Blowing Up Vehicles

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

...  Probably a bad example. WWII really showed that manufacturing and logistics are key. It doesn't really matter if the enemy has a bigger badder gun and twice the armor if you can out produce him ten to one, plus supply all your allies. 

Not at all a bad example, just based upon "dueling armor" (tank v tank battles) -- the conventional wisdom (IIRC) was that the Shermans needed a 3:1 advantage vs. Panthers, just to have a "decent chance," and 4:1 to be the likely "victors" (by which is meant at least 1 combat-capable Sherman advances, leaving a dead Panther behind.

[Atgxtg]

6 minutes ago, g33k said:

Not at all a bad example, just based upon "dueling armor" (tank v tank battles) -- the conventional wisdom (IIRC) was that the Shermans needed a 3:1 advantage vs. Panthers, just to have a "decent chance," and 4:1 to be the likely "victors" (by which is meant at least 1 combat-capable Sherman advances, leaving a dead Panther behind.

Yes, but the Panther cost more than ten times that of the Sherman. Even the PZ IIs and IVs cost ten times that of the Sherman. So from a big picture perspective, it doesn't matter if the Pather takes out 3 Shermans before it gets destroyed. The US can easily replace those three Shermans (plus a lot more) while Germany can't easily replace that Panther.

It's hand craftsmanship versus the assembly line. Mass production wins. And it's mechanized lines of support full of supplies vs. haphazard  supplies for an army that can get enough fuel for their tanks. THe Shermans might as well been infantry with M20 Super Bazookas riding in four Jeeps. THe results would have been the same.  

 

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but the Panther cost more than ten times that of the Sherman. Even the PZ IIs and IVs cost ten times that of the Sherman. So from a big picture perspective, it doesn't matter if the Pather takes out 3 Shermans before it gets destroyed. The US can easily replace those three Shermans (plus a lot more) while Germany can't easily replace that Panther.

It's hand craftsmanship versus the assembly line. Mass production wins. And it's mechanized lines of support full of supplies vs. haphazard  supplies for an army that can get enough fuel for their tanks. THe Shermans might as well been infantry with M20 Super Bazookas riding in four Jeeps. THe results would have been the same. 

 

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?

[Atgxtg]

7 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's as germane as the tangent about modern tank warfare being more about tech than skill. Honestly, that claim could be made for almost any field these days. I mean I wouldn't want to bet on a century of Roman Legionaries against a platoon of modern troops with modern weapons. 

It's also could be germane in terms of what each side will have available to them in the game, and how the players will have to go about things. If the PCs are down a tank it might be awhile before the replacement shows up. 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It's as germane as the tangent about modern tank warfare being more about tech than skill ...

The issue there is a question of how you want your game to model the setting, the real-world, etc.

If "gear" is dominant, how do you model that in skill-centric BRP?  Would a Panther tank be a +40% vehicle?  But that's vs. a Sherman... what if it was going against an Abrams, a Leopard-2, etc?  Do the Abrams &c become +80% vehicles??!?  And what then with a Bolo/Ogre style tank, or a battlemech??!?  Particularly with regards to our d100 rolls, a massive "bonus" for better weapon/system/platform begins to look like a bad design-strategy; or that you need to "zero"  your setting to a given standard and declare better/worse than average gear gets bonus/penalty as per how good it is, in-setting, rather than try to cross-compare all gear from all settings.

This, I think, is the crux of the problem in trying to scale up BRP's model of 1:1 personal combat, to the level of the 120mm canon of a MBT and its relevance to personal combat, vehicle armor, &c.

Note FWIW that the biggest artillery guns in service have been scaling downward since about just after WWI !  The "Heavy Gustav" (1930's, 31.5") was the biggest gun ever fired in battle.  18" guns on WWII battleships were supplanted by 16" guns, 12" guns, etc... the "big guns" on most US Navy ships today are mostly 5" (the 155mm / 6.1" AGS on the Zumwalt is being decommissioned because the ammo cost up to $1M per round)... but  none of these, really, are relevant to swordsmen, riflemen, etc.  Even a guy with a Javelin or other MANPAT is still just a threat to a tank, whereas he's a casualty if hit with the main gun!

I'm not criticizing your project or goals, just looking at some of the issues involved.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

... I mean I wouldn't want to bet on a century of Roman Legionaries against a platoon of modern troops with modern weapons ... 

