HERO System Vehicles

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Give me a break. A 90 STR and and a few levels of HA results in... basically nothing to a Def 30 tank.

 

 

 

Already noted, and noted as a rare result.

 

 

 

Almost always insignificant and temporary.

 

 

 

 

 

Where pray tell me,is that in the rules: "When hit by attacks that do not bypass armor, the crew is out from concussion"? Perhaps on page 284?

 

 

 

 

 

Not the question at hand. Hulk smashes tanks, he doesn't flip them over because he can't smash them.

 

 

 

 

 

Great idea that will work...

 

Right after I get by that 30 or 20 def, should take with a 100 STR...

 

...oh, gosh. just about forever if in front. Or just a mere couple of full turns otherwise give or take for the rolls and whatever SPD you'd give the Hulk.

 

Yep, that sure is effective.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, we could go your route of making stuff up. That's bound to get us somewhere.

 

 

Ill respond to this in detail when I am home and have my books available, but in the meantime I'd just like to note that if your goal is to be a confrontational jacka$$, you're succeeding admirably. Why don't you try turning your angst-ometer down a notch or two?

[Ndreare]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I personaly am imagining the Hulk from the movie with his 70STR (up to 60 STR higher when he is mad. I like th one published for HERO and it went over 130 total). When he attacks the Tank (20 DEF Main battle tank listed on page 51 of TUV) with his mostley mad 100 STR haymaker for 30D6 damage that does 10 body, he then hits it multiple times to disable it. This same character doing a brace or move through option would be even more impresive. For the stats for the HULK lets look here at this nice PDF that was published.

 

For some reason it is not letting me upload the PDF. any one have an idea?

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

and I certainly didn't wish to imply that you don't have the right to dislike the vehicle rules.

 

That certainly seems to be the case, although in my response you were paying for the actions of others to a large degree.

 

I answer a question (one directly given to me, and moved to this thread I might add), and I get a wealth of people attempting to give me 'advice' on how to 'correct' *my* problem ("Raise character STR into the 100s, flip those tanks, well sometimes a little body damage does matter, etc. etc.").

 

I didn't ask for such advice. I've heard all this advice before. It didn't work for me then, the chances of it working for me now is if anything even less.

 

Frankly it comes off as a bunch of fanboys who just can't stand to hear a negative opinion without putting in their two cents.

 

Sometimes it's a good thing to respond with "ok, I can see where that would be an issue... are you still having problems with it?".

 

But the board activity would likely fall too much.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I personaly am imagining the Hulk from the movie with his 70STR (up to 60 STR higher when he is mad. I like th one published for HERO and it went over 130 total). When he attacks the Tank (20 DEF Main battle tank listed on page 51 of TUV) with his mostley mad 100 STR haymaker for 30D6 damage that does 10 body, he then hits it multiple times to disable it. This same character doing a brace or move through option would be even more impresive. For the stats for the HULK lets look here at this nice PDF that was published.

 

For some reason it is not letting me upload the PDF. any one have an idea?

 

Fourth edition rules. Fourth was better then 5th. (edit: or was it 3rd, so many changes over so much time...)

 

In 5th Hulk only does four extra dice with his haymaker and the Tank now has 30 DEF in the front.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I personaly am imagining the Hulk from the movie with his 70STR (up to 60 STR higher when he is mad. I like th one published for HERO and it went over 130 total). When he attacks the Tank (20 DEF Main battle tank listed on page 51 of TUV) with his mostley mad 100 STR haymaker for 30D6 damage that does 10 body, he then hits it multiple times to disable it. This same character doing a brace or move through option would be even more impresive. For the stats for the HULK lets look here at this nice PDF that was published.

 

For some reason it is not letting me upload the PDF. any one have an idea?

 

I'm not following your math completely here...

part of the problem is "New School" haymakers only get you +4 DC, so with a full mad on, your Hulk at 130 STR throws a 30d6 haymaker, which gets 10 body through on an attack (on the average, that is) anywhere but the front, where the attack bounces. In which case he'd do better to pick up said tank and lob it the 30" a standing throw gets him...

Both seem a little odd for someone with a lifting capacity of 1.6 million tons

[JTesla]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

In movies and comic books the directors and writers really don’t put much thought into the number of dice that need to be rolled. They cater to what makes good action and drama. If I want to simulate that, I play diceless. When I want something concrete, I turn to the rules and realize that they aren’t going to be 100% perfect for 100% of the situations that get thrown at it.

