Iron Maiden APC, GAW A-10 and the silliness of APRJ

[Alrik Vas]

The Iron Maiden uses a double barreled 30mm auto canon that fires ramjets.

The GAW A-10's Avenger remake is 30mm and uses "high propellant, armor piercing" ammunition...or, you know, APRJ rounds.

Iron Maiden (correct me if wrong) fires 80 rounds between both barrels for up to 2d6x10.

Avenger does 2d6x10 per 100 round burst.

I can accept the rounds might be different, that Wellington makes a better round than GAW, ok.

What I have a hard time with is both these weapons probably do less than 1d4 per round...from a 30mm ramjet...

APRJ shotgun, 3d6 per barrel.

Halp.

[Mack]

Uh... better range?

[glitterboy2098]

your assuming they are APRJ ammo. it could well be the same 30×173 mm rounds used IRL. those are also a High Propellant Armor Piercing round.

[Alrik Vas]

Dude...if the AUG-6 is doing 2d6x1000 sdc per burst today, we have a much bigger problem than I thought.

But I understand what you're saying. I.misread and also assumed the 30mm in the current weapon was if a different description than the MDC dealing version in Merc Ops. Hmmm....

[eliakon]

Welcome to Palladium games. Where a weapons damage does NOT scale up with a weapons size.
Though it also helps to assume that not every round hits, and that damage is from the ones that do hit.

[Alrik Vas]

At 3900 rpm, 100 rounds will come out in a pretty tight area. The problem is this is consistent with a single round doing 1d4.

But let's forget the Avenger, and talk about the actual 30mm APRJ from Mercenaries. I propose that it would inflict about 5d6 per round, myself. Size, mass, likely more powerful ramjet, I think these things could make a serious punch. It's only slightly more than a railgun carbine (and how that works...the mysteries!). Though considering burst damage formulas in this game, 1d6x10 per barrel is still something to be thankful for...

Unless you use RMB burst rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm not sure that "high propellant" and "ramjet" are the same thing.

[ShadowLogan]

What I have a hard time with is both these weapons probably do less than 1d4 per round...from a 30mm ramjet...

The problem is you are assuming that every round in the burst hits but that is not typical of the way Palladium handles burst combat.

Look at the CR-40 (fires a 40round burst for 1d4x10, but each round does 1d4) or the NG-202 (fires 60round burst for 1d6x10, but each round does 1d6) on the Samas (old style) and Samson Power Armors in the main book (RUE in this case). Based on the single round damage, a majority of the rounds MISS! Even looking at the old burst rules in RMB we can see the same assumption going in, that a good percentage of the rounds are assumed to miss.

Why should we assume that Palladium has these 30mm weapons behaving any differently when they burst? Than other weapons of the period they are written in? (IINM newer books increase the rounds on target accuracy without much change in damage output)

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I'm not sure that "high propellant" and "ramjet" are the same thing.

They are not, and he seems to be conflating size of the Round + Shell with size of the round.

For instance, a shotgun APRJ might do more damage than a 30mm APRJ because the size of the ROUND itself is much larger.

In a shotgun, the shotgun shell is simply a sabot that only needs to get the round out of the barrel. As soon as it exits the barrel, the ramjet kicks in and accelerates the round to rail-gun-like-speeds.

Those 30mm shells are just that - huge shells full of propellant. The round is accelerated to most of its max speed BEFORE it leaves the barrel. They aren't ramjets.

This also explains why the 30mm ramjets that are fired from machine-guns (In Mercs) do more or less damage - just because its a 30mm round doesn't mean its created equally. There are massive differences in propellant, size and shape of the round, etc, between a .50 machine gun round and a .50 pistol round. The Ramjet portion is ONLY the bullet, not the shell.

[Zer0 Kay]

And that difference should be that the ramjet rounds should do less damage than its contemporary chemical explosive round. A ramjet traditionally has a slower acceleration rate than a regular bullet. Having progressive acceleration after it has left the barrel instead of gaining almost instant acceleration after the powder is ignited. If it is possible to put enough propellant in a bullet to accelerate it to near railgun speeds then it is also possible to put enough propellant in a casing to do the same. I should say should be, since rpgs always go off roc and a ramjet though ballisticly inefficient in immediate acceleration it is a cooler concept. Rockets are highly efficient in constant rate of acceleration.