Roman Legions vs. modern infantry is a perennial favorite -- I've used it myself -- but a bit of a strawman, really.  Multiple major technological innovations (and 2000 years of overall progress) mean we're very apple-and-orange with this example (vs the comparison of Panthers & Tigers facing Shermans, which actually happened).

Unless -- going back to your OP & the media inspiring you -- this discrepant tech is a feature you intend to explore.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

... It's also could be germane in terms of what each side will have available to them in the game, and how the players will have to go about things. If the PCs are down a tank it might be awhile before the replacement shows up. 

But is 1940's USA productivity (vs. the Axis powers) a lesson of relevance to your setting?
Is one side vs. another side going to be a Shermans vs. Panthers situation?  Maybe so!  But if not... is this an issue you even need to address?

I can see how you might need to address a tank-squadron being down a unit (or more).
I don't think you want to model infrastructure and logistics & the national industrial base...?

Edited January 2 by g33k

[sladethesniper]

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

Edited January 2 by sladethesniper

[g33k]

4 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

... PC's running logistics is any part of gameplay.

A critical question for the designer!

[sladethesniper]

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

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, g33k said:

The issue there is a question of how you want your game to model the setting, the real-world, etc.

For this mostly the setting, but since the setting is mostly the real world (modern day/near future Earth with a twist), there is a bit of overlap. Besides if I can come up with mechaics that can work for both, I will have something that can be used for other tings later on. 

1 minute ago, g33k said:

If "gear" is dominant, how do you model that in skill-centric BRP? 

With the game stats. 

1 minute ago, g33k said:

Would a Panther tank be a +40% vehicle?  But that's vs. a Sherman... what if it was going against an Abrams, a Leopard-2, etc?  Do the Abrams &c become +80% vehicles??!?  And what then with a Bolo/Ogre style tank, or a battlemech??!?

I was planning on addressing that with the armor rating, weapon damages, weapon effective range, and so on. I've got a formula for armor that mostly hold up.

For instance a Panther Tank might have Armor: 31 and be Size: 86 and say Hit Points: 130 and armed with a 7.5cm/L70 cannon that does 10D6 damage.

A Sherman, in comparison could have Armor: 27, be Size: 83, with Hit Point: 125 with a 75mm gun that does 9D6 damage. 

An Abrams might have Armor 38/42 (vs.HEAT) or more depending on variant, Leopard is similar, although just which one is better is debatable, and mostly comes down to   which one is newer.

Things like facing could affect armor rating (shoot the Panzer from behind where it's armor is only around 23 points), and range could affect the damage of kinetic rounds (so the Sherman's gun drops down to 8D6 at long range or some such).

1 minute ago, g33k said:

  Particularly with regards to our d100 rolls, a massive "bonus" for better weapon/system/platform begins to look like a bad design-strategy; or that you need to "zero"  your setting to a given standard and declare better/worse than average gear gets bonus/penalty as per how good it is, in-setting, rather than try to cross-compare all gear from all settings.

I agree big skill mods can be a problem. But I don't think anything more than, say  a 20% bonus makes much sense here, at that's more a theroetical max, real modfierrs should be in the 5-10% range.

THere might be some modifiers that cancel out penalties though. Like gyrostabilized weapons that don't get a penalty for shotting while moving.

1 minute ago, g33k said:

This, I think, is the crux of the problem in trying to scale up BRP's model of 1:1 personal combat, to the level of the 120mm canon of a MBT 

I think the big problem is that the randomess of damage does scale up due to bell curves. 1D6x10 gives very different results from 10D6. And that matters when you got to beat 40 point armor.

 

1 minute ago, g33k said:

I'm not criticizing your project or goals, just looking at some of the issues involved.

Thanks. I'd much rather have these things pop up now in the design phase than have them show up two hours into the first game session. 

1 minute ago, g33k said:

Roman Legions vs. modern infantry is a perennial favorite -- I've used it myself -- but a bit of a strawman, really.  Multiple major technological innovations (and 2000 years of overall progress) mean we're very apple-and-orange with this example

Yup. Plus there are a lot of factors that haven't been addressed. How seasoned are the troops for each side, distance for the encounter, terrain, etc. etc. 

1 minute ago, g33k said:

(vs the comparison of Panthers & Tigers facing Shermans, which actually happened).

Yes, but which wasn't as big of  a of difference technologically, and the infantry example. Leopard 2's vs. Shermans would be more of a problem, at least for the Shermans. 

1 minute ago, g33k said:

Unless -- going back to your OP & the media inspiring you -- this discrepant tech is a feature you intend to explore.

I will have to for one side as it does have a significant technological edge of the other in the source material, but the source material does address this sort of thing too. It makes things a bit more challenging for one side, but not hopeless.  Both sides have tech that can take out each other vehicles, it's just that one side has a clear advatage in tech, but the other has a numerical advatage (more like the Shermans after all).

1 minute ago, g33k said:

But is 1940's USA productivity (vs. the Axis powers) a lesson of relevance to your setting?

Somewhat. One side does have massive resoruces aviable to them, and could get a lot more if the higher ups choose to commit more. It's kinda like with Ukrain. THe West could send a lot more equipment there is it really had to. It could ramp up production too. 

1 minute ago, g33k said:

Is one side vs. another side going to be a Shermans vs. Panthers situation?  Maybe so!  But if not... is this an issue you even need to address?

Actually yes, come to think of it. The typical encounter is often three vehicles from the lower tech side facing off against a single vehicle of the higher tech side. 

1 minute ago, g33k said:

I can see how you might need to address a tank-squadron being down a unit (or more).
I don't think you want to model infrastructure and logistics & the national industrial base...?

I will mostly for role playing and resupply purposes. For instance the PCs might be under supplied and have to try and convince the higher ups to commit more resources. Like asking Congress for another $10 million to buy a replacement tank. Especially since that side isn't fully committed or mobilized.

[Atgxtg]

40 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

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

35 minutes ago, g33k said:

A critical question for the designer!

It is. At least to some extent. Basically, as with all combat forces, there is a gap between what they want and what they got. 

In the source, there is often consider friction between the CO, and those who set the budget. There are even some stories the revolve around the CO convincing his superiors that some project is vital, and they need to spend a a few billion on it. 

Also there is a play issue. If the players think they have infinite resources they'll want to use infinite resources. To put things in terms of Pathers and Shermans, if a Panther is worth 3 Shermans, then why not throw a hundred Sherman's at the Panther and take bets to see if the crew surrender without firing a shot? I don't want the players to get complacent about looses.

 

40 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

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.

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. 

 

Edited January 2 by Atgxtg

[sladethesniper]

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

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, sladethesniper said:

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

-STS

Do you think the top of the line fire control stuff out today is worth +10%? More?

I was thinking of _10% plus the ability to reduce/cancel out the penalties for darkness,  and movement.

[sladethesniper]

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

 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

Just an update on this:

1.  I've been leaning towards using Mecha scale (from BRP Mecha) where 1 point of armor, damage or hit points is equal to 10 points of character scale. IMO this will make it easier for weapons to get through armor and do enough damage to take out a vehicle. It should also make the combat and math a little easier since it takes less time to total up the damage from 1D6 than for 10D6.
2. I'm thinking of using a hit location table where every point that gets through the armor (mecha scale) will damage the vehicle some way. The table is still a work in progress, but it currently looks something like this:

In play I'm thinking it should work out something like this:

Let's say we have an ACP with Armor: 2 , Hit Points: 8 (Mecha Scale) and it get hit by a autocannon that does 1D3 damage (impaling due to AP rounds), and gets 3 hits (rolled good on the burst), doing 2, 3, and 3 points of damage, respectively. The 2 point hit bounces off the armor, but the two three point hits would both damage something, and rolling on the hit location table (assuming D20 numbers that aren't there yet) we get Driver compartment and Cargo, forcing both to make an Easy Ce Luck Roll, per the.tables below:

The driver has a Luck of 14, for a 70% success chance, rolla an 18 for a success and takes 2D6 damage from shrapnel , and has 6 points get soaked by his armored vest. Close call. 

The "cargo" consists of 100 kg (SIZ 16) of spare parts. THe GM decides that spare parts are fairly rugged and uses their SIZ  in lieu of Luck for the roll. 16x8 is an 80% chance, and with a 55 the parts also take 2D6 damage and get 8 points of damage. The GM decides that since 8 is half of 16 about half of the spare parts are useless. 

 

It seems okay, except where the GM cheated on the hit location table. How does it look? What did I miss? Does it seem playable?

 

 

 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

6 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

I would say that none of those make you a better shot...

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

6 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

 

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

 

Cut & Pasted. Thanks.

 

I'm going to look at the table of modifiers for attacks (night, smoke, movement, etc.).  

For countermeasures (chaff, flares) do you think the resistance table might be the best approach?

THat is the weapon could have a rating for it's guidance system and the countermeasures get a rating  and rolling on the resistance table to see what happens. Using lots of countermeasures would increase their value (say +1 per doubling).

 

[sladethesniper]

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

 

[Atgxtg]

7 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

You have to know to use them first. 

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. 

7 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

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

 

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. 

[sladethesniper]

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

[sladethesniper]

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

Edited January 3 by sladethesniper

[Atgxtg]

9 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

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

Yup, it's like in all the SciFi shows where the visible energy beam can tell people exactly where the shot came from. If someone has the right imaging epuiptment they can see that they are being painted by a beam and trace it back to the source.

 

As for the weapon mods, well I mostly worrying about the bigger weapons right now, not the personal ones. 

For the heavy weapons I've been relying on my armor formula to reverse engineer damage ratings, that way the weapons will be able to damage the things they should.

My current best formula is a logamthic doubling one, where every doubling of thickness is worth +4 armor, specfically:

Armour=  (LOG(mm)/LOG(2)*4+4)

It's not a perfect match, but it's hard to reconcile the tank and battleship armor rating with the 3 cm steel plate being Armour 30.  It's supposed to be RHAe, but currently is probably a bit closer to Class B armor, since it works for the battleship (assuming about a 305mm/12" belt). I'm still trying to curvefit something that works better while still making sense for the vehicles presented in the BGB . As it is, the Vintage tank (Armour 18) is fine, but the "modern" tank  (Armour: 24) would have to be a WW II era design. That makes some sense to me as the "modern" battleship has to be a WW II era design, since they don't make them anymore. 

But the formula does allow me to plug in real world data and get fairly decent game stats. A T-90 gets something like Armor: 42 (44 vs. HEAT) and it takes around a 12D6 (13D6 vs. HEAT) gun to reliably  (that is more often than not), defeat it. That's without factoring in for facing, range, etc.

Edited January 3 by Atgxtg

[sladethesniper]

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.

Spoiler

To use real world equivalents 1 point of “damage capacity” is approximately 1 inch of penetration in organic material (flesh), 1 millimeter of penetration in iron or .5mm penetration in rolled homogenous armor plate. This roughly models on previous RPGs and the extensive library of real-world ballistics and injury literature.
This allows a 6” very large knife blade to do 6 damage (6” penetration = 6 damage) and a 120mm Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium to penetrate 1200mm of rolled homogenous armor equivalent to do 2400 damage (RHA penetration x .5mm = damage).

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

-STS

 

Edited January 3 by sladethesniper

[sladethesniper]

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.

[Atgxtg]

7 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

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.

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.

7 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

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.

Let's see at 2 armor per mm (RHAe) that would put a T-72 at something like 560 points. Hard to get through that in BRP. We'd need a gun that did 120D6!

Plus penetration doesn't exactly equal damage. But, unless I dice to reinevent the wheel

7 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

  Reveal hidden contents

To use real world equivalents 1 point of “damage capacity” is approximately 1 inch of penetration in organic material (flesh), 1 millimeter of penetration in iron or .5mm penetration in rolled homogenous armor plate. This roughly models on previous RPGs and the extensive library of real-world ballistics and injury literature.
This allows a 6” very large knife blade to do 6 damage (6” penetration = 6 damage) and a 120mm Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium to penetrate 1200mm of rolled homogenous armor equivalent to do 2400 damage (RHA penetration x .5mm = damage).

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

Glad you didn't think I was full of Krupp. 😃

 

[sladethesniper]

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

[Atgxtg]

6 minutes ago, sladethesniper said:

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.

Let me see if I got this correctly.

A 1200mm APFSDS round would do 30d10x2 and reduce any armor by half. So average damage would be 330 points, with a penetration of 1320mm (330x2x2)?

That's a bit generous. Actually it's probably impossible for any real 120mm round.