Guns, guns and more guns

[megaplayboy]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

What was Steve's response, btw?

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

[gewing]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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...

[gewing]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

GREAAATTT. that's reassuring.

 

He said that based on the research he had done' date=' he stood by the writeup.[/quote']

[megaplayboy]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

GREAAATTT. that's reassuring.

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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' date=' "Okay, if I drop a 2000 pound bomb on an Abrams, and on a battleship, which one will still be functional?"[/quote']

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

If you really want to know the why's of gun stats, then I suggest using Greg Porter's excellent Guns! Guns! Guns!. 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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

If you really want to know the why's of gun stats' date=' then I suggest using Greg Porter's excellent Guns! Guns! Guns!. 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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

Some sites with pictures:

 

security arms

 

recguns

 

Colt

[arcady]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

IIRC' date=' 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.[/quote']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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

[gewing]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

The Tirpitz was sunk by a couple bomb hits--of course' date=' [b']they were 12,000 pound bombs[/b] ...

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

Note that WWII bombs were not normally travelling at Mach 2' date=' like shells were...[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

If you really want to know the why's of gun stats' date=' then I suggest using Greg Porter's excellent Guns! Guns! Guns!. 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]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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.