Ballistic-Reinforced Armor, your thoughts and opinions?

[Apocal]

Pulling a digression from a somewhat related topic.

What's wrong with Ballistic Reinforced?

It's horribly inefficient in tonnage.

That's kinda my point. I'd reserve "really bad" for something like Heat Dissipating Armor. BRA isn't mind blowing, but it does exactly what it says on the box by blunting 2 of the 3 weapon "food groups". It also lacks any overt drawback like Reflective or Reactive. So for a 25% reduction in points per ton over standard armor, that seems pretty fair. My only complaints would be taking up 10 crit slots and not protecting against armor piercing effects like the Hardened Armor it's derived from.

Just to be clear, I was explaining why other people think BRA is bad. I think it is completely reasonable in isolation and only made somewhat unfavorable because the people I play with favor energy-heavy setups. I assume (given how much people here complain about flashbulbs) that holds reasonably true across the board, but I'm not sure. Also (IS) ferro costs 14 crits, so you're actually getting something back by going with BRA instead.

Crit-protection would take it from being an alternative armor type to being more like the next-generation standard, because that would stop the LB-X TAC-fishing cold. I'm not sure if that's good direction for the game or not but I play mostly MM and think it would be, because damn will people toss pellets by the dozens when they don't need to toss dice by the dozens to resolve hit locations.

LB-X autocannons are one of the more popular ballistic weapons (aside from Gauss).  The usual response against BRA, when I was experimenting with it, is "More Dakka!", specifically cluster rounds.  Which made the BRA, effectively, a heavier version of ERA.

That "minimum 1 damage per attack" clause on the "food group armors" can be downright painful...

Sure, it leaves LB-X's cluster rounds in place, in terms of damage and TAC-fishing. But you're getting the essential benefit of hardened armor (except TAC-protection) against both ballistic and missile weapons otherwise. It out-performs hardened against five point clusters (pic related) or anything with favorable rounding to a less degree. Unlike hardened, you can mount it on omnimechs and you're not losing speed or taking a PSR penalty by mounting it. That BRA has counters doesn't make it bad, just not an out-and-out superior form of armor to replace standard/ferro in all circumstances.

I personally don't think it is that good just because it leaves a unit, ton-for-ton, worse-off against energy weapons but that's a personal opinion formed on the basis of playing against guys who will flood the field with energy-heavy configurations.

[Empyrus]

Ballistic-reinforced isn't bad, the ability to reduce Gauss and LB-X power along with pretty ubiquitous missiles is quite useful. A smidgen inefficient perhaps, but quite usable, provided rest of the 'Mech is good enough. Lack of drawbacks beyond weight is good.

I'll take reflec/blazer/BR over ABA/impact-resistant/heat-dissipating any day.

[Colt Ward]

Side question- if you play energy boaters, have you exploited their weapon selection?  My group is combined arms, even the people who play only mechs for themselves still plan with how to face vehicles, VTOLs, BA and even Protos.  A couple of times facing VTOLs w/TAG for IDF LRMs, or one player's favorite the Karnov (RL), is enough to convince most players to prepare to deal with flying targets.

Some of it with the armors comes down to factional/theater flavor IMO.  The Dracs facing the FedSuns are logical users of armor that defeats ballistics since they are the House of Dakka Dakka.  Dracs on the Bear border make some sense using Reflec b/c Clan energy weapons hit harder than IS and are more plentiful on designs b/c the crit ratios.  One of my new favorite hovertanks, the Scapha, makes absolute sense using Reflec armor b/c LPLs & Snubs are going to be what they are most at risk from while they skate across the map.

With Plasma Rifle/Cannon & Infernos being the most common answer against BA, it makes sense for Fire Resist to be used by BA.  Slow heavy & assault suits that can make getting withing 5-6 hexes for those weapons painful may find Reactive Armor more useful since they are artillery magnets.

[grimlock1]

Ballistic-reinforced isn't bad, the ability to reduce Gauss and LB-X power along with pretty ubiquitous missiles is quite useful. A smidgen inefficient perhaps, but quite usable, provided rest of the 'Mech is good enough. Lack of drawbacks beyond weight is good.

