Forums of the Megaverse®

Here is a comparison between the cost of a US Army Soldier(from the Army Times) versus the cost of a CS Grunt from the Rifts Main Book. When one removes SDC/MDC from the equasion it's obvious which one is much more cost effective.

PVS-14 Monocular Night Vision Device: $3,500.00
Advanced Combat Helmet: $235.00
Helmet Cover, Army Combat Helmet, Universal OCP: $15.27
Ballistic protective eyewear, clear & gray lenses: $38.00
Army Combat Shirt: $101.19
Name tags, unit patches and rank patch: $14.75
Reverse-field US flag replica: $6.45
Ballistic Neck Protection Pad-Nape: $29.00
Close Quarter Combat Multi-Magazine Holder: $28.00
Soldier Plate Carrier System: $355.00
Set of Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts: $1,200.00
Infrared Multi-Function Aiming Light: $1,467.00
M-4 Carbine: $ 1,300.00
Trouser, Fire Resistant, Army Combat Uniform: $66.17
Knee pads, universal: $29.45
Combat Boots, pair: $168.00
M-4 Improved Buttstock: $294.00
Elbow Pads, Universal Set: $29.45
M-68 Close Combat Optic: $389.00
Combat gloves: $31.40
Enhanced Side Ballistic Insert (set): $742.00
7 5.56mm 30-round magazines: $77.00
MOLLE Rifleman Set, including assault pack, waist pack, hydration system, 3 double magazine pouches, 2 canteen pouches, 2 hand grenade pouches, triple magazine pouch, entrenching tool carrier, flash bang grenade pouch and tactical assault panel: $242.00
MOLLE Field Pack, Large: $220.00
PAS-13(V)1 Light Weight Thermal Sight: $7,100.00
Close Quarter Combat Three-Point Sling: $10.00
Improved First Aid Kit: $66.64
Infrared strobe, small: $18.01
Strap Cutter: $15.00
Weapon light: $300.21

Grand Total: $18,087.99


Cost of a Deadboy

CA-2 Heavy Deadboy armor: $50,000
C-12 heavy assault laser: $20,000
C-18 laser pistol: $12,000
Standard E-clips(8): $48,000
Grenades(2): $700
Signal flares(3): $30
Survival Knife: $350
Utility belt: $15
Gas Mask: $80
Extra Filter: $20
Walkie-Talkie: $150
Uniform: $ 150
Combat Boots: $200
Canteen: $20
Conventional weapon: $2,500

Grand Total: $131,735

isnt the actual cost of equipping them minimal since the CS has huge automated factories that make all their equipment?

FuduVudu wrote:isnt the actual cost of equipping them minimal since the CS has huge automated factories that make all their equipment?

Nope, the cost of the Deadboy's equipment is from the Rifts GM's guide. There are more than one manufacturer of Deadboy armor(CS and the Black Market) the cost of the Deadboy equipment is the market cost; Same with the US Army Soldier. the Deadboy has less equipment, is less versitile and costs siz times as much. that isn't good by anyone's standards.

but that's just the thing. the black market would have to be stupid beyond belief to sell the armor for the cost of making it.

the US army *buys* their stuff. the CS army *makes* their stuff. if the black market is selling it for a certain price after making it, bearing in mind that there is a cost of doing business including bribing people to look the other way, paying for armed guards to make sure that nobody can just shoot you with your own gun, accepting that a certain amount of your inventory is going to get confiscated, the cost of shipping it across monster-infested wilderness (again, requiring armed guards who have to be payed enough to not be better off selling the shipment themselves and retiring) etc...

the equipment probably costs well less than 1/4 (and possibly even as low as 1/10) what the black market sells it for. they have a lot of costs to make up, plus they need to make a profit themselves.

also, the US soldier isn't packing equipment that could destroy a concrete bunker entirely in a couple of shots and could let them survive a missile strike, for the most part.

Shark_Force wrote:but that's just the thing. the black market would have to be stupid beyond belief to sell the armor for the cost of making it.

the US army *buys* their stuff. the CS army *makes* their stuff. if the black market is selling it for a certain price after making it, bearing in mind that there is a cost of doing business including bribing people to look the other way, paying for armed guards to make sure that nobody can just shoot you with your own gun, accepting that a certain amount of your inventory is going to get confiscated, the cost of shipping it across monster-infested wilderness (again, requiring armed guards who have to be payed enough to not be better off selling the shipment themselves and retiring) etc...

the equipment probably costs well less than 1/4 (and possibly even as low as 1/10) what the black market sells it for. they have a lot of costs to make up, plus they need to make a profit themselves.

also, the US soldier isn't packing equipment that could destroy a concrete bunker entirely in a couple of shots and could let them survive a missile strike, for the most part.

First, reguardless of making it themselves or buying it from a third party, it costs either money or resources. Now I could see it being significantly less for the CS than in resources than what the Black Market is selling it for because they've got other risks to cover for. Even at your 1/4 they still are more expensive than a U.S. Soldier. As far as the single soldier taking out a concrete bunker... lets keep it equivalent. A Deadboy can't take out an MD concrete bunker on his own. Now if we take into account some of the stuff on the drawing boards there is the network system in plans to allow a soldier with an underbarrel target designator to launch a missile at the pull of a trigger. The missile would be fired from a support vehicle based on the Stryker that is essentially a bunch of vertical launch hellfires. As for surviving missile strikes, just a rediculous scenario here, if the enemy has a missile system that works on satellite targeting... a Marines digi camo is supposedly invisible to them. How best to survive any attack... don't be seen.

Zer0 Kay wrote:First, reguardless of making it themselves or buying it from a third party, it costs either money or resources. Now I could see it being significantly less for the CS than in resources than what the Black Market is selling it for because they've got other risks to cover for. Even at your 1/4 they still are more expensive than a U.S. Soldier. As far as the single soldier taking out a concrete bunker... lets keep it equivalent. A Deadboy can't take out an MD concrete bunker on his own. Now if we take into account some of the stuff on the drawing boards there is the network system in plans to allow a soldier with an underbarrel target designator to launch a missile at the pull of a trigger. The missile would be fired from a support vehicle based on the Stryker that is essentially a bunch of vertical launch hellfires. As for surviving missile strikes, just a rediculous scenario here, if the enemy has a missile system that works on satellite targeting... a Marines digi camo is supposedly invisible to them. How best to survive any attack... don't be seen.

well, a deadboy probably could actually shoot a MDC bunker to pieces. i mean, if there were enemies in it, he'd probably get shot and killed well before breaking through, but with 8 clips, 30 shots a clip, and 2d6 per shot (assuming the less generous interpretation of basic gear), that's 480d6 damage = 1680 damage on average. give your soldier an M-4 and 8 clips (instead of 7, to make it even) and tell him to take out a concrete bunker with it. he might do it, but it will probably involve using the M-4 to take over a different weapon. the CS soldier, or especially a squad of CS soldiers, are wielding weapons that do damage greater than a LAW (1d6 MD) or a 90 mm recoil-less rifle (1d8 MD or 1d10 MD, can't recall which). that's the kind of firepower their regular weapons have. give them a proper heavy squad weapon (like a mini-missile launcher or a plasma ejector) and you're looking at some serious destructive output.

First of a US Army Soldier costs WAY more than this. The cost of training a Soldier alone is over $100,000. Plus there is paying a Soldier.

Oh yeah, and CS Soldiers are using WAY higher tech gear. How much dose a tank cost the US Army? Cause that what your AVERAGE CS Grunt is...

Also remember you have to adjust for inflation...

The Dead boy's pistol can incinerate a main battle tank.

