/tg/ - Traditional Games

>>419756

>A leather armour won't stop an axe

<Ermagerd!

<This thing will not do something it wasn't designed, intended, or expected to do!

<Pure shit!

Do you think that a modern infantrymans armour is worthless because it won't stop a 40mm APHE round?

>>419765

>ermagherd

>>>/reddit/

The utility of leather armor is questioned by historians. That isn leather armor without something underneath. Even the actual price is questioned, as some historians believe it was expensive as shit.

If a leather armor doesn't protect against slashing damage (or at least, direct slashing damage; it may protect against accidental bruises), nor does it protect against piercing damage, nor does it protect against blunt damage, unless it has considerable cushioning underneath (which is what it had, which made it almost as bad as plate armor for mobility), what was it good for?

>>419771

>what was it good for?

The same reason you wear leather gloves when working in a workshop, it's the difference between having fingers or not. The human body is simply not geared towards any natural resistance to being sliced up, thick layers of cloth by about say 20-30 can do a good enough job against a straight edge like a longsword and even just a thin soft layer of leather can again save you from losing your fingers entirely where being fully exposed would have you lose them every time.

>>419789

>The same reason you wear leather gloves when working in a workshop, it's the difference between having fingers or not

<implying they are gonna save you from getting cut by a rotary saw and not just from a few splinters

>>419791

>rotary saws in the 15th century

Now you're just being retarded on purpose. I am of course talking about handling metal, sheet or strip metals specifically.

>>419801

Oh yeah, leather will absolutely stop a blunt-edged sheet running at 3 m/s away from your hand. Not sure about that sharp as fuck guillotine running towards you at 40 m/s.

>>419804

A fucking guillotine, really? This is what I mean when I say you're being retarded on purpose, what are you trying to prove by bringing up a tool used for execution? Nothing you're just bringing things up to win a perceived argument while ignoring my point entirely. Sheet metal cuts you semi-regularly without wearing something to protect yourself from those minor cuts even if there is no accidents and if you're not wearing proper protection when an accident happens with the stuff it can get nasty. Your skin and flesh just doesn't have the resistance to have the luxury to not wear any armor at all when everyone has a blade or pointy bit in a fight for this same reason. You faggot.

What I'm seeing here is pretty clear:

We have an armor fanboi dropping in and trying to insert D&D armor into a discussion about actual weapons and tactics involving firearms in any way possible... with a small amount of familiarity with armor of one type, but little or no working knowledge of firearms whatsoever.

A medieval-style plate armor isn't going to handle modern firearms. This person can't argue that point at all, and so continually tries to derail the discussion.

It doesn't matter if leather armor existed 500 years or more ago.

It doesn't matter if knights could move in armor that resisted swords.

It doesn't matter if the ancient Greeks had an 'armored sprint' Olympic event.

THAT TYPE OF ARMOR STILL WON'T WORK AGAINST A MODERN FIREARM WITHIN THE WEIGHT LIMITS ALLOWING IT TO BE EMPLOYED SUCCESSFUL IN A FIGHT AS AN ACTUAL BATTLE TACTIC.

You might be able to use it against some guys carrying small-to-medium bore pistols - if you have additional cover and concealment, and if they are not expert shots, and if they have no rifle-armed backup available.

Once.

MAYBE.

In Ned Kelly's day where news traveled only as fast as the fastest horse, you might get away with it a handful of times if you plan carefully and your opponent isn't paying attention.

TODAY, HOWEVER you are not just trying to outrun men and bullets... you're fighting electrons and radiation. Modern communication would mean that your little trick would be in front of 70% of the people on the planet - the same day you pulled the stunt, most likely. That means that the next time you try it, there's going to be a counter (read: guy with a large caliber weapon) ready to end your little novelty stunt in a very final way.

Just remember - even Ned Kelly's armor FAILED MISERABLY in the end... he was wounded, captured, and hanged at Old Melbourne Gaol.

The days of plate armor are over.

And as Ned Kelly himself said with a noose around his neck:

"Such is life."

>>419835

You'll have to have some kind of composite construction to face most modern ammunition. Soft kevlar vests are only really good against ball and expanding ammunition. There are just too many cartridge an ammunition options that can get through them which would be available in an 'adventure game' type setting.

