Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Naval weaponry and autocannons.
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Smobey
I'm trying to run a naval-focused Shadowrun campaign about piracy and smuggling, and running some numbers against a hypothetical 20 armour / 14 body ship, checking out how much damage they would do. So here's what I figured out.

A heavy machine gun wouldn't really penetrate the armour, it'd only be effective against really light boats.
a LAW would do 3.67 damage on average. Makes sense, nice disposable weapons to give to mooks, low threat but still capable of doing damage.
A torpedo would do 7 damage. Two of them would sink the vessel, very reasonable.
Mercury Ship Laser would do 9 damage. They're one million nuyen beasts, so they should be good.
Vanquisher heavy autocannon: 16.67 damage. Whoa, whoa, what?

The 11P base damage, -6 AP would mean that any decently anti-armour shells would pretty much automatically penetrate the armour, and the insane +14 DV from the full autofire means that the vanquisher should sink every single other naval vessel (except the ones that use structure instead of body) from a single hit, easily.

I understand that it's 20F, but that's still gettable with the Restricted Gear quality. And torpedoes and ship lasers and such are far harder to get than that. In fact, anything that IS within the normal 12F restriction range would be completely ineffective against even moderately armoured boats, completely incapable of piercing through the armour. So giving them an access to restricted gear is a must.

To make matters worse, we've already played a few sessions, and it's a little too late to simply forbid them from taking it. So it sort of looks like I'm going to have to nerf it hard, or every single naval battle ever will end instantly someone hits the other with a narrow burst. Unless I'm misunderstanding something horribly wrong.

Should the naval combat in Shadowrun between smaller vehicles really be that deadly? It seems like it'd make the multi-million corvette class vehicles completely worthless, since any old boat capable of fitting a heavy autocannon (or hell, a helicopter) would automatically blow it to bits from the first hit. Though sure, the corvette could have a dozen such guns, being capable of blowing up twelve other corvettes within the first few seconds of combat...

I do realise that the autocannon has a far inferior range compared to torpedoes and such, and if the players really start abusing the fact they can automatically destroy any non-structure vehicle in the game with a single burst, I can start abusing the fact that I can attack them from twenty kilometres outside their range. And I get the weird feeling that that's when the game stops being fun.

So, am I being reasonable in wanting to tone the autocannons down? If so, by how much? Does anyone have any effective houserules for smaller-scale naval combat?
kzt
Armored vehicle combat simply doesn't work in SR4.

Don't even try to use the RAW, the rules just don't support it. In particular, a one point difference in armor or damage is the difference between the vehicle needing some touch up paint on the armor and the entire vehicle completely destroyed.

You have to house rule it to make it work in any logical way.
Falconer
Take a look at the ammunition costs for that heavy autocannon... (you're using assault cannon rounds for ammunition)... so it's something like 2000 per 10 or so. That's 3000 each time you fire one burst. (I dislike AC's because they're such ammo hogs personally). IIRC anti-vehicle rounds for an assault cannon are even more expensive and only net you an extra -3 AP IIRC. The round needed to spin up the gun to speed isn't a big thing either.


Also you still need 4 net hits to do damage to a 20 armor vessel. I didn't crunch your numbers so don't know if that's for 'when the shots do damage' or the average including ineffective shots.


Your numbers for the LAWs are a little fubar... LAWs as done in the books are worse than useless due to their massive damage falloff with scatter... and the 4d6 scatter they get. The only way I've seen scatter as being workable against large vehicles is to go with... okay it scattered 5m... well the side of the ship is say 20m long and 10m high... so yeah you still hit, just not where you aimed. This same scatter also tends to mean that called shots don't work well.. (since you need every success possible to reduce scatter).


Best case ammo for the HMG is firing -6AP anti-vehicle rounds and yeah it still comes up pretty short as you need a lot more net successes.


Anti-ship laser... you can actually get it up a little higher using called shots... by about +3 damage. (-4 dice attack -1.333 hits... for +4 damage).

You might want to look at limiting to light autocannon, or going back to the old standby naval guns... the semi-auto and single shot cannon aren't too shabby. Ammo is cheap... and they have a nice blast radius.
Falconer
QUOTE (kzt @ May 16 2012, 06:51 PM) *
Armored vehicle combat simply doesn't work in SR4.

