Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

[Fox1]

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

 

The film shows a man getting hit with a rocket that punches through a truck door. In another case' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

I'll check it tonight when I can reach my book.

 

BTW, a RPG-7 isn't a 6d6K attack in my game. So it's way undersized for the example I was making.

[Warp9]

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

 

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.

What if you came to a situation where there was no standard "common target" for a give weapon ? (for example if there were two common likely types of targets for the attack type)

 

Would you pick a target type and make the damage around that ? (knowing that much of the time it would be "inaccurate")

 

Or would you do two different types of damage which would vary depending on the target?

 

 

 

 

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.

My question is: do you think that it is possible to make an "educated" guess about the effect of an M700 sniper rifle on a T-Rex?

 

When you say "the educated part of that is badly lacking" do you mean that it is simply hard, or do you mean that it is not possible?

[megaplayboy]

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

 

FWIW, Grond's haymaker should work out to about 125 MJ--even if the armor somehow held up, the contents (human, electronic, and otherwise) of the tank should be pureed.

my premise:

untrained punch = about 6% of lift capacity(mass(in kg) x gravity(9.8m/s^2 x height(2m))

haymaker = 100% of lift capacity(i.e., maximum kinetic energy output)

[Trebuchet]

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

 

FWIW, Grond's haymaker should work out to about 125 MJ--even if the armor somehow held up, the contents (human, electronic, and otherwise) of the tank should be pureed.

my premise:

untrained punch = about 6% of lift capacity(mass(in kg) x gravity(9.8m/s^2 x height(2m))

haymaker = 100% of lift capacity(i.e., maximum kinetic energy output)

Where do you get the impression lifting capacity equals kinetic energy in a form that does damage? Energy needs to be focused in time and space in order to do damage. You don't cut down a tree by pushing on it with an axe; you cut it down by using the axe to focus the kinetic energy into a very small area and within a few milliseconds.

[megaplayboy]

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

 

Where do you get the impression lifting capacity equals kinetic energy in a form that does damage? Energy needs to be focused in time and space in order to do damage. You don't cut down a tree by pushing on it with an axe; you cut it down by using the axe to focus the kinetic energy into a very small area and within a few milliseconds.

 

When I punch someone during sparring, I'm transferring a fraction of my maximum kinetic energy output into their body, where it does a slight amount of damage(which their body registers as pain, bruising, etc.). If I do the same thing to a 1 inch pine board, I'm focusing my kinetic energy into a relatively small area(the lead two knuckles of my fist) in order to overcome the tensile strength of the board and break it. It's still based on my ability to transfer a portion of my maximum kinetic energy output(i.e., my "strength"). Broken down--leg strength is about 3x arm strength, so arm strength is roughly 1/8 of total strength, and my assumption is that an untrained punch uses roughly half of that arm strength. Second assumption is that the punch is delivered in one second or less of time. My punch is still a force expressed as kE--it's an apples to apples comparison.

[Warp9]

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

 

Where do you get the impression lifting capacity equals kinetic energy in a form that does damage? Energy needs to be focused in time and space in order to do damage. You don't cut down a tree by pushing on it with an axe; you cut it down by using the axe to focus the kinetic energy into a very small area and within a few milliseconds.

Energy / Time = Power

 

If a Brick took 3 months to raise an aircraft carrior to chest level, that would be Energy without Power.

 

Most Bricks lift massive weights in a very short time scales, thus we can say that they also have a great deal of power. Meaning that they can produce a great deal of energy in a very short time.

 

Finally, as long as a Brick has normal sized hands, he can focus that awesome power in a relatively small area. That seems to be a good statement of damage from my perspective.

[Fox1]

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

 

What if you came to a situation where there was no standard "common target" for a give weapon ? (for example if there were two common likely types of targets for the attack type)

 

Would you pick a target type and make the damage around that ? (knowing that much of the time it would be "inaccurate")

 

Or would you do two different types of damage which would vary depending on the target?

 

Very difficult to answer given that I'm hard pressed to think of an example. We're have to be talking about two common targets (not in reality, but commonly encountered in the game) that react very differently to the same baseline real world weapon system that had real world data behind it.