That and you are comparing two different currencies without knowing the exchange rate...

If you want to do this comparison, you have to include the relative firepower of the two. So how many current day soldiers will it take to kill a Deadboy?

The Deadboy got a "one shot, one kill" advantage, whereas the soldier's .223 bullets will bounce off.

Mack wrote:If you want to do this comparison, you have to include the relative firepower of the two. So how many current day soldiers will it take to kill a Deadboy?

The Deadboy got a "one shot, one kill" advantage, whereas the soldier's .223 bullets will bounce off.

i would argue that with the damage likely blowing through multiple humans, it's better than one shot, one kill.

Dr Megaverse wrote:Also remember you have to adjust for inflation...

Ok in the Rifts main book a M16A1 costs 700 credits.

In just about all of my main rule books for SDC games the same M16A1 costs $675. I'm not counting the HU GM's Guide because the prices in that are off considerably compared to Real world prices. Have I seen a $2,400 AR15/M16...yeah it was a custom built tactical model with everything "Match grade" and all the bells and whistles hanging off of it. The price it has for a Minigun is for a pre-'86 transferable model of which there are only six and one guy owns half of them. The post 86 dealers sample price is only $30,000

As far as the argument that a Deadboys sidearm can vaporise a tank....it shouldn't as Palladium does not scale things very well. the power level needed would take a powersource that just isn't physically possible according to friends of mine with Genius IQs and majors in physics. There is a reason why alot of people I play with have ditched MDC altogether then upgraded the MDC stuff because a straight conversion renders them worthless.

Rockwolf66 wrote:

Dr Megaverse wrote:Also remember you have to adjust for inflation...

Ok in the Rifts main book a M16A1 costs 700 credits.

In just about all of my main rule books for SDC games the same M16A1 costs $675. I'm not counting the HU GM's Guide because the prices in that are off considerably compared to Real world prices. Have I seen a $2,400 AR15/M16...yeah it was a custom built tactical model with everything "Match grade" and all the bells and whistles hanging off of it. The price it has for a Minigun is for a pre-'86 transferable model of which there are only six and one guy owns half of them. The post 86 dealers sample price is only $30,000

As far as the argument that a Deadboys sidearm can vaporise a tank....it shouldn't as Palladium does not scale things very well. the power level needed would take a powersource that just isn't physically possible according to friends of mine with Genius IQs and majors in physics. There is a reason why alot of people I play with have ditched MDC altogether then upgraded the MDC stuff because a straight conversion renders them worthless.

That's cool. However, aside from your "ditching MDC" house rule. The Dead Boy is a far better equipped Soldier.

Rockwolf66 wrote:As far as the argument that a Deadboys sidearm can vaporise a tank....it shouldn't as Palladium does not scale things very well. the power level needed would take a powersource that just isn't physically possible according to friends of mine with Genius IQs and majors in physics. There is a reason why alot of people I play with have ditched MDC altogether then upgraded the MDC stuff because a straight conversion renders them worthless.

Sigh...MDC vs SDC is...so old on these forums. As for me...yeah, I am well aware that a laser rifle will never be equivalent to a 120mm HVAPFSDS-DU round, but as long as *some people* think that it is...we will have silliness like vaporizing tanks with pistols. Maybe they don't understand penetration and ammunition cookoff vs vaporization?

BUT...going with the OP...yes, a modern infantryman is probably a much more cost effective solution than a CS Deadboy...since, you know, I can read...

-STS

rat_bastard wrote:The Dead boy's pistol can incinerate a main battle tank.

No, it can potentially on a single shot destroy all the necessary internal workings to render the tank inoperative, not incinerate it. The laser's width is far too narrow to go vaporizing the tank, instead it would punch through and destroy the internal workings of the tank instead.

Looking at the SDC damage of a tank even with the damage of the New CS Sidearm from CWC it will take more than a single shot on average to stop a tank. Now badly damage a tank on average but it will not destroy it before the person with a pistol is hit by a massive projectile traveling a mach speeds. Whoever thinks that they will still be standing after such a hit is dreaming.

As I said before palladium is terrible when it comes to scale. MDC was cool in Robotech because you were dealing with 55mm vulcan style autocannons and interstellar battleship weapons. When such power gets down to Infantry scale it starts getting absurd to a large degree.

Still when you get back to the origional topic the US Infantryman's equipment is alot more versitile than that of a deadboys and it's much cheaper to boot.

Rockwolf66 wrote:Still when you get back to the origional topic the US Infantryman's equipment is alot more versitile than that of a deadboys and it's much cheaper to boot.

I think it's a bit fair to say that the CS guy is less cost effective though, since the overwhelming bulk (120,000 credits) of his equipment costs went towards body armor, energy weapons, and e-clips. And they're things that are mandatory for any human being on Rifts Earth who wants to be able to function as a soldier at all. Take away the armor and he's dead in his first firefight. Send him out with nothing but conventional projectile weapons and you may as well send him out with a water pistol. It's like comparing an F-15 to a Spitfire and saying the Spitfire is more cost effective because jets and guided rockets cost way more to make than V-12 engines and machineguns.

Rockwolf66 wrote:Here is a comparison between the cost of a US Army Soldier(from the Army Times) versus the cost of a CS Grunt from the Rifts Main Book. When one removes SDC/MDC from the equasion it's obvious which one is much more cost effective.


Grand Total: $18,087.99 (soldier)

Grand Total: $131,735 (deadboy)

Taking the mdc/sdc out of the equation as per your post ..

The soldier is more cost effective ...

The deadboy is more combat survivable ..

The soldier is more versatile

The deadboy is not as versatile

matched up against each other .. the deadboy will own the soldier due entirely to the equipment each is given. (sadly)

Dr Megaverse wrote:Also remember you have to adjust for inflation...

There is no inflation after a nuclear holocaust and a mystic holocaust and an alien invasion everything starts out... well were ever the heck it starts out at. 1 credit has no comparison to 1 dollar except maybe as the value in credits that that dollar may be worth to a collector, but they have no currency trade value. You try paying with a dollar in Rifts to the CS and what you end up with is nothing as in it is worthless... but it could cost you your life.

Rockwolf66 wrote:

Dr Megaverse wrote:Also remember you have to adjust for inflation...

Ok in the Rifts main book a M16A1 costs 700 credits.

In just about all of my main rule books for SDC games the same M16A1 costs $675. I'm not counting the HU GM's Guide because the prices in that are off considerably compared to Real world prices. Have I seen a $2,400 AR15/M16...yeah it was a custom built tactical model with everything "Match grade" and all the bells and whistles hanging off of it. The price it has for a Minigun is for a pre-'86 transferable model of which there are only six and one guy owns half of them. The post 86 dealers sample price is only $30,000

As far as the argument that a Deadboys sidearm can vaporise a tank....it shouldn't as Palladium does not scale things very well. the power level needed would take a powersource that just isn't physically possible according to friends of mine with Genius IQs and majors in physics. There is a reason why alot of people I play with have ditched MDC altogether then upgraded the MDC stuff because a straight conversion renders them worthless.

Dang I was going to maybe argue on your side but I quit. You just tried bringing in science into a SCI-FI wait that isn't big enough a SCI-FI RPG. Really, next your going to complain that giant bipedal robots aren't possible because the impact of their walking would cause the materials to buckle or that plasma weapons that launch bolts of plasma aren't possible without launching some sort of physical device to maintain the plasma bottle, etc., etc., etc...