Don't even try to use the RAW, the rules just don't support it. In particular, a one point difference in armor or damage is the difference between the vehicle needing some touch up paint on the armor and the entire vehicle completely destroyed.

You have to house rule it to make it work in any logical way.


You mean a lot like modern combat where... most guns are either completely ineffective or the wreck the target. It's not often to get things in that middle range since most normal armor.

Against a heavy armored vehicle like a AFV or tank... that's the norm. Unless you get lucky and damage something external like pop a tread which really only limits it's movement.

More ablative armors like in battletech are actually the unrealistic one. And in my experience actually make for a worse game than say something like heavy gear. (heavy gear basically you could hit and do nothing... hit and do light damage reducing, hit and do serious damage, or just outright destory the vehicle). It really comes down to what kind of game you like.
Smobey
Autocannons use Assault Cannon rounds? Where does it say that? That'd be a saving grace. I always figured they used normal ammo, so I was taking into account they could use explosive or anti-vehicle rounds or such, and...

But yeah, that'd mostly solve my issues.

EDIT: Even assault cannon rounds are only 450 nuyen per 10 shots, so it'd "only" be about 700 nuyen per burst. But since they're 16F, they would be hard to come by...
Falconer
Arsenal Errata: (applied to both the light and heavy)
"To the end of the weapon description add: “Though more
powerful Light Cannon ammo has the same availability and
cost as Assault Cannon rounds (p. 314, SR4)”"


Right... but again it's the quantity of the 16F item you need... and the heftier stuff like the AV Assault Cannon Rounds (-1/-3*vehicles). is 20F and 2500 per 10 rounds... so now you're looking at 3750 per shot. (as much as many missiles).


War also added bits about large vessels like ships so they weren't quite so silly... though IMO the game does a very poor job with them. (they'd be far better off with say a structure/body score in the 50's and lighter armor... lots of soak dice but not a lot of armor). Then toss in some rules to reflect localized damage for things like breaching (using say the barrier rules to punch a hole in the side of a ship) nasty to that one area... but not to the ships structural integrity as a whole.
Smobey
Right, thanks. It's gonna be a costly if they want to fire that autocannon and they'll be bled dry if they want to use the AV rounds. Plus, they can't use stuff like tracer rounds and such they've been using, which also helps.

EDIT: Actually, while we're on the topic of naval stuff, does anyone have an approximation of fuel costs? If something like a Seacop wants to travel, say, 1000 kilometres, how expensive would it be for it? I haven't an inkling about 2070's fuel prices.
CanRay
QUOTE (Smobey @ May 16 2012, 07:37 PM) *
Right, thanks. It's gonna be a costly if they want to fire that autocannon and they'll be bled dry if they want to use the AV rounds. Plus, they can't use stuff like tracer rounds and such they've been using, which also helps.

EDIT: Actually, while we're on the topic of naval stuff, does anyone have an approximation of fuel costs? If something like a Seacop wants to travel, say, 1000 kilometres, how expensive would it be for it? I haven't an inkling about 2070's fuel prices.
If you have to ask. wink.gif
Halinn
Either fold it into being part of lifestyle costs (either under entertainment or necessities, probably the former), or use current gas prices and do some guesstimates on what the fuel economy is for a ship (quick google search indicates this is mostly measured in fuel per hour, something between 20-40 liters per hour for smaller boats)
Neraph
Also don't forget that the increased DV of burst fire doesn't factor into whether or not armor makes it stun or physical, so that Autocannon needs 9+ net successes to damage that Armor 20 boat. The +14 doesn't factor until after base damage is calculated.
KarmaInferno
Get a big ol vehicle and ram the sucker.

smile.gif






-k
Falconer
QUOTE (Neraph @ May 16 2012, 08:19 PM) *
Also don't forget that the increased DV of burst fire doesn't factor into whether or not armor makes it stun or physical, so that Autocannon needs 9+ net successes to damage that Armor 20 boat. The +14 doesn't factor until after base damage is calculated.


