sladethesniper

Yes.

-STS

This?

Well, using your info, yeah 181 damage, but since it is a lead round nose, that would be 181mm of lead (base), but "If the implement doing the damage is the same hardness as the target (fist vs face) then damage to the target is only half." that would 90mm of penetration in lead.

-STS

Is this a decent enough format for NPCs (on top) and the same character as a unit for a wargame?

The rules set is BRP-ish and am hoping that it is self explanatory enough.

Comments?

-STS

15 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

And there is is.

BTW, does that half damage factor apply to tank rounds vs. tank armor ? 

LOL.

Yeah, it can apply to tank rounds and tank armor. If you want to shoot a long rod aluminum penetrator at a tank, go ahead... I'll wait.

120mm cannon 300 damage, max 

120mm APFSDS round = damage x 2 = 600 damage, but armor only counts for 1/2, not doubling the penetration (the increased penetration is counted in the increased damage). The AP and DS are the same, the DS is merely describing the mechanism of the AP.

So a theoretical tank with 1000mm of armor has 2000 SP. This round makes it so that it only has 1000 points of armor, but the 600 damage is still too low to penetrate it.

Also, the damage multipliers are added together so a theoretical 140mm HVAPFSDS-DU would do a base of 360 x 6 (2 for HV+ 2 for APDS+2 for DU) (not x8) or 2160 damage that treats armor as it if 1/3 the actual amount), which means it can "perforate" (not penetrate) 3240mm RHAe. That is obviously a theoretical maximum performance 1:12 DU penetrator at >3,000 m/s. Which roughly double the velocity of current APFSDS-DU rounds.

But yeah, I should have defined Hyper-Velocity (as it differs from the WWII High Velocity by a lot). Also, yeah, I see that HV has a x4 mod, which is wrong... it should be a +2.

-STS

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

But damage/kill potential is not a linear function. Otherwise all those 7.62 rifles would be five to six times as deadly as a 9mm/.45ACP handgun.

Ah, but I have the answer for that as well... bullet diameter and expansion. Also, weapon/target hardness (sort of related to armor). And 7.62mm is more deadly than 9mm or .45 ACP, but THAT is a function of bullet placement (aka skill %).

"For bullets the equation is energy in foot/pounds multiplied by the diameter of the bullet, then take the square root of that. For a bullet of .50 caliber with 1000 foot pounds of energy, the equation is 22 damage.
Injuries that are not of this magnitude do not count as damage in this system. They hurt, but they are not damage unless the effects cannot be mitigated with a day
of rest or less.
Such short term, but still debilitating effects are better modeled with a round or two of being stunned or knocked down or other short-term effects.
Weapon vs Target Hardness: If the implement doing the damage is harder than the target (bullet vs flesh, hammer vs face) then the target takes all the damage. If the implement doing the damage is the same hardness as the target (fist vs face) then damage to the target is only half.
If the target is harder than the implement (skull vs boxing glove) then the damage done is only ¼."

-STS

This is my current list of weapons by "base damage" and the chart of all the different types of ammo. I have other charts and stuff, but this is the one that has the basics.

Nice. 

I think that your equation is good, but I personally dislike log functions for damage/armor. I am a linear guy and I want the damage to scale that way.

To that end, I prefer Palladium. personally go with 1mm of RHAe = 2 armor points. That makes damage go up into the thousands, but again, Palladium is where I got my start so I just regress to that.

However, your mention of Class B armor does warm my heart.