Did your genious friends tell you that all the rail guns should be making sonic booms in order to cause that damage and that it isn't the mach number that should determine the volume of the boom but the shape, size and other variables that would determine that? If we're going to apply real science to SCIENCE FICTION we destroy the FICTION part by proving that there is no SCIENCE in it.

I'm a turncoat guys make room for me! WAFFLE, WAFFLE, WAFFLE

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Rockwolf66 wrote:

Dr Megaverse wrote:Also remember you have to adjust for inflation...

Ok in the Rifts main book a M16A1 costs 700 credits.

In just about all of my main rule books for SDC games the same M16A1 costs $675. I'm not counting the HU GM's Guide because the prices in that are off considerably compared to Real world prices. Have I seen a $2,400 AR15/M16...yeah it was a custom built tactical model with everything "Match grade" and all the bells and whistles hanging off of it. The price it has for a Minigun is for a pre-'86 transferable model of which there are only six and one guy owns half of them. The post 86 dealers sample price is only $30,000

As far as the argument that a Deadboys sidearm can vaporise a tank....it shouldn't as Palladium does not scale things very well. the power level needed would take a powersource that just isn't physically possible according to friends of mine with Genius IQs and majors in physics. There is a reason why alot of people I play with have ditched MDC altogether then upgraded the MDC stuff because a straight conversion renders them worthless.

Dang I was going to maybe argue on your side but I quit. You just tried bringing in science into a SCI-FI wait that isn't big enough a SCI-FI RPG. Really, next your going to complain that giant bipedal robots aren't possible because the impact of their walking would cause the materials to buckle or that plasma weapons that launch bolts of plasma aren't possible without launching some sort of physical device to maintain the plasma bottle, etc., etc., etc...

Did your genious friends tell you that all the rail guns should be making sonic booms in order to cause that damage and that it isn't the mach number that should determine the volume of the boom but the shape, size and other variables that would determine that? If we're going to apply real science to SCIENCE FICTION we destroy the FICTION part by proving that there is no SCIENCE in it.

I'm a turncoat guys make room for me! WAFFLE, WAFFLE, WAFFLE

That's kinda funny since my genius friends & I regularly argue that you CAN use real science and physics in the game and that the real science actiually does exist in the game and doesn't destroy the fiction but actually supports it rather well. It's when everyone ignore the science that the fiction is destroyed and the game is ruined. Any way the "official" cost of an M1A3 Abrams Main Battle Tank, according to Merc Ops, is actually 200,000 credits and the Iron Hammer Main Battle Tank (another Pre-Rifts tank, that looks suspiciously like the Abrams) costs 4 million w/a gas engine, 6 million for electric, and 35 million witha nuclear engine. That makes a Dead Boy cheap in comparison and makes it unlikely they could easily vaporize a tank (Iron Hammer has 650 MDC, and the Abrams has 266 MDC).
Basically there are a lot of factors that you're not taking into account chief of which is the different technology that even if the CS doesn't "pay" for the weapons they DO certainly use resources to make the stuff.

keir451 wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Rockwolf66 wrote:

Dr Megaverse wrote:Also remember you have to adjust for inflation...

Ok in the Rifts main book a M16A1 costs 700 credits.

In just about all of my main rule books for SDC games the same M16A1 costs $675. I'm not counting the HU GM's Guide because the prices in that are off considerably compared to Real world prices. Have I seen a $2,400 AR15/M16...yeah it was a custom built tactical model with everything "Match grade" and all the bells and whistles hanging off of it. The price it has for a Minigun is for a pre-'86 transferable model of which there are only six and one guy owns half of them. The post 86 dealers sample price is only $30,000

As far as the argument that a Deadboys sidearm can vaporise a tank....it shouldn't as Palladium does not scale things very well. the power level needed would take a powersource that just isn't physically possible according to friends of mine with Genius IQs and majors in physics. There is a reason why alot of people I play with have ditched MDC altogether then upgraded the MDC stuff because a straight conversion renders them worthless.

Dang I was going to maybe argue on your side but I quit. You just tried bringing in science into a SCI-FI wait that isn't big enough a SCI-FI RPG. Really, next your going to complain that giant bipedal robots aren't possible because the impact of their walking would cause the materials to buckle or that plasma weapons that launch bolts of plasma aren't possible without launching some sort of physical device to maintain the plasma bottle, etc., etc., etc...

Did your genious friends tell you that all the rail guns should be making sonic booms in order to cause that damage and that it isn't the mach number that should determine the volume of the boom but the shape, size and other variables that would determine that? If we're going to apply real science to SCIENCE FICTION we destroy the FICTION part by proving that there is no SCIENCE in it.

I'm a turncoat guys make room for me! WAFFLE, WAFFLE, WAFFLE

That's kinda funny since my genius friends & I regularly argue that you CAN use real science and physics in the game and that the real science actiually does exist in the game and doesn't destroy the fiction but actually supports it rather well. It's when everyone ignore the science that the fiction is destroyed and the game is ruined. Any way the "official" cost of an M1A3 Abrams Main Battle Tank, according to Merc Ops, is actually 200,000 credits and the Iron Hammer Main Battle Tank (another Pre-Rifts tank, that looks suspiciously like the Abrams) costs 4 million w/a gas engine, 6 million for electric, and 35 million witha nuclear engine. That makes a Dead Boy cheap in comparison and makes it unlikely they could easily vaporize a tank (Iron Hammer has 650 MDC, and the Abrams has 266 MDC).
Basically there are a lot of factors that you're not taking into account chief of which is the different technology that even if the CS doesn't "pay" for the weapons they DO certainly use resources to make the stuff.

So how does science support the plasma weapons? They aren't "flame throwers," plasma would loose integrity rapidly in open air without containment even as a "flame thrower."

What about only the Boom Gun making a sonic boom? In order to create damage in the MD catagory all railguns would have to be going hypersonic so unless every other railgun has rounds shaped to reduce the shockwave they're all going to have sonic booms and if they do have that then they're actually more advanced than the boom gun and the only thing keeping them from not doing as much damage is that they don't launch hundreds of rounds at once.

Plasma furnaces already exist today and considering that Plasma is just another form of matter it's not that hard to take the next step and imagine it weaponized. The Sun is a plasma furnace, neon lights use plasma as well. I, personally, figure that the plasma weapons use a small magnetic containment field in the barrel to help project the blast forward as well as keeping the weapon from melting in your hands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
Yes, each railgun does create a loud sound as the rounds leave the barrel, but it the case of the smaller railgun weapons the sound is similar to that of a shotgun blast. So the rounds probably are going hypersonic, but either don't create as much recoil or have seperate recoil systems already built in.
Science can support laser weaponry and all the various technologies, except perhaps the force field tech. That then becomes the fiction part of the technology, the rest is just story telling.

If I may, zer0 is speaking of plasma projectiles after they leave the barrel, plasma requires a constant influx of energy to remain plasma and not just cool back down to gas, plus it requires something to keep it together in either a beam or a glob to work effectively, the source of neither of which are given, thus is the problem with plasma weapons.

and in response to the OP, as far as on field combat effectiveness vs cost in their own time and place, the us soldier wins hands down, because the soldier costs less and is seen as one of the best warriors in the world today, the cs grunt costs quite a bit more, and is seen as a piece of crap on field, seeing as self trained and armed mercs can kill them with almost no problem at all.

and with regards to the battle tank comment, I call BS, your average sdc bank vault has 50 mdc, and since it takes similar stuff to blow a bank vault as it does a tank we'll say a battle tank has 50 mdc, thus taking about half a clip on average, 4-5 shots minimum, not a single shot like you all say.

