IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> New Damage Code Concept, Probably too much work to Implement. . .
Moonstone Spider
post Mar 5 2004, 08:43 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 665
Joined: 20-November 03
Member No.: 5,834



I was thinking about one of the more annoying traits of Shadowrun, vehicle damage codes.

Vehicles seem to only have two states when it comes to weapons. Either the weapon bounces off like rice thrown at a turtle or the vehicle is totally destroyed in a single hit.

To remedy this I came up with a homeruled damage code system as follows:

Standard Damage: Unchanged

Vehicular Damage: All damage codes are ended with a V, such as 7LV. Vs.

Naval Damage: All damage codes are ended with an N.

AV weapons against vehicles act exactly like normal weapons against metahumans. The same is true of Naval weapons against Ships or Main Battle Tanks. Where the possibility of confusion exists, Armor will also have a V or N to mark it as Vehicular armor or Naval Armor. This will allow, for instance, drones equipped with metahuman-grade armor which are good against small arms but are not classed as vehicular, finally making the lower-grade armor in Rigger 3 useful.

When going from a lower damage system to a higher:
All armor is always hardened vs. a weaker damage code.
No Armor is ever hardened to a higher damage code.
Armor is halved against a higher damage code.

The power of a weapon doubles when fired at a lower code object. What's worse, The code is automatically D in any hit against a lesser target, for instance a Light Railgun inflicts 14D damage to any Vehicle and 28D to metahumans.

It requires double successes to stage down a hit from a higher code, for instance if a Troll were shot by an Anti-Vehicular missile he would need 4 successes to stage MV damage to LV. Similarly for that Troll to stage down Naval Damage would require 8 successes per stagedown.

Fat Tony, a Troll Street Samurai, thinks he's pretty tough. In fact with various cyber-mods he's got a body of 22. Unfortunately he just took a hit from light Railgun and now he needs 8 successes against a TN of 28 to survive. Good luck Chummer.

So, good idea, bad idea? Probably I won't actually implement this as it'd require practically rewriting the entire system's worth of charts. But I think it'd work better than the current one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 5 2004, 09:07 AM
Post #2


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



I don't really like the idea of adding another step in the damage scale...

YMMV, of course, but it's a basic problem that because of I don't think you could convince me to adopt this.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Campbell
post Mar 5 2004, 09:18 AM
Post #3


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 9-November 02
From: The Republic of Vermont
Member No.: 3,581



It does seem to make the transitions between regular, vehicle, and naval damage more consistent. It doesn't seem to actually address the problem it purports to solve, though, that being the all or nothing nature of vehicle damage. Under your system, vehicles still get hardened armor against any non-specifically anti-vehicle weapon, so they will still bounce light weapons fire without damage checks, and they still have Bodies too low to soak damage with, so they'll still be totally destroyed by anything that gets through the armor with any decent number of skill dice behind it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Mar 5 2004, 12:46 PM
Post #4


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



vehicles should roll double body against non-AV rounds (and AV rounds for anything smaller than a shotgun should be disallowed completely).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lindt
post Mar 5 2004, 03:07 PM
Post #5


Man In The Machine
*****

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,264
Joined: 26-February 02
From: I-495 S
Member No.: 1,105



*nod* I have seriously considered using a double body system for vechi. as well. A 78 Lincon Town car should have a much better chance to resist some damage then a 2004 Escort. It allows for more scaleability as well. An APC with 10 armor and 5 body is nifty and all, but anything with a power high enough to cut the armor is allready a base D wepon and 5 dice vs a power of 8 or isnt good. 10 dice vs a power of 8? It might have a running chance that way
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 5 2004, 04:18 PM
Post #6


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Hmm. I tried to figure out how I do the different types of damage, and I came to these conclusions (which are rather useless for anyone but myself):

I always use Hardened armor. Whacking a light tank with 76mm HEs might stop it, eliminate some sensors, cause it to stall and to get stuck, or even knock around the crewmen, but the vehicles would probably stay otherwise intact. The tracks might even break, but give it a while and it'll be returning fire again.