[JohnTaber]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I really agree with you gents on all points. I am also not happy with the new vehicle rules. I think they really hurt when playing Star Hero...which is what I am running.

 

To add to Fox1, here is another area where I think there is a problem with Hero vehicle rules. See this thread for details. Essentially I made the following changes to address these issues in my game. I'll let everyone know how it works. My players just got a ship so we have not had a ship combat yet. I'm gonna try to paste this in from a Word doc that details the rules for my campaign...I hope it can be read.

 

6.12 Vehicle Combat

The current Hero rules for vehicle combat don't make sense to me in a couple of areas. To fix these issues we will make the following rule changes.

6.12.1 Combat Pilot

In the current edition of FREd if a pilot does nothing but drive they can make a Combat Pilot roll to remove ALL Size penalties from their DCV. This does not make any sense to me. If I am piloting the Death Star and I make my roll my DCV is lower than an X-Wing sitting still!?! Instead we will apply an optional rule from The Ultimate Vehicle book. For every point that a pilot makes his Combat Pilot roll they get -1 to the DCV. Making the roll does NOT eliminate the Size penalty.

6.12.2 Going Below A Zero DCV

According to the current rules a ship can have at most a 0 DCV. Again this does not make sense to me. So this rule is getting discarded. In other words, the Size mods on DCV can knock a ship to a negative DCV.

6.12.3 Range Adjustments

Starships are large and fast. So that a detailed combat can be conducted on a battlematt I came up with the following change. When conducting starship combat 1 hex will equal 16" in Hero. To this end I will force starships to buy all of their movement in increments of 16". To find out how far a ship moves on the map simply divide the total movement by 16.

This change means the range chart needs to be updated for starship combat scales. To simplify the situation we'll add +4 to the DCV of all ships then use the following range chart. This adheres to the rules and should make is easier to play. The chart can be extended as required. This chart has also been added to the vehicle Hero Designer Export Template.

0" - 1" 2" 3" - 4" 5" - 8" 9" - 16" 17" - 32" 33" - 64"

- -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12

[JohnTaber]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Wait a sec...I don't agree with ALL points...I just read some of the "hotter" posts.

 

I am a Hero guru from old. I love the game I just think the current vehicle rules need help in a couple of areas to make them readily useable in my games.

[Guest C--]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The vehicle writeups do not even attempt accuracy. If an M1A1 Abrams shoots another in the Hero rules, 2 things happen.

 

#1: The attack fails to do Body (on average).

#2: The attack averages 18" of KB (minus 11 for the Abrams' size) and the tank flips, unharmed, through the air, travelling 7" (about 50 feet) backwards.

 

There are other problems as well. "Real weapon" should not be used as the cure-all limitation.

[Vondy]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The vehicle writeups do not even attempt accuracy. If an M1A1 Abrams shoots another in the Hero rules, 2 things happen.

 

#1: The attack fails to do Body (on average).

#2: The attack averages 18" of KB (minus 11 for the Abrams' size) and the tank flips, unharmed, through the air, travelling 7" (about 50 feet) backwards.

 

This has nothing to do with the Vehicle System. This is a write-up problem. Separate issue.

 

There are other problems as well. "Real weapon" should not be used as the cure-all limitation.

 

I agree, but until those problems are addressed, you've "gotta do something."

 

I think a part of the problem is the extrapolation from the strength table that each DC equals a doubling of force or energy. This is fine at lower levels, but as the power levels increase you run into scalability issues, or issues where attacks or defenses that operate in radically different "power levels" in the real world are only different by a few points of armor or a few DCs in game terms. It creates modelling issues at higher levels (and a lack of granularity). Also, while I kind of like the doubling system while working with manageable levels, most people think in terms of linear progression, not exponents. Your average gamer doesn't want to have to have a physics degree to translate the abstract game representations into real world terms. This problem is, for whatever reason, far more evident when dealing with vehicle write-ups than with regular characters.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The vehicle writeups do not even attempt accuracy. If an M1A1 Abrams shoots another in the Hero rules, 2 things happen.

 

#1: The attack fails to do Body (on average).

#2: The attack averages 18" of KB (minus 11 for the Abrams' size) and the tank flips, unharmed, through the air, travelling 7" (about 50 feet) backwards.

