Can Worldbeaters beat the military?

[Chuckg]

Ah, yes, the 'Cybertank'. I see it now.

 

Champsguy, you somehow managed to read this entire entry without realizing that it was talking about the freaking Ogre. And I don't mean the supervillain, I mean the building-sized mecha-horror of Steve Jackson's miniatures boardgame, the one that is *SUPPOSED* to be nuke-proof!

 

I mean, it's only the size of a small spaceship.

 

Sheesh. This is getting as bad as the SNL skit with "never mind!"

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Metaphysician

19. Of course, thats not defense, now is it??

Dude, chill. I've been playing off other people's comments about tanks falling.

 

19 Body, 20 Defense. Terminal Velocity is still 30d6 isn't it? So the tank would lose 10 body on average?

 

I would have thought it would be a bit more dramatic.

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Champsguy

That's why I told that poster that chopper blades should probably be about 3D6 killing, with Reduced Penetration. Steel-hard skin = no more chopper blades.

 

Actually, straight 3d6 or 4d6-5dy with Reduced Penetration should be enough... armor steel is 12 DEF, after all.

 

All right, so one post of his misestimated one thing... and that was a message board guesstimate, not a published game product. For /this/, we had to sit through tonight's rampage?

[Chuckg]

Agent X -- remember, the vehicle damage rule has vehicles losing various important functions every time it takes even so much as 1 BODY.

 

BTW, the Abrams tank only has 20 DEF vs. the fall, not 30 -- the extra 10 DEF only covers the nose, and falling damage applies to all hit locations, not any particular one.

 

So that tank... well, the *hull* is still usable... mostly... if you take it back and get the bent metal straightened out by the body shop.

 

OTOH, kiss goodbye the tank's systems, tank's electronics, etc.

 

And that's assuming that it was /empty/. If it had ammunition and fuel onboard, the impact would detonate the ammo... and the secondary explosions would leave you a burnt carcass. Dramatic enough?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Actually, straight 3d6 or 4d6-5dy with Reduced Penetration should be enough... armor steel is 12 DEF, after all.

 

All right, so one post of his misestimated one thing... and that was a message board guesstimate, not a published game product. For /this/, we had to sit through tonight's rampage?

Nope. Champsguy can go on if you want him to and he feels like it.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Agent X -- remember, the vehicle damage rule has vehicles losing various important functions every time it takes even so much as 1 BODY.

 

BTW, the Abrams tank only has 20 DEF vs. the fall, not 30 -- the extra 10 DEF only covers the nose, and falling damage applies to all hit locations, not any particular one.

 

So that tank... well, the *hull* is still usable... mostly... if you take it back and get the bent metal straightened out by the body shop.

 

OTOH, kiss goodbye the tank's systems, tank's electronics, etc.

 

And that's assuming that it was /empty/. If it had ammunition and fuel onboard, the impact would detonate the ammo... and the secondary explosions would leave you a burnt carcass. Dramatic enough?

Yep. It's gonna lose one function, right?

 

I would play it like you describe. There isn't a nice, tight way of describing the fragility of many of the internal workings of the tank provided, is there?

[Guest Champsguy]

Originally posted by Metaphysician

Um, if this tank you have been referring to is 40 defense, than its not the M1 Abrams from the corebook, which only has 20 defense. If it *is* a sci-fi tank, why are you complaining about it surviving an "unrealistically" high fall??

 

As for nukes, only nuke writeup I recall from the book is the 20d6 RKA, Megascale. Mind telling me how that would blow up the Earth??

 

I've switched to complaining about TUV tank now. The writeup for the Abrams in TUV gives it a front armor of 30, not just the 20 listed in the 5th Edition rulesbook. That's why I'm complaining about it surviving unrealistic falls. I think it also had a Body of around 25.

 

The 20D6 RKA can blow up the Earth because it'll do 70 Body, on average. It takes 24 Body to destroy a hex of stone. That's 44 doublings past what it needs. That am one big hole.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Champsguy

No, it hadn't occurred to me. My knowledge of physics told me that terminal velocity is the same for all objects, as long as one discounts wind resistance. Fact: Heavier objects fall at the exact same speed as slower objects (again, discounting wind resistance [which is why a feather falls slowly]).