BIBBI wrote:If I may, zer0 is speaking of plasma projectiles after they leave the barrel, plasma requires a constant influx of energy to remain plasma and not just cool back down to gas, plus it requires something to keep it together in either a beam or a glob to work effectively, the source of neither of which are given, thus is the problem with plasma weapons.

and in response to the OP, as far as on field combat effectiveness vs cost in their own time and place, the us soldier wins hands down, because the soldier costs less and is seen as one of the best warriors in the world today, the cs grunt costs quite a bit more, and is seen as a piece of crap on field, seeing as self trained and armed mercs can kill them with almost no problem at all.

and with regards to the battle tank comment, I call BS, your average sdc bank vault has 50 mdc, and since it takes similar stuff to blow a bank vault as it does a tank we'll say a battle tank has 50 mdc, thus taking about half a clip on average, 4-5 shots minimum, not a single shot like you all say.

Call it Bs if you want, the numbers provided aren't mine but the books. And IRL the materials needed to destroy a modern main battle tank is significantly MORE than what it takes to destroy a bank vault. The same holds true in Rifts ANY military vehicle, such as a tank or PA unit or Robot vehicle, are built to withstand stresses banl vaults aren't.
As per Zer0's comment, my point still holds true: Plasma isn't science fiction, it's science fact and not only the US, but other countries are investigating the possibilities of weaponized plasma. Plasma Weapons may, currently, be science fiction, but then again so were other things at one point in time.
As per CS grunts, well, you must be reading different material than I, as everything I read portays the CS grunt as a well trained and well outfitted soldier with better armor and weapons than our soldiers have today.

keir451 wrote:Plasma furnaces already exist today and considering that Plasma is just another form of matter it's not that hard to take the next step and imagine it weaponized. The Sun is a plasma furnace, neon lights use plasma as well. I, personally, figure that the plasma weapons use a small magnetic containment field in the barrel to help project the blast forward as well as keeping the weapon from melting in your hands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

Actually weaponised plasma is kind of beyond the bounds of reality. At least if we're talking about guns firing white-hot gouts of plasma at targets hundreds of yards away. The stuff likes to expand like nobody's business, acting more or less the way you'd expect a gas heated to a few thousand degrees celcius would act. So the moment its out of the barrel it's just going want to go FOOMF and expand to a few thousand times its former volume, shedding almost all of its heat and losing almost all of its momentum almost instantly. Its also as ionised as all hell (at least until it cools down enough to become gaseous again), so even if you could magically ignore the Ideal Gas Law you'd still have a gout of plasma trying to follow a very steep parabolic arc into the ground.

Making plasma is easy, you can do it at home by putting a lightbulb in a microwave (put a glass bowl over the lightbulb though, because the bulb will eventually pop and this'll make it easier to clean up afterwards). Making plasma at point A and getting it to hurl itself at someone three hundred yards away in point B is just never going to happen in any realistic universe ever, and it's one of the (many, many) areas where we have to admit that Rifts is a very soft sci-fi setting.

Yes, each railgun does create a loud sound as the rounds leave the barrel, but it the case of the smaller railgun weapons the sound is similar to that of a shotgun blast. So the rounds probably are going hypersonic, but either don't create as much recoil or have seperate recoil systems already built in.

Railguns would actually be pretty quiet. Something as small as a bullet doesn't make much noise when it breaks the sound barrier, and almost all of the bang you get from a conventional firearm is caused by hte propellant exploding. Take away the need for a propellant and you'll probably end up with something quieter than a firearm with a silencer. Recoil-wise they'll be bastards though. The books don't really go into specifics, but we can safely assume that railgun slugs weigh about as much as ammunition for 20th century firearms, but travel orders of magnitude faster. If you're making a bullet go 10 or 100 times faster, you're giving it 10 or 100 times more momentum, and it's gonna impart 10 or 100 times more momentum on the gun you fired it out of. These things are going to make elephant guns and heavy machineguns look well-behaved.

Rallan wrote:

keir451 wrote:Yes, each railgun does create a loud sound as the rounds leave the barrel, but it the case of the smaller railgun weapons the sound is similar to that of a shotgun blast. So the rounds probably are going hypersonic, but either don't create as much recoil or have seperate recoil systems already built in.

Railguns would actually be pretty quiet. Something as small as a bullet doesn't make much noise when it breaks the sound barrier, and almost all of the bang you get from a conventional firearm is caused by hte propellant exploding. Take away the need for a propellant and you'll probably end up with something quieter than a firearm with a silencer. Recoil-wise they'll be bastards though. The books don't really go into specifics, but we can safely assume that railgun slugs weigh about as much as ammunition for 20th century firearms, but travel orders of magnitude faster. If you're making a bullet go 10 or 100 times faster, you're giving it 10 or 100 times more momentum, and it's gonna impart 10 or 100 times more momentum on the gun you fired it out of. These things are going to make elephant guns and heavy machineguns look well-behaved.

Well this raises the question of just what causes a Boom gun to be so damn loud?

keir451 wrote:Plasma furnaces already exist today and considering that Plasma is just another form of matter it's not that hard to take the next step and imagine it weaponized. The Sun is a plasma furnace, neon lights use plasma as well. I, personally, figure that the plasma weapons use a small magnetic containment field in the barrel to help project the blast forward as well as keeping the weapon from melting in your hands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
Yes, each railgun does create a loud sound as the rounds leave the barrel, but it the case of the smaller railgun weapons the sound is similar to that of a shotgun blast. So the rounds probably are going hypersonic, but either don't create as much recoil or have seperate recoil systems already built in.
Science can support laser weaponry and all the various technologies, except perhaps the force field tech. That then becomes the fiction part of the technology, the rest is just story telling.

Yup, but as soon as plasma leaves its containment it quickly returns to non-ionized gas. Didn't say it was hard to imagine it weaponized just not like it is described in Rifts. You can't have a plasma flamethrower, only a constant beam plasma discharger or a plasma bolt caster both need a method of containing the plasma in an EM field (aka magnetic bottle) and unless there is power to heat the plasma it will cool down rapidly. Yeah... don't forget that according to your link "At low temperatures, ions and electrons tend to recombine into bound states—atoms, and the plasma will eventually become a gas." or in other words no longer plasma. Last I checked, when compared to the temperatures required to do the damage described... unless the Earth's ambient temperature has increased to "several thousand degrees Celsius" it is FAR cooler than that required to keep plasma, plasma.

I agree with the shotgun concept for a plausable reason that a boomgun may be perceived or believed to be louder. BUT... it would be the same difference between a a rifle and a shotgun... which actually favors the rifle. Again in order to produce a louder boom a larger shockwave needs to be formed an aircraft that goes mach 7 that has the same shape as an aircraft that goes mach 1 will make the same volume of sonic boom. What the heck does the amount of recoil have to do with the sonic boom? The recoil is caused by the force that the object is being accelerated by and the mass of the object. Open spoiler for details.

check out the rest here. So it's kind of funny that because it is going so fast out of the barrel it may actually produce a lower volume sonic boom compared to what a slower solid round would do.

I didn't say anything about lasers so you must be responding to someone else.

Slight001 wrote:

Rallan wrote:

keir451 wrote:Yes, each railgun does create a loud sound as the rounds leave the barrel, but it the case of the smaller railgun weapons the sound is similar to that of a shotgun blast. So the rounds probably are going hypersonic, but either don't create as much recoil or have seperate recoil systems already built in.

