Vehicle Hull Points Questions

[Solomani666]

Does a well equipped player character really have more armor and hit points than a Gecko Assault Vehicle?

Will 2 or 3 shots with a revolver really destroy an air raft?

Am I missing something?

 

[Condottiere]

If you are missing something, then there's no damage inflicted.

But you've got to ask yourself one question: are you feeling lucky?

 

[Infojunky]

Does a well equipped player character really have more armor and hit points than a Gecko Assault Vehicle?

Will 2 or 3 shots with a revolver really destroy an air raft?

Yes, yes it will...

Am I missing something?

Nope.

 

[Solomani666]

I think I am going to introduce a new rule:


Slug throwers do 1/2 damage against vehicles
AP, HEAP and Energy weapons do full damage

Melee weapons do 1/2 damage
Energy melee weapons do full damage


Chime in and let me know your thoughts...

 

[Liodre]

It won't, necessarily, destroy it, just render it inoperable. Damage the grav system so it can't fly, damage the gyros so it can't correct rotations, etc. Like with a ground car: damage any of the various fluid systems, shoot out the tires, jam the steering.

That's how I see it, at least.

Your rule can still apply, but I don't it see as 'destroyed'.

 

[arcador]

I also assume what @Liodre says.

When it is reduced to 0 or bellow hull points, it becomes inoperable and is beyond repair. I would add a sub-rule here - by beyond repair players won't be able to simply repair it with the regular mechanic stuff. It will require a complete replacement of parts. This action will require finding the parts, purchasing the parts, and if then the player wants to perform the repairs himself, the appropriate check. But it depends on the referee. Obviously, this won't work if the vehicle is blown up.

Also, another sub-rule: if someone is attacking the vehicle itself - then the rules apply as usual. If, however, he aims at someone in the vehicle, I would be careful to put damage to the vehicle if he misses his target. He might hit the vehicle, but the damage will most likely be cosmetic.

Example: trying to shoot at the driver, but missing and just breaking windshields and putting holes on the door VS aiming at vulnerable points - engine, wheels, fuel tanks.

 

[Infojunky]

I think I am going to introduce a new rule:


Slug throwers do 1/2 damage against vehicles
AP, HEAP and Energy weapons do full damage

Melee weapons do 1/2 damage
Energy melee weapons do full damage


Chime in and let me know your thoughts...

It's a fix.... I will have to play with it...

 

[Condottiere]

Putting a bullet hole through a car chassis is unlikely to compromise it's structural integrity.

It might provide an additional ventilation duct.

 

[Infojunky]

Putting a bullet hole through a car chassis is unlikely to compromise it's structural integrity.

One of the losing arguments during the Playtest...

 

[rust2]

Will 2 or 3 shots with a revolver really destroy an air raft?

I very much doubt that they could destroy the air raft, but they might well disable it, depending on which parts of the air raft are hit. In the worst case they might even cause the air raft to crash from enough height to destroy it and kill the driver and any passengers, but the probability for this seems extremely low. In the end the answer to your question depends very much on one's preferred style of gaming, in a rather cinematic game (think Hollywood, exploding cars, etc.) I might allow the destruction of an air raft by a gunbunny with a revolver, in a "realistic" hard scifi campaign I would be more likely to laugh the idea off.

 

[phavoc]

Does a well equipped player character really have more armor and hit points than a Gecko Assault Vehicle?

Don't have stats on the vehicle in question, but in generally speaking the answer should be no. And it should be a hell no if the vehicle and character are using armor of the same tech level.

This is where some common sense should come in, matching weapons to armor. A TL 7 .44cal handgun should not affect a TL5 WW1 era tank's armor. It would just bounce off. At TL5 the first bullet proof vests probably won't stop a .44cal slug, especially at close range. An ACR firing an AP shell should probably penetrate both. Gauss rounds would certainly do so.

A armored vehicle (i.e. really built for military action) should nearly always carry more armor points than a man - even a battledress equipped man. Though that assumes you basically use the same type of armor for both. Vehicles inherently can carry more armor, period.

Will 2 or 3 shots with a revolver really destroy an air raft?

