How much mdc do you think the LOSAT would do???

[Killer Cyborg]

The Glitterboy's railgun uses science so incredibly advanced that it seems absurd by the limited scope of today's technology.

Any weapon of today simply would not measure up to the damage of Rifts weaponry.
The big gun on a modern Tank would only do a few d6 MD.
The gun you describe sounds comparable.

I'll do some checking, though.

[Killer Cyborg]

The way to figure out the rough damage would be to see what effects the weapon has on various targets that have listed SDC values.

For example, this website:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/
mentions:
"A three-year Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) will conclude in February 2007 with the final, successful, flight test against a T-72 tank fitted with Enhanced Reactive Armour (ERA)"

CoCW lists the T-72 as having 1,100 SDC.

Assuming that the tank was destroyed, and that the strike was for average damage, then that's an average of 11+ MD per shot.
An average d6 roll is about 3.5, so the average of 3d6 MD would be 10.5, roughly the 11 MD needed to destroy the tank.
For the heck of it, let's err on the side of damage and bump that up by 1d6, assuming that your weapon has a minimum damage of 4d6 MD per shot.

The weapon has been compared to the M901 TOW:
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1 ... T,,00.html

The U.S. Army's current anti-tank platform (the M901 TOW launcher) was effective as a destructive force, but didn't quite fit the bill. With poor off-road ability and weighing in at almost 12 tons, the M901 was hardly the lighter and more lethal tank-destroying machine the Army needed. Enter Lockheed-Martin's LOSAT -- a powerful anti-tank system that combines the killing power of a tank with the off-road agility of a Humvee.

TOWs are listed in CoCW as doing 3d4x100 SDC, the equivalent of 3d4 MD.
Of course, the LOSAT is mentioned as being more powerful, so we know it's more than 3d4 MD, but somewhere in that neck of the woods.
The 4d6 MD number still seems to work.

The same site mentions the LOSAT going up against M60s:

In testing, the MGM-166 destroyed two M60 tanks at 2,400m, one of which was crossing the LOSAT's line of sight and another that was crossing in front of the LOSAT at close range.

The CoCW doesn't list the stats on an M60, but the M60 is based on the M48, and the M48 is listed in CoCW as having 1200 SDC.
Assuming that the M60 has significantly better armor, let's bump that number up by 50% to 1800 SDC (18 MDC equivalent).

This bumps the minimum damage of your weapon up to 6d6 MD (average of 21 MD).

[Killer Cyborg]

This is where MDC breaks down when applied to smaller armors, creatures and things.

177 pounds of material flying at mach 5 would only take off 4-24 points of MDC on some body armor, leaving the guy inside perfectly fine.


Against large mecha, I can make the logical jump that they have heavy enough armor to take the hit, but a 200 pound man in armor? I just don't think the rules make a whole bunch of sense at that level.

Technically, with an object weighing 177 pounds, you might rule that it qualifies for a "High Speed Impact", in which case the guy in EBA would take SDC damage based off the speed of impact.
At mach 5, that damage would likely be lethal.

[Rahmota]

And folks wonder why the whole MDC thign is so annoying to some.

A 177 pound piece of tungston sure seems to be worth more damage than a mere 4d6 md. Especially when it out masses the boom gun needles.

Technically, with an object weighing 177 pounds, you might rule that it qualifies for a "High Speed Impact", in which case the guy in EBA would take SDC damage based off the speed of impact.
At mach 5, that damage would likely be lethal.

Umm yeah at the very least a high speed impact. Personally I would say the dude is now very ventilated chunky salsa. Instead of a by the rules situation where the man in the can is dead and the armor itself has at most a slight dent and maybe the paint is slightly scratched.


Realistically the armor should have a large hole in it, the guy inside a large hole in it and the other side of the armor a large hole in it. Sort of like shooting a propane tank with a 30-06.

[Killer Cyborg]

And folks wonder why the whole MDC thign is so annoying to some.

A 177 pound piece of tungston sure seems to be worth more damage than a mere 4d6 md. Especially when it out masses the boom gun needles.

