Logic behind Object Defense...

[Fox1]

I was playing with armor values based upon thickness (in prep for doing some house rules to make vehicles more interesting) and ran into an old HERO concept that caused me to pause.

 

The basic concept in HERO is that 5 points equal 2x real world effect (older editions flatly stated this). Five points gives 1d6 damage which does 1 body on average or standard effect.

 

Fine so far, if too steep for my own tastes.

 

Now on the wall side of things, if it's made of wood the relationship holds, with every 2x thickness giving +1 Def. If however the wall is stone or metal, the relationship is changed, with every 2x thickness giving +2 Def.

 

What this means in concept that the power requirement to break a wood wall of 2x is 2x while the requirement against stone/metal is 4x.

 

Why the difference? Is this based upon reality in some odd way, or is this just a game construction?

 

Thoughts?

[Onyxclaw]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

hmm, that's a good question. While I think that keeping the values the same for both the wood an the metal wall would be unreasonable too.

 

As metal gets thicker it gest a whole heck of a lot stronger, more so than wood, wich at thicker levels is still prone to drying, cracking, and warping. So maybe that was the mentality? Who knows.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

Well, Fox1, it's fairly simple. Most minerals (i.e., stone and metal) have a denser molecular structure than wood... and also, cured wood -- wood that's not green -- is pretty brittle. Not brittle after the fashion of, say, tree bark, but similar.

 

These characteristics -- less density, more brittleness, as well as the fact that wood is biological in nature and has a grain -- all contribute. Thus, a martial artist can break a board of wood, but not a sheet of metal or block of stone of equal dimensions. Bricks can be broken, but they are porous (less dense) and quite brittle. Metal is more malleable and dense, and so is stone (though usually not as malleable as metal).

 

Also, some metals are just structurally superior to other materials simply by virtue of their atomic structure -- say, steel, titanium alloy, etcetera.

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

Well, Fox1, it's fairly simple. Most minerals (i.e., stone and metal) have a denser molecular structure than wood... and also, cured wood -- wood that's not green -- is pretty brittle. Not brittle after the fashion of, say, tree bark, but similar.

 

These characteristics -- less density, more brittleness, as well as the fact that wood is biological in nature and has a grain -- all contribute. Thus, a martial artist can break a board of wood, but not a sheet of metal or block of stone of equal dimensions. Bricks can be broken, but they are porous (less dense) and quite brittle. Metal is more malleable and dense, and so is stone (though usually not as malleable as metal).

 

Also, some metals are just structurally superior to other materials simply by virtue of their atomic structure -- say, steel, titanium alloy, etcetera.

 

 

This I all understand. It almost goes without saying.

 

What confusing me however is the way HERO approached it. Rather than just alter the def value for a reference thickness, it also altered the relationship of power vs. thickness. And did so in a way which breaks the 2x progression.

 

So for those who understand metal penetration better than I, does it take 4x the power to break 2x the thickness or something similar to that?

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

Ok, looking into this and taking some *very* general formulas based upon WWII naval gunfire against faceharded steel, and applying them we get the following relationships:

 

 

1. All else being equal (which it can't be, but let's assume it anyway), doubling the momentum of a projectile will sort of double the penetration.

 

2. All else being equal (which it can't be, but let's assume it anyway), increasing the KE by 4x will double the penetration.

 

So...

 

In HERO, it appears the Wall defense is based upon KE (+2 Def per doubling), however damage from STR is base upon momentum (+1 Body per doubling).

 

Any flaws in my logic?

[Blue]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

The answer I have is one that nobody ever likes to hear: It's just a game. If you don't like a rule, change it. Generally, it's the way it is because many years of play have proven it's the best approach; That doesn't stop me from changing anything I don't think works.

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

The answer I have is one that nobody ever likes to hear: It's just a game. If you don't like a rule' date=' change it. Generally, it's the way it is because many years of play have proven it's the best approach; That doesn't stop me from changing anything I don't think works.[/quote']

 

I'm more than willing to change a rule, or even dump a game I don't like. That isn't the question I put forth.

