Board index » MDC Worlds » Rifts®

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:59 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 3133
Location: SDF-1, Macross Island
I know this is a strange question, but it seems to be something that kinda fits in with Rifts.

At what point is a technological/magical/psionic advantage simply too wide to be compensated for with skill? This is considering terrain, experience, etc and not the bizarre open field conflicts that is usually posited.

So a gunfighter from 1880...at what technological point is his quickdraw skill rendered moot? Is it when full body MDC armor becomes available?

At what point is a Medieval knight rendered useless in combat? What if they were given a robot horse, MDC weapons and armor? Do those skills return to viability, and at what scale? Can a medieval knight fight competently against a Cyber Knight, or is the psi-sword just too much

Can a P-51 Mustang be a viable combat machine against monsters from the rifts, or a dragon...or is the fact that it only has 6 .50 caliber MG's be it's doom? Which brings up an interesting question, are 6 heavy machineguns capable of doing MDC? Could they tear through the thin dragon's wing and damage the ability to fly?

Can a M1 tank battalion from 1990 fight 20 gargoyles and have a non-zero chance of not all dying?

This is assuming the lower capability side knows about the more powerful abilities of the other side. That means the tankers know about gargoyle strength, the gunfighter knows about MDC armor and the inability of his bullets to penetrate, and the fact that the dragon is (mostly/kinda) impervious to 6 .50 cals.

Thanks.

-STS

_________________
My skin is not a sin - Carlos Wallace
A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box - Frederick Douglass
I am a firm believer that men with guns can solve any problem - Inscriptus
Any system in which the most populated areas have the most political power, creates an incentive for areas that want power to increase their population - Killer Cyborg


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:49 pm
  

User avatar
Palladium Books® Freelance Writer

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 9440
Location: Houston, TX
Comment: My comments do not necessarily represent the views of Palladium Books.
"God created men and Sam Colt made them equal."

A gunfighter from 1880, with his 1880 equipment, is going to be a serious disadvantage against anyone in MDC armor, and pretty much helpless against someone in environmental armor (he can shoot someone in dog pack armor in a non-armored place, if he knows that he has to, for example; you can't do that against a full environmental suit). His only option against fully environmental involve not being a gunslinger... get close enough to grapple, and put the kinds of moves that hurt regardless of armor... and then he's at a severe disadvantage.

I would say an appropriately equipped knight against a cyber-knight would be a reasonably fair challenge... the equipment would be similar to the knight's own, and they'd be able to hold their own against a cyber-knight... though a tricky CK would get them, since psychic powers would be outside his bailiwick. The psi-sword is just a glowy sword that can't be lost, after all.

Basically, the question almost always comes down to equity of equipment. The P-51 and the M1 MIGHT be able to face them, assuming those weapons do MDC, but they would be heavily outclassed, and a dragon against a P-51 is going to be like getting pelted with Christmas ornaments... sure, they might hurt a bit, but you can smash any one you touch (or set on fire). The tank Battalion? About 54 tanks, so better than 2-1 odds against the gargoyles? I'd still go with the gargoyles, simply because of damage output v. durability. The M1, with relatively primitive MD weapons (doing what... 3D6 MD, at best? More likely 1d10-2d6?) is going to be going against something with 1-600 MDC... so you're looking at scores of rounds to take down one, while the gargoyles, even without weapons, will be able to smash at least 1 tank per melee (depending on their MDC, maybe as much as 1 tank per melee per gargoyle).

_________________
When I see someone "fisking" these days my first inclination is to think "That person doesn't have much to say, and says it in volume." -John Scalzi
Whiskerbutt (n): homemade RPG materials found in secondhand RPG materials.
[T]he Republicans [are] unique relics of the past. - Sourcebook 1 (revised, p. 6)
All Palladium Articles
Two Tales of Tellene


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:02 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 3133
Location: SDF-1, Macross Island
I agree, but was hoping that there would be some way to wriggle in a small margin for a possibility of victory.

I suppose that there are ways (out of combat) that the older combatants CAN win such as a knight (generally) having lands and some quality of soldiery under their command (hence why they are knights...and not freelances) and use that for an advantage. The P-51 is much faster than a dragon and although the dragon can teleport up to 5 miles, the kinda low percentage makes me wonder if being pelted with Christmas ornaments might lower that a bit. Of course the P-51 may (should) have a higher max altitude, and the P-51 can just run away. In a defense the M1's might be able to take it with good fire discipline, long range fires and the ability to displace to positions further back...at least as long as the gargoyles stay on the ground (maybe by ambushing them).

Anyway, are there ANY examples that you can think of where a higher skill can compensate for a technological gap, or does it always come down to better technology or some disadvantage on the part of the technologically advanced party (can't kill everyone, must capture X, etc.)? Well, I guess that explains why R&D is so important :) and why an arms race is a thing.

-STS

_________________
My skin is not a sin - Carlos Wallace
A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box - Frederick Douglass
I am a firm believer that men with guns can solve any problem - Inscriptus
Any system in which the most populated areas have the most political power, creates an incentive for areas that want power to increase their population - Killer Cyborg


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:35 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 3133
Location: SDF-1, Macross Island
And a second post...
At what level does tech begin to not matter? Since the current opinion is that the more advanced combatant will win at the tactical level, how do we explain instances in reality where this does not happen such as...multiple examples in history at the strategic level? Granted, this doesn't really seem to be an issue for the CS since they seem to have a pretty open RoE and fighting existential threats kinda makes those rules superfluous.

-STS

_________________
My skin is not a sin - Carlos Wallace
A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box - Frederick Douglass
I am a firm believer that men with guns can solve any problem - Inscriptus
Any system in which the most populated areas have the most political power, creates an incentive for areas that want power to increase their population - Killer Cyborg


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:45 am
  

User avatar
Hero

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:48 pm
Posts: 850
Location: Top Secret Goverment Thinktank
slade the sniper wrote:
I know this is a strange question, but it seems to be something that kinda fits in with Rifts.

At what point is a technological/magical/psionic advantage simply too wide to be compensated for with skill? This is considering terrain, experience, etc and not the bizarre open field conflicts that is usually posited.

So a gunfighter from 1880...at what technological point is his quickdraw skill rendered moot? Is it when full body MDC armor becomes available?

At what point is a Medieval knight rendered useless in combat? What if they were given a robot horse, MDC weapons and armor? Do those skills return to viability, and at what scale? Can a medieval knight fight competently against a Cyber Knight, or is the psi-sword just too much

Can a P-51 Mustang be a viable combat machine against monsters from the rifts, or a dragon...or is the fact that it only has 6 .50 caliber MG's be it's doom? Which brings up an interesting question, are 6 heavy machineguns capable of doing MDC? Could they tear through the thin dragon's wing and damage the ability to fly?

Can a M1 tank battalion from 1990 fight 20 gargoyles and have a non-zero chance of not all dying?

This is assuming the lower capability side knows about the more powerful abilities of the other side. That means the tankers know about gargoyle strength, the gunfighter knows about MDC armor and the inability of his bullets to penetrate, and the fact that the dragon is (mostly/kinda) impervious to 6 .50 cals.

Thanks.

-STS


The problem is that you have reached Clarke's third law, "Any sufficiently advanced Technology is indistinguishable from magic." At that point no amount of skill can overcome that level of disadvantage. There might be exceptions from time to time, but on a whole Clarke was right.

_________________
Veni Vidi Vici
Una Salus Victis Nullam Sperare Salutem
Sic vis pacem, Para bellum
Audentes fortuna iuvat
O Tolmon Nika
Oderint Dum Metuant


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:16 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28850
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
It's always a mix of skill and technology, I think, since you seem to be discussing skill WITH particular kinds of technology.
A 6-gun is a viable weapon in Rifts Earth... depending on what kind of rounds you have, and what you're up against.
A sword is a viable weapon in Rifts Earth... depending on what kind of sword you have, and what you're up against.
A tank is a viable weapon in Rifts Earth... depending on what kind of tank, and what you're up against.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:29 pm
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am
Posts: 1239
as I remember it the abram I saw statted up in one of the books, had 2400 sdc, and its main gun did 3d4 X 100 sdc (or 3d4 mdc per shot)

with that said as listed the abrams tank is likely to get chewed up in rapid order by gargoyles of course it wouldn't take much to change that rather abruptly. some varients have a 2 tube TOW launcher (swap out for mini or short range missiles)
change the ammunition to mdc cannon rounds is as simple as getting some rounds that can be fired by the old cannon, but do more mdc.
change out the machinegun for ramjets or explosive rounds
oh and you could upgrade the armor to MDC plating either via re armoring the tank, or by replacing the reactive armor with mdc plates

that would go a long way to leveling the playing field or even flipping the advantage the other way.

with the p51 the .50cal machineguns are "almost" mdc as listed, and it has 6 of them so IMO a burst at optimum range is 3 or 6 just about mdc attacks as 1 attack so yes it could likely do mdc damage it might only be 1d4 or 1d5 mdc but it could hurt the dragon at least a little, if you upgraded the ammunition then it might actually be scary


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:53 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6354
Location: WI
slade the sniper wrote:
At what point is a technological/magical/psionic advantage simply too wide to be compensated for with skill?