I'll take reflec/blazer/BR over ABA/impact-resistant/heat-dissipating any day.

Having a bit of a dumb here but,
BR armor?
And ABA, did you mean Anti-Penetrative Ablation?

[Empyrus]

Having a bit of a dumb here but,
BR armor?
And ABA, did you mean Anti-Penetrative Ablation?

Ballistic Reinforced, BR.

And yeah, ABA is that. ABA is the official, uh, initialism?.

[Retry]

Sure, it leaves LB-X's cluster rounds in place, in terms of damage and TAC-fishing. But you're getting the essential benefit of hardened armor (except TAC-protection) against both ballistic and missile weapons otherwise. It out-performs hardened against five point clusters (pic related) or anything with favorable rounding to a less degree. Unlike hardened, you can mount it on omnimechs and you're not losing speed or taking a PSR penalty by mounting it. That BRA has counters doesn't make it bad, just not an out-and-out superior form of armor to replace standard/ferro in all circumstances.

I find the hardened armor thing a strange comparison, personally.  Hardened allows each point to absorb 2 points worth with extra TAC resistance and Ballistic-Reinforced halves damage with a rounding quirk, so it feels more similar to the other "anti-weapon" armors (Reactive, Reflective, and Ferro-Lamellor).

Not necessarily a bad armor in the right circumstances.  It's definitely serviceable, unlike some other previously-mentioned armors.

Ballistic-Reinforced sounds like something that would be primarily mounted against kinetic weapons like gauss rifles.  I would have preferred something more akin to the ballistic equivalent of Reactive/Reflective than this weird Hardened Light, personally.  But that's just me.

[grimlock1]

Ballistic Reinforced, BR.

And yeah, ABA is that. ABA is the official, uh, initialism?.

And I think you mean "acronym."

Then what is ABA?

[Scotty]

Ballistic-Reinforced sounds like something that would be primarily mounted against kinetic weapons like gauss rifles.  I would have preferred something more akin to the ballistic equivalent of Reactive/Reflective than this weird Hardened Light, personally.  But that's just me.

It... is the ballistic (and missile) equivalent to Reflective and Reactive.  It's obviously most visibly effective against big ballistic guns, but it's also very good at cutting missile damage by 50-60% due to how missile clusters work in general.  It's also similarly good against HAGs and advanced AC/5s like Rotary ACs.

Cutting a max salvo of HE ATM-12 from 36 damage to 15 is pretty significant, as is turning a double-tap from a UAC/20 into 'merely' two ten point hits.

It's most effective at lining up across from an enemy with a big boomstick or three, like the Dire Wolf with twin HAG-40s.  Anything similarly sized may be able to genuiely just wait out the ammo and still be fine going into a end of that duel.

[Empyrus]

Then what is ABA?

Anti-penetrative Ablative.
Pretty bad because all it does is to reduce effect of armor piercing effects.

[grimlock1]

Anti-penetrative Ablative.
Pretty bad because all it does is to reduce effect of armor piercing effects.

Sorry.  Just confused by you saying ABA rather than APA.

[Retry]

It... is the ballistic (and missile) equivalent to Reflective and Reactive.

That's why it is not the ballistic equivalent: It affects both explosives and ballistics.

Reflective and Reactive armors have 16 points per ton.  Both are effectively standard armor against 2 of 3 weapon groups, and are effectively twice as good at minimum against their preferred weapon group, excepting edge cases.

Ballistic-Reinforced has less, 12 points per ton.  It's effectively 50% better than standard or more per ton against 2 weapon types (Notable exceptions of LB-X and Silver Bullets).  It's functionally an armor type with a weakness to Energy than a strength against Ballistics.

A ballistic equivalent would have had 16 points per ton and damage halving against ballistics only, not explosives.  Maybe an extra quirk or two like Reactive and Reflective armors have.

[Empyrus]

Sorry.  Just confused by you saying ABA rather than APA.