For instance, the PSM in 5.45x18mm can reliably penetrate most soft vests (LVL 2 and some 3, the latter being a bit dependent) at close range and is smaller and easier to conceal than a Makarov. Any 9mm THV round can lance through a LVL 3 soft vest alone at any reasonable engagement range. They are small rounds with little wound channel, though... your target won't bleed out any time soon, but he'll probably be rethinking some life choices.

Things like Dragonskin are the future of 'personal ballistic protection' - scale-mail like composites involving both ceramics/metals and kevlar-type woven materials. The type is proven to be reliable and durable in independent testing. It provides active range of motion while offering protection against multiple ammo types... and spike-type stabbing weapons, something Kevlar alone has trouble with (it's actually pretty decent against slashing).

Like any armor, joints are always going to be weak spots.

As far as machine guns, the simplest solution I can see is that you assume that anyone using one is going to be skilled enough to understand that just because it is belt fed doesn't mean it can fire continuously.

- assign damage based on caliber

- gunner rolls to-hit against target

- a modifying opposed roll shows how well target avoids the fire, modified for cover and 'agility'

- scale damage on the opposed roll, from 1/5 to 5/5 of the 5-round burst

This could theoretically be used for any auto-fire weapon, with any weapon that is shoulder-fired incurring (much) increased penalties for subsequent rounds to hit.

>>419966

>both ceramics/metals

Metamaterials is the future, harnessing graphene has been an end game goal for a long time now.

>>419996

I've got 5 words for you

>Ultra

>High

>Molecular

>Weight

>Polyethylene

>>419812

>Just remember - even Ned Kelly's armor FAILED MISERABLY in the end... he was wounded, captured, and hanged at Old Melbourne Gaol.

Because he was up against a few dozen people. If you think that those kinds of odds ending in a loss means that his armour didn't work, or that it would have any bearing on the effectiveness between two sides of similar numbers one of which is armoured and one isn't (rather than 30 to one odds), you're a retard.

>>420235

1.) But if the armor 'protected him from bullets' then it shouldn't have mattered if he was outnumbered... now would it?

2.) Kelly faced a total of 30 personnel, who were deployed in a skirmish line so as to surround a hotel... thus, the number available to fire on him would have been far less than the actual total - those on the far side of the building would have had their LOS blocked, and some others with LOS would have had LOF blocked by friendlies.

3.) Kelly was not 'alone' - he had three (later 2) cohorts in a wood-frame structure, similarly armored and armed with rifles. Note that one of these men actually died WHILE WEARING ARMOR INSIDE THE BUILDING... meaning that even while in an entrenched position behind hard cover he was vulnerable.

4.) The police actually knew about the armor, though they did not believe it had actually been constructed or that it would actually work... which it did not.

Your response tells me you have failed to do any real research on the actual tactical situation, and failed to note the other failures involved (including that of Kelly's delusional belief that his armor would protect him) on both sides.

>>420306

>1)

What? That doesn't make any sense, not even modern vests will fully protect you but people will wear it anyways because it works at protecting you when it counts.

No, it make perfect sense.

The armor didn't 'protect him from bullets.'

The bullets fired at him still caused harm - indeed, probably lethal harm had he not been captured by people who's duty it was to keep him alive until he could be killed. They certainly caused Joseph Byrne harm - killing him while wearing his armor WHILE INSIDE A WOODEN BUILDING.

So, clearly, the armor offered only poor defense at best. One man was nearly killed, apprehended and hanged while wearing it (and could have easily died while wearing it), another wearing it was killed by a ricochet while doubly protected... to the point that THE BRITISH ARMY WAS CONSIDERING BRINGING IN A TWELVE-POUNDER to deal with the men in the building.

That was how much tactical advantage three men in a building (two, but it was unknown Byrne was dead at the time) had over thirty men having to cross an open field.

In short, the armor offered negligible protection in this situation... it made the wearer slow and robbed him of situational awareness. In fact, some thin wooden planks were considered far more effective - to the point artillery was considered a worthwhile solution (the posse actually resorted to arson as that was taking to long)!

>>420311

Now it makes sense when you actually bring up the fact even shrapnel went through. Otherwise the first point just sounds like fallacious logic.

No, the plates 'stopped the bullets' where they covered Ned's body (and Byrne's as well) but the armor was insanely bulky and only covered head, torso and groin and shoulder flaps. Other than that, they were exposed from the waist down and their arms were exposed as well...

