supers: nine options

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by whswhs

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?

The specific weapon Anthony mentions would be another anachronism (1970s) though "rotary cannon" generally could be other weapons but even those don't come around til the 50s.

The hierarchy can be expressed simply in metric starting with 7-8mm rifles and machineguns. Then going up to 12.7 to 14.5 mm heavy machineguns. Above that are 20 to 40mm autocannons (still autofiring like machineguns). The very earliest WWII start out with 37 to 40mm non-automatic cannons though these are quickly replaced by c. 75mm guns (and not al tank guns of those approximate calibers are created equal).

Setting aside the way tank armor varies by aspect (front, rear, etc) because some systems won't handle that Tanks start out being protected from heavy machineguns and then 37-40mm autocannons. Even later tanks are somewhat vulnerable to 75mm guns and no normal WWII tank can really resist a c. 90mm gun. .

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The biggest guns would be c. 90mm and not have HEAT until after the war.

All the major combatants in WW II did have HEAT warheads, whether for tank guns, anti-tank guns, artillery, or infantry weapons. They weren't particularly popular for firing from tanks, as the performance wasn't great compared with regular AP ammo, especially as the caliber got smaller. They did have advantages at longer ranges, but of course that's situational, and any given tank might not even happen to have any on-board, displacing the regular AP. But HEAT likes large bore guns to do its thing. The Germans did use it with the 75mm /24 gun on the Pz IV. There was a HEAT round as well as various flavors of AP for the M3 75mm on the Sherman.

And then there's weirder cases; the German 37mm anti-tank gun had a HEAT warhead that was really a giant rifle grenade, as it was larger in diameter than 37mm. Kept the old inventory relevant for a bit longer, I guess.

There were lots of vehicle-mounted guns larger than 90mm. There was a 105mm Sherman, for instance, or all those Soviet assault guns with bore size in their name -- SU-100, SU-122, SU-152 - built on the T-34 or KV-1 chassis. A lot of these guns were relatively low-velocity howitzers, though, rather than high-velocity guns designed for use with AP ammunition on MBTs, so they tended to use HEAT as better for those guns when used in the anti-armor role. So, feel free to discount them as "assault guns" rather than "tanks", especially since most of these were jamming the biggest gun they could onto an old chassis, so wound up using casemate mounts instead of turrets.

But while valid, that might be a bit of a technical fine point to the player of the low-level super that just got hit with the big HEAT round. If the goal is to be invulnerable to heavy armored vehicles encountered on the WW II battlefield in the game (or game's backstory), as opposed to just "tanks", then those HEAT rounds might need to be considered when choosing the toughness for Mr. Invulnerable.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

But while valid, that might be a bit of a technical fine point to the player of the low-level super that just got hit with the big HEAT round. If the goal is to be invulnerable to heavy armored vehicles encountered on the WW II battlefield in the game (or game's backstory), as opposed to just "tanks", then those HEAT rounds might need to be considered when choosing the toughness for Mr. Invulnerable.

A very high-end invulnerable classic character was Superman, with "nothing less than a bursting shell could penetrate his skin." And I think a character who can't be significantly hurt by rifle or light machine gun fire or stray fragments would be quite an asset in an infantry unit. I'm not thinking of having PCs who are the equivalent of Über's "tanks."

[Irish Wolf]

Originally Posted by whswhs

A very high-end invulnerable classic character was Superman, with "nothing less than a bursting shell could penetrate his skin." And I think a character who can't be significantly hurt by rifle or light machine gun fire or stray fragments would be quite an asset in an infantry unit. I'm not thinking of having PCs who are the equivalent of Über's "tanks."

Yeah, my understanding is that your game is set post-war, and they're not going to be running into a lot of HEAT rounds in the civilian world, especially in the US. Might get a grenade on occasion, but it'll be a lot more Illinois lightning (tommy guns and the like) than Cicero thunder, ya know? Bulletproof should be tanky enough for the circumstances.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by whswhs

A very high-end invulnerable classic character was Superman, with "nothing less than a bursting shell could penetrate his skin." "

Okay, "bursting shell" as understood by two young men from Cleveland in 1938 would be a category that would probably start with the very common Schneider model 1897 in 75mm (HT p. 139-140). It did 6Dx9 P++(0.5) followed by an explosion for 5Dx3 Cr and 4D-1 fragmentation.

