• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy

Damage Rating Revision Discussion

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Well Tom, OsakanOne, Wes, you've understood some of the armor part regarding grade. So far so good.

The Structural points are pretty much like the MDC value a ship has in that Rifts thingie, or a ship's 'hit points'. A GM/player can refer to it to have an idea of how much damage a ship can supposedly take before it croaks. It's certainly not obligatory as I knew it would look more complicated, but I'll sit down and try to explain it to you.

I figured that the way of going by it was to assume there were five sizes of ships, just like there were five ratings for weapons. So, a very light ship (a destroyer), would be able to sustain 10 hits from a very light weapon on average. Since very light weapons do 1 anti-starship damage, that means a destroyer-size ship would have 10 structural points.

Very Light (Destroyer) -> Can survive 10 hits from a Very Light weapon (10 structural points)
Light (Gunship) -> Can survive 10 hits from a Light weapon (20 structural points)
Medium (Light Cruiser) -> Can survive 10 hits from a Moderate weapon (30 structural points)
Heavy (Heavy Cruiser) -> Can survive 10 hits from a Heavy weapon (40 structural points)
Very Heavy (Battleship) -> Can survive 10 hits from a Very Heavy weapon (50 structural points)

So, again, it's a guideline that a ship of a certain size can take 10 times the damage of a weapon of similar size before being crippled/destroyed.

Understandably, larger ships are going to be able to soak a lot more damage from the smaller weapons while the lighter ships are going are going to proportionally be hurt a lot more if a more powerful weapon is used on them.

* * *

Example:
Weapons - hammer and sledgehammer
Targets - a chair and a couch

If I start using a hammer to break a chair, it could take me around a dozen good hits before I can have to fall to pieces, while I'd just need two or three hits from a sledgehammer to smash it in the same fashion.

So, if I use my smaller weapon against the chair, I'm going to get it after some time hammering at it, but the larger weapon would do it a lot faster. The sledgehammer hits are much harder for the chair to deal with compared to the hammer - but both can damage the target; it's just a matter of how many hits.

Now, if I go and start using my hammer against my couch... it's going to take me a lot of hits to eventually crumble the wooden base of the couch (assuming the covers are off) because its bigger. Even using my sledgehammer, I'm going to need around ten good hits to entirely smash it into pieces.

My hammer was still useful to damage the couch's wooden frame, but the sledgehammer was able to handily deliver a lot more damage effectively to take down my target in a timely manner.

Considering that, the hammer is likely a weaker weapon than the sledgehammer. It could deal more significant damage to the weaker target - that chair - but the larger one required a lot more hits from it to take it down. Structural points and weapon damage sort of have the same relationship.

In this case, the chair and the couch are Personal-grade items, with the Chair having 10 structural points and the Couch having 30 (arbitrary test value). If my hammer is PDR 1 and my sledgehammer is PDR 3, then the hammer damages 10% of the smaller target per hit while the sledgehammer damages 30% of the smaller target per hit. If I attack the couch, though, the hammer does it 3.3% damage per hit, while the sledgehammer gives it an even 10% damage per hit.

* * *

The bigger I am, the bigger weapons you need to proportionally damage me, and I can survive 10 weapon hits that are my size, many more that are 'smaller' than me and much less from weapons that are of a class 'bigger' than me.

Does this help understanding the structural point idea?
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

But under your system, a couch made of titanium is the same as one made of styrofoam because they're both are couches. The system is divided by ship class but there's a complete lack of accounting for the ship's armor...
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Well, not really. It's more of a figure than anything else. That's where the GM comes in and pulls a judgement call on things.

Wes, last time I tried to take under account what was resistant against what, it confused the heck out of people. It was a lot with this idea I have in this thread, except that when I added multiplier modifiers, people didn't agree to it very well.

So, there's little choice in this case but let the GM interpret this. I mean for this to be barebones to aid in roleplay interpretation, not dictate exactly how things should be to the letter. Rulings in such regards is part of our jobs as Game Masters.

One instance of that is how Durandium and Zesuaium effectively seem to have the same footing here. Both made to armor a starship would effectively be considered starship grade. But then both have different properties.

