Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

The rules in The Ultimate Vehicle and even in The Hero System Rulesbook itself is sufficient to simulate everything you want. The problem is the published designs' date=' not the rules themselves. One can use the current vehicles rules to design relatively accurate and playable vehicles, even in a vehicles-heavy campaign such as military or Sci-fi, but one must do it [i']themselves[/i] as things stand now. Most of DoJ's published writeups are insufficient, or unbalanced. Though, I haven't seen the Vehicles Sourcebook, so I don't know how things look on that end. (some of the writeups in TUV are good...some are unbalanced. The starships in Terran Empire are horrid)

 

Write up your own vehicles and I bet they'll turn out to be pretty good...(I write up mecha all the time)

Sounds like I need to take a closer look at TUV...maybe I'll pick it up tomorrow if i sell anything tonight at the club.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

With the issue of scale I don't think it's sufficient to build weapons at scale X and then define a damage multiple for any deviation. This is essentially the same as just building weapons with more or less damage and I think misses the point.

 

With a single, cohesive, homogenious entity the current rules I feel are adequate. For a compartmentalized, heterogenious entity the rules are a little flat. This is where scale I think comes into play.

 

The battleship is a good example of this. Here is an article that does an okay job of describing WWII armor: http://www.chuckhawks.com/armor_schemes.htm, as well as http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm and http://www.answers.com/topic/iowa-class-battleship. However, 16" = 400mm. This puts the "Wall Body" between 250mm (13 BODY) and 500mm (15 BODY) = call it 14 BODY. Light armor/Medium/Heavy is listed as 10/13/19. I think the issue here however is that the hull isn't just armor. Nearly a 1.5' barrier of metal is more of a wall. So, I think 10 DEF is fine but then you have to damage the wall to create a 1 hex size hole, which would require 14 BODY. A fire door is listed as 5 DEF 5 BODY and an airlock (= bulkhead?) is listed as 8 DEF 7 BODY. So, a projectile would have to do 24 BODY to "destroy" a single compartment and then most likey require an additional 10-15 BODY (let's say 12) per additional internal compartment destroyed until it hit the hull on the opposite side of the ship. So, even if there were only 2 compartments (one on each side), it would take 36 BODY to destroy both, and 60 BODY to punch a hole all the way through.

 

I think you also have to consider the complexity of the vehicle, and maybe complexity captures the homogeneity issue. For example, a locomotive or airliner while massive can hardly suffer the loss of a single "hex" of structure. I think this is the key issue. Vessels of size are much more like mobile bases than vehicles. In fact, given how "maneuverable" they are perhaps that is a better way to build them, with the engineering section being more like a tug vehicle.

 

Anyway, with a crew compliment of 2800 and 9000 tons of fuel, and dimensions of 295m length and 36m beam, the functional area of the deck is probably around 150m x 36m = 75" x 18" = 1350 hexes. I don't know how many decks there are, nor the volume of the castle/bridge. The draft is 6", so I imagine there can't be more than 6 decks or so. Regardless of the specifics, it's big. As a base, assuming that 6 decks of useful area (say effectively 3 down and 3 total in the castle) you have 8100 hexes, which is about a size of 15 for a base but as a vehicle this is about size 21, although based on displacement it should be about 19.

 

This site has deck plans for a Texas ship (smaller than Iowa) but illustrative none the less http://users3.ev1.net/~cfmoore/. Specifically look at this: http://users3.ev1.net/~cfmoore/structure/dimensions/DIMENSIONS.html. Looking at section 86, it looks like you'd have to penetrate 2 internal walls just and that would only flood the outer area. You'd have to penetrate 1 more internal wall to cause serious damage and be a sinking hazard, and I'd imagine you'd have to do so on multiple sections. That means with 24 BODY necessary to penetrate the outer hull and a conservative 10 BODY per inner wall, you'd have to cause 54 BODY to pose a threat. If you consider the outer hull is hardened but the internal are not, and rounds are AP, then you'd only need 39 BODY. 9d6Kx3.5 = 31.5, which isn't too far off. The question is how many such hits would be needed to sink it? 4? 6? Obviously, "called shots" (or random ones) could take out the brain/bridge or key systems.

 

So, have at it. How do we tackle this?

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Not sure that logic DOES dictate that. Do we deal with buildings in the same way? In any case' date=' with very large vehicles, I would probably deal with them more like buildings than vehicles (10X BODY to destroy, and then not immediate)[/quote']

 

I've often done that same when dealing with characters or superheroes vs. a large vehicle. There a vehicle becomes an environment with walls, floors, equipment in the rooms, etc.

 

It doesn't work so well for vehicle vs. vehicle combat however. There's no link between damage done to sections and the effect upon the greater whole- and creating such a link is significant work.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Wrong based on whose opinion? Yours? The point you're overlooking is that everyone is playing their Hybrid Hero game at different standards. The standard which works for you [or for me] doesn't necessarily work for everyone else.

