Armor Wars

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Armor Wars

 

And of course, Stark was rather shook up after the tank hit him and knocked him into the ground.

 

As for Stark's "tiny little missile" blowing up the tank, remember that this is a Tony Stark designed missile. For all we know it was configured to explode the tank's own munitions or fuel using some type of EM emission, which modern American tanks are likely shielded against, but not the Soviet-era vehicles employed by an Afghan warlord.

 

IIRC, he sent the 'tiny little missile' (tlm) down the barrel of the tanks cannon. IF the tank cannon's breech was open (you have to open it to reload) this would put a explosive charge into the tanks turret, where they store the ammuntion... boom. It doesn't take a very big bang to start a fire inside the tank once you get past/around the armor, and any fire will 'cook off' the ammo if not brought under control quickly.

 

So, what I saw...

Tank takes 2nd shot, missing.

Iron Man sets up missile, sights down cannon barrel, waits for the breech to open...

Shoots missile down barrel into tank turret. LTM detonates, setting of tanks ammo supply, destroying tank in a ball of Hollywood pyrotechnics.

[Greywind]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Stark popped the missle, fired, turned and started walking. Then the tank blew up. They never showed how or where it impacted the tank.

[Tasha]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Here is a basic exo-skeleton. It doesn't give much protection to the driver, but it will allow them to move 800kg at a speed of 16KPH. It has a built in system that prevents falls and makes it easy to stand again after falling. It is the basic prototypical package that other armor will be built on. This is built from memory from the various exo-skeletons that are currently in development.

 

Of course this one is assuming that THEY can actually get something together that is fairly light.

 

I'll be posting more suits as I have time/ inclination building on this platform

 

Tasha

 

-------

Basic Exo-Skeleton

Val Char Base Points Total Roll Notes

0 SIZE 0 0 0 Length 2m, Width 1m, Height 1m, Volume 2m^3 Mass 100 kg, OCV +0, KB 0

10 STR 10 0 25 14- HTH Damage 5d6 END [0]

13 DEX 10 6 13 12-

3 SPD 2.0 10 3 Phases: 4, 8, 12

8 BODY 10 -2 8

 

12" Ground Movement 12 0 18m

0" Water Movement 4 -2 0m

4" Leaping 4 0 8m 6

Total Characteristics Points

 

Cost Powers END

6 What little actually covers the bottom half of the driver: Resistant Protection (3 PD/3 ED) (9 Active Points); Requires A Roll (11- roll; Harness, and other power assist stuff that can protect the driver; -1/2) 0

5 Arms & Legs: Extra Limb (1) 0

2 Open Frame: +2 PD (3 Active Points); Limited Coverage Nearly 360 Degrees (Coverage does not protect occupants; Hull/Frame Only; -3/4)

2 Open frame: +2 ED (3 Active Points); Limited Coverage Nearly 360 Degrees (Hull/Frame Only; Coverage does not protect occupants; -3/4)

8 +15 STR, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (27 Active Points); Fuel Dependent Requires fuel every 3 hours (Needs Alcohol for Fuel Cell; -1) (Modifiers affect Base Characteristic)

-3 Ground Movement +6m (18m total) (6 Active Points); Fuel Dependent Requires fuel every 3 hours (Needs Alcohol for Fuel Cell; -1)

0 Leaping +4m (8m forward, 4m upward) (2 Active Points); Fuel Dependent Requires fuel every 3 hours (Needs Alcohol for Fuel Cell; -1)

 

Skills

3 Breakfall 12-

Notes: Automated system to keep unit from falling down.

Total Powers & Skills Cost: 23

 

Total Cost: 29

---

PS built it as a vehicle as it seemed to solve some issues I was having when I tried to build it as a focus.

 

Also If a less reliable vehicle is wanted the Physical Limitation "Constant Malfunctions" can be added (Frequently/Greatly impairing for 11- roll, or Infrequently/Greatly for an 8- roll for each game session).

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Snippage mine.

 

And you missed my entire point.

 

"I think the wrong question is being asked. Or at least framed incorrectly."

 

That would include the OP.

 

 

Ah. Well in that case, the question becomes "Wait - we're playing Shadowrun? I thought this was going to be Champions?" The thing is , if you apply logic to supertech/aliens you shift the game to something else: that's why most comic book writers ignore it.

 

Me, I'd actually be good with a supergame set in a logically-extended setting - with supertech, severe culture shock and humanity starting to adjust to a universe that was suddenly much, much bigger and more crowded. In fact, I'd be more than good - that sounds awesome.

