• 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

Solid Ammunition Damage Ratings

@Legix I was thinking about that earlier and I do agree that pretty much the fix is making a division between personnel and mecha grenades. That would solve it, but we have the problem of, "PA scale weapons can't be used by a unarmed person" when a grenade by all counts totally should be able to be used. Also as of right now we don't actually have "PA specific grenades" so it would involve a lot of wiki work to get it up to speed quickly, but it would be the most comprehensive solution.

However the main problem with the T3 Grenade thing isn't actually PA's cause as @Alex Hart stated they would take damage. The problem is vehicles. Yes shields do laugh at grenades, but even an 'infantry grenade' by current earth standards would do damage to tanks. It's not "Kill it with a head on shot" but tanks can't just ignore a grenade, they have to make sure it didn't hurt. Pretty much my point is most modern frag grenades IRL would actually count as 'anti-PA' or 'Anti-vehicle' if we implemented this, rather than anti personnel. In general any damaging explosion is out of the 'personnel' category in the first place.

@Wes thank you for the clarification.

Now that we know this DR change is designed to target 'average conventional rounds' then I see no problem with an Average conventional pistol round being T1 and the same for a rifle being T2, as long as there is room for going up and down without having to resort to exotic tech it doesn't really effect SARP, cause you're still allowed to make intentionally under or over powered rounds at the expense of recoil.

(I will say though that a gun can change the DR of a bullet though, because of barrel length changing muzzle velocity, but that is really complicated and annoying)

In short, I think grenades are going to need a serious and separate consideration, and likely we will have to change their implementation if we want them to work right. But conventional fire arms rounds for pistols and rifles, I agree with this as it's meant to represent the average round not intentionally extreme ones.
 
Reactions: Wes
AFAIK, the setting currently allows infantry to wield/throw weaponry at T4; but these weapons are not something that most people can consistently fire. A T4 mounted turret can be manned by a person, after all; just as a T4 rocket launcher is probably only going to be shot once.

This is my entire logic behind the grenades not being truly anti-tank; the main reason current tanks "fear" grenades is because they can disrupt track. They're very rarely at risk from grenade detonations from standard grenades beyond tracking or system disruption; IE, the damage of the grenade isn't the main problem as much as the nature of the machine's "weak points" can be exploited. The real "tank killer" is often satchel charges or shaped explosives which would (IMHO) be a T4 explosive capable of punching holes in light PA and vehicles.

I don't think all explosive grenades in SARP logically fit T4 because while modern grenades CAN be used to damage vehicles, the SARP-setting grenades on average are conventional grenades or a specific type of grenade generally pitted against sci-fi materials that far surpass anything in modern times. Just look at the fact most vehicles are utilizing Durandium which is effectively the far better, SARP-modern alternative to steel. Most vehicles and PA are also composed of materials better than Durandium or multiple stacked layers of this; which is why I would think most explosives and conventional infantry grenades being T3 makes a LOT of sense.

And there can definitely be room, IMHO, for PA-scale grenades. In fact people should thrive for that idea; PA can wield much larger grenades and explosives that would realistically be capable of dealing significant damage to something like a tank. Out of all the "regulated" changes, this is the only one that to me makes sense; grenades for infantry shouldn't be doing significant damage to PA or light vehicles unless used en-masse; which the DRv3 system does support.

But blowing off hands or dealing crippling damage is insane; this is why the guy in the 309th plot ran into the Maximus with a huge packed satchel charge that had FAR more explosive power than a grenade. He was - in effect - carrying a PA-sized explosive.

While we don't allow people to arm themselves with tons of stuff, there's no reason to believe infantry couldn't get a backpack-sized explosive around T6; the issue with why we pushed to limit people to tiers and such was to avoid giving people weapons that didn't make sense. Lugging and explosive that you can't really throw and need time to set is COMPLETELY different than firing a PA's main rifle on full auto.

