 Explosives and You!, How much DV? |
  |
 Jul 10 2006, 02:13 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465  |
I was looking at how much explosives would be required to blow a 1m hole in a Barrier 16. Using the DV formula given as: DV = Rating * SQRT(Kg-of-explosive) and since explosives get DV*2 vs. barriers, here's my Formula given in terms of Kilograms:
Need 16, so 2*DV = 16, so I need DV=8. 8 = Rating * SQRT(Kg) --> (8/Rating)^2 = Kg With commercial (Rating 3) I'll need: (8/3)^2 = 64/9 = 7.11 kg. This got me thinking, this means 1kg of commercial explosive only goes 3P damage?? Verification on the calc and any comments about holding 1kg of explosives would be welcome. Thanks, ~GTT |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 10 2006, 02:29 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 28-June 06 Member No.: 8,800 |
Yes, that's an ooooooollllllllllllddddddddee problem of SR - explosives are far heavier than they should be for their effect.
Simply read 'Ounce' instead of 'Kilogram' everywhere explosives are concerned, and it will make more sense. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2006, 04:49 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
..yeah, in ver 3 explosives were much better because it was easier to step up the damage since the base TN was 2 & "the rule of 6" came into play. In addition Knowledge skill (Structural Engineering) could be used as a supplemental test, adding more successes to the test. Furthermore you could get C6 at chargen in SR3, now you only can get chemical explosives at best. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 10 2006, 05:01 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Iraq Member No.: 1,789 |
Actually you can get foam explosives as well as commercial explosives. You can get the Foam explosives at a rating 6 for only 600 :nuyen: per kilogram at character creation. Very nice :D
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2006, 05:35 AM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...hmmm. I have to look at that again. I'm still in the mode of C6 & C12. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 10 2006, 08:45 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
nah, these days its commersion, foam and plastiq ;)
btw, normaly the use of commersial explosives is not about blowing big holes in stuff. instead you want to weaken the structure of what your blowing up (rock, house, whatever) so that it cant hold its own weight. then its just a matter of watching it collapse. the SR damage to barrier rules are made for one thing and one thing only, making ad-hoc entry points. sometimes i wish they would include a general demolitions rule to, alltho it seems that a ok rule of thumb is that when you have removed half the barriers rating, its unable to carry any extra weight... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2006, 09:00 AM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The only big difference there is how much explosives you use and where you place them. :) There are plenty of terrorist attacks to prove that ANFO, TNT, etc. are all great for just generally fucking shit up. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 10 2006, 07:35 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
well true. but when you drill holes in a support column and all that you need much less explosives then when you park a truck next to it...
the former would in my view gain both the demolitions+logic bonus (if any), and the half armor from them being attached directly to the barrier. the latter would just be explosives vs battier, no test what so ever... so max human logic and max skill 12 dice, thats 3 hits if using hte trade-in way (or about 4 on avarage if rolling?). that makes the commersial stuff have a DV of 6. then there is the half armor effect, makes anything below structural take atleast some damage. then there is the rating * 2 from it being explosives. question is, should one apply the test result before or after that one? if before its 9, if after its 12. oh and btw, the armor is rolled. if going by trade-in the structural material (A12,R11) got all but one of its rating points knocked of it. the problem with the rules as written there is all or nothing effect. unless the damage goes above the rating, there is no effect what so ever. no reduction in rating from the damage, nada :( allso, there is no rules for structural collapse. ok, so something that have gotten a 1*1 meter hole blown is more or less collapsed. but what if said barrier was load bearing? would there not be a point where the material is so damaged that even if there isnt a hole, it will be unable to support the load its supposed to? still, i just blew a hole in anything up to (and including) reinforced material. and that with 1 kg of commersial explosives. then the question becomes: how big, in volume, is 1 kg of commersial explosives? if its about the same volume as 1 kg of sugar, i dont have a problem with it blowing a hole in said barriers at all ;) btw, R16 barrier? thats a metal beam (im guessing a H-beam or similar). hmm, with the above data im getting about 4 kg of commersial to double its effect... and to basicly cut a metal beam, that does not sound that far off... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2006, 08:21 PM
Post
#9
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
TNT has a density of 1.65g/cm^3 and several other common explosives are about the same, so about 0.6 liters.
In the military, we "cut" a rather hefty steel I-beam with less than 1kg of some commercial explosive. It was closer to 0.5kg (can't remember exactly), and that was the first time we handled malleable explosives. Of course, armor piercing rifle ammunition should go right through such a beam, so maybe it's just that it should be represented by a lower rating. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 10 2006, 08:22 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
For my particular problem the team needs to destroy 4-legged radio towers, so I figured 2-legs would guarentee their falling down. I assumed the supports would be Rating 16 (Beam Metal) and from the about calc, they'd need ~14kg of commerical (Rating 3) explosives per Tower. Maybe a little excessive, but this kind of stuff is harder to determine unless you've got some experience with explosives. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 10 2006, 08:32 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
cut as in using "plastique" and wrapping it around the beam, maybe with a v shape or something similar to concentrate the force of it?