 

The question is: Is my logic correct on this point? Is there a disconnect between how damage is rated and how Def for walls is determined?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

DEF doesn't increase based on mass. BODY does.

 

DEF is based on the material in question. It's no more difficult to damage a big piece of wood than it is a smaller piece of wood. It's more difficult to destroy the bigger piece, because it has more BODY to overcome.

 

And that holds. One level of Growth (for example) gives you +1 BODY and 2x mass.

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

DEF doesn't increase based on mass. BODY does.

 

DEF is based on the material in question. It's no more difficult to damage a big piece of wood than it is a smaller piece of wood. It's more difficult to destroy the bigger piece, because it has more BODY to overcome.

 

And that holds. One level of Growth (for example) gives you +1 BODY and 2x mass.

 

That's true in HERO for the general case, but it's not true in the specific case of projectile penetration against walls for damage to something on the other side. There the wall's BODY acts exactly the same as DEF. And increases at a different progression in so doing.

 

And that may be the whole problem...

 

The rules are simply inconsistent.

[Mister E]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

BODY and DEF need a huge re-vamp. Huge. We don't need a Civil Engineer to come in and fix them: just someone with an eye for consistency, and the ability to conceptualize a few moderately complex variables.

 

For whatever reason, what we have right is pretty much just usable/workable stuff, that's probably good enough for most people... and basically aggravates the heck out of me, because it reaks of either laziness, incompetance, or stagnation.

 

The whole "Breaking Things" sub-chapter is heavy-handed, (by making 'command decissions' about certain things), and to a point, there seems to be a guiding vision... but then it just falls apart.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

The rules don't make intuitive sense. Fox1 is quite right IMO, and the way I'd deal with it is to have doble thickness = +1 BODY for all materials. Metal is already better than wood: it has a higher starting DEF, so is always more difficult to damage.

 

However, it doesn't work in real world terms because as materials get thicker their DEF can go up too, at least against certain types of damage. Take an example: I can break a pane of window glass with fist or foot. I have no chance of damaging it if the thickness is doubles a few times. Clearly the DEF has gone up. Mind you I think there may be a cap on this in real world terms. I'd probably say that a 4mm wall has (DEF) and the DEF increases for each doubling by +1 up to a point, perhaps (figures out of the air) DEF+4, something like that. So the first few doublings of thickness increase DEF+1 and BODY+1 then you just increase BODY once the material is thick enough. This is far from a perfect solution and is not going to hold for all materials and all types of damage inflicted, but seems reasonable.

 

As a half aside I think that some of the higher DEF values for materials are far too high. I may be wrong.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

The rules don't make intuitive sense. Fox1 is quite right IMO, and the way I'd deal with it is to have doble thickness = +1 BODY for all materials. Metal is already better than wood: it has a higher starting DEF, so is always more difficult to damage.

 

However, it doesn't work in real world terms because as materials get thicker their DEF can go up too, at least against certain types of damage. Take an example: I can break a pane of window glass with fist or foot. I have no chance of damaging it if the thickness is doubles a few times. Clearly the DEF has gone up. Mind you I think there may be a cap on this in real world terms. I'd probably say that a 4mm wall has (DEF) and the DEF increases for each doubling by +1 up to a point, perhaps (figures out of the air) DEF+4, something like that. So the first few doublings of thickness increase DEF+1 and BODY+1 then you just increase BODY once the material is thick enough. This is far from a perfect solution and is not going to hold for all materials and all types of damage inflicted, but seems reasonable.

 

As a half aside I think that some of the higher DEF values for materials are far too high. I may be wrong.

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

However' date=' it doesn't work in real world terms because as materials get thicker their DEF can go up too, at least against certain types of damage. [/quote']

 

This is indeed the case, and is key to why you can armor vehicles against attacks.