 

There are other problems as well. "Real weapon" should not be used as the cure-all limitation.

 

So what if you're playing Tanks Hero? What if you need more accuracy, and the rules themselves fundamentally get in your way? (How do you figure out the DEX and SPD of an M1A1 Abrams, anyway?)

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

In movies and comic books the directors and writers really don’t put much thought into the number of dice that need to be rolled. They cater to what makes good action and drama. If I want to simulate that' date=' I play diceless. When I want something concrete, I turn to the rules and realize that they aren’t going to be 100% perfect for 100% of the situations that get thrown at it.[/quote']

 

I'm not aware of anyone making a call for 100% perfect, I was only aware of some people making a call for something a little better than what we've been given.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Give me a break. A 90 STR and and a few levels of HA results in... basically nothing to a Def 30 tank.

 

The M1A1 Abrams is listed as having 20 DEF. Thats a significant difference from the 30 DEF you cite. If youre going to be facetious, at least get your facts straight.

 

An 18d6 attack could get some damage thru on a Tank on a good roll, plus the character could convert combat levels for extra BODY, or Push to increase that chance. Also, the Abrams is the pinnacle of Tanks; it's about as tough as they come. Lesser tanks would presumably be less well constructed.

 

Further, as I mentioned before, if a character wanted to be particularly adept at smashing objects, they could buy a Power to increase their ability in this area -- like an HKA vs Inanimate Objects or Armor Piercing on their STR as a NPA.

 

Almost always insignificant and temporary.

On the contrary, loss of control can be significant. Specific details are covered on page 169 of The Ultimate Vehicle, and include spinning out of control, skid, roll, or flip over, render the crew unable to take actions, and ram into things.

 

Where pray tell me,is that in the rules: "When hit by attacks that do not bypass armor, the crew is out from concussion"? Perhaps on page 284?

The Ultimate Vehicle pg. 176 covers the effects of vehicle damage on the crew.

 

 

 

Not the question at hand. Hulk smashes tanks, he doesn't flip them over because he can't smash them.

As I mentioned, the Hulk is significantly stronger than the typical "Champions" style brick. While the Hulk might SMASH tanks, less capable 60 odd STR bricks are not going to be able to pull that off -- and Im OK with that personally.

 

Great idea that will work...

 

Right after I get by that 30 or 20 def, should take with a 100 STR...

 

...oh, gosh. just about forever if in front. Or just a mere couple of full turns otherwise give or take for the rolls and whatever SPD you'd give the Hulk.

 

Yep, that sure is effective.

 

So let me get this straight -- the basis of your argument that Tanks are too tough seems to be rooted on the way the Tank smashing scene of the HULK movie played out?

 

Well ok then. As I recall off the top of my head he started off not being able to do much to them, but as he got angrier he was able to do more and more to them as his STR increased. I dont recall him knocking one into a gazillion pieces either -- i recall him ripping off a turret and using that as a club, battering the tanks, throwing a tank and so forth. I havent seen the movie in a while so my memory isnt 100%, but I dont recall him punching a tanks and exploding it or anything as dramatic as that.

 

Assuming the tanks had a DEF of 20 as indicated in the TUV, and using the HERO System write up for the HULK done by Darren Watts for Game Trader Magazine a while back, just as a baseline of where the makers of HERO Games think the HULK's STR specs out at, the HULK starts at 70 STR and gets up to 130 STR as he rages.

 

That write up conforms to the performance of the movie Hulk, who started out underpar vs the tanks, and was able to do more and more to them the stronger he got, eventually smashing them.

 

Where's the problem exactly?

 

 

Well, we could go your route of making stuff up. That's bound to get us somewhere.

EDIT: Removing "personal attack":

Or we could go {the} route of making baseless, false accusations, act {impolitely} for no particular reason, and generally be {belligerant}. {People that do that are generally considered trolls.}

[Killer Shrike]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

All that aside, I do agree that 20 DEF is too high -- thats better than a bank vault.

 

But regardless -- a write up issue on a single vehicle does not invalidate the entire system.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Of course.... there ARE other examples... right now, the big Hulk vs Tank debate is looking at the high end of the scale.

We could always revist Murphy's Rules and look at the low end.

