Quick Vehiicle Stats

[Atgxtg]

I'm working on a method of working of vehicles in BRP terms that is fast, and will let you write up real world vehicles using real world data. Once the specs are written up, they can be modified with the Design rules (soo to be simplified and updated).

Here are three sample vehicles, along with an explanation of how the numbers were calculated.

Example #1: 2006 Ferrari 599GBT “Bat”

Real World Data:

Curb Weight: 1705kg (3750lb)

Top Speed: 330kph(205mph)

0--60: 3.7s

Lateral Acceleration: 0.97g

BRP Data: (How it was calculated)

SIZ: 48 (Per RQ3 SIZ table)

Hit Points: 24 (1/2SIZ, n)

Armor Points: 5 (1/10 SIZ, n)

MOVE : 92 (330kph/3.6)

Speed (CoC): 21 (mph/10 or kph/16)

Handling: +17% [(20-3.7)+(.97x5)]

Example #2: 1981 Ford Escort

Real World Data:

Curb Weight: 1363 kg

Top Speed: 145kph (90mph)

0-60: 14.67s

Skidpad: 0.55 g (estimated)

BRP Data

SIZ: 46 (Per RQ3 SIZ table)

Hit Points: 23 (1/2SIZ)

Armor Points: 4 (1/10th SIZ)

MOVE: 40 (145kph/3.6)

Speed (CoC): 9 (mph/10 or kph/16)

Handling: +8% [(20-14.7)+(.55x5)]

Example #3: Me-262 Jet

Real World Data:

Weight: 7,100kg

Top Speed: 884kph

Thrust: 1800kg

Gs: 3.5

BRP Data:

SIZ: 56 (Per RQ3 SIZ table)

Hit Points: 16 (1/2SIZ)

Armor Points: 6 (1/10th SIZ)

MOVE: 246 (884kph/3.6)

Speed (CoC): 55 (mph/10 or kph/16)

Handling: +20% [(1800/7100x10)+(3.5x5)]

Note:The only "surprise formula" is the one for handling:

Ground Vehicles: 20-(0-60time)+(lateral accerationx5)

Jet Air Craft: Thrust/Weight Ratiox10+(lateral accerationx5)

Anyone think this is useful? Is this a better way to go?

[Trifletraxor]

I like that it's based on real world data. Speed and move, is that the same type of stat just calculated differently? Move, does it compare if you calculate real world stats for animals too?

What's lateral acceleration? I would think a jet plane had low handling (even minus maybe) due to its speed.

Safty tests, could that influence AP for cars?

As I said, good to see it based on real world data, as it provide a good framework for statting up new vehicles.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

I like that it's based on real world data. Speed and move, is that the same type of stat just calculated differently? Move, does it compare if you calculate real world stats for animals too?

Speed is the rated velocity in kph or mph.

MOVE is the MOVE score for BRP. From what Jason mentioned when I asked him, the average Move rate for a human is 10.

So, as far as I know, a vehicle with Move 10 is the same as a person with Move 10.

The MOVE value that I calculated is the same as meter/second. So if you multiplied them by 12 you would get meter/round, assuming that they don't reduce the move rate to one-third like in most RQ/BRP games, in which case you use 3xMove for meter/turn.

The CoC Speed rating is the rating that they use in the CoC chase rules, and appears to be mph/10.

What's lateral acceleration? I would think a jet plane had low handling (even minus maybe) due to its speed.

[drohem]

Right on! It looks cool. It's always nice to see real world names to game stats. :thumb:

[Nightshade]

You may have answered this somewhere else, A, but why 1/2 SIZ? I'd think full size would make for more appropriate results.

[Atgxtg]

You may have answered this somewhere else, A, but why 1/2 SIZ? I'd think full size would make for more appropriate results.

Call of Cthulhu.

In COC most cars and truck seem to have HP equal to one-half SIZ. So I went with that for compatibility sake.

Plus if HP=(CON+SIZ/2) and CON=0 you get half size.

All vehicles do get some AP though, so they end up a bit tougher than their CoC counterparts. Even the Ferrari stops 5 points per hit.

I've been toying with a modification for impales against vehicles where you don't get the extra dice of damage unless the initial result penetrates the armor.

Hmm, with my current minimum AP rule the Nimitz would have a minimum AP of 768! I'm going to have to tweak that! Probably need to cap minimum AP's at 15 or so, or go to a cube root formula. The Nimitz has the armor, but it is spread out over a big area. What looks better, capping at 15 or a cube root (20AP).