-STS

I found this in my book so it might help you as well:

The next consideration for weapons is the type of ammunition that is being fired. This affects damage, range and Stopping Power.
Ammunition Type Effect
Ball/Full Metal Jacket No change
Lead Ball ½ range, SP x 2
Conical Lead ¾ range, SP x 1.5
Hollow Point +2 Damage, + 2 SP
Total Fragmenting/Frangible +4 Damage, + 8 SP
Explosive +6 Damage, 0 Pen
Armor Piercing ½ Damage, ½ SP
Soft Point +2 Damage
Solid Copper +2 Damage, -2 SP
Dual Purpose ½ SP
Stopping Power modifiers are for penetrating an object and damaging something on the other side. If the desire is not to penetrate, but to damage something, do not use the Stopping Power, but rather the Hardness. Hardness is not modified by SP modifiers.
0 Pen = zero penetration. The projectile will NOT penetrate armor but will damage it. It is possible to mix ammunition types to get something like APHE (armor piercing high explosive) which penetrates armor at ½ SP and then does regular damage +6. To damage an object, an APHE would +6 damage.

Typical Weapon Modifications Effect
Long barrel +2 Damage
Short barrel -2 Damage, +1 Con
Laser Optics +5% to hit
Reflex Sights +10% to hit
Scope low power -5% at RI 0 to 1, +5% at RI 4+
Scope mid power -10% to RI 0 to 3, +10% at RI 5+
Scope high power -10% at RI 0 to 4, +15% at RI 6+
Pintle Mount +5% to hit at all ranges
Bipod only ½ penalties for range increments
Tripod only ¼ penalties for range increments
Tripod with Travers and Elevation only 1/5 penalties for range increments
Weapon modifications do not increase skills above the starting skill, so that a skill of 35% cannot be increased above 35% by the addition of various modifications. These modifications can only reduce penalties up to the base skill level. Skill is more important than equipment.

-STS

11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah. Maybe some bonus would only apply if the user's skill was at a certain % or higher?

It's like with competition shooting. Things like custom grips, precision optics, longer barrels, ported barrels, and match grade ammo can all help an expert shooter get that little bit more of control that makes all the difference. But to Joe Average picking up gun and starting off at 20% it doesn't mean squat. 

Yeah, but obviously the tech has to do something for the gunner, or else it wouldn't be there. Militaries don't try to spend millions of equipment that doesn't do anything.  It just sorta happens, at times, anyway, but it wasn't supposed to work out that way. 

I agree with you. 

In that case... you could say that lasers add a +5%, BUT a good gunner would know when to use them, when not to, and all that jazz. Sometimes using the laser can give yourself away as the newest gizmos can do:

https://www.kwesst.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/KWESST_BLDS_14022022.pdf

Using a laser 20 years ago was the heat, now it's a bit dangerous depending on who you are fighting.

-STS

34 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I'd think laser guided would. So would tracer rounds, at least after the first burst. 

You have to know to use them first. 

Using tracers is part of being a gunner. Use of the laser guidance system is part of the skill. The big part of these systems is the maintenance and upkeep of them. If the crew doesn't keep them boresighted or whatnot, that laser is not pointing where the round is going to go.

I understand your point, so I am just arguing semantics at this point.

-STS

I would say that none of those make you a better shot... but they DO cancel out negative conditions.

Night time, use night vision.

Smoke, use thermal.

Flat terrain with no landmarks to gauge distance, laser rangefinder.

Moving target, moving shooter and a cross wind, ballistic computer (BC). I would say that you could rate your BC for the number of variables it can correct for like moving target (1), moving shooter (2), wind (3), humidity (4).

Of course for each of those, there is a counter.

Night vision, use IR searchlights on the observer, or smoke

Thermal, hot smoke

Heat seeker, use flares

Radar guided, use chaff

Laser, use chaff or an anti-laser aerosol, or smoke or dust

Ballistic computer, evasive action

Optics, be hull down

Incoming fire, active defense systems

That is how I would do it.

-STS

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Unless it's a smart weapons system run by an AI, which fortunately  for me, isn't the case here.. 

But there might be bonuses for targeting systems for some things. But most bonus should be minor and add to skill scores, not replace them. 

Yeah, AI weapons and expert systems are an issue, but they could be given a skill %. Good point.

-STS

2 minutes ago, g33k said:

A critical question for the designer!

