Are tanks really that tough?

[massey]

In 2003, an Abrams tank fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. Apparently there were snipers in there, but there were also journalists. There is film that was broadcast on TV over and over again.

 

There was smoke that poured out of it, and I think it destroyed a couple of rooms, but the building itself was fine.

 

The problem, you see, is that 24 damage classes is a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT OF DAMAGE. It's more, I think, than people give it credit for. Damage is doubling with every D6.

[procyon]

Massey, your damage is actually pretty close to what we use for the 120mm gun on the M1.

(Holy crud, I seem to have missed that the gun in the current version is rated at 8d6K - mega ouch...)

 

The usual projectile fired (M829A2 or later) generates over 4 1/2 million ft-lb of energy.

If you take the energy that the .50 BMG generates and assume that 3d6 is appropriate for it (I'm ok with it for a benchmark) - and that each doubling of energy gives a +1 DC...

Then if you give the 120mm gun the benefit of rounding up, it should come in at 18 DC of damage.  So 6d6K AP.

Which is where we have it set at.

 

ETA

And if you follow that progression, the 16" guns on the Iowa class battleships are around 7 1/2d6K (around 250 million ft-lb) with a healthy linked explosion.  (Which is how we deal with HEAT type rounds.  An AP killing attack with a linked Exp.)

The 18" guns on the Yamato would have pushed 8d6K.  Which, honestly is about where I see 24 DCs of damage falling at. 

 

Because the M1's gun is going to tear up a hotel some.

But the battleship rounds will pretty much leave a pile of rubble...

And for the Golden Gate bridge going down under a 24 DC attack after a few hits - I am fairly sure a broadside from the Iowa could have managed that...

[L. Marcus]

Making it an easy formula that you can work out in your head is always easier for me, even if its not 100% accurate.

 

 

It's pretty simple -- assume that the acceleration is ten meters per second per second, then the distance fallen is 10 times [the number of segments fallen] squared, and the whole thing divided by two.

 

... Or to state it even simpler: fallen distance is five times the number of fallen Segments squared.

[WistfulD]

The problem, you see, is that 24 damage classes is a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT OF DAMAGE. It's more, I think, than people give it credit for. Damage is doubling with every D6.

 

That, in the end, is really the question. We've been told that each +1 DC is a doubling. But does that hold up in 1) the builds provided, 2) the game as we play it, and 3) intrinsically does that work within the game as it is structured?

[megaplayboy]

I would say that Hero has some investment and correlation between exponential increase in power and damage progression, but it doesn't consistently stick to it. Sometimes you just see an arbitrary number assigned. If you had a consistent commitment, we could actually know the "ceiling" for damage in a semi realistic universe (hint: use the optional velocity factor rules from FRED/APG, calculate the appropriate values for the mass of the universe and the speed of light, and add about 38 damage classes-- the universe compressed into a ball and accelerated to the velocity of the "oh my god " particle, doing a move through ).

[Hugh Neilson]

That, in the end, is really the question. We've been told that each +1 DC is a doubling. But does that hold up in 1) the builds provided, 2) the game as we play it, and 3) intrinsically does that work within the game as it is structured?

Interestingly, it is the same approach taken by the old Mayfair DC Heroes game, which started stats at 2, and used each 1 as a doubling (versus 10 and 5 in Hero). They published some game philosophy notes that you can't get Superman and Jimmy Olsen on a linear scale, so they went with the logarithmic approach.

 

The Hero implementation is less "pure", though. Adding 1 normal DC adds 1 average BOD damage, so 1 BOD must also be a doubling. But doing 1 BOD to a 25 BOD object doesn't mean 1 more BOD reduces it to nil (I think DC Heroes had the same issue). If 1 BOD is a doubling, +1 DEF must also be a doubling, as it reduces BOD damage getting through by 1.

 

Is it perfect? Probably not. Does it hold up in the provide builds? Not based on this thread, although it is consistent with some aspects of the object stats provided.

 

The purpose of the logarithmic system, though, is the same as DC Heroes espoused - to put a wide range into a series of stats that was manageable. Pumping stats for military hardware into overdrive is not consistent with that purpose, and it shows when the builds for military hardware are compared with pretty much every other build.

 

Is it "realistic" that a comic book Brick can, or cannot, damage an Abrams tank? I don't know - I have found no Bricks to use in the testing. Is it "cinematically realistic"? Clearly not - the source material has them able to demolish tanks. The goal as I always heard it was to reflect cinematic reality, and the current stats for military hardware fail to achieve that goal.

[zslane]

The source material doesn't try to correlate character lifting capacity to ft-lbs of destructive force, nor does the source material care how much force it takes to destroy objects in the real world. The cinematic reality of the source material throws all of that away and goes purely with what's "cool" (or necessary to the plot). In order to make a game out of this, certain concessions have to be made, and that usually means establishing a baseline for damage (character DCs) and then building objects to be suitably fragile in order to replicate the absurdities of the source material.

