The Absurdity of modern warfare

[Killer Cyborg]

UAR-1 Enforcer combat training gives you:
+2 attacks per melee over the pilot's normal human-level ability. This does not indicate specific slowness, but rather the opposite.
The ability to body-flip enemies, kick them, tackle them, and so forth, with NO HTH maneuvers being mentioned as unavailable due to the robot being clunky.
Hell, you get bonuses to parry and dodge, again on top of what the pilot is able to do just in their meat suit. Again, if anything, this indicates that robots are superhuman, not subhuman, when it comes to agility and athletics.
And they can perform a frickin' LEAP KICK.

I forgot those things could do 15ft leaps (25ft if running). They're under 20ft tall so that's a pretty impressive vertical in particular.

Just wish they had a PS more impressive than 40 when they weigh 18 tons (36,000 pounds). Pg 285 only gives that a 2D6 MD punch (4D6 if power) and even using the generous new "gigantic robots" policy on pg 286 they can still only lift (100xPS) 4000 pounds. So it would take nine UAR-1s to lift a disabled one up?

I agree that their lifting/carrying is unimpressive relative to their mass.
Trackhoes have a much, much, much better mass-to-lift ratio, for example (googles) a 4 ton trackhoe can lift 4k lbs.
That kind of mechanical might should have been used as some kind of basis; even if bipedal bots still come out behind due to lack of stability, it should be closer.

[Killer Cyborg]

@Killer Cyborg
@Nekira Sundance

By R.A.W the Military/Wilderness Skill "Trap Construction" that appears in WB11 CWC pg62-5 or WB14 NW pg75-7 actually addresses the issue of the Giant Robot climbing out of a Pit Trap, specifically the "Tank/Trap/Giant Pit" described under the skill which reads "Robot vehicles and tanks can also fall victim to these deep and often wide pits. (...) Humanoid robots and power armor suits can climb or pull themselves out of the pit with relative ease; must spend one or two full melee rounds (15-30 seconds) unless the vehicle or power armor can fly or leap out (counts as one melee action)." Now for some reason the skill did not make it into Rifts Ultimate Edition's skills, though I am pretty sure it is in the GMG (sorry I don't have it to check page number) and possibly a few other books.

Good find!
I almost looked that up, but then didn't.


Obviously an Enforcer in a 14' pit could "leap out" in one action. The phrasing leaves some leeway for GM interpretation on the phrase "leap out," though.
Does it necessarily have to clear the pit entirely, or could a 19' tall bot in a 20' pit jumping to the point where only 5' of its body is still in the pit count?
I mean, if the bot can get its torso solidly out of the pit and on ground, I'd call that one action/attack, and require another to pull itself the rest of the way out, and maybe another to stand up.

Two melee rounds seems reasonable for any number of situations, but a bit steep for others.
Weird (but not unusual for Palladium) that it's either 1 attack or 2 full melee rounds.


Anyway, since most of the pit talk was (IIRC) focused on the inferiority of Bots to power armor, I'll point out that PA still needs 2 melees to get out of the pit unless it can fly or jump out, and due to the usually larger size of the Bots, they'd be at a jump disadvantage relative to bots in equal-sized pits, if that makes sense.

Now not all Robot-types have a Leap stat as defined as how far you can jump/leap which I would consider separate from the ability to Leap Kick. The generic leap ability is what I think would be required since a leap kick IMHO would be rigidly defined in what you can do. I will also add that out of the minimum of x188 Robot-class hardware (vehicle, drone, magical) I counted in a previous post (out of an incomplete Rifts Library), only x106 have a Leap Stat and only x66 have Leap Kick ability).

[ShadowLogan]

Either that, or for a purely tech solution, some kind of nano-fluid circulatory system built into the armor that would offer self-repair for a much longer period of time than the repair kits offer, for a large up-front cost. Say, 1 million added to the initial purchase, like choosing the difference between power sources. Then you'd have auto-repair capabilities for as long as the nanites lasted; maybe 1 year on average, at which point they could be resupplied for 100,000 credits.

Borgs do have the option for implants with self-repair capability, and generally if a Borg Implant exists, it can be an option for the Robot RCC (and by extension IMHO mass market 'bots found in the books).

The problem with any Self Repair Capability is that it will drive up the costs and require replacement materials to be stored on the unit (which might be better served by being used in another fashion). It will also likely be something a mass market producer (Triax, Naruni, Northern Gun, etc) will be less likely to want to do since it would cut into sales of spare parts.

The only power block that comes to mind with "self-healing" tech is the Intruders from Phaseworld (DB3), but that is also solid-energy technology.

One thing missing from most Palladium mechs is force fields.

(FYI there are 7 Triax Designs and 1 Naruni from above x188 Robots total with Force Fields)

Humans have only recently unlocked the technology on Rifts Earth (Triax), and Naruni is the likely the biggest name in mass market force fields, but they are a business so if you want all the extras it's going to cost you extra (usually). The only other player on Rifts Earth with Tech Force Fields, is the Megaversal Legion, but that was inherited from their former Dakkir (sp?) slave masters and they don't use 'bots (PA yes)

That leaves us with D-Bees that have the technology, but really haven't been fully fleshed out that are shown to have miniaturized it on the level of Naruni:
-Vernulians (WB1o/WB30)
-Spinne (WB30)
-Vallax (WB10)
-Gene Splicers (SB3) and while not on Rifts Earth AFAIK their PW "cousins" the Gene Tech (DB5)
-Ugakwa (SB3)

Compare this to powers in the PW/3G setting where the only place you really see Force Fields are on Spaceships, the only designs to also sport (tech) Force Fields are basically Naruni in origin (the only exception I could find was the Phalanx Main Battle Tank). You also have the Intruders (DB3) with their solid energy tech that could be seen as a force field, but this field also regenerates FAST.

It is also worth considering if Force Fields can be circumvented like in the RT setting with its Disrupters (they can punch a hole in a force field, while none of the mecha have FF Ships and Bases are known to have them), which could reduce the effectiveness of the technology. The FF tech being new on Rifts Earth, no one has had pressing need, but in the 3G/PW they might have it already (which is why we don't see more tech FF, the ability to be immune might be impractical for anything but spaceship grade basically).

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

Borgs do have the option for implants with self-repair capability, and generally if a Borg Implant exists, it can be an option for the Robot RCC (and by extension IMHO mass market 'bots found in the books).

The problem with any Self Repair Capability is that it will drive up the costs and require replacement materials to be stored on the unit (which might be better served by being used in another fashion). It will also likely be something a mass market producer (Triax, Naruni, Northern Gun, etc) will be less likely to want to do since it would cut into sales of spare parts.

As for cost, that was my point in having a high up-front cost to install it. But the benefit would be not having to think about repairs for a fairly long while.

The cost for a CNRRS (if I'm remembering that correctly... Cyber-nano-robot-repair-system?) is like 250k, and it only does 40 MDC per use (with 2 uses per kit). But it can do complex repairs of things besides armor.

For balance purposes, they could make it so the permanent installation self-repair system only fixes armor, not internals. So having a limb totally blown off will still cost a lot to replace.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

If there were anti-armor weapons in Palladium, there'd be less love of these monstrosities.

Except there can't be anti-armor weapons that can knock out an enemy in one shot, equivalent to the rocket-propelled-grenade and tanks. If there was, then even regular power armor would be largely worthless. In fact, so would heavy environmental body armor. So would Cyborgs. All worthless.

As I've said elsewhere, this is a setting where target movement speed and size is largely meaningless. 'Speed tanking' is not possible in Rifts. If there was a man-portable anti-armor weapon capable of easily defeating giant robots, there's nothing in the mechanics of the game that could prevent that weapon from being targeted against man-sized enemies. The extra speed/agility of power armor wouldn't be any kind of defense.

[Jefffar]

If there were anti-armor weapons in Palladium, there'd be less love of these monstrosities.

Except there can't be anti-armor weapons that can knock out an enemy in one shot, equivalent to the rocket-propelled-grenade and tanks. If there was, then even regular power armor would be largely worthless. In fact, so would heavy environmental body armor. So would Cyborgs. All worthless.

As I've said elsewhere, this is a setting where target movement speed and size is largely meaningless. 'Speed tanking' is not possible in Rifts. If there was a man-portable anti-armor weapon capable of easily defeating giant robots, there's nothing in the mechanics of the game that could prevent that weapon from being targeted against man-sized enemies. The extra speed/agility of power armor wouldn't be any kind of defense.

Which is why the ATL-7 only does 3D6x10.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

and I wouldn't call the T-34 the worst tank of the war at all.

Wow, high praise.

No, the 'worst' honors go to almost everything the British made, barring Italian and Japanese designs that didn't even try to make more than lightly armored cars and call them tanks.

I get that the T-34 has a kind of mythology that has built up over the years for a wide variety of reasons, and there's a strange allure that seems to attract a lot of history enthusiasts to embrace the myth of German technological superiority or the T-34 being some genius wonder-weapon.

Well, if you're going to get ridiculous and begin to argue in absurdities, then we may as well stop here.

Nobody called the T-34 a 'genius wonder-weapon.'

It was simply a better design than anyone at that time (1941) was fielding. That's it. The sloped armor made it very difficult to kill using standard tank guns of the time; like the heavy KV-1, only field guns could effectively deal with it.

The Germans' up-gunning process had rendered it largely obsolete by 1943, but the Russians persisted in building the same old version without wanting to slow production by introducing an improved version. By the time they did produce the T-34/85, it didn't really matter. The war was decided.

But when it mattered was 1941-42. That was when the German army was at its most powerful, and that was when they last had any chance of success. After Stalingrad, the German capacity for offensive drives was gone.

the myth of German technological superiority

Re-quoting this for emphasis.

Yeah, not a myth. Operation Paperclip wasn't ordered on behalf of a myth.

As this relates to tanks:

German optics and such did make their tanks and tank destroyers a nightmare to deal with. They undeniably had an advantage in defensive warfare and delivering pinpoint fire from entrenched positions. You don't conduct a purely defensive war on 2-3 fronts against the 3 largest superpowers of the world, for 3 straight years ('42-'45), without evidently having some tricks up your sleeve. Without some kind of advantage(s), they would've crumbled in half that time or less.

But don't take my word for it. Here's some direct examples from people who lived through it:

"On 18 July, during Operation Goodwood, 11th Armored Division lost 21 of 34 Sherman Fireflies to enemy tank and anti-tank fire in just one day. An unofficial dictum soon sprung up in British armored units--if a Tiger appeared, send out a troop of 4 Shermans to destroy it, and expect 1 to come home.

[...] One brigadier reported an extreme manifestation of 'Tiger-phobia' when a solitary Tiger fired for one hour, and then drove off unmolested because not one tank went out to engage it."

I'm sure the above anecdotes had at least something to do with the German Western front holding as long as it did.

[hup7]

On the giant robots side of the discussion... as was pointed out they are MORE agile than humans. (given you get bonuses based on the robot and robot training) as pointed out by KC, and as I said earlier. The GM can assume clumsy or not but certainly the rules indicate otherwise. (Robotech outright states the veritech is MORE agile than any human ever could be).

To answer the other 1 giant robot = 10 flying PA. People are missing two important points. The "cost" is only to adventurers or mercenaries, we have very little data on the "cost" to the Coalition. First, as a nation building the robots AND power armor ADDs to their economy not detracts from it, they are not trying to balance a budget or importing the resources and manufacturing. They don't COST the Coalition government x credits to make. Can we assume that they can make power armor faster than they can make robots? Can we assume they use less resources? Honestly, I doubt they do since the power armor has almost the same 'armor'.

Second do not confuse an abstract game mechanic (based on history and mechanics) to reality. Does the SAMAS 250 MDC relate to it being harder to hit with MDC being just an abstraction? Vs the giant robots measly 350 MDC being part of the fact it is easier to hit? Note the mechanic of MDC / SDC originated in Robotech where there were no man portable MDC weapons to combat the giant robots with (at least in the beginning); Rifts came in with a mix for playability / balance - want to play someone piloting a giant robot, sure; want to play someone on foot, sure - and you can play as a party with different roles together.

Of course the disadvantage of a fully airborne army is those flimsy wings; no, I have never shot at a SAMAS main body in any game ever. Heck, take out the gun and a glitter boy is an expensive paper weight. The reason no one would send out a single 'anything' or a squad of the same 'things' is vulnerabilities and advantages. A UAR with SAMAS as spotters is better than either alone. IMHO

[Jefffar]

I've gone into detail on the forums in the past as to why in any realistic scenario a robot is a far less effective AFV than a tank.

But Rifts has Giant Robots and they have them for a reason (they are freakin' cool) so we have to deal with how they are presented in universe and, quite frankly, their stats don't measure up to their description.

Then again, anti-armour weapons are even more anemic than the robots (and tanks) so maybe it works out int he wash.

Ultimately though, the issue is that Palladium built Rifts around a group of player characters who are ley-line walkers, cyberknights, city rats, 'borgs and Glitterboys. As such, Robots (and tanks) ares caled to be athreat to such a group, but to ultimately be defeatable. This has resulted in not enough armour to withstand sustained barrages of small arms and heavy weapons that can be repelled by Plastic Man body armour.

So the issue is one of scaling more than anything else. I beleive the Savage Rifts product has done a good job of correcting this, removing MDC from the vast majority of 'player character' level stuff so that oyou need anti-armour weapons to actually deal with hostile robots (and tanks).

I like the way MDC worked in the Macross era of the origional first edition of Robotech - MDC required a giant robot or a tank or similar. Anti-armour weapons threatened mecha and tanks and handguns didn't. Of course, a stray missile could and would kill everyone in a 30 foot radius...

As usual, it's pretty easy to house rule your own way to handle this and deal with the threat of TPK inducing overkill.

