 MBT Stats for SR4 |
  |
 Aug 20 2007, 05:55 AM
Post
#76
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,159 Joined: 12-April 07 From: Ork Underground Member No.: 11,440  |
What is ongoing in Irak is not a good determination of the value of 1st line MBT like the Abrams, Challenger II, Le Clerc, Leopards etc. Pretty much what the MBT forces in Irak were up against was and is at best 2nd tier MBT's but most are 3rd or lower tier MBT's. Interesting note from my post above, a Abrams can take out a Abrams and the same can be said for the Challenger II's. IMHO we need to get our MBT's out of Irak, there is no enemy armor for them to go up against. But to me, we have vehicles designed for the wrong kind of warfare over there. But that is a common US Military vehicle issue/practice. One lesson learned during WWII was that mass production can kick superior design any day of the week, an example is the Sherman versus the Tiger. For Shadowrun, most of what we have in the main book is fine for lightly armored vehicles like the City Master etc. But when you get to the main battle tanks, light etc, the current weapons and or scale do not work. Go for it Crusher Bob |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Aug 20 2007, 05:56 AM
Post
#77
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11-October 04 Member No.: 6,743 |
4: yes, yes there are hosts of wargames, if you want to play a wargame, play it instead of converting Shadowrun into one... 5: why on earth should ANY RPG allow "easy interface" with ANY WARGAME game unless it's a RPG based on the Wargame......Mechwarrior & Battletech, ok, I'll agree, those two are sides of the same coin (for the most part) and as such should agree with each other.... Shadowrun is NOT a wargame nor based from one, therefore, it should NOT easily interface with ANY wargame. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:04 AM
Post
#78
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11-October 04 Member No.: 6,743 |
the point that's being ignored here, is that shadowrun isn't being designed to be run at a "oh, lets see what we can do to take out a Grade A MBT" or any other high powered level, that's why they put in the skill caps, the 1@6 or 2@5 rule, and things like that, shadowrun started out as a street level thing, they're trying to get it back there for the most part. Also, as I said earlier, the scale DOES work, because we're both agreeing that an ATGM isn't going to put a scratch in a quality MBT, and that in SR, things of the like can't do so. As far as needing stats for MBT grade weapons, when is a PC going to be FIRING one of them? IF by some streak of luck, a PC were to happen to end up inside one of these tanks, how're they going to know how to go about loading them, using their targeting systems, and firing them? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:07 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Actually, the real point of this thread is to create stats for a heavy thunderbird that will take some work to take down by a group of runners. Not an invincible super Deus ex Machina that even a converted-from-3rd-Edition Tactical Nuke would have no chance in hell of stopping.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:16 AM
Post
#80
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Edge! ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:18 AM
Post
#81
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
So that the game developer don't need to spend a whole lot of time sorting out exactly how much damage an ATGM does or how thick a tanks armor should be. I'd much rather have the SR developers spend time sorting out various fixes to the wireless matrix that spend time playtesting rules for MBT combat. But without published stats, how should a GM stat up tanks that make sense? If the SR rules are tweaked to provide and easy interface to wargames then any wargame like material (such at tank stats) can be imported almost directly. These rules I've presented are less than a page long, but they let you stat up just about any armored vehicle that you can find out about via google or find in a wargame somewhere, as long as the values are given in terms of RHA, which is, whatdoyou know? a typical wargame standard. I'm not saying that you should go out and fight tanks in SR. I'm saying that the presented house rules let you model just about any sort of armored vehicle without a whole lot of extra work. ------------------------- They, may have served in the armed forces. They may have spent time as a irregular fighter that had access to tanks. They have have been a merc. They may have played a lot of virtual tank. They may have slotted that 'tank operation' skill soft. They may have spent edge to get lucky and push the right buttons. The tank might be made by Microsoft and have a friendly paperclip that says, "It looks like you want to fire the main gun". [edit] is multiple quotes borked? well rolling both quotes into a single quote box seems to fix the problem |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:23 AM