In the above situation, Durandium is pretty much the generic armor with little properties... except for its lightness and reasonable production values. Yamataium would be about the same, save a bit heavier but with regenerative capabilities which helps in the recovery of ships and their maintenance costs. Xiulurium is great stealth armor, but it could be considered more vulnerable to Anti-mecha attacks as a result. Zesuaium, on the other hand, has a marked resistance to heat impacts, electricity conduction and kinetic attacks so it'd take markedly reduced damage from such sources.

I don't think we actually need to write down anything in particular to how such a thing would behave - I'm certain every GM (and players) realizes that knifing a bar of titanium isn't going to do much good, and that a soldier in body armor is more resistant than an unarmored soft-target.

So, to sum this up, the point of all this is showing how bad damage could be, but not how it necessarily should be in any given circumstances. GMs will - and do - have such power of interpretation and I think it's only natural to take that in stride as we all have different ways of viewing things in our respective plots. Those whom want to go more detail oriented can, and those whom don't still have something fairly good to rely on.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Maybe we should produce a system to outline mobility.

Different classes for different handling types (fighter-like, armor-like, etc), then we add acceleration as a rating and the top speed.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

One of my main issues is this. This effectively makes Powered Armors a moot point. I hardly ever use them in Mecha on Starship combat beyond a simple boarding Op and so on. But some of them do have Anti-Starship weaponry, to an extent anyways. While this maybe like a gnat bite if this is pushed through, where does that leave them? We rely entirely too much on Powered Armors to fill our skirmisher roles in place of fighters and so forth, and the fighters we have, are either outdated, or everyone is like "What's that thing doing on here?" Since frankly, I'm staring at one of the banner images right now, and I see the Mindy, and Daisy one.

Does this mean they will have a more diminished role? Or go extinct? They should still have some bite to them in terms of starship warfare without lugging around giant cannons twice their size. If a weapon pod can pull off anti-starship grade damage, throwing a mainstay unit ( The Powered Armor) a bone would be nice to make them not wholly useless on the battle field, and mere cannon fodder.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

I imagine there could be special considerations made for mecha with weapons designed to breach a small area of a hull, like an Aether Saber/Fusion Cutter. And generally speaking, you might even be able to make a nice break in the hull of an enemy ship if you weapon was big enough, but we have to remember scaling. Powered armor aren't Gundams, as they're smaller, more vulnerable to dismembering hits, and their weapons are much smaller, in comparison.

This means that you'll either see dedicated anti-ship weapons being produced, or the bigger full-scale mecha becoming a lot more useful in anti-ship operations.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Soresu brings up a good point, I also would like to ask about the scaling of the weapons. Apparently the highest represented damage available for armor is 'Tactical Nuke'. According to our current Damage Rating scale, tactical nukes are merely a DR 5, while there are Power Armor which are currently packing DR 9 weapons, and in the case of the Mindy with the aether rifle, DR 10 weapons.

I would like to know how these weapons, designed to deal with starships, scale in regard to the new system. Will entire series of power armor become moot like Soresu speculated, or will certain weapons break the mold? I know that in scenes I've been in, there have been PA that have gone about hurting starships a lot more than the mere light scratches implied by the new scale.

Weapon damage goes beyond mere size scale, it also deals with how the weapon interacts with the target structure. A power armor using an antimatter weapon in atmosphere for example can easily devastate entire cities. A starship waving around a railgun meanwhile is not going to do the same damage, but with the starship scale it'll be doing the same damage as the antimatter weapon wielding PA.

The issue is, it just does not scale right and it does not take into account the nature of various weapons which may be fixed onto a given starship or armor. I propose that we stick with our current easier to use system due to it taking into account the damage inflicted by certain weapons, and the damage able to be sustained by certain armor. Either that, or fluff up this new proposed system to take into account the various applications of existing anti-starship powerarmor technology, and take into account the frailties of certain starship weapons.

PS: This system also does not take into account infantry using antimatter rocket launchers. GG
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

@OsakanOne:

If this were a board game, sure.

