Guns, guns and more guns

[Toadmaster]

Ok, now that the initial gushing over DC seems to have died down (and I admit it is a pretty good book even if I didn't get everything I wanted from it) how about some discussion of the combat section. For me some parts are very nice to see but unfortunately there are also several parts I disliked.


I like many of the manuevers and optional rules, some I will use as written others give me some good ideas. I like grace under fire, CQB and Piercing in particular. Some were also amusing such as the firing the gun sideways, no game value to me but it made me smile and I understand why its there. Others I don't particularly agree with the execution but it gives me ideas for example recoil, I don't care for the -1 OCV per shot which I think is way to much and doesn't take into account the shooter or gun but it did give me the idea of adding to the strmin per shot which I think will work out nicely (so a big burly 18 str guy shooting a .22 pistol (strmin 10) will not have as much trouble rapidly shooting as a pencil neck (str 7) blasting away with a .44 Mag (strmin 12).

I don't like the ammo section much, there are really only 4 kinds of bullets armor piercing, enhanced damage (hollow points), accurate (match grade) and "cargo" carrying (tear gas, he etc), pretty much everything else falls into a sub catagory of these. Considering the narrow range of damage in the HERO system this section was way over done in my opinion and could have been better used to provide some description of the weapons for those who don't know what the variuos guns and such are (not a problem for me personally since I have enough gun books to choke a Brontosaurus, sorry Apatosaurus but I know many gamers who don't).

I also am really disappointed that Steve did not take the time or space to explain how he came up with the stats. Why does the .45ACP a low velocity handgun get an OCV bonus but the S&W M586 .357 Magnum which is nearly double the velocity and generally longer barreled not get one. Why does the .45 ACP do more damage than the .357 Magnum and .41 Magnum both of which are significantly more powerful, why does a .22 handgun have a strmin of 10 and a .44 Magnum have a Strmin of 11 (I've fired both and there is quite a differance between them). I found the stats to raise all kinds of these questions as I read through it. As Steve said these things will probably be debated forever so its not surprising that I disagree with some of them but it would have been nice to know what the criteria was for deciding the stats.

So what did the rest of you think about the combat section (come on you lurking gunbunneys I know there are some of you out there, Gewing, NuSord...)

[PoorWandering 1]

I'll agree with you that it needed a line or two of description of each gun. That way non gun bunnies can at least have some idea what that string of numbers looks/feels like.
~ PWO the anti-gunbunny

[Edsel]

I have always prefered a bit more leathality in the firearms in our DC games. So I have been re-evaluating the guns we use in our games to determine our own values for damage, STUNx, and AR (Armor Rating) which we use to measure how well the gun in question penetrates armor.

Right now I've got a spread sheet (with lots of different cartridges in it) that accounts for bullet diameter to the thousandth of an inch, weight in grains of the projectile, Velocity in feet per second. With that input I can determine ft./lb. of energy, Momentum (in slug feet), Sectional Density, and the Taylor Knockout value. It's great. It gives me a dizzying array of numbers to play with.

However there are just so many variables when dealing with guns and cartridges that... gaaah! You get the idea. My system may work okay for figuring out how some rounds compare to each other but there are some rounds that just defy logic. For instance if you feed all the data in for the P90 submachine gun you find that it should really be very poor at penetrating anything (the momentum of the round is horrible). On the other end of the scale you'll find that H&H new .700 Nitro Express penetrates armor as well as a .50-cal HMG. Of course maybe a 1000 grain .700 dia. bullet at 2000 fps would penetrate quite a bit if it weren't for that round nose.

In the end I really just have to rely on my own knowledge and experience (which is questionable) and give it my best guess.

[Maelstrom]

Why does the .45ACP a low velocity handgun get an OCV bonus but the S&W M586 .357 Magnum which is nearly double the velocity and generally longer barreled not get one.

For a long time, the M1911A1 was the standard pistol of the military, and was considered very accurate. Still, IMO, one of the best handguns of all time.

[Maelstrom]

Right now I've got a spread sheet (with lots of different cartridges in it) that accounts for bullet diameter to the thousandth of an inch, weight in grains of the projectile, Velocity in feet per second. With that input I can determine ft./lb. of energy, Momentum (in slug feet), Sectional Density, and the Taylor Knockout value. It's great. It gives me a dizzying array of numbers to play with.


So, DUDE, POST IT!

[Edsel]

Well here is a zipped copy of the spreadsheet. It is in Excel. One warning anything that you see shaded in yellow is my own experimentations. If it ain't in yellow its real data. It may seem pretty chaotic to you as well.

[Edsel]

For a long time, the M1911A1 was the standard pistol of the military, and was considered very accurate. Still, IMO, one of the best handguns of all time.

The +1 OCV may have to do with it being single-action. I have fired a lot of double and single-action semi-automatics. I always shoot better with single-action. Most competition marksmen use single-action due to the shorter trigger pull. The millisecond delay caused by a double-action trigger pull can allow for a normal human's trimbling hands to wander off target by just the slightest amount. Even dual action guns have this problem since the trigger pull is still longer. Of course this may just be my personal bias entering into it as well. Different people do better with different guns.

Gee, I spell terrible. :rolleyes:

[AaronD]

Well here is a zipped copy of the spreadsheet. It is in Excel. One warning anything that you see shaded in yellow is my own experimentations. If it ain't in yellow its real data. It may seem pretty chaotic to you as well.

Thanks. I made a similar spreadsheet but just for WW2 weapons. My gunnutfu isn't so good so there are probably errors. Plus, it generates stats for d20 instead of Hero. I've been trying to come up with some sort of way to judge a weapons accuracy from its stats; it's non-trivial.


Aaron

[Toadmaster]

For a long time, the M1911A1 was the standard pistol of the military, and was considered very accurate. Still, IMO, one of the best handguns of all time.


I'm actually not so concerned with why the M1911A1 got a +1 OCV, its more on the how it was determined. From looking at the stats I am guessing there was no rhyme or reason just "that looks good" the reason I picked the M586 to compare with the M1911A1 is that they are very similar guns in accuracy and quality and the .357 is natuarally a more accurate round although it does have more of a "flinch" factor due to its greater power. Revolvers are also natuarally more accurate since they have fixed barrels, semi autos particularly Browning designs such as the M1911A1 the barrel moves so alignment with the sights varies slightly from shot to shot.

But my point wasn't so much one gun to the next just I would have expected some discussion on how to assign stats.

Edsel I have a new computer without Office or similar program installed so I can't actually look at your files yet but it sounds like we have similar ideas on figuring stats, although I base damage (penetration) on muzzle energy and "knockdown" (stunX) on a formula using bullet weight and velocity (favors bullet weight), penetration is further modified with levels of piercing which are gained from velocity, finally Rmod bonuses are also gained from velocity (faster = flatter trajectory).

[Edsel]

Here is how I have been going about getting the data for my guns/cartridges. Hopefully it will be of some use to some of you. I am curious if Toadmaster is using this sort of data for his calculations.

I have a book "Cartridges of the World, 10th Edition, Revised and Expanded". Of course this is this years edition. Published by Krause publications. ISBN 0-87349-605-1. It is one of the most exhaustive books I have found giving data for various cartridges. I know Amazon carries it. I got my at the Oklahoma State Department of Libraries main branch (right next door to my office) :) Over 1500 cartridges in this book. It gives you diameter to the thousandth of an inch, weight in grains, and muzzle velocity for all the cartridges it covers. Of course these can only be used as a baseline since barrel length and other factors can have a big effect on velocity, etc.

