Star Hero damage too low!

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

...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 have to ask this, partially because you reminded me of something I read in TUV last night. Why put a STUN X mod on a weapon designed to attack a vehicle? I understand that cannons and other vehicle weapons can attack people, but why use the advantage on a weapon designed to attack other vehilces? (Its been a long week - I hope that made sense.)

 

Aroooo

[Gary]

Originally posted by 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.

 

Yeah, I agree that we mostly see alike, although I don't think 2X damage = 1DC makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. You really get silly results at the high end of damage.

 

I would love it if there were more variety in modern weapons.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Aroooo

I have to ask this, partially because you reminded me of something I read in TUV last night. Why put a STUN X mod on a weapon designed to attack a vehicle? I understand that cannons and other vehicle weapons can attack people, but why use the advantage on a weapon designed to attack other vehilces? (Its been a long week - I hope that made sense.)

 

Aroooo

 

I just see it as an intrinsic value of the weapon, the bigger the bullet the more likely its going to knock you into next week. If you are building a weapon for efficiency it does not make sense, it does if you are trying to allow really big weapons to have an effect the narrow damage scale won't allow, stunX is a decent way to do that. An unconscious opponent is just as good as a dead one and it helps prevent silly things like 75 point heros taking a tank round in the chest and brushing it off, they are at least unconscious until the next millinium even on a bad roll. The stunX has no effect on a vehicle.

 

Hope that answered your question.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Gary

Yeah, I agree that we mostly see alike, although I don't think 2X damage = 1DC makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. You really get silly results at the high end of damage.

 

I would love it if there were more variety in modern weapons.

 

I agree, but it is just one of those things I have come to accept with HERO, since most games involve the lower end of the damage scale it doesn't come up much. Even when it does it rarely involves multiple vehicles so again it doesn't stand out, a tank will clean heroic characters as it is and against supers tanks are not supposed to be that tough so it seems to work out. On those occasions I want to play something with tank vs tank or star ship vs star ship I typically use another game (blasphemy!!!!! )

 

I hesitate to suggest HERO can not do EVERYTHING but naval combat on the high seas between WW2 battleships is not one of HEROs strong points.

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I agree, but it is just one of those things I have come to accept with HERO, since most games involve the lower end of the damage scale it doesn't come up much. Even when it does it rarely involves multiple vehicles so again it doesn't stand out, a tank will clean heroic characters as it is and against supers tanks are not supposed to be that tough so it seems to work out. On those occasions I want to play something with tank vs tank or star ship vs star ship I typically use another game (blasphemy!!!!! )

 

I hesitate to suggest HERO can not do EVERYTHING but naval combat on the high seas between WW2 battleships is not one of HEROs strong points.

 

I think this needs clarification. Its not WW2 battleship vs. WW2 battleship that is the problem. Its WW2 vs. WW4 battleships. Its high tech vs. low tech. Supers vs. Normals. Large scale vs. small scale.

 

Aroooo

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Aroooo

I think this needs clarification. Its not WW2 battleship vs. WW2 battleship that is the problem. Its WW2 vs. WW4 battleships. Its high tech vs. low tech. Supers vs. Normals. Large scale vs. small scale.

 

Aroooo

 

Not really, its anything larger than a 20mm cannon, by the time you reach a 75mm gun multiple megajoules of energy are only adding 1 point of damage. In real life a modern destroyer stands no chance against a Battleship but in HERO you would be looking at something like 8d6RKA (16" guns), 6d6RKA (5" guns) DEF 20, vs 6d6 (5" gun), 7d6RKA (missiles) DEF 15 so the DD can get lucky and take out the BB. Same goes for tanks a Sherman is something like 5d6 RKA (76mm gun) DEF 10 (2.5" armor) vs an Abrams 6d6RKA, DEF 20 (12" armor), in reality the Sherman couldn't hope for more than a blown track but in HERO terms they are fairly equally matched, and that is with equipment built in the same century.

[Whiplash]

1000 lb bomb and Chevy

 

My problem with TUV is stuff like the following:

 

the 1000 lb bomb does 4d6 RKA, 14 BODY average

 

a 4-door sedan has 3 DEF and 14 BODY.

