Resuming work on this. The article is currently being worked from Eistheid's work in progress, before rollback.
Part of the effort is giving Eistheid the benefit of the doubt since he's earned that with his past contributions to this, and heeding, though in hindsight, something
@CadetNewb tried to impress to us the last time this was in discussion.
The original version had a solid foundation and balance focused on PC and GM interaction with it. There are problems with the expansion done to the system, and that featurebloat needs to be balanced and fixed in the interest to maintaining a good foundation. It takes more than throwing vegetables in boiling water to make a good stew.
Well, we're going to try and fix that.
My objectives, basically my current ambition for this DR system are:
a) Though the classes were numbered, I was hoping that the weapons, in their articles (and even ICly) might be refered by their labels. "The LASR is mainly a light anti-armor weapon, though it's actually much more effective on soft-targets". I liked that we had the Light, Medium, Heavy Anti-something going on. Adding the "Very" for extremities on a 5-slot range per category for each of the new outliers is the current fix I intend to implement for that. More wordy than I'd like, but it doesn't look like it can be helped.
I was hoping people would eventually come to refer the weapons by their classification names and then figure out any differences in regard to the target's defense easily in their heads rather than go for the colder "Class4 vs Class6; less damage than a potential killshot".
b) One thing I was kind of proud the WIP DR system did was that it made infantry more relevant on the battlefield next to power armors. In my eyes, that was a huge boon, which made feedback like "you're throwing infantry under the bus" didn't resonate with me at all. How many instances of bullets killing people do we need anyways?
But the fact is that someone with a gun could do something to a Mindy, rather than just assuming the Mindy is invincible. and scenes like a whole police force with rifles tearing chunks out of Robocop's armor would've been a possibility.
By widening the sample size of each category, there was much more chances that the outliers would encounter ineffectuality. The lethality table could be expanded, but it still didn't feel like much of a compensation. If not compensated for, it'd make the people wanting more attention on infantry weapons actually shoot themselves in the foot.
Here is the changelog of what was done with this thus far:
- Considering the LASR is no longer an Heavy Anti-Personnel weapon, the example that it was a high rate of fire weapon that did lower than expected damage was removed since it did not seem relevant anymore.
- fixed tables so that content would align to the left, rather than be centered (it was all over the place before so I standardized). Except Comparative descriptions - more work will come for that later.
- Fixed a link name, the name refered to a Lorath craft, while the link was directed to the weapon, and it was a weapon example.
- Changed most textual references to class to match that of the table (the Plumeria's main gun is not Class 11, but Class 17). Running assumption is that 5-sample categories are "Very Light, Light, Medium, Heavy, Very Heavy"
Present concerns:
The examples currently listed for weaponry feel a little arcane. The jargon and racial names involved doesn't strike me as newbie friendly, and there are kind of a lot. For example, I'm
wondering if the entries in Class 1 for the two listed weapon shouldn't read as "concealable laser pistol", "light pistol" which each leading to the appropriate wiki article as an example for the weapon. It's likely to be more evocative than "Little Killer" and "Liberator".
I'm thinking that the weapon examples ought to be reduced to 3 maximum. Preferably, different types of weaponry should be showcased. For example, it doesn't feel like there's much point in putting two nepleslian slugthrowers to me when I could stick to the most common/recent slugthrower of the two and throw in a Lorath energy weapon.
There are some items slipping in out of their categories. The Demon in Class5, the Outrider Armored Car in Class8... these feel more like exceptions than examples. I kind of picture the Outrider's entry specifying that as a vehicle, it has a much thinner veneer of armor than usual vehicles for X reasons. As for the M1 Demon, it's something that I'd prop up to replace the no-longer-in-use Harpy armor in Class 6. The Golem Assault armor is in two places at once too. Seems more apt to let the power suits rule the top of the anti-personnel category.
So, some straightening out for examples is still necessary. Some standard needs to be built in that regard for consistency, at the very least. The more you raise the detail level, the more homework required for it to be a good foundation.
A lot of the initial comparative examples for the personnel weapons feel like they ought to have been handled in the explanation of lethality instead. A very light anti-personnel weapon is already going to kill someone hit in the right place, but there seems to be a want for visceral examples of what to expect. It's not a bad idea to give it to them, but putting that one in the class list muddies the waters, I think.
As for the lethality table, we went from 15 to 21 classes, which is 140% of what we started with. The lethality table is a 4-step difference, 150% of that would be a 6-step difference. I'm not sure 4 steps were absolutely necessary, so we could perhaps go on a range, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6
Perhaps it'd be the better place for comparative examples? We have two unit types that we could use for example: the M6 Daisy and the Plumeria - both have ample space above and below them, and they're very identifiable.
For the
Daisy, it could go from:
5-6 lower | Light Damage | Nicks and scrapes over armor surface
3-4 lower | Moderate Damage | Pockmarks and gouges on armor surface
1-2 lower | Heavy Damage | Armor surface twisted, torn or cratered nearly through
Equal | Lethal | Possibly fatal on precise penetration of chest/helmet
1-2 higher | Quite Lethal | Broader region such as face and chest affected can be fatal
3-4 higher | Very Lethal | Limbloss/beheaded, nonsurvivable damage to torso
5-6 higher | Assuredly Lethal | If hit centermass, destruction of the entire suit
I presently count Light damage as 12.5% of what should have been a killshot, medium as 25% and heavy damage as 50% of a killshot.