Next we have the formula that I use to derive various bits of information.

Muzzle Energy in ft./lb. = (Weight in grains * Muzzle velocity in fps squared) / 450395

Momentum is the tendency of an object in motion to STAY in motion. Anyone who has pushed a car in neutral and then tried to stop it will understand this -- the more momentum it has, the more resistance it will take to stop it. Momentum is measured in "slug feet per second".

Momentum in slug-feet per second = (Weight in grains * Muzzle velocity) / 225120

A ping-pong ball thrown at a pop can will bounce off. A BB will go right through. What makes the difference? The Sectional Density. Even though they may weigh the same, in a BB the weight is much more concentrated. Since it is striking a smaller area on the target, more of the momentum is conserved, and it will penetrate deeper. Other factors being the same, a denser projectile will always penetrate more effectively than a lighter one. Sectional density is measured in pounds per square inch.

Sectional Density = (Weight in grains / 7000) / Diameter in inches Squared

Taylor Knockdown formula (TKO), sometimes called "Taylor Index", which integrates calibre and momentum to generate a relative value that is a guide to the potential of a round to incapacite a target. The science behind this is questionable but based on the results that big game hunters report it seems to be somewhat accurate.

Taylor Knockout = (Weight in grains * Velocity in fps * Diameter in Inches) / 7000

Most pistol hollowpoint rounds are designed to expand to 150% of their original diameter, so one can multiply the calibre by 1.5 to get an idea of how the round will perform if it mushrooms. Since we don't know the likelihood of mushrooming we must express the bullet's TKO value as a range rather than an average. Therefore a 230gr Hollowpoint .45 at 850fps has a TKO of 12.57-18.85 and a 124gr 9mm Hollowpoint at 1200fps has a TKO of 7.55-11.32.

Some argue that TKO is only useful for comparing pistol bullets to pistol bullets or rifle to rifle. Some hunters that have used both handguns and rifles assert that TKO is relevant for comparison. A 44 magnum 240gr at 1400fps with a TKO=20.6 is more likely to drop a deer more often than a .270 Win 130gr at 3100fps with a TKO=15.9.

Damage Notes (assorted misc. notes I've made)
Fragmentation: Bullets traveling in excess of 2650 to 2950 ft/s tend to shed lead fragments within the body. This significantly increases the severity of wounds. Only riflerounds tend to do this. No pistol loads (even the new hot ones) generate enough velocity to do this.

Bullets traveling in excess of 1300 ft/s tend to cause large temporary wound cavities in their targets. This may give a boost to the Stunning power of the round.

Penetration of the bullet is of primary concern when talking about handguns. The ability to penetrate 18"+ of soft tissue is ideal. 12" is the minimum for a law enforcement weapon. Unless a rifle is low-powered its penetation ability will probably not be a factor.

As long as penetration requirements have been met, bullet diameter is probably the most important criteria for determining the amount of damage person will sustain.

None of the data presented above even begins to address things like bullet shape or ballistic coefficents (which I am still hazy on). Obviously a ball (round tip soft lead) round is much poorer at penetrating than a sharp nosed full metal jacket round.

Next I could start to rant on why I think there are three types of guns:
"Plinkers": .22 LR pistols fun for target shooting and eliminating vermin (snakes, rats, etc.)
"Real Guns": For Revolvers .357 M or larger, for Semi-Autos .45 ACP and up.
"Tweeners": Everyting in between. Too big for a plinker and too small to be a real gun. (I believe that 9mm is too small a calibur for a combat hand gun, give me a .45 ACP.)

[Toadmaster]

It does look like we do things similarly, one differance is your use of a momentium formula, I use straight muzzle energy although my stun mod formula is similar to the momentium formula.

Damage = ME (joules) base 100J> = 1DC, each doubling adds a DC (200 J = DC2, 400J = DC 3 etc) this works out very close to the original Hero stats.

StunMod = bullet weight (grams) x caliber (mm) + (Vel(m)/20) / 100

99> = +0 stnmod
100-199 = +1 stnmod
200-399 = 2 stnmod

etc

From my reading it seems two things determine a bullets stopping power, high velocity and a big heavy bullet, in pistols most of the "man-stoppers" are big bores but the velocity portion allows medium bore high velocity cartridges like the .357 Magnum to get that +1. Similarly lighter bullets at high velocity in rifles (such as the 7.62mm NATO) also get that +1.


I also add piercing and rmod based on the cartridge in addition to rmod based on the gun. Velocity is important to armor penetration (I based this fact on formulas for figuring cannon armor penetration). Since the damage combines tissue damage and penetration piercing gives a little bonus to high velocity rounds without adding to the lethality of it. This is handy for rounds like the 5.7mm FN which have good penetration but questionable effect on tissue (small hole in and out).

Piercing
velocity
0-299 m/s = +0
300-599 m/s = +1
600-1199 m/s = +2
1200-2499 m/s = +3

etc

Rmod
velocity
0-249 m/s = -1 Rmod
250-499 m/s = +0 Rmod
500-1000 m/s = +1 Rmod
1000-2000 m/s = +2 Rmod

Again velocity is important, the faster a bullet the flatter the trajectory, so a fast bullet is easier to aim.


The overall formulas tend to favor velocity over bullet weight but because the stun mod is so heavily weighted towards big bullets I think it balances out. The .45 is still one of the best "man stoppers" in the service handgun catagory but it does not totally overshadow the 9mm Parabellum (the .45 is better but you can get more 9mm cartridges into a magazine which tends to be the real argument as well). The problem I found with many formulas I tried is they tended to seriously either favor heavy bullets or fast bullets, I think this one is balanced. I generally look at 9mm vs .45 and 5.56mm vs 7.62mm when playing around with damage formulas, there are valid arguments on each side and all have seen extensive real world use, if they all still have a reason to exist but also still have advantages over each other then I feel like I have a workable system.

As far as references go, Cartridges of the world is a good one, I have bought several editions over the years, another one I really like is Understanding Ballistic by Robert Rinker, this is by far the best book on the subject I've found, it takes a rather complex subject and puts it in terms most people can understand. While it is aimed at hunters and home defense you couldn't ask for a better book for a gamer trying to design a system.
For larger cartridges Rapid Fire by Tony Williams is good, it deals with heavy machine guns and auto cannons. Finally I have several old 70's NRA type books I found in used book stores that have some good information.

As far as your opinion on guns I would agree except for the 9mm, I believe the .45 and .357 mag (my personal favorite) are superior, but the 9mm has been around for along time and is still a widely used combat round, if it was as bad as the big bore crowd claimed I don't think it would still be used after 2 world wars, numerous smaller wars and years of law enforcement use. I saw a discussion on the 8 bore elephant gun and some one made the comment that when smokeless powder took over people complained the .577 Nitro was too small to be effective (8 gauge is around .80"), I guess bigger is always better but its hard to decide whats good enough.

[HewhoisMatt]

Jeez guys with all the math when do you have time to roleplay? I mean for the love of six siders I grew grew up in a gun store(it was dads)and I don't put that much thought in to gun damage.

I would have liked to have seen more pics of the guns in question and some better descriptions. I know however that the folks at hero did not have time to go out and shoot every gun and test every round.

All in all I think the book was well done.