Post
#82
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
The rules include rules for stating out anti-tank weapons as well. So how does it make them invincible? If we use my originally suggested stats for the stonewall of: Body 36 armor vs KE 250/125/60 (front/sides/rear) Armor vs HEAT 500/200/100 (front/sides/rear) Main gun: 60 (-540) (within 1000 meters, anyway) Co-ax MMG (can't have exterior crew operated weapons since the tank goes too fast) And shoot at it with light ATGMs that do 50(-450) it will be killed just fine. [edit] It is immune to HMG fire 8(-12) and autocannon fire 15(-45) from all aspects. It resists old style LAWS and ATGMs 35(-315) from the front but can be killed by a hit from one from the side or rear. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:26 AM
Post
#83
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Tanks are perfectly stree-level when there are tanks in the streets. The Sixth World has plenty of unstable police states where this is the case. Man Portable weapons are unlikely to defeat a tank without a called shot to bypass armor (short of a Davey Crockett). But there are weapons that are not man portable and such called shots are possible. Remotely rigged tanks are vulnerable to spoofing and sprites It isn't about the PCs shooting at stuff. It is about NPCs shooting at the PCs, for the most part. Of course, spirits materializing in the tank and engulfing the crew, followed by a group of bound task and guardian spirits with the proper skills taking over the crew's duties is a possibility if there is a mage on the team. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:29 AM
Post
#84
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Um, there are a whole host of man portable weapons designed to kill tanks. Both LAWs and man-portable ATGMs generally do the job just fine. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:37 AM
Post
#85
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
According to your weird rules, neither of those (and both exist in the game currently) would work. Not even close. Thanks for proving everyone's point for us. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 06:54 AM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Assuming we are talking about man-portable ATGMs vs tanks:
A top-attack ATGM like the US Javelin penetrates 'in excess of 600mm RHA' so we'll give it a damage of 60(-540) HEAT Against a MBT: Body 60 (condition monitor 38 boxes) 600/300/100 vs KE 1000/500/200 vs HEAT The javelin attacks the weaker top armor of the MBT, and we'll assume that this is a current MBT, so we'll say that the top armor is the same as the side armor. So we are looking at: armor 500 body 60 vs 60(-540) The armor is penetrated. 60 dice of armor are left over, giving the tank a total of 120 dice of soak. the tank gets 40 hits to soak and takes 20 points of damage. Thus, it takes around 2 Javelins to take out the tank. If we assume that the javelin penetrates closer to 750mm RHA (it might) then its damage would look like: 75(-675). And we'd have the following: armor 500 body 60 vs 75(-675) The tank gets 60 dice to soak, giving 20 hits. The tank takes 45 hits and is killed by a single Javelin. [edit] If we want to use an ATGM that dosen't have top attack capability we'll try the 9M133 Kornet. It penetrates around 1200mm of RHA, giving it a damage of, say, 90(-1110) HEAT (penetration is over 1000mm RHA so 10% rule thumb will probably need changing. Will try 7.5%. Hitting the tank on the front: armor 1000 body 60 vs damage 90(-1110) tank gets 60 dice to soak, gets 20 hits. Takes 70 damage and is toast. Is the tank was 1200mm vs HEAT on the front the it would look like: armor 1200 body 60 vs damage 90(-1110) armor is penetrated 90 armor is left over for soak Tank gets 150 dice to soak, gets 50 hits, takes 40 damage. [yet another edit] The AT4 LAW is rated for 500+mm RHA, which means you'll need two hits to kill it from the bank (each hit doing around 30 damage), and you'll need around 3 hits from the top or side to kill the tank (each hit doing around 13.33 damage). If we assume that the AT4 penetrates closer to 600mm RHA, then it becomes 1 hit to the back kills and 2 hits to the side. The M72 LAW (350mm RHA) can only threaten the tank from behind, and even then you need three hits to stop the tank. Of course, the M72 has been discontinued because it didn't provide adequate power against modern tanks... |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:02 AM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Nope. Talking about the Aztechnology Striker, Shadowrun's version of a LAW. The one that shoots AV missiles that do 16P damage with a -6 AP bonus again vehicles. Not convulted-overcomplicated-makes-no-sense-whateverso-rules-of-utter-ridiculousnessville. Yeah, that one. The one you just said can take down a tank just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:09 