I tend to think it's only because people drastically under-rate Mega-Damage, and they don't think about how much actual damage that would be.

[glitterboy2098]

And folks wonder why the whole MDC thign is so annoying to some.

A 177 pound piece of tungston sure seems to be worth more damage than a mere 4d6 md. Especially when it out masses the boom gun needles.

Technically, with an object weighing 177 pounds, you might rule that it qualifies for a "High Speed Impact", in which case the guy in EBA would take SDC damage based off the speed of impact.
At mach 5, that damage would likely be lethal.

Umm yeah at the very least a high speed impact. Personally I would say the dude is now very ventilated chunky salsa. Instead of a by the rules situation where the man in the can is dead and the armor itself has at most a slight dent and maybe the paint is slightly scratched.


Realistically the armor should have a large hole in it, the guy inside a large hole in it and the other side of the armor a large hole in it. Sort of like shooting a propane tank with a 30-06.

i agree. since the round is moving at the same muzzle velocity as the boomgun flechettes, but is more than 5 times heavier, it should be doing at least 2x the damage.

after all, it merely said it defeated the armor of the test tanks. it doesn't say by how much...

for all we know, it went in through the glacius plate and right out the back.

Losat
CKEM Compact Kinetic Energy Missile, the LOSAT successor program. smaller but faster.

looking at the kinetic weapons calculator, the boomgun's shot (1500m/s, 1.5kg projectile) obtains a 59683.15407166435 Joules/cm^2 impact.

looking at the LOSAT (80kg, 1500m/s), it's doing 3183101.5504887653 joules/cm^2, or 53 times the impact energy. or course, some of this will dissipate as the round turns into a ball of plasma on impact..

[Killer Cyborg]

And folks wonder why the whole MDC thign is so annoying to some.

A 177 pound piece of tungston sure seems to be worth more damage than a mere 4d6 md. Especially when it out masses the boom gun needles.

Technically, with an object weighing 177 pounds, you might rule that it qualifies for a "High Speed Impact", in which case the guy in EBA would take SDC damage based off the speed of impact.
At mach 5, that damage would likely be lethal.

Umm yeah at the very least a high speed impact. Personally I would say the dude is now very ventilated chunky salsa. Instead of a by the rules situation where the man in the can is dead and the armor itself has at most a slight dent and maybe the paint is slightly scratched.


Realistically the armor should have a large hole in it, the guy inside a large hole in it and the other side of the armor a large hole in it. Sort of like shooting a propane tank with a 30-06.

i agree. since the round is moving at the same muzzle velocity as the boomgun flechettes, but is more than 5 times heavier, it should be doing at least 2x the damage.

after all, it merely said it defeated the armor of the test tanks. it doesn't say by how much...

for all we know, it went in through the glacius plate and right out the back.

Losat
CKEM Compact Kinetic Energy Missile, the LOSAT successor program. smaller but faster.

looking at the kinetic weapons calculator, the boomgun's shot (1500m/s, 1.5kg projectile) obtains a 59683.15407166435 Joules/cm^2 impact.

looking at the LOSAT (80kg, 1500m/s), it's doing 3183101.5504887653 joules/cm^2, or 53 times the impact energy. or course, some of this will dissipate as the round turns into a ball of plasma on impact..

As I said, the Boom Gun uses science so advanced that it seems nonsensical to us.

The ways to fix that are to either just accept the gun as listed and chalk it up to wacky advanced science*, or to rewrite the gun description to fit the damage listed.

Upping the power of other weapons using a nonsensical weapon as a base isn't going to get you any realistic results.








*like maybe each flechette is crafted on a molecular level to be perfectly aerodynamic, and/or has a monomolecular tip to enhance penetration

[glitterboy2098]

As I said, the Boom Gun uses science so advanced that it seems nonsensical to us.

The ways to fix that are to either just accept the gun as listed and chalk it up to wacky advanced science*, or to rewrite the gun description to fit the damage listed.

