Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Deadly damage to vehicles
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
cutter07
Runner A shots car full of gangers (something ligthweight like an Americar) with a burst of AV rounds. After all is said an done the car takes deadly damage, all in 1 hit. Clearly the car is smashed and crashing but does it explode? Sure you can CS the gas tank but at what point is it enough damage to just blow. Also what kind of damage do the people inside take from a car explosion?
BitBasher
The tank only explodes on a critical.

In real life a gunshot cannot make a gas tank explode like it does in the movie.
mfb
indeed. and even then, it's not like a massive KA-BOOM that sends the burning frame flipping end-over-end. it'll just burst into flame, leaving the occupants plenty of time to get out and/or burn and scream until they die.

when vehicles reach D damage, the driver has to make a crash test. if they reach D damage in a single hit, they have to make two crash tests--one for taking above S damage, and one for reaching D damage. if the driver fails either test, the vehicle crashes, either slamming into a handy object or just flipping and rolling. passengers then have to resist crash damage.
Arethusa
Not quite. The explosion can actually be fairly potent. But, yes, movies tend to exaggerate this to ridiculously stupid extremes because apparently only idiots go into pyrotechnics as a profession.

Out of curiosity, though, anyone have rules to handle cars blowing up?
Kanada Ten
Something like, vehicle overflow equal to body (or body + armor) and appropriate fuel?
Kagetenshi
Vehicles tend to blow up when the Deadly was applied with ATGMs or the like. The source of the brunt of the explosion can, at times, be a tad unclear.

~J
Kanada Ten
Maybe base it off the weapon power then. If a vehicle takes deadly in one turn, make a body test against the modified power of the last damaging weapon. One success prevents explosion. If the vehicle explodes use the fuel capacity divided by 10 (right? average gas tank size 120 liters?) as the power minus 1 per meter?
BitBasher
um I have to point out that if we take the quote:

QUOTE
Vehicles tend to blow up when the Deadly was applied with ATGMs or the like.


And replace Vehickes with Kittens we get:

QUOTE
Kittens tend to blow up when the Deadly was applied with ATGMs or the like.


Which is also just as true. It's all relative biggrin.gif grinbig.gif biggrin.gif
Arethusa
Maybe -2 per meter, but that sounds pretty good. As for actually deciding whether the car blows up or not, I'd suggest placing far more statistical significance on the number of rounds fired than the power, as well as the type of damage done (explosives, naturally, would make car explosions more likely than standard bullets, though both would knock engines out fairly well).
cutter07
QUOTE
In real life a gunshot cannot make a gas tank explode like it does in the movie.


Actually its pretty easy to set off a gas tank IRL. Even static or a cellphone/pager can set off gas fumes. Now is it common? No but possible. But IRL isn't the point, plenty of things in SR don't make sense. The question is there anything in game for this?

QUOTE
indeed. and even then, it's not like a massive KA-BOOM that sends the burning frame flipping end-over-end


Um yes it is. 10 gallons of burning fuel isn't 10 gallons of fuel under compression or a gas cloud. Gas tank explosions are much like a fuel air bomb where the compression of fuel causes a massive pressure release. Try to find the video of the test made on Pintos and Mustang (which both has gas tank issues). Its unreal the damage it causes.

QUOTE
Maybe base it off the weapon power then. If a vehicle takes deadly in one turn, make a body test against the modified power of the last damaging weapon. One success prevents explosion. If the vehicle explodes use the fuel capacity divided by 10 (right? average gas tank size 120 liters?) as the power minus 1 per meter?


Not sure but considering the weapon was at 18D with 4 successes (and talkign AV ammo) I was amazed the vehicle only slowed to a stop. I expected some kind of fireworks or at least for the engine to catch fire.

Once again not asking for house rules, just SR offical rules. I don't know the Rigger BB rules from Adam so asking those who do if I'm missing something.
Zazen
QUOTE (Arethusa)
Not quite. The explosion can actually be fairly potent. But, yes, movies tend to exaggerate this to ridiculously stupid extremes because apparently only idiots go into pyrotechnics as a profession.

Or maybe it's just because explosions are cool, so fuck verisimilitude smile.gif
Arethusa
Ever seen The Transporter? That wasn't cool. That was comedy.
BitBasher
QUOTE
Actually its pretty easy to set off a gas tank IRL. Even static or a cellphone/pager can set off gas fumes. Now is it common? No but possible. But IRL isn't the point, plenty of things in SR don't make sense. The question is there anything in game for this?
See, that's the common misconception. Fumes can ignite, outside of a car. inside a gas tank it cant get enough ventilation, as for gast to ignite like that it has to be at a minimal oxygen level. Theres not enough oxygen in a gas tank to make that happen. Without the oxygen gas fumes don't burn at all.