Railguns would actually be pretty quiet. Something as small as a bullet doesn't make much noise when it breaks the sound barrier, and almost all of the bang you get from a conventional firearm is caused by hte propellant exploding. Take away the need for a propellant and you'll probably end up with something quieter than a firearm with a silencer. Recoil-wise they'll be bastards though. The books don't really go into specifics, but we can safely assume that railgun slugs weigh about as much as ammunition for 20th century firearms, but travel orders of magnitude faster. If you're making a bullet go 10 or 100 times faster, you're giving it 10 or 100 times more momentum, and it's gonna impart 10 or 100 times more momentum on the gun you fired it out of. These things are going to make elephant guns and heavy machineguns look well-behaved.

Well this raises the question of just what causes a Boom gun to be so damn loud?

Size of the round is much bigger than a rifle round for one, and it's going mach 5. So there's a lot of air displacement as the round is chambered and accelerated. Given the energy involved there might even be added air displacement due to the incredible amount of heat added into the mix.

keir451 wrote:

BIBBI wrote:If I may, zer0 is speaking of plasma projectiles after they leave the barrel, plasma requires a constant influx of energy to remain plasma and not just cool back down to gas, plus it requires something to keep it together in either a beam or a glob to work effectively, the source of neither of which are given, thus is the problem with plasma weapons.

and in response to the OP, as far as on field combat effectiveness vs cost in their own time and place, the us soldier wins hands down, because the soldier costs less and is seen as one of the best warriors in the world today, the cs grunt costs quite a bit more, and is seen as a piece of crap on field, seeing as self trained and armed mercs can kill them with almost no problem at all.

and with regards to the battle tank comment, I call BS, your average sdc bank vault has 50 mdc, and since it takes similar stuff to blow a bank vault as it does a tank we'll say a battle tank has 50 mdc, thus taking about half a clip on average, 4-5 shots minimum, not a single shot like you all say.

Call it Bs if you want, the numbers provided aren't mine but the books. And IRL the materials needed to destroy a modern main battle tank is significantly MORE than what it takes to destroy a bank vault. The same holds true in Rifts ANY military vehicle, such as a tank or PA unit or Robot vehicle, are built to withstand stresses banl vaults aren't.
As per Zer0's comment, my point still holds true: Plasma isn't science fiction, it's science fact and not only the US, but other countries are investigating the possibilities of weaponized plasma. Plasma Weapons may, currently, be science fiction, but then again so were other things at one point in time.
As per CS grunts, well, you must be reading different material than I, as everything I read portays the CS grunt as a well trained and well outfitted soldier with better armor and weapons than our soldiers have today.

I can guarantee you they aren't researching plasma flame throwers. They also are likely also developing some sort of magnetic bottle projectile to produce a plasma bolt or a magnetic bottle projected field to produce a plasma beam. Heck lightning bolts are great examples of plasma but if you made a lightning bolt gun that would be closer in description to an ion weapon than a plasma weapon.

Slight001 wrote:

Rallan wrote:

keir451 wrote:Yes, each railgun does create a loud sound as the rounds leave the barrel, but it the case of the smaller railgun weapons the sound is similar to that of a shotgun blast. So the rounds probably are going hypersonic, but either don't create as much recoil or have seperate recoil systems already built in.

Railguns would actually be pretty quiet. Something as small as a bullet doesn't make much noise when it breaks the sound barrier, and almost all of the bang you get from a conventional firearm is caused by hte propellant exploding. Take away the need for a propellant and you'll probably end up with something quieter than a firearm with a silencer. Recoil-wise they'll be bastards though. The books don't really go into specifics, but we can safely assume that railgun slugs weigh about as much as ammunition for 20th century firearms, but travel orders of magnitude faster. If you're making a bullet go 10 or 100 times faster, you're giving it 10 or 100 times more momentum, and it's gonna impart 10 or 100 times more momentum on the gun you fired it out of. These things are going to make elephant guns and heavy machineguns look well-behaved.

Well this raises the question of just what causes a Boom gun to be so damn loud?

It also raises the question of why a Boom Gun can shred 20th century tanks when its firing something that weighs less than and travels slower than a modern anti-tank round. Let's just chalk it up to the writeup being very badly written shall we?

keir451 wrote:Call it Bs if you want, the numbers provided aren't mine but the books. And IRL the materials needed to destroy a modern main battle tank is significantly MORE than what it takes to destroy a bank vault. The same holds true in Rifts ANY military vehicle, such as a tank or PA unit or Robot vehicle, are built to withstand stresses banl vaults aren't.
As per Zer0's comment, my point still holds true: Plasma isn't science fiction, it's science fact and not only the US, but other countries are investigating the possibilities of weaponized plasma. Plasma Weapons may, currently, be science fiction, but then again so were other things at one point in time.
As per CS grunts, well, you must be reading different material than I, as everything I read portays the CS grunt as a well trained and well outfitted soldier with better armor and weapons than our soldiers have today.

Just a shame that plasma weapons of the kind described in Rifts are scientific humbug, and will remain so forever.

Rallan wrote:

keir451 wrote:Call it Bs if you want, the numbers provided aren't mine but the books. And IRL the materials needed to destroy a modern main battle tank is significantly MORE than what it takes to destroy a bank vault. The same holds true in Rifts ANY military vehicle, such as a tank or PA unit or Robot vehicle, are built to withstand stresses banl vaults aren't.
As per Zer0's comment, my point still holds true: Plasma isn't science fiction, it's science fact and not only the US, but other countries are investigating the possibilities of weaponized plasma. Plasma Weapons may, currently, be science fiction, but then again so were other things at one point in time.
As per CS grunts, well, you must be reading different material than I, as everything I read portays the CS grunt as a well trained and well outfitted soldier with better armor and weapons than our soldiers have today.

Just a shame that plasma weapons of the kind described in Rifts are scientific humbug, and will remain so forever.

Eh, forever is an awfully long time. Who knows, someday centuries from now, projected and coherent magnetic bottles may be practical technology.

Plasma windows, the closest thing we currently have to an actual force field, are a much more realistic and practical application of plasma-based technology, however.

Rockwolf66 wrote:Here is a comparison between the cost of a US Army Soldier(from the Army Times) versus the cost of a CS Grunt from the Rifts Main Book. When one removes SDC/MDC from the equasion it's obvious which one is much more cost effective.

C'mon now, you know better.

For one, that suit of armour is tougher than an Arbrams MBT, which costs tens of millions of dollars; they did it for $50,000.
For two, that makes then have the versatile role of tank.
For three, that suit of armour is environmental; it is capable of combat in any environment, making it more versatile than most of the gear that other soldier is carrying.
For four, the weapons on that grunt would be of the same effectiveness as an attack helicopter; you can kill dozens of tanks, destroy facilities, etc. with the pistol alone. If you were the other soldier, you'd need to be carrying thousands of pounds of explosives and rockets to do that.

But because you nerfed one side... well yeah; of course the US Soldier is going to seem more cost-effective, his stuff didn't turn into kid's toys.

But say it did, and his gun became a toy dart launcher - does that still make him cost-effective?

Hystrix wrote:First of a US Army Soldier costs WAY more than this. The cost of training a Soldier alone is over $100,000. Plus there is paying a Soldier.

Oh yeah, and CS Soldiers are using WAY higher tech gear. How much dose a tank cost the US Army? Cause that what your AVERAGE CS Grunt is...