Well it should be pointed out that some technology requires SKILL to use. You can't reload a firearm (technology) w/o appropriate skill, you can't operate a vehicle without skill(s).

One might also argue that Magic use is a skill itself (as you have to "learn" how to do a given spell it could be thought of as a "skill").

slade the sniper wrote:
So a gunfighter from 1880...at what technological point is his quickdraw skill rendered moot? Is it when full body MDC armor becomes available?

It isn't necessarily rendered moot, some of his/her skills will still function with MDC equipment, so it depends on what equipment the gunfighter has when going up against someone in MDC armor. Even without MD attacks, they might still be able to disarm them (shoot the gun out of hand, nothing requires the shot to do damage itself, just have the force to cause the person to drop the gun. At least that is how I read NWpg81).

slade the sniper wrote:
At what point is a Medieval knight rendered useless in combat? What if they were given a robot horse, MDC weapons and armor? Do those skills return to viability, and at what scale? Can a medieval knight fight competently against a Cyber Knight, or is the psi-sword just too much

I don't know when the knight would be rendered useless in combat, most likely it would occur with ranged weapons (geared up as melee fighters) and specifics of their opponent (do they have ranged attacks?).

Giving said Knight MDC equipment to replace their SDC equipment would return them to viability, though they might still find themselves at a disadvantage in terms of ranged combat.

Against a Cyber-Knight... The Knight's code would require the CK to fight "fair", at least if the Knight isn't a fallen type.

slade the sniper wrote:
Can a P-51 Mustang be a viable combat machine against monsters from the rifts, or a dragon...or is the fact that it only has 6 .50 caliber MG's be it's doom? Which brings up an interesting question, are 6 heavy machineguns capable of doing MDC? Could they tear through the thin dragon's wing and damage the ability to fly?

This depends on a few factors mainly what .50cal MG are you basing the P-51 guns on. The .50cal machinegun in MercOps on the M1A3 MBT fires a 10round burst for 1d6MD using conventional rounds, if this is the basis then a P-51's offensive power in the "average" railgun damage (6d6 or 1d4x10), then it becomes if the P-51 has enough ammo to overcome the MDC of a dragon and its regeneration. The dragon will be slower, and generally not have the necessary range to match the guns.

Now the P-51 will be at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to taking damage, in which case it could be taken out with one MD hit potentially (off hand I don't know what the SDC stats look like). So as long as the P-51 can avoid taking damage...

slade the sniper wrote:
Can a M1 tank battalion from 1990 fight 20 gargoyles and have a non-zero chance of not all dying?

Yes. Assuming an M1 tank battalion is ~56tanks and they play smart.

The MercOps M1A3's main cannon has a range of 6000ft, even the fastest Gargoyle flying would require 66seconds (100second for average) to enter melee range at that distance. This gives the tanks a full 4 melees to fire starting at maximum range (longer if they shoot beyond maximum range), each tank attacks 3 times per melee with said gun for a total of 12 attacks (18 attacks for average flying speed gargoyles). A Gargoyle has average of 450MDC (assuming they don't have any other equipment). Depending on the damage for the shells the tanks are using, it would be theoretically possible for them to kill all 20 average Gargoyles before they can enter melee range even if every one is a top speed flier (which seems unlikely)

If the Gargoyles are allowed to enter melee range a non-GAW M1 is going to be SDC, and not likely to last long (a few melee hits). the GAW refits fit will last longer. The M1's though can't out run the Gargoyles flying (they can lengthen the combat window, especially since they can fire on the move IIRC).


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:09 am
  

User avatar
Hero

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:48 pm
Posts: 850
Location: Top Secret Goverment Thinktank
Killer Cyborg, guardiandashi, and ShadowLogan,

You have all come up with a Rift technology solutions to a Rift technology problems. The OP was about using skills to overcome the Technology difference between 20th Century SDC technology and Rifts MDC technology.

In my opinion I think that the technology gap is too significant to overcome with skill. It would require a radical shift/upgrade in weaker technology or it will become extinct. History is replete with examples which is what Arthur C Clarke based the third of his Three Laws on.

His three laws are interesting.

1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2)The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3)Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

_________________
Veni Vidi Vici
Una Salus Victis Nullam Sperare Salutem
Sic vis pacem, Para bellum
Audentes fortuna iuvat
O Tolmon Nika
Oderint Dum Metuant


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:18 am
  

Wanderer

Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 80
slade the sniper wrote:

So a gunfighter from 1880...at what technological point is his quickdraw skill rendered moot? Is it when full body MDC armor becomes available?


A "classic" (well ok, in spaghetti westerns...) gunfighter trick is to shoot the gun out of an opponent's hand... That will work up until he runs into something with built in weapons (powered amor/cyborg) or who can hold onto their gun against a bullet impact (SN PS Maybe? Rules wise, not sure how it would be handled).


slade the sniper wrote:
At what point is a Medieval knight rendered useless in combat? What if they were given a robot horse, MDC weapons and armor? Do those skills return to viability, and at what scale? Can a medieval knight fight competently against a Cyber Knight, or is the psi-sword just too much


Up against a cyber-Knight (assuming the CK hasn't fallen), he's in luck! "A true Knight will never use a Psi-Sword against a foe who is unarmed or not equipped with an equivalent weapon, or who is not a supernatural creature or dragon.". It's Mano a Mano, Knight vs Knight, medieval vs cyber, for all the marbles! Of course if you give the medieval guy high tech equipment, his odds get worse - now the CK can use his psi-sword, and gets his retconned BS anti-tech cheese...

slade the sniper wrote:
Can a P-51 Mustang be a viable combat machine against monsters from the rifts, or a dragon...or is the fact that it only has 6 .50 caliber MG's be it's doom? Which brings up an interesting question, are 6 heavy machineguns capable of doing MDC? Could they tear through the thin dragon's wing and damage the ability to fly?


Rifts monster, maybe - anything that can't fly & doesn't have long-range weapons will have issues. Burst from 6 .50 cal's does actually wander into MDC territory (see the previous post about a burst being 1d6 MDC from an individual machinegun).


slade the sniper wrote:
Can a M1 tank battalion from 1990 fight 20 gargoyles and have a non-zero chance of not all dying?


This being rifts, and thus the tanks being unrealistically maneuverable and agile, they have a lot of range on melee combatants. Given an "infinite flat plain" scenario, they can run away from the Gargoyles - (engine governor) top speed of 42 MPH = SPD ~ 60 - while shooting... they are going to get a lot of cannon fire in before the Gargs close. Not to mention the .50 machine gun for the commander to fire. Depending on how many tanks in your battalion, and how good they are at concentrating fire, they could pound the Gargs to death from range.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:10 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:23 pm
Posts: 4403
slade the sniper wrote:
I agree, but was hoping that there would be some way to wriggle in a small margin for a possibility of victory.

I suppose that there are ways (out of combat) that the older combatants CAN win such as a knight (generally) having lands and some quality of soldiery under their command (hence why they are knights...and not freelances) and use that for an advantage. The P-51 is much faster than a dragon and although the dragon can teleport up to 5 miles, the kinda low percentage makes me wonder if being pelted with Christmas ornaments might lower that a bit. Of course the P-51 may (should) have a higher max altitude, and the P-51 can just run away. In a defense the M1's might be able to take it with good fire discipline, long range fires and the ability to displace to positions further back...at least as long as the gargoyles stay on the ground (maybe by ambushing them).

Anyway, are there ANY examples that you can think of where a higher skill can compensate for a technological gap, or does it always come down to better technology or some disadvantage on the part of the technologically advanced party (can't kill everyone, must capture X, etc.)? Well, I guess that explains why R&D is so important :) and why an arms race is a thing.

-STS



Being highly skilled also would be understanding what your skill can do and what it can't. Don't fight a power house on their terms fight it on yours. For the gun fighter you don't go out and do a showdown with some dude in impervious armor. You go after them when they are not in armor or setup some way to get them vulnerable like shooting some rope holding up a big hay bail to lock down the guy in armor or things of that nature.


Old fashioned fighter planes with the correct ammo loads to exploit vulnerabilities would be still useful vs a lot of supernatural opponents. They also would have the advantage of high manuverability at comparatively low speed. normal jet fighters would have problems doing any kind of dog fight vs a supernatural critter they are simply so fast they are in and out of range in an eye blink. It is one reason an A10 is still useful in an age of super sonic jets. Sometimes ability to loiter at slower speeds and engage slower moving targets is useful and necessary. Also with magic stuff having such bad range they would still be fast enough to be able to dash in and out of range to do an attack pass and be gone and past their target and safely out of its range to react.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:31 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 2882
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy
An interesting exercise that may have some bearing on this topic: Start with a single set of human stats that are good enough to qualify for essentially any OCC (15 for everything). Using this set of stats:

1. Create the ultimate psionic warrior character for melee combat: A Psyscape-Native Sea Inquisitor Mind Melter with the Inner Eye Opened bonus applied to his psi-sword. Arm that character with Crystal Armor from Palladium Fantasy's Island at the Edge of the World book. Level him up to 15, but include no combat skills other than what comes with his O.C.C.

