Engineers Any benefit to Reinforced Alloy armor?

[Stealthie]

I like to have "rules and standards" for the stuff I do in ED, partly for RP reasons and partly because it makes it easier to make decisions about individual ships if I know they "must" adhere to those rules.
Ages ago, I decided that all my trade ships would have light-alloy armor, my multiroles would have reinforced alloy armor and only my dedicated combat ships would have mil' grade composite armor.

With hindsight, this was a poor decision.

Now I know better, I realise that G5 light-weight MGC light-weight armor will always have the same Integrity as G5 heavy-duty reiforced alloy armor and be lighter too.

So, before I set about stripping all the reinforced alloy armor off various ships and replacing it with light-weight MGC armor, IS there any benefit to reinforced alloy over light-weight MGC armor?

Obviously, MGC armor is more expensive than reinforced alloy but cost isn't an issue.

 

[Ceekay]

Just punched a few number into Coriolis (Krait mk2 for reference) and the lightweight MGC does have lower mass and better armour parameters, same absolute but better explosive, kinetic and thermal effective armour (around +10%) and about 30% less mass.

So if cost isn't an issue and lower mass is advantageous MGC lightweight is the way to go, TBH I reckon the defensive options can be very dependent on the ship as hull hardness and stock armour rating will impact on the choice of armour, e.g. the Krait and Python are similar but the Python has higher hardness and base armour.

 

[Stealthie]

FWIW, I notice that reinforced alloy armor has the same problem at the other end of the scale too.

If you apply a G5 heavy-duty mod' to Light Alloy armor (which still has a weight of 0) you'll get the same resistances and almost identical Integrity as you get by applying a G5 light-weight mod' to Reinforced Alloy armor (which also has a weight penalty).

Seems like engineering has rendered Reinforced Alloy armor completely redundant, in practical terms. [where is it]

When I started fitting RA armor, before engineering was a thing, I guess it was a sensible compromise between LA and MGC.
Now, with engineering, I guess that isn't the case any more.

Seeing as how nobody has posted anything in support of RA armor, I guess I can start figuring out which of my ships have it and get it replaced.

 

[Ceekay]

A high percentage of my fleet run with stock hull + HD + DP, originally this was down to cost as MGC could cost nearly as much as the stock ship and RSC could be more than double but currently I up-armour on a ship by ship basis.

For smaller ships or ships with limited optional internals upgrading to say to MGC is a good way of improving survivability without compromising on flexibility, AFAIK RSC + TR is considered "best" due to it's balanced resistances but against Thargoid weapons their absolute damage only cares about integrity (hit points).

The availability of Guardian FSD boosters complicates the issue even further as the jump range reduction due to heavy armour can be negated with an FSD booster, also the Guardian shield packages can improve resistance based shielding significantly (currently I have a FAS with over 1200 MJ shield strength crazy!)

Perhaps a combination of armour and shield enhancements might be a better approach to produce a balanced defensive package for each ship.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Armour (core) scaling needs some fine tuning [reactive for the cost, which is quite relevant]... as well as the Guardian Modules (i.e. the PP and distro are barely useful).

 

[Stealthie]

Perhaps a combination of armour and shield enhancements might be a better approach to produce a balanced defensive package for each ship.

This is probably true but having to figure it all out for every ship makes my head hurt.
Part of the reason I deliberately have these "rules" is that it gives me limitations for each build which prevent me from disappearing up my own hoop while trying to decide what to do with each build.
I make the effort to think it all through properly for my "important" ships but for the more mundane mission-runners, I find it easier just to build 'em to a set recipe.

Regarding shields, I never really liked bi-weaves until I tried supporting them with Guardian SBs.
Now I've got a Multirole Corvette which has 5000MJ of shields and can recharge it's shield while I'm hoovering up mat's in a CZ. :O

 

[Morbad]

IS there any benefit to reinforced alloy over light-weight MGC armor?

If you lightweight the reinforced stuff, you have another intermediate step between the stock alloys and light MGC.

It's very niche, but there are cases where it's useful.

If you apply a G5 heavy-duty mod' to Light Alloy armor (which still has a weight of 0) you'll get the same resistances and almost identical Integrity as you get by applying a G5 light-weight mod' to Reinforced Alloy armor (which also has a weight penalty).

The light weight reinforced has appreciably better resistances than heavy duty lightweight.

Armour (core) scaling needs some fine tuning [reactive for the cost, which is quite relevant]... as well as the Guardian Modules (i.e. the PP and distro are barely useful).

Reactive has the best mix of resistances and despite the cost is probably the most used bulkhead type for serious combat vessels.

This is probably true but having to figure it all out for every ship makes my head hurt.

Weighing these trade-offs is half the fun of building a ship.