The heavy autocannon has a damage of 11P... but a base AP of -6....

That's why I said it needed 4. (3 to match hardened... 1 more to beat).

Toss in the anti-vehicle assault cannon rounds... and now first net success is enough... so narrow is +14 on top... suddenly soaking 26 damage with -9 armor is not a fun prospect....
Shortstraw
Use a howitzer with AT rounds.
Grinchy McScrooge
QUOTE (Smobey @ May 16 2012, 07:40 PM) *
...
Vanquisher heavy autocannon: 16.67 damage. Whoa, whoa, what?
...


"I told you I'd make them see reason." -Snow Crash smokin.gif
_Pax._
QUOTE (Smobey @ May 16 2012, 08:11 PM) *
Autocannons use Assault Cannon rounds? Where does it say that?

I dunno about an actual rules quote ... but did you seriously think that ammunition for a "naval weapon" - something designed to take on targets at least as heavily armored as a TANK - woulc cost the sme as ammunition for pistols and rifles???
Shortstraw
QUOTE (_Pax._ @ May 17 2012, 08:45 PM) *
I dunno about an actual rules quote ... but did you seriously think that ammunition for a "naval weapon" - something designed to take on targets at least as heavily armored as a TANK - woulc cost the sme as ammunition for pistols and rifles???

Should the ammo for sniper rifles cost the same as light pistols? It's a model not a system.
_Pax._
QUOTE (Shortstraw @ May 17 2012, 07:11 AM) *
Should the ammo for sniper rifles cost the same as light pistols? It's a model not a system.


There is a much, much, much smaller difference between (say) a box of .40 S&W pistol ammunition, and a box of .308 (that's 7.62x51 NATO) ... compared to the difference between either of those, and the 30mm ammunition used by weapon systems such as the American Bushmaster II or the 27mm ammunition used by the German Mauser BK-27.

http://sub-silentsuppressors.com/wp-conten...-Comparisom.jpg

Your typical Heavy Pistol is going to be using things like #44 or maybe #84, from the lower row.

A sniper rifle is going to fire ammunition along the lines of #56 in the upper row, or smaller. (In fact, #56 is precisely what the Barret sniper rifle shoots: .50BMG).

...

Even the LARGEST round on the upper row, #58? Is about the smallest you're going to see a Naval Autocannon firing. It's a wee bit smaller than what the Mauser BK-27 fires, and significantly smaller than the rounds fired by the Bushmaster II.

Now I'll grant you this: ammunition should have differing costs based on type of weapon, even at the "small arms" end of the scale. But while it's a bit of a stretch to think you can buy .50 BMG rounds for the same price as .40 S&W ... it would be patently ludicrous to think the same 10 nuyen.gif will buy you a round for a 30mm "cannon".
Shortstraw
Oh I agree it is ridiculous but the whole idea is to oversimplify everything because in the end it just isn't important.
Yerameyahu
It is important for autocannons. smile.gif

We've been over the vehicle damage issues before. I still haven't tried it, but I still think a lot of it can be quick-and-dirty fixed by increasing any weapon's AP a lot (that is, better AP, more negative) and decreasing DV a lot. That way, it should be possible to 'hurt but not obliterate' a vehicle with an AV weapon. (In theory, this should work for small arms, too, and for the same reason.) You can still manipulate DV (as normal) to vary the actual killing power of things.

The alternative would be some kind of throwback to SR3's 'Naval' codes (yuck), and that still wouldn't solve the basic armored-vehicle effect. :/
fistandantilus4.0
Ease up Pax.
Grinchy McScrooge
30mm Bushmaster training rounds (because I was curious to see just how large they are):

_Pax._
Thanks, Grinchy. I tried to find a good image, with something other than teh rounds themselves in-frame to show scale ... but my Google-fu was not strong enough.

Now, just picture: your Panther Autocannon? Fires rounds not a whole lot smaller than those suckers. O_o (Say, #57 on the upper row of the image I linked to above.)

And yes: what Yeremeyahu said: it counts for autocannon rounds, because they are seriously large things.
kzt
QUOTE (Falconer @ May 16 2012, 06:10 PM) *
You mean a lot like modern combat where... most guns are either completely ineffective or the wreck the target. It's not often to get things in that middle range since most normal armor.