Again; I see no illogical reason that infantry can't use higher tier weapons in logical scenarios. And it puts a better emphasis on infantry-based combat if the infantry don't have PA-killing grenades but instead have grenades focused on them. Is it as supportive to those flashy "let's 8v1 this PA badass" moments? No. But it's supportive to "Well, let's carry a rocket launcher/PA-scale HMG so we can at least protect ourselves if we get a light PA stumbling on us." while also ensuring that PA get diversified playstyles beyond shooting guns and missiles. I've not seen an instance once of PA using grenades; this might make it so PA-sized grenades become a thing and encourage more diverse PA-combat and scenarios.
 
Well I agree that it makes sense for the grenades to actually be weaker due to the introduction of newer materials, but that wasn't the intent of the people making them. They genrally intended for them to work against sci-fi take in a matter comparable to how IRL grenades work against IRL tech. So them not being designed in a way that works that is more due to a lack of understanding of the forces needed to actually do what they intended.

My personal opinion is similar to your's though. But the one big change is logically speaking, I see no reason that a ifantry person -can't- use a tank rending grenade. I see why people want it limited, but at the same time, we have so drastically increased explosive tech in this setting with things like antimatter and scalar and other fancy words. The problem with an infantry using a grenade that can hurt a tank, or destroy a PA should be escaping the damage zone, not carrying it.
 
No, that was my point; someone carrying a hefty/oversized grenade that's intended for PA to use against tanks is perfectly logical.

But most of the current grenades were not designed as PA-grenades; that is the reason why most (if not all of them) would fall into that lower area. Most of them are infantry-sized and intended to be thrown by infantry with ease; this is why they don't (to me) fit the idea of an anti-PA/anti-armor or anti-Mecha/Anti-Armor.
 
I still think Legix is incorrect on the DR. Light damage occurs at 3 below. Moderate at 2 below, and severe at 1 below. Potentially lethal is on-tier and lethal is 1 up.

It would take impractical numbers of Tier 2 ammunition to deal severe damage to a T5 PA system. But a T3 damage should at the very least give pause. Especially when dealing with a fireteam, as there's a very low chance of you killing them before they deal crippling or even potentially lethal damage to you. T4 and T5 weapons like the DMR varient of the MWS2 and the HAR1, respectively, should be avoided when practicable, but dealt with quickly and with priority if engaged.

Then again, I play hard mode, don't rhinohide like Legix, and don't play godmode.
 
What I mean Legix is that with the technologies in SARP it should be child's play to make something that coudl be only slightly bigger than an infantry grenade that could hurt a PA in this setting. We have antimatter detonators and scalar explosions, even aether. There shouldn't be any difficulty in carrying. It should be in escaping to the safe zone for an unprotected individual. An aeither or antimatter grenade wouldn't even need to be bowlingball sized, after all, look at all the PA micro missiles we have.
 
Show me an infantry grenade that's using antimatter and I'll show you someone who literally made a pocket nuke and has broken the setting.

As for scalar (I'm honestly going to ignore the notion I godmode anything; please, by all means, check out the damage I utilize in my threads instead of assuming I'm some damage-scared PA scrub), I do not think that just because we have access means every hand grenade in a squad is going to be that. Much less one effective at hitting and actively engaging PA.

The reason PA micro-missiles work is because they hit en masse. They're not individually punching fist-sized holes in another PA. Something people forget is that DR isn't applied to individual shots. This was specifically brought up and discussed at length when Arieg tried to turn every bullet of a mass-firing machine into a killer and it forced the discussion.

If we're going to say infantry grenades can kill PA, then they're already impractical beyond belief. The force and generally type of explosion they would need to use would be so powerful no infantry would survive that grenade going off. That'd be like dropping an artillery shell on yourself; and mind you this isn't even killing the PA in 99% of the situations. Between being told I don't play with realism in mind and the notion that infantry are going to be throwing anti-everything grenades, the entire notion that you guys are trying to make just makes me want to police explosions; clearly it's the one thing this forced rule change seems to nail. People want to play out infantry grenades as all-purpose, all-scenario grenades. Otherwise, why have scalar? And the idea of an aether and antimatter grenade is nothing any infantryman would ever want to set off in this setting given what the two things do; no infantryman would survive the detonation of either.

