Star Hero damage too low!

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Champsguy

On a different note, we've used a house rule for supers vs starships. Starships halve their defense against supers, since they aren't really built to stand up to a guy who can fly up and punch through the transparent aluminum window. Starship cannons are big. Supers are small by comparison.

 

This brings up something I've seen mentioned before that I think is improtant to the whole idea of HERO being universal.

While the whole HERO universe thing is an interesting idea, the all stats are the same in all genres is exactly the kind of thing that I think makes it fall apart. In a supers campaign it makes sense to reduce the damage of tanks, battleships and other impliments of destruction and to reduce their armor because with Supers its all about the heros and villians. In StarHERO or ModernActionAdventureEspionageWarHERO or even some low powered supers its more about the technology, sure the characters are important but how they interact with the available tech is more important than in a classic supers game, compare Batman to Superman, Batman is exceptional for his mind and resources, sure he has some good physical attributes but those are secondary to his gadgets and his brain, Superman is also very smart but his thing is his inherant powers, even if he were a little dense he would still be Superman the "Man of Steel", a dumb Batman would be Mongo, large thug #17943 or possibly Button pusher #7.

 

I think a house rule like you mention is really the only way to work Supers and non Supers stuff, and to a lessor extent certain other genres, I mean if Gamma radiation can create the Hulk and Radioactive spiders make Spidermen why wouldn't tanks and guns and such be weaker, in our world Gamma radiation would kill me not turn me green and grant super strength, so guns that take 5 or 6 shots to stop me make just as much sense.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Gary

I think a fuel air bomb has between 20 and 30 tons of tnt equivalent vs about 1 ton for a 16" shell. Possibly more than that for the latest one that they tested. It'll take out a bunker if it wasn't completely sealed.

 

You are completely mixing peaches and watermelons, a 16" shell is fired from a gun, a 15,000lb "daisy cutter" FAE bomb is pushed out the loading ramp of a cargo plane, a 16" gun has a range of about 30 miles, a bomb has a range of 0 feet without something to drop it. Using this logic you could argue that a scifi ray gun doesn't do enough damage because getting hit by a semi would do more. BTW FAE is rated at about 5x the force of TNT, so that 15,000 lb FAE is actually about equal to a 75,000 lb bomb.

 

Originally posted by Gary

A fuel air bomb does more damage than a 16" high explosive shell. A bunker busting missile does more damage than a 16" armor piercing shell. Regardless of the type of damage you want, we have weapons that are better for it than a 16" shell.[/b]

 

I've dealt with the FAE bomb, as for the missile they do not do more than a 16" gun, a Tomahawk carries a 1000 lb warhead, a 16" shell weighs 2700 lbs, at least 1/2 of this is explosive in an HE round, (or it would be semi AP) an AP round carries less than 1/2 but I'd guess its still close to 1000 lbs. Of course the Tomahawk can be nuke armed but then we are back to the FAE question above.

 

 

Originally posted by Gary

Damage does mean more dice. A fuel air bomb will do more body to a building than a 16" high explosive shell. A bunker busting missile will do more body to a bunker than a 16" direct hit with an armor piercing shell. More body = more dice.[/b]

 

Not necessarily, there are many ways to represent damage, AP, + Stun X, normal vs killing, NND etc, a HEAT round would most likely do an AP killing attack vs he target, an FAE is more likely a really big normal attack, the AP round is better for cutting through hard targets, the FAE for obliterating non armored targets. Explosives are also rated for their "shattering power", I read an article on the Oklahoma Federal building bombing and it claimed the ANFO used was actually one of the most effective explosives for that purpose although only about 1/2 the power of an equivelant amount of TNT it provided more of a push causing more structural damage than TNT which would have had more of a shock but less actual ability to knock the building down due to the distance, an explosion is not just an explosion, you can also compare this to a stick of dynamite and a frag grenade, if you drill a hole in a rock the dynamite will do more "damage" because the grenade has less explosive filler, but if you toss both out in a field the grenade is more likely to kill you because its fragments carry farther (more damage at range).

 

 

Originally posted by Gary

Actually, if you want to blow up ground cheaply, a few batteries of 155 mm guns will cover more area than a battleship without having to have a crew of 2000+.

[/b]

 

Not really, the Iowa class carries 9x 16" (406mm) guns, 20x 5" (127mm) guns and some Tomahawk missile launchers, in WW2 it carried a crew of 2700, I believe that was reduced considerably when updated in the 1980's. To get 20+ 155mm guns you are talking about several batteries of guns so you're probably looking at 1500 soldiers to match the 5" guns, I'm guessing probably another batterey or 2 for each of the 16" guns. Of course a handfun of C-130s pushng BLU-82 "Daisy cutters" out the back could do it with less than 100 men and 2 B-52's with about 10 but now were back at the Apples and Bannanas discussion.

 

I think were you are having problems is application not absolute technlogy, sure in a couple of centuries we will probably have the ability to demolish entire planets with hand held weapons, it is unlikely however that they will be issued a standard equipment, since the 1950's the technology has existed for nuclear bazookas, they were even issued for a time fired from a tripod or jeep, never used though (Hmmm, I wonder why?) so there you go a Jeep was better armed than a WW2 Battleship and now Cruisers are not as well armed as Coldwar Jeeps. Something must be wrong.