[Alrik Vas]

If people read the thread, they'd know that I.stopped assuming the GAW version was a ramjet after the first reply. And I understand that in real life a ramjet needs room to become truly dangerous.

But I'm not aware of the A-10 using explosive rounds, unless you're just talking about the explosion of the propellant itself. That affects velocity, yeah,

I also stated that I understood that not all rounds hit.

Even so, tech 80 years forward from ours could be more powerful I'm the extreme. It's fine to base certain assumptions off today's standards, but a 30mm ramjet would have to be significantly improved to be of use on the battlefield. I think the damage is too low.

I.mean, come on, you could just make an auto cannon that fires 40 round bursts of the shotgun slugs and it would do 3d6x10 per barrel.

[Zer0 Kay]

If people read the thread, they'd know that I.stopped assuming the GAW version was a ramjet after the first reply. And I understand that in real life a ramjet needs room to become truly dangerous.

But I'm not aware of the A-10 using explosive rounds, unless you're just talking about the explosion of the propellant itself. That affects velocity, yeah,

I also stated that I understood that not all rounds hit.

Even so, tech 80 years forward from ours could be more powerful I'm the extreme. It's fine to base certain assumptions off today's standards, but a 30mm ramjet would have to be significantly improved to be of use on the battlefield. I think the damage is too low.

I.mean, come on, you could just make an auto cannon that fires 40 round bursts of the shotgun slugs and it would do 3d6x10 per barrel.

Just the explosion of the propellant. Did I argue that an A-10s isn't ramjet? I thought I was just arguing why ramjets should have lower damage. Or wait, was that meant for the others? Anyway... Even with the advanced tech allowing for feasible ramjet rounds their contemporary (as in the chemical propellant rounds made in the era the ramjet rounds are made in NOT OUR contemporary chemical propellant) should also have advanced equally outpacing the ramjets in Rifts, unless some idiot decided to G with a less efficient design and then the whole world stopped developing normal bullets. If they weren't ramjets and were instead gyrojets it could be claimed that they were initial used in space because of less recoil. Then again the ramjet rounds may be a combination of two techs. It's the combination of a ramjet rounds with chemical propellant. Which makes a lot more sense since ramjets have to get up to supersonic speeds before the compression can ignite the fuel. Of course this means that a rocket engine at hypersonic speeds couldn't be used with a silencer... Unless it is some weird TW silencer that has some silver ink and a rolling stamp and as the bullet goes by it puts an area effect silence spell on it to quiet the engine and half the supersonic shockwave.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

en so, tech 80 years forward from ours could be more powerful I'm the extreme.

Could, and couldn't. Its not a guarantee. Materials technology may not have advanced that far given the rise of energy weapons and rail guns. Who needs to waste time making expensive ammo when i can literally throw scrap iron downrange with a rail gun?

I'd also point out that sometimes, weapons technology doesnt stagnate so much as it wasnt broke to begin with. Shotguns are a good example. Another would be the Colt Model 1911, a gun that is over 110 years old at this point and fundamentally unchanged - and is still one of the best handguns in the world.

Sometimes you get it right the first time.

It's fine to base certain assumptions off today's standards, but a 30mm ramjet would have to be significantly improved to be of use on the battlefield. I think the damage is too low.

3d6 MD per round @ 3000ft is too low?

I.mean, come on, you could just make an auto cannon that fires 40 round bursts of the shotgun slugs and it would do 3d6x10 per barrel.

To a range of 500ft. So after a couple of guys with pulse rifles shoot you to death before you even close the range on them....

And you cant "just make" anything. There are so many variables that go into making a working weapon, or even if it works, making it work correctly/good enough to be a good weapon. Trying to make that kind of gun even remotely accurate would be a nightmare and might prove impossible.

[Alrik Vas]

Might be. Might not. In the game it depends on rolls and the GM.