A Noteworthy Normal, using haymakers, can disable a midsized car with his bare hands in 30 seconds, and completely demolish it by the 1 minute mark. Give him a 2d6 HA hammer and it'll take him a bit longer... because the hammer maxes out at 4d6.

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

This has nothing to do with the Vehicle System. This is a write-up problem. Separate issue..

 

It not a separate issue until you take the starting question of this thread out of context.

 

'Would you be interested in a War HERO Project'

'No because of the publishers of HERO do a poor job with vehicles'

'What do you dislike about Vehicles?'

'in a 5 point list, its pointed out that HERO has a history of poor work on vehicle constructions'

 

See how that flows?

 

 

I think a part of the problem is the extrapolation from the strength table that each DC equals a doubling of force or energy.

 

Agreed.

 

It's the core issue for a number of problems HERO System has. It's also the core reason why it works at all in Superhero genres. Adjusting that ratio down reduces a lot of problems, at some cost (increasing the numbers and dice required by the game as power increases).

 

 

 

However the M1A1 problems weren't a direct a result of this. Or rather I hope they didn't throw the math and determine that the energy required to destroy an M1A1 in a single frontal blow exceeded that required to move the earth by a factor of 65536 times!

 

More likely it was a result of one of three other processes.

 

1. Working backwards from a desired effect, i.e. the def and body was selected because that the def and body allowed the vehicle to behave how they wanted it to behave in game and no other reason.

 

Heaven only knows what genre that was suppose to be for. It wasn't realism, it was superheroic, and it's not anything I'm aware of inbetween. But I'm open for ideas.

 

 

2. Working from a different model without consideration of other already existing models.

 

The damage per gun diameter looks to be a good guess IMO. Someone likely worked up that chart in Dark Champions and that meant the main gun had to do 8d6K, and that meant the tank need a DEF of 30.

 

 

3. They weren't working from anything. They just picked numbers and called it good.

[shadowcat1313]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Things I dislike about Hero System vehicles/design rules

 

1. using vpp for sensors and commo

a matter of taste I know, I like mine dipped in chocolate

 

2. no rules for volume/mass etc for equipment

this ones been hashed and rehashd multiple times, I just do things my way for Star Hero and Traveller Hero. my way being pretty much bashing things together using the volume/mass rules from whatever version of Traveller I am working with. i do things with other systems too, its just traveller has a fairly coherent system for volume etc... and its what I know best

 

 

3. this is more of an issue with Missile Deflection in general. I prefer the old version which gives a roll instead of being based on a block maneuver

 

4. damage scalability, again no real solution

[Ndreare]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Sorry my bad, I was still thinking I get extra 50% dice for haymaker.

 

Also if the complaint stands that vehicles are so strong that your bricks cannot break them, then consider making them weaker. Or giving the players the points it takes to make bricks like in the comics with HKA vs. Inamite objects. I do not think I have the answers to a system you would like but I think no changes are needed to the current system.

 

 

I cannot get the file to post for some reason, but for the record it was in Game Trade Magazine June 2002 or June 2003. It is titled Hulk Smash or something like that.

[Ndreare]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Things I dislike about Hero System vehicles/design rules

 

1. using vpp for sensors and commo

a matter of taste I know, I like mine dipped in chocolate

 

2. no rules for volume/mass etc for equipment

this ones been hashed and rehashd multiple times, I just do things my way for Star Hero and Traveller Hero. my way being pretty much bashing things together using the volume/mass rules from whatever version of Traveller I am working with. i do things with other systems too, its just traveller has a fairly coherent system for volume etc... and its what I know best

 

 

3. this is more of an issue with Missile Deflection in general. I prefer the old version which gives a roll instead of being based on a block maneuver

 

4. damage scalability, again no real solution

 

Most of these complaints are addressed by flavor. I canot imagine the game being generic if when I wanted to make a Nebulizer Ray on my Ghost Fighter the rule book saying sorry 500 Active Point guns weigh 500 Tons and you cannot put that on your Ghost Fighter cause it is only 75 Tons. that is a GM call, for flavor (May be it should have been included in Star Hero but I cannot say for sure.