 

I don't disagree in whole with you, as I mentioned sometime back, the upper end of HERO damage is a bit screwy, but don't agree with the conclussions of your technology arguments.

[Guest Champsguy]

Originally posted by Gary

I think a fuel air bomb has between 20 and 30 tons of tnt equivalent vs about 1 ton for a 16" shell. Possibly more than that for the latest one that they tested. It'll take out a bunker if it wasn't completely sealed.

 

But it's spread out over a big area, right? The 16" gun puts a lot of force on a smaller area. The force, while less in explosive value, is more concentrated.

 

(Of course, I'm just guesstimating here. I could be wrong. Most of my knowledge of fuel air bombs comes from watching the first 15 minutes of Outbreak )

 

Maybe I should reword what I'm trying to say. In caveman-speak (the only language I'm truly fluent in):

 

16" gun: Big kaboom, pretty big spot

Fuel air bomb: Really big kaboom, really big spot

Bunker-buster missile: Big kaboom, small spot

 

In this case, the fuel air bomb is definitely the "most powerful", in that it has the most explosive force. However, the bomb is built to affect a really big area. As a result, the force exerted on any one specific spot in that area would be less that that inflicted by a 16" gun.

 

Make sense?

 

But we have this technology in place. If we ever run into an enemy that requires this sort of weapon, we can recreate it relatively quickly.

 

Yep. So when the Bugs attack, we can blow em up good. But my point isn't that, in the future, those societies couldn't build ultra mega-cannons. It's that they might not be cost-effective. In the future, warship vs warship fights might never come about. They might be too rare, and too valuable to waste blowing each other up. As I understand it, battleships after WWII didn't engage each other as much as everyone expected. They were far too useful in other purposes to risk in open combat with another battleship. Why, it might even get sunk!

 

A fuel air bomb does more damage than a 16" high explosive shell. A bunker busting missile does more damage than a 16" armor piercing shell. Regardless of the type of damage you want, we have weapons that are better for it than a 16" shell.

 

Again, without regard to price. $$$ are an important factor in any military. Fuel air bombs also have to be dropped from big, slow planes. 16" guns are thus more useful in most situations.

 

Damage does mean more dice. A fuel air bomb will do more body to a building than a 16" high explosive shell. A bunker busting missile will do more body to a bunker than a 16" direct hit with an armor piercing shell. More body = more dice.

 

Not necessarily. More damage could mean Armor Piercing, or Find Weakness (which is probably what a lot of our modern guidance systems could be defined as). A 10D6 Energy Blast, with Megascale Explosion is more "damaging" than an 18D6 Energy Blast, if you're talking about harming mass quantities of troops. I'd treat it as affecting every hex of a building, too, so it would still do more Body to most buildings.

 

Actually, if you want to blow up ground cheaply, a few batteries of 155 mm guns will cover more area than a battleship without having to have a crew of 2000+.

 

But you still understand my point.

 

Does this house rule apply only to starships, or vs all inanimate objects? Would you halve the def of boulders and vault doors as well? Would this rule apply to martial artists and other 'non-super types'?

 

On the first question: Nope. Vault doors are built to stand up to human-scale attacks. Starships (the way I envision them, anyway) aren't. Think of it this way:

 

Your Galacticon-class battlecruiser (4 miles long) fires beams of energy 50 feet wide from it's powerful guns. Your enemy has a similar ship. Both of your defenses are built to stop what you think your enemy will throw at it. Thus, the defenses are built around stopping those 50' wide columns of energy. They aren't designed to stop a guy with a 125 Str who can fly up and rip the escape pods out of their docking holes (you see, the escape pods are positioned so that they're unlikely to be hit by the Mega-Cannon).

 

Modern day tanks are heavily armored on the front, less so on the sides and rear. Their armor is sloped and angled so that high-velocity projectiles will bounce off if fired from an anticipated angle of attack. Nobody really expects an Iraqi tank to shoot your tank from underneath the sand, or from a spot hovering in the air, so not only are the top and bottoms of the tank more poorly armored, but an attack on the front of the tank from above also has to get through less armor. Likewise, nobody expects anybody to fly into the Death Star through the exhaust ducts and tear it up from the inside (nothing could survive the exhaust, except Superman).

 

As far as your second question (non-supers, conventional weapons, etc): It doesn't matter. The defense is high enough so that any "non-super" personal-level attack won't have enough damage classes to get through even half the defense.

[MilkmanDan]

Originally posted by Champsguy

On a different note, we've used a house rule for supers vs starships. Starships halve their defense against supers, since they aren't really built to stand up to a guy who can fly up and punch through the transparent aluminum window. Starship cannons are big. Supers are small by comparison.

 

Darn interesting. Same effect, obviously, but I like the idea of making all supers attacks AP or x2 AP vs. starships. It's certainly a very focused attack, makes a lot of sense.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

You are completely mixing peaches and watermelons, a 16" shell is fired from a gun, a 15,000lb "daisy cutter" FAE bomb is pushed out the loading ramp of a cargo plane, a 16" gun has a range of about 30 miles, a bomb has a range of 0 feet without something to drop it. Using this logic you could argue that a scifi ray gun doesn't do enough damage because getting hit by a semi would do more. BTW FAE is rated at about 5x the force of TNT, so that 15,000 lb FAE is actually about equal to a 75,000 lb bomb.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize the FAE was quite that powerful.