A point on the cost of training; the CS Grunt costs waaay more to train. You have to train a guy that can't read to pilot tanks, powered armour, maintain a laser gun, use environmental body armour, etc...
For a US soldier, they need to know how to maintain a normal mechanical gun and probably get a class 5 drivers' license. And you don't need any creative training techniques because they can read a field manual.
Their pay is comparable though.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

keir451 wrote:Plasma furnaces already exist today and considering that Plasma is just another form of matter it's not that hard to take the next step and imagine it weaponized. The Sun is a plasma furnace, neon lights use plasma as well. I, personally, figure that the plasma weapons use a small magnetic containment field in the barrel to help project the blast forward as well as keeping the weapon from melting in your hands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
Yes, each railgun does create a loud sound as the rounds leave the barrel, but it the case of the smaller railgun weapons the sound is similar to that of a shotgun blast. So the rounds probably are going hypersonic, but either don't create as much recoil or have seperate recoil systems already built in.
Science can support laser weaponry and all the various technologies, except perhaps the force field tech. That then becomes the fiction part of the technology, the rest is just story telling.

Yup, but as soon as plasma leaves its containment it quickly returns to non-ionized gas. Didn't say it was hard to imagine it weaponized just not like it is described in Rifts. You can't have a plasma flamethrower, only a constant beam plasma discharger or a plasma bolt caster both need a method of containing the plasma in an EM field (aka magnetic bottle) and unless there is power to heat the plasma it will cool down rapidly. Yeah... don't forget that according to your link "At low temperatures, ions and electrons tend to recombine into bound states—atoms, and the plasma will eventually become a gas." or in other words no longer plasma. Last I checked, when compared to the temperatures required to do the damage described... unless the Earth's ambient temperature has increased to "several thousand degrees Celsius" it is FAR cooler than that required to keep plasma, plasma.

I agree with the shotgun concept for a plausable reason that a boomgun may be perceived or believed to be louder. BUT... it would be the same difference between a a rifle and a shotgun... which actually favors the rifle. Again in order to produce a louder boom a larger shockwave needs to be formed an aircraft that goes mach 7 that has the same shape as an aircraft that goes mach 1 will make the same volume of sonic boom. What the heck does the amount of recoil have to do with the sonic boom? The recoil is caused by the force that the object is being accelerated by and the mass of the object. Open spoiler for details.

Spoiler:

The power, or volume, of the shock wave is dependent on the quantity of air that is being accelerated, and thus the size and shape of the aircraft. As the aircraft increases speed the shock cone gets tighter around the craft and becomes weaker to the point that at very high speeds and altitudes no boom is heard. The "length" of the boom from front to back is dependent on the length of the aircraft to a factor of 3:2. Longer aircraft therefore "spread out" their booms more than smaller ones, which leads to a less powerful boom which has a less "spread out" boom.

Several smaller shock waves can, and usually do, form at other points on the aircraft, primarily any convex points or curves, the leading wing edge and especially the inlet to engines. These secondary shockwaves are caused by the air being forced to turn around these convex points, which generates a shock wave in supersonic flow.

The later shock waves are somewhat faster than the first one, travel faster and add to the main shockwave at some distance away from the aircraft to create a much more defined N-wave shape. This maximizes both the magnitude and the "rise time" of the shock which makes the boom seem louder. On most designs the characteristic distance is about , meaning that below this altitude the sonic boom will be "softer". However, the drag at this altitude or below makes supersonic travel particularly inefficient, which poses a serious problem.

check out the rest here. So it's kind of funny that because it is going so fast out of the barrel it may actually produce a lower volume sonic boom compared to what a slower solid round would do.

I didn't say anything about lasers so you must be responding to someone else.

Good points all in all, of course you'll notice the range of the plasma rifle is abyssmally short in comparison to other weapons in Rifts. Maybe that's the "Rifts range" at which plasma cools? And while no one is making/researching plasma flame throwers currently (at least that we are aware of) just like the laser, it may very well come to pass that the research IS done and the weapon created.

keir451 wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

keir451 wrote:Plasma furnaces already exist today and considering that Plasma is just another form of matter it's not that hard to take the next step and imagine it weaponized. The Sun is a plasma furnace, neon lights use plasma as well. I, personally, figure that the plasma weapons use a small magnetic containment field in the barrel to help project the blast forward as well as keeping the weapon from melting in your hands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
Yes, each railgun does create a loud sound as the rounds leave the barrel, but it the case of the smaller railgun weapons the sound is similar to that of a shotgun blast. So the rounds probably are going hypersonic, but either don't create as much recoil or have seperate recoil systems already built in.
Science can support laser weaponry and all the various technologies, except perhaps the force field tech. That then becomes the fiction part of the technology, the rest is just story telling.

Yup, but as soon as plasma leaves its containment it quickly returns to non-ionized gas. Didn't say it was hard to imagine it weaponized just not like it is described in Rifts. You can't have a plasma flamethrower, only a constant beam plasma discharger or a plasma bolt caster both need a method of containing the plasma in an EM field (aka magnetic bottle) and unless there is power to heat the plasma it will cool down rapidly. Yeah... don't forget that according to your link "At low temperatures, ions and electrons tend to recombine into bound states—atoms, and the plasma will eventually become a gas." or in other words no longer plasma. Last I checked, when compared to the temperatures required to do the damage described... unless the Earth's ambient temperature has increased to "several thousand degrees Celsius" it is FAR cooler than that required to keep plasma, plasma.

I agree with the shotgun concept for a plausable reason that a boomgun may be perceived or believed to be louder. BUT... it would be the same difference between a a rifle and a shotgun... which actually favors the rifle. Again in order to produce a louder boom a larger shockwave needs to be formed an aircraft that goes mach 7 that has the same shape as an aircraft that goes mach 1 will make the same volume of sonic boom. What the heck does the amount of recoil have to do with the sonic boom? The recoil is caused by the force that the object is being accelerated by and the mass of the object. Open spoiler for details.

Spoiler:

The power, or volume, of the shock wave is dependent on the quantity of air that is being accelerated, and thus the size and shape of the aircraft. As the aircraft increases speed the shock cone gets tighter around the craft and becomes weaker to the point that at very high speeds and altitudes no boom is heard. The "length" of the boom from front to back is dependent on the length of the aircraft to a factor of 3:2. Longer aircraft therefore "spread out" their booms more than smaller ones, which leads to a less powerful boom which has a less "spread out" boom.

Several smaller shock waves can, and usually do, form at other points on the aircraft, primarily any convex points or curves, the leading wing edge and especially the inlet to engines. These secondary shockwaves are caused by the air being forced to turn around these convex points, which generates a shock wave in supersonic flow.

The later shock waves are somewhat faster than the first one, travel faster and add to the main shockwave at some distance away from the aircraft to create a much more defined N-wave shape. This maximizes both the magnitude and the "rise time" of the shock which makes the boom seem louder. On most designs the characteristic distance is about , meaning that below this altitude the sonic boom will be "softer". However, the drag at this altitude or below makes supersonic travel particularly inefficient, which poses a serious problem.

check out the rest here. So it's kind of funny that because it is going so fast out of the barrel it may actually produce a lower volume sonic boom compared to what a slower solid round would do.

I didn't say anything about lasers so you must be responding to someone else.

Good points all in all, of course you'll notice the range of the plasma rifle is abyssmally short in comparison to other weapons in Rifts. Maybe that's the "Rifts range" at which plasma cools? And while no one is making/researching plasma flame throwers currently (at least that we are aware of) just like the laser, it may very well come to pass that the research IS done and the weapon created.

Plasma doesn't work like a flamethrower, so they can't. Why do you say "just like the laser" as if they aren't researching that? Is THIS not a laser? The plasma would be like trying to make a flame thrower by expelling methane out of a tube and igniting it. Plasma weapons will come to pass... but after they come up with projectable magnetic containment fields

Ok so assuming they figure out the problems of projecting a magnetic bottle and keeping the plasma heated... wouldn't all that energy be better utilized by just applying it to a more 'conventional' weapon?

