistic and not fun.

[Huntsman]

Xanquil, on 05 December 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

Wouldn't work well for MWO, battletech has never been even remotely realistic. As for your own game your numbers are way off. In addition it dosn't take into acount materal+armor slope+thickness vs round speed+hardness+special(HEAP rounds) so sadly it is just another abstract system not even close to realistic.
Trust me Im a Gulf war vet. Haveing personaly watched a t72 riped apart by a mark 19 gernade lancher,and a .50cal rip thrugh a bradly killing it with 2 shots. Your ar10 can be breached by weapons much lower than what you think.(.50cal can indeed do damage to an abrams). I have seen armor melted off in slabs, and body armor stop things it "can't".

In order to go for realism you will end up boging your game down to the point of takeing an hour to do 30 seconds of in game fighting.
That and realism in combat sucks.

Well, my goal in creating the system was to simutaneously make it more realistic than armor either adding to evasion or adding hitpoints while NOT bogging down the game. That was critical. In game testing the only slowdown is at the beginning of combat while AR and BR values of all combatants were assessed. After that the factors are known and don't slow matters down.

I didn't want to take every variable into account as that indeed would slow things down. As another poster mentioned, the bevel of armor. or maybe a round happened to not have enough powder in it, or maybe a piece of armor was defenctive. Every variable can't and shouldn't be accounted for.

Since you do have miliitary experience I genuinely appreciate your insight based on your experiences so any advice is appreciated in building my system. However as I said, I'm seeking to create rules based on the rule rather than the exception. In regards to your example of a .50 chewing off the armor of a main battle tank: by my rules the armor is of different resilience on different sides of the tank and it wouldn't be possible for a .50 to damage a tank's front armor. Against the side armor it would chew through the armor eventually, but wouldn't damage the critical components of the tank until it did. Against the rear armor a .50 could deal some degree of damage to internals from the first shot, but it would be reduced.

As I said, I realize the system isn't perfect but do you really feel that it's "way off?" Surely, so long as it doesn't bog down gameplay it's better than the aforementioned adding to evasion or adding hitpoints don't you think? Again, your advice is valued.

As far as Mechwarrior, light mechs are naturally inferior in combat. They should be. A good light pilot can beat a bad assault, but the role of lights is recon. They bear their teeth only in either a support role to larger allies, or if their backs are against a wall.

Also, light mechs use the same weapons as their heavier units, just less of them so they shouldn't experience less armor penetration. In fact, this could create variables in the game where there's the same basic kind of armor but perhaps different quailities exist of that type...maybe one plating from a certain company is better than another. Some light armor might be a better quality than an assault's armor even though the assault armor is thicker depending on how its constructed. Since the math is done behind the scenes in a PC game, there's no need for simplicity. It isn't going to bog the game down. More depth just adds to the richness of the game.

Edited by Huntsman, 05 December 2011 - 03:53 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Haeso, on 05 December 2011 - 09:40 AM, said:

Realism side, yes it's odd that thick armor simply sloughs off rather than stops attacks, very clearly in the books you heard of certain 'Mechs with armor so thick attacks just seem to bounce off. Tank armor works on the same principle, it's designed to deflect shots rather than absorb them.

Depends on which tanks one is talking about.

From the Sarna article on BattleMech Armor:

Quote

Introduced in 2470 by the Terran Hegemony. In the BattleTech universe, armor is ablative in nature. This means that it is generally destroyed or blown off when hit, but in the process of doing so, it absorbs enormous energies, protecting the unit it is mounted on. While powerful blows will still rock a vehicle, there will be little, if any, internal damage as long as armor plating still remains. Armor-piercing rounds do exist for certain weapons, but they require a higher technology level and cost more. As a result, destroying a 'Mech requires either immense firepower, concentrated fire on a vulnerable location, or a lucky hit.

Standard BattleMech armor is composed of several layers providing various degrees of protection and support. The first layer is extremely strong steel, the result of crystal alignment and radiation treatment, which is also very brittle. The second layer is a ceramic, cubic boron nitride, which combined with a web of artificial diamond fibers acts as a backstop to the steel layer. These two layers rest atop a titanium alloy honeycomb structure which provides support, and a layer of self-sealing polymer sealant which allows for space and underwater operations.

In other words, 'Mech armor seems to be intended to function in much the same way as Chobham armor (developed in the UK in the 1960s):

Quote

Although the construction details of the Chobham Common armour remain a secret, it has been described as being composed of ceramic tiles encased within a metal matrix and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers. Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators.

