Infantry armor VS PA VS Vehicle VS Robot armor and damage...

[slade2501]

So I've been reading the re balance thread, and had some thoughts on WHY armor on a robot or PA might have better resistance to damage than infantry armor. And im not talking MDC.

In Rifts, armor is Ablative, meaning that it is slowly shipped away by incremental damage. In real life during WWII, armor had a damage threshold, meaning that the armor would either resist damage without harm, or would fail and be penetrated (with varying results). An example of this is the Sherman vs The King Tiger tank. The low velocity gun on the Sherman would BOUNCE off the heavy german armor without a mark. The German shell would pop through one side armor of a Sherman, and right out the other side without stopping. The armor simply failed and was penetrated. This alone did not destroy a tank. The shell punching through and striking a fuel tank, or stored ammunition, would destroy teh tank from within by sympathetic explosions.

Later in the war, the russians developed sloped armor, a design that caused the incomming shells to SKIP off the armor, like a stone on water. This allowed the russian tanks to save weight on armor, but to increase its damage threshold even so.

So in Rifts, I consider PA, vehicular and robot armor to have a different density, sloping or some other built in advancement to make it tougher to resist damage (instead of simply piling on MDC numbers).

Infantry weapons (any handheld energy weapon, slugthrower, flamer, etc) does 75 percent damage to PA, and 50 percent to vehicles and robots.

Any explosive (missile, grenade, etc) described as AP or Armor Piercing does full damage to any target.

Heavy infantry weapons or any PA weapon with an anti-armor description (railguns, missile pods, etc) does full damage.

In game play, a tank, robot or PA with an anti-infantry weapon does 75 percent to other PA, 100 percent to infantry, and 50 percent to robots/vehicles. A robot with anti-infantry lasers does 100 percent to infantry, 75 to PA and 50 percent to vehicle and robot armor.

So, lets look at the UAR1 Enforcer. its only two weapons described as anti-armor are its small and medium rocket launchers. All the rest are assault or anti-infantry. So the Small and Medium launchers do 100 percent vs infantry, PA, vehicles and robots, while the mini-missiles, lasers and railgun all do 100 percent vs Infantry, 75 percent to PA and 50 percent to vehicles and robots.

This evens out teh playing field, as in WWII where infantry could blindside a tank with buzzbombs, panzerfaust, Bangalore torpedos, and other anti-armor explosives. AP mini-missiles and fusion blocks anyone? Tanks, robots and PA are SUPPOSED to be SCARY. Armor is a terrifying force multiplier, and often takes a dear cost on infantry and other armor.
Robots and tanks are supposed to soak fire, take hits and keep on rolling. Their armor is designed to shrug off all but the heaviest fire, the largest, fastest warhead.

I mean, if you could shred a tank with a thompson .45 smg, then what value is a tank eh?
The problem all stems from teh old model of a tank being SDC. No. A tank could take a hundred thousand .45 shots on its armor, and only scratch the paint.

Tanks were always minor MDC items.

the germans used an 88MM gun to hunt tanks. it weighed 9000 pounds, and fired a 15 pound shell at 2200 miles per hour. I can do math folks. that shell is moving at mach 3. that shell could punch through 8 inches of steel at 1000 meters or 3000 ft. when closer, it could punch through almost 10 inches of solid formed steel. The thickest armor on a sherman was 3 inches, down to 1.8 inches in places.

by comparison, the NATO round of 7.62x51mm can penetrate .23 inches of steel.

[Natasha]

So I've been reading the re balance thread, and had some thoughts on WHY armor on a robot or PA might have better resistance to damage than infantry armor. And im not talking MDC.

In Rifts, armor is Ablative, meaning that it is slowly shipped away by incremental damage. In real life during WWII, armor had a damage threshold, meaning that the armor would either resist damage without harm, or would fail and be penetrated (with varying results). An example of this is the Sherman vs The King Tiger tank. The low velocity gun on the Sherman would BOUNCE off the heavy german armor without a mark. The German shell would pop through one side armor of a Sherman, and right out the other side without stopping. The armor simply failed and was penetrated. This alone did not destroy a tank. The shell punching through and striking a fuel tank, or stored ammunition, would destroy teh tank from within by sympathetic explosions.

Later in the war, the russians developed sloped armor, a design that caused the incomming shells to SKIP off the armor, like a stone on water. This allowed the russian tanks to save weight on armor, but to increase its damage threshold even so.

So in Rifts, I consider PA, vehicular and robot armor to have a different density, sloping or some other built in advancement to make it tougher to resist damage (instead of simply piling on MDC numbers).

Infantry weapons (any handheld energy weapon, slugthrower, flamer, etc) does 75 percent damage to PA, and 50 percent to vehicles and robots.

Any explosive (missile, grenade, etc) described as AP or Armor Piercing does full damage to any target.

Heavy infantry weapons or any PA weapon with an anti-armor description (railguns, missile pods, etc) does full damage.