[Prince Artemis]

I will argue that, and this includes the idea of the robots as well, that the tanks were never designed to be stand alone. Yeah, they're very counter-able from lighter, quicker forces. But that's why you surround them with lighter, quicker forces. They were meant for use with infantry, not to go off alone (fury got this right at the start, wrong when they got their second mission). So when talking any deployable in a military scenario you have to consider the kinds of missions that they're going to be running and how they're going to be used. Otherwise you might as well say that rockets are a useless design because they need a launcher, or that air craft carriers are useless since they need planes and an accompanying force, ignoring that they're still one of the biggest game changers in war.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

I will argue that, and this includes the idea of the robots as well, that the tanks were never designed to be stand alone. Yeah, they're very counter-able from lighter, quicker forces. But that's why you surround them with lighter, quicker forces. They were meant for use with infantry, not to go off alone

I get what you're saying, and agree, but technically there's a little more nuance to this.

I don't want to sidetrack the discussion again by mentioning it, but from WWII until the present day, tanks are meant to be the 'tip of the spear,' either in offensive thrusts or defensive counter attacks. Yes, they do need mechanized infantry to come along with them, but the point is that tank units engage in deep penetration maneuvers, often far from the main body of their forces. That's kind of the only reason for their existence. And, where a static frontline doesn't exist (i.e, guerilla warfare), then tanks really have no purpose at all. But I digress.

If you just want to relegate them to close infantry support, then a standard, generally cheaper, self-propelled gun is far more practical.

Bringing this back to a Rifts analogy, I'd say that power armor is the equivalent of the classic (WWII to present day) tank. Just as there are light/medium/heavy tank classes, so are there light to heavy power armors. Even though grand strategy doesn't really exist in Rifts because there are no large nations invading other nations in the traditional sense (city-states at best), entire units of power armor would be theoretically ideal for deep drives into any American state-size piece of territory (like in the case of the Coalition or its enemies).

Giant robots, I would argue, are the artillery/SPG of Rifts. Most of them lack the speed/agility necessary to break through enemy defenses. Rather, they are siege and counter-siege units. As such, they should be more thoroughly integrated with regular infantry units than is necessary for power armor.

The analogy to modern warfare is, of course, flawed; since giant robots are far more expensive than power armor. I would also classify most cyborgs as power armor in terms of how they'd be employed in conventional warfare.

[Jefffar]

From a military perspective, until you get up to real strategic level systems (Strategic Bombers, SSBNs, Carrier battle Groups) all those armoured vehicles, artillery, missiles, planes, helicopters, etc are just there to help the infantry do their job (seize and hold ground). They do it by either helpign the Infantry kill thigns they normally couldn't or by protectign them form things that would kill them. There's a fair bit of counter and counter-counter too and it can get pretty cyclical (ie the machinegun is the counter to the infantry, the tank is the counter to the machinegun, the anti-tank weapon is the counter to the tank, infantry is the counter to the anti-tank weapon...).

So in a miltiary context, Power Armour and Cyborgs help the infantry by giving the infantry imroving its lethality, survivability and mobility. Giant Robots work more like tanks and artillery systems by workign alongside the infantry providing (what is supposed to be) lethal, survivable and mobile platforms to help get the job done.

But Rifts is not a milsim, it's an RPG, because of that the stats are oriented towards that and we get situations where a barrage of handgun fire can bring down an Urban Assault Robot.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

From a military perspective, until you get up to real strategic level systems (Strategic Bombers, SSBNs, Carrier battle Groups) all those armoured vehicles, artillery, missiles, planes, helicopters, etc are just there to help the infantry do their job (seize and hold ground). They do it by either helpign the Infantry kill thigns they normally couldn't or by protectign them form things that would kill them. There's a fair bit of counter and counter-counter too and it can get pretty cyclical (ie the machinegun is the counter to the infantry, the tank is the counter to the machinegun, the anti-tank weapon is the counter to the tank, infantry is the counter to the anti-tank weapon...).

So in a miltiary context, Power Armour and Cyborgs help the infantry by giving the infantry imroving its lethality, survivability and mobility. Giant Robots work more like tanks and artillery systems by workign alongside the infantry providing (what is supposed to be) lethal, survivable and mobile platforms to help get the job done.

The thing about having tanks ripping up your enemy's rear area, though, is the panic it causes. That's the main advantage of having tanks/armor acting separately from the main force.

The tank in WWII, used offensively, was not actually taking and holding land. In most instances the armored spearhead was incredibly brittle and relied more on pure shock value than actual combat integrity, should it be slowed down/stopped for any reason. It was the same shock value that disrupted the enemy frontline so severely that the line effectively shattered, which thereby allowed infantry to filter through the cracks.

While air attacks can theoretically disrupt enemy lines of communication as much or more than tanks, only a tank breakout can cause an entire sector of a frontline to collapse.

To that end, you would want your power armor units in a Rifts scenario to be as small and undetectable as possible. You want that element of surprise. Whereas there's no way an average giant robot can move through the countryside without being visible for miles around.

Power armor is, in my mind, like traditional cavalry, air-cavalry, and tanks all rolled into one. Depending on what kinds of armor you're using, and how. I definitely see robots in a more static warfare role. They can support a slow, grinding push into heavy defenses; but they're not suited to traditional breakout techniques.

But Rifts is not a milsim, it's an RPG, because of that the stats are oriented towards that and we get situations where a barrage of handgun fire can bring down an Urban Assault Robot.

My quad-armed Super Slinger cyborg with a slim-line Naruni magnum revolver in each hand, agrees with this statement.

[Jefffar]

The thing about having tanks ripping up your enemy's rear area, though, is the panic it causes. That's the main advantage of having tanks/armor acting separately from the main force.

Except they didn't. They sent infantry up with their tanks, loaded into halftracks, riding in 'kangaroo' converted tanks or even riding on the top of the tanks themselves in the Soviet desant style.

Nowadays we call them Mechanized Infantry - which is where I classify most Power Armours and Cyborgs. Some of the Power Armours I classify as Airmobile Infantry or Air Assualt Infantry because, well, they fly.

[guardiandashi]

tanks are by definition calvary

[Jefffar]

Except for all those infantry support tanks that were made between 1915 and 1945.

You can amke a tank that supports the infantry by rolling alongside it or you can make a tank that supports the infantry by ranging far and wide. Both are supporting the infantry

The same is true of the giant robots. Most of their designs are a tad more to working alongside infantry than free ranging cavalry sweeps, but it's not impossible for them to work either way.

[guardiandashi]

Except for all those infantry support tanks that were made between 1915 and 1945.

You can amke a tank that supports the infantry by rolling alongside it or you can make a tank that supports the infantry by ranging far and wide. Both are supporting the infantry

The same is true of the giant robots. Most of their designs are a tad more to working alongside infantry than free ranging cavalry sweeps, but it's not impossible for them to work either way.

sorry by modern definitions (at least in the us) almost all tanks are calvary, if they are more for supporting infantry directly I believe they are apc's and other units.

granted that's a doctrine and design choice but ...

when you move into games or theoretical models where power armor and robot vehicles are also options.
power armor is generally armored infantry, mobile infantry and similar
and robot vehicles typically become the new calvary and support roles either support or replace tanks as the premiere unit, until you get to something like the Bolos

[Crimson Dynamo]

It's "cavalry" not "calvary," which is a very different thing, the latter being of Christian significance.

That said, I'm fascinated how the argument for giant robots gets 200+ years of technological advancement, but it relies on other vehicles of war being left behind and instead argued at current technical levels.

So, let's boil it down to this. What are some believable scenarios in which a giant robot would be the superior pick over either a(n equally advanced) tank or a(n equally advanced) fighter jet? And please do keep the "giant" part of "giant robot" in mind when manufacturing the scenarios; no, a giant robot isn't going to have an easier time navigating a forest or urban environment than a tank will, nor will it do better in an open field (or, in order to outdo a tank too, a field with lots of difficult terrain) than a fighter jet will.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's "cavalry" not "calvary," which is a very different thing, the latter being of Christian significance.

I mean, we've used cavalry too... but yeah.

That said, I'm fascinated how the argument for giant robots gets 200+ years of technological advancement, but it relies on other vehicles of war being left behind and instead argued at current technical levels.

So, let's boil it down to this. What are some believable scenarios in which a giant robot would be the superior pick over either a(n equally advanced) tank or a(n equally advanced) fighter jet? And please do keep the "giant" part of "giant robot" in mind when manufacturing the scenarios; no, a giant robot isn't going to have an easier time navigating a forest or urban environment than a tank will, nor will it do better in an open field (or, in order to outdo a tank too, a field with lots of difficult terrain) than a fighter jet will.

Any scenario involving hands.

Edit:
Or to flip the question on its head, "What are some believable scenarios in which a human soldier would be the superior pick over a proportional-sized minitank or mini-jet fighter?"

[Jefffar]

That said, I'm fascinated how the argument for giant robots gets 200+ years of technological advancement, but it relies on other vehicles of war being left behind and instead argued at current technical levels.

So, let's boil it down to this. What are some believable scenarios in which a giant robot would be the superior pick over either a(n equally advanced) tank or a(n equally advanced) fighter jet? And please do keep the "giant" part of "giant robot" in mind when manufacturing the scenarios; no, a giant robot isn't going to have an easier time navigating a forest or urban environment than a tank will, nor will it do better in an open field (or, in order to outdo a tank too, a field with lots of difficult terrain) than a fighter jet will.

We did have the up to date tanks presented in Rifts Mercenaries which were equal or better than combat robots of equivalent technology. Unfortunately that's an exception to the rule in Rifts.

If both are equipped with the same level technology, an armoured fighting vehicle will outperform the combat robot in the vast majoity of circumstances encountered. But robots are cooler and thus are the go to in Rifts.

[ShadowLogan]

So the issue is one of scaling more than anything else. I beleive the Savage Rifts product has done a good job of correcting this, removing MDC from the vast majority of 'player character' level stuff so that oyou need anti-armour weapons to actually deal with hostile robots (and tanks).

While I can not comment on Saveage Rifts line, I do agree that the heart of the issue here IS Game Mechanical. Hotrod even commented on it on the first page. I know I can even confirm this in terms of what gives the best MDC for a given unit of mass from previous research analysis (and it isn't armored vehicles or 'bots, it's the EBA and PA for tech, a similar inverse size relation also holds for creatures).

like the way MDC worked in the Macross era of the origional first edition of Robotech

I can agree with this, but at the same time it also shows how ill thought-out the idea of MDC system was given later sagas due to their depiction in the show required introducing elements like MDC hand-weapons and Infantry Body Armor. What would RT (and likely Rifts) have looked like if Palladium had stayed in the SDC system, and just introduced a more thought out mechanical add-on for modern/anime/scifi combat?

So in a miltiary context, Power Armour and Cyborgs help the infantry by giving the infantry imroving its lethality, survivability and mobility. Giant Robots work more like tanks and artillery systems by workign alongside the infantry providing (what is supposed to be) lethal, survivable and mobile platforms to help get the job done.

From a General/Generic perspective I am not sure that (fictional setting) Giant Robots can be classified to fit neatly in modern structure given they can be encountered with a variety of configurations
-in RT/Macross you have the Artillery Destroids (Monster Cannon and R4-Series) with BFWs that have lots of firepower with range. These would be your Tank/SPG/Artillery
-in RT/Macross the "Infantry" Battloids (R7 Destroid and ASC nt-Battloids), with "lighter" weapons that don't have the same jaw dropping firepower/range. These IMHO are more like Attack Helicopters than an IFV or other Armored Vehicle
-in RT/Macross you have Transformable Units that essentially work as a conventional vehicle (aircraft mostly) or Battloid (some can do stand-in for Artillery Destroids). These really don't fit neatly into real world classification.
-you have full flight and non-flight capable models appearing, and I would not count "hovercraft" conventional vehicles to be full flight capable. This alone IMHO means there is no single catch-all-role way to classify them.
-they tend to have the ability to go hand-hand w/giant beings, something that a conventional vehicle is going to be far more limited in what it can do. I put this separate since both Destroid and Infantry designs in RT/Macross can both engage in this manner to varying degree. It is also something we don't really have to contend with either in the real world. Doesn't necessarily explain some fictional settings, but does for others (like Robotech/Macross, less so for pre-Rifts origin designs but certainly can be later justified in Rifts).
-theoretically their armor shouldn't be as strong as an armored vehicle (not that it doesn't get portrayed as being the reverse) and is likely more on par w/aircraft armor. At least from a real world perspective.
-while Rifts doesn't do the Giant Robots with Hand-Held weapon(s) as de-facto standard equipment like RT, said capability would give them an on-the-fly type of weapon response that really can't be matched outside of at-individual-person-level. To be clear I am not saying Rifts 'Bots can not pickup a gunpod or melee weapon, but the vast majority of them do not come with one as standard in their stat blocks.

So, let's boil it down to this. What are some believable scenarios in which a giant robot would be the superior pick over either a(n equally advanced) tank or a(n equally advanced) fighter jet? And please do keep the "giant" part of "giant robot" in mind when manufacturing the scenarios; no, a giant robot isn't going to have an easier time navigating a forest or urban environment than a tank will, nor will it do better in an open field (or, in order to outdo a tank too, a field with lots of difficult terrain) than a fighter jet will.

The main driving scenario for a giant robot IMHO (in the real world) is if we have to contend with giant creature (possibly armored):
-close-quarters/HTH type fighting, especially if you want to capture/subdue a living specimen (a live prisoner is potentially more valuable than a dead one)
-"impersonation" (ie disguise), a bit difficult for a 6ft human to impersonate a giant creature than might be 12-50ft tall, this requires a robot most likely.
-You also have the means now to interact with their hardware at a "natural" level. For example: a light switch in a room built for giants 15ft tall (or taller) is likely not going to be as easy for a 6ft human to operate.