No, but you might get lucky and damage a key system and cause it to be eventually fail, like hitting the main power coupling on the left side that causes the lift mechanisms to fail. But definitely NOT destroy it. Civilian vehicles aren't built with armor factor in mind, so it's akin to 'destroying' a Mercedes with a .357. You might put every round into the car, but if you don't hit the right place it might be miles away before the coolant/fuel/oil drain out enough to cause the engine to seize up.

 

[MongooseMatt]

It won't, necessarily, destroy it, just render it inoperable. Damage the grav system so it can't fly, damage the gyros so it can't correct rotations, etc. Like with a ground car: damage any of the various fluid systems, shoot out the tires, jam the steering.

Yes, this. We debated this a great deal during vehicle design and came to the general conclusion that shooting at civilian vehicles (especially something like an Air/Raft, which I am not sure is as substantial as a saloon today) is generally a Bad Thing.

YMMV, of course, and we embrace house rules - this might even be something for the Companion, for 'cinematic car chases'. I'll mention it to Martin...

 

[Condottiere]

Set up a probability table of hitting and damaging different components in the air/raft.

I don't think anyone would be too concerned if a bullet took out the eight track player.

 

[Solomani666]

Adding an additional 1 to 10 personal to vehicle combat scale is beginning to look like a good idea

 

[collins355]

It won't, necessarily, destroy it, just render it inoperable. Damage the grav system so it can't fly, damage the gyros so it can't correct rotations, etc. Like with a ground car: damage any of the various fluid systems, shoot out the tires, jam the steering.

Yes, this. We debated this a great deal during vehicle design and came to the general conclusion that shooting at civilian vehicles (especially something like an Air/Raft, which I am not sure is as substantial as a saloon today) is generally a Bad Thing.

YMMV, of course, and we embrace house rules - this might even be something for the Companion, for 'cinematic car chases'. I'll mention it to Martin...

But it isn't just civilian vehicles, the problem arises with most vehicles except those specifically designed as AFVs. As the original post mentioned the Gecko Assault Vehicle which the text in VHB says is "designed to transport a fire team or VIP through a war zone" is fairly easily disposed of, especially when compared with the average player character.

This is where the price is paid for going with a very simplified damage system that strips out any difference between personal and vehicle combat.

 

[arcador]

Regarding the Gecko, it's not that vulnerable. Not invincible, but considering the purpose, it will get the job done.

It has 12 Armor.

Assume someone with skill +2 and +1 stats is attacking it from optimal range (+1); for a total of +4 DM.
Assume the Gecko is stationary (no speed -DM)
Assume the attacker uses an automatic weapon with 3D damage and Auto 3 (ACR).

The average attack will be 7+4 = 11, vs target 8. Effect +3.
Now, he attacks using auto, making 3 attacks, each hitting with effect +3.

The average damage is 10.5+3 = 13.5

Taking in consideration the Gecko's armor, it's 1.5 damage per attack. A total of 4.5 damage. A bit lower and it would not be damaged. Significantly higher and it might be disabled.

Of course, those are relatively low attack values and average weapons. But also, the Gecko is TL 7, and not moving.

 

[ZeroCochrane2099]

I just posted this to another thread, but I think it's important to also put it here. If there is a way to just point to it, I haven't figured that out yet. Anyways:

Re: Vehicle damage clarification
Postby ZeroCochrane2099 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:29 pm

I noticed the same problem with 2nd edition vehicles: They are far too squishy. An unarmed Traveller can use his fist to destroy a grav cycle or ground car or air raft more easily than he can beat up another Traveller. Similarly, some of the spacecraft are a bit squishy, what with having Armour 0, they can be easily damaged by character-scale weapons, though it takes longer to destroy them because of the x10 damage scale factor.

This is the simplest best solution that I could come up with:

Add +6 Armour and +6 Hull to all vehicles, and +1 Armour and +1 Hull to all spacecraft (that's +10 each on the character scale).

It's easy to remember, and if you do this for every vehicle and ship stat block, it keeps their comparative defenses relatively balanced.

 

[baithammer]

Honestly should just collapse vehicle and small craft scales as its a weird distinction and move larger vehicles to ship and capital classes based on their displacement.