2. Create the ultimate magic warrior character for melee combat: A Naga-Spawn Witch or Shifter with pacts and spells made to enance melee combat. Level him to 15, but include no combat skills other than what comes with his O.C.C., and give him the most powerful magicc melee weapon you can find.

3. Create the ultimate tech-based warrior character for melee combat: a Borg. But make it a mining Borg O.C.C. (so minimal skills). Now max out all the enhancements for melee combat and level him to 15, and equip him with the most powerful tech-based melee weapon you can find.

4. Now create the ultimate skill-based warrior: a C.S. Commando or some martial artist or other. Have him take every physical skill, W.P., and advanced training he possibly can. Then equip him with a dwarven hex master-crafted sword (Palladium Fantasy Eastern Territories book) made out of Black Metal, and level him to 15.

Have each character activate all intrinsic bonus-granting powers, abilities, potions, drugs, et cetera. Then compare the attacks, bonuses, and damages of these characters.

Then repeat this process for shooting combat.


You know, you could turn any of these character builds into a fairly interesting Munchkin/Rules Lawyer Contest

_________________
Hotrod
Bizantium and the Northern Isles, p65 map
Arenas of Atlantis, Rifter 69
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:44 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 3133
Location: SDF-1, Macross Island
While that is an interesting idea, that is a LOT of hours making those PCs. Also, that really isn't answering the question...
It would be more along the lines of making a 1880's era gunfighter with anything/everything he could have at that point (basically use the Gunslinger class from New West, but with 1880's gear and knowledge), a pilot OCC (I suppose any would work, just stick to 1945 skills and tech), the air combat rules from Rifter 33, an aircraft from Rifter 38, and oh, a tank (crews x 50-ish) battalion circa 1990 (use Challenger stats from the Compendium of Modern Weapons) and I figure they get their mortars too and other stuff they would have had...

THEN compare them to their Rifts equivalents. Granted face to face isn't the preferred method, but via "Roleplaying" (tm) I think some players could definitely find some methods to defeat their respective Rifts opponents. This hinges on the lower tech side having pretty good intel on the Rifts side, because one hit will spell death for the low tech side...also, knowing is half the battle.

-STS

_________________
My skin is not a sin - Carlos Wallace
A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box - Frederick Douglass
I am a firm believer that men with guns can solve any problem - Inscriptus
Any system in which the most populated areas have the most political power, creates an incentive for areas that want power to increase their population - Killer Cyborg


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:09 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 3734
Location: Nashville.....ish....
Better skill without some possible way to do damage is not very useful. If it is similar vs similar like the Knight/CK or 1880s Gunslinger/Rifts Gunslinger the skill level is basically the same, and its no tech vs tech. Now make it a Gunslinger with standard equipment vs a Borg with standard equipment the skill can overcome the greater use of tech.

I go on the basis that a gunslinger, knight, and Abrams tank while not useless in Rifts are very limited. If they have the oppurtunity to "upgrade" to MDC equipment they can do well, but they are no longer the original SDC option.

As previously stated the gunslinger is pretty much useless against anyone with MDC environmental armor. Even the shooting a weapon out of the hand trick only works as long as the gunslinger has bullets. Eventually the enemy will walk over and pick up thier mdc weapon and it is all over. If you go on the basis that most mdc armor you go against is patchwork/homespun with an AR then the gunslinger is useful. If you let them pick up MDC six shooters they are nasty. A gunslinger can always ambush someone outside of armor, but if that is the setup they could just as easily use a rock.

The knight is the same way. The only way the CK loses is he or she goes with honor and uses only a SDC sword AND decides to strip off their armor. Even then the Cyber Armor is going to make it near impossible for the Knight to beat a CK unless you are going to first touch or something instead of a serious fight.

The mustang has a chance for two reasons. The MGs do light mdc damage anyway, and you don't define the enemy too well. A mustang might be able to kill a ground based, or slow flying monster, if the monster is not too heavy mdc wise(1800ish rounds, so the realistic accumulated damage isn't too crazy). You also have to remember that a piston engine plane is not optimized to shoot a lot of what is common in Rifts. Now, switch to ramjet rounds and reskin the plane with MDC armor or a FF and you get into Buck Rogers territory.

The Abrams are going to have issues with Gargoyles. Assuming again low MDC from 20th century ammo the tanks are going to have a hard time hitting the flying Gargoyles. Yes, a tank can shoot MGs and even the main gun at a flyer, but firing at a Gargoyle is not the sameas shooting at an Apache. The Gargoyles also have the ability to regroup and heal, the tanks don't.

_________________
RockJock, holder of the mighty Rune Rock Hammer!


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:42 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 3133
Location: SDF-1, Macross Island
OK, now we are talking. So is it the shift from SDC to MDC where the tech divide becomes too wide to cross with skill? That was really what I was asking about, the examples were just there to stimulate thought, which they did.
slade the sniper wrote:
At what point is a technological/magical/psionic advantage simply too wide to be compensated for with skill?

A lack of range can be compensated for via good intel, tactics and terrain, but SDC to MDC seems to be the unbridgable (?) gap.

-STS

_________________
My skin is not a sin - Carlos Wallace
A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box - Frederick Douglass
I am a firm believer that men with guns can solve any problem - Inscriptus
Any system in which the most populated areas have the most political power, creates an incentive for areas that want power to increase their population - Killer Cyborg


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:53 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28850
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
SpiritInterface wrote:
Killer Cyborg, guardiandashi, and ShadowLogan,

You have all come up with a Rift technology solutions to a Rift technology problems. The OP was about using skills to overcome the Technology difference between 20th Century SDC technology and Rifts MDC technology.


The kinds of skills in question, such as gunslinging, are technology dependent and are only as good as the technology being used.
If the question is about 20th century tech vs MD tech, that's not Technology vs. Skill--it's Technology versus Technology.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:09 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 2882
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy
If an item grants bonuses because of the skill of the person who made it, is that technology or skill?

For example, it's possible in canon rules for dwarves of Northolme in the Eastern Territories of Palladium Fantasy to make a sword that is +8 to damage and +4 to parry/strike (or +8 to parry) due to their superlative skill. If you were to have them make such a sword from an appropriately supernatural material like Black Metal (Dragons & Gods), the base damage would be doubled and be considered a magical weapon, even though it doesn't require magic for anything other than heating.

From there, you could have a character take Fencing (+1D6 damage), W.P. Sword, Paired Weapons, some elite and awesome hand-to-hand skill focused on superlative swordfighting, and every physical skill you can squeeze in that boosts combat bonuses.

_________________
Hotrod
Bizantium and the Northern Isles, p65 map
Arenas of Atlantis, Rifter 69
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:10 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6354
Location: WI
Killer Cyborg wrote:
SpiritInterface wrote:
Killer Cyborg, guardiandashi, and ShadowLogan,

You have all come up with a Rift technology solutions to a Rift technology problems. The OP was about using skills to overcome the Technology difference between 20th Century SDC technology and Rifts MDC technology.


The kinds of skills in question, such as gunslinging, are technology dependent and are only as good as the technology being used.
If the question is about 20th century tech vs MD tech, that's not Technology vs. Skill--it's Technology versus Technology.

To add to this
The way Palladium skills work, they are very generalized. The characters in question will be able use existing skills with Rifts technology that falls under those skills (ex. Vibro-Blades operate under their ancient WP). The vehicle crews might need to pickup a new skill to use some of the mid/high end vehicle equivalents (sensor related mostly).

The M1 Tank and P-51 will be able to do MD with their weapons, even without a Rifts upgrade.

The gunslinger's quickdraw isn't rendered moot, it provides initiative bonus (if the class is based on New West), few/if-any tech items are providing initiative bonuses for infantry (PA/Vehicles/implants or via skill/abilities is another matter). So even an 1880s GS is not going to have that skill (in the OP scenario) neutralized by technology in a lot of reasonable matchups they might find themselves in. Now an initiative bonus gives them a better chance at going first, which is what the skill is all about. Weather that is enough to overcome technology in other areas of the match depends on how they use that option unrelated to the skill in question.

slade the sniper wrote:
So is it the shift from SDC to MDC where the tech divide becomes too wide to cross with skill?

I think it depends on part on what you want to do. The "Trap Construction" Skill (New West pg75-7, IINM repeated in a few other places) has what amount to SDC attacks having an impact on those in MD armor. Then you have high volume SDC attacks that do MD for short hand (usually explosives, but a large burst from an SDC gun can do minor MD in some cases). You also don't necessarily need to do damage either, an SDC rope/chain could immobilize MD clad person, we know you can use a landslide of SDC objects (rocks, snow, logs, etc) to hamper MDC tech. SDC tech can be used to disrupt MDC grade sensors (an SDC field radio could be used to "jam" MDC radio for example going off skills IINM, an SDC lighter could create a smoke screen obscuring MDC optics, an SDC fire could obscure something from an MDC thermal sensor, etc). You could also compensate to some degree by using shear numbers of SDC attackers (w/right equipment) to overwhelm an MDC opponent.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:09 pm
  

D-Bee

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 5
Hunters in the Dino Swamp kill MDC dinos with.. no MDC weapons at all.

They do things like dig pits and lure the Dinos into the pit, and then divert water from a nearby stream to drown the dino.

So its not always about who is MDC and who isn't.