Upping the power of other weapons using a nonsensical weapon as a base isn't going to get you any realistic results.

physics are physics. palladium just uses a very abstract set of mechanics so you get some odd results. after all, palladium condenses penetration, impact shock, pressure shockwaves, and so on into a single S.D.C. or M.D.C. variable.

i'm merely using existing stats to guage an unknown into a proper framework to create game statistics.

so lets assume Schwarz is correct (and you probably are), and the 80kg mass is with intact rocket core. let us further assume that the penetrator after reaching top velocity and exhusting the rocket is merely a fraction of the original mass. let us call it 1/20th. then the resulting impact is merely twice that of the boomgun. which means the damage is roughly 50% higher than the boomgun, based on palladium's methods.

so 4D6x10 M.D.
LRM damage in MRM form. not bad, but not game shattering.

*like maybe each flechette is crafted on a molecular level to be perfectly aerodynamic, and/or has a monomolecular tip to enhance penetration

not according to the books. just metal at high velocity. like any other KEW.

[Killer Cyborg]

As I said, the Boom Gun uses science so advanced that it seems nonsensical to us.

The ways to fix that are to either just accept the gun as listed and chalk it up to wacky advanced science*, or to rewrite the gun description to fit the damage listed.

Upping the power of other weapons using a nonsensical weapon as a base isn't going to get you any realistic results.

physics are physics. palladium just uses a very abstract set of mechanics so you get some odd results. after all, palladium condenses penetration, impact shock, pressure shockwaves, and so on into a single S.D.C. or M.D.C. variable.

Which goes to show that physics aren't physics when they're in a RPG world.

i'm merely using existing stats to guage an unknown into a proper framework to create game statistics.

You're using existing stats that don't make sense to bring a real-world weapon into the game world.
That's not the way to do it, not if you want anything resembling a realistic outcome.

so lets assume Schwarz is correct (and you probably are), and the 80kg mass is with intact rocket core. let us further assume that the penetrator after reaching top velocity and exhusting the rocket is merely a fraction of the original mass. let us call it 1/20th. then the resulting impact is merely twice that of the boomgun. which means the damage is roughly 50% higher than the boomgun, based on palladium's methods.

so 4D6x10 M.D.
LRM damage in MRM form. not bad, but not game shattering.

Now compare that damage to the real-world effects of the weapon.
By your standard, the weapon would do an average of 140 MDC, about 14,000 enough damage to destroy 13 real-world tanks in a single average shot.
If that were remotely possible, why would they be testing the thing on single tanks?
Wouldn't any of the articles hyped that sort of destructive power?
It doesn't make sense, because that's what happens when you base your standard on nonsense.

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense in the context of the game either.
4d6x10 MD is long range missile damage in the game, but this is a short range missile.
So the conclusion you've come to means that this modern weapon out-performs the futuristic equivalent that uses better technology.
It's not game-shattering, but something doesn't have to be game-shattering to be stupid.

If what you're going for is a powerful toy that munchkins can use to get their rocks off by outgunning the best existing weapons in the gameworld, then your translation of this weapon will get you exactly what you want.
But if what you're looking for is even one ounce of realism or logic, then your translation fails.
Because you're basing it off of a weapon that doesn't make sense in the first place.

*like maybe each flechette is crafted on a molecular level to be perfectly aerodynamic, and/or has a monomolecular tip to enhance penetration

not according to the books. just metal at high velocity. like any other KEW.

Really?
Find me ANY passage in the books that says the boom gun rounds are just normal flechette rounds made out of steel.
You can't, because there aren't any.
Not that there are any passages saying anything like my suggestion above.
I was just coming up with one of any number of possible explanations that might make the boom gun damage make some sort of sense.
Because it's better to try to come up with ways to fix the boom gun than it is to base new weapons off of a broken model.