Just because it's possible doesn't mean we assume the norm is that; most grenades ARE NOT MADE with PA in mind. Most of the people touting that it'd work on PA are likely the only ones who viewed it as such. The fact Madi is one person trying to defend this points me specifically at power creep mentality behind these "specialty grenades" being intentionally done to bypass DR's meaning by arguing "muh realism".

Grenades for infantry are mostly (if not entirely) nested at T3 because none of them are intentionally designed to combat PA; if they mention specifically they are, I can see an argument behind pushing them to T4. But most grenades being T3 makes sense when you consider that otherwise... why wear any armor as an infantryman? Every grenade would be killing within the RP rather than (as in the real world it can and does happen) simply wounding.
 
@Legix, DR is applied to individual shots, given that - and this, mind you, is a direct quote from the article itself - “Version 3 keeps to a ‘per attack’ perspective on weapons.”
 
I'm just going to point to this NAM infantry grenade page that has a plasma grenade that clarely says that it is anti vehicle and thus above even PA scale damage. I never said all grenades were supposed to be anti PA or anti vehicle. But @Legix this is a NAM grenade that clearly says it's for infantry use, and meant to be used against vehicles. This alone shows that it was a thing that happened. I have to goto sleep so I don't have time to look up more, but this is in your own faction Legix so it should suffice.
 
The Plasma grenade is anti-vehicle. As in around T4 or T5.

But the Plasma Grenade is also intended for use in a general infantry squad of Nepleslia; AKA a squad of PA.

Specifically under DRv2, the Plasma Grenade is a PDR5; this meant it was categorized as an RPG ("NSP Heavy Mode, Grenades, RPGs" is the comparison field). This would make it a T4 grenade or (at best) a T5 grenade; it is also not carried en-masse by an entire squad. In the NAM military, these are given to demolitionists/AT units such as Fang (a member of the 309th). In fact, grenades aren't even part of the standard Nepleslian infantry kit; this is because most Nepleslian infantry do not use them as (again), they are PA-mounted.

This also fits what I said before; I don't think Infantry CAN'T carry a larger grenade. But arming standard equipment as such is silly.

And on the note of scalar power; note that the NAM infantry grenade (the second most advanced faction) can achieve only a 2 on DRv2; this would land it at T1 or T2 in terms of power because it's a specialty grenade. No one on SARP should be throwing T3 scalar grenades, much less T4 or higher, given that precedent for size and power.

FrostJaeger said:
@Legix, DR is applied to individual shots, given that - and this, mind you, is a direct quote from the article itself - “Version 3 keeps to a ‘per attack’ perspective on weapons.”
Click to expand...
If so, then all the more reason most (if not all) infantry grenades shouldn't be blowing holes en masse in light armor/PA and all the more reason only specialized grenades should sit at T4 and T3 should be treated as "truly" anti-PA. If we start having T3 able to swiss-cheese PA, then it would completely break RP representation between personnel and PA since more or less site inception... for the sake of making T3 out to be an anti-tier/fighting-capable tier when it's not in most cases I've seen via RP.
 
@Legix you've entierly missed the point of everything. No one has said that every standard issue grenade should be PA capable. What has been said is that grenades that can be thrown by unarmored iinfantry that were -intended- to damage vehicles were made previously, and that logically speaking with our current technology, there is no reason a grenade can't be made that could damage a tank that is throwable by infantry. There is no logical 'carry restriction' on these, but rather the concern should be with their blast radius, which limits their usage. A grenade that hurts a tank should hurt unarmored peeps from a lot more than 5meters away.

Also at the top of that page I posted it clearly says "infantry and armored" so it doesn't look like 'infantry' was meant to mean PA squads when that article was written. Normally when writting articles most people call PA, "Armored infantry" or say somehting like "Power Armor grade weapons" when they say just plain 'infantry' they mean personnel scale. Because un powered infantry exist in both Nepleslia and Yamatai, and pretty much every other nation.
 
Why does ammunition have a DR then? I agree that not every bullet will be a killer, but I do want to know why we include DR on ammo if what you say is true.

Of course, to address the per attack point what an attack consists of is debatable but WOW ARE WE OFF TOPIC FROM THE SUBJECT OF SOLID AMMO!
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Wes
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…