Against a heavy armored vehicle like a AFV or tank... that's the norm. Unless you get lucky and damage something external like pop a tread which really only limits it's movement.

Nope. AFVs are actually fairly hard to kill even if you penetrate the armor.

For example, it took an average of seven RPG hits to kill an M113 in Vietnam. An RPG is an overmatch to the armor of an M113 too. Sheridans, well not so much. But that was apparently due to the loose propellant grains in the vehicle because of the crappy ammo design.
HeavyJosh
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ May 17 2012, 08:01 AM) *
We've been over the vehicle damage issues before. I still haven't tried it, but I still think a lot of it can be quick-and-dirty fixed by increasing any weapon's AP a lot (that is, better AP, more negative) and decreasing DV a lot. That way, it should be possible to 'hurt but not obliterate' a vehicle with an AV weapon. (In theory, this should work for small arms, too, and for the same reason.) You can still manipulate DV (as normal) to vary the actual killing power of things.


I was thinking that this would be a good solution to the problem of vehicle damage, but I think I might have found something a little simpler. Just cap the DV that can be inflicted by the weapon, before adding damage for bursts or called shots, at the DV of the weapon. So the margin of success that you got in order to hit the vehicle and penetrate its armour doesn't add to the DV for the soak roll. Only the bonus DV from called shots and burst fire would.

I'm looking forward to everyone's thoughts on this.
Yerameyahu
Well. That's kind of solving the wrong problem (and creating a minor new one). The issue is that the transition goes from 'scratches the paint' to 'destroys', and that happens because the DV of the attack (let's use the autocannon example) goes from 11P up, but the armor check is a binary (pierce or not). This means you can never do less than (11 boxes – soak).

So, removing net hits from DV (which is essentially your suggestion?) definitely reduces the overall power, yes, but you're still having that binary transition, and you're still having pretty hefty minimum damage (Called Shots and Bursts only make it much worse). The minor new problem is simply messing with the core mechanic (no net hits to DV), which people tend to have pretty mixed feelings about.

Obviously, another way to get the desired effect (more variation in the *low* end of successful vehicle attacks) is to shift more of the soaking ability away from armor and into Body (or, sure, just increase Body's soak contribution). This is a bit pain, because Body is also used for mod slots, weapon mounts, certain size/weight calculations, ramming, etc. Until we have a separate Toughness stat, that's kind of more trouble than it's worth. You could experiment with changing the soak pool (Armor + Body*2, or *1.5, etc.), but I dunno how that would pan out. Vehicles are pretty tough as it is, and we only want to smooth out that transition a little, not buff them overall.
Neraph
So... basically the Naval Combat rules from War!

But yes, I do notice the strange "plink plink BOOM!" effect from guns in this game. I kinda liked your earlier suggestion of lower base DV, higher AP.
thorya
QUOTE (HeavyJosh @ May 17 2012, 10:19 PM) *
I was thinking that this would be a good solution to the problem of vehicle damage, but I think I might have found something a little simpler. Just cap the DV that can be inflicted by the weapon, before adding damage for bursts or called shots, at the DV of the weapon. So the margin of success that you got in order to hit the vehicle and penetrate its armour doesn't add to the DV for the soak roll. Only the bonus DV from called shots and burst fire would.

I'm looking forward to everyone's thoughts on this.


Perhaps instead of throwing out the margin of success entirely, you convert it to AP. You could do the same with bursts and called shots if they're a problem. Called shots are still more powerful than a normal shot with this method, because you're looking at 1.3 less AP to gain 4 AP. This probably won't sit well with players because it makes those options 1/3 as powerful, but it would smooth that transition while still making net hits beneficial.

So with your autocannon example-
11P -6AP, plus 14AP for full auto. Net hits don't mean anything in this case, because you're already at -20 AP, but I'm okay with net hits mattering less on full auto since the target is being sprayed with bullets. So it will damage the hypothetical ship every time it hits and the ship soaks 11P with 14 dice. Average damage, 6.333. Much closer to where Smobey wanted it.