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I've dealt with the FAE bomb, as for the missile they do not do more than a 16" gun, a Tomahawk carries a 1000 lb warhead, a 16" shell weighs 2700 lbs, at least 1/2 of this is explosive in an HE round, (or it would be semi AP) an AP round carries less than 1/2 but I'd guess its still close to 1000 lbs. Of course the Tomahawk can be nuke armed but then we are back to the FAE question above.

 

I think you're right. I was thinking of the bunker buster bomb, which weighs 5000+ pounds and is rocket propelled. I should have said bomb not missile.

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

Not necessarily, there are many ways to represent damage, AP, + Stun X, normal vs killing, NND etc, a HEAT round would most likely do an AP killing attack vs he target, an FAE is more likely a really big normal attack, the AP round is better for cutting through hard targets, the FAE for obliterating non armored targets. Explosives are also rated for their "shattering power", I read an article on the Oklahoma Federal building bombing and it claimed the ANFO used was actually one of the most effective explosives for that purpose although only about 1/2 the power of an equivelant amount of TNT it provided more of a push causing more structural damage than TNT which would have had more of a shock but less actual ability to knock the building down due to the distance, an explosion is not just an explosion, you can also compare this to a stick of dynamite and a frag grenade, if you drill a hole in a rock the dynamite will do more "damage" because the grenade has less explosive filler, but if you toss both out in a field the grenade is more likely to kill you because its fragments carry farther (more damage at range).

 

This is true.

 

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

Not really, the Iowa class carries 9x 16" (406mm) guns, 20x 5" (127mm) guns and some Tomahawk missile launchers, in WW2 it carried a crew of 2700, I believe that was reduced considerably when updated in the 1980's. To get 20+ 155mm guns you are talking about several batteries of guns so you're probably looking at 1500 soldiers to match the 5" guns, I'm guessing probably another batterey or 2 for each of the 16" guns. Of course a handfun of C-130s pushng BLU-82 "Daisy cutters" out the back could do it with less than 100 men and 2 B-52's with about 10 but now were back at the Apples and Bannanas discussion.

 

Actually to be nitpicky, probably only about half the 5" guns could fire at a target, because the ship itself is in the way of the other half. I don't quite how you get 1500 men to equal 20 guns. I thought it required a crew of 5 per gun. Even if you allow a reasonable amount for support units, it still wouldn't come close to 1500 men.

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I think were you are having problems is application not absolute technlogy, sure in a couple of centuries we will probably have the ability to demolish entire planets with hand held weapons, it is unlikely however that they will be issued a standard equipment, since the 1950's the technology has existed for nuclear bazookas, they were even issued for a time fired from a tripod or jeep, never used though (Hmmm, I wonder why?) so there you go a Jeep was better armed than a WW2 Battleship and now Cruisers are not as well armed as Coldwar Jeeps. Something must be wrong.

 

I don't disagree in whole with you, as I mentioned sometime back, the upper end of HERO damage is a bit screwy, but don't agree with the conclussions of your technology arguments.

 

Yeah, I still feel that 30th century tech compared to 20th century tech should be like 20th century tech vs 17th century tech.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Champsguy

But it's spread out over a big area, right? The 16" gun puts a lot of force on a smaller area. The force, while less in explosive value, is more concentrated.

 

(Of course, I'm just guesstimating here. I could be wrong. Most of my knowledge of fuel air bombs comes from watching the first 15 minutes of Outbreak )

 

Maybe I should reword what I'm trying to say. In caveman-speak (the only language I'm truly fluent in):

 

16" gun: Big kaboom, pretty big spot

Fuel air bomb: Really big kaboom, really big spot

Bunker-buster missile: Big kaboom, small spot

 

In this case, the fuel air bomb is definitely the "most powerful", in that it has the most explosive force. However, the bomb is built to affect a really big area. As a result, the force exerted on any one specific spot in that area would be less that that inflicted by a 16" gun.

 

Make sense?

 

To a certain extent this is true, but not completely. For instance, a 155 mm gun will do more damage and cover a greater area than a grenade. The FAE is of a much higher magnitude than the 16" shell.

 

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

Yep. So when the Bugs attack, we can blow em up good. But my point isn't that, in the future, those societies couldn't build ultra mega-cannons. It's that they might not be cost-effective. In the future, warship vs warship fights might never come about. They might be too rare, and too valuable to waste blowing each other up. As I understand it, battleships after WWII didn't engage each other as much as everyone expected. They were far too useful in other purposes to risk in open combat with another battleship. Why, it might even get sunk!

 

Warships being too rare to fight is very uncommon in science fiction. Most science fiction is like Star Wars or Star Trek with lots of space combat. There were no battleship engagements after WW2 because there was only 1 country with battleships. During WW2, there were lots of battleship combats.

 

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

Again, without regard to price. $$$ are an important factor in any military. Fuel air bombs also have to be dropped from big, slow planes. 16" guns are thus more useful in most situations.