 

That's frankly outside my experience. I don't believe I've ever ran or considered running a campaign where that would hold.

 

Perhaps you can provide an example?

 

 

In any case, assuming that such a thing did come up- I'd do what I do now. stick with my baseline target and determine the weapon based on that. Meanwhile I'd build the other target to represent the differences.

 

 

As an example: A 'big game' hunting campaign where any gun fire will be against animals of varying sizes instead of people. The firearms were constructed with body 10 humans in mind, so I'd build the animals to show the difference- not reconstruct the weapons.

 

I require all my construction to remain the same, no matter the campaign setting or genre.

 

 

 

My question is: do you think that it is possible to make an "educated" guess about the effect of an M700 sniper rifle on a T-Rex?

 

When you say "the educated part of that is badly lacking" do you mean that it is simply hard, or do you mean that it is not possible?

 

No one has ever fired a rifle at a creature that weighed 2-3x that of an elephant.

 

So I don't have enough data to make a educated guess. Given the rather core disagreements I've seen aired between T-Rex experts, I don't think they have enough data either. They thing may be a wimp that would be scared off by the noise alone for all I know.

 

 

So my guess? Be safe, hit it with a 20mm cannon on full auto first from inside an good heavy APC and see what happens. I"m guessing that will drop it and from the body we can do some work and come up with a real educated guess

[Trebuchet]

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

 

When I punch someone during sparring' date=' I'm transferring a fraction of my maximum kinetic energy output into their body, where it does a slight amount of damage(which their body registers as pain, bruising, etc.). If I do the same thing to a 1 inch pine board, I'm focusing my kinetic energy into a relatively small area(the lead two knuckles of my fist) in order to overcome the tensile strength of the board and break it. It's still based on my ability to transfer a portion of my maximum kinetic energy output(i.e., my "strength"). Broken down--leg strength is about 3x arm strength, so arm strength is roughly 1/8 of total strength, and my assumption is that an untrained punch uses roughly half of that arm strength. Second assumption is that the punch is delivered in one second or less of time. My punch is still a force expressed as kE--it's an apples to apples comparison.[/quote']That doesn't answer my question. Where do you come up with a number for Grond's Haymaker of 125 megajoules? Has DoJ published an "xDC = 1 megajoule" chart I didn't hear about, or are you somehow transforming lifting power into hitting power? I've never seen any evidence, in reality or in Hero, that the two equate in any way, or Captain America would be able to hurl cars down the street with a side kick.

[Warp9]

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

 

Very difficult to answer given that I'm hard pressed to think of an example. We're have to be talking about two common targets (not in reality, but commonly encountered in the game) that react very differently to the same baseline real world weapon system that had real world data behind it.

 

That's frankly outside my experience. I don't believe I've ever ran or considered running a campaign where that would hold.

 

Perhaps you can provide an example?

 

 

In any case, assuming that such a thing did come up- I'd do what I do now. stick with my baseline target and determine the weapon based on that. Meanwhile I'd build the other target to represent the differences.

 

 

As an example: A 'big game' hunting campaign where any gun fire will be against animals of varying sizes instead of people. The firearms were constructed with body 10 humans in mind, so I'd build the animals to show the difference- not reconstruct the weapons.

 

I require all my construction to remain the same, no matter the campaign setting or genre.

That confuses me. I don't understand why (based on your stated philosophy of weapon building) you wouldn't want to have stats for each weapon based on each type of target. It it a matter of complication, or is it that you don't believe that weapon damage should be tailored to a given target type?

 

 

 

No one has ever fired a rifle at a creature that weighed 2-3x that of an elephant.

 

So I don't have enough data to make a educated guess. Given the rather core disagreements I've seen aired between T-Rex experts, I don't think they have enough data either. They thing may be a wimp that would be scared off by the noise alone for all I know.

 

 

So my guess? Be safe, hit it with a 20mm cannon on full auto first from inside an good heavy APC and see what happens. I"m guessing that will drop it and from the body we can do some work and come up with a real educated guess

What I'm getting at with my questions is that I'm looking to see if there are some guesses that are "better" than others when it comes to a T-Rex. Or would anybody's guesses be as good as anyone elses?