[Edsel]

I like the book too. It is an improvement of the old 4th Edition DC and that is high praise. I even agree, pretty much, with Steve's measure of how the various guns stack up against each other. I just prefer to have my guns be a bit more lethal. Our campaign just bumps up the base damage for most caliburs up a damage class or two. For instance our 9x19mm guns do 2d6+1 RKA, 1d6-1 StunX. Our .45 ACP's do 3d6-1 RKA, 1d6 StunX. However we assign a value called AR (Armor Rating) to all our guns. A 9mm has a 1.5 AR and a .45 has a 2 AR. AR is the value that resistant defense is multiplied against that attack. For instance a bullet proof vest get double its normal resistant defense against a .45 since a .45 is not as good a penetrator. The 9mm multiplies armor by 1.5.

Something like a .50 BMG is 3d6 RKA but has no AR instead it has 6 points of piercing and has a StunX of 1d6+2.

Part of the reason I am revisiting all of the gun data our group uses it because I don't necessarily like what we have now. Since 5th Edition is now out I figured it was a good time for a review.

Another problem we run into is that changing all of the gun damage values means that we have to revamp all of the body armor. Personally I am so tired of messing with it all that I am tempted to just adopt one of the options that the DC book mentioned and up the BODY multiple for any guns shot wounds. For instance a Chest hit becomes x1.5 BODY, x3 Stun and a Head hit would become x2.5 BODY, x5 Stun. That way our guns are more lethal but I don't have to rework all the guns and body armor. I can just use them straight out of the book with only a few minor tweaks here and there.

Now I just gotta get the rest of my gaming group to buy this concept.

[Zeropoint]

The +1 OCV may have to do with it being single-action. I have fired a lot of double and single-action semi-automatics. I always shoot better with single-action. Most competition marksmen use single-action due to the shorter trigger pull. The millisecond delay caused by a double-action trigger pull can allow for a normal human's trimbling hands to wander off target by just the slightest amount. Even dual action guns have this problem since the trigger pull is still longer. Of course this may just be my personal bias entering into it as well. Different people do better with different guns.

I was recently checking out some pistols at a sporting goods store, and I can confirm that the single-action semi-autos have a MUCH better trigger pull than the double-actions (when cocked).

Zeropoint

[gewing]

I don't have the book yet. From what you just posted....

Should I buy it, or will it DRIVE ME NUTS????

OK, yes I do get rather Anal about some things. ;)


Ok, now that the initial gushing over DC seems to have died down (and I admit it is a pretty good book even if I didn't get everything I wanted from it) how about some discussion of the combat section. For me some parts are very nice to see but unfortunately there are also several parts I disliked.


I like many of the manuevers and optional rules, some I will use as written others give me some good ideas. I like grace under fire, CQB and Piercing in particular. Some were also amusing such as the firing the gun sideways, no game value to me but it made me smile and I understand why its there. Others I don't particularly agree with the execution but it gives me ideas for example recoil, I don't care for the -1 OCV per shot which I think is way to much and doesn't take into account the shooter or gun but it did give me the idea of adding to the strmin per shot which I think will work out nicely (so a big burly 18 str guy shooting a .22 pistol (strmin 10) will not have as much trouble rapidly shooting as a pencil neck (str 7) blasting away with a .44 Mag (strmin 12).

I don't like the ammo section much, there are really only 4 kinds of bullets armor piercing, enhanced damage (hollow points), accurate (match grade) and "cargo" carrying (tear gas, he etc), pretty much everything else falls into a sub catagory of these. Considering the narrow range of damage in the HERO system this section was way over done in my opinion and could have been better used to provide some description of the weapons for those who don't know what the variuos guns and such are (not a problem for me personally since I have enough gun books to choke a Brontosaurus, sorry Apatosaurus but I know many gamers who don't).

I also am really disappointed that Steve did not take the time or space to explain how he came up with the stats. Why does the .45ACP a low velocity handgun get an OCV bonus but the S&W M586 .357 Magnum which is nearly double the velocity and generally longer barreled not get one. Why does the .45 ACP do more damage than the .357 Magnum and .41 Magnum both of which are significantly more powerful, why does a .22 handgun have a strmin of 10 and a .44 Magnum have a Strmin of 11 (I've fired both and there is quite a differance between them). I found the stats to raise all kinds of these questions as I read through it. As Steve said these things will probably be debated forever so its not surprising that I disagree with some of them but it would have been nice to know what the criteria was for deciding the stats.

So what did the rest of you think about the combat section (come on you lurking gunbunneys I know there are some of you out there, Gewing, NuSord...)

[gewing]

There is accurate, and there is accurate. The .357 is MUCH flatter shooting, and much easier to hit with at extended ranges. You don't see the .45 shot in matches at more than 50 yards. .357 however...



For a long time, the M1911A1 was the standard pistol of the military, and was considered very accurate. Still, IMO, one of the best handguns of all time.

[gewing]

If you haunt your local used bookstore, the OLDER issues of Cartridges of teh WOrld have some GREAT stuff that isn't in it anymore.

As for Tony Williams "Rapid Fire" He is a regular poster on the Tanknet forums, and has a new book out in about 2.5 months on the history/development of the Assault Rifle. I WANT IT NOW!!

I don't have time tonight to go through your systems point by point. I'll try to get to them later in the week.





It does look like we do things similarly, one differance is your use of a momentium formula, I use straight muzzle energy although my stun mod formula is similar to the momentium formula.

Damage = ME (joules) base 100J> = 1DC, each doubling adds a DC (200 J = DC2, 400J = DC 3 etc) this works out very close to the original Hero stats.

StunMod = bullet weight (grams) x caliber (mm) + (Vel(m)/20) / 100

99> = +0 stnmod
100-199 = +1 stnmod
200-399 = 2 stnmod

etc

From my reading it seems two things determine a bullets stopping power, high velocity and a big heavy bullet, in pistols most of the "man-stoppers" are big bores but the velocity portion allows medium bore high velocity cartridges like the .357 Magnum to get that +1. Similarly lighter bullets at high velocity in rifles (such as the 7.62mm NATO) also get that +1.


I also add piercing and rmod based on the cartridge in addition to rmod based on the gun. Velocity is important to armor penetration (I based this fact on formulas for figuring cannon armor penetration). Since the damage combines tissue damage and penetration piercing gives a little bonus to high velocity rounds without adding to the lethality of it. This is handy for rounds like the 5.7mm FN which have good penetration but questionable effect on tissue (small hole in and out).

Piercing
velocity
0-299 m/s = +0
300-599 m/s = +1
600-1199 m/s = +2
1200-2499 m/s = +3

etc

Rmod
velocity
0-249 m/s = -1 Rmod
250-499 m/s = +0 Rmod
500-1000 m/s = +1 Rmod
1000-2000 m/s = +2 Rmod

Again velocity is important, the faster a bullet the flatter the trajectory, so a fast bullet is easier to aim.


The overall formulas tend to favor velocity over bullet weight but because the stun mod is so heavily weighted towards big bullets I think it balances out. The .45 is still one of the best "man stoppers" in the service handgun catagory but it does not totally overshadow the 9mm Parabellum (the .45 is better but you can get more 9mm cartridges into a magazine which tends to be the real argument as well). The problem I found with many formulas I tried is they tended to seriously either favor heavy bullets or fast bullets, I think this one is balanced. I generally look at 9mm vs .45 and 5.56mm vs 7.62mm when playing around with damage formulas, there are valid arguments on each side and all have seen extensive real world use, if they all still have a reason to exist but also still have advantages over each other then I feel like I have a workable system.