 

The fact that the Abrams write-up does not follow this philosophy means that it wasn't written with the cinematic reality of superhero comic book source material in mind at all, and isn't suitable in it. Adjust as necessary. This is true, I think, of any object write-up in the published game books. But if they are all off for the same reason, then a blanket halving of defenses and/or damage output solves the problem rather easily.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Really the only place the doubling works is in the Strength chart, and that's it.

[zslane]

With regard to the Golden Gate Bridge, that object is a massive multi-hex object with an average of 10-15 BODY in each hex. If a game is going to witness attacks upon it, then it would probably be a good idea to treat it as many linked objects (sections) with the cables their own objects, the superstructure its own object, the top bridge surface its own object, etc. It would probably have the equivalent to physical limitations in areas where damage there has a cascading effect of weakening nearby areas/objects.

 

Something as big and complex as the Golden Gate Bridge should never be represented as a single entity with one DEF/BODY stat for the whole thing. You wouldn't represent a villain's lair or a hero team's base that way, why would you represent a massive bridge that way? Especially if you are concerned with how it would fare when hit by military ordnance.

[massey]

Really the only place the doubling works is in the Strength chart, and that's it.

 

There are a few other places.  Blowing holes in walls, for one.

 

With regard to the Golden Gate Bridge, that object is a massive multi-hex object with an average of 10-15 BODY in each hex. If a game is going to witness attacks upon it, then it would probably be a good idea to treat it as many linked objects (sections) with the cables their own objects, the superstructure its own object, the top bridge surface its own object, etc. It would probably have the equivalent to physical limitations in areas where damage there has a cascading effect of weakening nearby areas/objects.

 

Something as big and complex as the Golden Gate Bridge should never be represented as a single entity with one DEF/BODY stat for the whole thing. You wouldn't represent a villain's lair or a hero team's base that way, why would you represent a massive bridge that way? Especially if you are concerned with how it would fare when hit by military ordnance.

 

Never say never.

 

 

Hero is in many ways a combination of linear and logarithmic.  Body is reduced linearly, so a guy with a 6 Speed and a 1D6 Penetrating super-katana could technically sit there and hack apart the GGB in a minute or so.  In that case, it makes perfect sense for the GM to rule that the guy can't damage the bridge as a whole, only smaller pieces.  But Pre-Crisis Superman or Godzilla should be able to trash it in a single attack.

 

I'd represent a villain's base as a single object if it got hit with a powerful enough attack.  Sure, why not?

[Hugh Neilson]

With regard to the Golden Gate Bridge, that object is a massive multi-hex object with an average of 10-15 BODY in each hex. If a game is going to witness attacks upon it, then it would probably be a good idea to treat it as many linked objects (sections) with the cables their own objects, the superstructure its own object, the top bridge surface its own object, etc. It would probably have the equivalent to physical limitations in areas where damage there has a cascading effect of weakening nearby areas/objects.

 

Something as big and complex as the Golden Gate Bridge should never be represented as a single entity with one DEF/BODY stat for the whole thing. You wouldn't represent a villain's lair or a hero team's base that way, why would you represent a massive bridge that way? Especially if you are concerned with how it would fare when hit by military ordnance.

The Object DEF/BOD table includes a small bridge (1.6 ktons 9 DEF and 21 BOD) and a large bridge (100 ktons, same 9 DEF and BOD, 27 BOD, which is +1 for each doubling of 1.6 ktons). The Golden Gate Bridge is a touch over 800 ktons, so 30 BOD, assuming we use the writeup in the book. It should be just as valid as the Abrams, shouldn't it?

 

The Abrams is noted as 8x4x4m - it has 25 BOD, which is 10 - 15 more than you ascribe to a hex worth of Bridge. Seems off, somehow.

[zslane]

I guess I would say that the logic of assigning only 30 BODY to something as large as the Golden Gate bridge defies even the game's own logic, at least to my mind. A single hex character can have 30 BODY by simply spending the points on it and defining it as "tough to kill". I'd say that giving a massive structure 10-15 BODY per hex and defining it as "massive object" works pretty much the same. That Object Table only works until it doesn't. Then you need a different approach.

 

As for Godzilla, you can either hack all structures to have a single BODY value, or you can treat all his attacks as large AoEs. When he swings his tail for 20D6 through a 50x20x20 hex volume, he'll be taking out a good chunk of that bridge each Phase.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah I think some of the object builds are not for the item's totality but for what it takes to break it.  So there can be an awful lot of bridge left while making it effectively junk.