[Killer Cyborg]

So, let's boil it down to this. What are some believable scenarios in which a giant robot would be the superior pick over either a(n equally advanced) tank or a(n equally advanced) fighter jet? And please do keep the "giant" part of "giant robot" in mind when manufacturing the scenarios; no, a giant robot isn't going to have an easier time navigating a forest or urban environment than a tank will, nor will it do better in an open field (or, in order to outdo a tank too, a field with lots of difficult terrain) than a fighter jet will.

The main driving scenario for a giant robot IMHO (in the real world) is if we have to contend with giant creature (possibly armored):
-close-quarters/HTH type fighting, especially if you want to capture/subdue a living specimen (a live prisoner is potentially more valuable than a dead one)
-"impersonation" (ie disguise), a bit difficult for a 6ft human to impersonate a giant creature than might be 12-50ft tall, this requires a robot most likely.
-You also have the means now to interact with their hardware at a "natural" level. For example: a light switch in a room built for giants 15ft tall (or taller) is likely not going to be as easy for a 6ft human to operate.

I dunno.
Soldiers do more than fight, and I can see some potentials for the versatility of robot vehicles being better than tanks.

Tanks cannot (as a rule) (some of this you've already hit on, Shadow, so forgive my redundancy):
-Climb up or down a cliff. Or out of an oh-so-important pit trap.
-Dig a foxhole
-See over treelines, buildings, rocks, etc., and generally get a bird's eye view of things.
This is important when you have missiles with a mile or more range, for example, any time somebody close to ground level does NOT have mile-or-more line-of-sight.
-Grapple (as you point out)
-Swap weaponry, for example shouldering a laser rifle and pulling out a rail rifle when dealing with energy-resistant foes.
(Yes, both tanks and bots can and do have a variety of built-in weapons, BUT the ability to carry a rifle means it's easier to change out the Big Gun than with a tank.)
-Jump over ditches and other obstacles, as well as jump over pit traps.
-Wade through swamps
-Fight underwater
-Act as a heavy lift crane (bulldozer, sure, with the right attachment that a bot wouldn't need).
(GRANTED, the bots don't lift nearly as much as they should be able to. But still.)
-Uproot a tree, and club a Vampire to death with it.
-Dodging, especially dodging behind cover.
-Rolling With Impact
-Blocking incoming missiles with one's robotic arms
-Looking TALL to intimidate animalistic predators
-Put on a suit of extra armor by itself.

AND based on the fact that Robot Combat skills give you +2 attacks per melee over what you usually have,
and Pilot: Tank does NOT,
I'd say that whatever neural interface they use for robots and power armor works better with robots than with thanks, perhaps because the bots are humanoid and the tanks are not.

There are tons of times and places where tanks would be better, but Rifts Earth is a weird world, and the versatility of bots might well come in hand when you never really know what's going to be thrown at you next.

When you're an army that doesn't know if/when a rift will open up and a 20' tall giant will come out swinging,
or when you're an adventurer who has to slow-dance a Cyclops Princess as part of some very delicate negotiations,
or if you're a Rogue Scholar who wants a vehicle that can pick things up and look at them closer, but also throw them far away if things go bad,
Big Robots can make more sense than a tank or a jet.

[shadrak]

So, I have been trying to build a TO&E for the Coalition as I sketch out 4-5 field armies facing off against various Minion-related threats...rationalizing Rifts is not entirely futile, but it is really hard and often requires re-imagining canonical edicts...

Anyway, I figured a summary my TO&E might be something that would "rationalize" the use of GIANT ROBOTS in the Rifts system.

The C.S. Future Force Concept: The restructuring of C.S. Forces largely standardized C.S. Regular Army Corps under a 1 Corps HQ (200 personnel), 2 Combined Arms Division (5,831 personnel requirements), 1 Auxiliary Division concept (2 regiments of Skelebots and 1 Non-human shock troops battalion).
Member State Force Corps were standardized to some degree but retained a fair degree of flexibility due to the lack of uniformity in these units. The Corps Headquarters structure was dictated by the Member State, and it commanded the activities of up to 4 Divisions including Infantry Divisions (9,745 personnel requirements), Armor Divisions (5,248 personnel requirements), and Cavalry Divisions (?? personnel requirements).
At the onset of the war with the Demon and Deevilian forces, the Coalition States established the Provisional Brigade, the foundation of the M-Corps. The Provisional Brigade consists of 2-6 regiments of 1000 men led by a C.S. Regular Army Colonel (often Brevet). Each regiment is composed of ten 100-man companies led by a C.S. Regular Army Captain assisted by a C.S. Regular Army Lieutenant and Sergeant Major or Master Sergeant. Within the M-Corps, the Brigades are divided among 2-4 Divisions. Because of this structure, individual M-Corps varied significantly in their size. Generally, M-Corps comprised of experienced mercenaries were much smaller than M-Corps comprised of recent volunteers.

The unlike the rest of the Coalition States Armed Forces, the Provisional Brigades of the M-Corps are equipped with older Coalition equipment or with whatever equipment they arrive with or what can be purchased (cheaply) on the commercial market. Oftentimes, mercenary units were incorporated wholesale into parts of the provisional brigades and retained their command structure with the C.S. personnel functioning largely as a liaison between the unit and the rest of the C.S. Military.

C.S. Regular Army Corps:
-2xCombined Arms Divisions
Elements of the Combined Arms Division:
1 HQ BN (Staff, MI, Anti-Magic, Logistic/Admin Planners)
3 Combined Arms Brigades (2 x Dragoon Infantry Battalions, 1 x Heavy Tank Battalion, 1 x Light Artillery Battalion, 1 Support Battalion)
1 Support Battalion
1 Power Armor Battalion (Cavalry) - 2 Companies of Power Armor, 2 Companies of Robots
1 Medium Artillery Battalion
1 Air Defense Artillery Battalion
1 VTOL Squadron (potentially also Cavalry or CAS)

I would envision the Robots as being a mobile reserve in most cases, or a highly mobile artillery piece. I would not see them as some kind of champion in ancient warfare.

The benefit of using a bipedal robot or 6-legged arachnid type would be the ability to travel over a variety of types of terrain and to execute offensive or defensive actions as necessary to support the more conventional forces.

In truth, there aren't really that many robots in my concept of a division (that I can shoehorn into an approximation of about a 5500-man division; not easy!)

I have (per division, so 2x this amount in the RA Corps):
64 Smiling Jack SAMAS
72 Super SAMAS

For Robots (per division, so 2x this amount in the RA Corps):
2 IAR-2
4 Skull Smasher
8 Hellfire
2 CR-003
8 CR-004

Now, there are a lot more Power Armor suits than just the SAMAS, but they are part of the Dragoon Infantry Battalions.
Within the Combined Arms Division, it is about 130 Linebacker Tanks, 70+ Mark VII APCs, 1200 foot infantry (including APC crews), and 550 Terror Trooper/Mauler filling the platoon heavy weapons squad role.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

The thing about having tanks ripping up your enemy's rear area, though, is the panic it causes. That's the main advantage of having tanks/armor acting separately from the main force.

Except they didn't. They sent infantry up with their tanks, loaded into halftracks, riding in 'kangaroo' converted tanks or even riding on the top of the tanks themselves in the Soviet desant style.

Nowadays we call them Mechanized Infantry - which is where I classify most Power Armours and Cyborgs. Some of the Power Armours I classify as Airmobile Infantry or Air Assualt Infantry because, well, they fly.

Some infantry were along for the ride, but they were merely observers. The efficacy of the thrust was based solely on the tank.

Just look at the tank vs tank battles of maneuver in North Africa (circa '42). The result of a given battle was predicated on how many tanks were left to each side, in fighting condition. Infantry only mattered insofar as the tanks allowed them to matter. Modern infantry by itself can't decisively end most battles, as WWI proved repeatedly.

Likewise, when tanks were used to shatter the French/Polish/Russian fronts, the process was similar. And the actual 'tip of the spear' couldn't have resisted a strong counter-attack, because there weren't nearly enough infantry and support weapons to establish control of the territory the tank force just raced through. Control was largely an illusion, which is where the psychological effect of the Blitz comes into play. Mostly it's just a matter of the overrun army thinking it's doomed because enemy tanks are behind it, enemy infantry are in front of it, and morale implodes accordingly.

The impetus of the armored thrust relied almost entirely on shock and the enemy's inability to react properly. Much like shock cavalry in antiquity.

Tying armor too closely to infantry is precisely the kind of antiquated thinking that left everybody vulnerable to Blitz tactics from '39 to '42, until such time that effective countermeasures were implemented. And, even today, said countermeasures can be defeated, terrain and other conditions permitting.

Treating power armor and cyborgs as other flavors of infantry would be just as wasteful as making tanks glorified babysitters for infantry, in my opinion. Rifts infantry have MDC armor and MDC weapons; they don't need specialized armor units to protect them.

What power armor needs to do, is operate independently in massed battle groups, and attack priority enemy targets/installations well forward of the frontline. Power armor could also ambush enemies deep in their own lines. Giant robots need to stay on the frontline (acting more or less as artillery), since they're neither fast enough (generally) nor inconspicuous enough to serve as raiders or guerillas.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

So, let's boil it down to this. What are some believable scenarios in which a giant robot would be the superior pick over either a(n equally advanced) tank or a(n equally advanced) fighter jet? And please do keep the "giant" part of "giant robot" in mind when manufacturing the scenarios; no, a giant robot isn't going to have an easier time navigating a forest or urban environment than a tank will, nor will it do better in an open field (or, in order to outdo a tank too, a field with lots of difficult terrain) than a fighter jet will.

Move the robots into a deep river/ravine/canyon or lake system, miles away from their intended target. Have them emerge somewhere in the rear area of an enemy force. Mainly to cause panic/confusion.

Power armor can also do this, naturally, but the point is that it's theoretically possible to use giant robots in this manner.

Technically a giant robot is still more useful in an urban environment than a tank, since robots can use MDC buildings as partial cover, while tanks can't peek around buildings. They either have to fully expose their hull/turret to fire, or fully hide.

Laugh all you want at the idea of a giant robot 'peeking' around a building, but the point is that it doesn't need to expose as much of itself as a tank does.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Move the robots into a deep river/ravine/canyon or lake system, miles away from their intended target. Have them emerge somewhere in the rear area of an enemy force. Mainly to cause panic/confusion.

Power armor can also do this, naturally, but the point is that it's theoretically possible to use giant robots in this manner.

So can tanks. So can aircraft. So can everything else.

Technically a giant robot is still more useful in an urban environment than a tank, since robots can use MDC buildings as partial cover, while tanks can't peek around buildings. They either have to fully expose their hull/turret to fire, or fully hide.

Laugh all you want at the idea of a giant robot 'peeking' around a building, but the point is that it doesn't need to expose as much of itself as a tank does.

Yeah, lots of sensor systems can do that without having to expose literally any part of the vehicle.

I get that "giant robots are cool and fun." That's fine. But saying they're a superior choice, especially in most situations, is just silly. Literally the only thing they have going for them is "giant robots are cool and fun." They're too expensive to design and build. They're harder and more expensive to repair. They're too big in the wrong dimensions. They're too unstable, top heavy, and easy to knock over (despite people arguing otherwise; there's a reason the chair you're sitting in and the desk you're sitting at don't have two legs). They require way too many systems just for basic functionality (the more systems in play, the more likely something is to frag up). Apparently they require way more complicated control systems (with several people suggesting they must be relying on some kind of psychic/brain interface). There's just... not a hell of a lot of pros but a mega huge list of cons for them. And several folks in this thread have to keep downplaying the advancements that would have went into other vehicles of war while simultaneously glorifying the ones required for giant robots in order to make them shine.

But... they are cool and fun. Oh, and they can flip light switches in a giant's house, and you can throw a wig on one or something. So they got that going for them.

Gimme a few tanks, fighter aircraft, and dudes in power armor any day of the week though.

[ShadowLogan]

There are tons of times and places where tanks would be better, but Rifts Earth is a weird world, and the versatility of bots might well come in hand when you never really know what's going to be thrown at you next.

Certainly, Rifts Earth (and other Fictional) Setting allow for giant robots to make sense (some more so than others), I do not dispute that, but from a Real World POV they don't make as much sense and have to contend with issues that are easy to hand-wave away for fictional settings, but a lot harder to do in the Real World.

Tanks cannot (as a rule) (some of this you've already hit on, Shadow, so forgive my redundancy):
-Climb up or down a cliff. Or out of an oh-so-important pit trap.
-Dig a foxhole
-See over treelines, buildings, rocks, etc., and generally get a bird's eye view of things.
This is important when you have missiles with a mile or more range, for example, any time somebody close to ground level does NOT have mile-or-more line-of-sight.
-Grapple (as you point out)
-Swap weaponry, for example shouldering a laser rifle and pulling out a rail rifle when dealing with energy-resistant foes.
(Yes, both tanks and bots can and do have a variety of built-in weapons, BUT the ability to carry a rifle means it's easier to change out the Big Gun than with a tank.)
-Jump over ditches and other obstacles, as well as jump over pit traps.
-Wade through swamps
-Fight underwater
-Act as a heavy lift crane (bulldozer, sure, with the right attachment that a bot wouldn't need).
(GRANTED, the bots don't lift nearly as much as they should be able to. But still.)
-Uproot a tree, and club a Vampire to death with it.
-Dodging, especially dodging behind cover.
-Rolling With Impact
-Blocking incoming missiles with one's robotic arms
-Looking TALL to intimidate animalistic predators
-Put on a suit of extra armor by itself.

AND based on the fact that Robot Combat skills give you +2 attacks per melee over what you usually have,
and Pilot: Tank does NOT,
I'd say that whatever neural interface they use for robots and power armor works better with robots than with thanks, perhaps because the bots are humanoid and the tanks are not.