In game play, a tank, robot or PA with an anti-infantry weapon does 75 percent to other PA, 100 percent to infantry, and 50 percent to robots/vehicles. A robot with anti-infantry lasers does 100 percent to infantry, 75 to PA and 50 percent to vehicle and robot armor.

So, lets look at the UAR1 Enforcer. its only two weapons described as anti-armor are its small and medium rocket launchers. All the rest are assault or anti-infantry. So the Small and Medium launchers do 100 percent vs infantry, PA, vehicles and robots, while the mini-missiles, lasers and railgun all do 100 percent vs Infantry, 75 percent to PA and 50 percent to vehicles and robots.

This evens out teh playing field, as in WWII where infantry could blindside a tank with buzzbombs, panzerfaust, Bangalore torpedos, and other anti-armor explosives. AP mini-missiles and fusion blocks anyone? Tanks, robots and PA are SUPPOSED to be SCARY. Armor is a terrifying force multiplier, and often takes a dear cost on infantry and other armor.
Robots and tanks are supposed to soak fire, take hits and keep on rolling. Their armor is designed to shrug off all but the heaviest fire, the largest, fastest warhead.

I mean, if you could shred a tank with a thompson .45 smg, then what value is a tank eh?
The problem all stems from teh old model of a tank being SDC. No. A tank could take a hundred thousand .45 shots on its armor, and only scratch the paint.

Tanks were always minor MDC items.

the germans used an 88MM gun to hunt tanks. it weighed 9000 pounds, and fired a 15 pound shell at 2200 miles per hour. I can do math folks. that shell is moving at mach 3. that shell could punch through 8 inches of steel at 1000 meters or 3000 ft. when closer, it could punch through almost 10 inches of solid formed steel. The thickest armor on a sherman was 3 inches, down to 1.8 inches in places.

by comparison, the NATO round of 7.62x51mm can penetrate .23 inches of steel.

I like it.

The idea that modern tanks are not MDC does not make much sense.

[Jefffar]

I tend the draw the line at the .50 BMG. If you need something stronger than this to damage the target, it is MDC.

[Shark_Force]

I like it.

The idea that modern tanks are not MDC does not make much sense.

modern tanks are *literally* the example that the books use of an MDC object. they (edit for clarity: the "they" is the settings, not the tanks) just didn't have MDC in some settings, so they used different rules (for the record, vehicle AR in the SDC settings works like natural AR in those settings... so a tank with an AC of 18 only takes damage from an attack that gets an 18 or higher, in which case SDC is depleted, otherwise the attack just bounces off... that obviously doesn't represent the difficulty of harming a tank with an uzi perfectly, but it does make a tank work very similar to MDC even in those SDC settings, and if you use the optional penetration value rules it probably gets even closer).

[Axelmania]

I would love rules on how to take a less ablative approach like OP says.

The Expanse did this amazing with spacecraft. Bullets would pierce ships all the time, sometimes taking out systems they had to repair or killing people, but the ship was still able to move and fight. Pinhole oxygen leaks from these led people to wear spacesuits inside during fights.

The lack of inertial dampeners in that show was also great, people had to strap in and take drugs to avoid passing out if they had to accelerate or decelerate quickly, one guy got thrown all over the place during a fight when he couldn't strap in because he had to make an essential repair.

I don't know where to begin mechanics for that sort of chaos but would love to play it.

[Natasha]

I like it.

The idea that modern tanks are not MDC does not make much sense.

modern tanks are *literally* the example that the books use of an MDC object. they (edit for clarity: the "they" is the settings, not the tanks) just didn't have MDC in some settings, so they used different rules (for the record, vehicle AR in the SDC settings works like natural AR in those settings... so a tank with an AC of 18 only takes damage from an attack that gets an 18 or higher, in which case SDC is depleted, otherwise the attack just bounces off... that obviously doesn't represent the difficulty of harming a tank with an uzi perfectly, but it does make a tank work very similar to MDC even in those SDC settings, and if you use the optional penetration value rules it probably gets even closer).

This is literally not how M.D.C. works.

[eliakon]

I like it.

The idea that modern tanks are not MDC does not make much sense.

modern tanks are *literally* the example that the books use of an MDC object. they (edit for clarity: the "they" is the settings, not the tanks) just didn't have MDC in some settings, so they used different rules (for the record, vehicle AR in the SDC settings works like natural AR in those settings... so a tank with an AC of 18 only takes damage from an attack that gets an 18 or higher, in which case SDC is depleted, otherwise the attack just bounces off... that obviously doesn't represent the difficulty of harming a tank with an uzi perfectly, but it does make a tank work very similar to MDC even in those SDC settings, and if you use the optional penetration value rules it probably gets even closer).

This is literally not how M.D.C. works.

True.
Which is why in HU for example, Tanks and other armored vehicles get a "you must be this powerful a weapon to damage the vehicle" added on top of the high VAR.
Which is how MDC works
You can sit there with assault rifles and shoot a tank all day in HU and all you will do is scuff the paint.

[Axelmania]

Where is the 'this powerful a weapon' part in HU?