-----

Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against a shaped charge jet and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators (KE-penetrators). The (pulverised) ceramic also strongly abrades any penetrator. Against lighter projectiles the hardness of the tiles causes a "shatter gap" effect: a higher velocity will, within a certain velocity range (the "gap"), not lead to a deeper penetration but destroy the projectile itself instead. Because the ceramic is so brittle the entrance channel of a shaped charge jet is not smooth — as it would be when penetrating a metal — but ragged, causing extreme asymmetric pressures which disturb the geometry of the jet, on which its penetrative capabilities are critically dependent as its mass is relatively low. This initiates a vicious circle as the disturbed jet causes still greater irregularities in the ceramic, until in the end it is defeated. The newer composites, though tougher, optimise this effect as tiles made with them have a layered internal structure conducive to it, causing "crack deflection". This mechanism using the jet's own energy against it, has caused some to compare the effects of Chobham to those of reactive armour. This should not be confused with the effect used in many laminate armours of any kind: that of sandwiching an inert but soft elastic material such as rubber, between two of the armour plates. The impact of either a shaped charge jet or long-rod penetrator after the first layer has been perforated and while the rubber layer is being penetrated will cause the rubber to deform and expand, so deforming both the back and front plates. Both attack methods will suffer from obstruction to their expected paths, so experiencing a greater thickness of armour than there is nominally, thus lowering penetration. Also for rod penetrations, the transverse force experienced due to the deformation may cause the rod to shatter, bend, or just change its path, again lowering penetration.

-----

Ceramic tiles draw little or no advantage from sloped armour as they lack sufficient toughness to significantly deflect heavy penetrators. Indeed, because a single glancing shot could crack many tiles, the placement of the matrix is chosen so as to optimise the chance of a perpendicular hit, a reversal of the previous desired design feature for conventional armour. Ceramic armour normally even offers better protection for a given areal density when placed perpendicularly than when placed obliquely, because the cracking propagates along the surface normal of the plate.

Personally, I've taken an individual "armor point" to represent one layer of BattleMech armor (which, as described above, is in turn made up of individual layers), where multiple APs on a single location represents a layering of plates atop one another (more APs in a given location = more layers in that location), somewhat like scale armor - a notion backed up by the description in the Classic BattleTech Companion (pg. 244):

Quote

Armor plating is individually mounted to extension plates that protrude from the internal structure. This type of mounting has many of the armor plates overlapping to prevent access to the internal structure.

And, furthermore, that the damage value for any given weapon represents how many individual layers it can get through in a single salvo.
That is, a standard IS AC-10 (10 damage per salvo) can chew its way through 10 layers of armor plating - a loss that's more substantial for a 20-ton 'Mech (maximum total of 69 APs spread across the 'Mech's body) than for a 100-ton 'Mech (maximum total of 307 APs spread across the 'Mech's body).

Your thoughts?

[Dlardrageth]

The whole issue with implementation in MWO is if there will be speed-/size-based to-hit modifiers or not. In the TT game there are. If in MWO there won't, armor-penetrating ballistic weapons will make playing lighter Mechs mostly unattractive. Thus severely unbalancing the game in total. Unless any mechanism suggested for changes to ballistic weapons & armor can convincingly address this issue, it is more or less useless. As is prolly the basic TT mechanism, as MWO won't be round-based and thus to-hit modifiers not easily be implemented.

I reckon rather few people would like MWO to devolve into "Assault Mechs Online".

[Psydotek]

Implement the blazer armor and glazed armor and i'll be happy.

[pilot]

This is a s

Angelicon, on 05 December 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

This game is going to play more like a sim than a TT game, so you probably should just embrace the "realism" side of things because it's a factor.

This is a sim of a fantasy world. They could say whatever and call it realistic. Maybe munitions stopped using traditional armor piercing and explosive rounds, and they developed some magical non-bouncing round that works to peel armor!

[CobraFive]

The old ways are best in this regard. After all what are we talking about here? That AC/2 and AC/5 won't hurt an atlas at all?

Lasers ablate armor regardless of its thickness and doesn't penetrate it, and so this sort of system wouldn't be applicable to them- they'd work exactly like they already do. Particle cannons are... similar, causing the material they come in contact with to excite and explode, although they also penetrate the surface unlike a laser. And missiles... well, there is only SRM and LRM at this time frame. Are they strong enough to punch through an Atlas or not? Realistically they are not, seeing as they only do 1 or 2 damage per missile and are very small compared to the mech (We are not talking about Anti-Tank Missiles here, they are more like stingers... even with a shaped charge it is unlikely to penetrate and would be even less likely to leave any sort of armor damage)

So what we are saying is that Atlases (etc) are immune to long-range ACs and missiles (or 'resistant' to them which on top of their already formidable amount of armor is essentially equivalent to immune). I don't think that sounds good for gameplay at all.

Assault Mechs are strong enough. We need to be moving away from systems like this to advance the state of the game, and be thinking of ways to close the weight-class gap.

[Xhaleon]

The entire system was balanced on purely ablative armor, with penetration only coming into play with sub-battle-grade armor and very special ammo. Using a non-ablative system throws out a lot of the established roles for each individual weapon type.

[Rhinehart]

Strum Wealh, on 05 December 2011 - 04:22 PM, said:

Depends on which tanks one is talking about.