If the group decides that the cost of full auto is too much for the AP, they switch to trying called shots. They're less likely to damage the ship then with full auto, but with -6AP to start with, -4AP from called shot, and maybe another -2 AP from margin of success. A well placed shot, still does damage, but the armor of the ship comes into play more. The ship is rolling 22 soak dice against 11P. Average damage, 3.666. Pretty good for a single shot, but not game breaking.
Yerameyahu
Yeah, Neraph, the main virtue to me is the simplicity. No new mechanics or gametime math. biggrin.gif
HeavyJosh
QUOTE
Well. That's kind of solving the wrong problem (and creating a minor new one). The issue is that the transition goes from 'scratches the paint' to 'destroys', and that happens because the DV of the attack (let's use the autocannon example) goes from 11P up, but the armor check is a binary (pierce or not). This means you can never do less than (11 boxes soak).


The binary issue won't ever go away due to the way DV interacts with Armor. That's fine too, since vehicle armor does have a binary effect at some level: some attacks will just bounce off (Tiger tank!), while others will penetrate and do damage based on a combination of their kinetic energy, spalling (energy transfer), and whatever it is they hit inside the vehicle. Having a cap on DV will at least mitigate the chances of a scratch/destroy binary situation.

QUOTE
So, removing net hits from DV (which is essentially your suggestion?) definitely reduces the overall power, yes, but you're still having that binary transition, and you're still having pretty hefty minimum damage (Called Shots and Bursts only make it much worse). The minor new problem is simply messing with the core mechanic (no net hits to DV), which people tend to have pretty mixed feelings about.


Personally, I'd cap DV (or trade MoS for AP, see below), and have a Vehicle damage scale equal to, say three times that of the personal weapons. At lower levels, the DV cap and the binary situation is less pronounced than when you start inflicting enormous amounts of DV.

QUOTE ( @ May 18 2012, 09:03 AM) *
Perhaps instead of throwing out the margin of success entirely, you convert it to AP. You could do the same with bursts and called shots if they're a problem. Called shots are still more powerful than a normal shot with this method, because you're looking at 1.3 less AP to gain 4 AP. This probably won't sit well with players because it makes those options 1/3 as powerful, but it would smooth that transition while still making net hits beneficial.


Actually, I like this more than my original idea. I might cap the MoS = AP bonus at the DV of the weapon (a HE shell trying to defeat tank armor is only going to be so effective), and allow Called Shots and Bursts to add to DV still, but we'll see.
Falconer
kzt: I'd like to know what KIND of RPG they were hit with.. you do know there are multiple times. (correspondingly roughly with HE, frag, and anti-vehicle (few varieties) in game).

But everything I've seen has been that any hit on the crew compartment of a M113 was going to result in heavy casualties... the armor was no match and the crew compartment would get cooked or spalled. (IE: total armor failure).
In that aspect I see very much the M113 as a high body/low armor vehicle.. it's tough and takes a lot of hits but individual hits are highly likely to penetrate armor and hurt important things like crew/passengers/vehicle components if aimed properly.

Also remember the shadowrun rules for vehicles... if the vehicle goes to 0... it's not destroyed... it's merely nonfunctional and in overflow. So it's repairable.


Thorya: that strikes me as the kind of thing which could be done across the board even at character scale to make the game a bit less deadly. Just convert all net successes to -ap. Though I don't like it for one big reason, it should be possible to one shot a vehicle or player. Quite frankly the bigger problem with the game is this, automatics are just too damned good as a weapon group (and then the poorly done rules extend right up to vehicle grade AC's). See below for my suggestion for improvement.


My take on the vehicle rules would probably be to halve the base armor ratings on all the vehicles but then double or triple their body scores, adjust the caps for obvious and hidden vehicle armor. (IE: a body 10 sedan would go up to 20body... but obvious armor would cap at 75%... and hidden armor at 50%... so 15 armor obvious or 10 armor hidden).

Lets face it body on a vehicle is used solely to soak damage... and I laugh at any hint that it's any indication of size given half the crap in the existing SR4 tables and their scores. That brings a big of sanity to a lot of things... shooting the driver of a car through say 8'ish armor results in the character getting +8 armor from the car...