[massey]

I guess I would say that the logic of assigning only 30 BODY to something as large as the Golden Gate bridge defies even the game's own logic, at least to my mind. A single hex character can have 30 BODY by simply spending the points on it and defining it as "tough to kill". I'd say that giving a massive structure 10-15 BODY per hex and defining it as "massive object" works pretty much the same. That Object Table only works until it doesn't. Then you need a different approach.

 

As for Godzilla, you can either hack all structures to have a single BODY value, or you can treat all his attacks as large AoEs. When he swings his tail for 20D6 through a 50x20x20 hex volume, he'll be taking out a good chunk of that bridge each Phase.

 

Oh I've had characters with way more than 30 Body.  You gotta think big, man.

 

Remember, if every Body (for objects, anyway) is roughly double the mass, then an object with 30 Body is 1,000 times the mass of something with 20 Body.  It's the same principle as saying a 10D6 attack is twice as powerful as a 9D6 attack.  You've got to accept the idea of an exponential increase for it to work.

 

Go ahead and give it 10-15 Body per hex, as long as you use the rules for blasting through walls.  So I do 18 Body, and 15 of it blasts through a hex, and the remaining 3 means I blast an 8 hex wide hole in it.  30 Body and I blast a hole the size of the Golden Gate Bridge in the Golden Gate Bridge.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yeah I think some of the object builds are not for the item's totality but for what it takes to break it.  So there can be an awful lot of bridge left while making it effectively junk.

This is rebutted by the fact that a large bridge has a BOD score consistent with the number of doublings in size over a small bridge. Under your model (which I agree is a viable one), both small and large bridges should have the same DEF and BOD, with the large bridge filling more hexes.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well to a point, a bridge over a creek is significantly smaller than the Brooklyn Bridge.  So it should take significantly more body to break.  I really do not think the doubling model works at all except for strength totals.

[massey]

Well, it works as a game concept. That's all Body is, a general representation in the game of some vague idea of what it takes to break something. It's similar to "hit points" in that other game -- something created expressly for the game with no actual basis in the real world. It's an abstract measurement, like measuring a child's love or my ex-girlfriend's weight. There's not a real world measure for it.

[massey]

The only problem with every Body being double the previous amount is the linear nature of taking Body damage.  10 Def, 10 Body can be "twice as much" as 10 Def, 9 Body, but it doesn't feel that way when some joker with an 11D6 attack runs up and starts hitting it.  It takes an average of 9 hits to destroy the 9 Body object, but the "twice as big" object only requires 10.  I think that's the problem a lot of people have with it.

 

If I was to use the Golden Gate Bridge in my game, I might give it some extra Def or something to represent the difficulty of affecting the whole object.  So you'd have something like:

 

Iconic Red Bridge

Def 10, Body 30 (base stats)

Truly Massive -- +50 Body, only vs "nickel and dime" attacks (GM discretion, but small attacks only doing a couple points of Body each)

--+5 Def, not vs multi-hex attacks

--+5 Def, hardened, not vs attacks that deal 10+ Body through defenses

 

This way, when Mutie McFeralclaw runs up to the bridge and starts slicing at it with his 4D6 HKA, he's attacking a 20 Def (5 hardened).  If he rolls well and manages to do Body, he's going to have to nickel and dime his way through a much larger amount (while his claws can cut through steel, he's not really doing enough damage for it to matter).  If he keeps at it for several hours, he'll eventually cut through enough stuff so that the bridge will collapse, but it will take a while.  On the other hand, when Omni-Paragon, the flying brick from another star with 175 Str who can lift mountains, hits the bridge with his mighty fist (he's been exposed to Red Paragonite and has turned evil for the day), he's doing 35D6 and is only going against 15 Def (10 base + 5 because it's not area effect) and 30 Body.  He's basically doing enough Body damage for it to "count".  So the bridge takes 20 Body and the structure starts to give way.  A huge ripple goes all the way down the street, suspension cables snap, the iconic red towers break and begin to fall.  One more punch and the whole thing is going to collapse into the bay.

 

I'd do something like that, or I'd figure out what I wanted one hex to be, and use the rule that every extra Body doubled the size of the hole.

[zslane]

If BODY can represent more than simply mass, then assuming 30 BODY must always represent twice as much mass as 29 BODY is a rather single-minded view.

[massey]

If BODY can represent more than simply mass, then assuming 30 BODY must always represent twice as much mass as 29 BODY is a rather single-minded view.

Well then bitch at the Object Body Table. It's the default for objects.

 

Edit: That was snarkier than I meant it. My bad. But I think the point stands that until you start spending points on something, things don't get special treatment. The Batmobile might have 12 Def and 25 Body, because Batman paid points for it and it is special, but regular cars don't. A big bridge just follows the regular old Body table.

[zslane]

I guess I prefer to allow ordinary objects to be "special" too, when necessary. It makes the game more consistent, which I like.