Kelly was taken because after a couple of minutes confusion, the posse members fired at his unarmored legs.

Byrne was killed because a shot through one of the board walls of the wooden building struck his thigh, severed the femoral artery (according to accounts from the scene) and he bled out.

Thus, the armor didn't actually protect the wearers any more than the building did... and in fact, since two members of the gang wound up committing suicide inside the building while it was being burned, it stands to reason that the armor was really a moot point in the whole situation. The building itself provided far more protection to the gang than the armor!

So, en the end, no one that wore the armor was 'protected' by it...

both men wearing the armor actually DIED FIRST (Byrne inside the building, Kelly attempting to return to it), while the men who were relying on the building for cover and using that cover judiciously held out to the point that the 30 men (now standing against only two) were considering using a 'modern' breech-loading field gun to drive them out!

The men wearing armor were taken down by firearms nonetheless.

Thus, it provided now real element of protection.

If you view the actual armor, Kelly had only about a 1" slit to see through - and the armor had to expose vast portions of his body to enable him to be able to move and react. Had he been completely covered, he might have withstood more fire, but his joints would still be vulnerable. Most importantly, he'd have been carrying more than his body weight in armor and unable to observe any direction but front-and-center (then 'helmet' did not turn, it lapped over the chest-piece)... leaving him vulnerable to attack from the rear and too heavily laden to outpace it.

>>420322

>Had he been completely covered, he might have withstood more fire,

That's stupid reasoning, the easiest place to hit is center mass which you're trained to aim for. Armor worn today that is supposed to be resistant to bullets follows the same reasoning; torso is protected except your arms, legs plus your groin can get fucked too while you're at it. His only mistake was bothering with full face covering with the helmet.

>>420333

Take the whole paragraph in context... don't single out one item.

Then you'll see what I mean.

Essentially, I was stating that even being completely covered wouldn't have helped him, as it would have destroyed his mobility - which modern protection seeks to preserve as much as possible - and meant that he could be vulnerable to 'alternative means of attack' from his lack of mobility. What good is being armored from head to toe and protected from bullets when one talented bloke with a lasso could wrap you up?

Additionally, while center mass is 'easiest to hit', it is not too difficult to attack limbs - especially if you are armed with something like a shotgun or a belt-fed weapon. Again, these are all items that characters in this system would face... and their users are going to be trained to think about things like 'grazing fire' when facing enemies wearing body armor.

As a former gunner myself, the importance of grazing fire in an action cannot be overstressed - as you point out, very few types of modern armor give adequate protection to the groin, thigh and shin... meaning I can at the least immobilize, and at best severely injure and possibly kill my target with relative ease.

>>420339

I've read the whole thing, and everything you've said tells me you're assuming something about it that doesn't actually apply unless it was full blown plate mail or points which apply to body armor today. Did you even pay attention to the picture those shoulder coverings aren't actually attached to the torso covering they're hooked to the armor stand. It's literally just metal body armor with an attached front skirt, a helmet and some shoulder protection you put on as separate pieces. From what I'm seeing it doesn't even look like the arms are obstructed from moving and it's only the front skirt from flopping around by the hinge.

Literally just a cruder form of metal body armor, he could've just made the helmet be bowl shaped and he'd be solid.

>>420344

Stop being retarded and arguing a debate that has no real bearing to the topic at hand. If your autism is so fucking powerful you need to express your love of platemail by derailing any discussion that could perceivably deal with it, at least argue something more relative...like say those two guys who were hitting up a bank in full armor purpose made to stop bullets that was designed to allow for freedom of movement and still protect the wearer (ie: done like actual fucking platemail but engineered to handle modern loads). Then realize the issue never changed: they were too heavy to effectively escape, any specialized load would have overcome their armor, and fatigue plus higher aggro demanded they either give up, or commit suicide. You could argue in a seige setting, heavy armor would be a great idea. Posting a guard by the main barracks or what have you in fully 100lb gear would be a reasonable setup; but if you had that kind of money to waste on equipping your guys, why not invest instead in a pillbox or parapet? In a world of these shenanigans however, everyone is gonna be loaded with armour piercing rounds. Even officers after that heist started carrying an extra clip loaded with armor piercing rounds just because you only get away with that kind of shit once.

>just make better armour!