I always use double Body for DamRes tests with vehicles. Against all attacks. If a tough cybered ork can easily throw 14 Body dice for DamRes tests, then I feel it's better for tracked APCs to also throw 14. And it can't be very good for the probability math if personnel often throw 4-20+ dice for Body in DamRes, but vehicles never make it above 10, and rarely above 6.

I don't bother with Naval damage. If it ever comes up, I'll just fudge it.

Light weapons (anything up to and including light cannons, <0.5kg projectiles) against vehicles work at ˝Power, -1DL and armor is doubled. A .50BMG FMJ (standard HMG ammunition) does 14D/-10, thus 7S against vehicles with the first 5 modified points of armor ignored. Against an Armor 4 vehicle, that's 4S (8 effective armor, 5 of which ignored, the rest drop the Power from 7 to 4).

Medium weapons (anything up to and including light missiles and heavy field artillery) against personnel generally just fuck everything up. If you get hit by something on that scale, you're dead. For a near-miss I'll use an anti-personnel Blast, which basically works like an oversized grenade, depending entirely on the weapon in question (read: I make it up when it comes up).

Medium weapons against vehicles work like light weapons against personnel, except for the hardened armor and double Body DamRes.

Naval damage I will fudge if neccessary. Any vehicle hit by naval-scale weapons (Mavericks, large artillery rockets and up-up-up) is gone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spotlite
post Mar 5 2004, 06:55 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 611
Joined: 21-October 03
From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone
Member No.: 5,752



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Mar 5 2004, 04:18 PM)
Medium weapons (anything up to and including light missiles and heavy field artillery) against personnel generally just fuck everything up. If you get hit by something on that scale, you're dead. For a near-miss I'll use an anti-personnel Blast, which basically works like an oversized grenade, depending entirely on the weapon in question (read: I make it up when it comes up).

I agree with everything you said. The above quote I thought maybe you might (MIGHT, ok?) have missed something. You don't need to make it up. Just use the area effect rules of naval weapons.

But I agree with everything people are saying on the board. The double body rules seems like a good enough compromise without adding extra damage levels in especially when you consider that when it counts you're probably facing a rigger who can add control and karma pool to the soak, and I agree that AV ammo should be limited to certain kinds of weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I actually kinda like that scaled damage system idea, but its yet more maths for vechicle combat which already has way too much in the way of pocket calculator required stuff (ok, its not that bad, but if its a heavy game or your perhaps *ahem* inebriated from a non alcoholic source, its just easier, ok?). Just doubling body and limiting ammo types seems like it works to counter the strangeness that is vehicle combat sometimes.

I wonder as well, whether its worth upgrading APDS so that it still suffers the power division and damage level reductions, but also halves the armour. That makes vehicles more vulnerable, but on a much lower scale. The ammunition has a chance to penetrate, but will be hitting it with a much reduced power, so even under normal rules, light damage is likely rather than pinging off.

If you double the body rating for the purposes of soaking firearms damage then vehicles remain damagable with the right gear, but the bigger they are, the more realistically resistant to small bits of lead passing through their large armoured exteriors they are as well, so I like that.

Just for another take on it, how's this (disregarding what I said about maths.... :P ) . Feel free to pick it to pieces, I'm just musing and making it all up as I go along...

Apply double body to ALL firearms and standard blast damage whether using AV or not but have missiles and specifically anti vehicular weapons (e.g. smaller rail guns, vehicle laser- yes, I said vehicle laser cos its pants as it stands and its too expensive to justifiy it and I like it so nyer - assault- or auto-cannon, etc) soaked at normal body since that's what they're designed for. All AV rounds do in these circumstances is halve the vehicle armour and don't get staged down again for it being armoured. they still get a power and level reduction for it being a vehicle though. (This is ignoring what I said earlier about APDS, by the way. That was a throwaway comment) That should keep them none too 'one hit one kill', but still do a bit of damage, which is reasonable.