 

Generally, your Chevy is going to survive a 1000 lb bomb blast.

 

The M1 tank will survive it easily, which it should not.

 

W.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: 1000 lb bomb and Chevy

 

Originally posted by Whiplash

My problem with TUV is stuff like the following:

 

the 1000 lb bomb does 4d6 RKA, 14 BODY average

 

a 4-door sedan has 3 DEF and 14 BODY.

 

Generally, your Chevy is going to survive a 1000 lb bomb blast.

 

The M1 tank will survive it easily, which it should not.

 

W.

 

Obviously, there are problems.

 

I'd actually reduce the Body in a lot of vehicles. Or give Disadvantages to represent them falling apart faster (a Chevy might have 14 Body to represent how difficult it is to destroy with a 44 magnum, chipping away Body point-by-point, but big 10 to 15 Body impacts should do more). Example: Phys Lim, Chevy: Destroyed if takes 8+ Body in one shot (gas tank explodes, etc)

 

I've been toying around with posting a "Tank Hero" thread, in which I'd detail how I'd fix some of the vehicle problems, but I just don't have time right now (finals are coming up). Maybe next month.

[Gary]

Re: 1000 lb bomb and Chevy

 

Originally posted by Whiplash

My problem with TUV is stuff like the following:

 

the 1000 lb bomb does 4d6 RKA, 14 BODY average

 

a 4-door sedan has 3 DEF and 14 BODY.

 

Generally, your Chevy is going to survive a 1000 lb bomb blast.

 

The M1 tank will survive it easily, which it should not.

 

W.

 

Is that all the damage they gave a 1000 lb bomb??? :confused: :confused:

[TravellerHero]

As far as the individual scaling for technological advances, I do think there is room for some optional rules regarding scaling different methods of destruction from point to point on the tech curve.

 

However, as far as massive capital vessels go, I think the light offense (per tube) and high defense actually makes sense.

 

You should not judge the damage a ship can do on a per tube basis, but combined. Modern warships and some ideas about how capital starship fight, do not devote individual tubes/barrels to an enemy. They devote a battery. The battleship you mention will not hurl a 16" shell at a destroyer, it will at minimum hurl THREE 16" shells. It could if it wished combine it's turrets into a nine shot barrage of 16" shells.

 

Suddenly DEF enough to fend off a single 16" shell becomes woefully inadequate.

 

Now in Star Wars, capital ships engaged with what seemed like a complete lack of fire control. beams of light zipped away from them in all directions. Admittedly they were engaging fighters, but even in the scene were two capital ships got close enough to exchange fire with turbolasers, it was just a bunch of individuals shooting where ever they felt.

Star Trek on the other hand seems to combine attacks on capital ships. this could easily add excitement to a game. (just because the players are in a lightly armed freighter, if they have the teamwork skill and make their rolls, the two gunners can swing their turrets around to hit the armed corsair in the same genral spot at the same general time, and actually have a chance of not just puncturing the armor/shields, but to get in behind them and really do some body.)

 

Now to get the weapon to weapon comparisons to scale a bit more...

[Guest Champsguy]

My current (very early) work on a sort of "Tank Hero" is coming along nicely. Again, I don't have the time (or the resources--no Hero 5th Edition, or even 4th Edition, here with me at school) to do a really good job, but I've been throwing some things together and have come up with a few rules I like.

 

1st, military weapons are mostly killing attacks, and so have too wide a range of possible damage values to accurately represent what they do in the real world. A 50 cal machine gun doing 3D6 killing can roll anywhere from 3 Body to 18 Body. This is all well and good for firing at people (I always figured a high damage roll meant you shot them in the face, or some other sensitive part, while a low damage roll meant you just shot them in the pinky, or grazed their hair), but against vehicles and other objects, it can get ridiculous. One bullet from a 50 cal can fail to penetrate a brick wall, while the other blows a huge hole in it.