For the
Plumeria
5-6 lower | Light Damage | Nicks and scrapes over armor surface
3-4 lower | Moderate Damage | Pockmarks and gouges on armor surface
1-2 lower | Heavy Damage | Armor surface twisted, torn or cratered nearly through
Equal | Lethal | Hull breach, possible loss of function on vital system may cripple the ship
1-2 higher | Quite Lethal | Compartment-wide damage, wide sections open to space
3-4 higher | Very Lethal | Loss of major structural component such as main gun and pylons
5-6 higher | Assuredly Lethal | If hit centermass, destruction of the entire ship
(this could be awkward: the ship listing hasn't been changed like the ones lower have, which makes them a lot more brittle and difference in weapon classes less significant because they are being taken two-by-two)
And to draw from DocTomoe's work to make it clear for
unprotected people:
Equal | Lethal | partial penetration, major burns, wounding, possible fatal wounds.
1-2 higher | Quite Lethal | reliable complete penetration, gaping wounds.
3-4 higher | Very Lethal | Severing limbs, eviscerating torsos, massive traumatic injuries.
5-6 higher | Assuredly Lethal | Incineration via energy weapon, explosive separation of body parts via projectile trauma
Another point of alarm for me is regarding the listed materials in DocTomoe's examples. I find them inconsistent, for one, based on where they've been positions, and feel they need more looking into for consistency. I did not a trend, though:
From what I'm observing, there's three kind of armor being referenced through the table:
Durandium, which is implied as light, and penetration through it appears ludicrously easy despite it being armor. It's like there's no room for a bigger power armor to carry durandium plating - it's unfeasible to have a Devastator with 30 cm of durandium plating. Durandium is certainly light, but it's not that bad. It should be good enough to serve as ship hull armor - there are those out there - and a durandium window ought to be able to take -some- effort to be breached through by a power armor.
Nerimium, is the heavy armor. Nerimium seems the favored value for decently armored power armor with a noticeable sweet spot on the heavy side of the power armor category. Nerimium is essentially an awkward bias toward Nepleslian equipment. The previous DR sysrtem espoused more faction neutrality there.
Then, there's the exotic
Zesuaium, which shows up early on the Vehicle category at the kind of thickness that'd go well on power armor.
That's three tiers of material, but there isn't just those. The distinction essentially for a "light, dense, super-dense" types of armor. Saying with material types fits as what, and then using the type for reference might make it a more faction neutral reference.
You already know my preferences already for materials and that as long as they were used as armor that they'd be all equal in efficacity aside from evocative qualities... so, no need to harp on about it. At the very least, durandium needs to become a more relevant type of armor from power armor to ship level. Not allowing for that would be an oversight to the level of a retcon, considering there are durandium armored vessels that can take some beating in the setting.
It's my determination that the use of lighter materials need to be protected so that it remains relevant across the board.
To that end, I referred to the previous DR system for reference (people were fine with that, so, it seems a good basis to draw inspiration from). As for material thickness, the previous DR system altered Structural Point values by a multiplier which was:
Light armor x0.6
Medium armor x0.8
Heavy armor x1.0
We could base ourselves off that, as in:
for every 10mm of durandium, 8mm of nerimium/yama-dura, or 6mm of zesuaium/yamataium would do about the same job.
We could shorten the comparative description to stick mostly to penetration values, note it in durandium as a standard, and then make a short table of materials perhaps listed as light, dense, super-dense similarily to here:
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=guide:damage_rating#armor_modifiers
(I think going by density might be better, because the language for light, medium, heavy is already taken elsewhere)
The gap is much less wide, but the material quality that DocTomoe seemed fond of is still maintained to a degree too. If a Star Army ship runs low on resources and need to rearmor their broken Daisy power armor with cheaper durandium, they're going to need to have it 25% thicker to achieve an equivalent result. If not, well, the GM could rule on the fly that the armor is less effective than the norm for the Daisy.
. . .
So, at the moment, the changes planned to the article are as alluded to above.
Right now, I'm researching both real life examples and in-SARP examples of how thick the outer cover of planes, tanks, submarines, cargo boat/tankers actually are so we can build a credible basis for armor thickness, and then cross-reference with the expected penetration efficacity of weapons. If you have examples and references to offer and want to submit them here, that would help.
It's important to note - I'm not sure all of you realized it - that this system focuses on killshots per use rather than "Damage per time interval". I'm going to make an evocative example for you:
An Hostile and its primary weapon, the HPAR, are both in the same class at the moment. It means that with a single shot to the chest or head, an Hostile
can kill another unshielded Hostile. With a single trigger squeeze aimed at the head, an HPAR will still swiftly take down another
shielded Hostile. I want to make sure you're aware of that distinction as the system currently presents it, and I would ask the people invested in Nepleslian tech if it is desirable to have, say in wargames, battles between Hostiles be so decisive. Is it really how it's GMed/adjuciated, or would this kind of shootout last longer?
If it is not, then I'd point you to the Lethality table and ask how much damage it ought to do. Per shot. And keep in mind the firing rate of the HPAR. How much abuse should an Hostile be able to take from an HPAR?