[Hugh Neilson]

If BODY can represent more than simply mass, then assuming 30 BODY must always represent twice as much mass as 29 BODY is a rather single-minded view.

Now we're getting into SFX. The same mechanics can represent multiple SFX. Size, will to live, hardy constitutions, redundant systems (the secondary engine kicks in where a vehicle lacking such an engine would now be worthless), or whatever other SFX the designer decides those extra BOD points over the Object Table standard represent.

 

The tables contemplate different BOD for living things & vehicles (they typically have higher BOD for the same mass than ordinary objects), unliving things (ordinary objects) and complex objects (less BOD than ordinary objects - say a laptop - you don't have to break it in half to render it useless). I do find it odd that the "wall BOD" table has BOD rise by 2, not 1, for each doubling of thickness. Why does +1 BOD double two dimensions, but not a third? 

 

I'd say that blowing a hole in the bridge, rather than destroying it, is rather like blowing a hole in a wall. Figure out the material and the thickness of the bridge, and use the Wall Body table. Since it's largely concrete, I'll say it's made of stone, but as it's reinforced by metal, we'll bump that up a bit. I'll also say it's a meter thick. That's 11 BOD (Stone) or 17 (Metal), so let's use 13 for the composite construction. So 13 BOD punches a 2m x 2m hole in the bridge. +1 BOD doubles that. A small bridge has 21 BOD, so 8 doublings. That's half a kilometer (and the large bridge would be 6 more for 32 km) so obviously I lowballed the base BOD (the Golden Gate isn't quite 2 km, and it has 3 more doublings).

 

Well, going by the Golden Gate, a large bridge is 250 meters and a small one is only 4 meters. That would mean the small bridge has 20 BOD to punch through, which is way too high

- metal 6 meters thick? Could it be that the writers were not so scientific and precise in assessing the real world stats of objects and translating them into Hero as some are suggesting above? Could it be that **gasp** they might be more designed for gameplay than for realism?

 

Well then bitch at the Object Body Table. It's the default for objects.

 

Edit: That was snarkier than I meant it. My bad. But I think the point stands that until you start spending points on something, things don't get special treatment. The Batmobile might have 12 Def and 25 Body, because Batman paid points for it and it is special, but regular cars don't. A big bridge just follows the regular old Body table.

Well, obviously Batman's player has decided that his Batmobile has much less armor than an Abrams tank (or that the stats for the Abrams are not appropriate), but the same amount of redundant systems and backup protocols, so it has the same BOD.

[zslane]

Could it be that the writers were not so scientific and precise in assessing the real world stats of objects and translating them into Hero as some are suggesting above? Could it be that **gasp** they might be more designed for gameplay than for realism?

Without a doubt.

 

I don't need my cinematic RPG to reflect mundane reality with scientific rigor. I do, however, demand that it reflect a cinematic reality with a high degree of plausibility. Wherever the mechanics fail to produce plausible results ("reality" be damned), they need to be fixed. Wherever objects fail to exhibit plausible behavior, their writeups need to be adjusted.

 

In a superhero campaign, is it plausible for a Hulk-type brick to trash a MBT in a couple of blows? Absolutely. Is it plausible for said MBT to take out the Golden Gate bridge in three shots? Not so much. The current writeup for an Abrams MBT combined with the object BODY table and the standard damage mechanics render results I don't consider plausible for a Silver Age, four-color superhero campaign. It demonstrates how poorly mundane reality and cinematic reality intersect in a game design context. A game like Champions has to be careful not to allow mundane things to produce cinematic/superpowered results even though both are written using the same system.

[massey]

Without a doubt.

 

I don't need my cinematic RPG to reflect mundane reality with scientific rigor. I do, however, demand that it reflect a cinematic reality with a high degree of plausibility. Wherever the mechanics fail to produce plausible results ("reality" be damned), they need to be fixed. Wherever objects fail to exhibit plausible behavior, their writeups need to be adjusted.

 

In a superhero campaign, is it plausible for a Hulk-type brick to trash a MBT in a couple of blows? Absolutely. Is it plausible for said MBT to take out the Golden Gate bridge in three shots? Not so much. The current writeup for an Abrams MBT combined with the object BODY table and the standard damage mechanics render results I don't consider plausible for a Silver Age, four-color superhero campaign. It demonstrates how poorly mundane reality and cinematic reality intersect in a game design context. A game like Champions has to be careful not to allow mundane things to produce cinematic/superpowered results even though both are written using the same system.

 

I'm glad you came around.  The Abrams should be a lot weaker.

[zslane]

In order to make the superhero world feel like a superhero world, yes. In a realistic heroic-level campaign, the Abrams may be suitable as is (not so sure about its main gun in any case). And in either scenario, I feel the Golden Gate bridge (and other similarly massive installations) needs to be treated as something other than just one (oversimplified) object with a single BODY stat.