Blame CGL, they picked the ABA abbreviation. Probably Anti-penetrative aBlative Armor.

[Colt Ward]

or just 'ABalative Armor"

[Scotty]

Even at 16 points per ton halving against ballistics only (at least in part because of how LBX and SB Gauss work) would hardly be worth using, especially with an additional negative quirk like the others have.  The relative frequency of the three weapon groups (ballistic is in last place and it's not close) particularly against human players would have made it an outright liability.

The triangle isn't equilateral.  It's still the ballistic edition of the trio of major specialty armors.

[Apocal]

Side question- if you play energy boaters, have you exploited their weapon selection?

Yes, I have. If I was facing people who favored spotter/IDF LRM setups or fielding C3 + UAC20 or Gauss en masse, BRA (when available) would probably be my top choice towards taming the threat.

I find the hardened armor thing a strange comparison, personally.  Hardened allows each point to absorb 2 points worth with extra TAC resistance and Ballistic-Reinforced halves damage with a rounding quirk, so it feels more similar to the other "anti-weapon" armors (Reactive, Reflective, and Ferro-Lamellor).

It is just a comparison of outcomes. Hardened takes 2.5 damage from a 5 point cluster, BRA takes 2. That makes BRA better under those circumstances. BRA also comes with fewer drawbacks, other than being somewhat less tonnage efficient.

[Colt Ward]

No, I am talking about YOU getting them to notice ERPPC spam is not all.  Because for someone who wants a machine with a few big guns, combined arms answer is pretty simply you cannot kill enough before you are dead.

[Caedis Animus]

It's something I would have loved on the Berserker D4 instead of the Impact-Resistant Armor it got. Otherwise, I think it's worth twice its weight in Germanium compared to everything short of Ferro Lamellor.

[Retry]

Even at 16 points per ton halving against ballistics only (at least in part because of how LBX and SB Gauss work) would hardly be worth using, especially with an additional negative quirk like the others have.  The relative frequency of the three weapon groups (ballistic is in last place and it's not close) particularly against human players would have made it an outright liability.

The triangle isn't equilateral.  It's still the ballistic edition of the trio of major specialty armors.

At 16 points per ton it would be "just" a version of standard armor with better ballistics protection.  Ballistics may be the red headed step child but they've got their niches, including most of the available headcappers, the downright best BA primary weapon, and all of the non-artillery infantry field guns.  There's enough perks between them such that I'd consider paying the crit premium for ballistic-resistant armor on some circumstances, even if I'd prefer Reactive 80% of the time, but I'm not ever going for a half-solution leaves me extra vulnerable to energy weapons.

[Scotty]

BRA doesn't limit the number of armor points you can mount; it's a "vulnerability" that occurs at the 'Mech design stage and nowhere else.  On a high-end heavy, which I've noticed at least personally is the most common size of 'Mech I use, you're looking at ~13 tons of standard armor, which ends up being around ~17 tons of BRA.  I'll take four tons less payload for that trade-off, and most designers it looks like would, too, because I haven't noticed any 'Mechs (of what few there are) mounting substantially less than the maximum allowed.  At lower tonnages the disparity is relatively shrunk.

I would definitely take that over saving a few tons of payload but taking full damage from missiles.

[Apocal]

No, I am talking about YOU getting them to notice ERPPC spam is not all.  Because for someone who wants a machine with a few big guns, combined arms answer is pretty simply you cannot kill enough before you are dead.

They still have plenty of ERLLs, LPL/MPLs, low-end units etc. It is plenty of guns by any measure. I don't think I implied they were going all-big and if I did, it was an accident. Anyway I've done force composition counters, yes. Just to make sure I'm clear: I don't have a problem with facing opponents fielding lots of energy boats. It only informs my preferences on specialty armor.

[Wrangler]

I think it's nice tool to have in your tool box when designing a Mech.  Yes there a trade-off in the design phase of having less armor per ton in some cases, but it doesn't suffer from any ill-effects when it comes to normal combat.