 

The 16" gun requires a 60000 ton battleship to deliver. A big slow plane is cheaper.

 

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

Not necessarily. More damage could mean Armor Piercing, or Find Weakness (which is probably what a lot of our modern guidance systems could be defined as). A 10D6 Energy Blast, with Megascale Explosion is more "damaging" than an 18D6 Energy Blast, if you're talking about harming mass quantities of troops. I'd treat it as affecting every hex of a building, too, so it would still do more Body to most buildings.

 

But you still understand my point.

 

The 10D6 with megascale would do far less vs tough targets than the 18D6. Whereas a bunker buster bomb would do far more damage (more body) vs tough targets than the 16" shell.

 

Both a FAE and a 16" shell would affect every hex of a building. However, the FAE would do a lot more net body. Since nobody is claiming that a FAE is AP, more body translates into more dice.

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

On the first question: Nope. Vault doors are built to stand up to human-scale attacks. Starships (the way I envision them, anyway) aren't. Think of it this way:

 

Your Galacticon-class battlecruiser (4 miles long) fires beams of energy 50 feet wide from it's powerful guns. Your enemy has a similar ship. Both of your defenses are built to stop what you think your enemy will throw at it. Thus, the defenses are built around stopping those 50' wide columns of energy. They aren't designed to stop a guy with a 125 Str who can fly up and rip the escape pods out of their docking holes (you see, the escape pods are positioned so that they're unlikely to be hit by the Mega-Cannon).

 

Modern day tanks are heavily armored on the front, less so on the sides and rear. Their armor is sloped and angled so that high-velocity projectiles will bounce off if fired from an anticipated angle of attack. Nobody really expects an Iraqi tank to shoot your tank from underneath the sand, or from a spot hovering in the air, so not only are the top and bottoms of the tank more poorly armored, but an attack on the front of the tank from above also has to get through less armor. Likewise, nobody expects anybody to fly into the Death Star through the exhaust ducts and tear it up from the inside (nothing could survive the exhaust, except Superman).

 

As far as your second question (non-supers, conventional weapons, etc): It doesn't matter. The defense is high enough so that any "non-super" personal-level attack won't have enough damage classes to get through even half the defense.

 

I'm still not quite sure why tank armor which is deliberately designed for protection, would be halved while vault doors and boulders which aren't wouldn't be halved. The fact that the sides, rear, top, and bottom of a tank is already reflected in lower Def for those facings.

 

The halving for ships could matter for non-supers. It makes a huge difference whether that first 'free halving' occurs for a martial artist or gunner with find weakness. Would that first find weakness roll drop that 40 def ship to 10 def or 20 def?

[Guest Champsguy]

Originally posted by Gary

Warships being too rare to fight is very uncommon in science fiction. Most science fiction is like Star Wars or Star Trek with lots of space combat. There were no battleship engagements after WW2 because there was only 1 country with battleships. During WW2, there were lots of battleship combats.

 

My memory is foggy on the specifics. But I did read somewheres about how battleships had become too valuable to engage other battleships.

 

The 16" gun requires a 60000 ton battleship to deliver. A big slow plane is cheaper.

 

Two points:

 

First, ships require high costs to construct, true, but once you've got them, it's cheaper to bombard a coastline with them than with bombs from planes.

 

Second, this analogy only stretches so far. At this point, it's not relevant any longer as to whether Star Hero stats are too low.

 

The 10D6 with megascale would do far less vs tough targets than the 18D6. Whereas a bunker buster bomb would do far more damage (more body) vs tough targets than the 16" shell.

 

Yes, but you've just proved my point. Damage is going to vary depending on your target.

 

I'm still not quite sure why tank armor which is deliberately designed for protection, would be halved while vault doors and boulders which aren't wouldn't be halved. The fact that the sides, rear, top, and bottom of a tank is already reflected in lower Def for those facings.

 

Because vault doors are built to stop personnal-level attacks. That, after all, is what is supposed to be used against them. They're designed to stop explosives, etc. Boulders get their defense because it's material strength. Boulders aren't designed to resist attacks. Boulders have that much defense out of sheer toughness.

 

Tanks, on the other hand, wouldn't have defenses that high just from the materials they're made of. The M1-A1 Abrams has Chobham armor that stops most weapons cold. Part of the reason it does so is the way it's layered and angled. The material itself isn't Def 20. What makes it Def 20 is the way it's assembled.

 

Tank armor is designed for protection... from other tanks. Vault doors are designed for protection from personal-level attacks. It's also high defense because it's just a big, old lump of metal. Tanks don't have nearly as much metal to protect them. Much of their protection comes from sloping, composites designed to resist specific weapons, and other technological "cheats". It doesn't apply nearly as well against a big old fist coming at it from a funky angle.

 

The halving for ships could matter for non-supers. It makes a huge difference whether that first 'free halving' occurs for a martial artist or gunner with find weakness. Would that first find weakness roll drop that 40 def ship to 10 def or 20 def? [/b]

 

Well, any non-powered martial artist is going to have a hell of a time floating through space and trying to kick open a hole in the ship, when he has no powers. But anybody with enough DCs and a good enough Find Weakness to kick a hole in it is close enough to superpowered for me.