From a REAL WORLD POV:
-ground pressure issues that no one has brought up yet (IIREC): the ability to climb or walk/run may be more limited due to the weight/mass of the unit and the pressure it would exert on the material it is trying to climb/walk/run on.
-you could outfit a conventional vehicle (land) with a boom with sensors to compensate for the height, possibly even articulated (think Space Shuttle or the ISS Robot Arm if you want complex, or a periscope on submarines). Or you could also just deploy a Drone(s).
-putting on extra armor is something that can be done to a conventional vehicle, though it won't be able to do it on the fly (I'd question if even a generic Rifts 'bot could fit into a generic giant's armor suit).
-the ability to block missiles with the arms, while this is something a conventional vehicle can't do, though there is technology that does something similar to protect against missiles. Then again if you've mounted one sensor boom arm, you might be able to mount an additional one (or two) with a shield to serve the same purpose. Or have a swarm of drones to act as sacrificial decoys (giving you possibly multiple sacrifices).
-while a stock generic armored vehicle certainly cannot match the flexibility of a robot in terms of manipulating the terrain or acting as a crane, they can be equipped to do those things (or even purpose-built units)
-you could build a ground vehicle (including tanks) to operate underwater or to float in water in terms of propulsion, and it is possible to equip them with weapons that can operate underwater.


From a GAME WORLD POV:
-Rolling With Impact is of limited value and always has been in ranged combat. "You cannot roll with the impact of attacks from auto-cannons, railguns, machineguns, energy weapons, or plasma/napalm missiles" (RMB pg41) and "Roll with Punch/Fall does not work against energy blasts, bullets, fire, blade weapons, psionics, magic or radiation." (RUE pg346 "Roll with Impact" Term, pg36 in RMB has a slightly shorter version of the list). Either list would seem to limit the value of the ability (its best use here would be to deal with missiles, but against most ranged combat it is of no actual value), plus as of RUE (pg341 under Step 5 of Combat Rules) "Rolling with Impact counts as one melee action/attack." Which makes it basically a form of Dodge with IINM better bonuses (typically).
-Robot Combat Skill's bonus actions are certainly game world mechanics, though I will point out that there is plenty of precedent for similar skill/bonuses to exist for non-Robot/PA platforms: "Space Fighter Combat" on pg151 DB2, Triax2 XML system installed in some Triax Aircraft for cyborgs (as a skill) that works just like Robot Combat bonuses (and might actually be superior to RC) pg167-8 WB31, various CS Skycycles (from CWC) when operated by certain OCCs get bonus actions, Russia's Cyberlink Interface cybernetic implant (Bionic SB pg54-5), and then you have the Juicer Pilot Skills in WB10 pg65-6. There might be additional examples to. All of which lead me to think that you could produce training/equipment for conventional vehicles that would grant it the equivalent of Robot Combat, this is my opinion of course but there is precedent for it.
-while various terrain obstacles are certainly more of a pain for conventional ground vehicles, in Rifts they do have Hovercraft technology that is applied in vehicles with those same roles and would have an easier time than even giant robots IINM.

[Killer Cyborg]

There are tons of times and places where tanks would be better, but Rifts Earth is a weird world, and the versatility of bots might well come in hand when you never really know what's going to be thrown at you next.

Certainly, Rifts Earth (and other Fictional) Setting allow for giant robots to make sense (some more so than others), I do not dispute that, but from a Real World POV they don't make as much sense and have to contend with issues that are easy to hand-wave away for fictional settings, but a lot harder to do in the Real World.

We're in the Rifts forum, not the Real World forum.


In the Real World, we can't even get giant robots to function viably at all, so it's not an issue worth discussing.

From a REAL WORLD POV:
-ground pressure issues that no one has brought up yet (IIREC): the ability to climb or walk/run may be more limited due to the weight/mass of the unit and the pressure it would exert on the material it is trying to climb/walk/run on.

Sure, and this a HUGE reason why giant robots aren't a thing in the real world; their feet would sink into the ground, and the terrain would be a huge problem most of the time.

But in Rifts, apparently there is some kind of miraculous technology to compensate for that which makes the point irrelevant.
And I'm discussing gameplay, the legitimacy of giant robots in Rifts, not whether we need to add them to our real-world military or anything; we obviously do not, because they're nothing near viable.

-you could outfit a conventional vehicle (land) with a boom with sensors to compensate for the height, possibly even articulated (think Space Shuttle or the ISS Robot Arm if you want complex, or a periscope on submarines). Or you could also just deploy a Drone(s).

DO we add boom sensors to tanks, though?
I've never heard of it.

As for drones, this is one of many HUGE gaps in Rifts technology. They have some robot flying probes and other stuff, but it's nowhere near what it should be. The game was written before drones were a thing, and it never caught up.

But how are you envisioning the drones working in this situation, exactly?
If you're picturing the tank stopping, sending out a drone to scout around, then the tank pilot turning his attention back to piloting the tank based on what he's seen, that's NOT the same as just looking through the eyes of the robot while you're piloting.
If you're envisioning an extra crew member piloting the drone, that's an extra crew member just to compensate for a lack of height.
If you're envisioning a complex computer-piloted drone that sends a birds-eye view of the tank and the surrounding terrain to the pilot, so they can pilot their tank like a top-down 3rd person video game, THAT is pretty awesome, but I'm not familiar with anything working like that in the real world.
If you're envisioning sending a drone instead of a tank, then we're not talking about the same kind of situation.

-putting on extra armor is something that can be done to a conventional vehicle, though it won't be able to do it on the fly (I'd question if even a generic Rifts 'bot could fit into a generic giant's armor suit).

It's the ability to do it by themselves that I'm calling attention to.

Giant robots can't necessarily just grab a random giant's armor and slap it on, no.
But they can sometimes.

VK 152, discussing Dragon Skin Armor:
Robot Note: The armor is not really suitable as additional protection for robots. Draping a giant bot in the armor requires special modifications/alterations of the armor's design and may still block and prevent use of robot weapons, jets, and sensors.
Covering cooling vents, exhausts, or jets may cause overheating, too. Also adds to clumsy and awkwardness factor: usual penalties apply, plus -1 to parry/dodge.
The cost is also prohibitive; it's cheaper and more efficient to get conventional armor.

This tells us that it's entirely possible for giant robots to wear giant suits of armor, IF the armor is designed to accommodate various sensors, vents, etc..
It also tells us that there is, apparently, "conventional armor" for giant robots that is not made of dragon skin, which seems to mean "conventional suits of armor," because the context is obviously not talking about the normal armor built into a suit.

It's one of many things that Rifts has as canon, but has never really explored.
Which is one of the biggest problems with giant robots in Rifts; the possibilities are never REALLY discussed or delved into as much as they should be.
We're just given stats and expected to find a role, develop tactics, imagine modifications, and so forth.
And we all imagine different things.

-the ability to block missiles with the arms, while this is something a conventional vehicle can't do, though there is technology that does something similar to protect against missiles. Then again if you've mounted one sensor boom arm, you might be able to mount an additional one (or two) with a shield to serve the same purpose. Or have a swarm of drones to act as sacrificial decoys (giving you possibly multiple sacrifices).

Sure, but again, have you ever heard of a tank with arms in the real world or in the game?

As for a drone swarm, bots could have that too. Then they'd have a drone swarm defense AND arms to block with, so the advantage is still with the bots.

-while a stock generic armored vehicle certainly cannot match the flexibility of a robot in terms of manipulating the terrain or acting as a crane, they can be equipped to do those things (or even purpose-built units)

Or to rephrase, "in order to compete with the inherent versatility of giant robots, standard armored vehicles would have to be specifically modified by engineers/mechanics to compensate, and/or rely on supplementary armored units designed specifically for those tasks."

The M60 AVLB is a specialized tank that can lay a premade bridge over ditches and other terrain obstacles, allowing tanks to drive over them.
A standard fighting bot can jump or step over the same obstacles.
A standard fighting bot also build a bridge, fill a ditch/hole, etc., without having to be a specialized unit designed just for that one task.

-you could build a ground vehicle (including tanks) to operate underwater or to float in water in terms of propulsion, and it is possible to equip them with weapons that can operate underwater.

Yes, tanks WOULD require heavy modifications in order to attempt the kinds of underwater stuff that giant robots can just DO right out of the box.

From a GAME WORLD POV:
-Rolling With Impact is of limited value and always has been in ranged combat. "You cannot roll with the impact of attacks from auto-cannons, railguns, machineguns, energy weapons, or plasma/napalm missiles" (RMB pg41) and "Roll with Punch/Fall does not work against energy blasts, bullets, fire, blade weapons, psionics, magic or radiation." (RUE pg346 "Roll with Impact" Term, pg36 in RMB has a slightly shorter version of the list). Either list would seem to limit the value of the ability (its best use here would be to deal with missiles, but against most ranged combat it is of no actual value), plus as of RUE (pg341 under Step 5 of Combat Rules) "Rolling with Impact counts as one melee action/attack." Which makes it basically a form of Dodge with IINM better bonuses (typically).

Roll with Impact works when it comes to:
a) missiles
and
b) punches, kicks, thrown boulders, and other such attacks.

I'm not sure what your games are like, if those things are not pretty darned common.

Roll With Impact does take a full attack under RUE. But it's varied over the years, and various tables both house-rule and house-interpret Roll as working in other ways.
In situations where Roll isn't nerfed, it can be quite important. Or in situations where a pilot has auto-roll (admittedly rare).
But Roll can happen when a dodge fails, and there are some times when it's worth using multiple attacks to avoid damage.
Tanks can (IIRC) only dodge if they're already on the move, and cannot Roll at all.
Bots can dodge even if they were standing still before being attacked, and if that dodge fails, they can still reduce the impact (with certain attacks).
That's an advantage. Not necessarily a HUGE advantage, but it's still an advantage.

-Robot Combat Skill's bonus actions are certainly game world mechanics, though I will point out that there is plenty of precedent for similar skill/bonuses to exist for non-Robot/PA platforms: "Space Fighter Combat" on pg151 DB2, Triax2 XML system installed in some Triax Aircraft for cyborgs (as a skill) that works just like Robot Combat bonuses (and might actually be superior to RC) pg167-8 WB31, various CS Skycycles (from CWC) when operated by certain OCCs get bonus actions, Russia's Cyberlink Interface cybernetic implant (Bionic SB pg54-5), and then you have the Juicer Pilot Skills in WB10 pg65-6. There might be additional examples to. All of which lead me to think that you could produce training/equipment for conventional vehicles that would grant it the equivalent of Robot Combat, this is my opinion of course but there is precedent for it.

Noted.
As things stand now, unless you're a certain OCC piloting a certain craft, bots have the edge.

-while various terrain obstacles are certainly more of a pain for conventional ground vehicles, in Rifts they do have Hovercraft technology that is applied in vehicles with those same roles and would have an easier time than even giant robots IINM.

Hover technology is [u]incredibly[/i] underused and underdescribed in Rifts!
I agree there should be hover tanks, and lots of them, or some explanation as to why there aren't.
Hover tanks would compete a lot more evenly with Bots when it comes to versatility, and it's a shame we don't have them in canon (at least, not to speak of).

[Killer Cyborg]

I get that "giant robots are cool and fun." That's fine. But saying they're a superior choice, especially in most situations, is just silly. Literally the only thing they have going for them is "giant robots are cool and fun."

See, I'm with you when you say "saying [giant robots] are a superior choice in most situations is just silly."

But when you say "literally the ONLY thing they have going for them is Fun and Cool," it just shows you haven't been reading the thread.

Apparently they require way more complicated control systems (with several people suggesting they must be relying on some kind of psychic/brain interface).

"Some People" is Palladium, dude.

RMB 220, Glitter Boy pilot suit diagrame.
Top left pic shows a "Neural sensor plug" built into the back of the helmet.

Now, we're not told exactly what the plug does, but the most obvious interpretation is that it plugs the pilot's brain directly into the Glitter Boy, for piloting purposes.

In any case, "Robots give the pilots +2 attacks whereas Tanks do NOT" getting translated into "Robot controls are way more complicated" doesn't really seem like an earnest complaint.

[ShadowLogan]

We're in the Rifts forum, not the Real World forum.

I agree, which is why when I have commented I tried to phrase it as Real World or Rifts/Fictional World. Some posters (IMHO) here seem to conflate the two where I have tried to distinguish between them clearly, you do take the approach of from a Rifts POV.

DO we add boom sensors to tanks, though?

Actually, I am not sure, though I cannot see any reason you could not. A short quick search does show that retractable Mast (or boom/periscope as I suggested) mounted sensors are a thing for armored vehicles that have been looked at from at least the R&D stage (you also have the British prototype Praying Mantis Tank of WWII which could change its height for better positioning of its machineguns, so it wouldn't be completely unheard of).

As for sensor drones, an armored vehicle/tank already has a crew of atleast x2 (gunner, driver) and more likely more which means you could have someone other than the driver handling it. I could also see it under the control of the driver presented as a type of "3rd Person POV" like in some video games for actually driving the armored vehicle.

It's the ability to do it by themselves that I'm calling attention to.

And it is an ability (to add armor) that isn't necessarily unique to them is what I am getting at. The ability to do it on the fly is certainly a bonus from a generic standpoint, but one that IMHO doesn't standup when one starts to drill down as even your VK example illustrated the stuff has to be purpose built to really do it. At which point it isn't really an on-the-fly situation as you suggest in the previous post.

A standard fighting bot also build a bridge, fill a ditch/hole, etc., without having to be a specialized unit designed just for that one task.