[glitterboy2098]

I was just coming up with one of any number of possible explanations that might make the boom gun damage make some sort of sense.
Because it's better to try to come up with ways to fix the boom gun than it is to base new weapons off of a broken model.

i don't see how. we have no mention of special physics involved, though we do know it's a massdriver hurling mettallic slugs at mach 5, so we should assume some hole in the physics?

the simplist solution is usually the correct one. when KEW's can inflict massive damage without any fancy tricks or trekkish plotholes, i don't see why we should postulate them.

(besides, at that speed, a boomgun round will turn to a molten jet in a plasma sheath on impact, burning it's way through just about anything. things like monomolecular edges won't matter.)
the only fancy trick being used is the multiple penetrators as opposed to a single longrod APFSDS. multiple impacts defeat most armor solutions that resist single impacts well by distributing the impact over wide areas. hitting with dozens at once, even if weaker individually, will have more effect than just the one.

[Killer Cyborg]

I was just coming up with one of any number of possible explanations that might make the boom gun damage make some sort of sense.
Because it's better to try to come up with ways to fix the boom gun than it is to base new weapons off of a broken model.

i don't see how. we have no mention of special physics involved, though we do know it's a massdriver hurling mettallic slugs at mach 5, so we should assume some hole in the physics?

We should assume that KS didn't worry much about the physics of the gun when he designed it, and we should assume that he didn't cross-check the weapons capabilities against real-world weapons before he decided the damage.
This is the problem, and the reason why the Boom Gun's damage doesn't match it's description.

the simplist solution is usually the correct one.

Oh, I agree.
The simplest solution is just to play the Boom Gun as written, and not worry about the listed speed or the fact that it shoots fletchettes, or any of that.
The point of the gun is you shoot somebody, they take 3d6x10 damage.

when KEW's can inflict massive damage without any fancy tricks or trekkish plotholes, i don't see why we should postulate them.

What's a KEW?

(besides, at that speed, a boomgun round will turn to a molten jet in a plasma sheath on impact, burning it's way through just about anything. things like monomolecular edges won't matter.)

Depends on the design and the materials involved.

the only fancy trick being used is the multiple penetrators as opposed to a single longrod APFSDS. multiple impacts defeat most armor solutions that resist single impacts well by distributing the impact over wide areas. hitting with dozens at once, even if weaker individually, will have more effect than just the one.

Hey, if that helps you justify the damage, then go for it.
Just don't base other weapons off the Boom Gun damage, because if you do, those weapons will be broken.

[Killer Cyborg]

KEW = Kinetic Energy Weapon ie Boom Gun, LOSAT

Well, KEWl...

[Killer Cyborg]

Go take a look at what the LOSAT does to a concrete structure or a tank (videos freely available), and THEN tell me you think it would only do 4d6 to a guy wearing mdc body armour! uh uh, that losat would probably go right through 100 guys wearing dead boy armour if you had them all stand in a line!

Link to the video, and I'll look at it.
IN the meanwhile, why don't you look up the SDC value for reinforced concrete.
Because it seems to me that you still don't really get the whole Mega-Damage concept.

[Killer Cyborg]

This topic seems to have rankled a few nerves. hehe I just wanted to point out something I noticed about the boom-gun, which was that according to the stats in the books, we actually have weapons today that pack MUCH more power. If you don't like that, and you still want those weapons to do less damage than the boom gun, the simple thing to do is just say that the boom gun launches it's ammo at mach 25, or mach 50 or something like that ( maybe mega-damage steel projectiles could stand up to that kind of velocity without burning up into the atmosphere...), or that it uses md explosive flechettes. Or just ignore what I'm saying, it's not like rifts is realistic anyhow, that's why it's fun to play.

Thats the thing.
According to the stats in the book, the weapons we have today pack one hell of a lot LESS power than the Boom Gun.
As I said, a TOW typically does about 3d4 MD.
A Boom Gun does over 10x that.

What you're doing is you're looking at the Boom Gun's description (or, rather, you're looking at the Boom Gun's vague and brief description) and comparing it to the descriptions of modern day weapons.
That's the wrong way to do it, because going just by the Boom Gun's description it shouldn't do 3d6x10 MD.