 

 

Not to say I disagree with all of it but I feel even you understand that these numbers ould not be Generic but instead would fall under a Genre constriction.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Ya know what... while its a continuous sore spot for some of us vehicle lovers, we're REALLY off on a tangent here.

of course...even as I typed that, another vehicle system flaw example popped into my head... the getaway attempt from the north hollywood shootout. How many 1d6+1 9mm's and 2d6 5.56mm slugs did that truck get hit with? At least several dozen, IIRC. 3def 16 body pickup. doesn't compute.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Most of these complaints are addressed by flavor. I canot imagine the game being generic if when I wanted to make a Nebulizer Ray on my Ghost Fighter the rule book saying sorry 500 Active Point guns weigh 500 Tons and you cannot put that on your Ghost Fighter cause it is only 75 Tons. that is a GM call, for flavor (May be it should have been included in Star Hero but I cannot say for sure.

 

 

Not to say I disagree with all of it but I feel even you understand that these numbers ould not be Generic but instead would fall under a Genre constriction.

totally agree. Volume/mass displacement IS certainly a genre concern... but a pretty important one that is currently ignored. Could be/should be handled in a similar vein to the specific advantages and limitations used to create "real" weapons

[Fox1]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

The M1A1 Abrams is listed as having 20 DEF. Thats a significant difference from the 30 DEF you cite. If youre going to be facetious' date=' at least get your facts straight. ?[/quote']

 

Please go back to your book. The 20 DEF is 100% coverage, you'd notice in the power list where it gains another 10 DEF in the frontal arc.

 

 

Also, the Abrams is the pinnacle of Tanks; it's about as tough as they come. Lesser tanks would presumably be less well constructed.

 

I have no idea what values the HERO designers would give to other vehicles, given that they provided the IOWA with less defense than the a M1A1, I could assume that lesser tanks actually have higher defenses.

 

 

 

Further, as I mentioned before, if a character wanted to be particularly adept at smashing objects, they could buy a Power to increase their ability in this

 

Already dealt with this idea. The idea of my Aircraftcarrier lugging superhero having to buy special powers to whack a M1A1 is beyond belief.

 

I suppose next you're going to have me buy Entangle, only to hold my character's morning bowl of Wheaties.

 

Perhaps I should just set the Aircraftcarrier down on top of it....

 

 

 

 

On the contrary, loss of control can be significant. Specific details are covered on page 169 of The Ultimate Vehicle, and include spinning out of control, skid, roll, or flip over, render the crew unable to take actions, and ram into things.

 

And just how likely is any of that to occur, and just how often does the Hulk destroy tanks in this method?

 

 

The Ultimate Vehicle pg. 176 covers the effects of vehicle damage on the crew.

 

This is getting silly now...

 

Sigh, let's go through it all...

 

from page 176:

 

"{1}Whenever a Vehicle gets an Occupants/Cargo result on its Vehicle Hit Location Table (and sometimes other results), {2}or it suffers a crew casulaties results on an optional effects roll, {3} or it loses more than half it's current BODY, the characters aboard are endangered.

 

I've added the {ref} numbers. Let's go through them shall we?

 

{3} For this to happen to a M1A1 through the front, the attack would have to total an astounding 43 BODY. Looks like the Hulk needs a STR of 215.

 

{2} Page 190 If a Vehicle suffers actual BODY damage in combat, the GM may, if he wishes, roll to see if an "optional effect" of damage occurs as a result."

 

Bolding mine. That means a 31 body attack (STR of 155) attack on average from the front, let's run the charts shall we?

 

Using the Automobile Hit Location charts (there isn't one for tanks) we note that the chance of getting crew casulaties from the optional table is... get ready for it...

 

7.6%

 

Whoop Whoop

 

Edit: Oh, forgot to add that the max crew loss in from this method is a overwhelming 24%.

 

Add an extra Whoop to the above.

 

Edit: I did find the tank section. The actual chance is 4.1% The max crew loss is 12% (not even a full man). Further chances in my post edited

 

Add a fourth Whoop to the above

 

{1} Base chance of this happening (assuming a hit on main body counts as Occupants/Cargo): 25%

 

However please note on page 189 the following:

 

If an Occupants/Cargo result comes up on a vehicle Hit Location table, the damage applies to the Vehicle as normal. Any damage that gets through the Vehicle's defense then applies to the occupant(s).

 

So we still have to get through that 30 DEF front armor if the Hulk is going to damage those crewmen.. And here I thought we could just ignore the armor like you suggested.

 

 

 

 

 

As I mentioned, the Hulk is significantly stronger than the typical "Champions" style brick. While the Hulk might SMASH tanks, less capable 60 odd STR bricks are not going to be able to pull that off -- and Im OK with that personally.

