Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

[paigeoliver]

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

 

Really, consider picking up Autoduel champions, and the Cars Wars compendium on ebay. Autoduel champions puts the existing car wars rulesets INSIDE the Hero System, while the Car Wars compendium is very thorough and covers all types of modern to near future era vehicles.

 

You'll need them both if you are serious about the vehicles, Autoduel champs is based on a very old version of car wars, which was seriously expanded by the time the compendium came out. The compendium adds, boats, helicopters, (planes I think), military hardware, hovercraft, and just vastly expands the equipment list and the options for vehicles.

 

Funny thing is that they took the ONLY system slower than Hero, and then stuck it in Hero too!

[shadowcat1313]

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

 

I have Autoduel Champs and the Car Wars compendium here, I just need to dig them out of the box they are buried in. right now all my SF stuff at hand, I also have the Car Wars military vehicle guide

[Kristopher]

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

 

Ah, feels like slipping into an old jacket. Full steel jacket, perhaps...

 

Now I've always felt that the problem with all this vehicle mullarkey is that weapon damage is too high, which then necessitates high armour values, which...

 

If we are going to get this sorted out we'll need to agree some base rules.

 

The biggie (and I apologise in advance) is this: does everyone agree that the damage scale in Hero is exponential: +1DC (+5 character points in effect) doubles the damage, by which I mean energy delivered: just like the STRENGTH scale?

 

I think it does, but if there is no concensus then there seems little point in going on about it as we'll be doing the maths in (at least) two different ways, which is pointless.

 

If we can agree this, all we need to do (ALL, he says!) is agree one damage value for a projectile, work out how much energy that delivers to give us a starting point on the scale and then find some handy-dandy website that tells us how much energy battleship and battletank guns deliver. One simple spreadsheet later, we will have a DC value for the weapons and we can go on to sort out appropriate armour values from that.

 

Any comments on the approach?

 

If not, can someone start me off with a DC they think is right, and any handy-dandy weblinks that might come in useful?

 

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)

 

It's also important to keep in mind that it is not necessary to destroy the armor in order to defeat the armor. As I keep trying to explain on the forums for another game.

[Fox1]

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

 

Now I've always felt that the problem with all this vehicle mullarkey is that weapon damage is too high

 

The damage is too high. The 120mm used to be 6d6K weapon, something happened and the addition of 2d6K on top of it has inflated some vehicles past the point of usability.

 

I don't however agree with using simple energy as the measure of damage. For example in firearms it is highly misleading and even counter productive in many cases (i.e. higher bullet energy actually results in lower penetration and/or target damage).

[shadowcat1313]

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

 

taken from the munitions chapter of Fire Fusion and Steel[TNE version] page 135

 

the german 50L60 Antitank gun mounted on field carriages and and panzer III turrets could penetrate about 6cm of armor at medium range[1,000 meters] it had a muzzle energy of 1.63mj with a diameter of 50mm with a frontal area of 60 square cm, or an energy density of roughly 80kj

 

by contrast the 88L71 gun could penetrate about 19cm of Armor with 4.5mj of Muzzle Energy, 60 square cm of frontal area and 75kj energy density

 

this shows the overwhelming importance of gross muzzle energy

this is assuming the round being fired is a standard solid shot

beyond a certain velocity solid shot will simply shatter against an amored plate.

This led to development of a wide variety of advanced rounds

 

the 120mm gun on the M1A1 Abrams uses a depleted uranium penetrator, with a mass of just over 6kg, and a muzzle energy of just over 9mj, it will penetrate 65cm of armor.

 

most WW2 guns didnt exceed 1,000 meters per second muzzle velocity, while the 120mm gun on the abrams kicks a round out at 1,675 meters per second

 

I just went for the really basics from this section, its 3 full pages long. but I think its a useful comparison. it also doesnt cite any specific sources for any of the above information, the bibilography in the back of the book is a full page by itself.

