I am contemplating the idea of space opera using SR4 wondering what the damage codes for things would be. Most everything would do about the same scale damage. for example the 1 handed range wep would do about the same damage as a heavy pistol. and rifles would act like rifles.
but what I don;t have (and I hope I am not kicking over an ant pile here) is a good method for handling the damage codes for ships and things in the sr4 system. in sr3 we had naval damage codes. I could just overlay a new system of damage and say nothing under this even scratches the paint on a naval vessel. Ideas?
Full Version: Naval damage codes
SR4's vehicle rules are pretty bare bones right now. You'll either be making stuff up en mass or waiting for Arse-nal.
However, the exact thing you are looking for is supposed to be released with Shadows of Latin America. Look for it 'soon' on Holostreets!
However, the exact thing you are looking for is supposed to be released with Shadows of Latin America. Look for it 'soon' on Holostreets!
would you please post when they update that thing. I signed up for that a year ago and havn't heard from it. ( I have much love for all of you that work on the product, and understand that things don;t always go as planned)
how about requiring AP -20 in order to start doing damage to a Ship?
I believe that current system was created with the intent that it be upscalable without any need to modify the rules. Just give them bodies in the high hundreds or low thousands and suitable armor.
Buy a big bucket of dice. A big bucket of dice.
Buy a big bucket of dice. A big bucket of dice.
GAH! Don't even kid about putting Naval Damage in. The idea was a CROCK from the start. An entire book, a 'aspect' book no less, devoted to ships and their weapons?! I don't know about you but sweet jesus whoever thought up the idea needed to stop taking LSD or whatever and I'm seriously hoping it never gets ported over. Hyzmarca hit it right on the head, simply grab all the 'standard' guns for each weapon class: Heavy Pistol: Ares Predator 4, SMG: HK227, ect. and multiply it by 10.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Nov 24 2007, 08:34 AM) |
| I believe that current system was created with the intent that it be upscalable without any need to modify the rules. Just give them bodies in the high hundreds or low thousands and suitable armor. Buy a big bucket of dice. A big bucket of dice. |
or just start to default to the 4 dice = 1 hit rule.
hell, even d20 future lists flat damage numbers for spaceship weapons, alongside the dice code.
I ask because a major portion of my game revolves around a submarine.
would that not be a plot device?
Its more like a plot vehicle 
What you'll want to make the game really scale the way you want it to is to adjust the way Hardened Armor works.
Instead of being a minimum damage threshold to force a damage resistance test (and a bonus to damage resistance dice pools), hardened armor would simply reduce DVs straight off. This way the amount of dice you have to roll doesn't become stupidly large, the amount of damage boxes you have to keep track of doesn't become stupidly large, and the big ships don't instantly explode any time anything which could possibly hurt them grazes them.
-Frank
Instead of being a minimum damage threshold to force a damage resistance test (and a bonus to damage resistance dice pools), hardened armor would simply reduce DVs straight off. This way the amount of dice you have to roll doesn't become stupidly large, the amount of damage boxes you have to keep track of doesn't become stupidly large, and the big ships don't instantly explode any time anything which could possibly hurt them grazes them.
-Frank
Here is a link that gives conversions of SR3 weapons(Naval) to SR4
http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/sr4/sr4_...amage_conv.html
WMS
http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/sr4/sr4_...amage_conv.html
WMS
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| What you'll want to make the game really scale the way you want it to is to adjust the way Hardened Armor works. Instead of being a minimum damage threshold to force a damage resistance test (and a bonus to damage resistance dice pools), hardened armor would simply reduce DVs straight off. This way the amount of dice you have to roll doesn't become stupidly large, the amount of damage boxes you have to keep track of doesn't become stupidly large, and the big ships don't instantly explode any time anything which could possibly hurt them grazes them. -Frank |
dont know where the explode bit comes from (i guess its the classical interpretation of the "dead" end of the vehicle damage track) but i have always had the feel that unless you hit something vital on a vehicle (engine and similar) a vehicle can keep taking some insane damage...
hell, for a vehicle the size of a sub, or a destroyer, one really need a rulesystem where different subsystems break down depending on damage (like say the gun battery, engine and similar). and only in extreme cases do one see something like a full on explosion (ammo storage hit).
for a airborne vehicle, a loss of engine could be a crisis. but unless we are talking a t-bird or similar flying brick, one in theory have recovery options (glide, autorotate and so on). hell, a loss of wing(s) or main rotor would be much more serious then the loss of the engine in most cases.
for a watercraft, the slow intake of water would be problematic. and for a sub, even more so as you can just jump overboard. hell, for a sub, even a 1 box track should lead to intake of water. and with enough damage to structural integrity implosion may happen.
My uncle once spent an afternoon watching a bunch of Phantom's dive bombing a destroyer with 500 pound bombs. Again, and again, and again. After they ran out of bombs his ship sank it with several dozen rounds of 5 inch gunfire.
It was a target, with all the fuel and and ammo removed, but it's harder to sink them than people think.
It was a target, with all the fuel and and ammo removed, but it's harder to sink them than people think.
| QUOTE (kzt) |
| It was a target, with all the fuel and and ammo removed, but it's harder to sink them than people think. |
Easier without that little adjustment though.
didnt the hood go sinky because of a direct hit to the ammo store?
It's clear that a magazine blew up. It's unclear why. I've seen several ideas that vary greatly.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) | ||
dont know where the explode bit comes from (i guess its the classical interpretation of the "dead" end of the vehicle damage track) |
it comes from the fact that in order to have a shot at damaging an object with 50 hardened armor, your attack must have a (modified) DV of 50, and if we assume say 30 body and 60 hardened armor (just for the sake of convenience) you're looking at either taking no damage with no roll needed, or trying to soak 61+ damage using only 90 dice (30 average hits) with a damage track of 23 boxes. thus overkilling by (theoretically) 8+ boxes.
the other way to compensate for this is to give things way more body than you give armor, but the core book doesn't give any indication that's how vehicle body/armor ratios are headed, and still leads (as frank indicated) to having to keep track of hundreds of damage boxes for large objects (potentially).
so it either goes plonk against the armor or goes boom inside?
still, i dont see where it says that any amount of overdamage to the vehicle means explosively disintegrating vehicle...
also, this seems to be a artifact in the rules from having more armor then body. so to overcome armor your in effect maxing out on body and then some.
sounds like a egg to me. hard outer shell, squishy insides
still, i dont see where it says that any amount of overdamage to the vehicle means explosively disintegrating vehicle...
also, this seems to be a artifact in the rules from having more armor then body. so to overcome armor your in effect maxing out on body and then some.
sounds like a egg to me. hard outer shell, squishy insides
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| so it either goes plonk against the armor or goes boom inside? still, i dont see where it says that any amount of overdamage to the vehicle means explosively disintegrating vehicle... also, this seems to be a artifact in the rules from having more armor then body. so to overcome armor your in effect maxing out on body and then some. sounds like a egg to me. hard outer shell, squishy insides |
you're looking at doing almost 33% damage more than the vehicle can take before it breaks down. in one shot. that's going to involve some kind of explosion, at a guess...
well, there are tank rounds designed to go thru armor like hot butter, will make a mess of the insides, but the only explosions one will see is the ammo going of, and even then it may not rupture the armor plating (so your basically seeing a fountain of sparks out any and all hatches).
how that would behave in a car, i dont know.
but hey, are you not looking at the same effect of a bozo is dumb enough to wear more hardened armor then he have body? oh wait, there are stat modifiers for doing that as a person.
btw, there are only 3 vehicle in the bbb that has more armor then body. the citymaster, doberman and lynx. even the banshee has less armor then body.
so to me this sounds like a thought experiment with little real life backing. hell, looking at the numbers it seems someone took the doberman and multiplied by 10 for effect...
how that would behave in a car, i dont know.
but hey, are you not looking at the same effect of a bozo is dumb enough to wear more hardened armor then he have body? oh wait, there are stat modifiers for doing that as a person.
btw, there are only 3 vehicle in the bbb that has more armor then body. the citymaster, doberman and lynx. even the banshee has less armor then body.
so to me this sounds like a thought experiment with little real life backing. hell, looking at the numbers it seems someone took the doberman and multiplied by 10 for effect...
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| how that would behave in a car, i dont know. |
Makes a nice small hole going in and going out. I've heard some jokes about the crew getting sucked out through the 35mm hole, but never anything more than dark humor.
IIRC, it took 11 RPG hits to kill an M113 in vietnam on average. And an RPG would easily penetrate its armor. About half or more of the RPG hits didn't even injure anyone.
That shows one reason why it works cleaner if you don't try to do armor penetration and damage in one number.
As in damage and ap, or am i missing out on something?
no, i think he means that DV should not determine both how effectively it penetrates armor (especially hard armor) and how much damage the attack does.
No, because the AP is a modifier.
If you used the AP as a comparison between the targets armor and the attack (so the AP number had to exceed the armor to do ANY damage) that would be what I was saying.
For example, it allows you to emulate how a typical AP round does much less damage than a hollow point, but the AP round goes through armor that the hollow point just won't ever go through. Or, more germane to the discussion, how an 5" HE round will do vast damage to unarmored ship and yet do essentially nothing to a WW2 heavy cruiser.
A 12 DV attack with +6 extra dice because you had 2 point of armor isn't the same as the 12 DV attack bouncing because you had two points of armor. And that's the effect I think would generally work the way I want.
If you used the AP as a comparison between the targets armor and the attack (so the AP number had to exceed the armor to do ANY damage) that would be what I was saying.
For example, it allows you to emulate how a typical AP round does much less damage than a hollow point, but the AP round goes through armor that the hollow point just won't ever go through. Or, more germane to the discussion, how an 5" HE round will do vast damage to unarmored ship and yet do essentially nothing to a WW2 heavy cruiser.
A 12 DV attack with +6 extra dice because you had 2 point of armor isn't the same as the 12 DV attack bouncing because you had two points of armor. And that's the effect I think would generally work the way I want.
During WWII the INS Battleship Yamato was sunk via aerial attack from a Carrier task force, it was made easier that the Yamato had ammunition stored outside the bunkers ie in passageways etc. But even then it took many direct hits.
I can also site a single rpg took out a M133 apc during Nam. Since the Russian 14mm HMG could penetrate it, not a good comparison.
If your pcs are running around in a submarine, getting hit with any thing is to be avoided.
Submarine means sneaky, getting into submarine combat, is way beyond the scope of the current rules. Most players/DM's lack the patience to play it any where it needs to be. This coming from one who served on Skimming Surface Targets.
And yes I played Harpoon in all its versions, wish it was ported to current OS's.
WMS
I can also site a single rpg took out a M133 apc during Nam. Since the Russian 14mm HMG could penetrate it, not a good comparison.
If your pcs are running around in a submarine, getting hit with any thing is to be avoided.
Submarine means sneaky, getting into submarine combat, is way beyond the scope of the current rules. Most players/DM's lack the patience to play it any where it needs to be. This coming from one who served on Skimming Surface Targets.
And yes I played Harpoon in all its versions, wish it was ported to current OS's.
WMS
Averages are not typical, they are what happens over a long enough string of events. Sometimes you'll blow up with the first hit, sometimes 25 hits later you'll still be mostly ok. And it doesn't mean in the same fight, it was often spread over months with repairs in between.
| QUOTE (WearzManySkins) |
| And yes I played Harpoon in all its versions, wish it was ported to current OS's. |
Harpoon III should run on windows. Is available from here Matrix Games
hmm, harpoon. if there is a dos version of it, try dosbox
| QUOTE (kzt) |
| No, because the AP is a modifier. If you used the AP as a comparison between the targets armor and the attack (so the AP number had to exceed the armor to do ANY damage) that would be what I was saying. For example, it allows you to emulate how a typical AP round does much less damage than a hollow point, but the AP round goes through armor that the hollow point just won't ever go through. Or, more germane to the discussion, how an 5" HE round will do vast damage to unarmored ship and yet do essentially nothing to a WW2 heavy cruiser. A 12 DV attack with +6 extra dice because you had 2 point of armor isn't the same as the 12 DV attack bouncing because you had two points of armor. And that's the effect I think would generally work the way I want. |
to tell the truth, that didnt help a lot. im still as confused about it as ever...
Personally, for large vessels, spaceships, etc. I would simply add higher scales of damage, where each super-DV is equal to 10 or 100 normal DV. If you try to attack something with a smaller class weapon, each full 10 or 100 DV (as appropriate) dealt (before damage resistance/armor) becomes 1. Not perfect, but I think it'd be workable.
AP is a modifier to the targets armor. so someone with a -2 ap on there attack shooting at someone with 2 points of armor is the same as them shooting at an unarmored target. If an attack agents the same target has +2 ap it is as if he were waring 4 points of armor.
DV is treated as the default for how well a weapon penetrates armor but ap exists to represent variability. in genrel, 3 points of ap is eqivelent to 1 point of dv.
DV is treated as the default for how well a weapon penetrates armor but ap exists to represent variability. in genrel, 3 points of ap is eqivelent to 1 point of dv.
so its basically a question of abstract numbers not behaving like real life physics?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.