So basing weapon translations off of the Boom Gun by comparing descriptions of the weapons, then using the Boom Gun's inexplicable damage as a base, simply doesn't come close to realism.

I know they only test the LOSAT on ONE tank. That's because when the weapon hits an object, it destroys itself. If the losat missile would not deform or disintegrate in any way when it struck, it just might have enough energy to punch through more than one tank, just like a .22 going through pop cans ( look at the videos, the thing is insane!!). But when a high speed object hits something thick and tough like a tank, the energy is transfered into the tank, and into the projectile (which destroys it, so it can't fly through and into another tank). The thing is definitely overkill, it'll make the turret part of the tank (including the main gun and its barrel) fly 30 feet up into the air, flipping end over end, when it hits.

And when it destroys that one tank, how badly does it destroy it?
Not 10x worth.

It creates a huge explosion, though there is no warhead, just the plain old kinetic energy of a 177lb metal rod flying at 5000 feet per second. Kinetic weapons do alot more damage than explosives, just to a much smaller area.

Right.
Which is why I'd be nice and give it 6d6 MD per shot.

[Killer Cyborg]

Whaddaya mean Killer Cyborg, what's to get?

There are objects that are super tough, and weapons that have the capability to damage them.

The glitter boy's boom gun will damage them, on the order of magnitude of 3d6x10 megadamage.

It inflicts that amount of damage by accelerating 3.6 pounds of steel to a speed of mach 5.

Another piece of equipment, that exists today, called the losat, accelerates 177 lbs of armour penetrating tungsten rod to a speed of about mach 4.7. In doing so it develops an amount of kinetic energy that is about 53 times as much as the glitter boy boom gun.

Am I not correct in assuming that it will inflict a greater amount of damage, based on the fact that is packs 53 times the energy?

You are not correct.

That's how it works with bullets in todays world, with todays physics.

So I'm not sure what I'm missing.

You're missing what I keep saying:

Going off the description of the Boom Gun, there is no reason why it would do 3d6x10 MD.
So comparing the description of the Boom Gun to modern weapons isn't going to get you anything close to realistic results.

Especially since you're comparing the real-world weapon to the game version of a weapon that doesn't exist, instead of comparing it to the game version of comparable real world weapons that DO exist.
Why are you insisting that this thing would be more equivalent to the fictional Boom Gun than it would be to a TOW or other real-world anti-tank weapon?

The only answers I can come up with are that you either don't get MDC, or you do, but you want the weapon to be as munchkin as possible, screw any realism.

I edited my last post to link to a video of a TOW in action, by the way, to show you what 3d4 MD looks like.


Finally, I believe it has been pointed out that the 177 lbs is the weight of the entire weapon, including chemical propellant.
Not the weight of the tungsten rod itself.

[Killer Cyborg]

uh uh, that losat would probably go right through 100 guys wearing dead boy armour if you had them all stand in a line!

This is the sort of thinking that boggles me.

What you're saying is that since the LOSAT can kill a tank with 11 MDC, it would probably be able to go right through 100 guys, each of whom is wearing armor over 7x as tough as that tank.

So... since the weapon can do 11 MD, it must be able to do 8,000 MD with ease...?

I don't get your math here.

[Killer Cyborg]

I could see the tow missile doing just 3d4 or whatever, cause the tow does it's damage based on an explosive charge, not a kinetic charge. It's a completely different system than a kinetic kill weapon. The tow uses a focused explosion to punch a hole in armour, it's got absolutely nothing to do with kinetic energy kill. The TOW missile is not in any way a comparable in-game weapon.

Did you see the damage it did to the tank?

They're both tank-killing weapons with roughly the same damage capabilities.
Whether they're kinetic or explosive doesn't really matter.

(You find me the video of that bunker yet?)

So, in rifts, where they have some kind of new explosives that are way more powerful, the old explosives in the tow missile only do about 3d4md, or whatever, and fancy new mega damage ones do alot more.