 

"This occurs under conditions where the plate material is being pushed out the plate back and the material at the plate back is resisting that motion in addition to the resistance from the armor material at the front and middle of the plate - this punching-out is either as a cylindrical or conical plug sheared around the edge of the hole and pushed straight back like a cork from a bottle or as full-plate-thickness triangular flaps or teeth called "petals" in a ring around the forming hole that are being torn open at the center of the impact site and bent outward in all directions around the edge of the hole. "

 

Quoted from http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_1.html

 

So HERO is hosed from square one, as far as penetration of Walls and the like by conventional shells go anyway. It shouldn't be a DEF + varying amounts of BODY depending upon thickness and material, but should instead just be a DEF value.

 

There's also a problem in that the Wall rules are intended for destroying walls, not penetrating them. Sadly the rules make define no different between the two although it would be simple enough to do so.

 

Now that I've figured out why HERO is screwed, I can develop a good house rule system to get around it.

 

As a half aside I think that some of the higher DEF values for materials are far too high. I may be wrong.

 

You may well be correct.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

So HERO is hosed from square one' date=' as far as penetration of Walls and the like by conventional shells go anyway. It shouldn't be a DEF + varying amounts of BODY depending upon thickness and material, but should instead just be a DEF value.[/quote']

Altarian spacesuits might be sturdier than Denebian ones' date=' so they have +1 DEF and BODY.... The GM may wish to increase an objet's BODY based on its size or the materials it is made of. On the Materials Defense Table, the DEF of an object depends [b']primarily[/b] upon the material it's made from.

(Emphasis mine.) I'm pretty sure there also is or used to be general wording somewhere about DEF depending on how strudy and well-built something is. The +1 Body per doubling is a guideline; it's not meant as a solid rule to cover 100% of everything. Just use some common sense; that's a chief metarule. Note that on the Materials Defense Table (5ER p. 449), thin wood, plywood, heavy wood, and very heavy wood all have different DEF values.

 

There's also a problem in that the Wall rules are intended for destroying walls, not penetrating them. Sadly the rules make define no different between the two although it would be simple enough to do so.

I tend to think of this as basically a part of the Beam Limitation (or a minor additional Limitation) for small arms. A bullet just isn't going to put a human-sized hole in a wall, even if it does the wall's DEF+BODY. You're right that a small additional rule or set thereof could probably do a decent job of covering penetration, though. Of course, to be realistic penetrating any sort of object at all (and especially a thick and non-homogenious one) is very likely to deflect a projectile significantly in addition to slowing it, so subtracting a wall/object's whole BODY might not be such a bad approximation if you don't want to deal with OCV penalties above and beyond lack of visibility.

[Black Rose]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

I agree in part; yes to some, no to others.

 

I've felt for a while that the DEF and BODY relationships as far as mass is concerned are a bit wonky. Completely skipping the fact that I really don't buy "+1 BODY equals x2 damage" - since it means that an attack that beats Defences by 2 pts actually does three times as much damage as is needed to get through the Defenses; one point is twice what is needed, and half of that is taken up by the Defences, and two points is.... well, you see what I mean, right?

 

My real complaint is with the "making a man-sized hole in something" concept. Sure, if you buy the "+1 BODY equals x2 damage" philosophy, it makes sense. But I really don't like the idea of my Sonic Shatterer punching a hole through a high-rise simply because I wanted to hit someone behind a wall. It seems too extreme.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

As soon as you say "double thinkness = +X BODY/DEF" you run into problems. If it takes 10 BODY damage to penetrate a wall, what does it take to penetrate two walls that aren't flush against each other? 10 for the first wall and 10 for the second, 20 BODY. But if the walls are flush against each other, then you've got a wall twice as thick, so it only takes 12 BODY (or whatever you decide to add.

 

And the "Real Weapon" limitation (and Beam Attack, as previously mentioned) can be used to prevent guns et al. from making man-sized bullet holes.

