supers: nine options

[whswhs]

Continuing the investigation, I've built the six characters in Absolute Power (an updated version of Silver Age Sentinels, which is a Tri-Stat game). I was able to build them with 50 character points, which the rules call Minor Power. However, the results may not be quite super enough; for example, the indestructible character isn't immune to handgun fire. I need to evaluate them all against normals with guns and normals with fists. I may need to try redoing them with 60 or 75 points (75 points is Moderate Power).

I can say that building them was quick and easy, a lot more so than in Champions or GURPS.

Absolute Power looks better after I've given it a test flight.

Addendum: I've done some probability estimates, and it looks as if none of them can stand up to either a soldier with an assault rifle or a street thug. So I'm definitely going to want to upgrade the builds and see what happens.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by whswhs

C
Addendum: I've done some probability estimates, and it looks as if none of them can stand up to either a soldier with an assault rifle or a street thug. So I'm definitely going to want to upgrade the builds and see what happens.

Just a note for systems that abstract firearms damage. What WWII soldiers would faced commonly would have been at least a little heavier than what is probably the modern concept of an "assault rifle".

It's a simple distinction in Gurps. Assault rifles are generally 5D6 P weapons in calibers like 5.56mm NATO or 7.62 Russian. They should also have at least autoloading actions with RoF 3 and some would reserve the term for full autofire (c. Rof 10).

While the Germans did develop what was probably the first "true" assault rifle late in WWII their commonly issued rifle did 7D+1 P. The US and Russian issue weapons did the same while the .303 British was slightly less powerful at a rated 6D+2 P and even the Japanese 6.5 mm Arisaka did 6D P. Only the US Garand was ROF 3. Everyone else was using bolt actions at ROF 1.

In Gurps this is a simple matter of raising DR by c. 7 pts but in abstract systems it might mean you have to go to the next higher category.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Just a note for systems that abstract firearms damage. What WWII soldiers would faced commonly would have been at least a little heavier than what is probably the modern concept of an "assault rifle".

Well... sort of. Sure, an M1 Garand is more dangerous per bullet than an M16, but the M16 puts out a lot more bullets.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Just a note for systems that abstract firearms damage. What WWII soldiers would faced commonly would have been at least a little heavier than what is probably the modern concept of an "assault rifle".

The standard table in Absolute Power has a light or medium pistol as Weapon 3, typically causing 15 points damage; a heavy pistol, assault rifle, or "high-powered" rifle as Weapon 4, typically causing 20 points damage; and a sniper rifle as Weapon 5, typically causing 25 points damage. In each case you add the Attack Combat Value to the damage.

Now I look at it that's not as bad as I thought. The indestructible man has Armour Value 20, which will give him no or minimal damage from a pistol; if Mr. T.C. Mits shoots him with a heavy pistol, its damage will be the base 20 points plus Mr. Mits's ACV of 4 for a total of 24, of which 4 points will get through. Since he has 60 hit points it will be no more than a scratch.

An average man has 40 hit points, so 24 hit points will be more than half; but under the basic rules he won't be impaired at all. I think, though, that if I used this system for a post-war campaign, I'd want to use the optional Shock rules, under which taking more than one-fifth of your hit points (more than 8 for Mr. Mits; more than 12 for the indestructible man) requires you to make a Soul stat roll (with an increased difficulty if the damage is more than twice that). Failure on this can result in unconsciousness or serious injury (including bleeding). That's more realistic AND has the right "grim and gritty" feel.

However, the other characters are still a bit weak next to a street tough or anyone with a gun. So I need to look at raising the point level in my test builds.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well... sort of. Sure, an M1 Garand is more dangerous per bullet than an M16, but the M16 puts out a lot more bullets.

But we're talking about damaging/not damaging a Super. If he can completely ignore one 5.56mm he can probably ignore the whole magazine.

This is in Gurps of course. The reason it might not be so in another system would be imprecise combining of armor penetration and tissue damage into one number. Bill seems to like precision and might care.

Of course, something I left out was the rather common .30 tripod mounted machine gun. If I were playing a WWII "Indestructible Man" I'd want to be protected from those too and if we are looking at a "combining" system I'm not quite sure how that would be represented but it ought to rate higher than any asssault rifle.

The there are calibers larger than .30 rifles but the msot common of thpose in WWII is the .50 Browning Machine Gun. Equivalent weapons in other forces were much rarer in infantry service. A US Indestructible Man might ntohave worried too much about them.

Shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets are seen only late in the war. and in Gurps at least they're a huge jump in both tissue damage and armor penetration.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets are seen only late in the war. and in Gurps at least they're a huge jump in both tissue damage and armor penetration.

Anything that qualifies as an 'anti-tank weapon' can presumably damage tanks; what this means varies with game system but there aren't a lot of game systems that let you damage a tank with a rifle so it's going to be a significant upgrade for any remotely simulationist game system.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Anything that qualifies as an 'anti-tank weapon' can presumably damage tanks; what this means varies with game system but there aren't a lot of game systems that let you damage a tank with a rifle so it's going to be a significant upgrade for any remotely simulationist game system.

Well, they have what they call a "tank gun," which sounds as if it meant a gun mounted on a tank, but is qualified as "120mm HEAT," so I think it's actually a weapon to be used against tanks. It does level 12 damage, which is going to be 60 points. That will handily mess up the "indestructible man." And further down a heavy tank has Armour Rating 60, so when shot with HEAT it will take damage equal to the gunner's Attack Combat Value after the Armour Rating is subtracted.

Perhaps the "high-powered rifle" ought to have Weapon Level 5, like the sniper rifle, instead of 4, like the assault rifle.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Perhaps the "high-powered rifle" ought to have Weapon Level 5, like the sniper rifle, instead of 4, like the assault rifle.

Yes, "average" sniper rifles use the same calibers as WWII general issue rifles and 1 notch above assault rifle would be about right.

On the other hand, tank guns and armor would be significantly lower in power during WWII. The biggest guns would be c. 90mm and not have HEAT until after the war. That would have been an increase from the more common 75mm. That level 60 armor might be something like DR1500 in Gurps and WWII tanks were more like DR 200 to not quite 300.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Yes, "average" sniper rifles use the same calibers as WWII general issue rifles and 1 notch above assault rifle would be about right.

On the other hand, tank guns and armor would be significantly lower in power during WWII. The biggest guns would be c. 90mm and not have HEAT until after the war. That would have been an increase from the more common 75mm. That level 60 armor might be something like DR1500 in Gurps and WWII tanks were more like DR 200 to not quite 300.

Thanks!

I assume that tank armor would stop rifle fire flat. Steps above that include heavy machine gun, and then something called a rotary cannon, before you get to rocket launcher, which is equated to HEAT. Would you figure that tanks would be armored against the machine gun but not fully against the harder stuff?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I assume that tank armor would stop rifle fire flat. Steps above that include heavy machine gun, and then something called a rotary cannon, before you get to rocket launcher, which is equated to HEAT. Would you figure that tanks would be armored against the machine gun but not fully against the harder stuff?

Assuming 'rotary cannon' is referring to the GAU-8 Avenger, that's reasonable, at least when talking about non-frontal armor.