(to add to what Hotrod and Shadow are saying).

_________________
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:59 pm
  

User avatar
D-Bee

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:18 am
Posts: 41
Quote:
So a gunfighter from 1880...at what technological point is his quickdraw skill rendered moot? Is it when full body MDC armor becomes available?


Basic kevlar (sdc) would probably render his skills moot, much less MDC. But give that gunslinger a pair of MDC pistols and a half a day to get used to them, and he'd be right back into the fight imo.

Quote:
At what point is a Medieval knight rendered useless in combat? What if they were given a robot horse, MDC weapons and armor? Do those skills return to viability, and at what scale? Can a medieval knight fight competently against a Cyber Knight, or is the psi-sword just too much


Same thing, imo. The skill would be basically transferable. It would feel different.. obviously much lighter, cuts through anything, etc... but again, give a medieval knight an afternoon with a modern MDC sword and he'd prolly be fine. Psi-swords would seem like "sorcery" to him, but he'd warm to their superiority and perform just fine with them.

Quote:
Can a P-51 Mustang be a viable combat machine against monsters from the rifts, or a dragon


no, it's guns are SDC and the dragon would be MDC. no damage. one attack from the dragon and the mustang is history

Quote:
...or is the fact that it only has 6 .50 caliber MG's be it's doom?


yes, along side with the sdc nature of it's chassis

Quote:
Which brings up an interesting question, are 6 heavy machineguns capable of doing MDC? Could they tear through the thin dragon's wing and damage the ability to fly?


no. As I understand it (and feel free to correct me if you disagree - also post sources) - but a few mega damage points equates to hundreds of SDC... HOWEVER... hundreds of SDC do NOT equate to a couple MDC. No amount of SDC gunfire can damage a mega damage structure (Source: Rifts original rulebook - "tank" explanation of how MDC works). 100 guys with m-16's can unload on a coalition soldier all day, but the CS grunt will suffer no damage to his armor.

Quote:
Can a M1 tank battalion from 1990 fight 20 gargoyles and have a non-zero chance of not all dying?


yes, imo. 20th century tanks are technically MD structures and their cannons are MD weapons. With the right skill and coordination, i think they could do some damage vs some gargoyles for sure.

All of these answers are, of course, in my humble opinion.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:21 pm
  

D-Bee

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 5
Meneliki wrote:
Quote:
So a gunfighter from 1880...at what technological point is his quickdraw skill rendered moot? Is it when full body MDC armor becomes available?


Basic kevlar (sdc) would probably render his skills moot, much less MDC. But give that gunslinger a pair of MDC pistols and a half a day to get used to them, and he'd be right back into the fight imo.


Ermm.. Kevlar wouldn't necessarily help. Some of the older fire-arms are actually more deadly and have more stopping power than modern rounds. (You want to see tissue damage? A ball-musket hits like a .50 cal BMG). But even with his SDC guns he could shoot to disarm (shoot the gun out of the hand, or at least knock it off center).

And you can shoot unarmored spots.

Quote:
Quote:
At what point is a Medieval knight rendered useless in combat? What if they were given a robot horse, MDC weapons and armor? Do those skills return to viability, and at what scale? Can a medieval knight fight competently against a Cyber Knight, or is the psi-sword just too much


Same thing, imo. The skill would be basically transferable. It would feel different.. obviously much lighter, cuts through anything, etc... but again, give a medieval knight an afternoon with a modern MDC sword and he'd prolly be fine. Psi-swords would seem like "sorcery" to him, but he'd warm to their superiority and perform just fine with them.


medieval swords aren't nearly as heavy as people thnk they are. A one-handed sword (depending on length) is 1.5lbs-2.5lbs. MAYBE 3lbs for one with an ornate hilt/basket style hilt (though those were from later periods, not medieval times). The extra weight with a basket style hilt doesn't hurt much though, as it keeps the balance at your hand.

Vibro-swords probably weight just about as much.

Quote:
Quote:
Can a P-51 Mustang be a viable combat machine against monsters from the rifts, or a dragon


no, it's guns are SDC and the dragon would be MDC. no damage. one attack from the dragon and the mustang is history


Dragon has to be able to hit the Mustang, first, though. The range on any of its attacks is pitiful compared to the range on those .50 cal Brownings. And the P-51 can fly rings around a dragon and outrun it easily. So its not night and day.

Quote:
Quote:
...or is the fact that it only has 6 .50 caliber MG's be it's doom?


yes, along side with the sdc nature of it's chassis

Quote:
Which brings up an interesting question, are 6 heavy machineguns capable of doing MDC? Could they tear through the thin dragon's wing and damage the ability to fly?


no. As I understand it (and feel free to correct me if you disagree - also post sources) - but a few mega damage points equates to hundreds of SDC... HOWEVER... hundreds of SDC do NOT equate to a couple MDC. No amount of SDC gunfire can damage a mega damage structure (Source: Rifts original rulebook - "tank" explanation of how MDC works). 100 guys with m-16's can unload on a coalition soldier all day, but the CS grunt will suffer no damage to his armor.


Unfortunately you are wrong. FWIW, I agree with/believe that the rule as presented in the example SHOULD be how SDC weapons work against MDC, however, even as early as later in the RMB, we see examples of burst-fire from heavy SDC weapons (mostly machine guns) doing light MDC.

As time went on, more and more SDC weapons were presented and statted out that do MDC on bursts. For instance, in Mercenaries, there are several SDC weapons that do MDC on bursts with explosive or depleted uranium rounds, and then in later books, "Rifts" stats are given out for things like a .50 LMG showing that they do light MD on bursts (1d6 or 2d6 MD per burst depending on how many rounds) - primarily in Merc Ops, But they show up in other books..

As i said, my personal opinion is that they SHOULDN'T, but the Rules as Written ("RAW") state otherwise. Heavy SDC machineguns CAN inflict MDC on bursts.

Given that.. the Mustang can do either 6d6MD per burst (all guns firing), or 12d6MD (all guns firing) depending on how many rounds are in the burst/which version of .50 cal LMG damage it uses. We'll stick with 6D6 MD .. that's still the damage of a light railgun. As long as the ammo holds out, the Mustang is actually in pretty good shape to fight/kill that Dragon - other than IIRC, the Mustang doesn't have a huge depth of ammo so it probably doesn't carry enough to finish an adult dragon off. A Hatchling, though? It can probably kill a Hatchling fairly well, and live to tell about it.

Quote:
Quote:
Can a M1 tank battalion from 1990 fight 20 gargoyles and have a non-zero chance of not all dying?


yes, imo. 20th century tanks are technically MD structures and their cannons are MD weapons. With the right skill and coordination, i think they could do some damage vs some gargoyles for sure.

All of these answers are, of course, in my humble opinion.


Technically (as Palladium envisions MDC material), not even an M1 Abrams is truly made of MDC material. It's an SDC structure... it just has LOADS of SDC - enough to be the equivalent of light MDC. Similarly, its weapons are technically SDC weapons, but they inflict enough SDC in one shot to inflict light MDC.

_________________
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:36 pm
  

User avatar
D-Bee

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:18 am
Posts: 41
Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
Technically (as Palladium envisions MDC material), not even an M1 Abrams is truly made of MDC material. It's an SDC structure... it just has LOADS of SDC - enough to be the equivalent of light MDC. Similarly, its weapons are technically SDC weapons, but they inflict enough SDC in one shot to inflict light MDC.


Rifts original rulebook, pg 38: ".......Basically, M.D.C. indicates a super tough armor or physical structure. A structure so tough, that normal weapons will not damage it. To damage a Mega-damage Capacity (M.D.C.) structure you must use something that inflicts Mega-Damage (M.D.). Consider this example with a contemporary M.D.C. structure we all recognize, a tank........"....His two buddies whip out an Uzi sub-machinegun and an M-16 assault rifle, and spray the tank with a hail of bullets. The combined attack must number into the hundreds of S.D.C. damage. But the tank's hull is undamaged because it is super tough . . . M.D.C.! Normal weapons, even when combined, can not I damage a mega-structure. Only a weapon that inflicts mega-damage(M.D.) can harm the tank."

If the RUE goes back on this somewhere, I missed it.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:12 am
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:21 am
Posts: 1239
Meneliki wrote:
Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
Technically (as Palladium envisions MDC material), not even an M1 Abrams is truly made of MDC material. It's an SDC structure... it just has LOADS of SDC - enough to be the equivalent of light MDC. Similarly, its weapons are technically SDC weapons, but they inflict enough SDC in one shot to inflict light MDC.


Rifts original rulebook, pg 38: ".......Basically, M.D.C. indicates a super tough armor or physical structure. A structure so tough, that normal weapons will not damage it. To damage a Mega-damage Capacity (M.D.C.) structure you must use something that inflicts Mega-Damage (M.D.). Consider this example with a contemporary M.D.C. structure we all recognize, a tank........"....His two buddies whip out an Uzi sub-machinegun and an M-16 assault rifle, and spray the tank with a hail of bullets. The combined attack must number into the hundreds of S.D.C. damage. But the tank's hull is undamaged because it is super tough . . . M.D.C.! Normal weapons, even when combined, can not I damage a mega-structure. Only a weapon that inflicts mega-damage(M.D.) can harm the tank."