But for a forum, it might be pushing it too far. That's where player roleplay and GM interpretation is also key.

DocTomoe

Remember, Very Heavy Anti-Mecha damage translates fairly well into 1 anti-ship damage. This has consequences, and GMs are free to apply them in their plots. Nothing is inhibited, from where I stand. After all, it's not like the former 1-10 DR system took that into account too.

@Soresu:

I thought about that.

For the Daisy, well, it's clearly not a unit designed for Anti-Starship combat, so most of its oomph is really in the boarding when it comes to space combat. The Daisy roles go more around the Anti-Personnel and the Anti-Mecha.

The Mindy II's role is Anti-Armor as a concept, but it can still fight starships to a degree. Actually, it's still relatively good at it in comparison to other power armor. Why?

- The forearm aether blades of the Mindy II can likely accomplish something on a starship's defenses.

- The charged shot of the forearm weapon ought to be about the same as the sword at a more focused area.

- The Sylph pack, obviously an Anti-Ship setup, basically gives the Mindy II more aether-powered cannons to charge and fire.

- Volleys of mini-missiles can be useful against softer targets such as the weapon pods. Volleys of particularly heavy payload could amount to something more (a volley of mini-missiles could be worth a Very Heavy damage rating); I remember having Rippers try to open up the Sakura's bridge dome with missile fire.

- The subspace detonator warheads can make holes in shielding and temporarily disable certain systems, thus helping the power armor support other units.

(Note: a better use of the subspace detonator warhead might be to have it be a type of weapon that does more damage to shielding, rather than entirely disable it - I know some people see the current application as cheap. It that were the case, it could make Wes' Type 30 torpedo a more reasonable and yet still powerful concept)

- The teleport module, in the right circumstances, can have the Mindy II do the same roles as the Daisy inside a ship - but the better weapon loadout may yet have it come further ahead.

Obviously a spacy power armor can't face a ship alone. It's obviously better striking at a secondary system instead of destroying the whole ship a la Gundam. But the Mindy II above feels plenty powerful to me. Actually, it feels a little too much for my tastes, but then, that should mollify your concerns on that level.

Ships shouldn't be easy to beat with smaller mecha. A ship's point-defense systems are exactly to deal with power armor. But it can be done.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Oh of course, I was just asking if they'd still have a role against them all things considered. *Nods at his question being answered.*
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

The previous DR system did take into account a weapon vs armor. Namely the DR rating demonstrated how powerful a weapon was and the armor rating demonstrated how resistant to penetration the material was. How much damage actually done to the ship was more or less the realm of the GM.

So all of the issues brought up with this system are already solved in the previous system.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system


I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Uso. Our GMs should be able to make the decision on their own, this new system over complicates things and makes it far harder for a GM to have flexibility in regard to damage done. Additionally, it makes things difficult for technology designers to scale properly.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Resistance to penetration = grade of armor.
Rating = how powerful a weapon is.
Material/target vs weapon type = any other adjustments at the whim of the GM.

Sample Weapon Entry:

As far as weapon writeouts are done, this actually all fits.

Note to Wes: The reason I recommended repeatedly that the Plumerias Positron cannons have SDR 2 was to leave some room for other ship weapons whom are actually larger than the small positron cannons in the Plumeria's wing pylon... such as the Chiharu flagships Anti-Matter turrets, the weapon alone being half the size of the Plumeria.

I thought it made sense. I'm hoping you would think so too, to give more love to your capital ships.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Again that makes no sense because positron weapons cause "Total annihilation" damage to a given target location when the matter-antimatter reaction takes place between the discharge and the contacting material. Additionally, the contact produces a matter-energy conversion which produces an explosion equivalent to the potential energy held within the matter being consumed and the antimatter discharged.

Also, you're using a starship weapon as a sample when power armor weapon effects are what is in debate here. What we're debating, is the fact that there are armors using comparable technology to what you just posted, yet their weapons which work exactly the same are being cut down to being pea-shooters simply due to how small they are. It makes no sense at all for armor to react differently to an attack simply due to the size. A positron beam is a positron beam, it makes matter turn into energy and things go BOOM.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Tell that to the Chiharu flagship and its huge anti-matter turrets on the level of the size of the weapon and what it has to do with damage. Seriously. *rolls eyes*

Positron weapon caused around DR 7 to 9 in the DR [1-10] scale. They weren't 10. When they hit, they caused damage, had things go boom, etc etc. That's no different.