As far as references go, Cartridges of the world is a good one, I have bought several editions over the years, another one I really like is Understanding Ballistic by Robert Rinker, this is by far the best book on the subject I've found, it takes a rather complex subject and puts it in terms most people can understand. While it is aimed at hunters and home defense you couldn't ask for a better book for a gamer trying to design a system.
For larger cartridges Rapid Fire by Tony Williams is good, it deals with heavy machine guns and auto cannons. Finally I have several old 70's NRA type books I found in used book stores that have some good information.

As far as your opinion on guns I would agree except for the 9mm, I believe the .45 and .357 mag (my personal favorite) are superior, but the 9mm has been around for along time and is still a widely used combat round, if it was as bad as the big bore crowd claimed I don't think it would still be used after 2 world wars, numerous smaller wars and years of law enforcement use. I saw a discussion on the 8 bore elephant gun and some one made the comment that when smokeless powder took over people complained the .577 Nitro was too small to be effective (8 gauge is around .80"), I guess bigger is always better but its hard to decide whats good enough.

[HewhoisMatt]

There is accurate, and there is accurate. The .357 is MUCH flatter shooting, and much easier to hit with at extended ranges. You don't see the .45 shot in matches at more than 50 yards. .357 however...

As most gun fights in the U.S. take place at 9ft or closer and most pistol matches where you see 1911s in are aimed at practical combat there is never a fifty yard run in these matches. The only time you see that is in steel matches often with single shot contenders. If a man you need to kill is 150ft away, use a rifle.

As far as damage goes. In the words of one of the instuctors at Front Sight told me "If a piece of metal has just forced its way in to your body, you have a problem" so I would not laugh the 9mm out of the room just yet.

[Toadmaster]

I don't have the book yet. From what you just posted....

Should I buy it, or will it DRIVE ME NUTS????

OK, yes I do get rather Anal about some things. ;)

Yes you should get it, it is a good book, my gripe is that so much had been made of it being the new "modern HERO" and in my opinion it is more like modern once again getting jammed in with another genre. It is an improvement over the old DC and if you've seen eye for an eye, I would say that should give you an idea of what to expect (DC & Eye for an eye combined and rewritten). The firearms stats may drive you nuts but there still is some good stuff in the chapter.

[megaplayboy]

I don't have the book yet. From what you just posted....

Should I buy it, or will it DRIVE ME NUTS????

OK, yes I do get rather Anal about some things. ;)

Can't possibly drive you as nuts as the Missouri class battleship with 10 DEF in the HSVS (and Steve's response when I pointed this out) did me... :stupid:

[Metaphysician]

Vehicle rules in every hero book I've read have been screwy. Its the system's biggest weakness.

[SCUBA Hero]

Can't possibly drive you as nuts as the Missouri class battleship with 10 DEF in the HSVS (and Steve's response when I pointed this out) did me... :stupid:Eh, just plate it with heavy Kevlar vests to up the DEF :doi:

What was Steve's response, btw?

[arcady]

The guns was one of the few points of serious frustration for me in Dark Champions.

Not being from Kentuky or anything like that, I had and have no idea what all those numbers meant...

I'm from the inner city - we don't make the guns or buy the guns, we just get them tossed in our hoods so we can shoot each other with them and we don't really read the labels on them...

And the only gun I've ever personally held or used was an m-16. Beyond that, they were just something you heard before or after the sirens growing up.


Not everybody is a gun nut or militia-boy, and the book makes the mistake of presuming so.

[Edsel]

Not everybody is a gun nut or militia-boy, and the book makes the mistake of presuming so.I start suffering from withdrawl if I don't smell burnt cordite at least once or twice a month. :joint: :bmk: :cheers:

Contrary to popular belief we are not all sweet-tea sipp'n, shotgun toting maniacs... Just most of us.

[HewhoisMatt]

The guns was one of the few points of serious frustration for me in Dark Champions.

Not being from Kentuky or anything like that, I had and have no idea what all those numbers meant...

I'm from the inner city - we don't make the guns or buy the guns, we just get them tossed in our hoods so we can shoot each other with them and we don't really read the labels on them...

And the only gun I've ever personally held or used was an m-16. Beyond that, they were just something you heard before or after the sirens growing up.


Not everybody is a gun nut or militia-boy, and the book makes the mistake of presuming so.


Well I'm not sure what Kentucky has to do with this thread but I can say that you do not need to be a Nut of any sort or a young man in a militia to have a interest in firearms. If someone has a gun they were not given and did not buy it, then there is a good chance they stole it.

[megaplayboy]

Eh, just plate it with heavy Kevlar vests to up the DEF :doi:

What was Steve's response, btw?
He said that based on the research he had done, he stood by the writeup.

[gewing]

average gunfight range is short. sure.

However, don't sell pistols short. the Action matches, such as IPSC and such can reach out quite a bit farther than the 25 yards. that is part of why the race guns are often in .38 super or something equivalent, flatter trajectory.

I never have sold the 9mm short. I have a sig 9mm and a Kimber .45. I prefer a .45 just because where I live, the odds of having to put down a road hit deer are higher than a gun fight.

While a 9mm will do that, I feel a .45 has a grater margin of success.

Oh, and I do agree with you, but I would say if you need to kill a man, use a long gun. If you don't have one, use a pistol. I am a poor pistol shot, and a mediocre rifle shot. I would choose a rifle almost every time, particularly if I had MY choice of rifle.



As most gun fights in the U.S. take place at 9ft or closer and most pistol matches where you see 1911s in are aimed at practical combat there is never a fifty yard run in these matches. The only time you see that is in steel matches often with single shot contenders. If a man you need to kill is 150ft away, use a rifle.

As far as damage goes. In the words of one of the instuctors at Front Sight told me "If a piece of metal has just forced its way in to your body, you have a problem" so I would not laugh the 9mm out of the room just yet.

[gewing]

I WISH I thought you were kidding... 36 inches of high hardness armor steel(front turret, iirc), 10 def. Uh huh.



Can't possibly drive you as nuts as the Missouri class battleship with 10 DEF in the HSVS (and Steve's response when I pointed this out) did me... :stupid:

[gewing]

GREAAATTT. that's reassuring. :rolleyes:


He said that based on the research he had done, he stood by the writeup.

[megaplayboy]

GREAAATTT. that's reassuring. :rolleyes:

I wanted to ask, "Okay, if I drop a 2000 pound bomb on an Abrams, and on a battleship, which one will still be functional?"

[gewing]

I could see the outer shell being 10def, if hardened. IIRC the US was the only WWII nation to use a High strength/hardness steel for EVERYTHING on our battleships. IIRC The outer shell was not even really considered armor, it was just a couple inches of armor grade steel. ;)




I wanted to ask, "Okay, if I drop a 2000 pound bomb on an Abrams, and on a battleship, which one will still be functional?"

[HewhoisMatt]

You drop a 2000lb bomb on just about anything and it is gonna curl up and die I would expect. I have not however had a chance to test that out.

[megaplayboy]

You drop a 2000lb bomb on just about anything and it is gonna curl up and die I would expect. I have not however had a chance to test that out.

Really? The Musashi took 17 bombs and 20 torpedo hits before sinking.

Battleships were designed to take hits from shells weighing from half a ton to two tons, and keep sailing.

The Tirpitz was sunk by a couple bomb hits--of course, they were 12,000 pound bombs ...

[HewhoisMatt]

I suppose one would also have to ask "What kind of bomb?" to know the truth of the matter, but as I said I have not had a chance to drop a 2000lb bomb on much of anything.

