12-07-2022, 05:09 AM | #31 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
Actually, I'm assuming dice of blast damage get converted directly into fragmentation damage on a one-to-two basis - that is, you lose 1d cr ex to gain [2d]. This is primarily based off a grenade from HT that has a removable fragmentation jacket, but IIRC from back when I came up with the equivalence, it seems to work for other explosives as well. It's at least a more usable rule than what we have now (which is a big fat Nothing Sandwich).
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
12-07-2022, 06:11 AM | #32 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
|
12-07-2022, 06:28 AM | #33 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
If you're working with existing munitions, perhaps. When you're modifying things that historically only used something like TL3 serpentine to instead use TL5 improved black powder (or TL6+ high explosives), creating stats for munitions that never existed (because your campaign takes place in an alternate/secret history or doesn't even take place on Earth at all), and so forth, it's better to have something than nothing. If you have a better rule to work out how much explosive damage is used up to produce a certain amount of fragmentation, I'm all ears (or eyes, I suppose, this being a text-based forum). Until then, I'll stick with "1 point of explosive damage sacrificed for every 2 points of fragmentation damage, fragmentation damage dice cannot exceed remaining explosive damage dice."
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
12-07-2022, 09:04 AM | #34 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
Quote:
For starters, in GURPS the odds of getting hit do not change with warhead size or warhead design (so a crappy cast-steel WWI hand grenade has the same number of fragments as a modern one with a pre-scored wire fragmentation jacket). Aside from any issue with reality this means that the effective casualty zone is the same for almost all warheads because it's the area in which 50% of the occupants are expected to be casualties (assuming even distribution, etc.) or the range at which there's a 50% chance of getting hit, depending on who's definition you use (again with a bunch of assumptions, like the targets being standing in the open, etc.), because warhead size and design does not affect hit chance.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
12-07-2022, 10:00 AM | #35 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
Quote:
Reality testing makes the number of fragments a hundred or more but they're from pieces of metal the size of a fingernail that are stopped by quarter inch plywood (cover DR of no more than 1). The fragmentation rules get better with size but still penetrate armor too well. WWI helmets with DR no more than 3 against bullets were considered adequate against fragments even from full-sized artillery. I think Varyon's HT grenade with the removeable jacket was the Diehl which confuses matters further by throwing ball bearings instead of fragments. Anyway, trading concussion for fragmentation is not where I'd begin re-doing the rules.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
12-07-2022, 10:00 AM | #36 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
Quote:
Basically, we currently have some rules for how fragmentation works. We do not have any rules for how much fragmentation you get out of a purpose-built explosive device that isn't already statted out. My suggestion gives you rules for the latter. If you want more realistic/logical/whatever rules for how fragmentation behaves, honestly that's a completely separate discussion, and would apply to all fragmentation stats, both those already published and those that need to be generated in some way. Such rules would certainly be welcome, provided they can be made to be gameable, of course.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|
12-07-2022, 10:57 AM | #37 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
Quote:
If you look at all the other grenades in HT espcially comparing dedicated fragmentation devices and concussion only you do not see evidence that the frags are giving up any concussion. This was also explicitly the case in Ve2's warhead design rules and UT 4e's modular warhead system. HE (w/frag) and HEC (without) do the same amount of concussion. I think the Diehl is an outlier and not a prime model.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
12-07-2022, 11:21 AM | #38 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
Quote:
Quote:
If you've got a working model, feel free to share.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
||
12-07-2022, 11:49 AM | #39 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
Quote:
GURPS explosion rules are really bad at modeling real situations, concussion is much worse at killing people and much better at destroying structures than the GURPS rules imply, the scaling is wrong, and shrapnel damage is in large part determined by the design of your fragmentation case. |
|
12-07-2022, 07:44 PM | #40 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Explosive Arrows and Ancient Rockets
Quote:
As to "working models" i don't even have a problem that needs solving. The world is full of complex systems that will not yield useful results when reduced to simplified math. I trust David's research and I trust HANS research and feel no need for a unified boom! theory. There are and will continue to be eccentric behaviors among specified RW devices that will screw up any simplified rule if attempts to fit them in are forced on the system.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|