rennarda
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri 20 Dec 2019, 15:28

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Tue 01 Dec 2020, 16:38

Thanks Tomas, that makes sense. Stacking the bonuses would make armour and cover less effective. The RAW actually make ammo dice more deadly that I thought - each hit on an ammo dice does base damage, not just +1.

I wonder if hits from ammo dice should also give an extra d10 on the critical roll, so that the severe injury rules are more likely to come into play?
 
User avatar
Tomas
Site Admin
Posts: 4548
Joined: Fri 08 Apr 2011, 11:31

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Tue 01 Dec 2020, 16:45

[/quote]
Your last sentence mentions "hitting zero hitpoints", which reminded me of a question I had:
The rules say "When you have suffered damage equal to or in excess of your hit capacity, you become incapacitated."
I'm assuming that means you can accumulate more damage than you hit capacity which would, in turn, mean that recovery will take longer. Or do you stop accumulating damage once you hit you max capacity?
[/quote]

Yes, you can't go below zero hit points.
Fria Ligan
 
omnipus
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2020, 20:58

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Tue 01 Dec 2020, 21:25

As it stands now there are some weapons that can never cause a Severe Injury... and it's not the weapons you might think!

For example:
A trusty Glock 17 has a damage of 1 and a Crit of 2. To get a Severe Injury you need to cause 4 points of damage. That requires 4 successes (the maximum possible) on your attack roll (1 to hit and the other 3 to add to damage for a total of 4). This only possible if both your dice are at least a D10 or higher.
Now, let's take a M240 GPMG, which has a damage of 3 and a Crit of 4. That means you need 8 points to cause a Severe Injury. Not possible I'm afraid... 3 damage + 3 for rolling 4 successes is only 6 damage.
M2HB 12.7mm HMG? Nope, no Severe Injuries here either (with 4 Damage and a Crit of 4, you can't get to 8 damage).

Now *if* ammo-dice hits counted towards damage instead of causing individual hits things would change dramatically!
Hmm, this is an interesting study. It does actually make the bigger weapons less fearsome, rather than more. And begs the question of why their crit threshold is higher to begin with? If I take a .50 round anywhere, I think I'm pretty much out of the war for a while; I'd also assume them far more likely to cause crits no matter what. Maybe instead of "2x Critical Rating" this needs to just be a flat threshold. For instance if it was just 5 across the board, you'd get this only when rolling 4 successes with an M16. But with an M2HB, you'd only need 2 successes.

Bigger rounds are also far more likely to cause suppression... right now there's not a mechanism for that. To cause suppression you are always looking for more rounds. 9mm ends up as good or better than 25mm for that!
 
User avatar
aramis
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Tue 01 Dec 2020, 22:56

Yes, you can't go below zero hit points.
Corollary of that: when at zero HP and taking Damage again, go straight to a critical.
Which is bog-standard for YZE. (And is one of the few places not different from other YZE games)

Still working my way through, but I'll note: at least in 1987, USAR-TraDoc expected the standard fire mode fo be 3rd burst. And while the M16A2 I was issued in basic was physically capable of full auto (having been a CAR-15 lower receiver at one point, with an M16A2 upper and barrel), they soldered a blob to prevent full auto, but the sere still supported full. A few hours with a file and one could have returned it to full auto.

Actual odds of hit according to TraDoc aren't that good even for elites...measuring rounds per shot, the average infantry max was more than 3 rounds.

[Burst fire is part of the odds as written. I'd suggest a single shot without ammo die be at -1 to hit to reflect the lack of lead down range.
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
User avatar
Ser Stevos
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2020, 03:36

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Tue 01 Dec 2020, 23:28

As it stands now there are some weapons that can never cause a Severe Injury... and it's not the weapons you might think!

For example:
A trusty Glock 17 has a damage of 1 and a Crit of 2. To get a Severe Injury you need to cause 4 points of damage. That requires 4 successes (the maximum possible) on your attack roll (1 to hit and the other 3 to add to damage for a total of 4). This only possible if both your dice are at least a D10 or higher.
Now, let's take a M240 GPMG, which has a damage of 3 and a Crit of 4. That means you need 8 points to cause a Severe Injury. Not possible I'm afraid... 3 damage + 3 for rolling 4 successes is only 6 damage.
M2HB 12.7mm HMG? Nope, no Severe Injuries here either (with 4 Damage and a Crit of 4, you can't get to 8 damage).

Now *if* ammo-dice hits counted towards damage instead of causing individual hits things would change dramatically!
Hmm, this is an interesting study. It does actually make the bigger weapons less fearsome, rather than more. And begs the question of why their crit threshold is higher to begin with? If I take a .50 round anywhere, I think I'm pretty much out of the war for a while; I'd also assume them far more likely to cause crits no matter what. Maybe instead of "2x Critical Rating" this needs to just be a flat threshold. For instance if it was just 5 across the board, you'd get this only when rolling 4 successes with an M16. But with an M2HB, you'd only need 2 successes.

Bigger rounds are also far more likely to cause suppression... right now there's not a mechanism for that. To cause suppression you are always looking for more rounds. 9mm ends up as good or better than 25mm for that!
I think this is misleading to a degree. The rules for crits coming into affect is "CRITICAL INJURY: If the damage inflicted is equal to or higher than the crit threshold of your weapon, after mitigation by armor and cover, you also inflict a critical injury on the target." From my look over of the weapons, most weapons will need a double success on the attack roll in order to crit. Weapons such as the .50 cal, will only need one success for a crit. I don't see why you need to get 4 damage for a Glock 17; you will just need two successes on your attack roll and bada bing, you got a crit!
 
omnipus
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2020, 20:58

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Tue 01 Dec 2020, 23:56

We weren't discussing basic crits, but "Severe Injuries" (on page 71-72). It is strange that heavier weapons have a harder time (or impossible time!) creating severe injuries. I overlooked this on first read.
 