 

As for gunners? What do you mean, on fighters? The halving wouldn't apply. The big ships are designed to resist that.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Champsguy

My memory is foggy on the specifics. But I did read somewheres about how battleships had become too valuable to engage other battleships.

 

There were still plenty of BB vs BB fights. Some include the Bismarck vs the Hood and Prince of Wales, the Scharnhorst vs the Duke of York, and the Washington vs the Kongo. The Battle of Leyte Gulf had a huge BB vs BB engagement. There were a number of British vs Italian BB engagements as well.

 

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

Two points:

 

First, ships require high costs to construct, true, but once you've got them, it's cheaper to bombard a coastline with them than with bombs from planes.

 

Second, this analogy only stretches so far. At this point, it's not relevant any longer as to whether Star Hero stats are too low.

 

It's also more dangerous bombing with the BB. Anti-ship missiles are a real threat, and if you lose a plane, it's cheaper than if you lose a ship. Also, the ship can't go too close to the coastline, and thus it's range is severely limited. A plane can bomb anywhere.

 

Since when is it a crime to wander from the subject? Especially if I'm having fun.

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

Yes, but you've just proved my point. Damage is going to vary depending on your target.

 

However, Champions treats all targets, barring hardened, and all damage, barring AP or other advantages, the same. Since we don't roll different amounts of dice based on the target, we have to make sure that the attack that does more aggregate damage (the FAE) does more damage (more dice) than the attack that does less aggregate damage (the 16" shell).

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

Because vault doors are built to stop personnal-level attacks. That, after all, is what is supposed to be used against them. They're designed to stop explosives, etc. Boulders get their defense because it's material strength. Boulders aren't designed to resist attacks. Boulders have that much defense out of sheer toughness.

 

Tanks, on the other hand, wouldn't have defenses that high just from the materials they're made of. The M1-A1 Abrams has Chobham armor that stops most weapons cold. Part of the reason it does so is the way it's layered and angled. The material itself isn't Def 20. What makes it Def 20 is the way it's assembled.

 

Tank armor is designed for protection... from other tanks. Vault doors are designed for protection from personal-level attacks. It's also high defense because it's just a big, old lump of metal. Tanks don't have nearly as much metal to protect them. Much of their protection comes from sloping, composites designed to resist specific weapons, and other technological "cheats". It doesn't apply nearly as well against a big old fist coming at it from a funky angle.

 

How about WW2 era tanks which essentially were big hunks of steel like vault doors? By your logic, a King Tiger tank would have more protection vs a super than a M-1 Abrams since it doesn't have all the sloping, composite materials, and special construction to be bypassed by an attack.

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

Well, any non-powered martial artist is going to have a hell of a time floating through space and trying to kick open a hole in the ship, when he has no powers. But anybody with enough DCs and a good enough Find Weakness to kick a hole in it is close enough to superpowered for me.

 

As for gunners? What do you mean, on fighters? The halving wouldn't apply. The big ships are designed to resist that.

 

Give the martial artist in a space suit a 2D6 HKA sword, 3D6 with str and MA. You'll allow the first find weakness to drop the ship's defenses from 40 to 10?

 

For gunner, I meant someone with a pistol or other small arms with some find weakness.

[Edsel]

a 16" shell weighs 2700 lbs, at least 1/2 of this is explosive. . .

I hate to be a stickler for detail but the Mark 8 APC shell for the 16"/50 Mk. 7 guns, fired by the Iowa-class battleships, contain a "bursting charge" of only 40.5 lbs. of high explosives. The main damaging force of these projectiles is the tremendous kinetic energy delivered by a 2700 lb. shell traveling at an average of 2000 feet per second (1300 MPH+).

 

I love big guns.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Edsel

I hate to be a stickler for detail but the Mark 8 APC shell for the 16"/50 Mk. 7 guns, fired by the Iowa-class battleships, contain a "bursting charge" of only 40.5 lbs. of high explosives. The main damaging force of these projectiles is the tremendous kinetic energy delivered by a 2700 lb. shell traveling at an average of 2000 feet per second (1300 MPH+).

 

I love big guns.

 

I wasn't sure about the AP but for explosive shells if the weight of explosive is less than 1/2 the weight of the shell, then they are considered semi AP, not HE so a 2700lb HE shell has at least 1350lbs of explosive and they don't pound a beach with AP shells for the most part, they didn't even use AP shells against many ships as they would tear right through the lighter ships without exploding.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Gary

Actually to be nitpicky, probably only about half the 5" guns could fire at a target, because the ship itself is in the way of the other half. I don't quite how you get 1500 men to equal 20 guns. I thought it required a crew of 5 per gun. Even if you allow a reasonable amount for support units, it still wouldn't come close to 1500 men.

 

I thought about that after the fact, I was just looking at the listing of weapons carried and didn't think about the fact that 1/2 are on the other side of the ship. As for the number of people required to crew the 155's? A Battery of guns is roughly a company, a company is about 200-250 people, a battery of guns includes 3-5 guns, so to get 20 guns you need 4 to 6 batteries 800-1500 people. You need more than just the SP gun and the 6 crew members to operate properly, just as the BB needs more than just the gun crews. Plus the BB is far more mobile and has a longer range between the 16" guns and Tomahawks. The BB doesn't do cross country well but the SP's don't swim so good either.