If the RUE goes back on this somewhere, I missed it.


I normally would say yes, except as mentioned it was changed, and the mustang is actually an example of how the difference works actually.
the change was essentially that you had to exceed 100 SDC in 1 attack to do MDC with an sdc weapon. in the example you cited you had several people doing say 10-50 sdc each per attack and so all the rounds bounced off harmlessly.

the example I am going to cite is the 50cal machinegun in the Compendium of contemporary weapons, pg 107, and 108 they do 1d6X10 +10 sdc per round and have a pv of 7+ which means those rounds can go through an engine block of a vehicle and the GCAL .50 machinegun (gatling) does 2d6X10 +10 SDC per round, with a 4000/8000 round/min cycle rate, 8000 is the 6 barrel version 4000 is the 3 barrel version.

so when considering the .50 cal machine gun each round is almost doing MDC by itself, when you fire a burst of 10-100 rounds then it absolutely could do minor MDC and then you use the example of the P51 Mustang with 6 .50 cal machine guns that are firing together as a single attack, so we will link 6 of the "weaker" .50 cal machine guns and have it do 6d6X10 +60 SDC per (6) single rounds assuming average rolls on 6d6 (27) would come out as 270+60 sdc or 330 sdc per a 1 round from each gun "burst" which is 3MDC average


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:54 am
  

D-Bee

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 5
Meneliki wrote:
Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
Technically (as Palladium envisions MDC material), not even an M1 Abrams is truly made of MDC material. It's an SDC structure... it just has LOADS of SDC - enough to be the equivalent of light MDC. Similarly, its weapons are technically SDC weapons, but they inflict enough SDC in one shot to inflict light MDC.


Rifts original rulebook, pg 38: ".......Basically, M.D.C. indicates a super tough armor or physical structure. A structure so tough, that normal weapons will not damage it. To damage a Mega-damage Capacity (M.D.C.) structure you must use something that inflicts Mega-Damage (M.D.). Consider this example with a contemporary M.D.C. structure we all recognize, a tank........"....His two buddies whip out an Uzi sub-machinegun and an M-16 assault rifle, and spray the tank with a hail of bullets. The combined attack must number into the hundreds of S.D.C. damage. But the tank's hull is undamaged because it is super tough . . . M.D.C.! Normal weapons, even when combined, can not I damage a mega-structure. Only a weapon that inflicts mega-damage(M.D.) can harm the tank."

If the RUE goes back on this somewhere, I missed it.


It isn't even RUE that goes back on this, its right in the RMB itself.

RMB Page 241 wrote:
Under Forearm Blaster (left column):
5. Mini-machiengun: 2D4 M.D. Range: 2000ft (609m)
-
Payload: The machinegun can fire 30 bursts (no aimed shots)


Its an SDC machinegun firing MD bursts (as at even a 10 round burst, each round would be doing less than 1 MD)

And thats right in the old, original Rifts Main Book.

Further, in Mercenaries (published only a few years after the RMB):

Page 103; the MP-23A Submachinegun does 5D6+5 S.D.C. per single bullet, or 1 M.D. (or roll 3d6x10 SDC against SDC targets) per 20 round burst.

WI-23 Explosive Rounds allow any automatic weapon to do MDC with bursts; though i have less of an issue with this as explosives were previously the only "SDC" weapns that could potentially do Mega Damage (as they could inflict more than 100 SDC in one go).

Ramjet Rounds also let SDC weapons inflict MD, but i have zero issues with Ramjets as they are described; they are bullets made of MDC material and accelerated with a ramjet to supersonic speeds. Fair enough.

Merc Ops (various pages starting at page 99)

Most of these guns can ALSO fire Ramjets to inflict even MORE MD, but:

WI-R12 Multi-Purpose Submachine Gun - fires SDC rounds, inflicts MDC on a burst.
WI-SR15 15mm Sniper Rifle - fires SDC rounds, inflicts MDC on bursts
WI-MG15 "Viper" 15mm Anti-Infantry Machine-Gun - fires SDC rounds, inflicts MDC on bursts (using Ramjets, this thing is actually way better than most Railguns).

Page 121 (Under the Golden Age Weapons section)

.30 caliber Light Machine Gun; inflicts 5D6 SDC, or 1MD per 10 round burst
7.62mm Medium Machine Gun; inflicts 6D6 SDC, or 4D6x10 SDC/1D4 MDC per burst.
.50 caliber Heavy Machine Gun; inflicts 1d6x10 SDC per shot, or 1D6x100 SDC/1D6 MD per burst.
.50 caliber GECAL/Mini-gun; inflicts 2d6x10 SDC per single shot (so can inflict MDC if it rolls well), or 2d6+3 MD per burst.

Those are all firing their bog-standard ammo.

a few pages later, the GAW-M1A3 Improved Abrams has a mounted 7.62mm Machinegun - 1D4 MD per 10 round burst, or 2D4 MD per 20 round burst.
the coaxial .50 cal machinegun (mounted down the barrel of the cannon) inflicts 1D6MD per 10 round burst of "conventional .50 caliber rounds".

The other vehicles also have stats for their unmodified, pre-Rifts guns doing MDC on bursts. (The Avenger cannon on the Warthog is nuts).

Those are just the ones i have lying around at hand.

There are other examples of SDC weapons (other than explosives, which should always have been able to do MDC if the damage was over 100SDC) firing bursts and doing MD.

As i said, personally, I agree that SDC weapons, even firing bursts (except of explosive or Ramjets), should NOT be able to do MDC...

But rules as written, they can and do. And have since the very first printing of the Rifts Main Book.

Edit: additionally, keep in mind that the "tanks are MDC" reference in the RMB was cut-and-pasted directly from Robotech (the first game to use MDC IIRC); in Robotech that was somewhat true. However, if you look at the (non-upgraded/modified) stats for an Abrams in Rifts or Palladium's other games... they're SDC vehicles with extremely high natural/vehicle AR (meaning any shot that rolls below the AR just bounces off). They aren't "technically" MDC vehicles - but they have so much SDC that they are basically minor MDC vehicles (and are potentially MORE immune to SDC weapons than MDC vehicles are! If that .50 cal rolls below the tanks' AR, it bounces off.. but if you shoot that .50 at an MDC structure.. it just takes the damage!) and their guns can inflict minor MD, even without being upgraded, because they already inflicted hundreds of SDC in a single shot.

_________________
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:10 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6354
Location: WI
Meneliki wrote:
Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
Technically (as Palladium envisions MDC material), not even an M1 Abrams is truly made of MDC material. It's an SDC structure... it just has LOADS of SDC - enough to be the equivalent of light MDC. Similarly, its weapons are technically SDC weapons, but they inflict enough SDC in one shot to inflict light MDC.


Rifts original rulebook, pg 38: ".......Basically, M.D.C. indicates a super tough armor or physical structure. A structure so tough, that normal weapons will not damage it. To damage a Mega-damage Capacity (M.D.C.) structure you must use something that inflicts Mega-Damage (M.D.). Consider this example with a contemporary M.D.C. structure we all recognize, a tank........"....His two buddies whip out an Uzi sub-machinegun and an M-16 assault rifle, and spray the tank with a hail of bullets. The combined attack must number into the hundreds of S.D.C. damage. But the tank's hull is undamaged because it is super tough . . . M.D.C.! Normal weapons, even when combined, can not I damage a mega-structure. Only a weapon that inflicts mega-damage(M.D.) can harm the tank."

If the RUE goes back on this somewhere, I missed it.

RUE pg288, starting second colum of page", also found on pg355]Only S.D.C. weapons that inflict 100 or more S.D.C. points of damage can hurt M.D.C armor.[/quote]

[quote="RUE pg346 wrote:
Mega-Damage: One M .D point is eual to 100 S.D.C. Most S.D.C. weapons and attacks do no damage to Mega-Damge Creatures or structures unless they inflict 100 or more points of S.D.C. in a single attack (not multiple attacks).

As it is a single attack, and bursts use a "single attack" in RUE a large enough damaging burst would do M.D.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
Its an SDC machinegun firing MD bursts (as at even a 10 round burst, each round would be doing less than 1 MD)

And thats right in the old, original Rifts Main Book.

Nitpicking, but by RAW the "mini-machinegun" does not list individual round damage, caliber or even the number of rounds in the burst in RMB pg241 (or the various 'cycle machiengun options on pg226-7). More detail exists in the Bionics SB (pg95), but here damage is from separate MD or SD rounds.

We also know as far back as RMB that MD projectile rounds (shell) exist in the Cybernetic Finger Gun (RMB pg232) by RAW, allowing for the explanation that those machineguns are firing MD projectile rounds and not conventional SDC rounds (though at this point it is speculation which type is in use).

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
Edit: additionally, keep in mind that the "tanks are MDC" reference in the RMB was cut-and-pasted directly from Robotech (the first game to use MDC IIRC); in Robotech that was somewhat true.

IINM .50caliber rounds when converted to metric are 12.7mm, which if true 1E Robotech had several machineguns of 12.7mm size doing MD on bursts of varying size (no individual round damage), but they also had MD capable rounds of even smaller size for pistols and sub-machineguns (9mm IIRC).