[Blue]

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

 

I've taken samples from all battleships and tanks in this thread, metallurgically analyzed them, given them stress tests involving nuclear weapons, small and large arms fire, and the occasional head-on collision. After careful consideration and weighing of all the possible factors, I've come to the following conclusion...

 

It's a friggin' game!

 

 

[Trebuchet]

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

 

The biggie (and I apologise in advance) is this: does everyone agree that the damage scale in Hero is exponential: +1DC (+5 character points in effect) doubles the damage' date=' by which I mean [b']energy delivered[/b]: just like the STRENGTH scale?

That's probably one of the most contentious issues in Herodom. Put me firmly in the "No" school. As I see it, the only thing exponential in Hero is the Lifting abilities for STR. Not Throwing, not Leaping. Not the Explosives listed.

 

The only accurate way to answer "How much damage does an M1A2's gun do?" is "8d6 RKA." Anything else is unfounded speculation.

 

Generally, the vehicle rules are the single weakest point of the entire system. And that's been the case since the system's inception; it's not due to anything DOJ has changed.

[Silbeg]

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

 

I was looking through the Vehicle Sourcebook and saw the USS Iowa with a 10 Defense and a 35 Body. That just seems....wrong to me.

 

Proditor, your described combat assumes a few things, I would say. The rules really don't do a good job of scaling things up to the size of a battleship. In a ship vs ship confrontation, maybe it would work. But, other than that...

 

You could, perhaps, say that the 10DEF, 35 BODY is the representation of the barrier strength of the Iowa's armor plating. Considering the technology of the time, probably was much softer metal than the modern composites of a MBT. However, just penetrating the armor isn't enough (remember, the New Jersey took a hit to a turret from an 8" gun at Inchon that merely dented the armor!), you have to actually do enough damage to the superstructure to cause it to fail.

 

For vehicles of this sort of size, I would use the building rules for damage... thus, the Iowa would probably have to take at least 10X its BODY to be destroyed, and would take a good amount of time to actually fail (each additional 10X decreasing the failure time).

 

In any case, if you don't like how HERO created the BB, then you, as GM, have the right to redo it. Make the system fit your game, not the other way around!

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

 

It's the TANK ARMOR question again!

 

 

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! RUN!!!!

 

 

Ben... PLEASE! Shut this thread down now!

 

 

(Nothing personal Proditor... just a scary bit you've started! )

 

I've got to agree with the above.

 

The answer to the thread question can only be "all those extra defenses they put on the tanks had to come from somewhere, and besides Grond threatened to "smash puny DoJ writers" if they didn't include some military hardware he was capable of trashing like his idol in the comics."

[MitchellS]

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

 

I've got to agree with the above.

 

The answer to the thread question can only be "all those extra defenses they put on the tanks had to come from somewhere, and besides Grond threatened to "smash puny DoJ writers" if they didn't include some military hardware he was capable of trashing like his idol in the comics."

Finally, after 13 haymakers, Grond is able to defeat the Abrams. Good thing he didn't attack it from the front. Fortunately for him he only needed to haymaker the Iowa 3 times.

[Fox1]

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

 

"beyond a certain velocity solid shot will simply shatter against an amored plate.

This led to development of a wide variety of advanced rounds"

 

This point is key.

 

Simple energy increase by itself is almost meaningless, the actual important issue is where the energy is depleted at.

 

It can be the armor itself, it can be in the projectile itself, it can be on the other side of the target after its passed through. It can be in the form of heat transferred to the bullet and heat tranferred the target.

 

So first key is projectile construction- then energy.

 

Depending upon the construction of the bullet, armor (even if only skin, for skin is a weak type of armor), and target, very counter-intuitive outcomes can and do result.

 

For example, a high velocity AP round fired from a .357 mag will pass through a person causing little actual damage. Meanwhile the same velocity and weight Hollow Point can over-expand (with the bullet taking most of the energy), under penetrate and end up doing less damage to the person the AP round did. The ideal round will expand and just barely exit- sadly this idea round is almost impossible to create although blended metal technology may be a final answer to this need for small arms.

 

In the case of tank combat, the same basic effects apply. You need a fasting moving heavy projectile that transfers enough of it's energy to the target (instead of itself) in the right way to break through the armor.

 

What's forgotten after that point is that poking a hole in the tank isn't normally what destroyed it. Rather it's the resulting energy release on the other side of the round's penetration. Expanding gases, flying fragments, a freakin' huge amount of heat all erupt inside the contained spaces of the vehicle with horrid result. This is normally what kills the tank, not the little hole going in.

 

HERO (and any system working on simple projectile energy) will botch this effect. Rather than have a penetration damage value to overcome armor and a secondary internal damage value- it uses a single number for both.

 

Thus you get huge front loaded damage dice (8d6K for the 120mm) to kill some vehicles. And huge defenses (30 DEF M1 tanks) to avoid being killed. Tanks almost become D&D characters with HPs that soak up damage.

 

A correct and more reasoned approach when dealing with weapons of this type (huge internal energy release if penetrated even if only by a tiny bit, but no effective damage if not) is to do a two part damage system.

 

Thus a 120mm should do something like 6d6 RKA (with some part of that standard effect, I'd do 1d6+15 myself), loaded with the resistant piercing (with AP on top of that for newest ammo type) PLUS a linked 17d6 NND does body attack- defense is not having your armor penetrated by the 1d6+15 roll.

 

This allows vehicles to have lower armor values (the M1A1 could get away with 20 points with some degree of it hardened and perhaps double hardened). It also better models the real life effect of such things.

[Susano]

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

 

Fox,

you ever considered putting all of this into a Digital Hero article?

 

(All of this meaning all of your modern weapons suggestions)

[Sean Waters]

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

 

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)

 

It's also important to keep in mind that it is not necessary to destroy the armor in order to defeat the armor. As I keep trying to explain on the forums for another game.

 

Armour has various characteristics too which make it almost impossible to build both it and guns (of whatever size) in an entirely realistic manner without doing so on a case by case basis - something you don't want to do in a generic system!

 

I think we have to assume that guns are designed with relatively efficient shapes for their designated purpose: I am also aware that other types of projectile (HEAP and, my favourite, HESH) complicate matters still further.

 

Dealing though with solid projectiles first, and assuming a reasonably efficient shape, it seems that we need two characteristics, in effect, for ammunition: a 'penetration' value and a damage value assuming penetration. This isn't really covered in Hero at present. It may be that the latter should be 'damage per hex' which would certainly solve the battleship problem pretty quick...

 

I assume (I'm certainly no expert) that there is an optimal velocity and weight for ammunition, and I think we have to assume that weapns are designed to a reasonably optimal level in most cases.

 

Given these assumptions I think we can be more accurate about the progression of damage in the system...

[Sean Waters]

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

 

taken from the munitions chapter of Fire Fusion and Steel[TNE version] page 135

 

the german 50L60 Antitank gun mounted on field carriages and and panzer III turrets could penetrate about 6cm of armor at medium range[1,000 meters] it had a muzzle energy of 1.63mj with a diameter of 50mm with a frontal area of 60 square cm, or an energy density of roughly 80kj

 

by contrast the 88L71 gun could penetrate about 19cm of Armor with 4.5mj of Muzzle Energy, 60 square cm of frontal area and 75kj energy density

 

this shows the overwhelming importance of gross muzzle energy

this is assuming the round being fired is a standard solid shot

beyond a certain velocity solid shot will simply shatter against an amored plate.

This led to development of a wide variety of advanced rounds

 

the 120mm gun on the M1A1 Abrams uses a depleted uranium penetrator, with a mass of just over 6kg, and a muzzle energy of just over 9mj, it will penetrate 65cm of armor.

 

most WW2 guns didnt exceed 1,000 meters per second muzzle velocity, while the 120mm gun on the abrams kicks a round out at 1,675 meters per second

 

I just went for the really basics from this section, its 3 full pages long. but I think its a useful comparison. it also doesnt cite any specific sources for any of the above information, the bibilography in the back of the book is a full page by itself.

 

Ah this brings back the WW2 tank wargaming days

[Sean Waters]

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

 

The damage is too high. The 120mm used to be 6d6K weapon, something happened and the addition of 2d6K on top of it has inflated some vehicles past the point of usability.

 

I don't however agree with using simple energy as the measure of damage. For example in firearms it is highly misleading and even counter productive in many cases (i.e. higher bullet energy actually results in lower penetration and/or target damage).

 

I would assume that a projectile would have to have certain characteristics before it could penetrate armour: you are unlikely to ever get a lead projectile through serious tank armour no matter what it's momentum, BUT, assuming a reasonable efficient design for the purpose (small arms v flesh, large arms (erm...) v armour/vehicels and structures, and assuming that the design efficiency is built around actually delivering the energy to the target (rather than just bouncing off or blowing through), I think energy can be a useful measure of damage.

 

I could be wrong though: it happens a lot:wink:

[Sean Waters]

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

 

That's probably one of the most contentious issues in Herodom. Put me firmly in the "No" school. As I see it, the only thing exponential in Hero is the Lifting abilities for STR. Not Throwing, not Leaping. Not the Explosives listed.

 

The only accurate way to answer "How much damage does an M1A2's gun do?" is "8d6 RKA." Anything else is unfounded speculation.

 

Generally, the vehicle rules are the single weakest point of the entire system. And that's been the case since the system's inception; it's not due to anything DOJ has changed.

 

I knew you'd be trouble : no one mention nukes, eh?

[Sean Waters]

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

 

This point is key.

 

Simple energy increase by itself is almost meaningless, the actual important issue is where the energy is depleted at.

 

 

...sorry - should have read this first before posting about stuff on page 2, shouldn't I

 

I would like to see somewhat more limited values for armour etc.

 

I think the other point that Hero really skates around is target size: you kill a tank with a penetrating hit becasue you concentrate a lot of energy inside a small volume - ammo might go off, you'll certainly mangle crew, etc.

 

With a battleship there is a lot more area for the energy to fill before it does significant damage likely to impair the ship.

 

We need some sort of 'compartmentalisation' mechanic IMOto simulate this: in effect a limit to the damage a ship could take from a certain hit (unless, possibly, it hit a critical system - but even then they tend to be best protected if the designers have been doing their stuff.)

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I've taken samples from all battleships and tanks in this thread, metallurgically analyzed them, given them stress tests involving nuclear weapons, small and large arms fire, and the occasional head-on collision. After careful consideration and weighing of all the possible factors, I've come to the following conclusion...

 

It's a friggin' game!

 

 

 

You were going about the sampling all wrong: you should have been checking the posters: we're all obsessive loonies!

[lemming]

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

 

I've taken samples from all battleships and tanks in this thread, metallurgically analyzed them, given them stress tests involving nuclear weapons, small and large arms fire, and the occasional head-on collision. After careful consideration and weighing of all the possible factors, I've come to the following conclusion...

 

It's a friggin' game!

 

 

Can you list your sources for that?

[Rapier]

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

 

Very true. Their write-ups are just plain bad.

 

In their defence, i believe its a case of Jack-of-all-Trades, Master-of-None. It would take a serious military nut (or a rather large amount of research) to do a proper job of a writeup for a military vessel. It would take another type of knowledge base to writeup (properly) things like armoured limos, police cruisers, guns and ammo, axes and swords.

 

There is nothing wrong with the rules themselves, it is just VERY hard (without spending years in research) to effectively balance all of these things.

[Fox1]

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

 

...BUT' date=' assuming a reasonable efficient design for the purpose (small arms v flesh, large arms (erm...) v armour/vehicels and structures, and assuming that the design efficiency is built around actually delivering the energy to the target (rather than just bouncing off or blowing through), I think energy can be a useful measure of damage.[/quote']

 

It would be nice. However it doesn't work that way.

 

On famous example, the 9mm and .45 ACP have almost identical energy values. However...

 

Against a human target (or any living target of that size), you can put the most efficient expanding bullet of the perfect weight at the perfect velocity (within the 9mm range) and end up.... doing the same damage as a straight ball .45 ACP round.

 

Put a good expanding bullet in the .45, and it cames out way ahead.

 

The limit here is that a 9mm bullet can't damage what it can't touch, and it it's max expansion it's basically equal to an unexpanded .45.

 

For small arms vs. people it's all wound diameter and depth. As all people lack infinite depth- stuff with huge depth values are going to expend their remaining energy outside the person.

 

So the deciding factor is wound diameter after a certain degree of depth is achieved. Hollow Points, fragmenting bullets, etc are methods of increasing wound diameter. But no matter the magic, the simple truth is that the bigger bullet (after expansion and/fragmentation assuming enough depth is reached) and not the one with more energy does more damage.

 

There's also the issue of modeling unequal encounters.

 

The M1 fires DU ammo that during the last two major wars it was engaged in was unmatched by the other side. They had 125mm guns, and were still far inferior- a simple measure of KE wouldn't have shown that (and was a reason many underestimated the M1 in the days before it saw battle). It's a rare case when everyone has the perfect match for their weapon.

[Fox1]

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

 

Fox,

you ever considered putting all of this into a Digital Hero article?

 

(All of this meaning all of your modern weapons suggestions)

 

 

I didn't know that I could.

 

Or that they would accept it, it's a rather radical re-do of their own work.

[Fox1]

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

 

We need some sort of 'compartmentalisation' mechanic IMOto simulate this: in effect a limit to the damage a ship could take from a certain hit (unless' date=' possibly, it hit a critical system - but even then they tend to be best protected if the designers have been doing their stuff.)[/quote']

 

That would be of huge help in modeling vehicles. Autoduel Champions basically had this method, and it was by far the most worthwhile of the HERO System vehicle rules.

 

I'd give a lot for something of this nature.

 

 

Edit: One could attempt to model it from the defense side, but the truth is that you can't do that without looking back at the attack.

 

Both attack and target must be considered in producing a result. Towards this end in HERO I build the attack with an eye towards the common target- thus firearms are built to attack people, not vehicles. The M1A1 tank gun is built to attack tanks, etc.

 

This produces some problems if the target is an unexpected one. But compared to failing against it's primary target- that's a minor issue to me.

[Susano]

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

 

I didn't know that I could.

 

Or that they would accept it, it's a rather radical re-do of their own work.

 

Write Dave Mattingly and ask.

[sbarron]

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

 

In their defence, i believe its a case of Jack-of-all-Trades, Master-of-None. It would take a serious military nut (or a rather large amount of research) to do a proper job of a writeup for a military vessel. It would take another type of knowledge base to writeup (properly) things like armoured limos, police cruisers, guns and ammo, axes and swords.

 

There is nothing wrong with the rules themselves, it is just VERY hard (without spending years in research) to effectively balance all of these things.

I don't disagree that it would be difficult to totally balance. I just think that there should be a certain hierarchy established. If Hero had just made a list of vehicles based on the common perceptions of toughness, then gave them DEF and Body as seemed appropriate, that would be good enough for most of us, I think. This is a case where I think they missed.

 

Something that hasn't been mentioned is this thread is the fact that the USS Iowa would certainly have areas that are weaker than others. Without my book here, I don't know whether this is addressed in the right up or not. Hitting the "armored skirt" would result in most attacks just bouncing off, of course. But hitting almost anything above the skirt would probably result in significant damage. A hit location chart might be in order. The 10 DEF is probably most things above the deck. A 20 DEF skirt makes sense, too, I think.

 

BTW, what's a torpedo's damage? How much of the skirt is above the water line?