 

 

Also if it makes you feel better the 16" gun with an AP shell would only do 8d6, the 120mm gun given in Fred is far too powerful going on previous versions of HERO, it caused quite a stir when 5th came out, it should only do 6d6, not 8d6 AP. HERO has always based damage doing +1DC for each doubling of energy, the 120mm gun which has 11-12 megajoules at the muzzle is not even in the same class as the 16' gun with its 350+ Mj but due to the doubling they are only 6DC apart. This is what I was refering to earlier about scaling at the high end, Steve Long (presumably, since he was the author) "boosted" the damage of a few items (.45ACP being another one, it should only do 1d6+1 not 1 1/2d6) which completely throws the rest off kilter, I don't mind the changes if a new way is produced but it screws everything up to only change a few things and leave the rest as they were. I've seen a write up for a nuke someplace and I think it did 20d6 and that caused a ruckus all on its own. Probably would have helped to bring this up earlier but I only just found my notes on the really big guns.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I thought about that after the fact, I was just looking at the listing of weapons carried and didn't think about the fact that 1/2 are on the other side of the ship. As for the number of people required to crew the 155's? A Battery of guns is roughly a company, a company is about 200-250 people, a battery of guns includes 3-5 guns, so to get 20 guns you need 4 to 6 batteries 800-1500 people. You need more than just the SP gun and the 6 crew members to operate properly, just as the BB needs more than just the gun crews. Plus the BB is far more mobile and has a longer range between the 16" guns and Tomahawks. The BB doesn't do cross country well but the SP's don't swim so good either.

 

I just checked. The TO&E for an artillery battery of 6 guns is 144 officers and men. So we're talking about 500 or so men for 20 guns. Just being anal.

 

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

Also if it makes you feel better the 16" gun with an AP shell would only do 8d6, the 120mm gun given in Fred is far too powerful going on previous versions of HERO, it caused quite a stir when 5th came out, it should only do 6d6, not 8d6 AP. HERO has always based damage doing +1DC for each doubling of energy, the 120mm gun which has 11-12 megajoules at the muzzle is not even in the same class as the 16' gun with its 350+ Mj but due to the doubling they are only 6DC apart. This is what I was refering to earlier about scaling at the high end, Steve Long (presumably, since he was the author) "boosted" the damage of a few items (.45ACP being another one, it should only do 1d6+1 not 1 1/2d6) which completely throws the rest off kilter, I don't mind the changes if a new way is produced but it screws everything up to only change a few things and leave the rest as they were. I've seen a write up for a nuke someplace and I think it did 20d6 and that caused a ruckus all on its own. Probably would have helped to bring this up earlier but I only just found my notes on the really big guns.

 

It doesn't make me feel better. If a 120 mm gun only did 6d6, then it would take 10 or so hits to take out an opposing tank. If 16" guns did only 8d6 damage, it would take 2-3 hits to take out a tank. 2X damage = 1 DC doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

 

Besides, velocity damage has absolutely no relationship with other damage. A terminal velocity fall does more damage than a 120mm tank shell?

[dbsousa]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

. I have always run weapons technology being used against earlier tech levels as being automatically armor piercing. Thus a future gun is armor piercing against modern armor. If the gun is already armor piercing, then it has two levels and can negate a level of hardened on any modern target.

 

I would be willing to take this a step further, and say that Tech Level X weapons have Reduced Penetration against Tech Level X+1 Armor. And that none of the rules above apply to Superheroes.

 

That way, if you are playing in a game with the Iowa, the Enterprise, and the Silver Surfer, The Iowa and the Enterprise are severely mismatched, but the Silver Surfer stacks up against either at the same level.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Gary

I just checked. The TO&E for an artillery battery of 6 guns is 144 officers and men. So we're talking about 500 or so men for 20 guns. Just being anal.

 

I was going off of definitions of military units, under battery it said it was an artillery unit equivelent to a company, company said 4-5 platoons, platoons said 40-50 men. 500 does sound more reasonable, I just thought perhaps artillery crew eat good and have secretaries to write their letters home.

 

 

Originally posted by Gary

It doesn't make me feel better. If a 120 mm gun only did 6d6, then it would take 10 or so hits to take out an opposing tank. If 16" guns did only 8d6 damage, it would take 2-3 hits to take out a tank. 2X damage = 1 DC doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

 

Besides, velocity damage has absolutely no relationship with other damage. A terminal velocity fall does more damage than a 120mm tank shell? [/b]

 

And that is where I agree with you, damage is weird when you get this high, the +1DC per 2x works fine for small arms until you start getting into the .50 Browning range, as you go higher it gets weirder. Explosives don't seem to follow this pattern either.

[pawsplay]

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that increasing tech results in some greater hitting power, but primarily results in greater range and accuracy.

 

Case in point, the M-16 doesn't hit that much harder than a musket.

 

The advantage Star Hero vehicles would have over anything we could field today is their mobility combined with extremely long ranges. Chances are, one of our tanks or helicopters would be toast about the time a Star Hero vehicle came onto its radar.

 

It's probably worth mentioning, also, that Terran Empire is a space opera game, so modern weapons would likely not have startling stats, either.