 

Given the general degree of outcry against the M1A1 write-up as presented, I have to gather that it's more than just my opinion.

 

So far, from the limited sample we have going on this board, we have your vote that the M1A1 write-up is fine, and many votes saying otherwise. So far I think that 90% you spoke of is with me- not you.

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

if were not careful this is going to turn into Harpoon Hero

 

then again, I dont think anybodys tackled modern naval as an RPG

 

I did some tinkering with the 120mm gun and some ideas for different rounds

 

150 Multipower, 300-point reserve, all slots 64 Charges (+1/2) (450 Active Points); all slots OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

10u 1) APFSDU Round: RKA 8d6, Indirect (Same origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/4), Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Armor Piercing (x2; +1) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

6u 2) Flechette Round: RKA 8d6, Area Of Effect Nonselective (48" Line; +3/4) (210 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), No Range (-1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Reduced Penetration (-1/4), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

10u 3) HE Round: RKA 8d6, Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Indirect (Any origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/2), Explosion (-1 DC/2"; +3/4) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

10u 4) HEAP Round: RKA 8d6, Indirect (Same origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/4), Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Explosion (+1/2) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

10u 5) HEAT Round: RKA 8d6, Indirect (Same origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/4), Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Penetrating (+1/2) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

10u 6) HEDP Round: RKA 8d6, Indirect (Same origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/4), Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

Powers Cost: 206

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

one oddball note I should bring up about the WW2 battleships and some of the early carriers, they had teak decking planks atop the steel deck, so they should they get an extra point or two of Def for the deck only?

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

To me one of the important issues here is that I believe that it is possible to talk about the qualities of an attack (the weapon side) in an abstract manner without worrying about the particular target involved. .

 

You may wish to believe that, however it is from a practical PoV basically impossible. The reality is that forces and materal inter-react, nothing can happen on one side without considering the other.

 

There is also the small problem of break-over points in reality, when forces that are easily ignored at one level (firearms) become overwhelming at another level (anti-tank guns).

 

 

IMO it is the qualities of the attack, interacting with the qualities of the target (the target side) that produce the end effect (which is damage).

 

Of course.

 

Now try to turn that into a simple game mechanic that is at it's core HERO system.

 

Make sure it scales such that a .45 ACP is more effective against people than a 9mm. At the same time make it scale so that a 120mm round either bounces off a target tank or destroys it (no does a couple points of body to ablate the target tank away).

 

When you manage that without having 'break-over' in mechanics (i.e. the way I managed it) or centering it upon a type of target (with break-overs in type, i.e. the way I managed it), get back to us. I'll be interested in see it.

 

 

 

Finally I would argue that it is still possible to make educated guesses even about things that do not exist in real life.

 

I find that such things are more wisheful thinking than educated guesses. Experts have been too wrong in the past on simple things for me to trust such a method.

 

I rather see the baseline work as expected to at least some degree compared to reality. If a system fails this test, I see no point in judging its effectiveness in other areas.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

if were not careful this is going to turn into Harpoon Hero

 

That's not really my goal, but the issue is also very appropriate for Jedi. A Jedi with a light sabre with ship writeups as they are can destroy a capitol vessel. That isn't entirely realistic, and compartmentalization is something that can help address this.

 

I don't want Harpoon Hero. I want something that allows me to create a relatively detailed large vehicle writeup that passes a cinematic reality test. A tank gun destroying a battleship doesn't even pass that test.

 

I think there is value in treating large vehicles like this as having walls and interior space. A rule of thumb might be that if there is enough space for a handful of people to sit and do nothing else, then it is a single vehicle. Otherwise it is a mobile base and should be treated as such. 2800 crew skews what it means to be a vehicle I think.

[Ghost Archer]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

one oddball note I should bring up about the WW2 battleships and some of the early carriers' date=' they had teak decking planks atop the steel deck, so they should they get an extra point or two of Def for the deck only?[/quote']

 

That teak decking helped the HMS Hood a WHOLE lot. Oh, and the HMS Indefatigable and the HMS Invincible and the HMS Queen Mary.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

if were not careful this is going to turn into Harpoon Hero

 

then again, I dont think anybodys tackled modern naval as an RPG

 

I did some tinkering with the 120mm gun and some ideas for different rounds

 

Sounds interesting, lets see:

 

150 Multipower, 300-point reserve, all slots 64 Charges (+1/2) (450 Active Points); all slots OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

hmmm...good start. How did you come up with the value for the "Crew-Served" limitation?

 

10u 1) APFSDU Round: RKA 8d6, Indirect (Same origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/4), Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Armor Piercing (x2; +1) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

Hmmm...for APFSDU rounds, I would rate the RKA at 6D6. (take into account that the front of my M1A1 is DEF 20-25..not the 30 listed in TUV) I agree with the APX2. Alternately I might use APX1 and some levels of Piercing. Of course, since this is a "Fin-Stabilized" round, it should have a Rmod bonus. Perhaps +2 or +4.