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

As soon as you say "double thinkness = +X BODY/DEF" you run into problem. If it takes 10 BODY damage to penetrate a wall' date=' what does it take to penetrate two walls that aren't flush against each other? 10 for the first wall and 10 for the second, 20 BODY. But if the walls are flush against each other, then you've got a wall twice as thick, so it only takes 12 BODY (or whatever you decide to add.[/quote']

 

Depending upon the attack method, that's what it should take.

 

 

And the "Real Weapon" limitation (and Beam Attack, as previously mentioned) can be used to prevent guns et al. from making man-sized bullet holes.

 

It's doing more than that, or rather the current rules are doing more than that. It's preventing them from making holes at all when they should be.

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

Completely skipping the fact that I really don't buy "+1 BODY equals x2 damage" - since it means that an attack that beats Defences by 2 pts actually does three times as much damage as is needed to get through the Defenses; one point is twice what is needed' date=' and half of that is taken up by the Defences, and two points is.... well, you see what I mean, right?[/quote']

 

No, as the definition of the system indicates that this is exactly what should be happening.

 

My real complaint is with the "making a man-sized hole in something" concept. Sure, if you buy the "+1 BODY equals x2 damage" philosophy, it makes sense. But I really don't like the idea of my Sonic Shatterer punching a hole through a high-rise simply because I wanted to hit someone behind a wall. It seems too extreme.

 

Indeed, the BODY should just increase by +1 per thickness as a barrier. If a chararcter wants to blow a man sized shape in it, then he can apply a 'double' the body rule himself. Or use an AE/EX.

[Mister E]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

As soon as you say "double thinkness = +X BODY/DEF" you run into problems. If it takes 10 BODY damage to penetrate a wall' date=' what does it take to penetrate two walls that aren't flush against each other? 10 for the first wall and 10 for the second, 20 BODY. But if the walls are flush against each other, then you've got a wall twice as thick, so it only takes 12 BODY (or whatever you decide to add.[/quote']DEF will likewise need to be penetrated twice, if punching through two walls.

 

I think I can give an answer to the reasoning behind this:

 

If you are shooting through two walls, you are creating two holes. Having two holes in two walls is a lot different than having one hole in a wall twice as thick, game-effects-wise.

 

And, from my POV, Thermodynamically, it makes sense, too. Having to punch through two 'surfaces' is probably going to redirect a lot of energy... I really am no expert.

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

If you are shooting through two walls, you are creating two holes. Having two holes in two walls is a lot different than having one hole in a wall twice as thick, game-effects-wise.

 

In real world terms using many of the weapons of today...

 

It varies.

 

Assuming a at least some space between the walls...

 

Most KE penetrators will deform upon impact with the first wall or would at least twist after exiting and thus may whack sideways into the second wall and thus 'unfocus' its energy on a single point of penetration.

 

HEAT attacks and the like will burn through the first wall and then lose its focused jet before hitting the second.

 

In short, it would likely be worse than even penetrating two different DEF/Boday groups.

 

Energy weapons like lasers and the like however wouldn't care all that much although it would have to build to a good melting point again on the second wall. Depending upon the power levels that may not mean that much.

 

This btw is the reason for spaced armor design.

[Mister E]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

In real world terms using many of the weapons of today...

 

It varies.

Fair enough. At this point, I think it's reasonable to assume that it is the responsibility of the Attack to distinguish itself sufficiently with Advantages and Limitations, in order to represent the varied results.

 

There are rules for shooting through Barriers (such as Force Walls) with generic Attacks, but generally, they are meant for targeting only one target/hex.

 

An Attack with the AoE (Line) Advantage would be fantastic at blasting through everything in its path.

 

Fox1... what is this "KE" you keep refering to, without explaining? "Kinetic Energy"?

[Fox1]

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

 

Fox1... what is this "KE" you keep refering to' date=' without explaining? "Kinetic Energy"?[/quote']

 

Yep.