A small ship like say a cutter then would be tossing about 40body soak dice... on about 10'ish armor. 40body dice == soak 10 damage from body alone. On a vehicle which would have about 20 boxes of damage before being disabled and then 40'ish of overflow before it sinks.

Working off Thorya's idea. I'd change automatics/autocannons to be -1AP per round fired after the first, however I'd continue increasing damage once armor is exhausted.
EG: shoot ganger in leather jacket (2/2) with hidden light pistol... 4 net successes... 4base... -2armor +2damage... 6 damage soaked with body... so 2 shots will probably take him out (just about right, given the lightweight armor and weaponry).
Yerameyahu
QUOTE
The binary issue won't ever go away due to the way DV interacts with Armor.
I agree, but that's also sort of not what I was saying. As you say, the 'binary issue' is that you're either immune or *destroyed*, not that you're either immune or damaged. smile.gif So my point was that the DV cap suggestion reduces that issue *less* than I think my shift-to-AP solution, that's all. Again with our example: the min DV in yours is still like 11 boxes of damage, while mine would (crucially, could) be more like 5-8. It all depends.

(And the same thing sorta goes for personal combat: you can't do small amounts of Physical damage. Instead, you can either have Stun or large Physical. It's less of a problem, but the shift-to-AP solution can also address it. So that's a nice degree of flexibility and generalizability. But, still haven't playtested any of it. smile.gif )
kzt
There are a lot of things that get easier to represent if you separate armor penetration and damage and have weapons do minimal/no damage if the weapon doesn't exceed/match armor. Shotguns are one. However this requires major changes to the core rules.
FriendoftheDork
Ok, I've read through this thead and see the problems here... SR rules were not designed with vehicular combat in mind. Maybe guns vs lightly armored civillian vehicles, but that's it.

Here is a suggestion:

Advanced Battletech rules

This is inspired off the Severe Wounds rules from Augmentation, as well as the vehicle/vessel crititcal damage table from Twilight 2000 (2.2).

Normal rules apply as written, which means the Assault Cannon does alot of damage if it penetrates (which requires skill or luck, 4 hits is hard for most people in SR).

If a vehicle rolls a glitch on a damage resistance test (very unlikely) or takes 7 or more damage in one attack (very likely), it takes Minor Critical Damage.

Examples of Minor Critical Damage:
Roll 1d6 or GM decides

1. Damaged Electronics - this could include sensors, communication gear etc, rendering some or all inoperable.
2. Damaged suspension or traverse - this would make it more difficult for the vehicle to turn, or traverse a gun turret.
3. Crew wounded or killed - 1d6 of them takes damage equal to the base weapon, and it's AP.
4. Passengers wounded or killed. Same as above. If there is no passanger compartment, treat as #3. If it is empty there is only structural damage.
5. Engine damaged - halve speed and acceleration of vehicle. Driver takes -2 on all vehicle maneuver tests, and on a glitch the engine dies.
6. Advance to Major Critical Damage.

If the vehicle is reduced to 0 wound boxes or suffers a critical glitch (as if) on a damage resistance test, it suffers Major Critical Damage:

1. Sensors/computer/Comms destroyed - This renders the vehice "blind". Only manually-assisted Gunnery tests and Perception tests possible. Other computer-controlled functions are inoperable. If the vehicle has no sensors, windshield/Windscreen and mirrors are destroyed and crew takes half the base damage of the weapon used.
2. Engine destroyed - All utilities powered by the engine is also unoperable.
3. As above, + 1 random Minor Critical.
4. As Above, +2 random Minor Critical.
5. Fuel hit. If the base damage of the weapon + net hits exceeds the vehicle's wound boxes (undamaged), it explodes and destroys the vehicle and crew+passangers takes the vehicle's body in Fire damage. Otherwise it destroys half the fuel and causes a leak.
6. Ammunition storage hit. Same as above, except if it detonates crew takes the vehicles armament damage*2.

Well that's about it. GMs can choose effect themselves, replace them with more appropriate effects, or have the severity be affected by the base weapon DV instead of a dice roll. Since it is more difficult to make a vehicle explode with lighter weapons (ahem, autocannons), rockets or cannons might be more effective. It also makes the rules a bit less "all or nothing".