 

cheers, Mark

[DusterBoy]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Why does the military still use tanks when powered armour is available?

 

Intimidation factor, babe. A sixty-plus-ton Challenger 2 MBT with its 120mm main gun is way scarier than a bloke in an exoskelton, especially when said gun is pointing straight. at. you.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Armor Wars

 

 

Me, I'd actually be good with a supergame set in a logically-extended setting - with supertech, severe culture shock and humanity starting to adjust to a universe that was suddenly much, much bigger and more crowded. In fact, I'd be more than good - that sounds awesome.

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

Pretty much what my game is except I started out with a Victorian tech level and pretty much all the tech is super or captured alien tech. which is great as people make stuff with tech they barely or don't really get the principles behind it. I can have strange gaps in technology and very uneven technology.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Armor Wars

 

While that was a funny scene in Iron ManII. I would imagine that HammerTech is at least somewhat reliable. Otherwise it would have never been procured by the Joint Chiefs for the Armed Services. I can see it being larger and less high tech (more clunky) than StarkTech's equipment.

 

Maybe it had a minimum detonation distance Hammer forgot to mention.

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Actually, the only thing I didn't like about IM2 was that Hammer was such a tool - so to speak . Had he been less clownish and his tech less pathetic, it would have added a bit more drama to the showdown.

 

cheers, Mark

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Armor Wars

 

It's why after Earth has provided asylum and protection to a galactic empress and then Earthlings helped her get her empire back' date=' nobody ever says "[i']Uh, you have tens of thousands of starships - how about lending us a couple of engineers and a couple of your really old ships, so we're not trapped on his mudball? You know, we have saved your whole empire three times now - plus you married one of us. How about a little help here?[/i]" The Earthlings who do have their own starships (and there's a surprising number of them) keep them tucked away in their garages for the occasional jaunt, along with their flying cars, low orbit-capable planes, powerful non-polluting power sources, highly advanced medical facilities, alien visitors, etc etc.

 

None of this makes any sense. The best way to deal with this is the way the comic book writers do which is to simply politely never refer to it ever again. There simply isn't a good explanation.

 

True, though I think sometimes you can make an in-game semi-reasonable quasi-explanation that everyone (GM and players) just accepts. For example, I'm running an alien invasion adventure arc in my game, and Earth forces (both PC heroes and NPCs) have captured various starships along the way. And "top men" are trying to reverse-engineer them. Of course, the heroes are going to play a key role in ending the war, but most likely won't want a part in the boring negotiations of all the fine details. And part of those negotiations will be an agreement to repatriate all captured people and return captured equipment on both sides. Of course, the "top men" will still have what they've gleaned from their year or so of exposure to the alien tech, and a few things will just "disappear" before weapons and vehicles get returned. So no major world changes, but opportunities abound for fun behind-the-scenes and future subplot stuff.

 

Actually' date=' the only thing I didn't like about IM2 was that Hammer was such a tool - so to speak . Had he been less clownish and his tech less pathetic, it would have added a bit more drama to the showdown.[/quote']

 

Agreed. For some reason, every time I saw Justin Hammer he reminded me of Austin Powers. Hard to take him as seriously.

 

As a side note, I like Steamteck's explanation for the missile fizzle. Would your average infantryman wielding the missile launcher want the thing detonating only a few meters away? And a minimum firing distance might be the sort of thing that Hammer just assumed that Rhodey would assume, or perhaps Rhodey didn't have time to read all the specs or maybe just didn't think about that when he fired it.

[Asperion]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Here is a good possible reason why tanks are still commonplace in a supers campaign. Humanity tends to be reluctant to change. When something does work its way into society, while there may be alterations to some aspect of the device, the device itself will remain basically unchanged. Since tanks are commonplace in the modern military, powersuits will have to work extremely hard to prove their worth. Even then they will mostly serve as support for the more powerful armored divisions (such as tanks). As a result, tanks will always have their place and powersuits (if they exist) will basically be for the infantry and go to places that the more powerful tanks cannot get to. Suits such as Iron Man would be limited to the uber-rich who has some reason to sink all those millions into a suit that has uber-capabilities (like is done to real-world cars today).