Instead of thinking of why it doesn't work, I'd kind of like to see someone's thoughts that don't excuse the mechanics.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

The mechanics that make the 30mm Ramjet 6x as good as the shotgun rounds?

[Alrik Vas]

Where are those listed?

[eliakon]

Might be. Might not. In the game it depends on rolls and the GM.

Instead of thinking of why it doesn't work, I'd kind of like to see someone's thoughts that don't excuse the mechanics.

On what?
I mean its easy to get to any conclusion when you start there....
I am literally unable to see how one would go about having a discussion about something that is totally unable to be done in the rules as written with out having to start with some of the end conclusions.....which sort of makes it all just an exercise in justifying a predetermined decision.

For example designing a workable advanced weapon takes more than a few rolls and a lenient GM...it takes deciding if the weapon can exist at all. Then it requires deciding on what it takes to get there. The atomic bomb was easy to come up with, in theory, but it took a lot more than a couple rolls to get made.....

[Alrik Vas]

That's true, but we're also not talking about an atomic weapon that had yet to be developed. If your design I'd based off existing technology it becomes simpler.

When I GM for instance and a player wants to make something like this, I start the development process with a roll for proof of concept, which takes a few weeks if it's nothing fancy and they have the right tools, extra people help too. It can then be a month or two, even more depending on how the roll goes before they have their first prototype, and that would be experimental, possibly even problematic.

You don't simply distribute weapons for the lolz.

But, you'll note that 40 round bursts tend to deal x10 damage of a single round. That's all I was saying about the damage. In other threads we're having a related discussion about how craptacular the damage conventions of this game is anyway.

That all said, when someone designs something it's for a purpose. I don't get why you see engineering to get to a predetermined goal as a problem when that's how things get built.

[eliakon]

That's true, but we're also not talking about an atomic weapon that had yet to be developed. If your design I'd based off existing technology it becomes simpler.

When I GM for instance and a player wants to make something like this, I start the development process with a roll for proof of concept, which takes a few weeks if it's nothing fancy and they have the right tools, extra people help too. It can then be a month or two, even more depending on how the roll goes before they have their first prototype, and that would be experimental, possibly even problematic.

You don't simply distribute weapons for the lolz.

But, you'll note that 40 round bursts tend to deal x10 damage of a single round. That's all I was saying about the damage. In other threads we're having a related discussion about how craptacular the damage conventions of this game is anyway.

That all said, when someone designs something it's for a purpose. I don't get why you see engineering to get to a predetermined goal as a problem when that's how things get built.

Its not.
Its when the discussion is about starting from an endpoint and working back to solve it that I have issues.

And while your system might work in your game...I wouldn't allow it in anything I ran other than maybe HU. Maybe.
I am more of a fan of the more realistic idea that developing new weapon systems usually takes teams of experts years of work...the exceptions tend to be the sorts of inventions that get someone's name firmly attached to military history.

And I wouldn't say its 'craptacular' I would say its cinematic.

[Alrik Vas]

Well, there's no discussing then. Too bad.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

[flatline]

Its when the discussion is about starting from an endpoint and working back to solve it that I have issues.

"Here's what I want. Can you do it?"

Sounds like you have issues with every discussion ever initiated by a customer or upper management.

--flatline

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Ehh, thats not what i took away. What i got was he is against what seems to be AVs idea that the outcome is always possible. In other words, the answer to your question would always be yes, no matter how absurd or unrealistic the end goal is.

What Eliakon is saying is that sometimes (often), the answer is "no".

[Alrik Vas]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Well, that'll teach me to look at the damn book lol

Ehh, thats not what i took away. What i got was he is against what seems to be AVs idea that the outcome is always possible. In other words, the answer to your question would always be yes, no matter how absurd or unrealistic the end goal is.

What Eliakon is saying is that sometimes (often), the answer is "no".

Naw, there's just too much assumption in eliakon's argument. What's interesting that the iron maiden's gun does 3d6 per round, and the writer decided a 20 round burst is 2d6x10, pretty good answer from the source there.

If a player wanted to design a higher rate of fire version, I wouldn't be against it, though. Would just take time, money and effort. How much of each is the variable.