While in theory with a generic 'bot you could fill/dig a ditch/hole with the 'bots bare hands it would be far more expedient to have the proper tools (giant size hands or not) depending on the purpose (for example a fox hole for supporting infantry to use is one thing, a fox hole for it to use is another due to its size). The same goes for building that bridge, it will need tools to do so effectively (aside from a simple log bridge). At which point we're back to the 'bot being no better than a conventional vehicle in this role, they both require proper tools/equipment to really do the job.

Yes, tanks WOULD require heavy modifications in order to attempt the kinds of underwater stuff that giant robots can just DO right out of the box.

The question to consider though is why aren't new armored vehicle designs in the setting also made to operate underwater if there is a need? I will also point out that in Rifts, there are a host of "conventional" vehicles that can operate (to some extent) underwater if they have to (including several* hover vehicles and "tanks") based on their stat block.

*

Spoiler:

Hovercraft:
Cavalry War Wagon (WB14)
CS Scarab and Skull Hovercar (WB11)
CS Linebacker Tank (WB11)
NE-ATRB3 Pathfinder RV (DB8)
NG-HCH-2000 Big Bertha (SB1r)
Iron Fist and Iron Hammer Tanks (Mercenaries)

Aircraft:
-CS Sky Lifter and Death Bringer DHT (WB11)
-Leaper and Manta Ray Fighters (WB7)

Roll with Impact works when it comes to:
a) missiles
and
b) punches, kicks, thrown boulders, and other such attacks.

My main point is that Roll with impact by RAW is of limited value in ranged combat (House Rules not withstanding). IINM most melee attacks aren't as potent as ranged attacks (ignoring multiple APM cost melee attacks), a Rail Gun will do 6d6 or 1d4x10 (if not better) most of the time, a melee punch (to match a 6d6 Rail Gun would require a Robotic PS of 51-60, something that is not typical, and yes I know there are melee attacks that can match the damage output in some cases, but from a generic standpoint...). Which leads me to think that taking 1/2 damage from a 3d6 (or less) melee strike isn't as relevant as being shot for 6d6 or 1d4x10 (or better) that you can't roll with unless you're already close to being shut down.

Hover technology is [u]incredibly[/i] underused and underdescribed in Rifts!
I agree there should be hover tanks, and lots of them, or some explanation as to why there aren't.
Hover tanks would compete a lot more evenly with Bots when it comes to versatility, and it's a shame we don't have them in canon (at least, not to speak of).

There are Multiple Hovertanks in the setting across multiple continents (and dimensions) and users.
-Naruni has x2 in the Mercenaries SB (Juggernaut and Carnivore) on the market, and DB13 has a Corporate Version of one (upgraded)
-Triax has the XM-330 Phantom Hovertank (WB5) and XM-350 Rhino Hovertank (WB31)
-The Coalition has x2 in WB11 ("Linebacker" and "Sky Sweeper")
-TGE in DB2 has the Dark Slayer Main Battle Tank
-T-10 Assault Tank by the Arkhons (WB9)
-MBT-10A1 Tank and M6 IFV used by the Megaversal Legion are both Hover Vehicles (WB9)

Now some of these might be Contra-Grav instead of "conventional" Hoverjets, but they get classified the same way. And this is just a quick look as there could be more in books I don't have or vehicles that don't jump out as being a "hover tank" based soley on their name.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

Move the robots into a deep river/ravine/canyon or lake system, miles away from their intended target. Have them emerge somewhere in the rear area of an enemy force. Mainly to cause panic/confusion.

Power armor can also do this, naturally, but the point is that it's theoretically possible to use giant robots in this manner.

So can tanks. So can aircraft. So can everything else.

A tank would need to have either nuclear or electric power to drive on the bottom of a lake or river. Gas power would require a snorkel (I don't care if the books omit this detail). If it was a lake/river with steep sides, a tank couldn't get out just anywhere. A robot could climb out, or use some rocket assistance.

An amphibious tank could float on the surface, and thus have more access to shorelines, but would also be visible the entire time.

And aircraft aren't even worth bringing into the equation. Air attack by itself has never been as shattering as being flanked by ground forces. If air power alone could dominate the ground, Vietnam would've ended in America's favor.

Also, speaking of dense jungle that greatly mitigates air power, given that Rifts North America (and most of the rest of the world) is much more heavily forested than the current world, there's a lot more places to hide from aircraft.

Literally the only thing they have going for them is "giant robots are cool and fun." They're too expensive to design and build. They're harder and more expensive to repair.

Actually, any tank with a nuclear power source will be just as expensive as an average robot. The only thing that makes tanks cheaper, is running on non-nuke power.

Beyond that, most tanks have a conventional ballistic main gun, with a pretty limited (60-80 shells on average) ammo capacity. Whereas a robot with an energy-heavy loadout could be far into enemy territory without resupply.

[guardiandashi]

as far as the ground pressure being higher on robot vehicles that is pretty much a straw man because it all depends on the size of the feet. as compared to the mass of the vehicle

[Crimson Dynamo]

Apparently they require way more complicated control systems (with several people suggesting they must be relying on some kind of psychic/brain interface).

"Some People" is Palladium, dude.

RMB 220, Glitter Boy pilot suit diagrame.
Top left pic shows a "Neural sensor plug" built into the back of the helmet.

Now, we're not told exactly what the plug does, but the most obvious interpretation is that it plugs the pilot's brain directly into the Glitter Boy, for piloting purposes.

In any case, "Robots give the pilots +2 attacks whereas Tanks do NOT" getting translated into "Robot controls are way more complicated" doesn't really seem like an earnest complaint.

A tank would need to have either nuclear or electric power to drive on the bottom of a lake or river. Gas power would require a snorkel (I don't care if the books omit this detail). If it was a lake/river with steep sides, a tank couldn't get out just anywhere. A robot could climb out, or use some rocket assistance.

Yo, my bad.

I keep forgetting that we have to continuously and repeatedly keep tanks and other weapons of war stuck with 20th century tech while the giant robots get neural interfaces, M.D.C. armor, nuclear fuel cells, and all the other centuries-of-improvements-in-technology in order to "win" these arguments.

I'll step out now.

as far as the ground pressure being higher on robot vehicles that is pretty much a straw man because it all depends on the size of the feet. as compared to the mass of the vehicle

Oops, I lied. One more comment. "Those must be some giant ass feet then."

Okay, now I'm done.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

A tank would need to have either nuclear or electric power to drive on the bottom of a lake or river. Gas power would require a snorkel (I don't care if the books omit this detail). If it was a lake/river with steep sides, a tank couldn't get out just anywhere. A robot could climb out, or use some rocket assistance.

Yo, my bad.

I keep forgetting that we have to continuously and repeatedly keep tanks and other weapons of war stuck with 20th century tech while the giant robots get neural interfaces, M.D.C. armor, nuclear fuel cells, and all the other centuries-of-improvements-in-technology in order to "win" these arguments.

I'll step out now.

No, there's no reason a gas powered engine can be submerged now, or 200 years into the future, and still run. It needs something to get air, pure and simple. If a gas powered engine is described in a book as a gas powered engine, with no special features, then it's a gas powered engine.

Your entire argument regarding the cost difference between tanks and robots is moot, if the tank needs nuclear power to do the same stuff a robot can do.

I mean, do they have rocket-assistance for tanks, or not? I'm just going by the books here.

Or we can go to the Naruni hover tanks, see how practical that is.

I'm going by 'average' tanks, like Iron Heart and Sovietski designs. I don't have many examples of CS tanks.

[ShadowLogan]

[quote=[Candy"]

"Some People" is Palladium, dude.

RMB 220, Glitter Boy pilot suit diagrame.
Top left pic shows a "Neural sensor plug" built into the back of the helmet.

Now, we're not told exactly what the plug does, but the most obvious interpretation is that it plugs the pilot's brain directly into the Glitter Boy, for piloting purposes.

I would expect to see notes about mandatory cybernetic implants (ie a universal headjack) if it were actually required to operate it.

Possibly if it hooks into a headjack this allows you to interface better with the systems and more easily keep track of variables at a better speed than reading them off a helmet screen.
[/quote]
Why does the "neural Sensor plug" have to require some type of cybernetic implant?

Details as we all know are lacking, but it could be that the helmet:
-is part of a VR system, and we know there are remote VR setups in the setting (CAN Republic on the Moon in MiO, and Triax in WB5). So instead of putting on a VR suit for remote work, the VR suit is integrated into the cockpit.
-a telemental setup (while not part of the Robot RCC in Rifts, it is a more limited version of the one to appear in HU, where this is a control option for manned models that can be produced) that has external sensors built into a helmet that connects to the 'bot. This could be how (or close to how) the "Neural Sensor Plug" works. There have been experiments to control things via brainwave monitoring that do not require implants.
-SB1 (pg61 in original version, not sure about revised) when discussing Archie-3 mentions a "special psionic helmet was developed that enabled the designers to mentally link with their artificial creation", now the ARCHIE-3 Developers had much broader goals than mere piloting, but it shows you could build a "psionic helmet" to interface with machines.

[Killer Cyborg]

"Some People" is Palladium, dude.

RMB 220, Glitter Boy pilot suit diagrame.
Top left pic shows a "Neural sensor plug" built into the back of the helmet.

Now, we're not told exactly what the plug does, but the most obvious interpretation is that it plugs the pilot's brain directly into the Glitter Boy, for piloting purposes.

I would expect to see notes about mandatory cybernetic implants (ie a universal headjack) if it were actually required to operate it.

Possibly if it hooks into a headjack this allows you to interface better with the systems and more easily keep track of variables at a better speed than reading them off a helmet screen.

Why does the "neural Sensor plug" have to require some type of cybernetic implant?

Details as we all know are lacking, but it could be that the helmet:
-is part of a VR system, and we know there are remote VR setups in the setting (CAN Republic on the Moon in MiO, and Triax in WB5). So instead of putting on a VR suit for remote work, the VR suit is integrated into the cockpit.
-a telemental setup (while not part of the Robot RCC in Rifts, it is a more limited version of the one to appear in HU, where this is a control option for manned models that can be produced) that has external sensors built into a helmet that connects to the 'bot. This could be how (or close to how) the "Neural Sensor Plug" works. There have been experiments to control things via brainwave monitoring that do not require implants.
-SB1 (pg61 in original version, not sure about revised) when discussing Archie-3 mentions a "special psionic helmet was developed that enabled the designers to mentally link with their artificial creation", now the ARCHIE-3 Developers had much broader goals than mere piloting, but it shows you could build a "psionic helmet" to interface with machines.

There's nothing said about needing any cybernetics to pilot a GB, so yeah, I don't think that's a requirement.
I assume it's the helmet itself doing the work of reading the pilot's mind/intentions/whatever without sticking anything into their actual brain, much like you say.

[Killer Cyborg]

A tank would need to have either nuclear or electric power to drive on the bottom of a lake or river. Gas power would require a snorkel (I don't care if the books omit this detail). If it was a lake/river with steep sides, a tank couldn't get out just anywhere. A robot could climb out, or use some rocket assistance.

Yo, my bad.

I keep forgetting that we have to continuously and repeatedly keep tanks and other weapons of war stuck with 20th century tech while the giant robots get neural interfaces, M.D.C. armor, nuclear fuel cells, and all the other centuries-of-improvements-in-technology in order to "win" these arguments.

I'll step out now.

No, there's no reason a gas powered engine can be submerged now, or 200 years into the future, and still run. It needs something to get air, pure and simple. If a gas powered engine is described in a book as a gas powered engine, with no special features, then it's a gas powered engine.

What if it had a one-way valve for exhaust to exit, and compressed air or O2 tanks for combustion?

[Killer Cyborg]

Apparently they require way more complicated control systems (with several people suggesting they must be relying on some kind of psychic/brain interface).

"Some People" is Palladium, dude.

RMB 220, Glitter Boy pilot suit diagrame.
Top left pic shows a "Neural sensor plug" built into the back of the helmet.

Now, we're not told exactly what the plug does, but the most obvious interpretation is that it plugs the pilot's brain directly into the Glitter Boy, for piloting purposes.

In any case, "Robots give the pilots +2 attacks whereas Tanks do NOT" getting translated into "Robot controls are way more complicated" doesn't really seem like an earnest complaint.

A tank would need to have either nuclear or electric power to drive on the bottom of a lake or river. Gas power would require a snorkel (I don't care if the books omit this detail). If it was a lake/river with steep sides, a tank couldn't get out just anywhere. A robot could climb out, or use some rocket assistance.

Yo, my bad.

I keep forgetting that we have to continuously and repeatedly keep tanks and other weapons of war stuck with 20th century tech while the giant robots get neural interfaces, M.D.C. armor, nuclear fuel cells, and all the other centuries-of-improvements-in-technology in order to "win" these arguments.

Read up on what happens in Rifts when humanoids try to mentally inhabit non-human bodies for too long.
It's not great.
Mutants In Orbit and NGR cover this.

Which is why my original statement (that you either didn't read or chose to ignore) was about how it's apparently easier for humans to link with humanoid bots than with tanks and stuff.
RIF.

[Killer Cyborg]

We're in the Rifts forum, not the Real World forum.

I agree, which is why when I have commented I tried to phrase it as Real World or Rifts/Fictional World. Some posters (IMHO) here seem to conflate the two where I have tried to distinguish between them clearly, you do take the approach of from a Rifts POV.

DO we add boom sensors to tanks, though?

Actually, I am not sure, though I cannot see any reason you could not. A short quick search does show that retractable Mast (or boom/periscope as I suggested) mounted sensors are a thing for armored vehicles that have been looked at from at least the R&D stage (you also have the British prototype Praying Mantis Tank of WWII which could change its height for better positioning of its machineguns, so it wouldn't be completely unheard of).

Sounds like none of it proved to be worth doing.

I'd expect any periscope/mast/boom would be a vulnerable, less armored target on a tank.
Where it's just a natural part of being a 20' tall bot that's already fully armored.