 

6u 2) Flechette Round: RKA 8d6, Area Of Effect Nonselective (48" Line; +3/4) (210 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), No Range (-1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Reduced Penetration (-1/4), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

Oh...here's one I disagree with! Flechette rounds should mostly be for killing soft targets...thus the damage is way too high! I'd put the Flechette rounds down to 3D6K or so, then slap an Autofire-10 on there as well as the Non-selective AE. That way any character in the Area has a chance of being hit by multiple flechettes! Thats how I write up Fragmentation effects such as Flechette and Beehive rounds...

 

10u 3) HE Round: RKA 8d6, Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Indirect (Any origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/2), Explosion (-1 DC/2"; +3/4) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

Okay, this one I agree with. I don't know about the increase AE for the explosion, but I'm not savvy on how big an explosion a 120mm HE round makes. One fix though. HE rounds have high base damage, but I would slap the Reduced Penetration liimitation to it, because while Explosions are fantastically powerful, they are horrible at penetrating armor. That way buildings, vehicles and fleshies in the area fly apart nicely, but armored vehicles less-so unless they are at ground Zero.

 

10u 4) HEAP Round: RKA 8d6, Indirect (Same origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/4), Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Explosion (+1/2) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

HEAP rounds are great. Ap and Explosion advantages are a given. What I might do is this...make it two-staged. One is AP/Explosion damage. The second stage is internal damage. (AVLD-does body vs Internal armor) The second stage is activated only if the first stage does Body damage (Trigger). This simulates the round exploding inside the target doing critical internal damage to crew and equipment. Almost always fatal.

 

10u 5) HEAT Round: RKA 8d6, Indirect (Same origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/4), Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Penetrating (+1/2) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

 

Ah yes, the good-old HEAT round. The old standby. I also write them up as AP/PEN, that way almost always does some damage get through. I'd place the damage squarely in the middle of APDU (6D6K) and HE rounds (8D6K) at 7D6K.

 

10u 6) HEDP Round: RKA 8d6, Indirect (Same origin, always fired away from attacker; +1/4), Increased Maximum Range (6,750"; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2) (300 Active Points); OIF Bulky (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Crew-Served (2 people; -1/4), Custom Modifier (Real Equipment; -1/4)

Powers Cost: 206

 

High Explosive, Dual Purpose: I forget what that does again. Just another AP/explosive round?

 

You forgot one:

 

High Explosive, Squash Head (HESH)

 

A warhead that attatches itself to the outside of a vehicles armor then detonates a shaped charge designed to translate a Shockwave through the armor to damage internal components. I'd write it up as a RKA 8D6K Explosive, PenetratingX2. Almost always garunteed to do internal damage. Apparently the British developed this one. (I could be wrong though)

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Crew served 2, 1 gunner and 1 loader

 

if its an autoloader you can dispense with the loader of course

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

First of all, before getting into specifics (in the reply to Fox1's post), I'll state that IMO a game system is an approximation of reality, and is unlikely to be a perfect match with reality.

 

I don't demand perfection, just that the resolution of events is in the ball-park. I am not ultra concerned that all tank guns work against tanks with exacting real world accuracy. I am more concerned that a character, who is strong enough to lift one thousand tanks, isn't strong enough to scratch the front armor on some kinds of tanks.

 

That being said, it is a matter of personal taste where to draw the line on the "realism" question.

 

You may wish to believe that, however it is from a practical PoV basically impossible. The reality is that forces and materal inter-react, nothing can happen on one side without considering the other.

At a simplistic level of events in a physics class demonstration, it is possible to talk about the qualities of one object, and its potential to do work, and exert force, and the like, without concerning ourselves with any "target objects." I would argue that the events that we are discussing are much more complex, but are still governed by the same principals as 2 steel balls smacking into each other in a class demonstration.

 

I believe that it is possible to speak about the impact that a 1 KG steel ball moving at 10 meters per second can have on other objects (at least in simple terms), without knowing anything about any given "target." And I believe that while damage can be a very complex event, it is possible to come up with some simplified rules that will be good enough for a game system. (although, as I said above, "good enough" many vary greatly between gamers) And these rules should allow us to apply stats to an attack type which will represent its ability to do damage in a generic fashion (without knowing anything about our target).

 

 

 

 

There is also the small problem of break-over points in reality, when forces that are easily ignored at one level (firearms) become overwhelming at another level (anti-tank guns).

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

 

I assume that there is a huge difference between anti-tank guns and pistols. That is why I assume that the system works in an exponential scale, rather than a linear one. And I assume that a tank has enough defense to bounce a pistol bullet with no problem.

 

 

Of course.

 

Now try to turn that into a simple game mechanic that is at it's core HERO system.

 

Make sure it scales such that a .45 ACP is more effective against people than a 9mm. At the same time make it scale so that a 120mm round either bounces off a target tank or destroys it (no does a couple points of body to ablate the target tank away).