[say652]

Your damage multiplier charts. Are they still kicking around?

I think adding them into my game would add in a better combat element.

[Alrik Vas]

I never officially listed them, just have an explanation.

[eliakon]

Ehh, thats not what i took away. What i got was he is against what seems to be AVs idea that the outcome is always possible. In other words, the answer to your question would always be yes, no matter how absurd or unrealistic the end goal is.

What Eliakon is saying is that sometimes (often), the answer is "no".

^This^

[Alrik Vas]

If you guys really think the answer is yes no matter how absurd or unrealistic, let me put out that fire now.

No.

[Blue_Lion]

That's true, but we're also not talking about an atomic weapon that had yet to be developed. If your design I'd based off existing technology it becomes simpler.

When I GM for instance and a player wants to make something like this, I start the development process with a roll for proof of concept, which takes a few weeks if it's nothing fancy and they have the right tools, extra people help too. It can then be a month or two, even more depending on how the roll goes before they have their first prototype, and that would be experimental, possibly even problematic.

You don't simply distribute weapons for the lolz.

But, you'll note that 40 round bursts tend to deal x10 damage of a single round. That's all I was saying about the damage. In other threads we're having a related discussion about how craptacular the damage conventions of this game is anyway.

That all said, when someone designs something it's for a purpose. I don't get why you see engineering to get to a predetermined goal as a problem when that's how things get built.

Its not.
Its when the discussion is about starting from an endpoint and working back to solve it that I have issues.

And while your system might work in your game...I wouldn't allow it in anything I ran other than maybe HU. Maybe.
I am more of a fan of the more realistic idea that developing new weapon systems usually takes teams of experts years of work...the exceptions tend to be the sorts of inventions that get someone's name firmly attached to military history.

And I wouldn't say its 'craptacular' I would say its cinematic.

Most of that time is in the testing phase. Invention time has been greatly reduced in modern times, thanks to computer simulation and new manufacturing technology. When the weapon system is something entirely new it may take years but something that is modified form of something already in use it can be fielded quicker.

Personaly I apply a more cinematic approach not instant creation but it is possible to get a prototype in weeks or months(it may take years to get perfected for mass production depending on skill). I like the idea of TWs and Operators designing new gear for their team and the top operators get hired by weapon manufactures. How in star treck or other sci-fi do you see them make a design a to help with a crisis. I like to think of opertors and TW as hardwar charters who maintain and build new gear.

[Unfortunate Son]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol, and lost range over the modern counterpart. It is about as awesome as sitting on a fire ant hive in that context. Rifts weapons make no sense sometimes.

Personally I think it comes from the fallout of a certain writer and his books.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol, and lost range over the modern counterpart. It is about as awesome as sitting on a fire ant hive in that context. Rifts weapons make no sense sometimes.

Personally I think it comes from the fallout of a certain writer and his books.

Ill take a page number on that ion pistol that does 2d6x10MD per action at a 3000ft range.

Ill wait.

[Unfortunate Son]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol, and lost range over the modern counterpart. It is about as awesome as sitting on a fire ant hive in that context. Rifts weapons make no sense sometimes.

Personally I think it comes from the fallout of a certain writer and his books.

Ill take a page number on that ion pistol that does 2d6x10MD per action at a 3000ft

range.

Ill wait.

Nice to see you have a grasp of grammer. Munition is single tense, as in one shell. The NG-57 does how much damage? Oh yeah 3d6.

Also, great to see you addressed nothing in my post. My range comment refers to the drastically reduced range over modern 30mm shells.

So again, in what world does this damage make any Shivoking sense?

[Blue_Lion]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol, and lost range over the modern counterpart. It is about as awesome as sitting on a fire ant hive in that context. Rifts weapons make no sense sometimes.

Personally I think it comes from the fallout of a certain writer and his books.

Ill take a page number on that ion pistol that does 2d6x10MD per action at a 3000ft range.

Ill wait.

Think he was talking about the single round not the burst damage.