@Zer0 Kay; I realize plasma weapomns aren't like flame throwers, but nonetheless Rifts depictis theiranges as being very short in comparison to lasers. My thought was that this range limitation is due to the magnetic containment field or plasmas rapid cool dow after being fired.
My statement of "like a laser" is referencing the fact that at one point in time a laser was a very fictional device that is now very real (tho' apparently not up to Rifts levels yet) and that it will only be a matter of time before someone figures out how to weaponize plasma effectively.

Dog_O_War wrote:For one, that suit of armour is tougher than an Arbrams MBT, which costs tens of millions of dollars; they did it for $50,000.
For two, that makes then have the versatile role of tank.
For three, that suit of armour is environmental; it is capable of combat in any environment, making it more versatile than most of the gear that other soldier is carrying.
For four, the weapons on that grunt would be of the same effectiveness as an attack helicopter; you can kill dozens of tanks, destroy facilities, etc. with the pistol alone. If you were the other soldier, you'd need to be carrying thousands of pounds of explosives and rockets to do that.

But because you nerfed one side... well yeah; of course the US Soldier is going to seem more cost-effective, his stuff didn't turn into kid's toys.

But say it did, and his gun became a toy dart launcher - does that still make him cost-effective?

Nerfed?
No I am not saying to Nerf the deadboy. Just forget the SDC and MDC for a moment and look at the raw numbers between the deadboy and the US Soldier. The US Soldier has more gear with a similar raw numbers output for shot by shot damage for a much lesser cost. While this is a fantasy game there should be some logic to things and frankly there is a failure in the scaling in parts of the game.

Rockwolf66 wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:For one, that suit of armour is tougher than an Arbrams MBT, which costs tens of millions of dollars; they did it for $50,000.
For two, that makes then have the versatile role of tank.
For three, that suit of armour is environmental; it is capable of combat in any environment, making it more versatile than most of the gear that other soldier is carrying.
For four, the weapons on that grunt would be of the same effectiveness as an attack helicopter; you can kill dozens of tanks, destroy facilities, etc. with the pistol alone. If you were the other soldier, you'd need to be carrying thousands of pounds of explosives and rockets to do that.

But because you nerfed one side... well yeah; of course the US Soldier is going to seem more cost-effective, his stuff didn't turn into kid's toys.

But say it did, and his gun became a toy dart launcher - does that still make him cost-effective?

Nerfed?
No I am not saying to Nerf the deadboy. Just forget the SDC and MDC for a moment and look at the raw numbers between the deadboy and the US Soldier. The US Soldier has more gear with a similar raw numbers output for shot by shot damage for a much lesser cost. While this is a fantasy game there should be some logic to things and frankly there is a failure in the scaling in parts of the game.

I'm failing to see how they have similare shot by shot damage, seeing how the CS soldiers weapons and armor are made of stuff clearly decades ahead of where we are now.

Forget MDC vs SDC? How? Thats like saying "Forget that the CS soldier can do 100x more damage and take 100 times more damage, other than that they are the same." ???

Uh, if you ignore the whole SDC/MDC thing you are nerffing the CS.

Hystrix wrote:

Rockwolf66 wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:For one, that suit of armour is tougher than an Arbrams MBT, which costs tens of millions of dollars; they did it for $50,000.
For two, that makes then have the versatile role of tank.
For three, that suit of armour is environmental; it is capable of combat in any environment, making it more versatile than most of the gear that other soldier is carrying.
For four, the weapons on that grunt would be of the same effectiveness as an attack helicopter; you can kill dozens of tanks, destroy facilities, etc. with the pistol alone. If you were the other soldier, you'd need to be carrying thousands of pounds of explosives and rockets to do that.

But because you nerfed one side... well yeah; of course the US Soldier is going to seem more cost-effective, his stuff didn't turn into kid's toys.

But say it did, and his gun became a toy dart launcher - does that still make him cost-effective?

Nerfed?
No I am not saying to Nerf the deadboy. Just forget the SDC and MDC for a moment and look at the raw numbers between the deadboy and the US Soldier. The US Soldier has more gear with a similar raw numbers output for shot by shot damage for a much lesser cost. While this is a fantasy game there should be some logic to things and frankly there is a failure in the scaling in parts of the game.

I'm failing to see how they have similare shot by shot damage, seeing how the CS soldiers weapons and armor are made of stuff clearly decades ahead of where we are now.

Forget MDC vs SDC? How? Thats like saying "Forget that the CS soldier can do 100x more damage and take 100 times more damage, other than that they are the same." ???

Cuz according to the rules if a CS soldier gets rifted back to our time his stuff only is SDC and his weapons only do SD so... is a CS soldier rifted to our timeline more or less expensive than a common U.S. Grunt?

Zer0 Kay wrote:Cuz according to the rules if a CS soldier gets rifted back to our time his stuff only is SDC and his weapons only do SD so... is a CS soldier rifted to our timeline more or less expensive than a common U.S. Grunt?

disagree.

according to the rules, that happens in SDC *dimensions* and if you treat rifts earth as a progression of our time, then we are not in an SDC dimension. we further know that it wasn't the coming of the rifts that changed that, because golden age technology was MDC before then. furthermore, we already have MDC-capable weapons right now (the LAW, the 90 mm recoiless rifle, various other explosive devices and powerful weapons), and iirc tanks are listed as an example of MDC structures.

Shark_Force wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Cuz according to the rules if a CS soldier gets rifted back to our time his stuff only is SDC and his weapons only do SD so... is a CS soldier rifted to our timeline more or less expensive than a common U.S. Grunt?

disagree.

according to the rules, that happens in SDC *dimensions* and if you treat rifts earth as a progression of our time, then we are not in an SDC dimension. we further know that it wasn't the coming of the rifts that changed that, because golden age technology was MDC before then. furthermore, we already have MDC-capable weapons right now (the LAW, the 90 mm recoiless rifle, various other explosive devices and powerful weapons), and iirc tanks are listed as an example of MDC structures.

Incorrect it has been stated in the dimension building book that our dimension is NOT Rift's dimension. First off we don't have anything from BtS. No Darota, no tektonic entities. We are similar and I think that the dimension book states that we are a possitive dimension while Rifts is a negative dimension so even if we... why am I saying this like it is real? If... IF they came to our dimension, we are SDC. Never even thought that all those weapons you listed are high SDC weapons doing damage to high SDC structures huh?

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Cuz according to the rules if a CS soldier gets rifted back to our time his stuff only is SDC and his weapons only do SD so... is a CS soldier rifted to our timeline more or less expensive than a common U.S. Grunt?

disagree.

according to the rules, that happens in SDC *dimensions* and if you treat rifts earth as a progression of our time, then we are not in an SDC dimension. we further know that it wasn't the coming of the rifts that changed that, because golden age technology was MDC before then. furthermore, we already have MDC-capable weapons right now (the LAW, the 90 mm recoiless rifle, various other explosive devices and powerful weapons), and iirc tanks are listed as an example of MDC structures.