[Gary]

Originally posted by pawsplay

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that increasing tech results in some greater hitting power, but primarily results in greater range and accuracy.

 

Case in point, the M-16 doesn't hit that much harder than a musket.

 

The advantage Star Hero vehicles would have over anything we could field today is their mobility combined with extremely long ranges. Chances are, one of our tanks or helicopters would be toast about the time a Star Hero vehicle came onto its radar.

 

It's probably worth mentioning, also, that Terran Empire is a space opera game, so modern weapons would likely not have startling stats, either.

 

Yeah, but then you start comparing battleships and 18th century ship of the lines. Which of them does far more damage?

[misterdeath]

I've been thinking about this, and really, it depends on your sci-fi universe.

 

In Bab-5, the Nuke seems to be a huge weapon, massively powerful. So, the beam weapons and pulse cannons, are all less powerful (even the Minbari seem to have less powerful weapons than the nuke)

 

In Star Trek, the Photon Torpedo has a much greater destructive power than a nuke, and in most of the game systems, the Phaser is approximately equivalent (probably to mimic the shows, where Phasers are the primary weapon. Gamers use the best weapon, if that's torpedoes, then rock and roll baby!).

 

So, in Star Trek, you have to have much more powerful weapons.

 

I'm not sure how the Star Wars universe goes, since we don't have much info on planetary bombardment, or really, anything scientific at all.

 

So, in Star Hero, which has examples which covers a bunch of different Genre's, has a widely divergent power level of the ships.

 

Some of the ships probably aren't more powerful than old earth battleships, because that's what their universe is made like.

 

Some should be much more powerful, and I think that's what's lacking.

 

D

[tiger]

Originally posted by Gary

Yeah, but then you start comparing battleships and 18th century ship of the lines. Which of them does far more damage?

 

Hard to say. What is the force of a cannon ball at optimum range and the force(not explosin) of a 16" gun at optimum range.

 

As I've pointed out before a 16" gun is PD and Phaser/laser/balster/ion cannon would be ED.

 

Weapons we use now are ALMOST all PD based. SO The ED of a battleship could be much less. While vehcile rules give a set DEF. House rules could easily adapt them to less vs energy. Another answer that has been pointed out is having sci-fi weapons be considered AP vs Old tech.

 

There is only way to have a continuing rise in damage per time/genre. That would be to sit down before any genre books are done and ge X amount of damage to X weapon.

This would be a long process for sure.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tiger

Hard to say. What is the force of a cannon ball at optimum range and the force(not explosin) of a 16" gun at optimum range.

 

Trust me, a 16" gun is far more powerful than a 18th century cannonball.

 

Originally posted by tiger

As I've pointed out before a 16" gun is PD and Phaser/laser/balster/ion cannon would be ED.

 

Weapons we use now are ALMOST all PD based. SO The ED of a battleship could be much less. While vehcile rules give a set DEF. House rules could easily adapt them to less vs energy. Another answer that has been pointed out is having sci-fi weapons be considered AP vs Old tech.

 

The ED solution isn't very appealing. A big hunk of steel would probably resist fire or lasers easily as well as cannon shells. Some materials such as wood probably should have less ED, but not battleship armor. The AP part vs old tech might work, but then you'd get the silly situation where 20th century armor specifically designed for protection would have less def than non-manmade objects not designed for protection.

 

Originally posted by tiger

There is only way to have a continuing rise in damage per time/genre. That would be to sit down before any genre books are done and ge X amount of damage to X weapon.

This would be a long process for sure.

 

Yeah, but Hero claims to be an Universal System where a character or equipment in one setting dropped on another could function with no adjustment. You should be able to drop on a planet with 20th century tech and use published sources for 20th century damages without any alteration. It's better to do the work up front and be consistent, rather than having to make ad-hoc adjustments on the fly.

[tiger]

Originally posted by Gary

Trust me, a 16" gun is far more powerful than a 18th century cannonball. [/i]

 

Why? The force, while I'm sure it is different, may not be that much different when you look at the optimum range of each weapon & then look at the DC of the Hero system and the effect that each step up has.

 

Some materials such as wood probably should have less ED, but not battleship armor.

 

Why were they made to stand up to lasers? The toughness of material now compared to the past is based on what we have had to combat. Don't remember ever fighting anyone with a laser. So you can't just dismiss the difference.

 

Yeah, but Hero claims to be an Universal System where a character or equipment in one setting dropped on another could function with no adjustment.

 

It is a universial system, I can use these rules to play any genre I want. This doesn't mean that I have to keep stepping up the damage everytime I move forward in time.

 

The damage of a musket is about the same as some weapons now. it's just ours are a whole lot easier to hit with.

 

Also where do you stop at. I mean saw FH is DC 3-4, Then by your theroy vicotrian age would be 5-6, pulp would have to be 7-8, modern would be 9-10, Cyber 11-12 and so on and so on and so on. Never mind Champions

 

Sooner or later it why bother. I mean the armor of the time can usually hold up to the weapons of the time. So why keep grossing up the damage?

 

Our armor isn't designed to defend against energy weapons. Kind of hard to design against something you have know idea about. So it would logical to make them ED or AP. Easy solution without starting constant build up of damage.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tiger

Why? The force, while I'm sure it is different, may not be that much different when you look at the optimum range of each weapon & then look at the DC of the Hero system and the effect that each step up has.