But without a set base line to use to create items you have opposing forces of making something cool and control power creep. So items can be all over the place, you have laser rifles that do better damage than heavy weapons.

[Killer Cyborg]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol,

Energy weapons do more damage than kinetic weapons as a rule in Rifts.
It's always been that way--energy is more efficient.
You're talking about a setting where a standard low-end RMB laser pistol inflicts as much damage as 10-20 sticks of dynamite.

[Unfortunate Son]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol,

Energy weapons do more damage than kinetic weapons as a rule in Rifts.
It's always been that way--energy is more efficient.
You're talking about a setting where a standard low-end RMB laser pistol inflicts as much damage as 10-20 sticks of dynamite.

Hence the general face palming. Though, M.D. dynamite actually does a decent amount of damage. Got a dead juicer to attest there.

My issue and I think AV has the same issue, is the Frak all logic applied to weapons and damage.

[Blue_Lion]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol,

Energy weapons do more damage than kinetic weapons as a rule in Rifts.
It's always been that way--energy is more efficient.
You're talking about a setting where a standard low-end RMB laser pistol inflicts as much damage as 10-20 sticks of dynamite.

I can disprove your statement with two words. Boom Gun.
I would place magic weapons as most efficient then vibro blades. Both are kinetic weapons. Without knowing the force used even with crafting the weapons a rail gun may do more damage to energy.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Where are those listed?

... The APC you referrenced.

3D6 MD per round, 2D6x10 MD for a 20 round burst. 3000ft range.

Seems pretty awesome to me.

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol, and lost range over the modern counterpart. It is about as awesome as sitting on a fire ant hive in that context. Rifts weapons make no sense sometimes.

Personally I think it comes from the fallout of a certain writer and his books.

Ill take a page number on that ion pistol that does 2d6x10MD per action at a 3000ft

range.

Ill wait.

Nice to see you have a grasp of grammer.

Nice to see you're a troll. And an ignorant one, to boot.

Munition is single tense, as in one shell. The NG-57 does how much damage? Oh yeah 3d6.

.. except energy weapons dont have munition. Not that it matters, as my point stands and you did absolutely nothing to refute it. The NG-57 does 3d6 MD/action at a range of 500ft. The 30mm auto-cannon does 2d6x10MD per action at a range six times as great. Youll be dead before you can ever close the range with your mighty NG-57.

Also, great to see you addressed nothing in my post. My range comment refers to the drastically reduced range over modern 30mm shells.

Modern 30mm shells that dont inflict M.D. I assume you have a point. Somewhere in there. Then again, probably not.

So again, in what world does this damage make any Shivoking sense?

Maybe you're unaware, but Rifts is not a Reality Simulator. No Palladium game is. It makes as much sense as laser weapons being the mainstay even though they have effective ranges shorter than modern rifles (except for a few sniper-types and the rather awesome JA-11).

Six whole posts before your ignorance and arrogance got you ignored. I think that's a new record.

Warning: Insults. Mack

[Alrik Vas]

As to modern 30mm not inflicting mega damage, what does that have to do with the range of rifts 30mm?

[Unfortunate Son]

Not a thing. Hell range should be greater. But hey, logic doesn't apply here.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

As to modern 30mm not inflicting mega damage, what does that have to do with the range of rifts 30mm?

The MD rounds are probably substantially more massive (mass, not size), which would cut the range down right off. And that was just he first thing that popped into my head.

[Alrik Vas]

That's a fine guess, I can see that. Though how heavy would it have to be, really? If it ends at around 4300ft (3000ft plus about 40% more you can do with penalties) on a round that gains velocity...

It would be pretty damn heavy, eh?

[Unfortunate Son]

Uh no. MDC EBA is around the same weight as modern body armor. Furthermore, if you can make a shell capable of popping an Abrams, you would make it not be out ranged by a Ma Deuce. Not to mention a heavy ramjet can still shoot out to maximum range.

Only realistic idea is the actual slug has the aerodynamics of an old style bullet. Like WWI old.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

That's a fine guess, I can see that. Though how heavy would it have to be, really? If it ends at around 4300ft (3000ft plus about 40% more you can do with penalties) on a round that gains velocity...