User avatar
Ser Stevos
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2020, 03:36

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Wed 02 Dec 2020, 00:07

We weren't discussing basic crits, but "Severe Injuries" (on page 71-72). It is strange that heavier weapons have a harder time (or impossible time!) creating severe injuries. I overlooked this on first read.
Oh my! Yes, I see now. But doesn't a basic critical still cause you to roll on the critical tables? Severe injuries and critical injuries are two different things, it seems. Critical injuries cause 1d10 roll on the charts while severe injuries cause 2d10 or 3d10 rolls on the critical tables. I do see your point about heavy weapons having a difficult time causing severe injuries. At that point, it's mostly overkill. But we do all like overkill!
 
Morticanis
Topic Author
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat 28 Nov 2020, 06:02

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Wed 02 Dec 2020, 06:02

As for #5 and #6 - I just want to make sure you're using the crit rules right - for most small arms (like an assault rifle), a crit just requires one success more than hitting the target. In all of our internal playtests, crits have been very common. A non-crit hit is pretty much a grazing hit for an assault rifle.

Ok, In the rules, currently on page 71 of the Players guide it states:

When attacking an enemy, if the damage you inflict is equal to or higher than the crit threshold of your weapon, after mitigation by armor and cover, you inflict a critical injury on that enemy. The same goes, of course, when an enemy attacks you.

Done the way you describe above, crits would be far more common - but again, only in the upper tier dice. But incorporating armor into the equation, that becomes less true. Most weapons have a Crit value one point higher than their damage value, and they also lack any kind of armor penetration.

For example, the Soviet PP-19 SMG has a damage value of 1 and an armor value of +2...so if the unlucky soldier equipped with the PP-19 gets into a fight with an armored foe, he delivers 1 point of damage... versus an armor rating of 3...

And, since Crits are only applied, per the book, if the DAMAGE delivered (after armor reductions) exceeds the crit value....well...good luck with that. This will lead to a curiously large amount of called shots to the arms and legs of targets - places often left unarmored - in the vain hopes of rolling enough damage increases to crit an opponent.

Even the typical assault rifle with a damage value of 2 and a crit value of 3 will require three successes on a single roll to crit an armored opponent.

Unless the assumption is that most opponents will be unarmored...

Against soft targets, the Crits will be far more likely - due to the reduction in damage factors, that single point of damage makes a world of difference.

And, extra hits from ammo dice aren't able to crit...ever. You can be penalized with a mishap from ammo dice...but never crit.

In our session, part of the issue is that the opponents were armored - something it appears the system doesn't anticipate will be the case most of the time.
We were NOT using a hex map - so distances were sometimes fuzzy. I plan to correct that in the next session as the game appears designed to work best on hex maps.

That said, it still seems that the limited usefulness of ammo dice is outweighed, as of my understanding right now, by the incredible downside.

My suggestion is this:
A: Make Ammo dice stackable with the hit dice - they can affect damage delivered to the primary hit OR be directed against another target - but the shooter must decide BEFORE rolling the dice.
B: Re-label the dice (I know, they're already in production...dammit) with 2 "hit" symbols, 1 "fail" symbol, two 2's, and a 3. Any character result equals one bullet. the digits are what they are. This retains the mishap element, but boosts the positive potential of the ammo dice, and keeps the ammo expenditure down to a more reasonable level.

M
 
omnipus
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2020, 20:58

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Wed 02 Dec 2020, 08:11

It sounds like you're not using the hit location chart. If your opponents are armored, hitting them where they aren't is smart! This is also another place where ammo dice hits might help -- more hits = more locations.

And yeah, don't use an SMG against armor if you can avoid it, that's pretty fundamentally unwise.

But yeah, let's look at a more common occurence: say an AKM versus flak jacket. Say you hit them in chest. 2 damage, no armor modifier, they have 1 armor. If you only roll one success, that's 1 damage; you do indeed need 3 hits on base dice to cause a crit here. That's not impossible with good skills/pushed rolls, but it's not likely. The body armor has done what it's supposed to: stop critical hits.

However in this example, the armor has also just been penetrated, which means it's armor value is now reduced by 1, to 0! Now any future hit can crit with only 2 successes. Your buddy with the 9mm can also hurt this guy now, even in the torso.

There's also called shots...
 
HorusZA
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat 28 Nov 2020, 08:48

Re: Ammo Dice...why?

Wed 02 Dec 2020, 08:36

However in this example, the armor has also just been penetrated, which means it's armor value is now reduced by 1, to 0! Now any future hit can crit with only 2 successes. Your buddy with the 9mm can also hurt this guy now, even in the torso.
I think that the armour degrading rule is a bit harsh. I can't see how most personal armour (except plate-insert) is rendered useless by a single hole in it. I've seen enough YouTube videos to know that personal body-armour keeps its integrity quite well even after multiple hit. Sure, eventually it starts breaking down, but not that quickly.
Perhaps we need a "reliability rating" for armour just like we have for guns and vehicles? I know, I know... more complexity and book-keeping.
However, all that said, I can see a design argument for making armour one use only: it might prevent death-by-a-thousand-cuts slow attrition gunfights when the combatants use handguns only.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests