Ship Weapons vs. Ground Combat... Ground Combat wins?

[phavoc]

I don't see this as a rules-are-broken issue, but one more of can you integrate things into the rules without bogging them down to the point where it's not fun anymore? When we did things like this in D&D (unexpected attacks from the rear), you lost any agility bonus, and shield bonus, etc. The only defense you got was your inherent passive defense of your armor).

Not exactly... There are other defense bonus's such as deflection that still apply, and if it happens to be a touch attack no AC bonus...

Sure, the passive ones. We always allowed for passive armor (or magic) defenses with the idea that it was more of an attack of opportunity and not a sniping-style attack that was going for the joints.

Then again we had decapitating attacks too, so all was well with the world!

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

What I was trying to get at was, saying "damage losses due to partial missing are factored in" is not accounted for in the existing rules, and thus, isn't a viable defense of the existing system's damage discrepancy without a rule that accounts for that and confirms that point.

In order to compare damage between systems, we have to have an assumption of what "no miss" damage looks like; or at least assume that the "average hit" on the ground scales with an "average hit" in space. And we can only use the existing rules for that. Based on the existing rules, damage does not correctly scale between the two models. 1/60th of a ship's laser's damage should exceed any man-portable support laser system in sophont-scale damage, whether you're considering maximum damage or average damage; currently, it doesn't even exceed a laser pistol. So "Close-Air-Support" is broken until they fix it.

Now, if you're complaining that you don't want to roll a ridiculous number of dice to account for the damage difference, nor do you want to use some sort of multiplication constant, fine; scale the ship's armor too. No reason you can't do that, to soak up the proportional difference. If we do that, then the laser pistol doesn't hole the hull; but we still need the damage conversion for sophont scale.

But now I'm trying to propose fixes instead of merely identifying a problem. And I don't know ship scaling issues so thoroughly as to not introduce a problem elsewhere this way. So in this case, I'd rather ask for a fix than propose one.

 

[phavoc]

No complaints here.

I've always seen as personnel engaging starships as an exercise in self-nomination for the Darwin Awards. Hits by a starship weapon are death. Glancing hits are death. Hits 10m away are baconators. Hits 50-100m away are incentives to run.

I DO think that some infantry weapons are sufficiently powerful to damage a ship's hull. I think merchies are similar to merchant ships today. So that .50cal sniper rifle is gonna punch through hull plating (not so much with my 9mm sidearm - zing! scratched the paint). But it's also a matter of scale, too. Sure, I'm putting one round per turn with my sniper rifle into the ship. It's also a HUGE damage soak. It's probably going to be pure luck I will hit something inside that's worthwhile. Otherwise I'm pretty much just wasting my ammo because I can't do enough damage fast enough to effectively hurt it.

There's a book called Flood Tide by Clive Cussler. In it this Chinese guy is trying to disrupt the flow of the Mississippi by using an old cruise ship that is to be sunk near a blown levee. And there are some (national guard?) M1's nearby that are called in to engage the ship and stop it. Should be a slam dunk, right? Except the tanks are shooting the crap out of the ship and it's pretty much ignoring the damage because it's so damn big and holes are relatively small. That and there's no one on board to hurt. So that laser pistol is of the same vein. In WW2 planes would strafe ships and trains all the time. But you weren't always guaranteed at sinking/destroying them even with 6-8 .50cals blazing. Sometimes they would run out of ammo before the deed was done.

 

[AndrewW]

There's a book called Flood Tide by Clive Cussler. In it this Chinese guy is trying to disrupt the flow of the Mississippi by using an old cruise ship that is to be sunk near a blown levee. And there are some (national guard?) M1's nearby that are called in to engage the ship and stop it. Should be a slam dunk, right? Except the tanks are shooting the crap out of the ship and it's pretty much ignoring the damage because it's so damn big and holes are relatively small. That and there's no one on board to hurt. So that laser pistol is of the same vein. In WW2 planes would strafe ships and trains all the time. But you weren't always guaranteed at sinking/destroying them even with 6-8 .50cals blazing. Sometimes they would run out of ammo before the deed was done.

Kinda like the US submarine Darter running aground on one of the reefs in the South Pacific. Had to be abandoned and another US submarine tried to sink her. Demolition charges failed, then torpedoes failed, went to deck gun then a Japanese plane came along and missed as well...

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

I DO think that some infantry weapons are sufficiently powerful to damage a ship's hull.

Mostly Infantry Support Weapon Man-Portable type stuff, I think. Or anything that requires Battle Dress.

 

[phavoc]

I DO think that some infantry weapons are sufficiently powerful to damage a ship's hull.

Mostly Infantry Support Weapon Man-Portable type stuff, I think. Or anything that requires Battle Dress.

Right. In naval terms a 5" gun mounted on a ship is actually slightly smaller (127mm) than a standard 155mm artillery round. Though neither is an infantry weapon....

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

You should really be making a distinction between the shell (which is smaller than the barrel) and the round (which is the complete cartridge). Over-size cartridges aren't really all that surprising anymore.

 

[phavoc]

You should really be making a distinction between the shell (which is smaller than the barrel) and the round (which is the complete cartridge). Over-size cartridges aren't really all that surprising anymore.

Why? What effect does it have on the discussion? You can have a naval she'll and an artillery round that do the exact same damage. You can, in fact, have interchangeable munitions between the two. In neither case does the additional information affect the discussion in any material way.

You do realize that both the 155 and the 5 inch naval gun have both shells and rounds, right? A cartridge is merely a self contained unit of ammo designed to speed the rounds per minute fire by eliminating the need for propellant. And that the round is smaller than both the barrel and the shell so it fits inside both. Unless you are talking about shells that are loaded without a cartridge and then either powder or liquid propellant (soon to be electricity) are used to launch the shell. Oh, and hey, they are breech loaders too. Do ya wanna mention how muzzle brakes work? Or evacuators? Hey let's talk recoil while we are at it. And we can debate the relative merits of.... yeah, none of that has anything to do with or contributes to the discussion.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you are try to educate me on artillery. I WAS in artillery in the military.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

The shell is the part that is propelled through the barrel. The cartridge is the shell, the propellant, and the casing that holds the propellant capped by the shell.

The way you stated things might lead people to conclude that the shell itself was smaller than the barrel, rather than just an over-sized cartridge for the sake of packing more propellant and higher muzzle velocity.

 

[phavoc]

The shell is the part that is propelled through the barrel. The cartridge is the shell, the propellant, and the casing that holds the propellant capped by the shell.

The way you stated things might lead people to conclude that the shell itself was smaller than the barrel, rather than just an over-sized cartridge for the sake of packing more propellant and higher muzzle velocity.

No, I don't think anyone else thinks that at all. If you discuss anything that has a bullet you realize how shells are constructed. And, in fact, when a shell casing is involved 98% or more of it IS smaller than the diameter of the barrel. How else does it fit inside, eh? It's only the lip at the end that stops the shell from sliding further into the barrel that is larger in diameter than the barrel. The reason shells have remained virtually unchanged is that they are simple, maintenance free and can be stored/loaded/carried in a variety of ways.

The shell, by the way, is not meant for packing more propellant or for higher muzzle velocities. It's meant to speed the rate of fire by pre-packaging the propellant with the shell. It also makes the job of being on the gun crew easier and reduces the chances of errors when applying TOO much powder (causes guns to go "boom" and overshoot your target), or too LITTLE powder (tends to fall short, often a bad thing). It still happens today. It's not a pretty sight when your cannon explodes on the firing point due to an error in putting the wrong powder bags in. That's why gun crews train all the time - and still fail on occasion. Smaller caliber rounds are the ones that tend to have shells.

You also don't need a cartridge (i.e. shells can be fired through the use of propellant bags, liquid propellant, or now magnetically aka railguns). Or just plain ol fashioned gun powder shoved into either end (forward or rear, depending on the era). You could, if you wanted, go with cartridge-less powder (aka caseless). Though you don't see that in larger caliber weapons. 155s and above actually have FOUR parts that are required to get a shell downrange - fuze, projectile, propellant and primer. Most naval guns (with fuzes) utilize an electronic version. Ground-based artillery still uses good-ol fashioned Private power to screw a fuse into the nose of the shell.

I would be happy to trade experience stories of working with artillery weapons. I was exposed to 155, 203 and MLRS. Even dinky little (now) ceremonial 75mm howitzers (all sound, no threat). What was your training/experience?

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

The shell is the part that is propelled through the barrel. The cartridge is the shell, the propellant, and the casing that holds the propellant capped by the shell.

The way you stated things might lead people to conclude that the shell itself was smaller than the barrel, rather than just an over-sized cartridge for the sake of packing more propellant and higher muzzle velocity.

No, I don't think anyone else thinks that at all. If you discuss anything that has a bullet you realize how shells are constructed. And, in fact, when a shell casing is involved 98% or more of it IS smaller than the diameter of the barrel. How else does it fit inside, eh?

You say that, but then you say this...

The shell, by the way, is not meant for packing more propellant or for higher muzzle velocities. It's meant to speed the rate of fire by pre-packaging the propellant with the shell. It also makes the job of being on the gun crew easier and reduces the chances of errors when applying TOO much powder (causes guns to go "boom" and overshoot your target), or too LITTLE powder (tends to fall short, often a bad thing). It still happens today. It's not a pretty sight when your cannon explodes on the firing point due to an error in putting the wrong powder bags in. That's why gun crews train all the time - and still fail on occasion. Smaller caliber rounds are the ones that tend to have shells.

You likely meant to say "cartridge" here, but you didn't. You said "shell". The reason you use a larger cartridge than the bore size is for more muzzle velocity; no one was talking about a larger shell. Your consistently sloppy use of terminology will cause people to misunderstand what you mean.

 

[phavoc]

Nope. If you knew about artillery you would know that a cartridge is what you put in your gun and a shell is what you put in your cannon.

The only person who appears to be confused with terminology is yourself.

Since you had no rebuttal to my points and you have failed at distracting from the argument, I will assume you concede the validity of the points that were raised.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

How about you cite a reference, since you seem to think you would know where to find one.

 

[phavoc]

Basic and AIT training, Fort Sill, OK, 1985. Six months after that of cohort unit training. That was before Google. We used books and instructors. I was MLRS, but we all got basic knowledge in tube artillery, rockets (Lance, Pershing, MLRS) as well as FDC and FO.

Do I need to get my left-handed grid square to prove my point? You have heard of the terminology "we are being shelled", right? Ever hear or read "we are being cartridged"? No, in artillery you use shells, in rifles you use cartridges. Only small caliber artillery (or naval guns) use all in one cartridges. Everyone else around the world uses ahells, with some sort of propellant. Most use bags of propellant, though some more advanced gun systems line the South African G6 utilize liquid propellant.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

What I was trying to get at was, saying "damage losses due to partial missing are factored in" is not accounted for in the existing rules, and thus, isn't a viable defense of the existing system's damage discrepancy without a rule that accounts for that and confirms that point.

The effect of your attack adds to your damage, so if you have more bonuses to hit, you're going to do more damage. If you only 'barely hit' with an effect of 0, you do less damage. Doesn't that cover partial and total hits?

 

[allanimal]

The effect of your attack adds to your damage, so if you have more bonuses to hit, you're going to do more damage. If you only 'barely hit' with an effect of 0, you do less damage. Doesn't that cover partial and total hits?

I tried pointing this out ealier I the thread, apparently it isn't enough...

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

The effect of your attack adds to your damage, so if you have more bonuses to hit, you're going to do more damage. If you only 'barely hit' with an effect of 0, you do less damage. Doesn't that cover partial and total hits?

Not one of you ran the math on that before you suggested it. If you did, you would realize that it only makes circumstances worse for Ship Weapons, because the bonus damage has that nasty divisor applied to it, whereas the Ground Combat damage does not.

Character A and Ship B are both targeting Target C on the ground. Target C isn't moving, and is a sitting duck. Practically speaking, neither Character A nor Ship B can miss Target C. Character A applies Laser Rifle damage in 6 second increments. Ship B applies damage in 6 minute increments, and so has to divide its damage by 60. Character A rolls perfectly with maximum possible stats, and so gets an effect bonus to damage of X. Ship B's gunner does the same; after the division, his effect bonus is X/60.

Applying the effect bonus to damage neither explains nor improves this damage discrepancy; it just makes it worse.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Do I need to get my left-handed grid square to prove my point?

No, you need to provide a diagram that includes the casing.

You have heard of the terminology "we are being shelled", right? Ever hear or read "we are being cartridged"?

Of course not; because they're referring only to the part that's about to hit them, and not the part that was left in the breach; ejecting that is the enemy's problem.

 

[Nerhesi]

The effect of your attack adds to your damage, so if you have more bonuses to hit, you're going to do more damage. If you only 'barely hit' with an effect of 0, you do less damage. Doesn't that cover partial and total hits?

Not one of you ran the math on that before you suggested it. If you did, you would realize that it only makes circumstances worse for Ship Weapons, because the bonus damage has that nasty divisor applied to it, whereas the Ground Combat damage does not.

Character A and Ship B are both targeting Target C on the ground. Target C isn't moving, and is a sitting duck. Practically speaking, neither Character A nor Ship B can miss Target C. Character A applies Laser Rifle damage in 6 second increments. Ship B applies damage in 6 minute increments, and so has to divide its damage by 60. Character A rolls perfectly with maximum possible stats, and so gets an effect bonus to damage of X. Ship B's gunner does the same; after the division, his effect bonus is X/60.

Applying the effect bonus to damage neither explains nor improves this damage discrepancy; it just makes it worse.

Just a quick reminder to all (especially the new folks joining) that this just Tenacious-T's interpretation here and not the rules as written. In fact, Ship Combat rules state dog-fighting happens at close ranges, which brings space-combat to happening every 6 seconds for closer ranges.

A combat round that takes 6 minutes, does not denote that the damage is multiple hits spread over 6 minutes. It is an abstract.

I'm sure many of us remember D&D with the longer rounds ( I believe they used to be one MINUTE rounds). That didn't mean if someone stood still - it would take you 1 minute to swing your blade and hit them, or that you were swinging away for 1 minute straight until you did your "1-hit" worth of damage.

Anyways, not interested in correcting Tenacious T point of view (as many of us have tried); he is free to have his point of view. Just pointing out the logical fallacies based on personal assumptions as to what is happening in the 6 minutes, for those joining this dead-topic rather late

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

If one ship is ever incapable of missing another ship over those 6 minutes, then that abstract needs to be corrected. Damage should properly scale. Currently, it doesn't. It's not a matter of "personal assumptions"; it's the rules as written; they are broken.