I don't mind the autocannon being really effective if it penetrates - it would in RL. They have been used successfully on planes and light vehicles alike. It would not be powerful enough to sink a warship, but could be very effective against the Bridge or weapon emplacements.

How does that sound?
Manunancy
A oossible solution could be to extend the damage track for large vehicles and ships - and extend the boxes per damage level along with it to prevent insanely high damage penalties.

So a not so big ship would have '+1 hit/ wound level', meaning it takes 4 damages boxes to increase one wond level and it will have an extra 4 or 5 boxes over a car-sized vehicle of comparable body up to something like like '+10' fora supertanker, making it a real damage sponges that takes a lot of firepower to destroy evven if the armor is crappy.

the only way to get arounf would be targetting individual bits like the antenna mast, gun positions or whatever. It's also quite simple to handle and doesn't alter the game mechanic much. It could also be used the other way around for small drones or the like, meaning they will tend to either shrug the damage or be trashed.

It has the advantage of being simple and easy to implement, without altering teh rest of the mechanic.

Note : I've tossed he numbers around without any kind of estimation or preparation, just to illustrate how it could work.
Neraph
While certainly interesting, I think the Naval Combat rules from WAR! are more applicable. I just wish they had some sort of guide to retrofitting them onto the other ships (or why didn't they add previous ships, like Arsenal did with vehicle mods).
Yerameyahu
That's interesting, Manunancy. I think it's effective the same as mine (less DV ~= more empty boxes), but it lets vehicular weapons retain insane damage against non-vehicle targets (in theory, a feature).

I guess I'll have to check these damned WAR rules now. Ugh.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ May 22 2012, 07:29 AM) *
That's interesting, Manunancy. I think it's effective the same as mine (less DV ~= more empty boxes), but it lets vehicular weapons retain insane damage against non-vehicle targets (in theory, a feature).

I guess I'll have to check these damned WAR rules now. Ugh.


WAR! is not as bad as people make it out to be, Yerameyahu. There are a lot of nice things in there. smile.gif
CanRay
The issue most folks have with War!, as I understand it, is that it ended up as Bogota! rather than Fields of Fire.
kzt
QUOTE (CanRay @ May 22 2012, 01:33 PM) *
The issue most folks have with War!, as I understand it, is that it ended up as Bogota! rather than Fields of Fire.

The fact that Bogata!, 250 miles inland on the at the top of an 8,500 foot plateau, has a seaport says something bad about the overall quality of the work. The Jewbusters! episode was kind of icky too.
Halinn
QUOTE (kzt @ May 22 2012, 11:43 PM) *
The fact that Bogata!, 250 miles inland on the at the top of an 8,500 foot plateau, has a seaport says something bad about the overall quality of the work. The Jewbusters! episode was kind of icky too.

That's only so the submarines can smuggle things in, duh.
Brainpiercing7.62mm
QUOTE (HeavyJosh @ May 18 2012, 11:16 PM) *
Actually, I like this more than my original idea. I might cap the MoS = AP bonus at the DV of the weapon (a HE shell trying to defeat tank armor is only going to be so effective), and allow Called Shots and Bursts to add to DV still, but we'll see.

Having that as a general rule is certainly an idea. Then you actually have to do called shots or narrow burst in order to hurt something more. This requires reworking the called shot rules, as with the full auto/burst fire inconsistency, but...
(And we absolutely can't forget Spirits when making a big change like that: Spirits won't get easier to hurt, but will in fact get a lot harder to "kill".)



QUOTE (Manunancy @ May 22 2012, 06:47 AM) *
A oossible solution could be to extend the damage track for large vehicles and ships - and extend the boxes per damage level along with it to prevent insanely high damage penalties.

So a not so big ship would have '+1 hit/ wound level', meaning it takes 4 damages boxes to increase one wond level and it will have an extra 4 or 5 boxes over a car-sized vehicle of comparable body up to something like like '+10' fora supertanker, making it a real damage sponges that takes a lot of firepower to destroy evven if the armor is crappy.

the only way to get arounf would be targetting individual bits like the antenna mast, gun positions or whatever. It's also quite simple to handle and doesn't alter the game mechanic much. It could also be used the other way around for small drones or the like, meaning they will tend to either shrug the damage or be trashed.