[Nightshade]

Call of Cthulhu.

In COC most cars and truck seem to have HP equal to one-half SIZ. So I went with that for compatibility sake.

Plus if HP=(CON+SIZ/2) and CON=0 you get half size.

That's because with living things, their systemic issues trump their size to some degree; I'm not sure with an object that's true. Certain Superworld gave full Size as hits in it.

That said, vehicles aren't just big discrete lumps of metal; they have internal structure, too. But I'm not sure in all cases half size describes their vulnerability. Vehicles that are big because they have a lot of cargo space should be less vulnerable than those where its filled with actual working guts. Perhaps you need some sort of replacement for Con for them, to represent how vulnerable they are to disablement.

That creates some problems of its own; bullets will penetrate the sides of most car bodies only losing modest energy in many cases. They just aren't thick enough to be much help except perhaps at very long ranges or against very light ammo.

It probably shouldn't be based on size at all, but on material; after all, otherwise you're still going to potentially have large structures composed of only modest materials that you can't hurt at all under some circumstances. But I realize that's hard with RQ because it doesn't deal with material values.

[Atgxtg]

That's because with living things, their systemic issues trump their size to some degree; I'm not sure with an object that's true. Certain Superworld gave full Size as hits in it.

Final SIZ, HP Scores are in flux until we see the BRP book. I just went with what seems to be the mostly likely vales to appear in the new rules, since they are using the COC chase rules in BRP.

Ammo needs to not only penetrate the armor, but kill the vehicle too. If we gave an M1 90 hit points, then an tank round would have to be able to do over 90 points of damage AFTER armor. So that would kick up weapon damages.

The problem is that since COC really compresses the scale, with a .50cal bullet oinly doing twice the damage of a .45ACP getting a good damage curve is problematic.

That said, vehicles aren't just big discrete lumps of metal; they have internal structure, too. But I'm not sure in all cases half size describes their vulnerability. Vehicles that are big because they have a lot of cargo space should be less vulnerable than those where its filled with actual working guts. Perhaps you need some sort of replacement for Con for them, to represent how vulnerable they are to disablement.

I was thinking of a hit location chart. Hits to Body do HP damage, hits to cargo trash cargo, hits to engine can slow or stop the vehicle, hits to passengers hurt people, hits to controls reduce handling and so forth. That way the Hit Points can stay low, since only some hits will really damage the vehicle.

Another idea might be to use a damage limit like they do in EABA. In EBA vehicle damage is capped based on the size of the vehicle. The idea being that small arms don't really damage big ships, just the crew and components. EABA then raises the cap for certain types of attack that blow through the armor.

For instance, in EABA a M113 APC has only 17 hits points, but has a damage limit of 3 so any attack that gets through it's armor can only do 3 points of damage to the vehicle itself. So even if a Russian 14,5mm MG round that does 6d+2 hits the APCs side armor (4d+1) and gets 2d+1 through, the vehicle will only take 3 points. Any one unlucky enough to get hit by the bullet would take 2d+1 with no limit).

Now things like Anti-tank rockets kick up the limit by 1 per die that they surpass the armor. So a 13d+0 anti-tank rocket that hit the 4d+1 side armor would raise the Damage limit by 9 to 12. So the vehicle would still exist, but the folks inside and all the internal systems would take 9d damage from the HEAT round and be killed.

But at least it leave a nice home for the squirrels.

That creates some problems of its own; bullets will penetrate the sides of most car bodies only losing modest energy in many cases. They just aren't thick enough to be much help except perhaps at very long ranges or against very light ammo.

Yes, but bullets also don't really do much damage to the actual car.They just poke lots of holes in it. It's the passengers inside who are going to get damaged.

It probably shouldn't be based on size at all, but on material; after all, otherwise you're still going to potentially have large structures composed of only modest materials that you can't hurt at all under some circumstances. But I realize that's hard with RQ because it doesn't deal with material values.

Yes and no. Material make sense, but I used SIZ since more massive vehicles will need stronger and thicker materials for support. Basically an 18 wheeler has thicker wheels and components that soak up more kinetic energy.

Even if you take something large and reaatively soft, like a supertanker. YOu could shot the thing full of holes from now to doomday with small arms fire before you really damage the vehicle. 'Killing" it through Hit point loss is really a non issue.

[Atgxtg]

After looking over the vehicles in CoC more carefully, and discovering that the SIZ 51 Mercedes has 2/3rd the hit points of the SIZ 48 Taurus, I'm inclined to reverse my position and work in a CON factor for vehicles.