It would be pretty damn heavy, eh?

Well it gains speed until it runs out of fuel. And if ~4300ft is possible (i never remeber that those rules exist), that actually puts it pretty close to the range of the 30mm cannon on the Apache (1500m/4500ft)... So its not even really that awful compared to modern 30mm. Of course, since Rifts never lists the length of a given round. The Apache uses 30mmX112, and other 30mm rounds go quite a bit further but are quite a bit larger (the russians use a 30mmX165). Without knowing what the actual dimension of the round are, we have no real idea if the range is good or bad compared to mkdern 30mm. For all we know, its like 30mmX80 or something.

[Unfortunate Son]

Realistically it is some where in 30x150 giving it about boom gun range on the max end of the range spectrum.

Number pulled by comparing IFV mounted cannons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_mm_caliber

[Killer Cyborg]

Energy weapons do more damage than kinetic weapons as a rule in Rifts.
It's always been that way--energy is more efficient.
You're talking about a setting where a standard low-end RMB laser pistol inflicts as much damage as 10-20 sticks of dynamite.

I can disprove your statement with two words. Boom Gun.

No... you can find a possible exception to the rule.
But exceptions don't change the rule.

I would place magic weapons as most efficient then vibro blades. Both are kinetic weapons. Without knowing the force used even with crafting the weapons a rail gun may do more damage to energy.

A RMB railgun does 1d4 MD per round and requires a nuclear power pack.
A cheap laser pistol with an e-clip does 1d6 MD per shot.
Railguns have a range advantage over most laser guns, but they're definitely less powerful as a rule, and always have been.

If you don't believe me, go through the RMB and other early books.
I mean sure... one specific 867 lb railgun hooked to a nuclear power supply DOES inflict three whole times the damage of a 6 lb laser rifle with an e-clip, but that doesn't exactly change the picture or disprove the point, if you get what I mean.

[Killer Cyborg]

Except when you remember that a munition several kilos does the same damage as an ion pistol,

Energy weapons do more damage than kinetic weapons as a rule in Rifts.
It's always been that way--energy is more efficient.
You're talking about a setting where a standard low-end RMB laser pistol inflicts as much damage as 10-20 sticks of dynamite.

Hence the general face palming.

Why?

[Blue_Lion]

Energy weapons do more damage than kinetic weapons as a rule in Rifts.
It's always been that way--energy is more efficient.
You're talking about a setting where a standard low-end RMB laser pistol inflicts as much damage as 10-20 sticks of dynamite.

I can disprove your statement with two words. Boom Gun.

No... you can find a possible exception to the rule.
But exceptions don't change the rule.

I would place magic weapons as most efficient then vibro blades. Both are kinetic weapons. Without knowing the force used even with crafting the weapons a rail gun may do more damage to energy.

A RMB railgun does 1d4 MD per round and requires a nuclear power pack.
A cheap laser pistol with an e-clip does 1d6 MD per shot.
Railguns have a range advantage over most laser guns, but they're definitely less powerful as a rule, and always have been.

If you don't believe me, go through the RMB and other early books.
I mean sure... one specific 867 lb railgun hooked to a nuclear power supply DOES inflict three whole times the damage of a 6 lb laser rifle with an e-clip, but that doesn't exactly change the picture or disprove the point, if you get what I mean.

Boom gun was one example of physical doing more than energy. There are also missiles LRM physical weapons far out shine the damage of most energy weapon. The WI Gl20 full auto grenade launcher does 4d6 MD per frag to a 12 foot blast area 2d6X10 with a 10 round burst.

RAil guns may require power supply but the rate of consumption was never said. Remember you said efficient not more powerful, so for your statement to be true the rail gun would have to require more power per shot or more expense per shot than a energy weapon. Asuming the defualt rate is paid for both reloads we can start doing the math.

The big hitter in man portable weapons accept a few cases are not energy weapons but phyical. Mini-missiles count as physical and way out shoot a laser.