sounds about similar to a program about explosives i watched on discovery where they tested the amount needed to cut a under-sea anchor on a drilling platfrom. dont know/recall the amount of explosives they used tho. hmm, 0.6 liters sounds about a bit less then the bag of sugar i had in mind. still, it indicates that explosives can be quite dense. hmm, i think we have to rething what the commersial explosives stuff realy is. im starting to think its supposed to be similar to those old sticks of TNT. and by its R legality, any man could potentialy drop by the local hardware store and pick up some (i recall my dad talking about my grandad doing something similar here in norway, he just had to have a chat with the local police first. but the laws are more restrictive these days). the foam and plastique stuff is considerd forbidden. ie, not for the joe wageslave's. now that does not say that it cant be used by licenced demolition companys and similar. question would then be, how hard would it be for a runner to create a legal demolitions company? |
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2006, 08:41 PM
Post
#12
|
|||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
thats realy the problem of the SR rules. you either have to blow a 1sq.m. hole in those beams or nothing happens. i recall watching a program on demolitions where they cut down some cranes on a dockyard. to me it looked like they slized some supports and the main legs. while i dont recall the amount they used to get said effect, it looked more like they created some 2-3cm wide cuts in the metal then blowing big holes in them. allso, as SR rules allways talk about blowing big holes, im left thinking that its more about creating "doors" then its about demolitions. blowing a big hole in a structural column sounds to me like overkill when you can just structuraly weaken said column with cracks and then let gravity do the rest. and the best way to crack them? drilling holes and filling it with explosives ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 10 2006, 08:50 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I'm not sure what you mean by "v-shape", but yes, the explosive was plastic, and it was shaped on the beam so that the force was concentrated on it. It was a really shabby job, though.
Explosives can be a lot denser than that, I'm sure -- or much less dense, if need be. Most of the commercially used ones seem to have densities in the 1.2-2 g/cm^3 range, though.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that in the real world the more complex explosives used by the military, for example, are not much more powerful than TNT or even ANFO. Per mass, even the most powerful commonly used high explosives tend to put out only around 1.2-1.4 more pressure and impulse than TNT, while ANFO, depending on the mix, rates somewhere around 0.6-0.9 the output of TNT. Of course, for any particular application there may be better definitions for the "power" of an explosive than pressure or impulse output. In general, though, 1kg of TNT is about as scary as 1kg of C-4. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 10 2006, 09:01 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
bah, who knows what the designers where thinking when they set the ratings for those types of explosives.
im still thinking that the current SR4 rules for damaging barriers are not supposed to cover general demolitions. and if one combo that with the wonky explosives ratings (atleast for commersial stuff thats hardlocked to 3) you get artifacts when trying to calculate effects. now if both foam and plastic allso had set ratings, one could argue that they are less dense pr rating point. this way you need less weight for the same bang ;) but with them having variable ratings and the commersial stuff having a fixed rating, anything goes... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2006, 09:20 PM
Post
#15
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Yeah, at least some things haven't changed from SR3. :D
With foam, that'd make perfect sense. I can't imagine foam explosives packed with a density much greater than that of (pure, liquid, room temperature, earth surface pressure and athmosphere) water. RL plastic explosives are, of course, often more dense than TNT and certainly ANFO. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 11 2006, 12:06 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832 |
I think it's listed that shaped charges also get 2X DV from rating. So you could get away with a DV of 4, which would be (4/3)^2=1.78 kg. which is quite a bit more reasonable.
I don't have my book, so I can't be certain about it, but thats what I recall. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 01:22 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 28-June 06 Member No.: 8,800 |
You can gain a lot by of effect by using Demolitions skill for a properly laid charge. In adition armour is halved for contact.
The rules aren't realy bad, only the "KILOGRAMMS" make no sense. Replace with "OUNCES" (=~30g) in every instance, and they are good. It makes no sense that you could have 4kg of comercial explosives detonate in your backpack and suffer only a few scratches (6P, halved impact armour, full BOD -> 4P for Joe Average wearing an Urban Explorer Jumpsuit) With ounces, that would be 4kg = ~140 Ounces -> ~36P = a smear of blood and flesh even with still half Impact armour and full BOD. Game Balance is not changed a bit by doing so, only the amount of explosive material fits closer to realism ... of course you could call it '1lb' or '100g' or whatever per unit, just not Kg, just as you like. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 09:33 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
rember that most damage from explosives are done by whatever they manage to propell towards you, shrapnel and similar.
most of said 4 kg of explosives would find it easyer to escape by ripping the backpack apart and venting into the air... still, 4P may be on the weak end of the effect. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 09:48 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The belts/vests suicide bombers use tend to have anywhere from 5 to 30kg of explosives on them. I've yet to hear a suicide bomber surviving the blast, but often there are some body parts that aren't mangled beyond recognition -- though these parts will usually be spread evenly over the blast area.
4kg of TNT-equivalent in a backpack would definitely kill a human. It would kill him thoroughly dead, but with luck you might be left with a (severed) head useful for identification. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 10:18 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
something tells me that SR commersial have more in common with black powder then it does with current day explosives...
hmm, just a tought, but could a vest do more damage to the person wearing it based on there being several blasts going off on diffrent sides of the body. thereby compressing the body rather then just push it in one direction? |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 03:03 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
Explain, please. Did you see the bomb with thick-rimmed glasses and a bowtie, instigating marches? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 11 2006, 03:29 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Quite possibly, but with the kinds of amounts we're talking about here the person would be just as dead either way. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 11 2006, 03:31 PM
Post
#23
|
|||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
gah, typo. and a bad one at that. powder, not power. or maybe i should go edit the post in question? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 11 2006, 03:58 PM
Post
#24
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
Nah, I was just, y'know, giving you the business. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 11 2006, 04:13 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
heh, i have now edited it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th August 2025 - 04:43 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.