As for sensor drones, an armored vehicle/tank already has a crew of at least x2 (gunner, driver) and more likely more which means you could have someone other than the driver handling it.

I assume the existing crew in tanks and bots already have stuff to do with their time.

I could also see it under the control of the driver presented as a type of "3rd Person POV" like in some video games for actually driving the armored vehicle.

Frankly, this is the kind of thing Rifts should get more into doing with their tech. Other games have.
But alas, they haven't.

It's the ability to do it by themselves that I'm calling attention to.

And it is an ability (to add armor) that isn't necessarily unique to them is what I am getting at. The ability to do it on the fly is certainly a bonus from a generic standpoint, but one that IMHO doesn't standup when one starts to drill down as even your VK example illustrated the stuff has to be purpose built to really do it. At which point it isn't really an on-the-fly situation as you suggest in the previous post.[/quote]

I feel like we're not thinking the same thing here.

See if you can identify any advantage in one of the following, over the other:
1. Taking a tank into a giant garage/factory and spending a day or a week with a crew of people adding extra armor to it.
2. Taking a Bot into a giant Men's Warehouse, where it puts on a suit of custom armor and walks back out within a few minutes or maybe an hour.

A standard fighting bot also build a bridge, fill a ditch/hole, etc., without having to be a specialized unit designed just for that one task.

While in theory with a generic 'bot you could fill/dig a ditch/hole with the 'bots bare hands it would be far more expedient to have the proper tools (giant size hands or not) depending on the purpose (for example a fox hole for supporting infantry to use is one thing, a fox hole for it to use is another due to its size). The same goes for building that bridge, it will need tools to do so effectively (aside from a simple log bridge). At which point we're back to the 'bot being no better than a conventional vehicle in this role, they both require proper tools/equipment to really do the job.

See if you can identify any advantage in one of the following, over the other:
1. Taking a tank into a giant garage/factory and spending a week with a crew of people adding special bridge-building equipment onto it, so that it can place one bridge.
2. A bot picking up a large shovel.

Yes, tanks WOULD require heavy modifications in order to attempt the kinds of underwater stuff that giant robots can just DO right out of the box.

The question to consider though is why aren't new armored vehicle designs in the setting also made to operate underwater if there is a need?

I don't think there's a huge need for underwater tanks in Rifts.
I DO think there's a significant need for versatile armored vehicles in Rifts which can switch environments without having to get retooled first, which is why I'm talking about stuff like Bots' ability to operate underwater.

Which would you rather take through the Shifting Lands, where the terrain can change to something totally different without warning:
a) a vehicle that can operate well in flatlands, mountains/hills, forests, swamps, lakes, and pretty much anything else.
b) a tank which needs to be specially designed and/or retooled for different environments.

A tank is a specialized tool.
A bot is a multitool.
Both have their places.

My main point is that Roll with impact by RAW is of limited value in ranged combat (House Rules not withstanding).

And my main point is that this value--while limited--is something that tanks don't have.

IINM most melee attacks aren't as potent as ranged attacks (ignoring multiple APM cost melee attacks), a Rail Gun will do 6d6 or 1d4x10 (if not better) most of the time, a melee punch (to match a 6d6 Rail Gun would require a Robotic PS of 51-60, something that is not typical, and yes I know there are melee attacks that can match the damage output in some cases, but from a generic standpoint...). Which leads me to think that taking 1/2 damage from a 3d6 (or less) melee strike isn't as relevant as being shot for 6d6 or 1d4x10 (or better) that you can't roll with unless you're already close to being shut down.

...

Dude, why are you pretending missiles don't exist in ranged combat...?
I literally just mentioned them in the post you're responding to, as one of the things that Roll can help against.

Hover technology is [u]incredibly[/i] underused and underdescribed in Rifts!
I agree there should be hover tanks, and lots of them, or some explanation as to why there aren't.
Hover tanks would compete a lot more evenly with Bots when it comes to versatility, and it's a shame we don't have them in canon (at least, not to speak of).

There are Multiple Hovertanks in the setting across multiple continents (and dimensions) and users.
-Naruni has x2 in the Mercenaries SB (Juggernaut and Carnivore) on the market, and DB13 has a Corporate Version of one (upgraded)
-Triax has the XM-330 Phantom Hovertank (WB5) and XM-350 Rhino Hovertank (WB31)
-The Coalition has x2 in WB11 ("Linebacker" and "Sky Sweeper")
-TGE in DB2 has the Dark Slayer Main Battle Tank
-T-10 Assault Tank by the Arkhons (WB9)
-MBT-10A1 Tank and M6 IFV used by the Megaversal Legion are both Hover Vehicles (WB9)

Yes.
"Not to speak of."

Naruni are super-tech aliens that were rare to start, then driven mostly off the planet. Maybe they came back, I forget, but I doubt they ever became common enough to be a real consideration in a discussion about tanks in general versus bots in general.
The SDF-1 is a giant bot, but I'm not bringing THAT into my end of the conversation regarding what bots can do.

The top tech major western nations each have TWO hover tank models.
This is not a lot. It's not going to come up in battle often, unless these hover tanks have replaced the nations' conventional tanks as the standard armored unit.

These are all exceptions to the rule for tanks.
IF hover tanks were more common, THEN tanks could compete with bots better.
But they're not more common, presumably due to the limits of in-game technology and economics.

[Nevermore]

IF hover tanks were more common, THEN tanks could compete with bots better.
But they're not more common, presumably due to the limits of in-game technology and economics.

I think this is where the big disconnect is in this conversation.

Some people are arguing based on the rules for Rifts/Palladium as they exist.
Others are arguing based on what the rules should be.

Palladium chose to largely ignore the evolution of other vehicle types in favor of putting all of the futuretech into robot vehicles. But the argument is that IF--and that's a mighty big IF--and within the context of the game world, the tech for other vehicles had evolved at the same rate as they did for giant robots, things should and would have been completely different.

As it stands, robot vehicles get all the bells and whistles, while other vehicles are largely left in the dust or just given a modicum of an upgrade. And for the vehicles that almost kinda-sorta kept up technologically, people in this thread keep dismissing them because they're apparently too sci-fi and from alien manufacturers.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that tanks as presented in the main sourcebooks are comparable to robot vehicles. The argument is that they should be much, much better than they are, and if all things were otherwise equal, particularly in other vehicles upgrading at the same rate as robot vehicles, the former would largely be superior in most wartime situations than the latter.

[Killer Cyborg]

IF hover tanks were more common, THEN tanks could compete with bots better.
But they're not more common, presumably due to the limits of in-game technology and economics.

I think this is where the big disconnect is in this conversation.

Some people are arguing based on the rules for Rifts/Palladium as they exist.
Others are arguing based on what the rules should be.

Palladium chose to largely ignore the evolution of other vehicle types in favor of putting all of the futuretech into robot vehicles. But the argument is that IF--and that's a mighty big IF--and within the context of the game world, the tech for other vehicles had evolved at the same rate as they did for giant robots, things should and would have been completely different.

The tech for tanks and giant robots is pretty on par, as far as I can see.
What bells and whistles are you talking about?

There are SOME hover tanks.
I don't know of any hover giant robots.

There's the neural link, the +2 attacks and such, but is it THAT weird to think it's easier and more effective to link a humanoid mind to a humanoid body than to a tank?
I don't think that's robot bias skewing things; it seems entirely logical.

What other stuff are you talking about that Robots get and Tanks don't (but should)?
You could have a Glittertank, I suppose, but the laser resistant armor of the GB is weirdly not-that-useful, and is quite arguably not worth the expense (which is one reason why other bots don't have it).

You could have a tank with a Main Gun that does Boom Gun level damage, and you SHOULD.
But that's true of a lot of things. Most bots with bigger guns don't do that kind of damage either. That's GB bias, and Palladium's weird power levels, not bot bias specifically.

Fill me in, because I've apparently missed this entire angle.

[barna10]

IF hover tanks were more common, THEN tanks could compete with bots better.
But they're not more common, presumably due to the limits of in-game technology and economics.

I think this is where the big disconnect is in this conversation.

Some people are arguing based on the rules for Rifts/Palladium as they exist.
Others are arguing based on what the rules should be.

Palladium chose to largely ignore the evolution of other vehicle types in favor of putting all of the futuretech into robot vehicles. But the argument is that IF--and that's a mighty big IF--and within the context of the game world, the tech for other vehicles had evolved at the same rate as they did for giant robots, things should and would have been completely different.

As it stands, robot vehicles get all the bells and whistles, while other vehicles are largely left in the dust or just given a modicum of an upgrade. And for the vehicles that almost kinda-sorta kept up technologically, people in this thread keep dismissing them because they're apparently too sci-fi and from alien manufacturers.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that tanks as presented in the main sourcebooks are comparable to robot vehicles. The argument is that they should be much, much better than they are, and if all things were otherwise equal, particularly in other vehicles upgrading at the same rate as robot vehicles, the former would largely be superior in most wartime situations than the latter.

Well stated!

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

As it stands, robot vehicles get all the bells and whistles, while other vehicles are largely left in the dust or just given a modicum of an upgrade. And for the vehicles that almost kinda-sorta kept up technologically, people in this thread keep dismissing them because they're apparently too sci-fi and from alien manufacturers.

Not dismissing them for that reason, but rather, a hovertank is just grossly expensive and has poor availability.

The average heavy hovertank (Naruni, Triax, whatever) will cost ~60m credits. Triax stuff never makes it to the black market. Naruni hovertanks are simply very hard to come by.

The flavor text for tanks and robots always makes it clear that conventional tanks lack the same range of mobility that robots have.

Put a nuclear power source on a conventional tank, and all you've got is the same 20-30m credit price tag that an average robot has, but without the same mobility range.

Coming to these conclusions is not a matter of our bias, but how it's presented to us in the books.

So, yes, a hovertank is generally going to be superior to a robot. But it's also more expensive than the average 'bot, and much more jealously guarded by the armies that field it, with the exception of Naruni, which still isn't exactly flooding the market with them.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

I don't believe anyone is arguing that tanks as presented in the main sourcebooks are comparable to robot vehicles. The argument is that they should be much, much better than they are, and if all things were otherwise equal, particularly in other vehicles upgrading at the same rate as robot vehicles, the former would largely be superior in most wartime situations than the latter.

But then if hovertanks were the pinnacle of warfare, and commonly available at 'reasonable' prices, there would be no reason for anything else to exist but power armor and hovertanks.

What makes robots more interesting than hovertanks from a design perspective, is that you can make robots with specific niches; some fly, some are strong at melee combat, some are snipers, etc.

Whereas a tank is a tank is a tank. Can't have rocket-assisted jumping tanks; robot legs are better for absorbing shock. Can't have tanks with wings, because that would just look sad. Can't have melee tanks.

A tank is always going to be stuck on the ground, or a few feet from the ground. It's always going to be confined to doing 'tanky' things.

That is, frankly, a bit boring. And there are a few (admittedly, very few) instances where a robot really would be more flexible in a combat situation.

[ShadowLogan]

Sounds like none of it proved to be worth doing.

I'd expect any periscope/mast/boom would be a vulnerable, less armored target on a tank.
Where it's just a natural part of being a 20' tall bot that's already fully armored.

I do agree with most of this for the real world for the armored vehicles though I also think it's a mix of vulnerability, cost, need, and development elsewhere that might have taken its place.

As for the Fictional world of Rifts, most of the sensors are found in the head, which is typically less armored than the head and some units even have dedicated sensor turrets which again aren't very durable (compared to the main body).

Frankly, this is the kind of thing Rifts should get more into doing with their tech. Other games have.

I quite agree that Rifts/Palladium Technical details and such just isn't there that could be helpful in a whole lot of discussions.

See if you can identify any advantage in one of the following, over the other:
1. Taking a tank into a giant garage/factory and spending a day or a week with a crew of people adding extra armor to it.
2. Taking a Bot into a giant Men's Warehouse, where it puts on a suit of custom armor and walks back out within a few minutes or maybe an hour.

I don't see #2 being done in the amount of time you do since you aren't factoring in the time to make the customized armor (that or you are being very generous about the time to make the alterations), something the vehicle time appears to take into consideration.

See if you can identify any advantage in one of the following, over the other:
1. Taking a tank into a giant garage/factory and spending a week with a crew of people adding special bridge-building equipment onto it, so that it can place one bridge.
2. A bot picking up a large shovel.

Why do you assume that it will take a week to put the extra equipment on the tank. With the proper logistics and forethought, it shouldn't take that much time (then again it could also have been deployed with it).

I would also point out that pulling the 'bot off the line to do combat engineering could also be seen as a negative, when you could just bring in proper equipment to do the job. It is also possible that the 'bot(s) could take longer to do the same job as a team of "conventional" vehicles.

I don't think there's a huge need for underwater tanks in Rifts.
I DO think there's a significant need for versatile armored vehicles in Rifts which can switch environments without having to get retooled first, which is why I'm talking about stuff like Bots' ability to operate underwater.

I certainly agree there is a need for versatile conventional armored vehicles and such, but there is no reason one can not develop that versatility into a conventional vehicle. Really in terms of official stuff like this, we are at the mercy of the Authors/Editors and what they choose to come up with.

Dude, why are you pretending missiles don't exist in ranged combat...?
I literally just mentioned them in the post you're responding to, as one of the things that Roll can help against.

I haven't forgotten that misisles exist, but they certainly are more complex when you consider:
1. Missiles can be shot down, unlike bullets/energy-blasts, which means you have more options to respond with before you even need to consider Rolling
2. Missiles come in a variety of warhead types, one of which you can not use the Roll mechanic (Plasma)
3. Missiles are not the end-all-be-all of ranged combat. You also have bullets, lasers, energy beams (ion/particle), plasma, and exotics (Microwave, CTF "energy", Tri-Beam, etc). Missiles are more the exception in Ranged Combat in being applicable to the Roll Mechanic than the rule.
4. Missile attack damage is a lot harder to easily define due to classification of the warhead AND possible VOLLEY Size. In theory here one could fire enough missiles that the Roll Mechanic could be useless.