Your statement on dynamite only holds up if you use sdc dynamite vs MD energy weapons. MD dynamite for 130 cr does 2d4 md to a 10 foot radius so that means 10 sticks of md dynamite does 2d4X10 MD to a 10 foot radius so tell me how many pistols in rifts deal that much?

[Killer Cyborg]

I mean sure... one specific 867 lb railgun hooked to a nuclear power supply DOES inflict three whole times the damage of a 6 lb laser rifle with an e-clip, but that doesn't exactly change the picture or disprove the point, if you get what I mean.

RAil guns may require power supply but the rate of consumption was never said. Remember you said efficient not more powerful, so for your statement to be true the rail gun would have to require more power per shot or more expense per shot than a energy weapon.

Which of the two weapons I just described seems more efficient?

And if a railgun doesn't require more power per shot, why didn't railguns just use e-clips?

The big hitter in man portable weapons accept a few cases are not energy weapons but phyical. Mini-missiles count as physical and way out shoot a laser.

Okay, sure. Missiles and fusion blocks and such are often more powerful.
I had guns in mind when I was writing earlier, because that's the topic at hand.

Your statement on dynamite only holds up if you use sdc dynamite vs MD energy weapons.

Since there is no MD dynamite in real life, such a comparison wouldn't have made any sense.
The point of the comment was to remind people of the incredibly high power of energy weapons in Rifts, NOT to compare energy weapons in Rifts to explosives in Rifts.

[Blue_Lion]

I mean sure... one specific 867 lb railgun hooked to a nuclear power supply DOES inflict three whole times the damage of a 6 lb laser rifle with an e-clip, but that doesn't exactly change the picture or disprove the point, if you get what I mean.

RAil guns may require power supply but the rate of consumption was never said. Remember you said efficient not more powerful, so for your statement to be true the rail gun would have to require more power per shot or more expense per shot than a energy weapon.

Which of the two weapons I just described seems more efficient?

And if a railgun doesn't require more power per shot, why didn't railguns just use e-clips?

The big hitter in man portable weapons accept a few cases are not energy weapons but phyical. Mini-missiles count as physical and way out shoot a laser.

Okay, sure. Missiles and fusion blocks and such are often more powerful.
I had guns in mind when I was writing earlier, because that's the topic at hand.

Your statement on dynamite only holds up if you use sdc dynamite vs MD energy weapons.

Since there is no MD dynamite in real life, such a comparison wouldn't have made any sense.
The point of the comment was to remind people of the incredibly high power of energy weapons in Rifts, NOT to compare energy weapons in Rifts to explosives in Rifts.

Why not use e-clips could be cost. The power source may not provide the same level of power as a eclip but does not need recharge having to replace both eclips and ammo drums would be quite a hassle as the two would not always run out at the same time.

You started the comparison vs dynamite vs enregy weapon to highlight the difference in power I merely pointed out where comparing sdc weapon to a MD. So it makes the difference seam more significant not because energy was better but because you where using weapons from different scales.

Not that I find energy weapons bad, I just do not feel they are flat out better in any way than physical weapons. For the most part physical ranged MD weapons are in the heavy weapons category while energy weapons are available in the light category. (although they are finding there way into light weapons in some of the newer books more often.)

[Killer Cyborg]

Why not use e-clips could be cost. The power source may not provide the same level of power as a eclip but does not need recharge having to replace both eclips and ammo drums would be quite a hassle as the two would not always run out at the same time.

Not buying it for a second.

You started the comparison vs dynamite vs enregy weapon to highlight the difference in power

I started the comparison because I was pointing out how powerful energy weapons are, because people for some reason thought that they would be less powerful than propelled pieces of metal.

Not that I find energy weapons bad, I just do not feel they are flat out better in any way than physical weapons. For the most part physical ranged MD weapons are in the heavy weapons category while energy weapons are available in the light category. (although they are finding there way into light weapons in some of the newer books more often.)

Right.
Because the only way to make rail guns competitive with energy weapons is if you have a nuclear power supply and a LOT of ammunition. That makes them pretty decent for large, vehicle-mounted weapons or fortifications, but there are reasons why the average human adventurer uses energy weapons--they're more efficient.