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Here is a good possible reason why tanks are still commonplace in a supers campaign. Humanity tends to be reluctant to change. When something does work its way into society' date=' while there may be alterations to some aspect of the device, the device itself will remain basically unchanged. Since tanks are commonplace in the modern military, powersuits will have to work extremely hard to prove their worth. Even then they will mostly serve as support for the more powerful armored divisions (such as tanks). As a result, tanks will always have their place and powersuits (if they exist) will basically be for the infantry and go to places that the more powerful tanks cannot get to. Suits such as Iron Man would be limited to the uber-rich who has some reason to sink all those millions into a suit that has uber-capabilities (like is done to real-world cars today).[/quote']

 

Right, that's why it will take years for this internet thing to ever catch on .... oh, wait.

 

We know that in real life - especially when it comes to militaries - once it shows promise, the newest bestest technology, is pressed into service as fast as it can be - occasionally faster than it can be, resulting in some memorable failures, when things are used before all the bugs are worked out. It makes sense, of course - in the real world, a military that relied on tanks "because we like 'em!" would get torn to shreds by a much smaller army using battlesuits, if they were even half as competent as the devices we see in comics. It doesn't matter if the tanks are more powerful. Battlesuits would take any soft target and given their enormous mobility, would rarely, if ever have to fight MBTs. In WW2 French tanks were generally more powerful than the light German tankettes. Didn't matter. When the German forces met French heavies, they'd just withdraw and hit somewhere else, where they weren't, or concentrate and overwhelm them with numbers. Most French armour was simply abandoned because the Wehrmacht, with superior mobility and Land/air coordination had torn up their lines of communication and supply behind them. The big heavy tanks had no orders, no intel, and eventually no gas and no ammo. Later in the war the Allies did the same to German heavies - go around 'em if you can, use superior mobility to concentrate your numbers if you can't. In the horn of Africa, "technicals" - pickup trucks armed with recoilless rifles and heavy machine guns, routinely defeated armoured companies with T55 heavy tanks backed up by artillery, the same way.

 

An army that used tanks as an armoured core would suffer the same fate, as battlesuits tore up their infantry in close range urban combat (where they'd provide the strength of tanks without their notorious weakness in urban settings), and dropped out of the skies to obliterate their airbases, supply lines, artillery and command centres far from the front lines. By the time the tanks arrived, the suits'd be gone. Soon, without supplies, the tanks would just be big metal paperweights. And military planners, by and large are not idiots. They'd know this.

 

Seriously, I'd cease looking for plausible excuses why supertech would not be deployed, if it could be mass-produced: there aren't any. Just use a little suspension of disbelief.

 

cheers, Mark

[casualplayer]

Re: Armor Wars

 

The best form of light cav is always going to have a place on the battlefield.

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Yes, but as the Germans discovered in 1918 and the Poles discovered in 1939, what that is can change in a very short period.

 

cheers, Mark

[Nevelon]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Even if the major powers refitted with power suits, there are still a lot of tanks in the world. How many countries in the world are at the State of the Art? Most nations make do with older stuff because that's all they can get and all they can afford. Plenty of third world dictators will be using them. You will always have tanks for the brick to pick up and toss around; generally the heros aren't going up against the US army. Some old tanks might filter down to the local level as the army replaces them. With supervilleins kicking around, local SWAT teams might have a real tank in the garage.

[bobooton]

Re: Armor Wars

 

More thoughts on this...

 

1) Conventional military units are made to fight conventional military targets. Why spend on one UberSuit when I can get dozens of highly-capable conventional units if the purpose is to fight other conventional units. Destruction is easy. Taking and holding an area is much harder and requires more boots on the ground. Also, why put all of that power in the hands of one person? That's just asking the guy to take it for a walk and never come back.

 

2) This also leads me to think of White Wolf's Aberrant game, where superhumans essentially became the first line of fighting, then became military proxies. Why spend hundreds of billions on tech, training, and mobilization of military forces when you can throw, say, half that at a very powerful group of superhumans and let them work as the new nuclear deterrent?

 

3) One reason why you wouldn't is good old fashioned "us and them" paranoia. When people are literally lifting mountains and laying waste to city blocks with a single bat of an eyelash, it's scary to be a normal person. Do you really want to rely on them for your protection or do you want things that don't rely on them in case they become the enemy? Think of Kingdom Come and the reaction of normal people to a society gone super. Boom.