Because of the armor divisor of 0.5 you'd actually get better penetration with simple solid shot but even the simple HE round does 94 pts of penetration with 4x that much tissue damage plus the 52 pt explosion and the 13 pt fragments.

It was probably a close hit for the Concussive explosion and the fragmentation damage that they were probably thinking of there is no doubt you could find even Golden age art of Superman taking one right on the chest.

The rifle/machinegun damage would be 26.5 in Gurps with the 75mm explosion being 52.5 Cr ex with your DR target probably being somewhere between the two.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The rifle/machinegun damage would be 26.5 in Gurps with the 75mm explosion being 52.5 Cr ex with your DR target probably being somewhere between the two.

That's a useful estimate. Thanks! When I look at GURPS version I'll certainly think about the numerical part. In the meantime I can look for comparable capabilities in other systems.

I'm not looking for characters at the level of even the 1938 Superman. My take would be that if someone like that was around, they would be at the top end of the superpowers distribution. Player characters would have just one ability at their level, or a few lesser abilities. Even in 1938 you couldn't call Supes "streetlevel."

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

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

I wonder how much of that is just a case of "the option doesn't even exist and therefore I don't have to think about it". A lot of the complexity of both Champions and GURPS comes from making the system able to handle unusual options without just handwaving.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I wonder how much of that is just a case of "the option doesn't even exist and therefore I don't have to think about it". A lot of the complexity of both Champions and GURPS comes from making the system able to handle unusual options without just handwaving.

I haven't tried AP before. But I've run three campaigns in Big Eyes Small Mouth: one classic Western fantasy (set in Middle-Earth, in fact), one fantasy with a lot of anime flavor, and one science fiction (set on Barrayar). In all three cases, I could get through character design a lot faster than in GURPS; where in GURPS I might design one or two characters for a scenario, in BESM I had a big stack of characters waiting to be used. And yet I never felt that I was being deprived of options.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And yet I never felt that I was being deprived of options.

Honestly, I do consider the level of detail of both GURPS and Champions to be unnecessarily high, but it's also possible to play them at a much lower detail level by just choosing to ignore a lot of stuff. For example, I'd probably do all your sample characters using GURPS Lite plus one power, as they're all quite straightforward.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I hadn't spotted that power. It seems, though, as if it's inherently designed to be usable on others. Is there a form of it that you can use only on yourself?

Given that there's no power modifiers in core, and I don't have the supers book, I can't say with confidence. Self only with extended duration as a flavor variant might or might not work for you.

I'll have to take a look at my copy of EABA. I hadn't remembered that it had a discussion of supers.

Discussion, no; mention, really. But the paranormal powers mechanic in 1e (which I playtested) did. And CORPS mentions supers in an offhand manner.

Are you sure? I've been going through the rules, and what I'm seeing is that Distinction can be anywhere from d4 to d12. I'm also seeing that the standard roll is drive plus relationship, often plus another die like Distinction or Ability.

if smallville has distinctions from d4 to d12, it's the only one. I am absolutely positive that Firefly, Marvel, Leverage, Cortex Hacker's Guide and Prime all use only d4 or d8 for distinctions; d4 when it hinders, d8 when it helps.

In fact, where I'm currently hung up is on the issue of how to adapt the rules to a group of characters who don't necessarily know each other. In effect, each of them would be the equivalent of a Feature brought in by the GM. I'm not sure what a player is supposed to roll for the Relationship die in that case. And it seems the character creation process would need to be modified.

hence mentioning it as a warning...

I don't recognize "4C." What is it when you spell it out?

The cover title is 4C System. The DTRPG page is "Four Color System"
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...tem-Core-Rules