 

When you manage that without having 'break-over' in mechanics (i.e. the way I managed it) or centering it upon a type of target (with break-overs in type, i.e. the way I managed it), get back to us. I'll be interested in see it.

The only real question where is how far you need to go with "realism" and how "simple" you want to keep the system.

 

I'd be happy with using the energy of the attack as a basis for damage. It is not perfect, but generally it is good enough for me.

 

At the same time, I don't have a problem with making the system a bit more complex--if necessary.

 

If you don't accept the simple energy model, there are modifications that can be made. The first thing that comes to my mind in adding a bit more detail to the damage resolution would be to take into consideration how focused that energy is.

 

That model could account for the fact that some attacks are too focused, and will blow right through some targets (like the .357 mag AP bullet that you mentioned previously), while other attacks are not focused enough to do harm in some cases. You'd want to be focused enough to be able to drill into your target quite a ways, but spread out enough to damage as large a part of the target as possible. That seems to me like what you were talking about earlier, but rather than hard-code the effect for a specific target, I'm taking about general principals that could be applied to any target.

 

This new aspect of damage would allow you to build a massive attack which could be turned aside by the light defenses. Or a very small attack that would penetrate through almost any defense. You can do these things to some extent in Hero already, but I brought up this modification because it relates to some of your concerns about how bullets should work (at least as I understood your points) .

 

 

 

 

I find that such things are more wisheful thinking than educated guesses. Experts have been too wrong in the past on simple things for me to trust such a method.

You are correct that experts are often wrong about things, but to be fair, I think it depends much on what type of things we are talking about.

 

I've never been on the surface of Pluto, but I can tell you with a high degree of accuracy what the gravitational pull would be in that situation. And that is based on a theoretical projection.

 

 

I rather see the baseline work as expected to at least some degree compared to reality. If a system fails this test, I see no point in judging its effectiveness in other areas.

This, for me, is a question of the definition of "fail." I don't actually demand perfection, just a good ball park estimate.

 

For example, Hero does not differentiate between the time it takes to lauch most attacks, and, while it is not perfectly realistic, that is OK by me.

 

An example of my definition of "failure" would be taking 30 seconds to fire an arrow, or 20 seconds to throw a dart (as in old style AD&D).

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

 

This new aspect of damage would allow you to build a massive attack which could be turned aside by the light defenses. Or a very small attack that would penetrate through almost any defense. You can do these things to some extent in Hero already, but I brought up this modification because it relates to some of your concerns about how bullets should work (at least as I understood your points) .

 

Sounds like Armor Piercing and Reduced Penetrating to me. Taking it one step further, you could add levels of Piercing to an attack to make it blow through armor rather effortlessly, irregardless of how weak an attack it may be.

 

I pretty much agree with Warp9 here. As long as you dont try to mimic reality perfectly, which is impossible within the scope of any published game setting to date, you can get a close but abstract proximation thats good enough for game purposes.

 

What I use is base Energy for damage, then use various Advantages and Limitations to adjust how each attack affects a potential target based on its other attributes. In the case of the .45 vs the 9mm, I would either give the .45 a +1DC increase over the 9mm, or give it a +1 StunX to represent the increase in impact due to the larger round size. Not hyper-accurate, but it is something. Most games don't even give you that much.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

With the issue of scale I don't think it's sufficient to build weapons at scale X and then define a damage multiple for any deviation. This is essentially the same as just building weapons with more or less damage and I think misses the point.

 

With a single, cohesive, homogenious entity the current rules I feel are adequate. For a compartmentalized, heterogenious entity the rules are a little flat. This is where scale I think comes into play.

 

The battleship is a good example of this. Here is an article that does an okay job of describing WWII armor: http://www.chuckhawks.com/armor_schemes.htm, as well as http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm and http://www.answers.com/topic/iowa-class-battleship. However, 16" = 400mm. This puts the "Wall Body" between 250mm (13 BODY) and 500mm (15 BODY) = call it 14 BODY. Light armor/Medium/Heavy is listed as 10/13/19. I think the issue here however is that the hull isn't just armor. Nearly a 1.5' barrier of metal is more of a wall. So, I think 10 DEF is fine but then you have to damage the wall to create a 1 hex size hole, which would require 14 BODY. A fire door is listed as 5 DEF 5 BODY and an airlock (= bulkhead?) is listed as 8 DEF 7 BODY. So, a projectile would have to do 24 BODY to "destroy" a single compartment and then most likey require an additional 10-15 BODY (let's say 12) per additional internal compartment destroyed until it hit the hull on the opposite side of the ship. So, even if there were only 2 compartments (one on each side), it would take 36 BODY to destroy both, and 60 BODY to punch a hole all the way through.

 

I think you also have to consider the complexity of the vehicle, and maybe complexity captures the homogeneity issue. For example, a locomotive or airliner while massive can hardly suffer the loss of a single "hex" of structure. I think this is the key issue. Vessels of size are much more like mobile bases than vehicles. In fact, given how "maneuverable" they are perhaps that is a better way to build them, with the engineering section being more like a tug vehicle.

 

Anyway, with a crew compliment of 2800 and 9000 tons of fuel, and dimensions of 295m length and 36m beam, the functional area of the deck is probably around 150m x 36m = 75" x 18" = 1350 hexes. I don't know how many decks there are, nor the volume of the castle/bridge. The draft is 6", so I imagine there can't be more than 6 decks or so. Regardless of the specifics, it's big. As a base, assuming that 6 decks of useful area (say effectively 3 down and 3 total in the castle) you have 8100 hexes, which is about a size of 15 for a base but as a vehicle this is about size 21, although based on displacement it should be about 19.

 

This site has deck plans for a Texas ship (smaller than Iowa) but illustrative none the less http://users3.ev1.net/~cfmoore/. Specifically look at this: http://users3.ev1.net/~cfmoore/structure/dimensions/DIMENSIONS.html. Looking at section 86, it looks like you'd have to penetrate 2 internal walls just and that would only flood the outer area. You'd have to penetrate 1 more internal wall to cause serious damage and be a sinking hazard, and I'd imagine you'd have to do so on multiple sections. That means with 24 BODY necessary to penetrate the outer hull and a conservative 10 BODY per inner wall, you'd have to cause 54 BODY to pose a threat. If you consider the outer hull is hardened but the internal are not, and rounds are AP, then you'd only need 39 BODY. 9d6Kx3.5 = 31.5, which isn't too far off. The question is how many such hits would be needed to sink it? 4? 6? Obviously, "called shots" (or random ones) could take out the brain/bridge or key systems.

 

So, have at it. How do we tackle this?

 

you pretty much just went through the same reasoning I used for my starship combat rules. the big bitch of which is that you need to map out the vessel, showing wheer the various barriers are, where vital systems are located, when crew stations are and the like. Which is part of the reason we used the traveller system... it was geared towards mapping out ships, and gave us plentey of premade maps for common vessels. it works pretty well in a dramatic and realistic fashion. We did rate the ships with an overall body rating based on Mass modified by materials and superstructure, but I onestly can't recall how we delt with the depletion of superstructure BODY. I know that hull braches affected the body a bit, some types of internal damage did so more, and the like... but its all long lost in my notes, and this was a campaign I ran well over 15 years ago, so the details escape me...

On a related note, FOX1 said something in anopther thread that reminded me that the old Fireboird suppliments had a bunch of good rules for this kind of thing. I don't have GAC anymore, but I know I used a lot of the rules like armor deflection and AP capped in my games. Some of thesew rules might be good to convert to 5th to se how they play.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I believe that it is possible to speak about the impact that a 1 KG steel ball moving at 10 meters per second can have on other objects (at least in simple terms), without knowing anything about any given "target."

).

 

As someone already pointed out, you can toss a bowling ball at a T80 with the same KE as the 120mm AP round- and you'll do nothing. It would however do a fine job against a APC.

 

Do it with the M1's 120mm round and you'll blow through the front, out the back and through something else as well. Fire it at another M1A1, and will be useless.

 

At no point in this range of effect, do the KE value tell you the likely outcome.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

 

In human targets, secondary effects such as shockwave, heat, target generated fragments (i.e. bone chips) can be safely unconsidered. They are not the prime damage causing agents at work.

 

In anti-tank however they are almost the only damage causing agents at work. The energy scale (after penetration) has reach the point where secondary effects are now primary.

 

Raise the scale even higher (rail gun 10K fps levels) and it alters yet again.

 

In short, physics itself is demanding 'break points' that you are attempting to avoid.

 

 

I'd be happy with using the energy of the attack as a basis for damage. It is not perfect, but generally it is good enough for me.

 

That fails my first and major handgun test- the 9mm and .45 ACP come out doing the exact same damage.

 

 

 

That model could account for the fact that some attacks are too focused, and will blow right through some targets (like the .357 mag AP bullet that you mentioned previously), while other attacks are not focused enough to do harm in some cases.

 

At this point you're doing just what HERO attempting to do, manual override of the system used to compute damage (i.e. a 'simple' energy reference).

 

You realize this is putting the exact 'breaks' in the system that you were attempting to avoid by going with simple KE in the first place. Only instead of using a very formal and consistent model like I do- you are going to base it upon judgement of the moment and case exception.

 

To me it looks like more work, and more inconsistency- all for the price of a 'simpler' model.

 

 

 

You are correct that experts are often wrong about things, but to be fair, I think it depends much on what type of things we are talking about.

 

In military/weapon matters, they have a horrid record. And the subject we're speaking of here is weapon effectiveness.

 

 

 

An example of my definition of "failure" would be taking 30 seconds to fire an arrow, or 20 seconds to throw a dart (as in old style AD&D).

 

I have simple view here myself. A straight energy model fails, assuming that it actually holds to that model.

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

As someone already pointed out, you can toss a bowling ball at a T80 with the same KE as the 120mm AP round- and you'll do nothing. It would however do a fine job against a APC.

 

Do it with the M1's 120mm round and you'll blow through the front, out the back and through something else as well. Fire it at another M1A1, and will be useless.

 

At no point in this range of effect, do the KE value tell you the likely outcome.

 

Are you speaking of this (following) post, or some other?

 

(from post 29 of this thread)

The problem is that there is simply no easy relationship between energy delivered on target, and lethality. Take the oft-mentioned example of the 120mm Rehinmetall. Create another gun than fires a large, blunt projectile at a slower velocity, but delivers the same energy on target, because of the larger mass (KE = .5mv^2). Equal energy.

 

The 120mm from the Abrams kills the target time tank time after time.

 

The hypothetical bowling-ball gun bounces its projectiles off the tank time after time.

 

Why? Because the Abrams' projectile focuses all of that energy on a far smaller area of the target. (the "dart" is actually far smaller than 120mm in diameter)

The example does nothing to show that energy is irrelevant, all it shows is that there are other factors which relate to how the energy is applied to the target.

 

As soon as you take into account the concentration of the energy for an attack, the problem Kristopher mentioned vanishes. Taking into account another dimension to each attack is different from saying that we must throw energy out of the picture. And it is different than saying that we have to rate each attack on the basis of the probable target.

 

There is room in Physics for both Force and Pressure, just as there is room for both Energy and Power. Taking extra factors into account makes our game model more complex, but it also becomes more accurate.

 

 

In human targets, secondary effects such as shockwave, heat, target generated fragments (i.e. bone chips) can be safely unconsidered. They are not the prime damage causing agents at work.

 

In anti-tank however they are almost the only damage causing agents at work. The energy scale (after penetration) has reach the point where secondary effects are now primary.

 

Raise the scale even higher (rail gun 10K fps levels) and it alters yet again.

 

In short, physics itself is demanding 'break points' that you are attempting to avoid.

One difference between us is that you seem to get hung up of the particulars of what the attack is doing. I don't see any "break points." From my perspective, all those effects that you mention (shockwave, heat, target generated fragments) are just different manifestations of the energy of the attack.

 

 

 

At this point you're doing just what HERO attempting to do, manual override of the system used to compute damage (i.e. a 'simple' energy reference).

 

You realize this is putting the exact 'breaks' in the system that you were attempting to avoid by going with simple KE in the first place. Only instead of using a very formal and consistent model like I do- you are going to base it upon judgement of the moment and case exception.

 

To me it looks like more work, and more inconsistency- all for the price of a 'simpler' model.

You are misunderstanding me, the simple model is just KE, once you start to add other factors in (like energy focus/concentration) the model will quickly get more complex.

 

I don't have a big problem with staying with the simple KE model, but I'm fine with more complexity too.

 

My biggest problem with your model is not the complexity. It is the concept of mixing the definition of the attack with the "target side" of the equation that bothers me. It seems that you want to create specific rating to handle specific situations (or specific targets). I want to look for a set of general principals that will apply to all situations, no matter what the target. These general principals should provide "ball park" values for all easily testable situations. The more complex these principals get, the closer to reality they can get. NOTE: generic does not necessarily mean simple, it just means that it is not geared toward specific circumstances.

 

If there are other factors besides raw energy that are important, then let us quantitify them. Taking other properties of an attack into account is not a manual override of the system, and it does not make the system inconsistent. As I said above: There is room in Physics for both Force and Pressure. . . . We don't have to get that complex, but we can if need be.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

The example does nothing to show that energy is irrelevant' date=' all it shows is that there are other factors which relate to how the energy is applied to the target. .[/quote']

 

KE <> Damage. Damage is what is done to a specific target as a result of a specific (in detail) application of enery. Until it impacts something, it does no damage- and only the details of that impact including both the projectile and the target will determine the result.

 

I've seen game system after game system go down they path your suggesting- none of them worked (i.e. even got the order of relative effects correct).

 

HERO currently is attempting to use that same system (i.e. base everything on KE, oh and lets give .45 cal weapons and above a stun mod, oh and since the .45 is really cool in real life- lets up it's DC by one. Snort. My dead mother could do better.

 

 

In any event, from where I stand right now (i.e. having and using a workable and consistent method that passes the rational reality tests that I require), I'm really no longer interesting in debating someone who's only point is "Will maybe if" and "this should work".

 

Come back to me why you have an actual consistent conversion method and we'll talk again.

 

Until then. We're done. I have something that works and you dont. End of subject.

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

KE <> Damage. Damage is what is done to a specific target as a result of a specific (in detail) application of enery. Until it impacts something, it does no damage- and only the details of that impact including both the projectile and the target will determine the result.

By that logic you'll have to rewrite your rules for each type of target. Rather than rewrite the rules so that guns do 0d6 against bricks, I'd prefer a more "objective" approach which is not target based. I'd rather have a specific gun rated with its own characteristics, and those attributes, interacting with the attributes of the target would determine the end damage.

 

 

I've seen game system after game system go down they path your suggesting- none of them worked (i.e. even got the order of relative effects correct).

 

HERO currently is attempting to use that same system (i.e. base everything on KE, oh and lets give .45 cal weapons and above a stun mod, oh and since the .45 is really cool in real life- lets up it's DC by one. Snort. My dead mother could do better.

Actually, my problems with the 8d6 RKA write up for the tank guns is that they are not based on KE. The 9 Mega Joules should only rate in at 6d6 RKA, if you use KE as a basis. IMO both the guns and the armor are rated too high, that is why a character who can lift 1,000 tanks can't scratch the front armor on some tanks. This problem would be fixed by sticking to KE, rather than going off in a different direction.

 

 

 

In any event, from where I stand right now (i.e. having and using a workable and consistent method that passes the rational reality tests that I require), I'm really no longer interesting in debating someone who's only point is "Will maybe if" and "this should work".

 

Come back to me why you have an actual consistent conversion method and we'll talk again.

 

Until then. We're done. I have something that works and you dont. End of subject.

You have something that works? You've said previously that it does not work in all cases, and that you are willing to "accept some degree of error" in some situations.

 

Your system is only better than others if you get to determine when and where error is allowed. If one takes a different position than you as to what sorts of errors are acceptable, then one could say that your system also "fails."

 

 

(the specific quote is below)

 

In general I build a weapon for use against it's common target. Firearms against people, tank guns against tanks/vehicles, etc.

 

Does that cause a problem if they are used against something else? Sometimes yes. It's an 80% solution. It works against the primary target and I'm willing in a game system to accept some degree of error when they are used against abnormal targets. I consider this better than failing against 80% of its targets.

If you follow that logic (the idea that the attributes of the weapon are based on the target) and wanted to be fully accurate, you'd have to re-write the fire-arms damage for each different type of target. That would be especially true for situations where the same weapon would very likely be used on two radically different types of targets. And I don't see that solution as workable.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

You have something that works? You've said previously that it does not work in all cases' date=' and that you are willing to "accept some degree of error" in some situations. .[/quote']

 

I accept the type of error assumed in HERO, i.e. I can shoot a man with 6d6K anti-weapon in the chest and he will not instantly die if I roll a bit below average. I understand this wrong, and I accept it.

 

I also accept that I have no real idea how a Norse thunder god would in fact react to being shot in the left eye by a M700 sniper rifle. Lacking any data, I assume therefore that my method likely isn't a good measure of that non-reality beyond "it is because it's fiction and I say it is".

 

 

I also accept that my method is an abstraction. For but one example, I don't figure in loss of velocity over range for example- a real firearm would do less damage at 800 yards than it does at 10.

 

Thus given the limits of my assumptions, the lack of any data on certain interactions, and the required abstraction in order to maintain a playable game- I have a workable and consistent system that is a 80% solution (likely better actually). If I see a system that exceeds my own modeling and is still workable, I'll bow to it and accept it in replacement of my own.

 

Which is a heck of alot better than hodge podge guessing at modifying KE values and claiming value in something I haven't even started on such as yourself.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I accept the type of error assumed in HERO' date=' i.e. I can shoot a man with 6d6K anti-weapon in the chest and he will not instantly die if I roll a bit below average. I understand this wrong, and I accept it.[/quote']That's not as far fetched as it sounds. In the famous firefight in Mogadishu in 1993 (immortalized in "Blackhawk Down"), a US Army Ranger was hit in the ribs with an RPG (anti-tank) round. It failed to detonate, but was sticking out of him by a foot out a hole 2" in diameter.

 

He was evacuated and survived. Call it a bad roll if you like.

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I also accept that my method is an abstraction. For but one example, I don't figure in loss of velocity over range for example- a real firearm would do less damage at 800 yards than it does at 10.

 

Thus given the limits of my assumptions, the lack of any data on certain interactions, and the required abstraction in order to maintain a playable game- I have a workable and consistent system that is a 80% solution (likely better actually). If I see a system that exceeds my own modeling and is still workable, I'll bow to it and accept it in replacement of my own.

My specific concern about your system gets back to your statements: "I build a weapon for use against it's common target. Firearms against people, tank guns against tanks/vehicles, etc" and "Damage is what is done to a specific target as a result of a specific (in detail) application of enery. Until it impacts something, it does no damage- and only the details of that impact including both the projectile and the target will determine the result." It sounds like you think that it is meaningless to say anything about an attack unless it is fired at a target. It seems like a version of the old "if a tree falls in a forrest with no one to hear it, it makes no sound" argument. The implications of that make no sense to me. A 10d6 EB is a 10d6 EB, whether it is fired at a person. or a tank, or just fired off into empty space. It will have different net impacts in each case but that should not alter the definition of the EB itself (IMO).