True... I put that in my game. Not everyone can be the captain, someone has to be the quartermaster... and while the objects are different, the concept (beans and bullets) works for platoon sergeants, pirate quartermasters, and logisticians everywhere.

-STS

10 hours ago, g33k said:

Certainly relevant to the war as fought in the real world, with logistics & supply-chains &c impacting the battlefield!

But is it germane to the "blowing up vehicles" OP?

It is if wargaming or PC's running logistics is any part of gameplay.

Also, tech doesn't really increase skills... you can have all the tech in the world, but if you can't use it (as in don't know how it works) it is useless.

Case in point, on my third tour, we had a Canadian reserve officer who was also a project manager at Thales. Showed us all these amazing capabilities that their stuff could do, but we had no idea because when we got the stuff it was just handed over as is from the outgoing unit and we were like a bunch of morons pushing buttons and flicking switches and ooohing and ahhhing over the stuff, and we had figured out maybe 50% of what it "could" do for someone who knew how to make it work at max capabilities.

Skills are still the baseline for what a thing can do. A race car driver in a hyundai is still probably a better driver than a teenager driving a formula one car. 

-STS

I can understand the lack of desire for making products that don't sell, economically speaking.

However, I am sure that there are a lot of creator/writers that do RPG stuff as a side gig or as a hobby and not necessarily for income.

I have made zero dollars from gaming and I've made one RPG game (Vhraeden), one RPG system that is basically a lot of rules options and house rules for BRP and Palladium (Platinum), one wargame/RPG capstone (Strife), one supplement for it (Coalition War Campaign) and 42 stand alone scenarios.

Has anyone played them? Probably not. 

Will I keep making RPG stuff centered on BRP (or at least D100 roll under)? Yeah.

My current project is to make ~100 game supplements (of 5 to 10 pages) for popular works in the Platinum/Strife format so that I'll have the stats for Conner McLeod and Charlie's Angels (the 1970's, 2000's and 2019 teams) in case they want to team up and fight Cobra Commander in Shadaloo.

Is it stupid? Yep, but when people make stuff for the community, it builds the community, just check out the downloads area here and all the goodness that is located therein.

So much mini-campaign fodder that probably doesn't rise to the level of money making, but easily crosses the threshold of fun and memorable.

-STS  

32 minutes ago, NickMiddleton said:

I have always had a huge soft spot for the Call of Cthulhu adventure anthologies Strange Aeons 

Agreed. 

Something like that for BRP, say 4 to 5 mini-settings/adventures per book would be really great.

-STS

IMO, mini-settings are a difficult thing to do correctly. They are either too detailed in which case they are feel like chopped up normal settings, or they are too bare bones with no real info.

The "best" incarnation of mini-settings I have seen done are the ones for Everyday Heroes by Evil Genius Games... (using their wonky 5e hack). They have Highlander, Pacific Rim, Total Recall, Rambo, Universal Soldier, Escape from New York, The Crow, and King Kong Skull Island.

All of those could be better done (mechanically) in BRP, but those settings are A) iconic, B) developed enough to make a full campaign out of, and C) large enough to make new stories with new characters.

If someone were to take that same idea and apply it to BRP, that would be grrrrreat! but making something "kinda like X" but different enough to not be a copy is a tricky ask for a mini-setting.

I myself have worked on a bunch of different mini-settings for my group that I sprinkle in as needed (ex. including stuff like Highlander, GI Joe, Charlie's Angels, Charmed, Cats and Dogs, Constantine, Ghostbusters, Hellboy, John Woo films, etc.)

Basically, if the setting is "close enough" to the game world, you just need a few paragraphs detailing the thing and some NPCs. 

Building something "new" like Monster Hunter would require about a dozen pages or so, enough to lay out any unique bits for character creation, unique weapons, a timeline and whatnot. 