Maybe we could call it DURability?

Now to rate it....

Well, Reverse Engineering time.

a 1999 Taurus has SIZ 48 or so, and 30 hp points. Good ol' algebra says 60-48=12 DUR.

a 1929 SSK has SIZ 51 and 20 hp so algebra says in has a 40-51=-9 CON, err DUR.

Uh -9?, back to the R&D lab.

[Atgxtg]

Hmm.

The SSK has a 6L engine and the H6 has an 8L engine. Since HP represents "killing" the vehicle, maybe they just reflect "killing" the motor rather than actually destroying the vehicle.

a Taurus has a 3L engine but reflects 70 years of automotive advances.

So maybe we could use Engine SIZ or displacement as the base?

[Atgxtg]

Arrrgh Niteshade!

Now you got me thinking of doing a Stuff! conversion. Stuff! would solve all the problems, vehicles, spaceships, computers, weapon damages, armor. It's also fast and easy to reverse engineer for real world vehicles.

[Trifletraxor]

Tell us more! What's Stuff?

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Tell us more! What's Stuff?

SGL.

Stuff!

"you make it you break it"

Is a supplement for the EABA RPG.

Stuff! is a very simple design system that lets you build Weapons, Vehicles, Gadgets, Creatures and Civilizations for EABA, and has conversion notes for several other RPGs.

One thing that makes Stuff! interesting is that the designer also created Guns! Guns! Guns! (3G3) the weapon design system for Timelords, CORPS (and usable for most other RPGs), and CORPS VDS, the vehicle design system for CORPS (Another related RPG). As both 3G3 and VDS are probably the most detailed and comprehensive design systems out there, and Stuff! was based off of them, it makes the results fairly accurate despite the simplicity.

I'll give you an example of how easy Stuff! is to use.

Lets say we are building that Ford Escort in Stuff!

Powerplant: Atomic Era +30 STR

1.5 ton loaded mass: -3

=Strength +27= Top Speed 40m (144kph/90mph)

27/3=9d+0 Strength for Game purposes.

Acceleration is based on 1/2 STR (27/2=14)

1.5 ton loaded mass: -3

Ground Vehicle: -9

=Strength +2=Acceleration of 3m per turn.

A Loaded Mass of 1.3 tons is worth 10 hits and it's 6 hex size gives it a damage limit of 6

1d+0 armor is the default for an unarmored vehicle.

So the final version would look like

1981 Ford Escort

Crew: 1+3 passengers

Strength: 9d+0

Top Speed: 40

Acceleration: 3

Hits: 10

Damage Limit: 6

Armor

Front: 1d+0

Right: 1d+0

Left: 1d+0

Top: 1d+0

Bottom: 1d+0

Rear: 1d+0

Not too shabby.

[Nightshade]

Final SIZ, HP Scores are in flux until we see the BRP book. I just went with what seems to be the mostly likely vales to appear in the new rules, since they are using the COC chase rules in BRP.

Ammo needs to not only penetrate the armor, but kill the vehicle too. If we gave an M1 90 hit points, then an tank round would have to be able to do over 90 points of damage AFTER armor. So that would kick up weapon damages.

Hit locations and/or equivelent to massive damage effects. In other words, I don't think this is a _special_ problem here. After all, there are weapons that need to be able to kill a human being in the game that often can't do so with one hit barring special rules, too. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen a writeup for a .22 LR round in BRP that _could_ kill someone with one shot unless they were on the wimpy side. Tank guns don't kill tanks because they completely vaporize the tank; they kill it by taking out the crew or destroying its functionality.

The problem is that since COC really compresses the scale, with a .50cal bullet oinly doing twice the damage of a .45ACP getting a good damage curve is problematic.

Well, really, its the curse of any non-linear progression system with accumulative damage.

I was thinking of a hit location chart. Hits to Body do HP damage, hits to cargo trash cargo, hits to engine can slow or stop the vehicle, hits to passengers hurt people, hits to controls reduce handling and so forth. That way the Hit Points can stay low, since only some hits will really damage the vehicle.

Well, that works too, but I'd prefer the other way around. You give them a higher total, but some locations have lower values, and some don't blow through to the rest of the vehicle (similar to the way taking out a limb caps off in terms of what it does to total hit points).

Another idea might be to use a damage limit like they do in EABA. In EBA vehicle damage is capped based on the size of the vehicle. The idea being that small arms don't really damage big ships, just the crew and components. EABA then raises the cap for certain types of attack that blow through the armor.