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Even if the major powers refitted with power suits' date=' there are still a lot of tanks in the world. How many countries in the world are at the State of the Art? Most nations make do with older stuff because that's all they can get and all they can afford. Plenty of third world dictators will be using them. You will always have tanks for the brick to pick up and toss around; generally the heros aren't going up against the US army. Some old tanks might filter down to the local level as the army replaces them. With supervilleins kicking around, local SWAT teams might have a real tank in the garage.[/quote']

 

Sure - but as I understand it the question wasn't "Why do poorer nations use old fashioned technology?" We already know why. The question was why don't the people who do have the desire for state of the art technology use it? Again, we know the answer already - it's because it would alter the comics world out of recognition in a very short time. It's a genre "suspension of disbelief thing", not a logical reason.

 

So nobody here (that I have seen) has been suggesting tat all tanks would disappear - merely that they would be rapidly supplanted by what is, on pretty much any standard, a superior technology. Which is, after all, pretty much what happens in real life.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Armor Wars

 

More thoughts on this...

 

1) Conventional military units are made to fight conventional military targets. Why spend on one UberSuit when I can get dozens of highly-capable conventional units if the purpose is to fight other conventional units.

 

Because war is about winning, and if you don't do it, the guys who do, will take you apart.

 

Destruction is easy. Taking and holding an area is much harder and requires more boots on the ground. Also' date=' why put all of that power in the hands of one person? That's just asking the guy to take it for a walk and never come back[/quote']

 

So according to this, the military would never employ fighter jets or drones, or let one guy captain a nuclear sub - after all, he could go rogue at any time! Of course, in real life militaries do precisely this as a matter of routine.

 

2) This also leads me to think of White Wolf's Aberrant game, where superhumans essentially became the first line of fighting, then became military proxies. Why spend hundreds of billions on tech, training, and mobilization of military forces when you can throw, say, half that at a very powerful group of superhumans and let them work as the new nuclear deterrent?

 

3) One reason why you wouldn't is good old fashioned "us and them" paranoia. When people are literally lifting mountains and laying waste to city blocks with a single bat of an eyelash, it's scary to be a normal person. Do you really want to rely on them for your protection or do you want things that don't rely on them in case they become the enemy? Think of Kingdom Come and the reaction of normal people to a society gone super. Boom.

 

Riiiiiight. So in a world where supers - both Heroes and Villains, do exist, and paranoia about their capabilities is justifiable, you're saying the military would not attempt to redress the balance, because they somehow trust these civilians who keep their identities hidden more than their own people.

 

You know, that doesn't make any sense. Haven't you just argued convincingly against your own position? Doesn't that paranoia suggest the populace would be desperate to deploy supertech to provide normal humans with some protection? They would, of course, just as I have been saying: if the means were there, people would use them. I say this, because in real life, they always have.

 

cheers, Mark

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Long ago, early in my GM career, I ran a subplot where a player's battlesuited character was approached by some military procurement people to design a mass-producable battlesuit. The player drew one up -- less powerful than his own, of course, but still a fair step up tech-wise for the average grunt.

 

You can imagine his surprise to learn that the "military procurement" people were actually VIPER people with forged IDs, and soon VIPER was fielding his own battlesuit design against him.

 

For some reason, ever since then, any player running a gadgeteer / battlesuit character has been reluctant to share their technology.

[Rapier]

Re: Armor Wars

 

The US Military (along with other country's) is not 'state of the art.' The funding and development processes are arduous, lengthy, problematic and in some ways counterproductive.

 

My dad was flying remote control airplanes in the early 70s. They started developing drones in the 90s. Do you think it really took 20 years before someone said "hey! that's a great idea! we should do something like that!"

 

Do some reading on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Heck there is even a movie about it (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/). What a mess!

 

But it's not ALL incompetence. It's part of the nature of the beast. The US Navy has 284 ships. They aren't going to overhaul all 284 every two years because the computers have gotten faster. It's logistically impossible. The testing equipment has to go through to be approved guarantees new developments are usually implemented years behind their development.

 

If you handed the military designs for an exo-battlesuit ala Iron Man, it wouldn't see action for until probably 2020 (if even then). A small upgrade on a tank (a proven platform) like a weapon redesign is going to be a LOT easier to get incorporated than an entirely new, untested platform. Doctrine and plans, support teams would all have to be developed and included in the Table of Organisation. Then you are going to have to convince the guy in charge of ALL the tanks (who is a probably multi-star general, has lots of political clout and who loves tanks more than his own children) that he is going to have to give up some of his authority to these new battlesuit guys and relegate his precious tanks to a minor role behind the Iron Man Infantry. He is going to kick and scream and do everything in his power to not give up a stitch of his authority.

 

Developing new technology (like an armoured battlesuit) is the easy part. Getting it deployed to the front lines? Now THAT'S hard!