The boom gun, and the losat, do thier damage by way of kinetic energy, the tow missile does NOT. All that kinetic energy is, is how much force a given object has based on it's weight, and how fast its going. So why wouldn't the heavier object do more damage?

Because the Boom Gun damage isn't a good representation of real-world physics.

By the way, most of the weight is in the penetrator, there's no way a bit of chemical propellant is going to take up most of the weight in the missile, but even if it took half the weight, it'd still pack way more energy than the boom gun.

Or are you saying that it somehow wouldn't pack as much kinetic energy as the boom gun?

The boom gun doesn't pack any kinetic energy; it's not real.
The only reason it does so much damage is because KS wanted it to, not because a real-world weapon that matched the Boom Gun's description would do that much damage.
Capiche?

I don't really care about munchkin, whatever that means, and anything said here doesn't have to have any bearing on how anyone plays their own rifts game. But I know one thing, anything hit by that LOSAT missile is probably not gonna survive.

Once again, you're simply wrong.
It shows you don't really get Mega-damage.

I say if that thing hits a glitter boy armour suit, that suit is either flying into bits and peices, or it's flying about 150 feet backwards with a big hole in the middle.

You can say whatever you like, but it just means you lack a basic understanding of how things work.

I mean the whole point of this thread ( at least my point, and I'm the one who started it soooo...) was comparing the stated power of the boom gun - 3d6x10md from 3.6lbs steel at 5500 fps to another metal object that weighs 177 lbs travelling at 5000 fps.

From your post, your point was that you wanted to know how much damage the LOSAT would do.
I have told you.

It's not my fault that you don't want to believe me.

But yes, what I'm saying killer cyborg, is that yes, and thanks for pointing this out, any weapon that can do 11 md must be able to do 8000 md with ease, and if you don't believe me, and make sure you use that rule in all your games... well, I'm going to cast a magic spell on you...

Makes about as much sense as the rest of your posts here.

[Killer Cyborg]

Alright, I'm near my books again, so I'm going look some more stuff up for you (which you can then ignore).

Starting with the Boom Gun.

What we know about the Boom Gun:
-It can accelerate it's flechette style rounds to a speed of mach 5
(The speed was originally listed as Mach 2, but the writers changed it after it was pointed out that this wasn't very impressive. Some posters have claimed that mach 20 would be much more realistic for the damage the weapon inflicts)
-The gun "is the most powerful personal or vehicular weapon to survive the Great Cataclysm." (RUE)
-The blast is so powerful that without the automatic stabilization system, the 10.5' tall, 1.2 ton Glitterboy (and it's 867 lb gun) would be thrown to the ground and knocked back 30'.
-One Boom Gun flechette round holds 200 flechettes

Unless it's mentioned in the books somewhere, we do NOT know:
-The weight of the flechette rounds
-The design of the flechette rounds
-The material of the flechette rounds.

(You seem to think that you know these things, so perhaps you've seen those factors listed in the books somewhere that I haven't.
If so, please give me the book and page number, and quote the passages here.)

[glitterboy2098]

so your telling us we shouldn't speculate because we lack sufficent data, but you are willign to assume that the boomgun is able to bend physics based on the same incomplete data?


we are merely assuming a degree of consistancy. the boom gun fires it's slugs at mach 5. the LOSAT moves at mach 5. thus the boomgun is a valid comparison.

yet, the 120mm Rheinmetal of the M1 fires APFSDS at mach 5 as well, and only does 2D4. so we have a range between 2D4 and 3D6x10 to work with.

looking at various damage models, i think it best to assume that the boomgun's slugs are each doing something like 1 MD each, and the 3D6x10 is to see how many of the 200 slugs hit. (a similar assumption can be made about the C-40 and many other railguns in burst mode)

KEW do most of their damage by "chipping away" armor. 200 slugs, each doing a small amount of ablative removal, is definately going to defeat armor better than a single penetrator of the same total mass. mostly because the many slugs are going to hit successively, "chewing" a hole through the armor. a single penetrator is going to knock a crater in, but much of it will be lost to the penetrator shattering and ablating itself.


working from that, parhaps we can assume a 5D6 md for the LOSAT? sufficent to kill SDC tanks, but not as powerful as the boomgun. but sufficently more powerful than the 120mm Rheinmetal, which fires a much lighter projectile at the same speed. (the LOSAT is superior to the 120mm APFSDS, which can defeat the armor of nearly any tank on the planet, and with DU APFSDS, can beat all of them. but that one would be doing 2D6md..)

of course, thats the early 21st century version. a version updated to rifts could be upgraded with a better rocket for higher velocity, and thus more damage.