 

If a battleship fired at a tank at optimum range, it'll nuke it in one shot. If a 18th century cannonball hit a tank at its optimum range, the tank wouldn't even notice. The 16" shell does a lot more raw dice than the cannonball.

 

Originally posted by tiger

Why were they made to stand up to lasers? The toughness of material now compared to the past is based on what we have had to combat. Don't remember ever fighting anyone with a laser. So you can't just dismiss the difference.

 

Let's take a modern day weapon that does do ED damage. A flamethrower would not be twice as effective vs battleship armor than a cannon. This should be obvious.

 

Originally posted by tiger

It is a universial system, I can use these rules to play any genre I want. This doesn't mean that I have to keep stepping up the damage everytime I move forward in time.

 

The damage of a musket is about the same as some weapons now. it's just ours are a whole lot easier to hit with.

 

Also where do you stop at. I mean saw FH is DC 3-4, Then by your theroy vicotrian age would be 5-6, pulp would have to be 7-8, modern would be 9-10, Cyber 11-12 and so on and so on and so on. Never mind Champions

 

Sooner or later it why bother. I mean the armor of the time can usually hold up to the weapons of the time. So why keep grossing up the damage?

 

What happens when your Star Hero dudes go to a more primitive planet, a common motif, and the natives do the same amount of damage as you?

 

Originally posted by tiger

Our armor isn't designed to defend against energy weapons. Kind of hard to design against something you have know idea about. So it would logical to make them ED or AP. Easy solution without starting constant build up of damage.

 

Flamethrowers. ED damage that is easily resisted by battleships.

 

Plus you would have balance issues as most people would start purchasing ED type attacks for their characters if it's the same points and they're more effective.

[tiger]

Originally posted by Gary

If a battleship fired at a tank at optimum range, it'll nuke it in one shot. If a 18th century cannonball hit a tank at its optimum range, the tank wouldn't even notice. The 16" shell does a lot more raw dice than the cannonball.

Now is this because of the raw dice or because armor is better now?

 

Let's take a modern day weapon that does do ED damage. A flamethrower would not be twice as effective vs battleship armor than a cannon. This should be obvious.

True. But, i know GMs that consider them PD not ED and a flamethrower isn't a lazer or ion cannon now is it.

 

Flamethrowers. ED damage that is easily resisted by battleships./

True but simple considering weapons AP vs lower tech would solve the problem

 

Plus you would have balance issues as most people would start purchasing ED type attacks for their characters if it's the same points and they're more effective.

True, but I think requiring damage to be increased everytime a new genre comes out will have the same effect on balance

[Gary]

Originally posted by tiger

Now is this because of the raw dice or because armor is better now?

 

It's because of raw dice. A 16" shell vs a 18th century cannon would sorta be like a bazooka vs a flintlock pistol. If they both fire at exactly the same target, the 16" shell will do scads more damage than the cannonball.

 

Originally posted by tiger

True. But, i know GMs that consider them PD not ED and a flamethrower isn't a lazer or ion cannon now is it.

 

What GM would consider a flamethrower a PD attack?

 

Originally posted by tiger

True but simple considering weapons AP vs lower tech would solve the problem

 

Wouldn't that cause a problem that a hunk of raw iron would have more def vs high tech weaponry than the same mass of steel in a tank?

 

Originally posted by tiger

True, but I think requiring damage to be increased everytime a new genre comes out will have the same effect on balance

 

At least the system as a whole would be consistent, without having to make up rules on a fly.

[tiger]

Well I think the system in consistant. If you look at the damage vs the armor your see that. I think Hero has simply decide against a constant build up of damage, something I like.

 

If you wish to do that in you campaigns, cool and have fun. Me I'll take the damage they give and if I hit a primitive planet I'll simple consider higher tech AP or the like and not worry about.

 

That's the great think about this system over others. It's not a ridged structure of this is the way it is deal with it. You use or adjust as you wish, totally upto you.

[Toadmaster]

Gary, I think we are of a like mind on damage, except that I finally accepted or had beat into me that in HERO the 2x energy = +1 DC is how it works. About 3 years ago on the old hero boards I had come up with a method of determining weapon damage that the square root of damage instead than the exponential method. It worked well keeping the damage at the low end around the same as current damage (.50 cal did 3d6+1 instead of 3d6) but as the energy increased so did the damage. The 120mm tank gun did 12d6 and a 16" gun did something like 100d6, judging from your response here I think you can imagine what the response I got was. I am still looking at ways of representing these large weapon attacks with other means than just more d6. It is surprising what a little work with the lims and advantages can do, for example you might rate an 17th century 12 pounder naval gun as 4d6 RKA, with a big stun X mod and a lim 1/2 damage against metal armor, while a modern 20mm cannon might also have a 4d6 RKA and the beam lim, so while both look similar a 12 pounder cannon ball will knock large holes in stone walls, wooden hulls etc, and the 20mm will penetrate armor better but only leave a small hole behind.

 

I am assuming that you are like me and would like to see more variety in modern weapons instead of the small gun, medium gun, big guns HERO can sometimes feel like.