RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 02-18-2016, 04:53 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 187
Default

Ok, what happens if a square wire coil is used instead? From the M26A2 the wire is about 3 mm square and lets assume the coil is fragmented every 3 mm for a 3 x 3 cube how does this impact the results?

http://i.imgur.com/FvWF19q.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-18-2016, 05:17 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,130
Default

Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-18-2016, 06:54 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
Default

A few things change. The fragments are slightly heavier with a mass of 0.21g, versus 0.1g. The M26A2 has 0.16 kg of filler, which is a little less. However, that makes no difference to the initial fragment velocity, which is still 3276 m/s. The larger fragments have a higher EFactor initially of 25.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-29-2016, 09:44 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
Default

I have been thinking about the way grenade damage is applied in game versus the calculations I have been working with and the killing and casualty causing radius of the M67.

The rules give the M67 a 15m burst radius. The M67 has a killing radius of 5m and a casualty causing radius of 15m. So far they seem in agreement.

3rd edition has 1d20 fragments of Efactor 4 for any one in the burst radius. So wearing resistweave coveralls will keep you safe from fragment damage and you only take the full body damage from the DPW of the filler.

4th edition has number of fragments hitting equal to DoS*(Burst radius - actual radius). So we have Kevin, a Marine recon sniper with STR 26 and no specialization in thrown weapons chuck an M67 at Floyd 30m away, rolls a 37 which hits with a DoS of 3. The grenade explodes 9m from Floyd creating 3*(15-9) or 18 fragments with 1+ DoS * 2 or 7 fragments hitting of Efactor 4 each. Again the resistweave coveralls are great.

Using the real world data, assuming uniform fragment distribution, 1335 fragments disbursed and an human silhouette are of about 0.8m^2, we have 4.2 fragments hitting that silhouette at 5m with an Efactor of 17. At 10m we have 1 fragment with an Efactor of 14. At 15m, we have 0.5 fragments with an Efactor of 11. So here at 5m, resistweave bring us 3-5 fragments doing 10 dp each, at 10m, that is 1-2 doing 7 dp each and at 15m we have 0-1 fragments doing 4dp.

Clearly the rules don't really represent the real world data well. But are we satisfied with the rules or could they stand a tweak?

Last edited by mmartin798; 02-29-2016 at 09:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-29-2016, 11:50 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
Default

I can start things off. The 3rd edition rules with their flat 1d20 fragments was always a problem for me. All the grenades in the game are of a vintage that optimized for uniform fragmentation. Some mechanic mimicking the inverse square rule should have been there. 4th edition, with the number of fragments scaled in part by the distance from the grenade is a step in the right direction.

Even though I have not yet gotten a group together to play 4th edition, I do like the idea of the DoS allowing for more spectacular results. While it may not be 100% true to real world, it makes for better story telling.

The damage per fragment is my biggest gripe. The stereotypical room breaching scenario of tossing in a grenade and charging in after it goes off is a viable for any situation using the rules as written. Real world says that it might work for a bunker, but not a wooden building. Doing that would injure or kill the people crouched outside the door waiting to go in when the grenade goes off. As written the rules make Project personnel, who are covered from head to toe in armor with AV 7 or greater assuming they are wearing a helmet, immune from damage if they manage to get the grenade 2.75m away from themselves. That just does not seem right.

I mean, if you have someone with an HP-35 and they shoot and hit this person from 5m away, you will do 2dp someplace. If this same person is 5m from a badly thrown grenade that hits (DoS = 1), using the 4th edition rules there are 10 fragments with 3 that hit doing no damage. Make it an extremely well thrown grenade (DoS = 10), you get 100 fragments with 21 hitting for, no damage. This person is at the edge of the lethal range of the grenade and takes no damage. It just feels off.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 03-01-2016, 04:22 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 187
Default

I like the idea of a bit more realism in the game. I would say to continue to develop the expansion of these rules.