AM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Just a thought to add on the automated tank area of the discussion, I think that's viable and you could IC the thing until it's blue, but putting a single crewman in would make sense. Tanks need multiple crew at present because they can't do things for themselves and their complex to drive (I imagine). A single, hot-simming rigger could probably manage most of the tank and use autosofts to supplement that would be quite as good as almost any metahuman. But what's most interesting is that with 2070 technology, he doesn't have to be awake and sitting in a comfortable chair. He can go into full VR for the duration and they can just slide his comatose body into the coffin-like compartment. It would be a claustrophobes nightmare except that in his mind, he is a tank that can roll anywhere and over anything. This even prevents spirits from manifesting in the compartment as there wouldn't be room. Dwarves would make the ideal pilots because you can squeeze them into even smaller spaces and their willpower is an asset. Proper, state of the art medical equipment could actually keep the body healthy and functioning for weeks or more. I imagine these tank pilots would be easily distinguishable by their poor muscle tone, sickly complexions and tendancy to hold their arm out in front of them like a main gun when they're not concentrating. Actually, given the long immersion time, it would be plenty of time for unnoticed conditions to become manifest. I have this vision of a dwarf with very early stage HMVV being unwittingly put in his tank and having it develop whilst inside. The poor dwarf wouldn't even know, but in the meantime, you've got a flesh-hungry Goblin Tank out for blood! :D Woo! Yeah! |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:11 AM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
And my Grand Dragon only does 8m5 (or whatever it did the the original SSC) :rotate:
All heavy weapons are re-written by the new rules, and you complain that a weapons under the old rules doesn't work anymore? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:13 AM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 23-June 07 From: Akron, OH Member No.: 11,993 |
Finally a post in this thread that's truly fitting to the setting of SR. YOU ROCK KNASSER!
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:14 AM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Part of the reason that tank crews haven't really shrunk is
1 the need for the crew to preform maintenance on the tank. I'd assume that SR tanks carry some number of drones designed to do things like change the tracks and so on, so this is not too big of a problem. 2 Stand watch. 1 guy can't stay alert all the time, he needs time to sleep. also, the tank still needs to remain combat effective if one of the crew gets sick, or cuts his throat shaving, or some other miss-adventure. [edit] Putting a vat grown brain into the tank and having a spirit posses the brain might get you some result too. Then you can have a collection of 'tanks gone wrong' somewhere. For example, the dumb one that follows you around, asking to be told a story. Of a bug hive infiltrates the tank possession factory and a bit later a bunch of tanks with wasp wings come rumbling out... |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:15 AM
Post
#92
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
How about a hybrid merge between a rail-gun equipped tank and a humanoid ally spirit called G2 Megatron? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:16 AM
Post
#93
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Nope! Just pointing out that new rules weren't needed because a LAW does, in fact, already exist under the current rules. You just refuse to acknowledge it in support of your (to be honest, completely feeble) attempt to support your rewrite of the entire game system in another thread. As opposed to really helping the original poster with his intended conundrum. Which, again, is handled really easily by taking a GMC Banshee, giving it 2-3 more points of armor, throwing on a missile launcher, and calling it a day. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:22 AM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
But the problem with the current system is that there is no range of armor available for the system to simulate. The stonewall is obviously not the most heavily armored thing in the SR world, since it flies. But it has to have more armor that a citymaster, since the stonewall is supposed to be kinda tank -like. But we can give the stonewall only armor 22 (or maybe 24) at the max without making all the published anti-tank weapons useless! Any what if we want to have a stonewall vs a ground based tank with 'heavier armor'? How much armor should the ground based tank have? Then, why can't my weapons (the ATGM) designed to kill tanks actually do anything against the ground based tank, that has armor heavier than the stonewall?