Incorrect it has been stated in the dimension building book that our dimension is NOT Rift's dimension. First off we don't have anything from BtS. No Darota, no tektonic entities. We are similar and I think that the dimension book states that we are a possitive dimension while Rifts is a negative dimension so even if we... why am I saying this like it is real? If... IF they came to our dimension, we are SDC. Never even thought that all those weapons you listed are high SDC weapons doing damage to high SDC structures huh?

yes, but you said if they got rifted back to *our time*. no dimensional shift was mentioned apart from said change in time.

this would indicate that the assumption is that our dimension is the rift dimension (or that they are shifted to our time but remain in the rifts dimension, which changes the answer slightly in that my answer specifically indicated i presumed that it was treating our dimension as the rifts earth dimension, but otherwise leaves the answer the same). if you wish to revise that to indicate that there is also a dimensional shift involved, and that they are being transported to our dimension as well as our time, that's fine. but the statement as phrased did not indicate any transition of dimension.

Shark_Force wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Cuz according to the rules if a CS soldier gets rifted back to our time his stuff only is SDC and his weapons only do SD so... is a CS soldier rifted to our timeline more or less expensive than a common U.S. Grunt?

disagree.

according to the rules, that happens in SDC *dimensions* and if you treat rifts earth as a progression of our time, then we are not in an SDC dimension. we further know that it wasn't the coming of the rifts that changed that, because golden age technology was MDC before then. furthermore, we already have MDC-capable weapons right now (the LAW, the 90 mm recoiless rifle, various other explosive devices and powerful weapons), and iirc tanks are listed as an example of MDC structures.

Incorrect it has been stated in the dimension building book that our dimension is NOT Rift's dimension. First off we don't have anything from BtS. No Darota, no tektonic entities. We are similar and I think that the dimension book states that we are a possitive dimension while Rifts is a negative dimension so even if we... why am I saying this like it is real? If... IF they came to our dimension, we are SDC. Never even thought that all those weapons you listed are high SDC weapons doing damage to high SDC structures huh?

yes, but you said if they got rifted back to *our time*. no dimensional shift was mentioned apart from said change in time.

this would indicate that the assumption is that our dimension is the rift dimension (or that they are shifted to our time but remain in the rifts dimension, which changes the answer slightly in that my answer specifically indicated i presumed that it was treating our dimension as the rifts earth dimension, but otherwise leaves the answer the same). if you wish to revise that to indicate that there is also a dimensional shift involved, and that they are being transported to our dimension as well as our time, that's fine. but the statement as phrased did not indicate any transition of dimension.

Last I checked "OUR TIME" means OUR time with OUR being US as in IRL. If I wanted to bring them back to "our TIME" being 2011AD but in Rifts/BtS then I would have said bringing them back to 2011 in BtS.

It indicates nothing. You are indicating that you made the assumption that our dimension is the rifts dimension. Our time is where we are and when we are if it isn't then it isn't OUR time it is there time or as I stated above 2011AD BtS and NOT "OUR TIME". You need to stop doing that Mption doesn't like that. So if I had said that they were rifted "WHERE WE ARE" that would just be a spacial shift for you and they'd just appear where ever you are in there own timeline and dimension then? Again "OUR" includes ME and I am most certainly not in the Rifts dimension.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Incorrect it has been sLast I checked "OUR TIME" means OUR time with OUR being US as in IRL. If I wanted to bring them back to "our TIME" being 2011AD but in Rifts/BtS then I would have said bringing them back to 2011 in BtS.

It indicates nothing. You are indicating that you made the assumption that our dimension is the rifts dimension. Our time is where we are and when we are if it isn't then it isn't OUR time it is there time or as I stated above 2011AD BtS and NOT "OUR TIME". You need to stop doing that Mption doesn't like that. So if I had said that they were rifted "WHERE WE ARE" that would just be a spacial shift for you and they'd just appear where ever you are in there own timeline and dimension then? Again "OUR" includes ME and I am most certainly not in the Rifts dimension.

in that case, it's a moot point. our time and our dimension doesn't have portals through space in time leading to the rifts megaverse. if you want to be literal about it, i can be literal too.

what happens? they never make it here, because they don't exist, they're a fictitious construct from a fictional game setting. as such, while they might be not very impressive compared to a modern soldier (on account of not being real), the good news is that they also cost nothing (the cost of such likewise not being real), and they therefore have a cost/effectiveness ratio of "indeterminate" (that is, you can't really determine the exact value; how many groups of zero are there in a group of zero? every possible answer is correct. there is 1 group of zeros in the number zero, there are also 10, pi, e, i, -1, and every other number of which we are aware of groups of zero in the number zero).

Shark_Force wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Incorrect it has been sLast I checked "OUR TIME" means OUR time with OUR being US as in IRL. If I wanted to bring them back to "our TIME" being 2011AD but in Rifts/BtS then I would have said bringing them back to 2011 in BtS.

It indicates nothing. You are indicating that you made the assumption that our dimension is the rifts dimension. Our time is where we are and when we are if it isn't then it isn't OUR time it is there time or as I stated above 2011AD BtS and NOT "OUR TIME". You need to stop doing that Mption doesn't like that. So if I had said that they were rifted "WHERE WE ARE" that would just be a spacial shift for you and they'd just appear where ever you are in there own timeline and dimension then? Again "OUR" includes ME and I am most certainly not in the Rifts dimension.

in that case, it's a moot point. our time and our dimension doesn't have portals through space in time leading to the rifts megaverse. if you want to be literal about it, i can be literal too.

what happens? they never make it here, because they don't exist, they're a fictitious construct from a fictional game setting. as such, while they might be not very impressive compared to a modern soldier (on account of not being real), the good news is that they also cost nothing (the cost of such likewise not being real), and they therefore have a cost/effectiveness ratio of "indeterminate" (that is, you can't really determine the exact value; how many groups of zero are there in a group of zero? every possible answer is correct. there is 1 group of zeros in the number zero, there are also 10, pi, e, i, -1, and every other number of which we are aware of groups of zero in the number zero).

you KNOW... or maybe the issue is that you don't, that the game has a dimension set aside for the real world. Your trying to and succeding at being a jerk. Not only do you first take everything I originally say and place your assumptions on it when most would assume that "our" implies that it would have to be... ours, you continue to muck it up with your drivel.

My statement is that if you take a CS soldier in game and remove him from the Rifts dimension and bring him back to our time, being that time AND dimension as infered by "OUR", as one is set aside for the real world in the game setting. Their equipment would be SDC and they would be far less expensive then a G.I..

Correct me if I'm wrong but your statements have been. Nuhuh, if you take them back to current time in BtS's dimension they'd still cost more.

Followed by FINE then I pick to be a jerk and remove all context from the game and prove my jerkyness.

You know even if they got ported back to CT BtS there stuff would still cost... nothing. It cost those in the CT of BtS... NOTHING. On the other hand it would be WORTH a hell of a lot. But first they'd have to wait for his power to run out then contain him so he couldn't get ahold of any other firearms and then wait till he can't funciton any more and then strip him. Because the CS guy, IF he is a loyal soldier will consider all in the CT of BtS to be D-bees.

I've had more good conversations than bad with you... so whats wrong? Why are you choosing to be a jerk? Why are you intentionally taking my words out of context and out of game? I hope whatever is wrong turns around for you and you feel better.

on a side note, if BTS is specifically noted as *not* being our world, how do you know our dimension is an SDC dimension anyways?

after all, it presumably is not the dimension of any of the palladium settings. that means there are no published rules for it. for all we know, our dimension could very well be an MDC dimension.

you get to make up arbitrary rules after the fact, i get to do that too.

you want people to answer your question in a given context, you give the context beforehand or you don't get to complain about the answers not being in the context you wanted.

and in any case, if they were to be sent to an SDC dimension, i personally would have to apply the penetration value rules. they wouldn't have MDC perhaps, but there would be very little that there weapons would be unable to damage, and their armor would be nearly untouchable unless it gets hit by something like a tank cannon. their equipment would still not be comparable at all.