The 5 m kill radius needs to be just that in the game for a grenade. The coveralls shouldn't be the get out of jail free card. If the players do something stupid, that needs to be accounted for.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 03-01-2016, 05:32 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
Default

There is no real good to handle the M67 damage without another table. This table has values for the ranges listed that are at reasonable, let the resistweave be effective in the injury ranges and close to actual data. The curve, while not quite exponential, is still quite close. Again, comments are still appreciated.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 03-01-2016, 07:12 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
There is no real good to handle the M67 damage without another table. This table has values for the ranges listed that are at reasonable, let the resistweave be effective in the injury ranges and close to actual data. The curve, while not quite exponential, is still quite close. Again, comments are still appreciated.
It looks good for a real world to game information.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 03-01-2016, 07:18 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 187
Default

I've been working with the formula for a Mk82 500 lbs bomb (up coming article), using an average fragment weight of 150 grains (0.0097 kg) 8000 fragments, out to 50 m I have 17 at 100 m 13, so you are not going to be a happy camper. If the blast doesn't kill you the fragments will.

So I would say the formula is a good representation of game mechanics.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 03-01-2016, 08:05 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
Default

I revised the damage slightly. I did not like the way it dropped off at the end. Expanding the range increments and playing with the curve, I came up with new values that give a more aesthetically pleasing curve.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 03-02-2016, 10:05 AM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuke11 View Post
I've been working with the formula for a Mk82 500 lbs bomb (up coming article), using an average fragment weight of 150 grains (0.0097 kg) 8000 fragments, out to 50 m I have 17 at 100 m 13, so you are not going to be a happy camper. If the blast doesn't kill you the fragments will.

So I would say the formula is a good representation of game mechanics.
People may have forgotten how lethal the TMP game system is. Guns and everything are very prominent, however after a few combats (and probably their first Frozen Watch) the players are going to avoid combat for more diplomacy.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-31-2017, 03:13 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,197
Send a message via ICQ to kato13 Send a message via AIM to kato13 Send a message via MSN to kato13 Send a message via Yahoo to kato13 Send a message via Skype™ to kato13
Default

If we want to go for super scifi warheads and bombs, there have been rumblings that metallic hydrogen has been produced in the lab. And this could be a stable form of the element even after it is removed from the ultra cold and ultra high pressure environment. (I have no idea about its stability to shock and such, but it is theorized that is could exist in room temperature)

This could lead to an explosive that is 35 times a powerful as TNT per gram and with a density of 1.11g /cm^3 (much higher that previously theorized).

So by volume is would be about 23.6 times a powerful.

It might actually end up being more powerful in practice as the byproduct of the initial reaction is H2 meaning that could combine with oxygen for an even larger explosion.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:48 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
If we want to go for super scifi warheads and bombs, there have been rumblings that metallic hydrogen has been produced in the lab. And this could be a stable form of the element even after it is removed from the ultra cold and ultra high pressure environment. (I have no idea about its stability to shock and such, but it is theorized that is could exist in room temperature)

This could lead to an explosive that is 35 times a powerful as TNT per gram and with a density of 1.11g /cm^3 (much higher that previously theorized).

So by volume is would be about 23.6 times a powerful.

It might actually end up being more powerful in practice as the byproduct of the initial reaction is H2 meaning that could combine with oxygen for an even larger explosion.
TMP warheads with metallic hydrogen instead of HE/TNT/RDX?

Ouch.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:42 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,197
Send a message via ICQ to kato13 Send a message via AIM to kato13 Send a message via MSN to kato13 Send a message via Yahoo to kato13 Send a message via Skype™ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
TMP warheads with metallic hydrogen instead of HE/TNT/RDX?

Ouch.

Super powerful explosives might just be a "happy" addition to other advanced tech if TMP was able to produce metallic hydrogen. It would also be a room temp superconductor AND a material which might be able to achieve fusion without the normal rigmarole.

Given the material was theorized in the 30s and it seems that only a bit of ingenuity (coating the diamond presses with aluminum) was the breakthrough needed, TMP could have achieved it in the 60s.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-02-2017, 08:07 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
TMP warheads with metallic hydrogen instead of HE/TNT/RDX?

Ouch.
Now I am imagining the overwatch from a TMP sniper with an M82 using Raufoss Mk 211 rounds with metal hydrogen.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-02-2017, 02:22 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,130
Default

I was thinking of the irony of the White Phosphorous grenade having an effective radius greater than typical throwing range already.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.