Naruni are super-tech aliens that were rare to start, then driven mostly off the planet. Maybe they came back, I forget, but I doubt they ever became common enough to be a real consideration in a discussion about tanks in general versus bots in general.

It shouldn't matter when in the available timeline one looks, just that they are there in the setting.

The top tech major western nations each have TWO hover tank models.
This is not a lot. It's not going to come up in battle often, unless these hover tanks have replaced the nations' conventional tanks as the standard armored unit.

Does the CS even operate conventional tracked tanks (I know they have APCs and other land vehicles, even x1 tank that has wheels but no tracks)? Same goes for Triax (they do have the Mini-tank in WB5, but that is wheeled and not tracked)?

These are all exceptions to the rule for tanks.
IF hover tanks were more common, THEN tanks could compete with bots better.
But they're not more common, presumably due to the limits of in-game technology and economics.

But are they really? How many Conventional Tank Designs are there in the setting (I don't have a complete Rifts Library)?
Iron Heart produces x2 (Mercenaries), which like Naruni has availability issues depending on where you are in the timeline
New Navy has x1 (Underseas)
South American (assorted) Powers have x3
Tarno (in SB3) IINM has x1, though it's only really (MDC) viable due to the Tarno Crystal so isn't pure technology here
GAW has x2 in the books (one from MercOps, and another in Mercenaries), though these are rebuilds

It actually looks to be pretty even in terms of options as far as I can see in my incomplete Rifts Library, possibly even favoring the Hover approach (I also found x2 more in Phaseworld after double checking a preliminary list).

There may be a host of factors that haven't driven conventional tanks out yet beyond just the technologies involved or economics, like how involved the training is, available resources, environmental factors, safety, etc.

There are SOME hover tanks.
I don't know of any hover giant robots.

Please Define "Hover Giant Robots".

There are 'bots that can fly and hover in terms of options for movement.

There are also 'bots that don't have legs and operate via some type of hover/flight system:
-Naruni Combat Pods in Mercenaries are considered a Robot (in the fluff text on pg128), you also have the two support drones (robots technically)
-Mindwerks Robot Drones, has x2 that don't have legs and move via hover/flight (size wise they are closer to PA though)
-Kittani have x2, though like Mindwerks they are Drones and PA/man-size
-The Farie 'bot comes to mind, but that is also a TW creation (IIRC) I only bring them up because they might be considered giant robot relative to the pilot (and not humans, the Pogtailian PA is giant robot size due to the size of its pilot)
-you also have several bodies the Mechanoids use in SB2, while officially classified as Cyborg, size-wise some of them are Giant Robot sized (plus their Cyborg Bodies could be considered Robots with "brain transplant" like Triax is said to have in WB5).

[Killer Cyborg]

Sounds like none of it proved to be worth doing.

I'd expect any periscope/mast/boom would be a vulnerable, less armored target on a tank.
Where it's just a natural part of being a 20' tall bot that's already fully armored.

I do agree with most of this for the real world for the armored vehicles though I also think it's a mix of vulnerability, cost, need, and development elsewhere that might have taken its place.

As for the Fictional world of Rifts, most of the sensors are found in the head, which is typically less armored than the [body] and some units even have dedicated sensor turrets which again aren't very durable (compared to the main body).

Sure, but the head of a 20' tall bot is still likely to be a harder and more armored target than a 12' tall mast/periscope on an 8' tall tank.
And I believe the sensor turrets tend to have extra sensors, not just basic "I'm looking through the eyes of the robot" type sensors.
Rifts 196
Destroying the sensor turret on the left shoulder of the Enforcer will destroy the radar and targeting system. The pilot must now rely on his own human vision and other optical enhancements of the robot.

So if somebody takes out that turret (lightly armored: 50 MDC), the bot can still do what I'm talking about, which is have a nearly 20' tall bird's eye view of things, and it can still use Thermo, infrared, and ultraviolet vision. (I'm not seeing telescopic vision listed specifically, which is kinda weird. Why NOT have that feature? )

So it's not really the same thing.

See if you can identify any advantage in one of the following, over the other:
1. Taking a tank into a giant garage/factory and spending a day or a week with a crew of people adding extra armor to it.
2. Taking a Bot into a giant Men's Warehouse, where it puts on a suit of custom armor and walks back out within a few minutes or maybe an hour.

I don't see #2 being done in the amount of time you do since you aren't factoring in the time to make the customized armor (that or you are being very generous about the time to make the alterations), something the vehicle time appears to take into consideration.

I wasn't taking into account the time it takes to make custom tank armor for specific models of tank, either.
Counting armor-making time for one and not the other would be unfair.

Remember, the implication I take from VK is that Dragon Armor isn't great for giant bots because there is already (checks notes) "Conventional armor" for giant bots that is "cheaper and more efficient" than the dragon armor.

What this entails, I'm not sure. 20' tall Plastic Man designed for Enforcers?
Dunno, since it's never been statted, or even referred to again (that I know of).
But if they're making conventional armor for giant bots, the armor would be made at the factory with vent holes and such

See if you can identify any advantage in one of the following, over the other:
1. Taking a tank into a giant garage/factory and spending a week with a crew of people adding special bridge-building equipment onto it, so that it can place one bridge.
2. A bot picking up a large shovel.

Why do you assume that it will take a week to put the extra equipment on the tank. With the proper logistics and forethought, it shouldn't take that much time (then again it could also have been deployed with it).

I'm pulling that number out of a hat based on the next-to-nothing I know about real-world tank modification engineering.
I don't know of any tank art that shows attachment points built into the tank for armor, though, nor any tank that mentions it. So I assume there'd be a good amount of cutting, welding, and so forth.
Now, it could be argued that the tanks should be designed by Palladium to have attachment points, and that a Nascar-pitcrew-style team of experts could add or remove extra armor from tanks quite quickly, but you're still talking about a crew of additional professionals and equipment required compared to a robot that could presumably put its own armor on.

I would also point out that pulling the 'bot off the line to do combat engineering could also be seen as a negative, when you could just bring in proper equipment to do the job. It is also possible that the 'bot(s) could take longer to do the same job as a team of "conventional" vehicles.

That depends entirely on what the line is doing.
Remember, my point here is that giant robots are more versatile than tanks.
When there's not any action going on, a tank can be used as a tractor to pull or push stuff.
A robot with a big shovel can dig fortifications, build bridges, push stuff, pull stuff, lift stuff, and pretty much anything a giant human could do in that same situation.
Not everything happens in the front lines during combat.

And in the front lines during combat, which is more faster for getting past enemy fortifications you just found out about and have to get past?
a) Radioing for additional specialist vehicles to get past enemy trenches/pits/walls, etc
or
b) Handing a shovel to one or more of the many giant robots already on the scene.

Again, picture the versatility of human soldiers versus a 3' tall mini-tank crewed by Smurfs.
That tank might well be a formidable weapon of war; I'm not dissing it.
But there's a lot that humans can do that a 3' tall tank can't.
Arguing that the military could call in 3' tall mini-construction equipment doesn't really rebut the point.

I don't think there's a huge need for underwater tanks in Rifts.
I DO think there's a significant need for versatile armored vehicles in Rifts which can switch environments without having to get retooled first, which is why I'm talking about stuff like Bots' ability to operate underwater.

I certainly agree there is a need for versatile conventional armored vehicles and such, but there is no reason one can not develop that versatility into a conventional vehicle. Really in terms of official stuff like this, we are at the mercy of the Authors/Editors and what they choose to come up with.

I agree with that last sentence...
But tell me more what specifically you're thinking here.
Got examples of the kinds of things you'd like to see?

Dude, why are you pretending missiles don't exist in ranged combat...?
I literally just mentioned them in the post you're responding to, as one of the things that Roll can help against.

I haven't forgotten that misisles exist, but they certainly are more complex when you consider:
1. Missiles can be shot down, unlike bullets/energy-blasts, which means you have more options to respond with before you even need to consider Rolling

Right.
Missiles can be shot down, dodged, and if neither of those succeed, you can Roll with impact.
Tanks have extremely limited dodge, and can't Roll at all.
Out of 3 defenses against missiles, tanks have 1.25.
Bots have 3.

Oops, 4, because bots have arms they can block missiles with.
(and I believe they can still Roll when they do a Block Sacrifice, reducing the damage to their arms)

This is my point.

2. Missiles come in a variety of warhead types, one of which you can not use the Roll mechanic (Plasma)

Yup.
I believe Armor Piercing is another one where Roll won't work.
But explosive are standard, so it still can come up a lot in combat.

3. Missiles are not the end-all-be-all of ranged combat. You also have bullets, lasers, energy beams (ion/particle), plasma, and exotics (Microwave, CTF "energy", Tri-Beam, etc). Missiles are more the exception in Ranged Combat in being applicable to the Roll Mechanic than the rule.

BUT missiles are the main thing you seriously need to defend against. If you're hit with a rail gun or lasers, you take what, 6d6 MD? 1d6x10? 2d6x10?
That can be shrugged off, and it's often more practical to just take the hit and use your attacks to shoot the enemy.

Missiles can be a show-stopper, because (as you mention next), volley size is a factor.

Two CR-1 Enforcers get into a fight, the 1d6x10 MD rail gun isn't that big of a deal (average damage of 35 MD, so like TEN hits to the torso to take out the other bot.

But a volley of 4 Medium Range HE missiles? That's 8d6x10 MD, an average of 280 MD, with the strong possibility to kill your bot on a single successful attack.

Say Medium Range missiles are too expensive, and the other guy only fires Short Range at you.
That's still a volley of up to 4 HE missiles, for 4d6x10 MD in one attack, an average of 140 MD. Three hits like that, and you're toast 6 attacks before the rail gun would have dropped you.

Even the mini-missile launcher can do 20d6 MD per attack with volleys of 4 HE minis, dropping you in half the time it'd take the rail gun to knock you out.
Or plasma, which would be back up to 1d6x10 MD per missile, netting out the same as the short range missiles above, only you can't Roll With Impact; you have to Shoot them down, Dodge (which tanks can only sometimes do) or Block Sacrifice (which tanks cannot do).
Meaning tanks will generally have to rely on shooting them, in which case there's a strong chance they'll still get hit by some or all of the missiles.

Missiles are the kings of long range combat in Rifts, when it comes to damage, and that's probably why UAR-1s have so many of them.

4. Missile attack damage is a lot harder to easily define due to classification of the warhead AND possible VOLLEY Size. In theory here one could fire enough missiles that the Roll Mechanic could be useless.

i.e., "if they fire 2x the number of missiles it would take to kill a tank with the same MDC, Roll doesn't matter."

Naruni are super-tech aliens that were rare to start, then driven mostly off the planet. Maybe they came back, I forget, but I doubt they ever became common enough to be a real consideration in a discussion about tanks in general versus bots in general.

It shouldn't matter when in the available timeline one looks, just that they are there in the setting.

The top tech major western nations each have TWO hover tank models.
This is not a lot. It's not going to come up in battle often, unless these hover tanks have replaced the nations' conventional tanks as the standard armored unit.

Does the CS even operate conventional tracked tanks (I know they have APCs and other land vehicles, even x1 tank that has wheels but no tracks)? Same goes for Triax (they do have the Mini-tank in WB5, but that is wheeled and not tracked)?

Well, crap. That's a good and fair question.
Let me do some skimming...

CWC has the CTX-52 Sky-Sweeper anti-aircraft tank (CWC 156).
That's all I can find for tracked CS tanks. They have at least one tracked APC, but yeah, I think I have to withdraw my discounting of hover tanks as a serious game element; there are more hover tanks than tracked tanks or wheeled tanks, I think (but not than tracked tanks AND wheeled tanks! )

(I'm just going to assume that this is pretty standard; if the CS is this way, than other places likely are as well. GAW has tracked tanks, but their specialty is trying to make obsolete vehicles viable again, so that's not a great argument for tracked tanks being the Rifts Earth standard or for hovertanks not being significantly present.)

There are SOME hover tanks.
I don't know of any hover giant robots.

Please Define "Hover Giant Robots".

Giant robots that hover as standard instead of walking as standard.
Like the SAMAS can walk, but mostly it's a suit of flying power armor; flying is more normal than walking.
Something like that, on the 10'+ humanoid Robot scale.

There are 'bots that can fly and hover in terms of options for movement.

Sure... but I don't know of any off hand that fly using hover technology outside of custom jobs in SB1, which don't count for this conversation or we'd be having an entirely different conversation about tanks.

There are also 'bots that don't have legs and operate via some type of hover/flight system:
-Naruni Combat Pods in Mercenaries are considered a Robot (in the fluff text on pg128), you also have the two support drones (robots technically)
-Mindwerks Robot Drones, has x2 that don't have legs and move via hover/flight (size wise they are closer to PA though)
-Kittani have x2, though like Mindwerks they are Drones and PA/man-size
-The Farie 'bot comes to mind, but that is also a TW creation (IIRC) I only bring them up because they might be considered giant robot relative to the pilot (and not humans, the Pogtailian PA is giant robot size due to the size of its pilot)
-you also have several bodies the Mechanoids use in SB2, while officially classified as Cyborg, size-wise some of them are Giant Robot sized (plus their Cyborg Bodies could be considered Robots with "brain transplant" like Triax is said to have in WB5).

Are those the kinds of robots people think we should be seeing tanks and aircraft instead of in Rifts?
My impression is that the conversation is about giant humanoid bots.