I can kill you for 5 cents currently. If you dropped 5k in armor, I'd need to spend a buck 50 to kill you with the same gun. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's far cheaper for someone to craft a weapon capable of breeching armor, than what it is to craft armor capable of withstanding anti-matieral rounds.

>>420378

Stop being retarded and putting words in my mouth, I didn't even once say "make better armor" you faggot. The debate is already been settled as far as I'm concerned, multiple times. You're just going full retard in the exact opposite direction as an armor fanboy would go at this point.

>>420382

Just so we're clear I actually do think Ned's choice wasn't worth it. Coverage was about right and even if he dropped the helmet design what he had to achieve to make it work is where the problems come in. The weight he had to make it was absurd, 90lbs vs 6-20+? vests, just for weight comparison medieval platemail and similar armor didn't typically exceed the 40-60lb range. It didn't stop shrapnel very well which is a testament to the poor shaping. All in all his cleverness is typical trailer trash crazy, but coverage is about the one priority he got right.

Calculate Gun Damage by finding the muzzle energy in Joules, squared, and then find the minimum amount of d6s to reach that number.

You know, I'm more interested in how to properly address movement when dealing with guns. Considering moving out of cover to close in on objectives or to move to a more advantageous position, how would you deal with adjusting accuracy/lethality for shooting a moving target? How would varying levels of scopes handle the enemy movement? What if the person firing upon the now exposed enemy was in turn being fired upon via covering fire? What about accuracy of someone shooting in motion? I think a sniper would have more accuracy in hitting a moving target, but only at a certain sweet spot in range: far enough to be out of immediate covering fire concerns, close enough that a bullet can travel the distance without substantial delays. The more I think about handling all this info, the less I feel it can be reasonably done without severely dilluting all mechanics. DnD never took into consideration ranged weapon penalties against moving targets because everything was a series of non-moving targets, with high enough health/numbers that ranged fighting was largely limited to one character on the PC side, and usually ineffective after the enemy closed into melee range. With the high lethality of guns, going about combat with a weapon that generally incapacitates an enemy on the first hit and where it's rarely that enemies ever get within spitting distance is a pretty big game changer.

It'd be interesting to see how modern loads would work against something like an orc or ogre. Would tracer rounds negate a troll's healing factor? What caliber would be the minimum rating to deal damage to a dragon?

>>421102

>orc or ogre

It's basically like shooting a Bear or Elephant respectively.

>>421102

>I think a sniper would have more accuracy in hitting a moving target

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Sounds like aiming down something with a sight with so much zoom would be a nightmare if the target is running or moving too fast.

>>421141

No one said there wasn't

What are you bringing to this discussion, or attempting to?

*Don't link me or my memes ever again :^)**

>>421141

Yeah I don't get why you're bringing this up either, none of that is going to stand a chance against the majority of modern firearms. Only groups using any old school armor seriously is some SWAT teams because they deem it worth the trouble since it's essentially stab proof. The chainmail they're using is going to quickly be phased out anyways once the new cloth material being showcased to police that is just as stab proof makes its rounds through the red tape.

>>421171

I basically wanted to remind you guys there's more kinds of armor than just "full plate", since it was brought up. Carry on.

>>421102

Give each gun ratings for size and inherent accuracy. Obviously, smaller guns like pistols have lower accuracy because they have shorter barrels, but bigger guns are clunkier and harder to fire on the move, so you take the size rating as a penalty to fire while moving and when in CQC - it's much easier to pull a handgun on someone when they're all up in your grill than it is a sniper rifle.

Have a non-linearly scaled penalty to hit based on range, and give the gun's accuracy as a bonus. Scopes give a further bonus but take longer to aim the bigger bonus they give, and are capped by the gun's accuracy, so you can't stick a 32x optic on a handgun and take out targets a mile away.

I can quote GURPS rules all day long.

I've actually had some trouble trying to simulate Recoil and Aim Speed in guns in my systems. The issue only really comes up when I try to fit a system for firearm modifications into my game, since pretty much everything ends up being a modifier to damage or accuracy.

Aim Speed is particularly difficult because initiative isn't based on weapon (like in 2nd AD&D). Absolutely no idea how to do something like Recoil.