[megaplayboy]

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

 

That doesn't answer my question. Where do you come up with a number for Grond's Haymaker of 125 megajoules? Has DoJ published an "xDC = 1 megajoule" chart I didn't hear about' date=' or are you somehow transforming lifting power into hitting power? I've never seen any evidence, in reality or in Hero, that the two equate in any way, or Captain America would be able to hurl cars down the street with a side kick.[/quote']

 

There is a direct correlation between muscle strength and punching power IRL. When you punch somebody, you are hitting them with x amount of joules of energy, a significant percentage of which energy transfers to the target across the point of impact. A trained fighter knows how to maximize this by hitting with their full body weight behind the punch and striking a bit faster, across a narrower area. The amount of energy you transfer is still directly related to your physical strength, and the only measure in HERO of that is lift capacity. 100kg of lift capacity(which happens to equal about 2kJ of potential energy) equals 2 DC of punch damage. So 2 DC is < 2kJ--in fact the figure I used was about 125 joules of kinetic energy in a 2d6 punch. An 18d6 punch, therefore, should have about 64,000 x that amount, or 8 mJ(which equates to a 50s era tank gun). If Grond should happen to maximize his physical energy output, then his haymaker is about 125 mJ.

 

We'd need a number for a measured actual punch thrown by someone IRL to see who's right

 

http://www.pims.math.ca/pi/issue6/page09-11.pdf

 

looks like I'm right, or at least in the right ballpark vis a vis the kinetic energy of strikes.

[Fox1]

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

 

That confuses me. I don't understand why (based on your stated philosophy of weapon building) you wouldn't want to have stats for each weapon based on each type of target. It it a matter of complication' date=' or is it that you don't believe that weapon damage should be tailored to a given target type??[/quote']

 

 

I'm beginning to think we're talking pass each other. It may not be your fault, or it may be a problem on both sides. In any case I think there's a failure on my part of getting the concept across...

 

Let's try again.

 

In real life damage is the interaction of a weapon/projectile and the target. Both affect each other in various ways depending upon a number of rather complex elements. Translating this into a game system that is simple enough to use presents a number of problems and choices.

 

The following describes my method:

 

For the sake of the debate, let's say that a hit from a 9mm handgun removes from combat (i.e. they fall down & stop fighting) 60% of the people hit in real life (a made up if educated number, but let's use it) with a single shot.

 

When moving this to a game system, two obvious questions come up.

 

First, what is the typical person in game terms. Second, how much damage in that game system does it take to remove them from the combat (i.e. drop them to 0 stun in HERO) 60% of the time.

 

A designer can approach this question from either side. He can pick a damage number and then modify the typical person in the game system so that this selected damage can drop them 60% of the time.

 

Or he can pick the characteristics of the typical person, and then select damage that drops them 60% of the time.

 

Since I was dealing with HERO, the typical person was already defined. Back in the days before 4th Edition it was a stat 10 normal. So the target side of this problem was already defined for me.

 

So was the weapon damage, but it didn't achieve the needed 60% drop rate. We had a problem.

 

That meant I had to make a choice of which to alter from the published rules- weapon or target.

 

I decided it would be easier to alter the weapon as upon examing the weapon tables I noticed they didn't scale properly in any case. Since they had to be changed anyway, let's change them.

 

So I started working with some numbers, actual ballistic formulas and the like-and came up with a conversion method where I can plug a handful of real-life numbers into a spread sheet and instantly have all the HERO System values for a weapon- and a 9mm has a 60% chance of removing a combatant from a fight.

 

This created a firearms baseline. It was based upon real world weapons vs. unarmored human targets. The actual game numbers don't map all the well directly to reality (i.e. no one knows if a 9mm drops exactly 60% of it's targets with a single hit- it's been impossible to control the data sampling enough to get such numbers)- the relative effectiveness maps nicely.

 

I did the same with the M1A1 and it's weapon vs. it's own armor (back in the day, it was rated at Def 20 and not Def 30). Again I could have selected either the weapon or the target to modify. Being consistent, I modified the weapon.

 

Now that I have a baseline, what do I do when the target changes which in turn causes the interaction of weapon/target to change?