-STS

If you are ok with scaling... just play Palladium or import in the mega-damage system. I have found that even though the numbers are 'big" they are much more internally consistent as they are linear and map fairly well to real world joules/foot pounds/penetration tests, as opposed to some shady logrithm that is never explained in a role playing book.

Weird to think that anything Palladium does is "realistic"... it was probably by accident, but I have run the numbers several times over the decades.

-STS

20 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Good question. I don't want to depart too much, but I have toyed with a KILL% idea so I'm not far off from your model.

It's pretty much how BTRC's Timelords does it too. Damage is read as a percentage of the total hit points. 

How do you handle the damage/hit point calculation? Do you do it on the fly for each hit? I'd probably want to simply that somehow. Say break hit point total up into 10% chunks. So a 140 hp tank would have a 10% kill chance per 14 points taken. 

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Going by hit point chunks works, but since I am a wargamer, I have a calculator handy so I go down to the 1%.

-STS

Hmmm, how close do you want to keep it to regular BRP?

What I have found as a good workaround is to use Probability of Kill (or pK).

Step 1. Roll damage X, subtract armor Y from it = penetrating damage.

Step 2. Pentrating damage/current hit points of thing you are shooting in a percentage AKA the Percentage of instantly kill it.

Step 3. Roll % dice and if the % rolled is less than or equal to, the target is destroyed.

Step 4. If the target is NOT destroyed, subtract the damage from the HP of the object per normal. This reduces the current HP of target making it easier to kill it.

What this does is allow for insta-kills, and if something is "insta-killed" the thing is destroyed BUT still has that much HP able to salvaged off the wreck.

Be aware that a "kill" renders the thing non functional, all the way from damaging the engine so that it can't doesn't work anymore to causing an ammo explosion and it going up in flames.

That is how I do it.

-STS

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

DO you all that against all damage? Can someone roll with a bullet?

Do you use S.D.C.? 

 

Yes, against all damage, and you can do it with a bullet. It's sort of stupid, but it kinda makes it a bit cinematic as people go cartwheeling around like in the movies... and it serves as a weird justification in my mind for a lot of battlefield positioning powers or things like Improved Evasion, etc. (like so many of them in 4E D&D or Mutants and Masterminds are).

I do use SDC.

-STS

On 12/24/2023 at 8:53 AM, Atgxtg said:

I'd lve to see how you meshed the two. 

Attributes: Use BRP, add Speed, change APP to a general "Charisma" stat (which now incorporates PB, APP, MA and ME). POW now represents ISP and/or PPE depending on whether a character is a psion or a magic user.

SIZ is no longer measured on a chart, Size^2 is now equal to weight/mass in pounds. This stat becomes necessary to make hit points for everything from rats to mecha.

Hit Points are equal to (CON + SIZ)/2

Combat is BRP standard, except now "roll with the punch" is now an option so if you fail to dodge or parry, you can use your NEXT turns action to roll with the punch this turn, taking only 1/2 damage, but you lose the next turn as you are ragdolled around or knocked prone then get up.

Palladium damage replaces all BRP damage ratings. Palladium armor rules replace BRP armor rules and values. Palladium Penetration Values and Armor Ratings are used. Mega-Damage is used.

An OCC is used exactly the same way as an Occupation in BRP is... a list of skills that use the Professional Skill points your character has.

Converting a character from one to the other is 1:1 for skills, and since Palladium uses a D20 for combat, you just take the bonus x 5% to convert to BRP, and % divided by 5 to go from BRP to Palladium.

If a Palladium character has a power, it works the exact same way in BRP.

-STS

On 12/21/2023 at 4:15 PM, Atgxtg said:

Not if the values work, and make sense for the game. In the end that's all that matters. 

Well, since I have playing Palladium with BRP rules for... 30-ish years, it works well enough for me. 

The Palladium stuff just fills in a lot of bits that are a bit lacking in most BRP titles.

-STS

Couldn't you just use the Cyberpunk version so that each +1 given via an event change it to a +5% or a +10% in BRP?

That's how I do it.

-STS