[gewing]

Note that WWII bombs were not normally travelling at Mach 2, like shells were...
IIRC
The Tirpitz might have survived, had the water not been so shallow the blast effect acted like a Mine... THe gasses/shockwave took the path of least resistance. As water is nearly incompressible, that was through the HULL.


Really? The Musashi took 17 bombs and 20 torpedo hits before sinking.

Battleships were designed to take hits from shells weighing from half a ton to two tons, and keep sailing.

The Tirpitz was sunk by a couple bomb hits--of course, they were 12,000 pound bombs ...

[Dauntless]

If you really want to know the why's of gun stats, then I suggest using Greg Porter's excellent Guns! Guns! Guns! (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=263&PHPSESSID=3f21610ba3783a3e466ed12a4a01b166). It is logically consistent and because you engineer the weapons, you know exactly why its performance characteristics are the way they are.

That's an issue I've had with the Hero system when it comes to realistic genres. It models descriptive effects to simulate powers rather than causal (or procedural) reasons. In other words, you simply describe what effects the power has, but there is no rationale or logic needed to explain how such a combination or end result is achieved. This descriptive-based system works great for stuff that isn't explainable like super-powers or magic. But for real world based powers, it leaves a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. It can model real-world effects, but often you have to double check what you've come up with against real world capabilities. And if you want to play a hard sci-fi campaign with plausible near-future items that make sense, then you have no real-world items to compare to. And for an old gamer used to games like Battletech or even Car Wars where technological components took up space and weight, this lack of either in Hero is disconcerting. How much DOES my particle accelerator weight compared with your Fusion gun? Can my Mk. 3 OGRE cross that damaged bridge?

If you'd like more real world stats on ballistics, here some useful stuff I've gleaned during my research into my own game:

http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/ballistics-ammunition.shtml
http://www.steyrscout.org/ballisti.htm
http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html

[RDU Neil]

That's an issue I've had with the Hero system when it comes to realistic genres. It models descriptive effects to simulate powers rather than causal (or procedural) reasons. In other words, you simply describe what effects the power has, but there is no rationale or logic needed to explain how such a combination or end result is achieved. This descriptive-based system works great for stuff that isn't explainable like super-powers or magic. But for real world based powers, it leaves a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. It can model real-world effects, but often you have to double check what you've come up with against real world capabilities. And if you want to play a hard sci-fi campaign with plausible near-future items that make sense, then you have no real-world items to compare to. And for an old gamer used to games like Battletech or even Car Wars where technological components took up space and weight, this lack of either in Hero is disconcerting. How much DOES my particle accelerator weight compared with your Fusion gun? Can my Mk. 3 OGRE cross that damaged bridge?


Dauntless... this is one of the BEST, most objectively written and clear analysis of the limits/downsides of the Hero System. It has been an issue that has clawed it's way through every edition, and you summed it up perfectly.

Personally, while I enjoy some techy/gun stuff... I've never had too much a problem just "winging it" in regards to weight, mass, mechanism, ballistics stuff... but only because my group isn't TOO hung up on this stuff.

We definitely recognize this issue, but find the things that Hero does well to outweigh what it doesn't.

To my mind, the Hero System is lacking just the sort of simple explanation you stated above. Something should read, "While effect based power construction is extremely versatile, open ended and flexible as a metagame mechanic, it simply will not satisfy the rigors of evaluation of real world physics, engineering, ballistics and other sciences. If you want this, you will be disappointed. LET IT GO... or go play another system."

Sorry if I'm not the anal retentive tech geek I should be... but it seems it would solve a lot of issues if Hero had a disclaimer like "Here are some basic rules on vehicle construction and use. They aren't perfect... in fact they are pretty bad... but if your game really centers on vehicles and vehicle combat, Hero isn't the system for you."

I'm not trying to sound off here... but I think this is a serious point the system should make. Hero will not satisfy everyone. There are certain things that it really isn't meant to do, nor is it good at doing... so don't give yourself a headache trying! It does many things well in a semii-universal way... but not everything, and it never will.

(Unfortunately, to me, the current style of Hero supplement is trying way too hard to make the system a micro-managed game for every possible genre and style. That just isn't feasible, and serves only to point out the flaws in the system, bury new players in mind numbing minutia, and drown out the really positive, effective aspects of game.)

Anyway... a tangent... but kind of to the point in that all these discussions of guns and ballistics and vehicle damage are really moot. Hero isn't built to handle this in a realistic way, so let it all lie.

[HewhoisMatt]

If you really want to know the why's of gun stats, then I suggest using Greg Porter's excellent Guns! Guns! Guns! (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=263&PHPSESSID=3f21610ba3783a3e466ed12a4a01b166). It is logically consistent and because you engineer the weapons, you know exactly why its performance characteristics are the way they are.

That's an issue I've had with the Hero system when it comes to realistic genres. It models descriptive effects to simulate powers rather than causal (or procedural) reasons. In other words, you simply describe what effects the power has, but there is no rationale or logic needed to explain how such a combination or end result is achieved. This descriptive-based system works great for stuff that isn't explainable like super-powers or magic. But for real world based powers, it leaves a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. It can model real-world effects, but often you have to double check what you've come up with against real world capabilities. And if you want to play a hard sci-fi campaign with plausible near-future items that make sense, then you have no real-world items to compare to. And for an old gamer used to games like Battletech or even Car Wars where technological components took up space and weight, this lack of either in Hero is disconcerting. How much DOES my particle accelerator weight compared with your Fusion gun? Can my Mk. 3 OGRE cross that damaged bridge?

If you'd like more real world stats on ballistics, here some useful stuff I've gleaned during my research into my own game:

http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/ballistics-ammunition.shtml
http://www.steyrscout.org/ballisti.htm
http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html


The problem (if there really is one) is in the fact that Hero has become a universal system, and like all universal things it does many things well but nothing perfect. Carwars is great about cars. Battletech is great about Mechs. They both suck at anything else. I remember anytime we used tanks or planes in Battletech it was a nightmare. You just can not do everything for every style. You are going to fall short somewhere. I would also pointout that Battletech and Carwars both sucked as RPGs. They were out of this world for combat, I blew many weekend playing both non-stop but they were not designed for roleplay they were designed for kicking ass.

In short Hero is for roleplayers not war gamers. If you need to know if you can cross a bridge or if a part is to heavy ask the GM, if he is any good he already knows.

[SCUBA Hero]

The guns was one of the few points of serious frustration for me in Dark Champions.

(snip)

Not everybody is a gun nut or militia-boy, and the book makes the mistake of presuming so.IIRC, Steve's answer when asked was that the information on real-world weapons is easily available elsewhere, and would have taken up space that could better be used for Hero System stuff. I agree with that.

[SCUBA Hero]

Some sites with pictures:

security arms (http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46545898&pid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=&sitemap=Site+Map)

recguns (http://www.recguns.com/)

Colt (http://www.colt.com/index_2.htm)

[arcady]

IIRC, Steve's answer when asked was that the information on real-world weapons is easily available elsewhere, and would have taken up space that could better be used for Hero System stuff. I agree with that.The same could be said of the desciptions of the weapons in Fantasy Hero. Or of the descriptions of the ammo in Dark Champions. Or the weapons in Ultimate Martial Artist, Or pictures of vehicles in the two vehicle books, or the pictures in the Bestiary that were for animals or creatures from mythology.

Not being a gun nut or militia member or anything like that, without you posting those links I would have no idea where to turn. Out here in California, we don't keep gun racks on the back of the pickup, and other than a few rogue aging actors we don't generally carry NRA cards. ;)

Not including a description of something stated out which is not a common thing but is a commonly used thing in the genre being described is a valid issue for complaint.

The book is good, but it does have this as one of the few major flaws.

[HewhoisMatt]

That Security Arms site is really cool. Thanks for posting it! :thumbup:

[gewing]

Two good references are "D-20 weapons locker" or R. Talsorian Games "Edge of Sword volume one"

If you have any military weapons interest, check your local library, perhaps university library in particular for "Janes Infantry Weapons."

The yearly annual gun magazine roundups have some basic information on many commercial guns.




The same could be said of the desciptions of the weapons in Fantasy Hero. Or of the descriptions of the ammo in Dark Champions. Or the weapons in Ultimate Martial Artist, Or pictures of vehicles in the two vehicle books, or the pictures in the Bestiary that were for animals or creatures from mythology.

Not being a gun nut or militia member or anything like that, without you posting those links I would have no idea where to turn. Out here in California, we don't keep gun racks on the back of the pickup, and other than a few rogue aging actors we don't generally carry NRA cards. ;)

Not including a description of something stated out which is not a common thing but is a commonly used thing in the genre being described is a valid issue for complaint.

The book is good, but it does have this as one of the few major flaws.

[megaplayboy]

The old Kevin Dockery book(The Armory) wasn't half bad.

Aftermath had probably the most math-intensive method of calculating bullet damage effectiveness I've seen in a game...

Sometimes I think the hollow-points and similar rounds would be better simulated with increased Body damage, but reduced penetration...

[Agemegos]

The Tirpitz was sunk by a couple bomb hits--of course, they were 12,000 pound bombs ...

And there were more than a couple: at least four direct hits, and a great many near misses which, with that much explosive and in such shallow water, might well have been good enough.

[Agemegos]

Note that WWII bombs were not normally travelling at Mach 2, like shells were...

Not normally, no. But the 6-ton 'Tallboy' bombs that sank the Tirpitz were at least supersonic. They were dropped from 18,000 feet, and designed to bury themselves in 100 feet of earth or soft rock before exploding (but in the successful Tirpitz raid they were not fitted with the usual delayed fuzes). In early testing they had trouble because they tumbled when they broke the sound barrier, which spoiled their accuracy and meant that they didn't hit nose-on, with the result that the cases broke open. The designer solved this problem by giving the tail-fins a slight offset, so that the bomb would spin. The gyroscopic effect then stabilised the bomb so that the shock of piercing its one shockwave would not topple it.


The Tirpitz might have survived, had the water not been so shallow the blast effect acted like a Mine... THe gasses/shockwave took the path of least resistance. As water is nearly incompressible, that was through the HULL.

Those weapons were indeed designed to work by inducing violent shockwaves in earth and water. You can read accounts of the remarkable things they did in Paul Brickhill's The Dam Busters (Evans Brothers, London, 1951). But I think that perhaps the direct hits on the Tirpitz might have done the job: the account of that raid reports that the ship was left burning, and suffered a magazine explosion.

Of course, not every battleship is as well-built as Tirpitz, the Missouri class, or Musashi. The British sank the (antiquated) Gueydon with 500-lb bombs, and the Japanese got the Prince of Wales (the pride of the Royal Navy at the time) with 250-kg (550-lb) bombs.

[gewing]

IIRC he also wrote Edge of sword.

In Edge of Sword, there were formulas for bullet damage, based on inches of penetration in tissue.... I set up a spreadsheet for it. Looked good.d

I could see that, and have proposed it. Or something like a little extra damage, Not versus armor.






The old Kevin Dockery book(The Armory) wasn't half bad.

Aftermath had probably the most math-intensive method of calculating bullet damage effectiveness I've seen in a game...

Sometimes I think the hollow-points and similar rounds would be better simulated with increased Body damage, but reduced penetration...

[Toadmaster]

Dauntless... this is one of the BEST, most objectively written and clear analysis of the limits/downsides of the Hero System. It has been an issue that has clawed it's way through every edition, and you summed it up perfectly.


Anyway... a tangent... but kind of to the point in that all these discussions of guns and ballistics and vehicle damage are really moot. Hero isn't built to handle this in a realistic way, so let it all lie.

Actually I don't find that to be true, sure HERO can be done with a "that looks right" technique but I have successfully used other systems to "build" things and convert them to HERO (GURPS vehicles, BTRC Vehicle design system, Guns, guns, guns, Car Wars, Twilight 2000 to name a few). Earlier versions of HERO (3rd ed, Danger International, Justice Incorperated, Robot Warriors etc) did a reasonable job, when HERO released 4th edition they dumbed down many of the realistic aspects in order to make the rules the same between Champions and the "realistic" genres. Unfortunately 5th has taken this route and made it even more noticable (one of my issues with the HERO time line, it increases the feeling that all stats should be the same no matter what genre).

Most of the issues fall apart while trying to maintain full compatability between all the genres which I think is a big mistake, there is no reason that a .50 machinegun should have to do the same damage in a game based on Black Hawk down as it does in a Justice league game any more than a GM should have to allow an Orc character in a Raiders of the Lost Ark campaign. This will only weaken the flavor of the genres. The basic HERO rules are very flexible and were formula based for the most part (2x = +1 being a big one), dropping some of this but keeping it in other cases is what is causing many of the problems currently in my opinion. I have been able to work out a more realistic feeling to a HERO game by rebuilding many of the items (using the rules differantly) rather than changing the rules to any great extent. For example I have a system based on data (barrel length, muzzle energy etc) to determine damage class, Rmod, OCV, levels of piercing, strmin etc. I have added some stats and I have developed a way to measure a weapons effectiveness. How I build the weapons is changed from the HERO method (non existant in 5th ed), the rules of use have not.

I agree that HERO may not be the best choice for all genres but it is far more capable than many people give it credit for. If you look at Here there be tigers and The Armory you will also see how much can be done by re-evaluating how the rules are applied without any major tweaking of the rules.

Unfortunately in my opinion 5th ed has not taken this path while trying to appeal to many genres which is just going to frustrate many people.

[Toadmaster]

If you really want to know the why's of gun stats, then I suggest using Greg Porter's excellent Guns! Guns! Guns! (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=263&PHPSESSID=3f21610ba3783a3e466ed12a4a01b166). It is logically consistent and because you engineer the weapons, you know exactly why its performance characteristics are the way they are.

That's an issue I've had with the Hero system when it comes to realistic genres. It models descriptive effects to simulate powers rather than causal (or procedural) reasons. In other words, you simply describe what effects the power has, but there is no rationale or logic needed to explain how such a combination or end result is achieved. This descriptive-based system works great for stuff that isn't explainable like super-powers or magic. But for real world based powers, it leaves a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. It can model real-world effects, but often you have to double check what you've come up with against real world capabilities. And if you want to play a hard sci-fi campaign with plausible near-future items that make sense, then you have no real-world items to compare to. And for an old gamer used to games like Battletech or even Car Wars where technological components took up space and weight, this lack of either in Hero is disconcerting. How much DOES my particle accelerator weight compared with your Fusion gun? Can my Mk. 3 OGRE cross that damaged bridge?



Guns Guns Guns is a good supplement and heavily influenced the way I do things. One thing I did not like was they did not use the stun mod which I think is one of HERO's best features and really helps to make up for the narrow range of damage. GGG looks at bullets simply from the stand point of making a hole in inanimate objects and does not consider that a 3/4" hole in living tissue will have more effect than a 1/4" hole. Over all though it provides an excellent base to start from.

