FF&S1 was unrealistically optimistic about the impact of SEFOP (now known as EFP) warheads. In fact, these are limited in penetration of hard steel to their approximate diameter in cms. Hence, the calculation of SEFOP warhead penetration in FF&S1 should be reduced to 2xbore size (FF&S1 page 141).
Thread: [tne errata] SEFOP
3 posts.
FF&S1 was unrealistically optimistic about the impact of SEFOP (now known as EFP) warheads. In fact, these are limited in penetration of hard steel to their approximate diameter in cms. Hence, the calculation of SEFOP warhead penetration in FF&S1 should be reduced to 2xbore size (FF&S1 page 141).
jake.collins wrote:
> FF&S1 was unrealistically optimistic about the impact of SEFOP (now known as EFP) warheads. In fact, these are limited in penetration of hard steel to their approximate diameter in cms. Hence, the calculation of SEFOP warhead penetration in FF&S1 should be reduced to 2xbore size (FF&S1 page 141).
>
I do not think that realism adjustments are a terribly good idea when
compiling errata. Adjusting broken balance and scaling, sure. Simply
changing something because 'it's unrealistic', well, let's just toss
half the book, because a great deal of it is not realistic in that sense.
Simple bolt action rifles end up too heavy when designed for powerful
rounds (such as the .460 Weatherby). The battery rules can sometimes
produce weird results. Some of the sensor and MFD stats and rules are
suspect to many. There are no rules for circular PAWS/Meson Guns, so
ones in bays are unreasonably crap. Normal cars end up too big and
heavy. The list goes on.
Depends Rupert. If you're not actually using it in a game then the game balance impacts probably don't bother you. But as it stands, there is no reason to ever use a HEAP warhead, because SEFOP penetrates exactly the same, and has the advantage in the game of not being vulnerable to ERA or ESA armour. Yet in the real world SEFOP does not penetrate the same as equivalent HEAP owing to the laws of physics. Its not just "not realistic" it is "incorrect" and makes ERA and ESA pointless in the game. Moreover, there is an exceedingly simple fix that does not impact on any other part of the design sequences.
We actually use FF&S to design stuff to use in wargames. Hence this isn't just of academic interest. I'd be the first to complain if I thought this was just intellectual wanking!
--- In , Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@...> wrote:
>
> jake.collins wrote:
> > FF&S1 was unrealistically optimistic about the impact of SEFOP (now known as EFP) warheads. In fact, these are limited in penetration of hard steel to their approximate diameter in cms. Hence, the calculation of SEFOP warhead penetration in FF&S1 should be reduced to 2xbore size (FF&S1 page 141).
> >
> I do not think that realism adjustments are a terribly good idea when
> compiling errata. Adjusting broken balance and scaling, sure. Simply
> changing something because 'it's unrealistic', well, let's just toss
> half the book, because a great deal of it is not realistic in that sense.
>
> Simple bolt action rifles end up too heavy when designed for powerful
> rounds (such as the .460 Weatherby). The battery rules can sometimes
> produce weird results. Some of the sensor and MFD stats and rules are
> suspect to many. There are no rules for circular PAWS/Meson Guns, so
> ones in bays are unreasonably crap. Normal cars end up too big and
> heavy. The list goes on.
>