It has the advantage of being simple and easy to implement, without altering teh rest of the mechanic.

Note : I've tossed he numbers around without any kind of estimation or preparation, just to illustrate how it could work.


I also thought of this. So, just give vehicles in general more boxes. This makes it fairly simple to adjust, since you just make a new Condition monitor template. The question is where to run the number of boxes off of. One could either run off body, or off an abstract size idea.

So, say, a car or smaller boat (yacht, below 20 body) adds 12 boxes + 1/2 body, and has four columns in its damage track. A tank or ship (say, fish trawler, 20+ body) adds 16 boxes and has five columns. And a tanker or warship adds 20 boxes and has six columns, and an aircraft carrier might get even more. This makes sure that you actually can do a ton of damage to a vehicle without destroying it.

The other option is running off body: A metahuman or drone adds 1/2 body. A car adds full body. A tank or ship adds 3/2 body, and larger vehicles might add 2x body or more. Again, make more columns. This can potentially add a LOT of boxes.

And then we add a simple method of tracking damage to components: Simply code the columns. So, first column is engine. Second column is propulsion (tires, screw, whatever). Third column might be electronics, but you can't do called shots on those, and further columns are just body, or sections of body, for instance, passenger compartment and storage compartment. Destroying a section of body means that passengers no longer get cover and can't add vehicle armour when you target them directly. Damage to a critical section like engine obviously also has appropriate effects, but damage to a piece of body has no DP penalties for the vehicle until the actual row is filled. Also, DP penalties aren't added up, they just use the maximum applicable. For instance, a vehicle with two filled rows takes the usual -2 to all vehicle tests. If it had one more damage to the engine, it would take -3 to speed related things, but still only -2 to all others. If it it had 3 damage to engine and tires, it would take -3 to vehicle tests, not -6. (Or whatever, I have forgotten the actual penalties involved.)

Now, when a coded column is full, that component fails. And when you simply shoot at a vehicle, you fill up the rows as usually. But you could make a called shot to destroy the engine. Then you fill up the engine column. Now if you want to make the game less deadly you could also just lose excess damage, but especially if you pair this method with the Net hits to AP solution you probably don't want that.


Now how do those numbers look:Method 1, adding boxes by size, with old net hit rules:
(And I'm going to spoiler this, because it's fracking long again.)
[ Spoiler ]


Method 1, with net hits to AP:
[ Spoiler ]


Now that I look at this, Method 2 seems excessive, the only advantage would be making vehicles really tough without inflating body scores into the hundreds. For instance, what should the body score of an aircraft carrier be? Individually, sections of a very large ship aren't much tougher than sections of a smaller ship, so giving a carrier or supertanker a body bonus of 80 boxes while leaving body at 40 might be an option - and considering the size, it's not even that bad. Actually, you should not be able to hurt it with an autocannon, although spraying the bridge might help. An aircraft carrier shouldn't have more than 30 armour, and might even have less, since it's not meant to engage hostiles directly. A supertanker or container ship is just as large or larger, but has very little armour, and should also be largely unaffected by a 30mm gun. Adding 80 boxes is still selling it short, because you can still spray it to death that way, when you should be absolutely required to hit specific components.

Now ideally, you really want to be looking for the realistic option: Sinking it, instead of destroying it. In WWII, the last era of super-battleships, 5000lb bombs or larger were used against ships. In SR perspective that's just a stupid scale, and like thor shots, I think best left to the imagination. However, simply using barrier ratings and defining how many sections of hull have to be penetrated to sink it can be used to keep things numerically sound. And you simply have to keep these extremely large vehicles off the vehicle rules entirely. But where to make the cut-off? SR3 had this method of ship hull, and anti-ship weapons.

TL;DR version:


I think just adding more boxes and columns will serve to make the game less binary, and more ablative. Adding net hits to AP would be convenient without adding more boxes, and might be excessive in combination.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012