[ShadowLogan]

Sure, but the head of a 20' tall bot is still likely to be a harder and more armored target than a 12' tall mast/periscope on an 8' tall tank.

First let us realize that a lot of the game mechanic values don't always make sense as they can and do get fudged to make them easier/harder. Plus, we have to consider how easy it would be to do a called shot on the locations in question. A Sensor Mast is going to be narrower and taller than a head, but the head is going to be more concentrated.

I wasn't taking into account the time it takes to make custom tank armor for specific models of tank, either.
Counting armor-making time for one and not the other would be unfair.

True, but at the same time I think you are under selling the 'Bot time and over selling the Tank time in a lot of these scenarios.

I agree with that last sentence...
But tell me more what specifically you're thinking here.
Got examples of the kinds of things you'd like to see?

In general, mecha/vehicles: Acceleration rate(s) and Engine/Generator Output (ie thrust or power rating as appropriate) would be the most useful that come to mind. I also have to admit I wouldn't mind seeing more variety in terms of sensor performance (more inter-faction differences than intra-faction, though generation improvements wouldn't hurt either).

CWC has the CTX-52 Sky-Sweeper anti-aircraft tank (CWC 156).

It is also classified as a Hovertank (under "Class" in the stat block in the printing version I have) and not a tracked vehicle (though for some reason it does have Treads in the MDC by location). It might be interesting to see how general land vehicles break down in terms of "hover" vs "track/treads" vs "wheels", instead of by role which isn't always clear where it should fit (while reviewing stuff manually, one of the non Triax designs in WB5 hover vehicles artwork suggests "tank" design but isn't really classified/named as a tank).

Are those the kinds of robots people think we should be seeing tanks and aircraft instead of in Rifts?
My impression is that the conversation is about giant humanoid bots.

I don't know, I agree the conversation is assumed to be about giant humanoid 'bots, but the setting does include non-humanoid robots (at least two dozen, possibly more depending how close you want to stay to the humanoid design, or are not concerned with them being giant-sized as some PA that are boarder-line/should be here anyway due to design/pilot-body, or even if you want to include TW/Magical based units as Tolkeen has x3 Iron Juggernauts at least that qualify here, plus one FoM). All I am sayings is that there are "robots" that fit your definition of using a hover/flight system as a primary means for locomotion, weather they qualify as giant robot is relative to the pilot. Some might even depend on whether something could even be considered a 'bot due to design features/abilities for something like this but are actually classified as something else (The Phoenix Empire has a hover vehicle with arms in WB4, you also have the bronco scooter in New West where the artwork at least suggests it might have articulated legs depending on how one sees the thing working in terms of take-off/landings).
.
Re: Missiles @ Killer Cyborg
I think though as we've both illustrated when dealing with missiles, the situation is much more complex than other ranged combat options to consider next to melee attacks. To keep things simple, it would make sense to focus on the gun aspect since: A. Guns options are far more numerous, B. It avoids the complex issue of missile volley size, C. It keeps all attacks considered at 1APM (I did exclude multi-APM melee attacks, this isn't as relevant in Rifts as of RUE, but RMB burst rules for guns COULD get into multi-APM costs), D. It avoids having to explain why you are Rolling with a Missile Strike when there are better options (AFAIK you only get to do x1 Response to an attack regardless, you can't attempt to Parry AND then do a Roll/Dodge if you fail), since one could argue to Roll with a Missile Strike is the 2nd worst option available even if you can do it (just ahead of "do nothing").

As for the type of common warhead, most launchers IMHO don't really establish a standard for what they carry either (I do not dispute that standard/restrictions exist in specific cases, just that they are not the norm in my experience).

[Killer Cyborg]

Sure, but the head of a 20' tall bot is still likely to be a harder and more armored target than a 12' tall mast/periscope on an 8' tall tank.

First let us realize that a lot of the game mechanic values don't always make sense as they can and do get fudged to make them easier/harder. Plus, we have to consider how easy it would be to do a called shot on the locations in question. A Sensor Mast is going to be narrower and taller than a head, but the head is going to be more concentrated.

I'd assume each would require a Called Shot.
The skinnier the periscope is, the more likely there would to be a strike penalty, BUT the less armor it would logically have.
I don't see any realistic way for the periscope to be as sturdy as a robot head.

I wasn't taking into account the time it takes to make custom tank armor for specific models of tank, either.
Counting armor-making time for one and not the other would be unfair.

True, but at the same time I think you are under selling the 'Bot time and over selling the Tank time in a lot of these scenarios.

Noted.

I agree with that last sentence...
But tell me more what specifically you're thinking here.
Got examples of the kinds of things you'd like to see?

In general, mecha/vehicles: Acceleration rate(s) and Engine/Generator Output (ie thrust or power rating as appropriate) would be the most useful that come to mind. I also have to admit I wouldn't mind seeing more variety in terms of sensor performance (more inter-faction differences than intra-faction, though generation improvements wouldn't hurt either).

Could be an interesting thread idea, what kinds of tech tanks should have in Rifts but don't.

CWC has the CTX-52 Sky-Sweeper anti-aircraft tank (CWC 156).

It is also classified as a Hovertank (under "Class" in the stat block in the printing version I have) and not a tracked vehicle (though for some reason it does have Treads in the MDC by location). It might be interesting to see how general land vehicles break down in terms of "hover" vs "track/treads" vs "wheels", instead of by role which isn't always clear where it should fit (while reviewing stuff manually, one of the non Triax designs in WB5 hover vehicles artwork suggests "tank" design but isn't really classified/named as a tank).

Eh.
The picture has treads.
The stat block has treads.
The flavor text says "Unlike the CTX-50, the Sky Sweeper is a tread driven ground vehicle."
The stat block does NOT have hover jets listed.
Land Speed says "90 mph; excellent speed for a tread-driven tank."
"Flying" is listed as "none."

I'm gonna say the "Class" section is outvoted.

Are those the kinds of robots people think we should be seeing tanks and aircraft instead of in Rifts?
My impression is that the conversation is about giant humanoid bots.

I don't know, I agree the conversation is assumed to be about giant humanoid 'bots, but the setting does include non-humanoid robots (at least two dozen, possibly more depending how close you want to stay to the humanoid design, or are not concerned with them being giant-sized as some PA that are boarder-line/should be here anyway due to design/pilot-body, or even if you want to include TW/Magical based units as Tolkeen has x3 Iron Juggernauts at least that qualify here, plus one FoM).

Well, if we want to include nonhumanoid tanks, why not just jump to Robot Tanks and be done with it?

The general argument is that Giant Fighting Robots only exist in Rifts because they're Cool, and that tanks and aircraft are more practical.
That's the idea I'm arguing against, anyway.

(I mean, yeah, they only exist because they're cool; they don't work with real-world physics. But if they DID work roughly as advertised, there'd be a ton of practicality to them, and lots of good reason why they're more common than tanks.)

Re: Missiles @ Killer Cyborg
I think though as we've both illustrated when dealing with missiles, the situation is much more complex than other ranged combat options to consider next to melee attacks. To keep things simple, it would make sense to focus on the gun aspect since: A. Guns options are far more numerous, B. It avoids the complex issue of missile volley size, C. It keeps all attacks considered at 1APM (I did exclude multi-APM melee attacks, this isn't as relevant in Rifts as of RUE, but RMB burst rules for guns COULD get into multi-APM costs), D. It avoids having to explain why you are Rolling with a Missile Strike when there are better options (AFAIK you only get to do x1 Response to an attack regardless, you can't attempt to Parry AND then do a Roll/Dodge if you fail), since one could argue to Roll with a Missile Strike is the 2nd worst option available even if you can do it (just ahead of "do nothing").

I don't see any reason to "keep things simple."
For that matter, I think things ARE really simple here: bots have more defenses against THE deadliest tech ranged attacks, stuff that most necessitates defending against.
That's missiles.
Railguns aren't going to one-shot a giant robot or tank.
Lasers aren't.
Even particle beams aren't.
Missiles CAN.
When you have a piece of military equipment worth millions or tens of millions of credits, keeping it from being taken out in a single attack by an enemy quite simply IS an important consideration.
And the robot abilities to Dodge and to Roll can keep the bot from being destroyed by enemy fire.

As for the type of common warhead, most launchers IMHO don't really establish a standard for what they carry either (I do not dispute that standard/restrictions exist in specific cases, just that they are not the norm in my experience).

In every specific case I'm aware of, the standard complement is Explosives, not Plasma or Armor Piercing.
Or at least in the vast majority of cases.
I'm pretty sure that cost alone is a good reason for this, although the reduced effectiveness of plasma missiles against any number of supernatural creatures/spells that have protection from heat attacks might well be another.

[ShadowLogan]

Could be an interesting thread idea, what kinds of tech tanks should have in Rifts but don't.

It isn't just Tanks, it's the entire range of vehicles (and robots and power armor) that could benefit from more detailed stats like that.

The general argument is that Giant Fighting Robots only exist in Rifts because they're Cool, and that tanks and aircraft are more practical.
That's the idea I'm arguing against, anyway.

Actually I don't think the only reason they exist in the setting is for the Coolness Factor, I do think there are roles they can and do play that a conventional vehicle can not perform, but I also think that there are roles that the Robots are pressed into for that "Coolness" Factor that a Conventional Vehicle does better.

I don't see any reason to "keep things simple."

I do though. For a generic consideration it is best to keep things simple since as I said there is no easy way to consider the damage output of a missile attack. There is no guarantee a missile is going to be explosive. There is no guarantee that every missile launcher has the same payload or rate of fire (both factors in volley size). There is also no guarantee a missile volley will be at maximum size. Those will all vary from attacker to attacker, where guns are much simpler to consider.

Anyway at this point it's probably better to just move on as we have a different opinion in how to rate the value of the Roll mechanic.

When you have a piece of military equipment worth millions or tens of millions of credits, keeping it from being taken out in a single attack by an enemy quite simply IS an important consideration.

I agree. However I would also argue that Rolling with Impact IS NOT the best solution if you are facing an attack of that magnitude. At that point your best chance of survival is to shoot the missiles down:
-while it consumes 1APM, so would a dodge or Roll (as of RUE in RAW)
-To Strike the incoming Missiles is mechanically easier (DC of 8 in RUE, DC of 4 RMB) than meet/beat the opponent's combined strike roll required for a Dodge/Roll/Parry (which is not uniform since its D20+bonuses w/min 8 Vs D20+bonuses). That means if the missiles are going to strike with an example of a combined 19 result (D20 roll + strike bonuses), I only need to roll an 8 w/strike bonuses on a D20 vs a 19 if I had to Roll. It should also apply if the Strike was with a Natural 20 Roll.
-Now damaging the incoming missiles to cause it to detonate should also be doable (this varies by platform's available weapons and missile type, you don't even need to really roll for damage to a Mini Missile arguably the most common type of missile used in Rifts), and the chance of taking out the volley from destroying one missile is pretty decent (better with a counter missile than guns), especially under RUE's revision (30% only one missile is destroyed, 30% 1/2 volley hits, 40% destroy the volley when using a gun system, Missiles are 75% chance to take out swarm, with 100% chance if you fire equal number).
-Missile Volley Size can also limit your options, you can't dodge a volley of 4 or more (which would put a 'bot in the same boat as vehicle in terms of being able to dodge, so it wouldn't matter if you where in a Tank or 'Bot).

In every specific case I'm aware of, the standard complement is Explosives, not Plasma or Armor Piercing.
Or at least in the vast majority of cases.

Megaversally speaking, 1E RT had Plasma Mini Missiles and Non-Plasma Mini Missiles as requiring specific launchers based on Plasma or Non-plasma. (IINM 2E omits this).

Now Limited to just Rifts, I have to disagree with you. I reviewed the Missiles used by various platforms in CWC/Japan/Traix(#1)/RUE, there really isn't a single "standard" warhead type for all types of missiles, some even list multiple options (some even just list "heavy") or even contradictory ones to your experience (CWC pretty much has Frag as the standard Mini Missile, but the others also had examples of option for AP or Plasma as typical).

[ShadowLogan]

So the helmet on the GB body armor plugs into the helmet on the GB power armor?

Basically, but remember the GB is ~x2 the size of its operator so there should be room. The Lineart in RMB (pg219-22, x3 of which are FULL PAGE spreads with the 4th at like 3/4 page) is arguably one of the (if not THE) most detailed for any platform in Rifts to date AFAIK, and it does show the pilot wearing the helmet inside the GB head. All the lineart mentioned in RMB was reused in RUE (pg72-3, but they essentially reduced the size to fit on to those x2 pages along with more space detailed to text).

A Neural Link would be one way to explain the text in RMB (pg39) that states "All power armor and robot vehicles possess a design element, which creates a symbiotic link between the pilot and the machine." Offhand I can't find a similar statement in RUE (it's a mess in terms of organization and might have been cut), but it does give an idea of what they might have been thinking back when creating the GB artwork.

I need to backtrack here, which page of Vampire Kingdoms alludes to body armor for robot vehicles?

Here it is from the 2nd page of this thread posted on Nov.15, though the page assignment appears to be from the original VK edition, I am not sure if it works for the Revised Edition (don't have that one, but I know stuff was cut/moved). It was found in the Pogtail Dragon Slayer Race writeup, buried in their equipment section, but said material was not included in later WB30: DBoNA or WB6 (which is abbreviated) writeups.

VK 152, discussing Dragon Skin Armor:
Robot Note: The armor is not really suitable as additional protection for robots. Draping a giant bot in the armor requires special modifications/alterations of the armor's design and may still block and prevent use of robot weapons, jets, and sensors.
Covering cooling vents, exhausts, or jets may cause overheating, too. Also adds to clumsy and awkwardness factor: usual penalties apply, plus -1 to parry/dodge.
The cost is also prohibitive; it's cheaper and more efficient to get conventional armor.