 

Solution: Some damage from a normal, military weapon (not something that anyone paid points for, so Captain Marine can still roll 18 Body with his sniper rifle) should be figured according to the Standard Effect Rule. I decided that half the dice (round up) of a weapon should follow Standard Effect when shooting at vehicles/buildings/etc. This makes the damage ranges far easier to account for, and prevents... strange things from occuring.

 

Ex: Bob's M16 rifle does 2D6 killing damage. He shoots at an Iraqi APC, which has 10 Defense. Ordinarily, he'd be able to hurt it if he rolled really well, but applying Standard Effect takes care of that (an M16 shouldn't hurt an APC, even if the Iraqis have crappy tech). Thus, 1D6 will be rolled normally, and 1D6 will take Standard Effect (half the dice, round up). Final result, 1D6+3.

 

Ex 2: Fred shoots his 50 cal machine gun (3D6 killing) at the APC. Half of 3 is 1.5, rounded up to 2. 2D6 will be figured according to Standard Effect. So he really does 1D6+7.* This will allow the gun to penetrate the APC (which, from what I understand of Iraqi tech and our various engagements with them, is pretty close to the truth).

 

* Note: I don't like the "Standard Effect means you always roll a 3" rule. I prefer "Standard Effect means you always roll average", meaning 2D6 equals 7, not 6. Feel free to do it by-the-book, but my numbers listed here will conform to the way I wanna do it.

 

2nd, I disagree with a LOT of the military writeups that I've seen in Hero 5th. I don't think a tank gun does 8D6 killing explosion. We just saw that today when a tank shot a hotel in Baghdad and didn't level it. I don't tack on extra damage because I feel "this should blow up more good". If I think an attack is 5D6 killing, I'll write it as 5D6 killing, regardless of 5th Edition writeups to the contrary.

 

3rd, I don't take into consideration effects on humans. Many people want to increase damage done from certain weapons because they'd be instant death to people in real life. I understand this desire, but Hero doesn't do instant death well. The system is almost designed against that concept. Instead of fighting it by increasing damage, I'm going to go with it, and ignore the fact that a guy with straight 10s can take a 50 cal sniper round in the chest and have about a 50% chance of being positive Body. You're free to disagree with this take on the game if you want, but at least you know where I'm coming from. (Besides, when I want to incorporate Instant Death, I'll use a few optional rules to make catastrophic Body loss much more dangerous.)

 

Finally, I also think that the basic concepts of our vehicle writeups has to change. Too often, we want to do everything we see with Powers. I'm going to focus quite a bit on Disadvantages instead. Just the other day, Bradley fighting vehicles destroyed Iraqi T-72s in Baghdad. From the news reports, the 25mm DU shell from the Bradleys penetrated the Iraqi turrets and killed the crew. The tanks themselves, however, were apparently still whole. The Bradley guns didn't penetrate deeply enough to actually cause an ammunition explosion (which happens when an M1-A1 shoots a T-72). My interpretation? The tanks were still at positive Body, the crew was just dead. Thus, T-72s would get the Physical Limitation: Deathtrap. Once a certain amount of Body got through, you'd roll on a chart to see the effects (similar to Warhammer 40K). This shows that you don't actually have to destroy the tank utterly to knock the darn thing out of action.

 

Ex: (very rough, will change in the future)

If 8+ Body taken through defenses (1D6, +1 for every additional 2 Body done to tank):

1: Got lucky! No further effect. Smoke a cigarette and count your blessings.

2,3: Cutting it close. Add +1 to next D6 roll.

4,5: Poor Bob. One random crew member gets hit by the attack as it penetrates the vehicle's armor. Roll the attack against him, apply only half the vehicle's Defense (Def 10 would add 5/5 Armor to poor Bob). Add +1 to next D6 roll.

6: I didn't like those guys anyway. Two vehicle crewmen hit by the blast. Apply half Defense. +1 to next D6 roll.

7: Find a new crew. All vehicle crewmen hit by blast. Apply half defense. +1 to next D6 roll.

8+: Kaboom! Ammo cooks off. Roll damage from one round from vehicle's main gun, apply half defense to tank itself, no defense to crew.