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:21 am
  

Explorer

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:13 pm
Posts: 136
So I'mma have to pull a bunch of obscure rules out of my ass for some of these
slade the sniper wrote:
I know this is a strange question, but it seems to be something that kinda fits in with Rifts. At what point is a technological/magical/psionic advantage simply too wide to be compensated for with skill?

So a gunfighter from 1880. at what technological point is his quickdraw skill rendered moot? Is it when full body MDC armor becomes available?
so SDC only, a gunfighter can indeed beat a anyone 1v1, they would need the initiative and good strike bonuses for called shots. I could indeed see them shooting between armor to get a kill with some called shots. Even with environmental MDC armor, not all MDC weapons are (or have to be) made from MDC material (they can just be a handful of SDC points). Even if we assume the weapon(s) are built from MDC, you'll still disarme the opponent with each shot at their weapon(s). Now if we bump up the opponent to supernatural or robotics, so that shooting away their weapons is simply not possible, then you'll probably run into some issues. Though, theme wise, dynamite should be on the table as an option. With enough rolls and explosives, ya, I could see them pulling a victory no matter the fight. Luck will be a heavy factor here, if you are upscaling the opponent(s).

Quote:
At what point is a Medieval knight rendered useless in combat? What if they were given a robot horse, MDC weapons and armor? Do those skills return to viability, and at what scale? Can a medieval knight fight competently against a Cyber Knight, or is the psi-sword just too much
So here is where I rule lawyer a bit. So long as the SDC knight is at a level high enough to have double the actions of the Cyber Knight, then they can "win". This knight WILL need paired weapons: ideally it should be sword and shield with sword and sword. Make the character ambidextrous, so you only take a -2 penalty on all actions (no matter the hand). You will be preforming
simultaneous attacks, which guarantee you to hit your opponent because you're giving up the defense... Unless you have paired weapons, in which case you still get your free perry. This all should be a totally free actions, but if not (via GM ruling) then play only a defensive counter attack strategy. Also a great way to deal with auto dodged. Roll with impact if you burn through the shield and need an action for your second sword.

Now here comes the ass pulling, realistically you just won't be able to to damage passed that MDC (can't remember if their armor has a timed limit, assuming it doesn't). But their is a weapon in the Rifter which has an interesting rules. If the player continuously hits the enemy for every action in a round, it deals 1MDC at the end of the round. Just ask for your SDC stabs to stack until the end of a round, so you'll have a shot at destroying the armor. Though if the cyberknight armor has a time limit, then it's just a waiting game.

Hate to say it, but it wouldn't be a fight that ends in victory one psi is added in. But, I guess it depends on what we consider a "win". Evil or good, our SDC Knight would most definitely have their bravery rebuffed in some way.

Quote:
Can a P-51 Mustang be a viable combat machine against monsters from the rifts, or a dragon...or is the fact that it only has 6 .50 caliber MG's be it's doom? Which brings up an interesting question, are 6 heavy machineguns capable of doing MDC? Could they tear through the thin dragon's wing and damage the ability to fly?

Can a M1 tank battalion from 1990 fight 20 gargoyles and have a non-zero chance of not all dying?
Not all dragons are equal, though I can't recall if light machine guns can even damage enough in a single action (without stacking SDC) to deal damage. But iirc heavy MGs can, so a slight swap-out should get it done. Alternatively, since your crew is acting as a unit and tanks come with two MG Gunner spots... You could argue Duel Shot with the .50s as-is and deal plenty of damage to get your 1MDCx20. You could take down a dragon, but not any/all dragons.

If you link x# of heavy machine guns (6 or otherwise), then with duel shot you'll most definitely be dealing several MDC in damage. I believe the range gets pretty extreme with the proper MGs. We're talking 2,000ft of pure pepper ********. Concentrated fire x20, +x20 LMG support at the same range, and x20 cannons when in range... I'd hate to be a gargoyle stuck in a narrow canyon or cave. Add in the tank armor rules form Recon, angle your tanks and you'll take zero in damage. Outfit the unit with HMGs and Explosives, so they can keep fighting after a tank gets downed, and I could indeed see the human company surviving with major losses. Not sure if they would win, but the enemy wouldn't be able to walk away without taking a heavy hit. A victory for them today would come at a loss tomorrow.

Also, the supernatural/psi isn't technology- this is becoming convoluted. Technically, learning spells is knowledge. So knowledge obviously beats MDC if we look at it that way.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:55 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 3734
Location: Nashville.....ish....
Ok, a different way of looking at this. What is a 1880s gunslinger or an SDC knight going to do against a Vanguard Brawler Thug, lightly armed with a couple energy pistols and a vibroblade or two. What can the gunslinger or knight do the the Brawler? With only SDC weapons they really cannot do anything to the Brawler. Could they possibly set a trap using dynamite, or a pit trap for the Brawler? Sure, but it isn't their focus, and the Brawler can do the same thing. They can still be useful, especially if the GM allows access to MDC weapons, but as is, in a fight the SDC characters cannot compete in an MDC world.

_________________
RockJock, holder of the mighty Rune Rock Hammer!


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:49 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Posts: 15692
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
RockJock wrote:
Ok, a different way of looking at this. What is a 1880s gunslinger or an SDC knight going to do against a Vanguard Brawler Thug, lightly armed with a couple energy pistols and a vibroblade or two. What can the gunslinger or knight do the the Brawler? With only SDC weapons they really cannot do anything to the Brawler. Could they possibly set a trap using dynamite, or a pit trap for the Brawler? Sure, but it isn't their focus, and the Brawler can do the same thing. They can still be useful, especially if the GM allows access to MDC weapons, but as is, in a fight the SDC characters cannot compete in an MDC world.


Well, it's not that your wrong, so much as that's not exactly a new problem. While the books like to regale us so many bastions of reasonably advanced civilization that it's starting to lose the post-apocalyptic feel, it is still cannon that a gang of a dozen guys in MDC armor or minor MDC beings can just roll into 80% of small towns and just declare themselves king with nothing at all the locals can do about it except bend the knee and maybe hope some roaving Cyber-Knight comes along and liberates them.

So creating that environment you discribe wasn't a mistake or anything, rather it was exactly the effect intended when the setting was made. This isn't theory. The earliest books said outright that was the intended dynamic. Without MDC gear, humans are helpless, at the whims of supernatural horrors.

Though sometimes, you can't even trust your fellow humans. Some humans can burst into Mega-Damage flame and casually incinerate your entire family and house while your SDC bullets melt harmlessly in his aura before reaching him. Sometimes they're terrifying Mind-Melters who can strip your free will and make you do things you can't remember later. Some even learn Magic, binding these supernatural horrors that terrify you to their service--and what does that say about them?

Starting to see why the Coalition's positioning themselves as the Saviors of Humanity plays so well? You are correct. without MDC gear, most humans are completely helpless to something as minor as a vanguard brawler. And they know that. That knowlege leads to constant fear. And Fear makes people turn to someone who promises to protect them.

_________________
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:07 pm
  

Palladium Books® Staff

Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 2:04 pm
Posts: 2029
A real world observation. A tank and troops roll into town. What is anybody going to do? This is happening in parts of the world today. So locals scrounge up what weapons they can and take action against them using hit and run tactics. How would anyone here disable a tank using whatever was on hand? But it's been done.

Rifts is primarily about small-unit actions, and that can mean stand-up firefights. Otherwise, the game slows down when the G.M. is overwhelmed with requests for details about cover in the area. The monster or vehicle can be attacked by multiple people positioned in multiple surrounding locations, and driven into pit traps or dead drops. This could be one option when those involved have only S.D.C. weapons and armor. Again, if speed of game play is the concern, and/or the amount of time the G.M. has to put in to set such things up, the decision may go to stealing or scavenging M.D. weapons and explosives, or buying them on the black market. Or hiring a magic user. The books cannot cover every possibility.

And yes, part of the Rifts world consists of farms and wilderness but that's boring material. "I travel through the wilderness." Without a specific location in mind and a map, an occasional interesting thing could happen but even if the whole group went, it would have to be for a good reason: you've been paid to risk your lives to locate someone or something. But if that's not your style of play or the goal/item does not seem to be that important then you can say no. If you do go, no need to roll for every day. The G.M. (who also played the NPC who hired the group) could say: "It will take you five days to reach your goal. Nothing happens during the first three days, but on day four..."


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:41 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:10 pm
Posts: 2483
In Rifts, the MDC tank and troops are going to raze the town to the ground.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:29 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 3734
Location: Nashville.....ish....
I don't argue that the original environment of Rifts was meant to be very lightly populated, with very few MDC trinkets out there. The problem is, now, 30 years in, we have places like Arzno which is rough and tumble, but MDC weapons are common, plus 1 in 6 or better citizens have natural MDC abilities(Fenniodi, Grackle Tooth, Larmac, and Lyn-Srial, I did not take into acount the big chuck of "others", or OCC based MDC like Borgs, Master Psychics, or Mages, or even "men at arms"). Now I know Arzno is close to an armed camp, so it makes for an exteme example, but it still fits, so we have a setting that varies greatly from place to place, or table to table, with no view being wrong.