BTRC's Vehicle Design System and the various GURPS books (Robots, Mecha, Vehicles etc) also help. Where I find HERO fails is in helping players design things, since it is all effect based. By using another system to get you to the effects (Battletech, Carwars etc) I've found that often the HERO rules are quite capable of representing the genre there are just no "tools" provided to do so. What I mean by this is you can play Car Wars with HERO but you can't really build the cars without Carwars (Autoduel Champions had pretty decent vehicle rules as I remember, I've been looking for a new copy for some time though so I don't remember the details).

[HewhoisMatt]

Toad I'm starting to think you just really like doing ten pages of math to fig out it hurts to get shot.

The whole point to Hero is that it is a Universal game and not nailed down in one style.

[Toadmaster]

The old Kevin Dockery book(The Armory) wasn't half bad.

Aftermath had probably the most math-intensive method of calculating bullet damage effectiveness I've seen in a game...

Sometimes I think the hollow-points and similar rounds would be better simulated with increased Body damage, but reduced penetration...


Unfortunately Aftermath also had the bad form of not using the rules they said they did, if you follow the directions to build a weapon you will find all the good ones "cheated", the .45 ACP should have been BDG 5, but they "bumped" it to 11, the .44 Magnum should have been 12 but again they "bumped" it up to 21 for the extra damage. The fact they did this should have told them thay had a problem. I actually "fixed" alot of this by following their rules but then making BDGs around 5 instead of 10, and rolling a d6 instead of a d10. Made things work better in the end. Aftermath was fun but there was alot of complication just for the sake of complexity, it is still one of the best sources for building a PA campaign though.

[Toadmaster]

Toad I'm starting to think you just really like doing ten pages of math to fig out it hurts to get shot.

The whole point to Hero is that it is a Universal game and not nailed down in one style.

Um, that is exactly my point, HERO is a universal system but that should not mean every genre is exactly the same except for the costumes.

As far as doing 10 pages of math that is up front, actual play is not much more complicated than any other HERO game. If you are willing to take the time to make a HERO character you should be able to understand the concept. Yes I am willing to spend alot of time to make the play experience the best it can be, how is that any differant from a GM spending years to make his own personalized campaign? Most of the players I play with are knowledgable about guns and poorly stated weapons will reduce the fun of playing.

[HewhoisMatt]

I can understand changing something that is over the top wrong such as in the first "Top Secret" game where you could kill a man by shooting him in the foot with a 22 LR almost every time. But to pull out the sliderule on every weapon seems to make fighting the most important part of the game. Most GMs who spend years to improve their game do so thru story, backgound, and NPCs not trig.

I mean I'm not shooting you down , if that is what floats your boat then go with God my son. It just does not sound like fun to me. I love to hunt and shoot but I also love to roleplay. I just choose to not combine the two.

[Toadmaster]

I can understand changing something that is over the top wrong such as in the first "Top Secret" game where you could kill a man by shooting him in the foot with a 22 LR almost every time. But to pull out the sliderule on every weapon seems to make fighting the most important part of the game. Most GMs who spend years to improve their game do so thru story, backgound, and NPCs not trig.

I mean I'm not shooting you down , if that is what floats your boat then go with God my son. It just does not sound like fun to me. I love to hunt and shoot but I also love to roleplay. I just choose to not combine the two.

Well, then we are in agreement because as far as I'm concerned 4th and 5th edition took a perfectly good combat system (3rd ed) and screwed them up. For me the stats in DC ARE over the top wrong.

I understand it is not an important subject to some but when you mostly play military and PA games it is an important item. Sometime back I recall a discussion of mideval economics and settlements as it applies to fantasy towns and villages everybody has some pet project even if others think they are crazy to spend time on it. I always find it interesting that trivial discussions of comic books is good gaming but discussions about how the real world works is not.

[gewing]

IIRC, my favorite part of Aftermath was the hit location system, though it has been over 20 years, so...


Unfortunately Aftermath also had the bad form of not using the rules they said they did, if you follow the directions to build a weapon you will find all the good ones "cheated", the .45 ACP should have been BDG 5, but they "bumped" it to 11, the .44 Magnum should have been 12 but again they "bumped" it up to 21 for the extra damage. The fact they did this should have told them thay had a problem. I actually "fixed" alot of this by following their rules but then making BDGs around 5 instead of 10, and rolling a d6 instead of a d10. Made things work better in the end. Aftermath was fun but there was alot of complication just for the sake of complexity, it is still one of the best sources for building a PA campaign though.

[HewhoisMatt]

IIRC, my favorite part of Aftermath was the hit location system, though it has been over 20 years, so...

I stopped use of the hit location chart except for called shots just because with 6 or 8 players in a fair sized combat it really slows things down alot.

[gewing]

IIRC, I liked that it both had a location chart and a method for DOING called shots. :)


I stopped use of the hit location chart except for called shots just because with 6 or 8 players in a fair sized combat it really slows things down alot.

[G_K_Zhukov]

And for an old gamer used to games like Battletech or even Car Wars where technological components took up space and weight, this lack of either in Hero is disconcerting. How much DOES my particle accelerator weight compared with your Fusion gun? Can my Mk. 3 OGRE cross that damaged bridge?

While I wholeheartedly agree with Dauntless' appraisal of Hero pros and cons, I find this particular quoted aspect most annoying!

[Resartus]

However there are just so many variables when dealing with guns and cartridges that... gaaah! You get the idea. My system may work okay for figuring out how some rounds compare to each other but there are some rounds that just defy logic. For instance if you feed all the data in for the P90 submachine gun you find that it should really be very poor at penetrating anything (the momentum of the round is horrible). On the other end of the scale you'll find that H&H new .700 Nitro Express penetrates armor as well as a .50-cal HMG. Of course maybe a 1000 grain .700 dia. bullet at 2000 fps would penetrate quite a bit if it weren't for that round nose.

In the end I really just have to rely on my own knowledge and experience (which is questionable) and give it my best guess.

The funny thing about the SS190 (the AP round for the P90) is that it is poor at penetrating anything but Kevlar. Basically any reasonably pointy round that travels at more than 2000 FPS is going to penetrate Threat level IIIa or less Kevlar armor. Modern aramid (family of fiber materials that includes Kevlar) based armors are really only good at stopping pistol calibers, it's a velocity issue. The only reason that a Threat level III or IV vest will stop a rifle round is the insert plates which are made of composites, ceramics, or steel.

I saw a video from FN Herstal recently that demonstrated the P90 in various conditions, it was interesting. One the major points that was made in the video was the lack of penetration that the P90 had against solid materials. The used it on a cinder block wall at point blank range and full-auto and none of the rounds went through. Try the same thing with an M-16 or an M-14 and you'll get penetration very quickly. Guns, guns, guns third edition gave the P90 a maximum penetration of 3.5 mm of armor quality steel vs. 6mm for 5.56mm round (M16). The biggest difference between the two rounds is mass, the NATO 5.56 has at least twice the mass of a SS190.

Basically the SS190 is almost exactly like a reversed ogive round (DC pg 206) or as it's better known a THV round. It dumps most of it's mass to achieve high velocity giving it soft armor penetration. Here are a couple of links about the P90 and Five seveN:

http://www.trmagonline.com/Spring2003TR/spring2003experienceswiththefnp90.htm
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=2

The first link covers some real world terminal ballistics info from a Houston SWAT member. The second link gives some interesting comparisons on the SS190 round. I was slightly surprised by the armor penetration of the SS190 when fired from the Five seveN (pistol companion to the P90 PDW), I didn't think it would have enough muzzel velocity. Please keep in mind that a PASGT vest like the ones in the second article have only 16 layers of Kevlar and a 1 mm thick titanium backing. Most threat level IIIa vests are over 30 layers thick, so keep this in mind when you read the part about it going through the front, back, and front of a second vest.