>>421400

It somehow manages to make combat rules even more autistic without solving its many problems. It kind of "fixes" armor by making it useless due to pass-through bludgeoning damage (which was necessary, to be honest), but then it makes layering armor even easier, and in turn layering protects against bludgeoning damage! It makes heavy armored characters fucking invincible against everything but the usual suspects (explosive damage, AP rounds and I have my doubts about those, chemical weapons... the kind of stuff anything short of special forces or the military wouldn't wear), while less armored/social characters could die of a sneeze. It also makes wounding and recovery even worse, even though getting wounded in vanilla Interlock already means you have to reroll a character due to the absurd downtime requirements healing has. It also makes melee weapons totally useless, without BT extra damage, while making crossbows and bows ultra lethal and with BODY-based damage, for some reason. I'm sorry, but a warhammer (Cyberpunk 2020 had a specially devastating shell-propelled warhammer, which isn't contemplated in the base Interlock rules) to the head shouldn't be less lethal than a crossbow to the arm.

If you are looking for something "realistic" for a one shot or something, then yes, Interlock Unlimited (which seems to reduce chargen time significantly; kudos for that) with the vanilla armor layering rules and AP values halved is probably your best bet. If you are looking for anything that's not a one-shot, a campaign where your characters are unlikely to be ambushed with some planning (tactical heisting campaign or something like that; problem is, you won't be using much combat rules if this is the case, as everything will be solved on the first surprise round), or a social/investigation campaign in which case, you shouldn't worry that much about gun rules anyway, you should be looking for something else. Unless you like having an average of players/2 character deaths per combat before they manage to fire a single shot, in which case, by all means use Interlock Unlimited.

>>421171

>... none of that is going to stand a chance against the majority of modern firearms.

The Modern Period started in the 15th century.

>>421400

>>421415

Oh wait, I was reading the core Interlock Unlimited manual, the non-2020 one. The 2020 specific manual has twice the amount of skills of the vanilla game, including specific skills for ROWING A BOAT, SKYDIVING ROPE PULLING OR TYPING. Disregard everything I said about Interloxk Unlimited, it sucks cock.

>>421420

15th firearms are comparable to firearms in the 20th century

You're just trying to get a rise out of me aren't you?

>>421171

>new cloth material being showcased to police that is just as stab proof makes its rounds through the red tape.

What's this?

Friday Night Firefight, or Twilight 2000?

>>421102

> how modern loads would work against something like an orc or ogre.

>>421113

>It's basically like shooting a Bear or Elephant respectively.

Sort of.

40kRP solves such things via Toughness Bonus damage reduction (which also reduces critical damage, of course.

Alternity actually has a mechanism to scale damage up/down in steps, since it's not just hitpoints, there are several tracks.

Though wasn't used to full potential until Alternity: Warships. A ship's resilience (past evasion and armor) has two basic parameters: hull points (proportional to volume) and Toughness Rating.

Weapon firepower classes match TR (most lasers are adequate for torpedo bombers, but only burn away paint on cruisers).

TR grows with size, but also civilian spaceship classes have TR 1 step lower than military hulls of the same volume (same amount of solid material to crunch through, but it doesn't require equally heavy weapons).

Obviously, this approach can work on small scale too.

>>421337

every shot throws your aim off, the higher your skill+physical strength and the lower the caliber the smaller the kick

>>415613

Love this system...can't get any faggots to play

>>415562

A lot of people have already made great posts on a lot of nuances but I think something that needs to be addressed in the OP is

>6 second turn

If I was designing a system that involved modern guns there's no way I'd use a six second turn. That's far too long a timescale. That's enough time to dump half a 30 round extended mag from an MP7.

>>426049

Is that you detective?

>>415562

make size matter a lot when shot.

a small caliber bullet will do more against a small creature VS a large creature. enough body mass in the way is presumably enough to nullify any certain size/speed of bullet

>You need to send them below -1×HP for an instant kill

B419 requires -5xHP for "die immediately".

-1x is just a HT check which a lot of mooks might pass, and even if they fail, MoF 1-2 is "dying but not dead" and B423 has this as just "Mortal Wounds" where they survive for 30 minutes before they make another HT check to see if they die. They can be stabilized by a medic, or might auto-stabilize on a crit success (but remain incapacitated).

If it's an "important NPC" the GM can also assign a "Dying Action" if you don't kill them in "the most sudden and thorough fashion" so they could fire off a last shot, pull a grenade, do a sacrificial dodge, etc.

>>415562

Ops & Tactics is probably the most firearms-oriented TTRPG out there. You should probably have a look at that first, to see if it does everything you want.