Typically the entire gas tank has to rupture outright, while a source of ignition is available. Bullets cannot typically accomplish this. This typically happens in high speed rear end collisions where the front vehicle has a gas tank behind the rear axle.

[EDIT]
Oh and... A site that debunks Urban legends on the cellphone thing. In a nutshell, there has not been found a single case where the cellphone was confirmed to have started the fire

And while im at it, a story on... The Myth of the exploding Pinto.

And last but not least a link about... Cars exploding as they relate to real life physics.
cutter07
QUOTE
See, that's the common misconception. Fumes can ignite, outside of a car. inside a gas tank it cant get enough ventilation, as for gast to ignite like that it has to be at a minimla oxygen level. Theres not enough oxygen in a gas tank to make that happen. Without the oxygen gas fumes dont burn at all.


Gas tanks have air in them. Its not a vacuum as everytime to open the tank air gets in and gas vapor escapes. If you doubt this post a video of you dropping a match down your gas tank and closing it. Theres no air the right, so whats the issue? rotfl.gif
Seriously though this is a 6th grade science project. The smaller space an force is contained in greter force on the container. Think of it like the car is a grenade, with the gas as the charge and the body as its frag casing. Anything inside is pretty much gibbed.

QUOTE
Oh and:A site that debunks Urban Ledgends on the cellphone thing. In a nutshell, there has not been found a single case where the cellphone was confirmed to have started the fire


Yes I guess thats why they put the warnings on the pumps at gas stations, to spread urban legends. Couldn't be because it makes sense. I'd trust ol' David Emery over Exxon-Mobil's research any day.

Any electric charge in a fuel vapor field has a chance of setting it off.


As far as the Pinto its not an urban myth, 180 people actually died from this and I find it insulting you make light of thier deaths. Please know what your talking about before you start

http://www.savive.com/casestudy/fordpinto.html

http://www.carconsumers.com/quote_pages/ai..._iacocca_2.html

http://robots.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/20/cp.00.html

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=96&did=522

http://www.perryhaas.com/durrillvfordmotorcompany.html
BitBasher
Please, please read the bottom link I posted, everything is refuted there.

It's not that there's NO air in the gas tank, its that theres not enough.
Arethusa
That movie physics site had some solid, if basic information, but I am a little surprised that they don't bother to do enough research on firearms but still beat the crap out of movies for it. Seems these guys have never heard of reflex suppressors or subsonic rounds.

Anyway, about the cell phone, it is an urban legend that it ever happened, but it is potentially possible. Just extraordinarily unlikely in any real world condition.
cutter07
Its not just the movies but video games too. One of the funniest is counterstrike (one of the first games to be quoted as being "realistic"). In one glaring example the AK47, the most widespread weapon worldwide, is shown with its receiver on the wrong side of the weapon. I had to go check my MAK90 the first to make sure I wasn't dreaming. Seems like they either should have caught that or not had such a hardon about showing the casings eject.
Arethusa
Heh. I think that's being generous. There is not a single thing right with that game.

Incidentally, most of the guns are incorrectly mirrored. It's not just the AK. Personally, the first thing that jumped out at me was the fact that it wasn't even shooting the right ammunition, but hey.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (cutter07)
In one glaring example the AK47, the most widespread weapon worldwide, is shown with its receiver on the wrong side of the weapon.

That's got nothing to do with realism, though. CStrike had issues, because all the weapons were originally fired from the left side of the screen, with all the stuff in the right place. They were made to fire from the right by making mirror images of the original models, and so all the weapons have all their important stuff on the wrong side of the gun.

If you want to talk about CStrike realism, how about the fact that the 7.62x51mm IMI Galil does less damage than the 7.62x39 AK-47? Or the fact that the Galil has a 35 (thirty-fucking-five) round magazine, while the FAMAS has 25. Etc etc.

QUOTE
Not sure but considering the weapon was at 18D with 4 successes (and talkign AV ammo) I was amazed the vehicle only slowed to a stop.

What weapon was this from? Small-arms AV rounds are described in CC as having a "solid bronze core" (beats me why that should be any more effective against vehicles than, say, tungsten carbide). They won't set things on fire any better than ordinary ammunition, or even make significantly bigger holes, they just dig deeper.

If the damage was caused with a really large weapon, like a HMG, then you could consider AV as an High Explosive Indendiary Armor Piercing (HEIAP/APHE/HEAP, whatever) round, fuck the CC, and the car could easily have been set on fire.

QUOTE (Arethusa)
Personally, the first thing that jumped out at me was the fact that it wasn't even shooting the right ammunition, but hey.