 

Again I have two choices. Adjust the target or adjust the weapon.

 

Adjusting the weapon presents some real problems. Different damages depending upon a potentially infinite number of targets just isnt' practical.

 

However, as I'd have to construct each target in the game anyway (since PCs are built for our play style, not the default HERO one)- the solution seemed rather obvious. Adjust the target to represent the weapon's different effect on it. This produces no extra work on my part and solves the problem (enough for the game anyway). Resistant defense, Body and Stun values, DR, etc all provide a wealth of ways to achieve the desired effect.

 

So, I built the firearms to whack on people. Anything else I put into the system is built to react to those firearms.

 

 

 

 

What I'm getting at with my questions is that I'm looking to see if there are some guesses that are "better" than others when it comes to a T-Rex. Or would anybody's guesses be as good as anyone elses?

 

Someone that knew something solid about the internal layout of the T-Rex, hardness and thickness of the bones in a living creature, response of the nervous system, if it was a predator or not, density of the body tissues and the like...

 

Someone with that type of knowledge could make a better guess if they also knew something about terminal ballistics.

 

That someone isn't me. I have serious doubts that there's anyone who meets that bill. If there such a person (or even two such people each giving half of the needed information), they could make a educated guess.

 

Failing that, someone who understood terminal ballistics would be better than someone who did not. They for example would understand why it's difficult to make such a call.

 

 

This website may be of interest in seeing what sort of factors are important in making such a guess, remember we're talking about a creature 2-3x the weight of the elephant being spoken of:

 

http://www.african-hunter.com/elephant_part_1.htm

 

 

Given the statement that "It is doubtful that more than one in a hundred elephants are shot at much over 40 yards, and it is inconceivable to take more than a 60 yard shot on an unwounded elephant.", I would have to make the educated guess that a rifle shot would be less than a idea weapon choice on an enraged T-Rex (assuming it's a predator).

[David Blue]

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

 

There is a direct correlation between muscle strength and punching power IRL.

"Strength" includes many things. One very strong man will not have all the gifts of strength in equal measure. Hand-speed, essential to a boxer, is less crucial to a high-jumper, though both have to be fast and explosive to produce power and excel at their sports.

 

So I will agree with you, provided "direct" does not necessarily mean "linear and uniform".

 

Of course, for game purposes we assume that the relationship between lifting capacity, fast, explosive movement (base leaping) and damage-dealing is uniform and linear. And that's fine. It's a necessary, useful simplification.

 

So, if someone has a lifting capacity of 25 million tons, or four times the weight of the Great Pyramid of Giza (estimated), they have a strength of 150, they do 30d6 damage punching, and if they stand in place in front of an Abrams tank and simply punch it they will do it no BODY, except on a high roll.

 

And, if someone has a lifting capacity of 25 tons, or about the weight of a frigate or a small standing stone, they have a strength of 50, they do 10d6 damage punching, and if they stand in place in front of the USS Iowa and simply punch it they will do it no BODY, except on a high roll.

 

OK, does that sound about right? Should someone with a lifting capacity of 25 tons, punching steadily and endlessly, do the USS Iowa no damage on average, but gradually wreck it in the long term due to an accumulation of high rolls?

 

That doesn't sound obviously and hopelessly wrong to me. Well not straight away, on the little I know. It's hard to tell: we don't have a lot of 50 strength guys around to test the matter.

 

But I think in this case, you want to build the USS Iowa as something like a floating base.

 

Twenty-five Ton Tony is going to have to hammer away for a long, long time at hex after hex of the USS Iowa to demolish it (unless of course he buys mega-scale for his strength or something like that). His friend who's a million times as strong will have a harder time getting above average rolls (because more dice mean more predicability), but only has to demolish a hex or so to effectively demolish the tank.

[phookz]

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

 

Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have described. The ability to destroy a T-80 tank is insignificant to the to the power of the Force.

 

 

ROFLMAO!!!

 

Or, to put it another way

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

As I scan the various physics treatises making up this thread, I can't help but wonder what leads unfamiliar gamers to the strange impression Hero is for math geeks.

[Vondy]

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

 

1) Hero has never put meaningful emphasis in vehicle simulation.