[torchwolf]

Re: Armor Wars

 

And then...

 

...once the plans for a brand new battlesuit incorporating cutting-edge technology are analyzed, tooling equipment with sufficient precision to manufacture at least a production prototype will have to be configured, adapted, or even scratch-built.

 

...scientific knowledge to understand how it works will have to be applied to oversee the construction.

 

...construction material fulfilling the required specifications will have to be supplied, or even developed, if unique.

 

...testing, testing, testing.

 

...personnel have to be trained in how to use the suit.

 

...inevitable mishaps in faulty redesign, construction, substandard materials and equipment, and human error will have to be analyzed, for improving any flaws and solving any problems.

 

All this (plus other factors) can take time.

 

And then... only the GM's imagination is the limit to how many things can go wrong with a hi-tech battlesuit... equipment bought without points, anyone?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Some illustrative costs:

Body Armor--about 500 bucks--we used about half a million units in Iraq

Tank, modern--2 to 5 million dollars--we have several thousand of them

Attack helicopter, modern--10 to 15 million dollars--we have hundreds

A-10 Thunderbolt--around 12 million dollars--we built around 700

F-22 Raptor--150 million dollars--we built about 180 and cancelled the rest over cost concerns

B-2 Stealth Bomber--750 million dollars per unit, more if you factor in development costs, we built 21 of them

Nimitz class aircraft carrier--6 billion to build the last one, and we built 10 of them

 

My guess is that the upper cost limit for a military weapon system is around 10 billion dollars per unit, at which point you can probably count the number built on one hand without having to make use of your thumb.

 

If you want ultra-powerful power armor to be uncommon, make it ultra-expensive, and find ways to rationalize it--lengthy and expensive research, cost overruns, rare/hard to obtain/synthesize materials, esoteric tech which is also fragile and hard to replace, exotic fuels/power sources, lengthy and exhaustive training for pilots(comparable to being a pilot, tanker, astronaut, martial artist, electrical engineer and software engineer combined), etc.

 

In the alternative, make a rule that, the more commonplace the tech is, the less awesomely effective it tends to be(e.g. Turtle armor vs. Iron Man or Destroyer Armor).

[casualplayer]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Because war is about winning, and if you don't do it, the guys who do, will take you apart.

 

cheers, Mark

 

The only thing that overcomes the military's ingrained conservatism is the will to win. Initially they are always fighting today's war with yesterday's tactics, strategy and gear.

 

There are the elite units who are only tasked with getting the mission done who will be early adopters and innovators (SAS, Delta, SEALs, etc) but the bulk will have their decisions made by old soldiers in the rear with the gear.

[bobooton]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Because war is about winning' date=' and if you don't do it, the guys who do, will take you apart.[/quote']

 

It's about getting bang for your buck and achieving goals. When you need lots of people to hold ground, you need lots of people. No one person is going to be able to handle it all. If you need to roll over some slightly-armed goatherders in Nowherestan, you could send an army of supermen or you could send conventional forces much cheaper and still get the job done. Plus, it doesn't quite look as bad. Why aren't nuclear weapons used more often? They'd do the job fantastically well, but they're a PR nightmare, largely because they're just unfair and too effective.

 

So according to this, the military would never employ fighter jets or drones, or let one guy captain a nuclear sub - after all, he could go rogue at any time! Of course, in real life militaries do precisely this as a matter of routine.

 

Drone pilots are heavily monitored at all times, with loads of failsafes in place. Regular pilots have a lot more autonomy, but they have to stop for fuel sometime if they go running off and they can run out of ammunition pretty quickly. The nuclear sub may have one captain, but it has many more people there and loads of failsafes, especially regarding any decisions to use the weapons. It's not the same argument as talking about giving a guy an unlimited supersuit that can take him anywhere and just hoping things go well. Of course, that makes for some good villain backgrounds, too.

 

Riiiiiight. So in a world where supers - both Heroes and Villains, do exist, and paranoia about their capabilities is justifiable, you're saying the military would not attempt to redress the balance, because they somehow trust these civilians who keep their identities hidden more than their own people.

 

I would say that they might, depending on the setting. In some settings, the military and society as a whole might be vehemently anti-super. In others, it might just be the military or even just some elements in the military. In others still, it might be a shiny happy place where people just take the fact that gods live and battle among them like its no big thing. It's all about the setting. In Kingdom Come, that meant humans became scared enough to order a nuclear strike against the supers. That's oldtech, nothing they needed Iron Man suits or Reed Richards's tech for.