And while I'll be the first person to say that the P90 is not a wonder weapon, I was disapointed in the write-up it got in DC. Especially the tumbler designation which is completely wrong. The round can't tumble end over end as described and still be decent at penetrating armor which it is. The whole writeup reminds me of Mega Playboy's issue with 10 DEF battleship armor, it's just plain wrong.

It's late, and I'm going to call it quits. Sorry if I rambled, but the write up for the P90 bugs me.

[Toadmaster]

The 5.7mm really should be compared to a 9mm Parabellum or .45 ACP, since those are the calibers it is trying to replace, it is nowhere near the power of even the 5.56mm NATO (of course it is also much smaller with less recoil). Its ability to penetrate Kevlar is its only claim, from what I've heard it isn't even close to the 9mm for "knock-down".

The tumbler round included in DC is horrible, no weapons have "tumbling" bullets as described, the bullets rapidly tumble on impact not in flight. The reason the M16 changed from 1 in 14" to 1 in 12" was because in sub-zero temperatures the rounds did tend to tumble in flight which is terribly inaccurate.

Edsel, I didn't notice the first time around but do you take caliber into account for penetration? Assuming equal energy the smaller caliber will have better penetration (it can use more energy to go deeper instead of making a large hole) that is how 3g3 figures damage value, but the problem with 3g3 is it doesn't take into account a larger hole means it is doing more damage to what ever it is going through (if its a car door big deal but if it is your leg...)

[Resartus]

The 5.7mm really should be compared to a 9mm Parabellum or .45 ACP, since those are the calibers it is trying to replace, it is nowhere near the power of even the 5.56mm NATO (of course it is also much smaller with less recoil). Its ability to penetrate Kevlar is its only claim, from what I've heard it isn't even close to the 9mm for "knock-down".

The tumbler round included in DC is horrible, no weapons have "tumbling" bullets as described, the bullets rapidly tumble on impact not in flight. The reason the M16 changed from 1 in 14" to 1 in 12" was because in sub-zero temperatures the rounds did tend to tumble in flight which is terribly inaccurate.

Edsel, I didn't notice the first time around but do you take caliber into account for penetration? Assuming equal energy the smaller caliber will have better penetration (it can use more energy to go deeper instead of making a large hole) that is how 3g3 figures damage value, but the problem with 3g3 is it doesn't take into account a larger hole means it is doing more damage to what ever it is going through (if its a car door big deal but if it is your leg...)

Agreed, the only reason I was comparing the 5.7 to 5.56 NATO was velocity. Velocity defeats Kevlar, as long as the bullet doesn't have a really blunt or flat nose. I think the damage for the 5.7 should be 1D6 when fired from a pistol and 1D6+1 when fired from a P90 or similar weapon. I just needs a large number of piercing points for soft (aramid fiber) armors. I'm sure that it would be stopped by a threat level III or IV vest because of the plates.

On a side note, the 5.7 tumbles in soft tissue and creates a decent wound channel. One of the articles in my earlier post is from a Houston SWAT member and mentions the performance of the P90 in a fatal shooting. The round tumbled as expected without over-penetrating.

[Kevin Rose]

Sometimes I think the hollow-points and similar rounds would be better simulated with increased Body damage, but reduced penetration...

And AP rounds with increased armor pentration combined with less body and greatly reduced stun.

[Kevin Rose]

The 5.7mm really should be compared to a 9mm Parabellum or .45 ACP, since those are the calibers it is trying to replace, it is nowhere near the power of even the 5.56mm NATO (of course it is also much smaller with less recoil). Its ability to penetrate Kevlar is its only claim, from what I've heard it isn't even close to the 9mm for "knock-down".



The wound channel it causes looks quite a lot like a .22 hollowpoint. Not a particularly effective bullet.

[gewing]

Yeah, though I have been wondering what the wound track of the 17 hm2 out of a pistol would be... might be interesting, just for grits and shins


The wound channel it causes looks quite a lot like a .22 hollowpoint. Not a particularly effective bullet.

[THartman]

Edsel I have a new computer without Office or similar program installed so I...

Let me suggest http://www.openoffice.org/, a free MS Office 2000 'works-alike'. Or the low-cost variant, StarOffice, available from SUN Micrososytems.




I remember anytime we used tanks or planes in Battletech it was a nightmare. You just can not do everything for every style. You are going to fall short somewhere. I would also pointout that Battletech and Carwars both sucked as RPGs.

I'd agree that Battletech was... far from spot on when you tried to incorporate Aerotech and their tanks were pitiful. If you're looking for tabletop mecha/tank/aircraft combat in a tactical sense, look at Heavy Gear. It's a very tight single-genre game, but the rules work very fluidly between tactical and RPG modes and tanks are definitely to be feared. I don't have any experience with their aircraft rules yet. It might be possible to incorporate somewhat similar vehicle combat rules into yoru HERO system games, though I'd have to sit down and do a lot of thinking on how to make it work.


For those who want photos of firearms, I suggest http://www.wgcshop.com/ - a Hong-Kong based mailorder company dealing in Airsoft (non-lethal sport replica firearms) guns. They don't have EVERY weapon ever made, but they have a darned good sample of the current selection of modern firearms. You can at least show people different kinds of guns. (And yes, these things are very accurate replicas. I once saw a Vietname veteran gun-store owner snap an M-16 bayonette on a replica M4... Fit perfectly.)

-Todd

[Christougher]

If this thread hasn't already mentioned it, look for ISBN 0-943891-19-1 BTRC's Guns! Guns! Guns! LOTS of number crunching that covers bullet size, powder charge propelling it, barrel length, and a host of other factors, including rules for lasers, hand to hand and a few other exotic weapons.

I tried to work out the Pulse Rifle from Aliens based on Hicks' explanation of the weapon to Ripley, plus a few guesses. Got lots of interesting numbers and data points, but was kinda bummed that after all that work, HERO reduced it to a rather generic damage value. 2d6 K Autofire, if I remember.

[Edsel]

Edsel, I didn't notice the first time around but do you take caliber into account for penetration? Assuming equal energy the smaller caliber will have better penetration (it can use more energy to go deeper instead of making a large hole) that is how 3g3 figures damage value, but the problem with 3g3 is it doesn't take into account a larger hole means it is doing more damage to what ever it is going through (if its a car door big deal but if it is your leg...)

Sorry it took me so long to get around to replying, real-life has been spoiling my free-time lately. Yeah basically I try to take calibur into account when figuring penetration. However there are so many factors involved that I have finally decided to stop pulling my hair out trying to figure all the variables (ogive of the bullet, material it's composed of, etc.). I have basically taken the data I collected and rewritten the firearms charts from DC to use our house rules. I've added a few weapons as well. In the case of some guns I tweaked them just because it "felt" like the right thing to do. I am sure that my final result is incorrect for some (or maybe a lot) of guns, but it manages to keep the right amount of verisimilitude for our game.

I have attached our revised firearm table. It is in Word format. It uses our house rules so there is an extra column on the table. It is not complete (it's about 85% done). Many of the weapons do not have an A/R Point value since I haven't run them through HD2 yet.