[Killer Cyborg]

so your telling us we shouldn't speculate because we lack sufficent data, but you are willign to assume that the boomgun is able to bend physics based on the same incomplete data?

I'm telling you that you shouldn't base conversions off of a weapon with unknown properties.

we are merely assuming a degree of consistancy.

This is your mistake.
The Boom Gun is not consistent with real-world physics.

the boom gun fires it's slugs at mach 5. the LOSAT moves at mach 5. thus the boomgun is a valid comparison.

No, it's not.
Just because one thing is as fast as another doesn't mean that they're going to do the same damage.

Especially since the boom gun flechette speeds used to only be mach 2.
They got bumped up to mach 5, but the damage remained the same.
Somehow, I think this indicates that the writers didn't spend a heck of a lot of time thinking about the precise mass and speed of the flechettes in order to calculate the damage.
Which means that you shouldn't either.

yet, the 120mm Rheinmetal of the M1 fires APFSDS at mach 5 as well, and only does 2D4. so we have a range between 2D4 and 3D6x10 to work with.

looking at various damage models, i think it best to assume that the boomgun's slugs are each doing something like 1 MD each, and the 3D6x10 is to see how many of the 200 slugs hit. (a similar assumption can be made about the C-40 and many other railguns in burst mode)

KEW do most of their damage by "chipping away" armor. 200 slugs, each doing a small amount of ablative removal, is definately going to defeat armor better than a single penetrator of the same total mass. mostly because the many slugs are going to hit successively, "chewing" a hole through the armor. a single penetrator is going to knock a crater in, but much of it will be lost to the penetrator shattering and ablating itself.

working from that, parhaps we can assume a 5D6 md for the LOSAT? sufficent to kill SDC tanks, but not as powerful as the boomgun. but sufficently more powerful than the 120mm Rheinmetal, which fires a much lighter projectile at the same speed. (the LOSAT is superior to the 120mm APFSDS, which can defeat the armor of nearly any tank on the planet, and with DU APFSDS, can beat all of them. but that one would be doing 2D6md..)

Works for me.
Though I've seen people argue the opposite; that a single solid projectile would do more damage than flechettes.

of course, thats the early 21st century version. a version updated to rifts could be upgraded with a better rocket for higher velocity, and thus more damage.

Right.
It could probably do as much damage as an Armor Piercing Mini-Missile.
Make a Medium range version, and it could do as much as a Medium Range Armor Piercing missile.
And so on.

Because in order for the game world to make any sense, it needs to be assumed that the futuristic super-high-tech weapons in Rifts Earth would be more powerful than anything we have today, and that if the weaponry described in the books could be overpowered by 20th century weapons with a slight upgrade using future tech, it would have already been done so, and that would be the standard.

[glitterboy2098]

so your telling us we shouldn't speculate because we lack sufficent data, but you are willign to assume that the boomgun is able to bend physics based on the same incomplete data?

I'm telling you that you shouldn't base conversions off of a weapon with unknown properties.

we are merely assuming a degree of consistancy.

This is your mistake.
The Boom Gun is not consistent with real-world physics.

how can you be sure when you yourself admit we do not know the mass of the boomgun shells, and we do not have a damage value for straight TNT?

can you cite the physics to prove the boomgun cannot do that damage?
or are you merely operating on the assumption that because you say so, it is?

we have to assume that, lacking any evidence to the contrary, the Boomgun works like anyother KEW. so it is a valid method to compare it to other KEW with similar stats.

now if Kevin S. was to come out any say "the boomgun does it's damage because it's powered by fluffy kittens", then our comparisons are invalid. but until then, we can use logical thought processes to examine the physics of palladium.