Not a big issue now, but when you still bought ammo by caliber it was really silly. Both AKs and G3SG1s used 7.62x51mm. Of course, back then MP5s were more accurate than M4A1s and M249s did far more damage per shot than AKs. The insanely slow, maxim-like RoF of the M249 has prevailed since then, even though the damage has been dropped.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
That's got nothing to do with realism, though. CStrike had issues, because all the weapons were originally fired from the left side of the screen, with all the stuff in the right place. They were made to fire from the right by making mirror images of the original models, and so all the weapons have all their important stuff on the wrong side of the gun.

If you want to talk about CStrike realism, how about the fact that the 7.62x51mm IMI Galil does less damage than the 7.62x39 AK-47? Or the fact that the Galil has a 35 (thirty-fucking-five) round magazine, while the FAMAS has 25. Etc etc.

Austere, that Galil does less damage because it's chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO. That's why it has a 35 round mag.The FAMAS has a 25 round mag because Gooseman inexplicably decided to go with an F1, despite the fact that it's quite antiquated and has been replaced.

But the list goes on, from the P228 having the wrong capacity and ammunition (should be 12 rounds of 9x19mm) to the AK-47 firing the wrong stuff (7.62x51mm NATO instead of 7.62x39 WP) to the simple inclusion of an AUG and a Desert Eagle to the Glock 18 firing 3 round bursts (that only happened on the very rare prototype models, not to mention that gun is extraordinarily difficult to get ahold of fo civilians) to he M249 being about half of what it should be (half rof, half capacity, half accuracy, etc) to god knows what else. It's an awful game, and that's all there is to it.

And about those models: they may've been originally left handed, but that doesn't explain why some of them still use the wrong hands to do things anyway, nor does it explain why only some of the guns are modeled backwards and others aren't. If you just take a stance of assuming that Gooseman's a blithering idiot, though, it all works out.

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
What weapon was this from? Small-arms AV rounds are described in CC as having a "solid bronze core" (beats me why that should be any more effective against vehicles than, say, tungsten carbide). They won't set things on fire any better than ordinary ammunition, or even make significantly bigger holes, they just dig deeper.

If the damage was caused with a really large weapon, like a HMG, then you could consider AV as an High Explosive Indendiary Armor Piercing (HEIAP/APHE/HEAP, whatever) round, fuck the CC, and the car could easily have been set on fire.

In fact, wouldn't they be less effective than tungsten?

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
Not a big issue now, but when you still bought ammo by caliber it was really silly. Both AKs and G3SG1s used 7.62x51mm. Of course, back then MP5s were more accurate than M4A1s and M249s did far more damage per shot than AKs. The insanely slow, maxim-like RoF of the M249 has prevailed since then, even though the damage has been dropped.

Actually, the ammunition system— along with most of the game— has not changed since the first release. The AK still uses 7.62x51mm NATO, and if you guy ammo for it, drop it, and pick up something like the G3-SG1, you'll see. Only change that's been made is that ammunition is auto selected when you buy it, now. But, yeah, you're right about the rest. Come to think of it, I'm sort of ashamed how far I go back with this game.

Anyway, sort of getting back on topic, custom rules for blowing up cars?
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Arethusa)
Austere, that Galil does less damage because it's chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO. That's why it has a 35 round mag.

Well, uhh, not really. The HUD shows 7.62 when you've got a Galil, and the model is clearly the 7.62 Galil (because of the shape of the magazine, which is straight in CStrike vs curved in a 5.56 Galil). [Edit]Don't hold me accountable on HUD showing 7.62 with Galil, haven't played that game in a while...[/Edit]

And then there's the AWP/AWM which doesn't really know which one it wants to be. And the semi-only G3SG1.

QUOTE
And about those models: they may've been originally left handed, but that doesn't explain why some of them still use the wrong hands to do things anyway, nor does it explain why only some of the guns are modeled backwards and others aren't.

It does, though. The mirroring was done some time around B4 or B5, I think, and any weapon whose model has been redone, or any weapon that only came after that, should have the model the right way around. And if the action is the wrong way around, then obviously the wrong hands are used. And maybe after that the gun designers couldn't agree on what way they wanted to go.

They're still a bunch of idiots, but it's explainable idiocy.

QUOTE
In fact, wouldn't they be less effective than tungsten?

Hell yes, but let's not go there. smile.gif

QUOTE
Actually, the ammunition system— along with most of the game— has not changed since the first release.

Caliber-wise, no. I played it from B3 through to 1.3, so I'm aware of that. But back then it really showed, when the Buy Ammo display actually showed 7.62x51mm, and you could buy ammo for both at the same time.

And I'm as ashamed of it as you are. That's why I only really play America's Army now. Although it has its fair share of problems, like RPK-47s with a RoF of 1000/min and 10-meter 100% kill radius 40mms.