From the Sarna article on BattleMech Armor:


In other words, 'Mech armor seems to be intended to function in much the same way as Chobham armor (developed in the UK in the 1960s):



Personally, I've taken an individual "armor point" to represent one layer of BattleMech armor (which, as described above, is in turn made up of individual layers), where multiple APs on a single location represents a layering of plates atop one another (more APs in a given location = more layers in that location), somewhat like scale armor - a notion backed up by the description in the Classic BattleTech Companion (pg. 244):

And, furthermore, that the damage value for any given weapon represents how many individual layers it can get through in a single salvo.
That is, a standard IS AC-10 (10 damage per salvo) can chew its way through 10 layers of armor plating - a loss that's more substantial for a 20-ton 'Mech (maximum total of 69 APs spread across the 'Mech's body) than for a 100-ton 'Mech (maximum total of 307 APs spread across the 'Mech's body).

Your thoughts?

Thanks Wealh very much for your detailed and canonical analysis of how Battletech armor works and fits in with the weapon damage scaling. I don't see a need for any "Realistic" changes. When you start talking about crystal aligned and irradiated Steel and a Cubic Boron Nitride backstop reinforced with Diamond filaments I think we are far enough away from reality to ignore it.

[Xanquil]

The thinking behind the "hit points(HP)" method is 2 fold;
1= Playbalance: it alows all levels of mechs to be easily balanced.
2:=Playability: it alows players to easily see how bad off thay are at a glance.

your system acualy uses a more complacated form of HP system called a if/than system. Each AR is 1 HP but it dosn't get unless it is hit hard enough. (ie If i use a BV 5 vs a AR 6 than it is only a 10% chance of reduceing it) Where Battle tech went with the "keep it simple stupid(KISS)" each weapon will penatrate X amount of armor per hit.(ie ac2 will penatrate 2 points of armor)

I've playtested many different game systems,(ret. marine=too much free time) The amount of complexity always comes down to a personal choice.
Some of my faveorites are;
Renagade leigon: Each weapon had it's own damage template and armor was rated in layers of squares. quick and farely realistic.
Mekton Z: Weapons are rated in how many kills(K) it can do and armor was rated in stoping power (SP) similar to what you are doing.
Battletech: Armor and structure kept track with dots on a charactor sheet made for quick and easy play.
Mechwarrior(TT): Various AV vs different types of attacks made things a bit more complex but wasn't that bad of a system.
Carwars: Ablative plastic armor or heavy metal armor that had to be penatrated inorder to do any damage.

My best sujestion for your system is to find a copy of a book called 3G3 (ie guns guns guns 3ed edition) it did exactly what you are trying to do. It uses real world mathmatics to relay as close to realistic as posible weapons and armor for just about any game.

I have converted BT into mektonZ, and Carwars with some sucess but the game just felt wrong. BT armor works for BT trying to change it just ends up changeing the feal of the game.

[SaintofVirtue]

For what it is worth here's my two cents. Keep in mind that I don't know nearly as much as you guys on this subject.

Armor should have hit point values that are depleted to represent various chunks getting blown off.
However I wouldn't mind a damage modifier (Which I do believe is somewhat in place), or a piercing value which if exceeded inflicts some direct damage on the "hull" making it possible to ruin a part without actually punching through the armor.

As an example. A Madcat has equipped fairly decent anti-ballistic armor. When fired at by light weapons like machine guns. The damage taken is reduced due to a type advantage by the armor. If enough shots are poured into it though the armor will eventually break allowing the part to be damaged/destroyed.
Now suppose the same Madcat is hit by a Heavy Gauss cannon. The armor will absorb some of the hit but not all of it. In fact the shot is so powerful that it still maintains enough power and penetration to deal "direct" damage to the inner workings of the part hit. It won't flat out destroy it but several shots with high armor piercing abilities may eventually wreck the part and leave part of the armor intact. Obviously this is an extreme case. In all likelihood the armor will give before the hull but penetrating hits might cause some damage to the inner workings and maybe damage something that would require in game repairs.

I think it would add another dimension to the game, choosing your armor and what it blocks. Also an option would be no armor for the smaller mechs, this would play into their fast abilities. Make us use the weight allowance carefully with heavier armor types, with the trade off of less firepower or speed.

This would allow smaller mechs to eventually wear down the larger ones, since the large ones with lots of armor can't hit the small targets due to speed, Because of this it would almost force medium mechs to be brought to counter the fast light mechs. It would make each size viable in certain circumstances and against other types. A bit like this little chart with the less than inferring that the greater type can destroy (Eventually in the light vs assault) the other. Light<Medium<Heavy<Assault< light mechs

Obviously there will be some wiggle room due to weapon load outs and other factors. A fast medium for example might be quick enough to outdo an assault. Or an assault might be able to wing the light mech. But this set up would make the different sizes viable and encourage good clan organization and deployment.

Anyways... My two cents.

[KingCobra]

In reality if you have played the PC mechwarrior versions the balance between weapons VS armor and let us count all weapons & electronics a few lights and a medium can kill a assault granted the lighter mechs will take heavy dammage but it cannot win in a 3v1 senerio.If there is a problem with the armor in tt or the PC games it was the fact the arms and legs were to lightly armored compared to the firepower and Hitpoints.So you need to rethink your calculations based on past Mechwarrior game products TT,Mechcommander,PCmechwarrior series.
MercinariesPR1 or stock retail mercs patched to PR1 was the closest to a complete balance of all these games i have ever played.So come online play a few games then recheck you thoughts on armor & balance for MWO.