 

But heavier objects hit with more impact when they land, even if they fall at the same velocity. A 50,000 kg tank is going to hit the ground with 500 times the impact of a 100 kg man. Once you factor in air resistance, the tank is going to hit with even more impact.

[Metaphysician]

Sounds to me like the damage-to-structures rule needs some alteration. . .

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Champsguy

The 20D6 RKA can blow up the Earth because it'll do 70 Body, on average. It takes 24 Body to destroy a hex of stone. That's 44 doublings past what it needs. That am one big hole.

 

That's the rules for damaging /walls/.

 

The rules for blowing up planets are on pg. 197 of Star HERO.

 

 

BTW, they calculate that it take around a 51d6 RKA to blow up the Earth with an average damage roll. That's the Death Star's superlaser, not a nuke.

 

Edit -- not to mention the rule that Area of Effect/Explosions on the surface of a planet destroy only the surface of the planet. To blow up a planet, the weapon must either a) have an Area of Effect large enough to encompass most of the planet, or penetrate to the core.

[Gary]

One thing about tanks is that they're pretty fragile once penetrated. In Tank vs Tank combat, usually a hit either bounces, or destroys the tank outright. It's not like Champions where each hit will take out 8 body and it takes 3 hits to actually destroy the tank.

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Gary

One thing about tanks is that they're pretty fragile once penetrated. In Tank vs Tank combat, usually a hit either bounces, or destroys the tank outright. It's not like Champions where each hit will take out 8 body and it takes 3 hits to actually destroy the tank.

 

Well, the real tank-killer is the secondary explosions from the fuel or ammo. That's one of the reasons why DU is used -- DU gets *HOT* after going through metal.

 

And when all that tank shell propellant goes off /inside/ the armored volume with you... don't even bother rolling, folks, everything and everyone inside that tank hull is now soup.

[megaplayboy]

Originally posted by Chuckg

That's the rules for damaging /walls/.

 

The rules for blowing up planets are on pg. 197 of Star HERO.

 

 

BTW, they calculate that it take around a 51d6 RKA to blow up the Earth with an average damage roll. That's the Death Star's superlaser, not a nuke.

 

Edit -- not to mention the rule that Area of Effect/Explosions on the surface of a planet destroy only the surface of the planet. To blow up a planet, the weapon must either a) have an Area of Effect large enough to encompass most of the planet, or penetrate to the core.

 

The 51d6 is to vaporize the Earth. If you want to just crack it in two, or wipe out everything on the surface, 25 or 26d6 will work just fine:)

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by megaplayboy

The 51d6 is to vaporize the Earth. If you want to just crack it in two, or wipe out everything on the surface, 25 or 26d6 will work just fine:)

 

Sure, provided that you can fulfill either requirement a) or as listed above -- which the nuke can't.

 

Remember, you have to either have an AoE that encompasses the whole planet or penetrate to the core.

 

Folks, somebody else do the math as to what it would take to penetrate through 3500+ miles of rock... but I'll bet you that it's an assload!

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Chuckg

 

Remember, you have to either have an AoE that encompasses the whole planet or penetrate to the core.

Wait, so if I create a 4000 mile tunnel straight down to the center of the Earth, I can destroy the world with a nuke? Go Go Dr. Evil!

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Kintara

Wait, so if I create a 4000 mile tunnel straight down to the center of the Earth, I can destroy the world with a nuke?

 

Yup.

 

And this, folks, is a supervillian plot.

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Yup.

 

And this, folks, is a supervillian plot.

Yes, and there's nothing you can do. . .unless you can give me ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Kintara

Yes, and there's nothing you can do. . .unless you can give me ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

 

Starguard -- "If you had a tunnelling machine that could go 4000 miles, why didn't you just tunnel into a bank?"

 

Warp -- "For that matter, why didn't you sell that tunnelling technology to Amoco for /fifty/ million dollars?"

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Starguard -- "If you had a tunnelling machine that could go 4000 miles, why didn't you just tunnel into a bank?"

Zip it!

Warp -- "For that matter, why didn't you sell that tunnelling technology to Amoco for /fifty/ million dollars?"

Zipizipah!

[megaplayboy]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Sure, provided that you can fulfill either requirement a) or as listed above -- which the nuke can't.

 

Remember, you have to either have an AoE that encompasses the whole planet or penetrate to the core.