QUOTE
Anyway, sort of getting back on topic, custom rules for blowing up cars?

I'm of the school of thought that it's not necessary. Most attacks that would cause a significant explosion of the fuel tank would probably total the rest of the vehicle as well. You could try the flamethrower rules for people inside if it's reasonable that the gas tank went off.

I've got a feeling that a fuel tank explosion usually won't cause much of a pressure wave outside of the vehicle, and the people around would mostly have to worry about the fire. You could go with a WP grenade, but far easier to put out, less smoke, less range, more damage.
Arethusa
Yeah, good point about the Galil mag. The problems do go on and on, but I should point out that the game is the product of one very stupid and very arrogant guy, the aforementioned Gooseman. So, just one idiot, really.

And I tried to play AA. I tried very hard. I qualified for everything. Made it all the way to being a Green Beret. But you try playng that game over 56k. Was maybe the least fun I'd ever had in my entire life.

Anyway, yeah, variation on the WP grenade might be a good way to go. Then again, might just be best to leave it to GM fiat. I'm not sure where I stand, really.
Austere Emancipator
I first played it with a 64k ISDN from Finland to the freaking East Coast of US. Believe me, that wasn't too fun either. Luckily you Americans can't play for shit. biggrin.gif

I'd leave it to GM fiat. But I might GM fiat it in a way that uses the WP grenade rules. wink.gif
Caine Hazen
when did this become the gun/CS/AA thread..hehe. I know you all were touching on realism, AA comes closest, but ya if your modem bound you can't play for shit...

On the side of realism/unrealism...what happens when the ubercytroll takes his quarterstaff (read big azz peice of rebar) and hits a car with it and gets up to deadly damage even after vehicle mods are placed on the damage...

Here's what I did...or the whole story...the troll was aiming for the driver to disable him...smashing down through the window. he fouled up the hit...but it was still gonna hit the car right? So I decided to let him roll for damage, thinking...no way he's gonna do that much damage to a car (ford americar FYI). Well he smashes, I caculate, Deadly damage..car with low body..car makes no successes.

My decision ended up being that he had hit the steering colunm and cleanly snapped it off, leaving the non rigged vehicle completely undriveable...
Frag-o Delux
QUOTE (Arethusa)
Not quite. The explosion can actually be fairly potent. But, yes, movies tend to exaggerate this to ridiculously stupid extremes because apparently only idiots go into pyrotechnics as a profession.


I hope that was a joke? It is not the pyrotechnitians are idiots, it is the idiot audience they are trying to impress. How fun would an action movie be with out cars exploding when hit with a pistol shot, from a guy in a speeding car shooting at a speeding car. The techical people that make movies are by no means idiots, it is the audience they have to make want to sit through 2 hours of Arnold or Sly. Movies that over do the effects are generally weak in the acting department.

When I watch a movie I know there is no chance a pistol is going to get lucky and hit the fuel tank and make it explod and do 10 end over end flips, but I will tell I laugh and have a good time watching.

End rant.
Arethusa
Caine: sounds like a good ruling to me.

Frag: yes, it was a joke. I'm sure there are tons of unstupid people handling explosives for a living. It's usually not their fault so much as the fault of the director (or whatever sub director is handling pyrotechnics) for thinking that bigger explosions makes a better film. But don't blame the audience for everything, either. There've been realistic films that've done exceedinly well. They're just a minority. Ultimately, if there are any two groups mostly to blame for egregious stupidity, it's studios and directors, in that order.
Frag-o Delux
I agree many great films are made realistically and with out the over use of effects. I also agree studios and directors are at fualt, but you have to give the audience some credit also, they line up for hours to see perfectly good rolls of film ruined by the crap being spewed out of hollywood today.

It is a vicious cycle, one studio decides to punch up a film to compensate for bad acting, the audience loves it, the the studio following their new formula, big bombs make big movies start making directors add bigger explosion, wether they are needed or not, then the audience sees that and the cycle continues.

Sorry, just a little frustration in my own movie making endeavoures.
Dax
About the Cellphone myth. The Mythbusters proved that it was an urban myth on their show a while ago. They set up a chamber that had gasoline mist floating around inside it, set up a cell phone inside the chamber and kept calling the phone to see if it would set of an explosion.

The end result was no explosion. Though they did end up blowing the chamber up later for kicks. biggrin.gif
Arethusa
Well, I rescind my comment on that, then. So much for the papers written on that possibility.

And that really is a great show.

Frag: yeah, that is fair. Hell, I do agree. I don't think I gave the general audiences the credit they deserve for sucking. Also, my sympathies. Making movies, by and large, is not something you get into successfully if you're interested in making art, and that's unfortunate.
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