 

On the other hand, groups like SHIELD and Checkmate keep tabs on superhuman abilities and weaknesses and craft tech to handle them. They might be content to sit in the background, waiting for something to happen, or they might want to strike first before things get out of hand. Look at how the Sentinels were used in the X-Men titles. Tanks are still around, as are fighters and pretty much every other conventional unit, because conventional warfare is still relevant. However, the superhuman element is also accounted for. It all goes back to the setting.

 

You know, that doesn't make any sense. Haven't you just argued convincingly against your own position? Doesn't that paranoia suggest the populace would be desperate to deploy supertech to provide normal humans with some protection? They would, of course, just as I have been saying: if the means were there, people would use them. I say this, because in real life, they always have.

 

Not taking any positions here, really, just throwing out thoughts. Several different settings and how they might handle each of the circumstances.

 

Think about this: the US has nuclear weapons, the means to eradicate any of its opponents, but has only used those means twice (or once, depending on how you look at it). Since then, it has not used them and no other country has used them, despite a multitude of wars and countries of all sorts gaining access to nuclear weapon tech. If your reasoning held true, the US would use them constantly, as would every other nuclear power. Technically, most countries could achieve similar, if not more potent, effects by using conventional weapons, but they don't do so. It looks bad to wipe cities off the face of the earth. It isn't good PR domestically or abroad and that's enough to say "no". So do you send a human nuke to do the same work?

 

An example of this would be Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, how he was used, and how he was viewed domestically and abroad. A similar example would be Hyperion from Squadron Supreme (JMS). Look at Waid's Plutonian in Irredeemable for an example where people are just helpless and are looking to appease the superhuman threatening them after years of taking him for granted. Or you could take the approach that supers are just part of life and the non-powered populace just smiles and nods as they go about their business. It all depends on the setting.

[Peregrine]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Some illustrative costs:

Body Armor--about 500 bucks--we used about half a million units in Iraq

Tank, modern--2 to 5 million dollars--we have several thousand of them

Attack helicopter, modern--10 to 15 million dollars--we have hundreds

A-10 Thunderbolt--around 12 million dollars--we built around 700

F-22 Raptor--150 million dollars--we built about 180 and cancelled the rest over cost concerns

B-2 Stealth Bomber--750 million dollars per unit, more if you factor in development costs, we built 21 of them

Nimitz class aircraft carrier--6 billion to build the last one, and we built 10 of them

 

My guess is that the upper cost limit for a military weapon system is around 10 billion dollars per unit, at which point you can probably count the number built on one hand without having to make use of your thumb.

 

 

Thanks for those numbers. They look about right, and your analysis produces a good rule of thumb for costing out tech (whether powered armor, supersoldiers, or whatnot) in our fictional settings.

[Vulcan]

Re: Armor Wars

 

Some illustrative costs:

Body Armor--about 500 bucks--we used about half a million units in Iraq

Tank, modern--2 to 5 million dollars--we have several thousand of them

Attack helicopter, modern--10 to 15 million dollars--we have hundreds

A-10 Thunderbolt--around 12 million dollars--we built around 700

F-22 Raptor--150 million dollars--we built about 180 and cancelled the rest over cost concerns

B-2 Stealth Bomber--750 million dollars per unit, more if you factor in development costs, we built 21 of them

Nimitz class aircraft carrier--6 billion to build the last one, and we built 10 of them

 

My guess is that the upper cost limit for a military weapon system is around 10 billion dollars per unit, at which point you can probably count the number built on one hand without having to make use of your thumb.

 

If you want ultra-powerful power armor to be uncommon, make it ultra-expensive, and find ways to rationalize it--lengthy and expensive research, cost overruns, rare/hard to obtain/synthesize materials, esoteric tech which is also fragile and hard to replace, exotic fuels/power sources, lengthy and exhaustive training for pilots(comparable to being a pilot, tanker, astronaut, martial artist, electrical engineer and software engineer combined), etc.

 

In the alternative, make a rule that, the more commonplace the tech is, the less awesomely effective it tends to be(e.g. Turtle armor vs. Iron Man or Destroyer Armor).

 

That was pretty much the reason why there were only a handful of Sovereign-armor (our campaign's Iron Man) clones running about. Sure, Mr. Fielding wanted to sell them to the military, and PRIMUS, and other such clients. The problem was, he could only get the costs down to about half a billion dollars apiece, which really cuts down on the number of suits that can be purchased.