To the original post, MDC world requires MDC equipment to be an effective warrior. Can they survive? Yes, but to me they need to upgrade their gear, or start farming. Their skill alone is not enough.

My point is the special skills and abilities of a 1880s gunslinger, or an SDC Knight don't stand up on their own. Their specific skills and abilities do not translate into being able to fight well in Rifts. They can absolutely use their brains to set traps, take advantage of the terrain and so on, but so can a farmer. Give them MDC equipment and they translate pretty well, becoming much more dangerous then the farmer with the same gun or sword.

The tech/equipment differencial is a power level thing, not just tech. An opponent with tech, natural abilities, psychics, or magic that gives them MDC capabilities just outclasses them, unless they pick up a vibroblade or CFT pistol along the way.

On a side note, a Green Beret with a shovel and an ax has a much better chance to take out a tank then a Knight or SDC gunslinger because they have knowledge of how to fight in urban combat, how to build tank traps etc.

Sorry for the rambling cold med fueled reply.

_________________
RockJock, holder of the mighty Rune Rock Hammer!


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:32 am
  

D-Bee

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 5
RockJock wrote:
Now I know Arzno is close to an armed camp, so it makes for an exteme example,


It actually isn't. The Colorado Baronies have a higher MDC-capable rate and most are described as ranches and farms. I broke down every NA nation we had stats for some time ago (i think i may have just saved it as a document somewhere in addition to the years-old thread) but roughly ~42-45% of the NA population owns MDC equipment, is an MDC-capable Spellcaster or Master Psychic, or is just a straight-up MDC being.

Quote:
Snipped.


I dont really disagree with any of the snipped. I dont actually disagree with the above, either, i was just adding some info.

_________________
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:07 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:23 pm
Posts: 4403
RockJock wrote:
I don't argue that the original environment of Rifts was meant to be very lightly populated, with very few MDC trinkets out there. The problem is, now, 30 years in, we have places like Arzno which is rough and tumble, but MDC weapons are common, plus 1 in 6 or better citizens have natural MDC abilities(Fenniodi, Grackle Tooth, Larmac, and Lyn-Srial, I did not take into acount the big chuck of "others", or OCC based MDC like Borgs, Master Psychics, or Mages, or even "men at arms"). Now I know Arzno is close to an armed camp, so it makes for an exteme example, but it still fits, so we have a setting that varies greatly from place to place, or table to table, with no view being wrong.

To the original post, MDC world requires MDC equipment to be an effective warrior. Can they survive? Yes, but to me they need to upgrade their gear, or start farming. Their skill alone is not enough.

My point is the special skills and abilities of a 1880s gunslinger, or an SDC Knight don't stand up on their own. Their specific skills and abilities do not translate into being able to fight well in Rifts. They can absolutely use their brains to set traps, take advantage of the terrain and so on, but so can a farmer. Give them MDC equipment and they translate pretty well, becoming much more dangerous then the farmer with the same gun or sword.

The tech/equipment differencial is a power level thing, not just tech. An opponent with tech, natural abilities, psychics, or magic that gives them MDC capabilities just outclasses them, unless they pick up a vibroblade or CFT pistol along the way.

On a side note, a Green Beret with a shovel and an ax has a much better chance to take out a tank then a Knight or SDC gunslinger because they have knowledge of how to fight in urban combat, how to build tank traps etc.

Sorry for the rambling cold med fueled reply.


I don't quite get this. The skills and abilities of a knight or a gun slinger hold up fine. Their equipment does not. If they can use the skills they have to get the equipment they need then they are totally fine. A gunslinger from the 1880s is going to be way better than a vagabond with the same weapon. They also possess the skills that would let them get a job that would provide to them the equipment they need. Basically the new west gunslinger type OCC are all just 1880's type people with the right equipment.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:10 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:23 pm
Posts: 4403
Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
RockJock wrote:
Now I know Arzno is close to an armed camp, so it makes for an exteme example,


It actually isn't. The Colorado Baronies have a higher MDC-capable rate and most are described as ranches and farms. I broke down every NA nation we had stats for some time ago (i think i may have just saved it as a document somewhere in addition to the years-old thread) but roughly ~42-45% of the NA population owns MDC equipment, is an MDC-capable Spellcaster or Master Psychic, or is just a straight-up MDC being.

Quote:
Snipped.


I dont really disagree with any of the snipped. I dont actually disagree with the above, either, i was just adding some info.



Once the concept of MDC monster hide home made armor became a thing MDC armor rarity as a concept becomes highly questionable. If your tribe/town can kill one big monster/dinosaur you now probably have enough materials for multiple sets of armor. The more armored people you have the easier it is to acquire more materials. That said this kind of armor is not full body environmental armor so your 1880s gunslinger should have chances to aimed shot unarmored spots.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:31 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 5908
Location: Clone Lab 27
slade the sniper wrote:
I agree, but was hoping that there would be some way to wriggle in a small margin for a possibility of victory.

I suppose that there are ways (out of combat) that the older combatants CAN win such as a knight (generally) having lands and some quality of soldiery under their command (hence why they are knights...and not freelances) and use that for an advantage. The P-51 is much faster than a dragon and although the dragon can teleport up to 5 miles, the kinda low percentage makes me wonder if being pelted with Christmas ornaments might lower that a bit. Of course the P-51 may (should) have a higher max altitude, and the P-51 can just run away. In a defense the M1's might be able to take it with good fire discipline, long range fires and the ability to displace to positions further back...at least as long as the gargoyles stay on the ground (maybe by ambushing them).

Anyway, are there ANY examples that you can think of where a higher skill can compensate for a technological gap, or does it always come down to better technology or some disadvantage on the part of the technologically advanced party (can't kill everyone, must capture X, etc.)? Well, I guess that explains why R&D is so important :) and why an arms race is a thing.

-STS

Situational. As long as you have the ability to inflict damage skill and tactics can be used can increase chance to survive and win. At the point where technology renders you unable to inflict damage any skill in a fight becomes mute.

So lets use your gun slinger example. While his weapon may not be able to damage a suit of PA he can create a situation where he can win. Using something he knows dynamite. There is Md dynamite in rifts merc. He can create a bomb using it and set it up so when he shoots a set spot the bomb blows up the PA.

So they just have to find a way to use there skill to damage the target. The tanks from the 1990s can be outfitted by golden age weapons to damage the gargoyles and survive the attack.
A person with skill can add technology to get a bigger advantage over those without the skill.

_________________
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:27 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 3133
Location: SDF-1, Macross Island
tl;dr .50 cal with proper ammo are current MD weapons.

From various sources:
TISSUE DAMAGE RATINGS
1. Barely Adequate 1D6
2. Fair 1D8
3. Good 2D6
4. Very Good 3D6
5. Excellent 4D6
6. Very Excellent 5D6
7. Superior 6D6
8. Light Machinegun 1d4x10
9. Heavy Machinegun 5D10 + 6 (56) or 1d6 x 10 (60)
10. Heavier Calibre Machinegun 6D10 + 6 (66) or 1d6 x 10 + 10 (70)

14.5mm HMG does 1d8 x10 per ball round and 3D8 x 10 for a 20 rnd burst per Robotech 2E Macross pg. 134
20mm cannon (frag. 2d6 x 10 or 6d6 x 10 HE) per Compendium of Modern Weapons
20mm gun: Frag. 2D6 X 10, HE 6D6 X 10 or HEAT ID4 X 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons
20mm Hispano AP: 6D6 x 10, HE: ID4 x 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons
25mm gun: Frag. 2D6 X 10, HE 6D6 X 10 or HEAT ID6 X 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons

PENETRATION VALUES (other than tissue)
1. Poor: Deflects off bone.
2. Fair: Deflects off bone.
3. Adequate: May lodge in bone.
4. Good: May break bone.
5. Very Good: Shatters bone, wood; goes through cinder block.
6. Excellent'. Shatters bone, wood; goes through >/2 inch armor plate steel.
7. .50 Calibre: Goes through brick, thin metal.
(extrapolation)
8. 14.5mm
9. 20mm
10. 25mm
(/extrapolation)

From Heroes Unlimited Weapons Expert:
AP rounds add a +1 or a +2 to PV
DU increases PV by 50% (PV 7 becomes 10, a PV of 9 becomes 14)
HE rounds double damage on 3d6 or less, and adds 3d6 to larger rounds. Increases PV by +3

Discussion: I put 14.5mm, 20mm and 25mm on there to show that with AP rounds, DU or HE rounds they will all be at or above Penetration Value of 10. This is important because now we have the rule that the highest AR in the game is 20. Going by what the PV and AR's are in the Compendium of Modern Weapons and is kinda described in other SDC Megaversal books, the general rule is that 1 PV is roughly equal to 2 AR. So a PV of 10 bypasses all AR, which maxes out at 20. This is one of the hallmarks of Megadamage. Therefore, it is my contention that some types of .50 caliber ammo, most types of 14.5mm ammo and everything except inert training ammo for 20mm+ is capable of MDC by bypassing any AR the target has... and 20mm up does MDC via doing over 100 damage per single round. The 14.5mm does 1d8x10 damage for a ball round...adding 3d6 to it for having HE would make it possibly to up to 98 damage per round, and that seems close enough to 100 points of damage for a single round (adding 2 damage for the Incendiary effect that is normally found in HE rounds for it to be HEI, and there are quite a few of those, check Wikipedia for 14.5mm ammo types).