2) The vehicle system is extremely generic.

3) The write-ups for vehicles frequently leave much to be desired.

 

This isn't DOJ specific. Its a part and parcel of the history of hero and goes back to the system's legacy as a superheroic simulation. When genres where greater a greater need for a strong vehicle system started to emerge using Hero (3rd Ed.) there was no effort made to bring the vehicle system up to speed; either as a more granular system, or as a system with options to make it more granular. As a result, even good simulations of large vehicles frequently leave much to be desired. When the write-ups are only so-so, or simply incorrect, its even worse.

[Warp9]

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

 

I'm beginning to think we're talking pass each other. It may not be your fault, or it may be a problem on both sides. In any case I think there's a failure on my part of getting the concept across...

 

Let's try again.

I am agreeable to that idea.

 

In real life damage is the interaction of a weapon/projectile and the target. Both affect each other in various ways depending upon a number of rather complex elements. Translating this into a game system that is simple enough to use presents a number of problems and choices.

 

The following describes my method:

 

For the sake of the debate, let's say that a hit from a 9mm handgun removes from combat (i.e. they fall down & stop fighting) 60% of the people hit in real life (a made up if educated number, but let's use it) with a single shot.

 

When moving this to a game system, two obvious questions come up.

 

First, what is the typical person in game terms. Second, how much damage in that game system does it take to remove them from the combat (i.e. drop them to 0 stun in HERO) 60% of the time.

 

A designer can approach this question from either side. He can pick a damage number and then modify the typical person in the game system so that this selected damage can drop them 60% of the time.

 

Or he can pick the characteristics of the typical person, and then select damage that drops them 60% of the time.

 

Since I was dealing with HERO, the typical person was already defined. Back in the days before 4th Edition it was a stat 10 normal. So the target side of this problem was already defined for me.

 

So was the weapon damage, but it didn't achieve the needed 60% drop rate. We had a problem.

 

That meant I had to make a choice of which to alter from the published rules- weapon or target.

 

I decided it would be easier to alter the weapon as upon examing the weapon tables I noticed they didn't scale properly in any case. Since they had to be changed anyway, let's change them.

 

So I started working with some numbers, actual ballistic formulas and the like-and came up with a conversion method where I can plug a handful of real-life numbers into a spread sheet and instantly have all the HERO System values for a weapon- and a 9mm has a 60% chance of removing a combatant from a fight.

 

This created a firearms baseline. It was based upon real world weapons vs. unarmored human targets. The actual game numbers don't map all the well directly to reality (i.e. no one knows if a 9mm drops exactly 60% of it's targets with a single hit- it's been impossible to control the data sampling enough to get such numbers)- the relative effectiveness maps nicely.

What do you get when you plug the numbers for the 120mm Tank gun into the same spread-sheet that you use for the fire-arms?

 

I did the same with the M1A1 and it's weapon vs. it's own armor (back in the day, it was rated at Def 20 and not Def 30). Again I could have selected either the weapon or the target to modify. Being consistent, I modified the weapon.

Your method deals with the relationship between the target and weapon.

 

But what if the stats for the target are wrong? If I assume that a Tank has 1 BODY and 1 DEF, your method will not make too much sense. And you'll probably say that assigning 1 BODY and 1 DEF to a tank does not make sense--and I agree. My point is that it is possible to have bad numbers on the target, and if those numbers are wrong, then your data will also be wrong.

 

Given that you are obviously willing to change the stats given in the book for weapons, so why not armor too? what armor do you think that the tank should have? Should it be 20? Or 30? Or some other number?

 

What should the system be for relating tanks to other things in the game?

 

 

 

Now that I have a baseline, what do I do when the target changes which in turn causes the interaction of weapon/target to change?

 

Again I have two choices. Adjust the target or adjust the weapon.

 

Adjusting the weapon presents some real problems. Different damages depending upon a potentially infinite number of targets just isnt' practical.

 

However, as I'd have to construct each target in the game anyway (since PCs are built for our play style, not the default HERO one)- the solution seemed rather obvious. Adjust the target to represent the weapon's different effect on it. This produces no extra work on my part and solves the problem (enough for the game anyway). Resistant defense, Body and Stun values, DR, etc all provide a wealth of ways to achieve the desired effect.

 

So, I built the firearms to whack on people. Anything else I put into the system is built to react to those firearms.

Would you then build a tank to react to those fire-arms?

 

If so, then it should be on the same scale as everything else. And, if the armor on the tank is on the same scale as everything else, then so should tank-guns be too. One scale, and only one scale.

 

 

 

Someone that knew something solid about the internal layout of the T-Rex, hardness and thickness of the bones in a living creature, response of the nervous system, if it was a predator or not, density of the body tissues and the like...

 

Someone with that type of knowledge could make a better guess if they also knew something about terminal ballistics.

 

That someone isn't me. I have serious doubts that there's anyone who meets that bill. If there such a person (or even two such people each giving half of the needed information), they could make a educated guess.

 

Failing that, someone who understood terminal ballistics would be better than someone who did not. They for example would understand why it's difficult to make such a call.

What if you did not have any specific knowledge of terminal ballistics, but understood basic physics, and had some basic stats on the T-Rex?

 

Could you make a better guess than someone who had no knowledge about such things at all?

[Fox1]

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

 

What do you get when you plug the numbers for the 120mm Tank gun into the same spread-sheet that you use for the fire-arms??

 

I get 6d6K, which btw the way is the same number I listed in my version of the 120mm Cannon for the penetration damage.

 

Projectile velocity, practical weight, and muzzle diameter (and thus total energy) are all in reality related to each other. This is why you won't see a 88mm gun that works better than a 120mm.

 

The problem that occurs when you reach the level of anti-tank weapons is that previously secondary effects (heat, shock wave, secondary fragments, etc) that are too small to worry about with firearms reach a level where they become the primary cause of damage. In my 120mm DU model, this is the 17d6 NND does body component.

 

That isn't on my firearms spreadsheet. I could actually add it, for now I do so manually.

 

 

But what if the stats for the target are wrong?

 

To be honest, they are wrong. Or rather I can't determine if they are wrong or not.

 

See no one can give real hard numbers of how often a chest hit from a 9mm handgun will stop a person. The best information is only "most of the time". So I'm forced to pick something that works and reflects reality rather than actually model it.

 

HERO of course provided me with a Body 10 number to start with so there was no need to change that. It also provided me with a Defense 20 number for the M1A1 battle tank.

 

It so happens that 6d6 (with a partial standard effect of 12+2d6) works very nicely indeed with a Def 20 frontal armor.

 

As so it goes.

 

 

 

Given that you are obviously willing to change the stats given in the book for weapons, so why not armor too? what armor do you think that the tank should have? Should it be 20? Or 30? Or some other number?

 

In order to determine either side of a the damage or def question, one side must start with what is in effect a chosen value. Ideally it should scale nicely with other things in the game.

 

HERO actually prevents this because humans are harder to destroy than objects by design. Changing that would be major (and would change the character of the game), so I left it in place.

 

 

 

Would you then build a tank to react to those fire-arms?

 

If so, then it should be on the same scale as everything else. And, if the armor on the tank is on the same scale as everything else, then so should tank-guns be too. One scale, and only one scale.

 

In effect they are. You can use the firearms listed against the tank rather nicely, although they wouldn't have any effect.

 

 

Edit: as a note, I haven't completed my 5Er version of anti-tank weapons. So some of these numbers may change in the near future. I may adjust the chart to move the 120mm to 7d6 for example and up the M1A1 armor a bit. It's sort of up in the air right now.

 

 

 

What if you did not have any specific knowledge of terminal ballistics, but understood basic physics, and had some basic stats on the T-Rex?

 

Could you make a better guess than someone who had no knowledge about such things at all?

 

I wouldn't trust it.

 

It was people with basic physics who caused the rush to the 9mm handguns in the 70s. It's now rather clear that they costs some members of law enforcement their lives.

[PhilFleischmann]

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

 

I haven't read this entire thread (because I really don't have the time, not because I don't want to), so I don't know if anyone else has submitted this answer already.

 

A tank can't sink the USS Iowa in two shots because the tank's gun is built with the (wait for it)...

 

Real Weapon Limitation

 

That means that is produces realistic results regardless of the game numbers. While we're at it, the Iowa's armor also has the Real Armor Limitation.

 

Granted, this requires a little more understanding of the real world and application of common sense than simply using the numbers on the dice, but it does work. By the same token, you can't chop down a stone castle with a sword, even though stone has a DEF of 5 and a large sword can do 2d6 Killing easily with sufficient strength added.

 

The beauty of the Real Weapon Limitation is that it allows genre conventions to exist along side of realism. Gor'tex the Barbarian can't chop down Eltsac Castle even with his huge two-handed sword, but a 30' giant with a club could.

 

Likewise, Doctor Happykitty can destroy the USS Iowa in one shot using his Technobabulous Ray Gun.

 

This is because the giant's 15' club and the TRG aren't real weapons.

[Warp9]

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

 

I get 6d6K, which btw the way is the same number I listed in my version of the 120mm Cannon for the penetration damage.

I didn't see 120mm on your damage chart. And I wasn't sure what pattern you were using to arrive that the numbers, so I couldn't just extend the table.

 

Projectile velocity, practical weight, and muzzle diameter (and thus total energy) are all in reality related to each other. This is why you won't see a 88mm gun that works better than a 120mm.

I understand the somewhat likely relationship between weight and muzzle diameter, although a gun that fires a needle vs a gun that fires a sphere will not have much of a relationship here.

 

Velocity is a different matter. I don't really see the relationship there.

 

And I bet you could get a 88mm Rail gun that works better than a standard 120 mm gun.

 

 

 

The problem that occurs when you reach the level of anti-tank weapons is that previously secondary effects (heat, shock wave, secondary fragments, etc) that are too small to worry about with firearms reach a level where they become the primary cause of damage. In my 120mm DU model, this is the 17d6 NND does body component.

 

That isn't on my firearms spreadsheet. I could actually add it, for now I do so manually.

Shouldn't most high power attacks have secondary effects?

 

 

 

 

 

In order to determine either side of a the damage or def question, one side must start with what is in effect a chosen value. Ideally it should scale nicely with other things in the game.

If the value you need fits into scale with the other things in the game, what "choice" is there?

 

 

 

 

HERO actually prevents this because humans are harder to destroy than objects by design. Changing that would be major (and would change the character of the game), so I left it in place.

I assume that you mean that humans are harder to destroy relative to objects than they are in real life. So maybe humans should be harder to harm by guns than they are in real life, if that is so then doesn't that prevent you from using real world gun data?

 

 

 

In effect they are. You can use the firearms listed against the tank rather nicely, although they wouldn't have any effect.

Good.

 

 

 

I wouldn't trust it.

 

It was people with basic physics who caused the rush to the 9mm handguns in the 70s. It's now rather clear that they costs some members of law enforcement their lives.

If you were forced to choose between the guess of someone with absolutely no knowledge of the matters at hand, and somebody who had an understanding of physics which guess would you choose? Or would there not be reason to prefer either guess?

[Warp9]

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

 

I haven't read this entire thread (because I really don't have the time, not because I don't want to), so I don't know if anyone else has submitted this answer already.

 

A tank can't sink the USS Iowa in two shots because the tank's gun is built with the (wait for it)...

 

Real Weapon Limitation

 

That means that is produces realistic results regardless of the game numbers. While we're at it, the Iowa's armor also has the Real Armor Limitation.

 

Granted, this requires a little more understanding of the real world and application of common sense than simply using the numbers on the dice, but it does work. By the same token, you can't chop down a stone castle with a sword, even though stone has a DEF of 5 and a large sword can do 2d6 Killing easily with sufficient strength added.

 

The beauty of the Real Weapon Limitation is that it allows genre conventions to exist along side of realism. Gor'tex the Barbarian can't chop down Eltsac Castle even with his huge two-handed sword, but a 30' giant with a club could.

 

Likewise, Doctor Happykitty can destroy the USS Iowa in one shot using his Technobabulous Ray Gun.

 

This is because the giant's 15' club and the TRG aren't real weapons.

Does this mean that if my character is made of stone he is automatically immune to swords without paying any extra points? (he would have 5 resistant PD, of course) If he is as tough as the wall, and the wall can't be damaged, then neither should he.