 

Of course, this chart would change depending on the tank. The Israeli Markova tank is supposed to designate something like 75% of it's weight to protecting the crew. Thus, it's chart would be far more forgiving than the T-72's chart. Likewise, the M1-A1 is specially built so that the ammo explodes away from the crew, so in the even of an ammo explosion, you'd get "Roll damage from one round of vehicles main gun, apply half defense to tank. Crew must spend next phase changing underwear."

 

Likewise, Physical Lims would dictate things like how much fuel the thing has, where the access points are (the guys in the M1-A1 have to get out of a hatch on top, but the Merkova lets you crawl out a hatch to the rear, where nobody can shoot at you), if your tank has an auto-loader, the number of crew required, how well you can see things on the outside, and whether or not you have to expose yourself to enemy fire to shoot the machine guns on top. Some tanks will get far more points in Phys Lims than other tanks do.

 

What does this all have to do with Star Hero, you ask? Precious little, say I. I'm talking about tanks. Actually, it does have something to do with it. Futuristic vehicles would have far fewer (and far safer) Physical Lims than current ones do. The tank of the future has a Fusion Engine, a high-end computer system to assist the crew, automated weapons slaved to one console, fires energy weapons instead of tank shells, and has Transparent Aluminum viewports all over. What's the different in Hero terms? Well, it doesn't have Phys Lim: Gashog (must fuel up every 300 miles), Phys Lim: Requires 4 man crew, Phys Lim: Can't see squat, or Phys Lim: Got to stick your fool head out of the top to use the machine gun. These are all major advances, but they don't necessarily result in more dice.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Gary

The Empress wins because it has higher defenses, not because of more damage or better ROF. If both the Empress and Missouri fired upon a third stationary target, the Missouri would probably destroy it quicker because it has 9 16" guns and dozens of 3-5" guns.

 

You're so wrong here. The distances involved in space combat make it possible for the Empress to destroy the target before the Missouri gets a shot off. If the Missouri does get a shot off, the Empress will destroy it before the shells hit.

 

The reason 20th century war ships had so many guns is because they had crap for accuracy. I'm assuming that 30th century war ships have fewer because they can start shooting from farther away, they're more accurate, it's more efficient on hull space due to needed things like life support.

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by Champsguy

My current (very early) work on a sort of "Tank Hero" is coming along nicely. Again, I don't have the time (or the resources--no Hero 5th Edition, or even 4th Edition, here with me at school) to do a really good job, but I've been throwing some things together and have come up with a few rules I like.

 

 

snip long post...

 

Very interesting ideas... Please keep me/us posted. I def. like you ideas regarding more realistic disads. I tried to incorporate some of that when I made my Raider Fighter for B5.

 

Aroooo

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

Same goes for tanks a Sherman is something like 5d6 RKA (76mm gun) DEF 10 (2.5" armor) vs an Abrams 6d6RKA, DEF 20 (12" armor), in reality the Sherman couldn't hope for more than a blown track but in HERO terms they are fairly equally matched, and that is with equipment built in the same century.

 

Actually I think you're foregetting that the M1 has AP, Pen attacks, and the Sherman does not. The M1 might also have extra Armor, Ablative installed. Of course, a blown track is a blown track - meaning that some damage is better than no damage.

 

This doesn't take into account that the M1 can fire at the Sherman when the Sherman is a dot.

 

What I also think some people are forgetting in regards to WWII tanks is that they have the limitation Damage Reduced by Range on their main attacks. It's a fact that the Shermans could affect the German Tigers - but only by firing at them at (effectively) point blank range. Farther than that and their shots bounced off - sounds like DRR to me.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

You're so wrong here. The distances involved in space combat make it possible for the Empress to destroy the target before the Missouri gets a shot off. If the Missouri does get a shot off, the Empress will destroy it before the shells hit.

 

The reason 20th century war ships had so many guns is because they had crap for accuracy. I'm assuming that 30th century war ships have fewer because they can start shooting from farther away, they're more accurate, it's more efficient on hull space due to needed things like life support.

 

How is my statement wrong? If both the Empress and the Missouri fired at a third battleship from a mile away, they would both destroy that battleship in approximately the same amount of time. Thus they have the same raw damage.