 

 

I accept the type of error assumed in HERO, i.e. I can shoot a man with 6d6K anti-weapon in the chest and he will not instantly die if I roll a bit below average. I understand this wrong, and I accept it.

 

I also accept that I have no real idea how a Norse thunder god would in fact react to being shot in the left eye by a M700 sniper rifle. Lacking any data, I assume therefore that my method likely isn't a good measure of that non-reality beyond "it is because it's fiction and I say it is".

How much data do you have on how a T-Rex would react to a M700 sniper rifle? Would you also apply the same statement in that case that you made about the thunder god? The specific statement was:Lacking any data, I assume therefore that my method likely isn't a good measure of that non-reality beyond "it is because it's fiction and I say it is". Or do you agree that we can use basic principals to arrive at an educated guess of the rifle's impact on such a creature?

[Susano]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

That's not as far fetched as it sounds. In the famous firefight in Mogadishu in 1993 (immortalized in "Blackhawk Down"), a US Army Ranger was hit in the ribs with an RPG (anti-tank) round. It failed to detonate, but was sticking out of him by a foot out a hole 2" in diameter.

 

He was evacuated and survived. Call it a bad roll if you like.

 

In addition, said 6d6 RKA does a minimum of 6 BODY. If you've hit an 8 BODY normal, he's in a world of hurt. Slightly less so for a 10 BODY normal. Toss in Hit Location, and that 6 BODY could kill in one shot (head or vitals). Add in Impairment and Disabling, and you've just impaired (at least) any location you've hit. Cinematically realistic enough for me (although to be honest, cinematic hand grenades are like 4d6 RKAs, AOE Hex, Extended, with Double Knockback.... ).

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

He was evacuated and survived. Call it a bad roll if you like.

 

It's been a while since I read the book (couple of years I think), but I thought he was set aside (real worries about the warhead going off under treatment that likely wouldn't have saved him anyway) and allowed to die as peacefully as possible. Battlefield triage is a cold but necessary thing.

 

The round also went through a door first, so it wasn't a direct hit.

 

Maybe it was another injury I'm thinking of.

[Susano]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

It's been a while since I read the book (couple of years I think), but I thought he was set aside (real worries about the warhead going off under treatment that likely wouldn't have saved him anyway) and allowed to die as peacefully as possible. Battlefield triage is a cold but necessary thing.

 

The round also went through a door first, so it wasn't a direct hit.

 

Maybe it was another injury I'm thinking of.

 

The film shows a man getting hit with a rocket that punches through a truck door. In another case, a guy gets hit with a rocket and is blown in two. He's lives... for a bit. I think the latter guy was in the back of a truck at the time. I recall both from the book (I certainly recall the getting blown in two scene).

 

In either case, it could be a result of a low die roll, or a good die roll and body armor stopping some of it. Of course, as I said before, using the optional Hit Location, Wounding, and Bleeding Rules can make even "minor" wounds nasty. Such as when a PC had her foot (location 17) blown off by a 2d6 RKA rifle ground in an old Kazei 5 session.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

The implications of that make no sense to me. A 10d6 EB is a 10d6 EB' date=' whether it is fired at a person. or a tank, or just fired off into empty space. It will have different net impacts in each case but that should not alter the definition of the EB itself (IMO).[/quote']

 

I'm confused. I'm not altering anything.

 

After I'm done with my conversion, a .45 ACP does 3d6-1K, Armor effect 2x, Stun Modifer +1. I determined the base damage based upon a required outcome of a hit on a typical normal (body 10, for I'm old school and think stat 8 normals don't and shouldn't exist).

 

After I'm done, a 120mm cannon with its DU round does 12+2d6K, various degrees of resistant piercing (itself with some degree of AP), stun modifier +5 plus a linked 17d6 NND does body attack, defense is avoiding body damage from the prime attack. This damage was determined based upon a required result upon impacting a Defense 20 tank with various degrees of hardening and a body of 16.

 

I used a normal (body 10) human for determining .45 damage, I used a M1A1 tank for determing 120mm DU round damage.

 

After that, the values don't change. If they hit a person, a dog, a T-Rex, a tank, or a norse thunder god- the game values remain the same. That's why there's a chance of a chest hit from a 120mm not instantly (i.e. doing 20 body) killing the typical normal.

 

 

So once it's in game stats, it remains in game stats. Which is one of the reasons why it's a 80% solution as I don't re-convert based upon different targets like the reality of the question would require.

 

 

Or do you agree that we can use basic principals to arrive at an educated guess of the rifle's impact on such a creature?

 

I would never (given the choice) risk my life on a rifle shot against a T-Rex based upon an educated guess. Not when they can't even decide of the guy was a predator or not. The educated part of that is badly lacking.

 

In the game, I'd would use my normal rifle stats and likely create a T-Rex that would react to that rifle shot in whatever way that I as GM think it should. That's the advantage of encounting something in a game that no longer exists in today's world- I can make it up.