 

Why not just make a game where Gor'tex the Barbarian's sword is a weaker attack than the 30' tall gaint's club? Then all you have to do is make sure that the stone is tougher than the sword can damage. (And I'm not saying that you have to do things that way)

[NuSoardGraphite]

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

 

Does this mean that if my character is made of stone he is automatically immune to swords without paying any extra points? (he would have 5 resistant PD' date=' of course) If he is as tough as the wall, and the wall can't be damaged, then neither should he.[/quote']

 

If your character were attacked by a weapon with the Real Weapon limitation, quite possibly!

Thats actually one way to stay in genre in a Supers game that no one here talks about. Security guards, cops and normal thugs should be carrying around pistols and rifles and knives with the Real Weapon limitation, that way when they encounter Granite: The Living Brick, bullets simply bounce off and knife blades break on his skin....just like in the comics and there's no chance for him to be hurt. However, if The Swordsman uses his enchanted blade to attack Granite, he has a normal chance to harm him, because the enchanted blade isn't made with the Real Weapon Limitation......

 

Why not just make a game where Gor'tex the Barbarian's sword is a weaker attack than the 30' tall gaint's club? Then all you have to do is make sure that the stone is tougher than the sword can damage. (And I'm not saying that you have to do things that way)

 

Well, in general, thats what I do, but for some people who want their games to be a little more "in genre" the above suggestion may be the solution they are looking for...

[Kristopher]

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

 

If you were forced to choose between the guess of someone with absolutely no knowledge of the matters at hand' date=' and somebody who had an understanding of physics which guess would you choose? Or would there not be reason to prefer either guess?[/quote']

 

In the case of the 9mm vs the .45ACP, the problem is that basic physics, and the erroneous assumption that energy = damage, led some to the mistaken conclusion that the 9mm would have the same effects on a human target as the .45ACP.

 

The "guess" I would prefer would come from someone who had studied the actual affects of various projectiles on the human body, and studied how bullets actually wound, kill, and otherwise stop targets.

[Warp9]

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

 

In the case of the 9mm vs the .45ACP, the problem is that basic physics, and the erroneous assumption that energy = damage, led some to the mistaken conclusion that the 9mm would have the same effects on a human target as the .45ACP.

 

The "guess" I would prefer would come from someone who had studied the actual affects of various projectiles on the human body, and studied how bullets actually wound, kill, and otherwise stop targets.

 

Ah, but go back and actually look at what I was originally asking. . . . .

 

(I'll re-provide the exchange so you'll see that I was talking about a T-Rex, not a human body)

 

Given that your expert knows about affects of various projectiles on the human body not a T-Rex, would your answer still stand?

 

What if you did not have any specific knowledge of terminal ballistics, but understood basic physics, and had some basic stats on the T-Rex?

 

Could you make a better guess than someone who had no knowledge about such things at all?

 

to which Fox1 Responded:

 

I wouldn't trust it.

 

It was people with basic physics who caused the rush to the 9mm handguns in the 70s. It's now rather clear that they costs some members of law enforcement their lives.

 

And then I replied:

If you were forced to choose between the guess of someone with absolutely no knowledge of the matters at hand, and somebody who had an understanding of physics which guess would you choose? Or would there not be reason to prefer either guess?

[gewing]

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

 

Sounds interesting, lets see:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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...

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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)

 

 

as a quick comment, I would probably make the flechette a reduced pen autofire area effect cone or some such.

 

The squash head is functionally useless versus composite or even spaced armor. It may blow away the exterior equipment, but afaik had almost no chance to "penetrate" actually scab off the inside like glass hit by a BB. BUt the scab is going 1000fps or more.

 

ONe Challenger tank was killed in Iraq by a friendly fire with a squash head.

 

The crew were re-loading ammo, and the round, due to its low velocity, came arcing down through an open hatch. Large explosion in confined space, detonated the ammo inside the tank.

[gewing]

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.

 

IIRC it failed to penetrate his body armor, was a dud round, and STILL knocked him through a wall...

 

oh wait, that was an incident in Granada. That was a lucky RANGER!