 

Folks, somebody else do the math as to what it would take to penetrate through 3500+ miles of rock... but I'll bet you that it's an assload!

 

Well, an 800mm cannon shell in WW2 used in the siege of Sebastopol penetrated 100 feet of concrete. That was a 7-ton shell probably traveling at 2 or 3 times the speed of sound(let's say 1km/sec)

 

If you had a mass driver, pushing a 10 ton projectile to the theoretical maximum velocity of 150km/sec. That would be about 1.5*150*150=3.375x10^4 times as much kinetic energy, and maybe 30-40 thousand times the penetration(probably not, but let's keep this up for the sake of argument)--yields 3 or 4 million feet of rock, or 600 to 800 miles of rock. So maybe a 50-100 ton projectile accelerated to near max railgun capability could punch it's way to the core.

 

So accelerate an antimatter warhead(a BIG one) in a supermaterial shell, slam it into a planet, and have the warhead explode after penetrating deep into the crust of the planet. 100 tons of antimatter reacting with 100 tons of matter?

 

E=mc^2, so m=2*10^5 kg, c=3*10^8 m/sec. Do the math:

 

9*10^16 * 2*10^5= 1.8 x 10^22 joules.

 

IIRC, shorthand, 1 kg of antimatter reacting with 1 kg of matter yields the equivalent of 43 megatons of TNT.

The warhead mentioned in my hypothetical would have an equivalent yield of 4.3 Trillion tons of TNT, or the equivalent of 300 million Hiroshima bombs.

 

Aren't you glad I'm not working in a weapons lab somewhere?

[Lord Liaden]

I've gotten a fair bit of use out of a chart of Damage Class Conversions created by our fellow board member, Bartman, who based his research on some reasonable real-world premises, stats in FREd, and an earlier related article in the old Digital Hero. They follow the classic HERO principle of logarithmic increase in the energy of Damage Classes, rather than a linear one. Bartman's posted them to the boards before, so I'm sure he won't mind me attaching them here:

[astralfrontier]

The consensus as to tank damage seems to be "Hero is not adequately designed to cope with realistic damage to realistic military vehicles". This, to any experienced Hero player, should not be a surprise. I have a copy of GURPS Vehicles right here for you guys.

 

Aside from that, I'm okay with an 8d6K shell mounted on a modern battle tank. I'm secure enough in my GMing to say "the shell goes through the wall leaving a nice APFSDSDU-sized hole in your head". I'm also okay with a 5d6+1K AP and/or Pen shell doing the same thing. I'll use whichever one gives me the results that feel right.

 

I'm not a tank technician. I doubt any of you are. I can grab Tom Clancy novels off the shelf, which means I'm just about as boned up on military science as the average gamer. If you want realistic military action in a game, get a game that handles it well. The original focus of the thread has been lost, though.

[Gary]

Of course you have lots of breakdowns when using a logrithmic damage system. A 450 joule pistol does 1d6+1 RKA, while a 100-150 joule arrow does 2d6 RKA. And a 2000 or so joule assault rifle does 2d6 RKA as well.

[megaplayboy]

Another way to think about this is to look at the amazing things war heroes do with the odds heavily against them. Then give someone with the same mentality superhuman abilities. If a hero could hold off 50 armed men, a superhero might hold off a whole battalion, and a mighty one might stare down a division.

 

Think genre, not realism,IMHO.

[Chuckg]

My own 'genre' is...

 

"OK, folks -- when the major military muscle starts showing up, that is considered a sign from God... meaning me... that barring a miracle, somebody is gonna die. Maybe lots of somebodies."

 

I don't think players should even /see/ the military unless they're deliberately going and seeking the military out, /or/ the situation is extremely dire. And when the situation is extremely dire...?

 

 

 

Heh. I remember the intro I once gave to a bunch of prospective Traveller players. "The Imperial Marines have battle armor that your heaviest weapons can't scratch, and man-portable fusion cannons that can toast a Bradley AFV, much less your air raft. If you ever, ever see the Imperial Marines on-stage in the game /at all/, it means that you have massively screwed up, and are about to be witness to some really hideous vaporizings. I'm not even going to bother rolling dice.

 

"Fortunately, unless you guys really step in it, the adventures should never involve the Big Stick in the first place."