There's certainly something to be said for scaling damage systems; it used to work fairly well in the old, D6 based Star Wars game.

For instance, in EABA a M113 APC has only 17 hits points, but has a damage limit of 3 so any attack that gets through it's armor can only do 3 points of damage to the vehicle itself. So even if a Russian 14,5mm MG round that does 6d+2 hits the APCs side armor (4d+1) and gets 2d+1 through, the vehicle will only take 3 points. Any one unlucky enough to get hit by the bullet would take 2d+1 with no limit).

Now things like Anti-tank rockets kick up the limit by 1 per die that they surpass the armor. So a 13d+0 anti-tank rocket that hit the 4d+1 side armor would raise the Damage limit by 9 to 12. So the vehicle would still exist, but the folks inside and all the internal systems would take 9d damage from the HEAT round and be killed.

But at least it leave a nice home for the squirrels.

The only issues I have with that sort of thing are these:

1. It has an odd effect that you get more effect out of multiple sort-of big weapons than you do out of one big antipersonnel weapon.

2. Its not very BRP-like.

Yes, but bullets also don't really do much damage to the actual car.They just poke lots of holes in it. It's the passengers inside who are going to get damaged.

That's mostly because a big part of most cars is, well, air and nonfunctional (in terms of making the car move) material. They can do respectable damage into the engine compartment, depending on what they hit.

Yes and no. Material make sense, but I used SIZ since more massive vehicles will need stronger and thicker materials for support. Basically an 18 wheeler has thicker wheels and components that soak up more kinetic energy.

It isn't materially more difficult to put a bullet through the cab, though. And not all that much more to put one through the trailer.

Even if you take something large and reaatively soft, like a supertanker. YOu could shot the thing full of holes from now to doomday with small arms fire before you really damage the vehicle. 'Killing" it through Hit point loss is really a non issue.

But again, that's only true until you hit something vital. One rifle round in an engine block can stop most cars quite dead.

This is really the problem here; accumulated damage systems don't give really good results even for living things, and for things like vehicles, they're really, in the end, pretty bad. I'm begging to wonder if something like an armor value and then using Siz as a _resistance_ value for effects wouldn't be a better way to go.

[Nightshade]

Hmm.

The SSK has a 6L engine and the H6 has an 8L engine. Since HP represents "killing" the vehicle, maybe they just reflect "killing" the motor rather than actually destroying the vehicle.

a Taurus has a 3L engine but reflects 70 years of automotive advances.

So maybe we could use Engine SIZ or displacement as the base?

Well, as I said in my prior post, something in the combat system needs to address the fundamental difference between just putting a hole in the side of the vehicle and actually doing something that matters.

Of course, my problem is I'm primarily an RQ grognard. I'm not sure people from places like CoC care; they're used to dealing with accumulated hit point damage for people, so doing it for vehicles may seem shruggable to them. Its just that the situations where relatively tiny attacks accumulating to kill a human don't come up much, so its more ludicrous features aren't very intrusive, where it can come up easily with vehicles.

[Nightshade]

The only problem I might see is whether EABA's combat system makes assumptions that make some of these issues easy there, but not so much here.

[Atgxtg]

The only problem I might see is whether EABA's combat system makes assumptions that make some of these issues easy there, but not so much here.

Yeah, there are a couple. Once nice thing is that EABA, CORPS and Timelords all use a mathematical progression for weapon damages and armor. BRP doesn't So it is much easier to see if Weapon X can penetrate Armor Y or not. For instance, in CoC with the .45 at 1d10+2 and the .357M at 1D8+1D4 you can't make armor that will stop a .45 without it stopping the .357.

I've been toying with using EABA values for firearms, since it would solve a lot of problems. We could even switch dice from d6s to d4s and get very nice BRPish damages. For example.

.32ACP: 1d4+1

9mm: 2d4+1

.45 ACP: 2d4 (+2 S: Stopping Power, it applies if Penetrates armor)

.357M: 2d4+2

.44M: 3d4

5.56NATO: 4d4+1

7.62NATO: 4d6+2

.50cal: 6d4+1

Note that the max damages are with a point of the CoC values for all the weapon except the .45 (and that could be tweaked in Stuff! depending on load). Also the progression is smoother and damage is more in a bell curve. All factors that make it much, much easier to work up armor values that will stop certain guns while allowing others to penetrate.

What makes Stuff so attractive is that Greg thought out a lot of the weired stuff and options and did up rules for them (designing custom body armor, robots, battle suits, Hyperdrives and Warp Drives are all optional extras in the Vehicles chapter). So there are some thing that are worth looking at to get ideas on how to do them up in BRP.

The Stopping Power, Penetrating Power and Blasting Power rules would be great for BRP.

[Atgxtg]

Oh, I really messed up, can find the M113 stats. O'll have to find the post.

[Nightshade]

I think rolling lots of d4's isn't likely to win your conversion method any friends.

[Atgxtg]

I think rolling lots of d4's isn't likely to win your conversion method any friends.

Probably not. The dice are d6s in EABA but that would be too high for BRP. Tighter bell curves are better ballistics. The problem with wide die ranges like 2d8 is that it doesn't handle armor well. If a given caliber bullet can penetrate armor , it should be able to do so pretty much all the time. But with a 2d8 roll the results will be all over the place. Sometimes it penetrates and sometimes it doesn't.

EABA gets around that by rating armor in dice and subtracting it before damage is rolled. So a 4d attack vs. a 2d vest does 2d damage. But a 2d attack against a 4d vest won't penetrate.

Like I said earlier, you can't make something in BRP that will stop a .45 than won't stop a .357 Mag.

The alternate solution would be to differentiate between Penetration and Damage. For instance if the .45 had a PEN of 6, and the .357M had a PEN of 8. Hits that fail to penetrate could so some minimal blunt trauma, and those that do penetrate do damage but are modified by AP.

[Atgxtg]

Okay, here is the write up for the M113 APC that I thought I had put up earlier. How does it look?

M113 APC

STR 49

SIZ 69 (10,400kg)

Hit Points: 25

Move 18 (64kph)

Handling: -17%

Fuel Capacity: 5 hours

Weapon: M2HB .50 caliber Heavy Macninegun

Damage: 2d10+4

Range: 400m

Ammo: 200 round belt (10 belts in vehicle)

Attacks: 1 or burst

Malf 98

Hit Points: 18_____

Notes:

Hit Locations

An F rating for AP means that you use the APs of the side facing the attacker.

Lights: These are used for illumination in the dark. If reduced to 0 HP light in broken. At -HP wiring is destroyed.

Tracks: Used to move the vehicle. At 0 HP a track is inoperative, applying a -15% penalty to handling, and reducing Move to 6. If reduced to -HP the track is destroyed. If both tracks are disabled the vehicle is immobilized..

M2HB: The .50 caliber machinegun mounted outside the vehicle

Controls: Either the actual controls or the machinery that links them to the tracks. If reduced to 0 HP the vehicle is sluggish, suffering a -10% penalty to Handling. If Reduced to -HP the vehicle cannot be steered.

Engine: If reduced to 0 HP the Engine “konks” out, but can be restarted with a Luck roll. Speed will be cut in half. If reduced to -HP the engine is dead, and there is a 20% chance of a fire of 2D6 intensity.

Crew: Damage that penetrates armor hits a random occupant. Note that while the vehicle can't be impaled, a crewman can, although he does get the benefit of the vehicles APs in addition to his own.

Commander Gunner: Attack his the person manning the M2. As most of the body of the gunner is still inisde the vehicle, hits to legs or abdomen must penetrate the facing APs. For other locations the gunner gets a Luckx3% roll to see if he gets facing APs from the hatch.

Gear: The attack hits some sort of gear carried inside the vehicle. This could be a radio, food stores, water, tools, or personal gear. For each 5 points damage assume something is broken. Internal gear must overcome the facing APs, while external gear is attached to the outside of the vehicle and gets less protection.

Fuel: The vehicle Fuel tank is hit. If reduced to 0 HP the tank is leaking fuel, curring the capacity by half and giving a 25% chance of any flame starting a fire. If reduced to -HP the vehicle is out of fuel, stops dead, and has a 25% of vapors starting a fire of 2D6 intensity.

The M2HB: This is a .50 caliber Machinegun is capable of burst fire, capable of as many as 50 shots per round.

[Shaira]

The APC looks great - very nice indeed!

I have a few queries. Firstly, HP of the APC - why so low? Even at 1/2 SIZ it should have 35, not 25, as far as I can see. 25 feels a bit low, somehow.

Second - the "Crew" hit location. Do you mean by this "Crew Quarters", or some such, and that a hit here will do damage to the APC's overall HP as well as the Crew themselves? Perhaps that each Crew Member gets to make a Luck Roll to avoid taking damage? Or do you mean that the attack does no actual damage to the APC, but just to (one or more?) members of the crew?

I can see cases for both, but I wonder if that would be the same for a pressurised vehicle operating in a vacuum, ie would it be possible to injure the crew without damaging the vehicle?

Thirdly, the "Facing Armour". Great concept! Can I play devil's advocate? Imagine you're shooting at a James Bond's Aston Martin with the rear window bullet guard raised. Your "Crew" hit has different armour depending on your facing, but it is different from the "Overall" facing armour - ie a Front Crew hit would be Windshield (ie no Armour) whereas a Front Engine hit would be Hood (ie maybe light armour). I realise I might be pulling holes in this just for devilment, though - this feels in general like a really good system, and GM fiat can probably cover any anomalies.

All in all, looks very neat, BRP-elegant, and workable!

[Enpeze]

APC looks good, but the AP seem a little bit too low for such a war machine. Especially if you see that a full medieval plate armor in SB can absorb 1d10+2 HP going up to 12. So to assign an APC 14-20 seems too low. Additional an assault rifle can do up to 4d8 damage (average 18) with 1/5 impale chance. This would mean that alot of shots would penetrate an M113s armor in case of a firefight. I guess they designed the machine in a way that it pentrations by small arms fire is not that often. (but I am no military expert, of course)

I would give it more APs (average of 22-30) and to compensate this I would give special armor piercing ammo the ability to half this armor number.

Also as Shaira already mentioned the HP number of 25 seems rather low. An average crocodile of 4m has 22-23 HP.

[Atgxtg]

APC looks good, but the AP seem a little bit too low for such a war machine. Especially if you see that a full medieval plate armor in SB can absorb 1d10+2 HP going up to 12. So to assign an APC 14-20 seems too low. Additional an assault rifle can do up to 4d8 damage (average 18) with 1/5 impale chance. This would mean that a lot of shots would penetrate an M113s armor in case of a firefight. I guess they designed the machine in a way that it penetrations by small arms fire is not that often. (but I am no military expert, of course)

I would give it more APs (average of 22-30) and to compensate this I would give special armor piercing ammo the ability to half this armor number.

Also as Shaira already mentioned the HP number of 25 seems rather low. An average crocodile of 4m has 22-23 HP.

Where did you get the 4d8 for the assault rifle?

I was using the CoC damages that list the 5.56 rifles at 2d8, 7.62 rifles at 2d6+4, and .50 cal. rounds at 2d10+4 (although that might be a little higher since the damage was from a Barret instead of a M2). If I give the MM13 a higher AP rating that 20 it becomes completely resistant to .50 cal bullets, too. Realistically .50 caliber rounds will go into (if not through) a M113, partly becuase the MM13 was made with aluminum armor.

I am planning on upping the damages or reducing the armor vs. AP rounds. Probably the former, otherwise rifle and pistol AP rounds becpoome too powerful.

I do have a formula that matches the AP values given for steel plate, wood, and concrete given in the COC rulebook (and it matches the ballistic glass figures if you assume that the glass is sloped at around a 42 degree angle (a windshield).

As for the impale chance, it had been decided to drop them against vehicles. Basically with the way the weapon damages are compressed in CoC if we allow impales then there is no way to make something vulnerable to .50 cal round without making it susceptible to rifle rounds.

As for the low HP, that was because I used SIZ/2 as the base, to match up with CoC values (the only book that gives vehicle HP for BPR that I know of). The I used the HP per location mulitpliers from RQ3 when I did the hit locations.

But I'd really like to know where you got the 4d8 from.

[Enpeze]

Where did you get the 4d8 for the assault rifle?

2d8 doubled for impale.

As for the impale chance, it had been decided to drop them against vehicles.

Basically with the way the weapon damages are compressed in CoC if we allow impales then there is no way to make something vulnerable to .50 cal round without making it susceptible to rifle rounds.

aha....ok. Nonetheless I think that an 10t APC with only a few AP more than the max protection of a medieval plate armor is odd.

As for the low HP, that was because I used SIZ/2 as the base, to match up with CoC values (the only book that gives vehicle HP for BPR that I know of). The I used the HP per location mulitpliers from RQ3 when I did the hit locations.

.

Maybe for a civilian car from 1920 SIZ/2 probably would fit, (and I think that the CoC values had such cars in mind) but a modern military vehicle should have a different basic formula than SIZ/2. Eg. for modern military vehicles I would assume double SIZ as HP, for modern civilian vehicles normal SIZ and only for ancient vehicles like 1920 cars or horse coaches SIZ/2.