 

I'm good with that too. Never said anything to imply otherwise.

 

Woot! you're right about something. Here's a cookie.

 

 

So let me get this straight -- the basis of your argument that Tanks are too tough seems to be rooted on the way the Tank smashing scene of the HULK movie played out?

 

Movie?

 

I didn't watch that movie. I'm talking about the comics.

 

You know, where Hulk smashes tanks. Superman smashes tanks. Cyclops blows the turrets off of tanks... all with a single shot. Heck, I think I have one here with Ms Marvel whacking tanks... looks like it was the villain of the week doing the turret rip with a single claw hit- the same lizards she was beating into the ground.

 

 

Comic books, you remember those right?

 

 

 

 

Or we could go your route of making baseless, false accusations, act like a total jacka$$ for no particular reason, and generally be a jerk. How's that working out for you so far, troll?

 

Given your track record with looking up rules cites...

 

I wouldn't be tossing the term troll around if I was you.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Well, I have to agree that the vehicle rules are not realistic, but they're close enough. My biggest beef is that TUV handles the fact that a wooden sailing ship was rarely sank by a single cannonball by underpowering cannons. I've found a very workable alternative to be giving certain targets Damage Reduction against certain attacks, generally going along technology lines. For example, a stone wall gets some Damage Reduction against catapults, but none against cannons. A wooden ship gets Damage Reduction against cannons firing solid shot, but none against cannons firing shells. A steel ship gets it against cannon fire, but not against torpedoes or missiles.

 

Some of the writeups may be kludgy. I see this more as a reflection of the difficulty of making new designs fit in with earlier writeups. I've tried to create a consistent stable of vehicle writeups, with good reasons that later technology would supercede the earlier stuff, and IME you get either 1) a massive arms race of points, with modern era stuff running into thousands of points to continue patterns started back in WWI, or 2) very subtle differences, like temporary skill bonuses which are made obsolete by the next development in technology. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that it's hard to make it all into a coherent whole, and given that most of the vehicle writeups I'm aware of are from a pretty early era in the new Hero regime, it's not surprising if many don't work out right when considered side-by-side.

 

PS: What's with the rancor today? It's like every new thread I've looked at so far has had at least one big ugly fight...

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

Well' date=' I have to agree that the vehicle rules are not realistic, but they're close enough. My biggest beef is that TUV handles the fact that a wooden sailing ship was rarely sank by a single cannonball by underpowering cannons. I've found a very workable alternative to be giving certain targets Damage Reduction against certain attacks, generally going along technology lines. For example, a stone wall gets some Damage Reduction against catapults, but none against cannons. A wooden ship gets Damage Reduction against cannons firing solid shot, but none against cannons firing shells. A steel ship gets it against cannon fire, but not against torpedoes or missiles.[/quote']

I've done similar, and it works fairly well, but it does add to the expense of the vehicle. I still think that compatmentalizing damage soles the problem better.

 

Some of the writeups may be kludgy. I see this more as a reflection of the difficulty of making new designs fit in with earlier writeups. I've tried to create a consistent stable of vehicle writeups' date=' with good reasons that later technology would supercede the earlier stuff, and IME you get either 1) a massive arms race of points, with modern era stuff running into thousands of points to continue patterns started back in WWI, or 2) very subtle differences, like temporary skill bonuses which are made obsolete by the next development in technology. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that it's hard to make it all into a coherent whole, and given that most of the vehicle writeups I'm aware of are from a pretty early era in the new Hero regime, it's not surprising if many don't work out right when considered side-by-side. [/quote']

Making everything work together is something that I yearn for. Once again, a compartmental damage system could help this, somewhat.

 

PS: What's with the rancor today? It's like every new thread I've looked at so far has had at least one big ugly fight...

Beats the hell outta me. Everyone must be having a lousy month. I know I am, and am trying VERY hard to keep civil even when I'm pissed, because I know I could start projecting.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: HERO System Vehicles

 

I still think that compatmentalizing damage soles the problem better.

 

 

What exactly do you mean by a compartmentalized damage system? I think I get the gist of what you're saying, but I'm not sure what I'm thinking is what you mean.

 

I'd also like to see the fixes Fox1 has made for his game (alluded to pages ago, before things got really nasty).