Conclusion: Therefore it is my assertion that 12.7mm/.50 cal ammo with APHEI ammo such as the Mk 169, Mod 2 and the Mk 211 Mod 0 (the famous Raufoss) be considered Mega Damage weapons doing 1 point of MD per round.

-STS

_________________
My skin is not a sin - Carlos Wallace
A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box - Frederick Douglass
I am a firm believer that men with guns can solve any problem - Inscriptus
Any system in which the most populated areas have the most political power, creates an incentive for areas that want power to increase their population - Killer Cyborg


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:57 am
  

D-Bee

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 5
slade the sniper wrote:
tl;dr .50 cal with proper ammo are current MD weapons.

From various sources:
TISSUE DAMAGE RATINGS
1. Barely Adequate 1D6
2. Fair 1D8
3. Good 2D6
4. Very Good 3D6
5. Excellent 4D6
6. Very Excellent 5D6
7. Superior 6D6
8. Light Machinegun 1d4x10
9. Heavy Machinegun 5D10 + 6 (56) or 1d6 x 10 (60)
10. Heavier Calibre Machinegun 6D10 + 6 (66) or 1d6 x 10 + 10 (70)

14.5mm HMG does 1d8 x10 per ball round and 3D8 x 10 for a 20 rnd burst per Robotech 2E Macross pg. 134
20mm cannon (frag. 2d6 x 10 or 6d6 x 10 HE) per Compendium of Modern Weapons
20mm gun: Frag. 2D6 X 10, HE 6D6 X 10 or HEAT ID4 X 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons
20mm Hispano AP: 6D6 x 10, HE: ID4 x 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons
25mm gun: Frag. 2D6 X 10, HE 6D6 X 10 or HEAT ID6 X 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons

PENETRATION VALUES (other than tissue)
1. Poor: Deflects off bone.
2. Fair: Deflects off bone.
3. Adequate: May lodge in bone.
4. Good: May break bone.
5. Very Good: Shatters bone, wood; goes through cinder block.
6. Excellent'. Shatters bone, wood; goes through >/2 inch armor plate steel.
7. .50 Calibre: Goes through brick, thin metal.
(extrapolation)
8. 14.5mm
9. 20mm
10. 25mm
(/extrapolation)

From Heroes Unlimited Weapons Expert:
AP rounds add a +1 or a +2 to PV
DU increases PV by 50% (PV 7 becomes 10, a PV of 9 becomes 14)
HE rounds double damage on 3d6 or less, and adds 3d6 to larger rounds. Increases PV by +3

Discussion: I put 14.5mm, 20mm and 25mm on there to show that with AP rounds, DU or HE rounds they will all be at or above Penetration Value of 10. This is important because now we have the rule that the highest AR in the game is 20. Going by what the PV and AR's are in the Compendium of Modern Weapons and is kinda described in other SDC Megaversal books, the general rule is that 1 PV is roughly equal to 2 AR. So a PV of 10 bypasses all AR, which maxes out at 20. This is one of the hallmarks of Megadamage. Therefore, it is my contention that some types of .50 caliber ammo, most types of 14.5mm ammo and everything except inert training ammo for 20mm+ is capable of MDC by bypassing any AR the target has... and 20mm up does MDC via doing over 100 damage per single round. The 14.5mm does 1d8x10 damage for a ball round...adding 3d6 to it for having HE would make it possibly to up to 98 damage per round, and that seems close enough to 100 points of damage for a single round (adding 2 damage for the Incendiary effect that is normally found in HE rounds for it to be HEI, and there are quite a few of those, check Wikipedia for 14.5mm ammo types).

Conclusion: Therefore it is my assertion that 12.7mm/.50 cal ammo with APHEI ammo such as the Mk 169, Mod 2 and the Mk 211 Mod 0 (the famous Raufoss) be considered Mega Damage weapons doing 1 point of MD per round.

-STS


Unsure what a completely optional system in a book that isn't even really compatible with Rifts has to do with Rifts and/or MDC.

Not that its needed: there are plenty of examples, in Rifts, of .30 and .50 cal machienguns doing MDC.

_________________
Im loving the Foes list; it's the only thing keeping me from tearing out my eyes from the dumb.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:10 am
  

User avatar
Wanderer

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:34 pm
Posts: 83
Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
slade the sniper wrote:
tl;dr .50 cal with proper ammo are current MD weapons.

From various sources:
TISSUE DAMAGE RATINGS
1. Barely Adequate 1D6
2. Fair 1D8
3. Good 2D6
4. Very Good 3D6
5. Excellent 4D6
6. Very Excellent 5D6
7. Superior 6D6
8. Light Machinegun 1d4x10
9. Heavy Machinegun 5D10 + 6 (56) or 1d6 x 10 (60)
10. Heavier Calibre Machinegun 6D10 + 6 (66) or 1d6 x 10 + 10 (70)

14.5mm HMG does 1d8 x10 per ball round and 3D8 x 10 for a 20 rnd burst per Robotech 2E Macross pg. 134
20mm cannon (frag. 2d6 x 10 or 6d6 x 10 HE) per Compendium of Modern Weapons
20mm gun: Frag. 2D6 X 10, HE 6D6 X 10 or HEAT ID4 X 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons
20mm Hispano AP: 6D6 x 10, HE: ID4 x 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons
25mm gun: Frag. 2D6 X 10, HE 6D6 X 10 or HEAT ID6 X 100 per Compendium of Modern Weapons

PENETRATION VALUES (other than tissue)
1. Poor: Deflects off bone.
2. Fair: Deflects off bone.
3. Adequate: May lodge in bone.
4. Good: May break bone.
5. Very Good: Shatters bone, wood; goes through cinder block.
6. Excellent'. Shatters bone, wood; goes through >/2 inch armor plate steel.
7. .50 Calibre: Goes through brick, thin metal.
(extrapolation)
8. 14.5mm
9. 20mm
10. 25mm
(/extrapolation)

From Heroes Unlimited Weapons Expert:
AP rounds add a +1 or a +2 to PV
DU increases PV by 50% (PV 7 becomes 10, a PV of 9 becomes 14)
HE rounds double damage on 3d6 or less, and adds 3d6 to larger rounds. Increases PV by +3

Discussion: I put 14.5mm, 20mm and 25mm on there to show that with AP rounds, DU or HE rounds they will all be at or above Penetration Value of 10. This is important because now we have the rule that the highest AR in the game is 20. Going by what the PV and AR's are in the Compendium of Modern Weapons and is kinda described in other SDC Megaversal books, the general rule is that 1 PV is roughly equal to 2 AR. So a PV of 10 bypasses all AR, which maxes out at 20. This is one of the hallmarks of Megadamage. Therefore, it is my contention that some types of .50 caliber ammo, most types of 14.5mm ammo and everything except inert training ammo for 20mm+ is capable of MDC by bypassing any AR the target has... and 20mm up does MDC via doing over 100 damage per single round. The 14.5mm does 1d8x10 damage for a ball round...adding 3d6 to it for having HE would make it possibly to up to 98 damage per round, and that seems close enough to 100 points of damage for a single round (adding 2 damage for the Incendiary effect that is normally found in HE rounds for it to be HEI, and there are quite a few of those, check Wikipedia for 14.5mm ammo types).

Conclusion: Therefore it is my assertion that 12.7mm/.50 cal ammo with APHEI ammo such as the Mk 169, Mod 2 and the Mk 211 Mod 0 (the famous Raufoss) be considered Mega Damage weapons doing 1 point of MD per round.

-STS


Unsure what a completely optional system in a book that isn't even really compatible with Rifts has to do with Rifts and/or MDC.

Not that its needed: there are plenty of examples, in Rifts, of .30 and .50 cal machienguns doing MDC.



I think it might be wiser to use the damage listings for weapons in the merc ops book. There are several examples in that book for using sdc weaposn to do mdc damage, including explosive and ramjet rounds.


          Top  
 
 Post subject: Re: technology vs skill
Unread postPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:58 pm
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 3133
Location: SDF-1, Macross Island
Huh, is it funny that in the aforementioned Merc Ops you mention, right below where SDC weapons are listed doing their MD it says:
"NOTE: For a variety of specific S.D.C weapons of the 20th and 21st Century, see the Compendium of Contemporary Weapons sourcebook with 700 weapons listed, statted out and illustrated, plus body armor, grenades, EOD, mortars, and select armored vehicles." on page 121, lower right hand side.

I guess it IS compatible with Rifts and seems to be a source that the writers actually direct the reader to... Weird, huh?

Also, there were a few posts above where it was iffy (for a few posters) whether the .50 cal on a P-51 could do MD. I was showing my work to "prove" my assertion that it could. Thanks for your help in giving my argument even more weight.

-STS

_________________
My skin is not a sin - Carlos Wallace
A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box - Frederick Douglass
I am a firm believer that men with guns can solve any problem - Inscriptus
Any system in which the most populated areas have the most political power, creates an incentive for areas that want power to increase their population - Killer Cyborg


          Top  
 
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Warshield73


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group