...and I answered the power armor bit already. If the weapon should have more of a consequence, the GM can easily arbitrate it everybit as easily as he could when it was "DR 8" with a text description.

I also made a weapon entry sample. I wasn't refering to power armor with that. Thing is, the grade doesn't make it more complicated; it just makes the 'Purpose' entry useful for something more than fluff.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

What I'm trying to get to Fred, is how to scale damage done. I want to know why a same-size positron cannon on a starship does more than the same size positron cannon if mounted on a power armor.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

I remember Sasada getting out of the Sakura to fire at the Black Swan using a M3 Kylie. She started firing with her aetheric forearm weapons and even if the Black Swan was unshielded (it was docked with the Sakura) and the weapon didn't do any significant damage to the ship.

Why? The attack did perhaps harm the ship's armor, but it was still too small. You can stab me with a needle, and I'm going to hurt, but I'm not necessarily going to be badly wounded by that needle stabbing in a straight up fight. It might not be significant.

Stab the needle in my eye, though, and you might actually do me significant damage... just like a positron rifle could do against, say, the window of a starship, the exhaust port of an engine, an exposed radar dish or a communication antenna.

Stab me with a knife, and I'm going to be badly wounded, regardless of where exactly you stab me. Stab me at the right place, and I might die. Same relationship, but bigger weapon.

I never said an Anti-Mecha weapon couldn't ever do a thing to a starship target. But, under the usual combat circumstances, it usually won't. The positron rifle of a mecha could do mostly surface damage to a starship-grade target if he just casually fires a volley of shots, but there are circumstances where added firepower overtime could still accomplish something, but that's an expection more than the norm in a situation concerning the mecha vs. starship angle. The rest is for players to try out, knowing their gear, and for GMs to interpret - like the window example above.

Both systems required judgement calls from arbiters. The difference is that this one makes some effort to try and account for scale. The other didn't do it at all.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

I’ve been following both sides of this for a while now and what the arguments against boil down to is “It makes it too complicated.”

As an average player who generally hates mathematics in my RP and prefers to operate with a little more flexibility (or room for creative writing in RP if you will) I’d have to say, no it doesn’t. I think this system is very straight forward and easy to use, as well as leaving plenty of room for player creativity and GM discretion.

I think this system will help make for faster pacing, quicker arbitration and most importantly, creative RP. This isn’t a War Hammer 40k table top game, it’s a role playing game. Collaborative story telling. It’s very hard to be creative within a strict system of numbers that leaves no room for circumstances.

So I don’t see this over complexity that people are talking about. To me, this system looks very easy to use, leaving plenty of room for story teller interpretation.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Thanks, James. Your positive comments are a breath of fresh air from the arguing.
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

The previous system let the GMs account for scale of damage and gave a raiting against armor.

This system accounts for scale but doesn't account for armor except for in terms of size of the ship.

This makes larges ships better than small ships in all cases, especially for star bases which eventually become large enough to be immune to all weapons under these rules.

So why not use the previous rules which don't have this problem, don't require a retcon effort, are simpler to use, and have already had all of their bugs worked out?
 
Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

While the new system has some holes of its own, I vastly prefer the new system because it eliminates a lot of the "Total destruction in one hit" that plagued the previous version. I'm okay with it taking multiple hits to blow stuff up (in fact, that's great! Now instead of vaporizing ships, we can shoot holes in them and board with PAs!). The new DR system, for that reason, also meshes very well with the new much smaller fleet sizes created by the 250-max-military-ships-per-system rules, since fleets won't be instantly wiped out like before. It also allows salvage wrecks to be created (instead of stuff just being removed from existence).

Basically, we've already switched to the new system, and it was a change for the better and we're not going back to the old way. Further discussion should be on how to improve the current system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…