 

If the Missouri and a Ship of the Line from the 18th century shot at the same 3rd battleship, the Missouri would easily win. The 18th century ship couldn't even do anything other than make a loud noise to the third battleship.

 

Just 2 centuries of advances results in a ship that does more damage and is more accurate. Star Hero is much more than 2 centuries in the future.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

Actually I think you're foregetting that the M1 has AP, Pen attacks, and the Sherman does not. The M1 might also have extra Armor, Ablative installed. Of course, a blown track is a blown track - meaning that some damage is better than no damage.

 

This doesn't take into account that the M1 can fire at the Sherman when the Sherman is a dot.

 

What I also think some people are forgetting in regards to WWII tanks is that they have the limitation Damage Reduced by Range on their main attacks. It's a fact that the Shermans could affect the German Tigers - but only by firing at them at (effectively) point blank range. Farther than that and their shots bounced off - sounds like DRR to me.

 

The 75mm sherman could only penetrate the tiger from the side or rear. The 76mm sherman could penetrate from the front at close range. The firefly version of the sherman with the 17 pounder gun could kill the tiger frontally from almost any range. None of these weapons could do squat to a M1 even at point blank range from the front. Yet in Champions terms, all of them could get lucky firing at 50 meters and take out the M1.

 

Toadmaster is right. The range of damages for weaponry is too narrow.

[Gary]

Champsguy, nice idea. I'll have to give it some thought. It will definitely fix a lot of the problems.

[mikelbarnz]

Danger International

 

I was flipping through Danger International last night, and I thought I would post its rules for high explosive rounds. They are NASTY.

 

First the rules, from page 59: "Roll the explosion damage listed, and apply it to any target in the same hex.For each hex away from the target hex, remove the largest die: the target takes the remainder. For the SHRAPNEL (emphasis mine), roll an attack roll using the OCV listed. All targets are DCV 0, unless they are Prone, in which case they're DCV 4. The shrapnel damage works like Autofire;for each 2 points the roll is made by, the target takes that much damage.

 

The yhave info on grenade rounds for launchers, hand grenades, mines, mortars, and HE shells. I'll post the entire chart if ther is interest, but here are the stats on a 500 lb. bomb.

 

500 LB Bomb 26d6x OCV 15 R MOD -1/2" Shrapnel 2d6

 

So using average effect, a taget in the targeted hex would take an initial hit of 91 stun and 13 body, then assuming a to hot roll of 11, against a dcv of 0, the taget would take 8 seperate 7 body/21 stun hits. I think thats going to do some damage to a station wagon.

[Captain Obvious]

Yeah, I think I got a lot of my impressions on what is proper Hero damage from the old Danger Int'l game. My big gripe about The Ultimate Vehicle is that some of the vehicles seem a little flimsy, and some of the weapons seem a little wimpy...

 

Don't get me wrong, I love TUV overall. Just SOME of those weapons....

[Old Man]

Maybe convert some (maybe half?) of the dice to Standard Damage?

 

Instead of a cannon doing 4d6 it does 2d6+6 or something like that. 3d6+6 would work too to keep the maximum damage the same but keep the average high.

 

That way the 2d6+6 WWII cannon would never damage the M1 DEF of 20+ but would still have a hefty kick.

[Guest Champsguy]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

Maybe convert some (maybe half?) of the dice to Standard Damage?

 

Instead of a cannon doing 4d6 it does 2d6+6 or something like that. 3d6+6 would work too to keep the maximum damage the same but keep the average high.

 

That way the 2d6+6 WWII cannon would never damage the M1 DEF of 20+ but would still have a hefty kick.

 

That's why I was saying to use Standard Effect Rule for half the dice.

[Old Man]

oops, sorry, I don't rememeber seeing that one...

[Toadmaster]

Champsguy, I like you idea of using SE, I think it has some potential.

 

If anyone is interested I've posted some thoughts on variations of standard effect on the hero discussion site, I'd be interested in any comments you might have. I think it could work nicely with Champsguys idea.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2656