If a energy weapon hits you, it's normal damage.  That's fine.   If missile or ballistic, it cuts it down by have.  To me, it's good thing if you run into a UrbanMech packing AC/20 inside a building or or a serious Dakka Missile boat hiding around on the field.  If you running into Lyrans or Davion forces who adore Autocannons, that's a thing you'd want be having on your machine.

Also, it doesn't cause issues with slowing down your Mech like Harden Armor causes.

[Tyler Jorgensson]

I like it combined with a Blue Shield :)

[Firesprocket]

BRA would appear to give some nice padding against a vehicle heavy/combined arms force as well.  A significant portion of non mech forces are going to be tossing non energy weapons at you.  That's probably a bit specialized a roll, but it may be worth wild for some IS or Periphery powers.

[Wrangler]

BRA would appear to give some nice padding against a vehicle heavy/combined arms force as well.  A significant portion of non mech forces are going to be tossing non energy weapons at you.  That's probably a bit specialized a roll, but it may be worth wild for some IS or Periphery powers.

I hadn't considered the time period...there is alot combined arms.  Alot of the old Vehicles and added ones CGL to the era are bit more missile boatish.  The Behemouth II's support variant with the 8 Thunderbolt 5 missiles has a "Macross Massacre" sort feel if they all hit. Having BRA on your Mech's skin or any other vehicle would be particularly handy.

[Wolf72]

[xxx] would appear to give some nice padding ...

 >:D

I wasn't reading carefully and that first part totally came out of context.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I like it combined with a Blue Shield :)

And then watch as your opponent sends a bunch of laser-boats at you?

[Caedis Animus]

*Gets shot in the head by a Heavy Large Laser*

[Col Toda]

Because mechs trac heat I try to use standard armor only . Anything that slows play is bad : many armor types slow play . Special armor is expensive on mechs which are tough to take down can get real expensive . Better to use it on vehicles and in the same ERA as Bullistic Reinforced gets far better miliage from heat resistant or even heavy ferro fibrous .  A vehicle tends to lose 30 percent of its armor before it is taken out and with CASE much of it is salvageable after action

[Brakiel]

*Gets shot in the head by a Heavy Large Laser*

I already said my piece back in the original spawning topic, but I wanted to cover this in particular.

If we're judging specialty armor solely on the merits of "well, what if it got shot in the face with <x>?", then the only armor ever worth taking would be Hardened. And even that doesn't really hold up since a Heavy Gauss Rifle at short or a iHGR would still take off the head. That seems really disingenuous to me.

[AdmiralObvious]

I already said my piece back in the original spawning topic, but I wanted to cover this in particular.

If we're judging specialty armor solely on the merits of "well, what if it got shot in the face with <x>?", then the only armor ever worth taking would be Hardened. And even that doesn't really hold up since a Heavy Gauss Rifle at short or a iHGR would still take off the head. That seems really disingenuous to me.

I mean, it's a thing worth considering. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has thought "damn, I wish I used X instead of what I did". Hindsight will always make us think that.

As we've already discussed, different armors are good against each flavor of weapon. As mentioned above, depending on who you expect to face, maybe you're in a campaign against a specific faction, you probably will want to refit your armor to match what you expect to be facing. Ballistic Reinforced is a good solution for a majority of the weapons in the game. The weight difference doesn't mean much if you can just strip put something that you probably don't need anyways (like those spare small lasers and MGs that everyone has).

[Apocal]

I already said my piece back in the original spawning topic, but I wanted to cover this in particular.

If we're judging specialty armor solely on the merits of "well, what if it got shot in the face with <x>?", then the only armor ever worth taking would be Hardened. And even that doesn't really hold up since a Heavy Gauss Rifle at short or a iHGR would still take off the head. That seems really disingenuous to me.

I'm almost certain that post was a joke; just look at the attached image for further context. In fact his actual opinion on BRA :

Otherwise, I think it's worth twice its weight in Germanium compared to everything short of Ferro Lamellor.

Clearly, he doesn't hold its inability to tank a HLL headshot against the armor.