If we assume that the ground based tank should have armor 30, then should the real stats of the ATGM be something like 24(-8)? And then, if I'm going to have to change all the stats, I might as well use a system that is robust. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:41 AM
Post
#95
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
The SR4 BBB does not have stats for anti-tank weapons. The anti-vehicles warheads listed are pretty much for taking out regular cars and lightly armored vehicles, not tanks. There are no stats to change.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 07:46 AM
Post
#96
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Which is why it's called an AV round, not an Anti-tank or anti-armor round.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 10:18 AM
Post
#97
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Erm, why would any such 'light' weapons be made? Any anti-vehicular weapon is almost certainly going to be made for a military purpose, which means that it will be made to take out light armored vehicles at a very minimum (citymaster equivalent). A weapon designed for a police purpose is not likely interested into blowing the target to bits, you'll get things like zapstrips and capacitor rockets that attack the vehicles electrical system (and don't kill everyone on board). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2007, 10:48 AM
Post
#98
|
|
|
Mystery Archaeologist Group: Members Posts: 2,906 Joined: 19-September 05 From: The apple tree Member No.: 7,760 |
The Striker is a light SAM, it's for taking out light planes and helicopter.
I expect to see AT missile having stats in th 20-25(-6 to -12) area. The stonewall is supposed to be way tougher than a Banshee (which is a light scout vehicle) RBB suggests it's one of the tougher tanks around. I'd give it about 30 body and armour (so 23 condition moniter). I wouldn't throw it a t a team. I'd use it as an IC "Don't use the front door" plot hammer... If I was sending a tank against Shadowrunners I'd use a lighter tank maybe in the 20 body 25 armour range So good shots (4+ net hits) on it from missiles statted dent it a bit and make the runners work at some tactics to deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2007, 11:10 AM
Post
#99
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Humvees are far more common than tanks, friend. Lightly armored vehciles are far more common than heavily armored vehicles, even in war zones. However, I must disagree with the assertion that the police don't want to blow stuff up. There are three things that are required to be a good cop. They are, in reverse order of importance: 3)Witty Banter 2)Insane Risks 1)Blowing Stuff Up A cop with the ability to banter skillfully and an eagerness to take insane risks is almost a good cop, but not quite. He still has to blow a some stuff up. The more stuff he blows up, the better a cop he is. The skill and worth of a cop is directly proportional to the amount of property that he does blow up. There is, of course, a bonus requirement 0) taking off his shirt and killing a corrupt ex-special forces guy in unarmed combat. But, not everyone can do that. Everyone can, however, blow stuff up. Zap strips can be defeated with insulation armor modifications. More importantly,they can disrupt cybernetic medical implants, such as pacemakers and artificial hearts. Rocket launchers are both a safer and a more effective means is disabling vehicles in comparison to electrical devices. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 20 2007, 12:19 PM
Post
#100
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
People don't use things that have *warheads* to take out cars. You shoot it with a *gun* and that is quite sufficient. If we upgrade to military combat, there is a limit to the junk a soldier can carry around. Because of limited space issues military just take the anti tank edition, and if thats total overkill for shooting an APC, well, overkill it is. Some have high explosive warheads for shooting at buildings. Stuff like the RPG has been re-purposed, but that is because its like 46 years old. Other similar systems - liek the AT4 which would look argueably similar to the unguided missle in the book is super old as well. If you wanted a fair comparison, we'd look at a javelin (which is really about as advanced as a SR4 guided missile, a separate issue) What it does is blow up tanks, and thats about it really. All that said, I agree with your fundamental points that the damage value is a bit out of wack. A javelin missile is what, 10? kilos? More? and if two kg of that was rating 15 HE, it would be more effective than the missile in the book. Maybe the stuff in the book is super dated tech that the runners can get their hands on. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 15th November 2025 - 12:19 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.