But even using those larger, antivehicluar weaponry would allow the vehicle to still get its full armour rating, as the larger weapons still don't fire specifically AV ammo unless you fit them with it. Unless its a larger vehicle they're still toast - but that's good: those weapons SHOULD make mincemeat of your average car, AV or not, and put a serious dent in an APC. If those weapons then mount AV ammunition or warheads as well, the vehicle suffers the half armour modification, making them the artillery pieces they are supposed to be and blowing everything to kingdom come. Fine, but that end of the spectrum of weaponry is still hard to get hold of, expensive, more illegal than a really illegal thing, and with a street index that makes you cry, if they bother to give it one in the first place. So a team shouldn't have too much of this stuff, and the corps can have as much as the GM needs to keep the players in check.

well, I like the idea, anyway. If I wasn't mid campaign twice over at the moment I'd probably implement them, but as I said, feel free to pick it apart and show me why I just broke the game horribly or whatever.

Talking of artillery pieces, I'd certainly leave the naval weapons rules alone. They rock in terms of effects, though they're a bit cumbersome sometimes.

EDIT - I changed some of the more ambiguous stuff. END EDIT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 5 2004, 07:25 PM
Post #8


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (spotlite)
I agree with everything you said. The above quote I thought maybe you might (MIGHT, ok?) have missed something. You don't need to make it up. Just use the area effect rules of naval weapons.

What, you telling me I'm passive-aggressive or something? :grinbig: [Well are you, punk?!]

I didn't have naval damage area effect in mind when I wrote it, but there's a better reason for not using it, at least not as it appears in canon: The Blast rating is the same for all weapons, the Blast Power reduction checks against the original Naval Power, and even a Power 1 Light Naval attack is really nasty while someone 1 meter further away doesn't feel a thing.

For the really big weapons, like missiles of significant size, I might use "Medium area damage" just to keep the numbers reasonably low. It's a bitch trying to figure out the effects of something like 200D, -3/m. For anything with a reasonably low double-digit lethal radius in meters, I'll just use "Light" or "Anti-Personnel" area damage.

QUOTE
I wonder as well, whether its worth upgrading APDS so that it still suffers the power division and damage level reductions, but also halves the armour.

I don't know what the cost will be to you, but it will probably be worth a whole lot if armored vehicles appear often in your games. The edge in penetration afforded by dedicated armor piercing ammunition over FMJs should still be there against vehicle armor. Because the hole it punches into the vehicle isn't any bigger than what a FMJ would do, keeping ˝Power and -1DL makes sense.

Personally, if I was forced to use more canonical firearm rules, I would only make AV ammunition available to heavy sniper rifles (ie the Barrett), HMGs, ACs and bigger weapons. I've never seen ammo for smaller weapons that might be worth the AV tag -- thought I'm sure there are some shaped charge shotgun rounds out there, I just haven't seen them or heard of them, so they can't be very common.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 5 2004, 07:53 PM
Post #9


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (spotlite)
yes, I said vehicle laser cos its pants as it stands and its too expensive to justifiy it and I like it so nyer

That's not entirely true. It carries the very significant benefits of being quite light and having a maximum range much longer than anything else in its class, plus no ammo to buy, so TCO is lower after a brisk series of engagements.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spotlite
post Mar 5 2004, 08:38 PM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 611
Joined: 21-October 03
From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone
Member No.: 5,752



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE
I wonder as well, whether its worth upgrading APDS so that it still suffers the power division and damage level reductions, but also halves the armour.

I don't know what the cost will be to you, but it will probably be worth a whole lot if armored vehicles appear often in your games. The edge in penetration afforded by dedicated armor piercing ammunition over FMJs should still be there against vehicle armor. Because the hole it punches into the vehicle isn't any bigger than what a FMJ would do, keeping ˝Power and -1DL makes sense.

That means you agree with me on the APDS thing, right? And armoured vehicles, 'specially drones, appear often in one of my campaigns, and with moderate frequency in the other (and in that game, APDS and AV have so far proved unfindable. Nobody has made the rolls in two years of gameplay! So I guess the availability thing works, huh?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 5 2004, 08:59 PM
Post #11


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Yes, I completely agree with the bit I quoted there.

The Availability of APDS ammo is pretty silly, though. Armor piercing ammunition for rifle-caliber weapons shouldn't be that rare. Not a big issue in metropolitan areas in the civilized western world, but anywhere you'd expect to see lots of armored vehicles you'd probably see a lot of armies. And where there're lots of army guys, you're going to see lots of armor piercing ammo for such weapons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 04:52 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.