Guns, guns and more guns

[Toadmaster]

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...

 

 

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

[Toadmaster]

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.

 

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

 

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

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

[Toadmaster]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[gewing]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

IIRC' date=' my favorite part of Aftermath was the hit location system, though it has been over 20 years, so...[/quote']

 

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

[gewing]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

[G_K_Zhukov]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

And for an old gamer used to games like Battletech or even Car Wars where technological components took up space and weight' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

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

[Resartus]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

http://www.trmagonline.com/Spring2003TR/spring2003experienceswiththefnp90.htm

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Toadmaster]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Resartus]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Kevin Rose]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

[Kevin Rose]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

 

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

[gewing]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

[THartman]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

-Todd

[Christougher]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

[Edsel]

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

 

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

 

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

 

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