[Killer Cyborg]

so your telling us we shouldn't speculate because we lack sufficent data, but you are willign to assume that the boomgun is able to bend physics based on the same incomplete data?

I'm telling you that you shouldn't base conversions off of a weapon with unknown properties.

we are merely assuming a degree of consistancy.

This is your mistake.
The Boom Gun is not consistent with real-world physics.

how can you be sure when you yourself admit we do not know the mass of the boomgun shells, and we do not have a damage value for straight TNT?

can you cite the physics to prove the boomgun cannot do that damage?
or are you merely operating on the assumption that because you say so, it is?

Nope.
Just a guess.

Hey, I could be wrong... but it would require stuff like special materials and design on the part of the flechettes, or some other factor that isn't described in the text.

we have to assume that, lacking any evidence to the contrary, the Boomgun works like anyother KEW. so it is a valid method to compare it to other KEW with similar stats.

Why would we assume that?

now if Kevin S. was to come out any say "the boomgun does it's damage because it's powered by fluffy kittens", then our comparisons are invalid. but until then, we can use logical thought processes to examine the physics of palladium.

Logical thought processes indicate that the best thing to compare the LOSAT to would be another real-world military weapon that's statted out in Palladium's games somewhere.
NOT to compare it to a fictional weapon of unknown qualities that might run off of fluffy kittens or something.

IF you for some reason want to include the Boom Gun's damage in the equation, that's cool... but why that particular weapon?
Why not any other rail gun or high-tech projectile weapon?
Why not missiles?

IF you want to work off of fictional weapons instead of real ones, then you might as well do it right and start by comparing the relative power and damage of each and every KEW in Palladium's books, then see where the LOSAT fits into the spectrum of things.

Starting off with the most powerful weapon in Rifts, just because the ammo travels around the same speed (BTW, Is 5,000 feet per second the same as mach 5? Because I looked and couldn't find any info on that) doesn't make a lot of sense.
Especially since, as you pointed out, other weapons with the same velocity do a heck of a lot less damage.

Although, if I came up with 6d6 MD (feeling generous by about a d6) for the LOSAT, and you came up with 5d6 MD, do we really need to be arguing about this so much?

[Maryann]

Ok the problem here is your basing all of the information here on real world stuff and applying it to a "science fiction" game.

1. Kev has stated in numerous forums/formats that the Boom Gun was the most powerful Pre-Rifts weapon to survive the coming of the Rifts, so the LOSAT wouldn't have survived (if we were trying to put real world stuff into a sci-fi book).

2. Kev's not a physicist, nor is he a weapons expert. He did not anticipate fans trying to apply real world physics to his fun ideas.

3. Killer Cyborg was right in his argument on this, don't over analyze whats meant to be entertainment.

[Rahmota]

My apologies if I sound impertinent but I wanted to get this off my chest about this. Yes it is a game, it is KS's game. While he is no doubt smart and has a certain vision some other people do have a different vision of his game world. One of the joys of opening up a public forum about this is that sometimes those visions clash. Occasionally rather heatedly.

The Boom Gun and by extension MD appear to be one such region where people's feeligns and visions get a bit more heated than they should.

The biggest problem i personally have and it is possible others do as well but I cannot speak for them is that the concept of the boom gun and glitterboy is kinda wonky. And yes while it is a pure fantasy weapon system like phasers or blasters and therefore rather difficult to arbitrarily assign damage or specification to other than what we are given some people do like to have a bit of consistency and logical progression.

Right now the big guns like on the M1 and the LOSAT and the Iowa battleships stagger the mind. Trying to conceptualize the idea that you have people running around with the firepower and destructive capability of an Iowa on their hip pocket while wearing body armor that could stand up to (and in some of the by the book rules) and protect the person inside from the full force of an M1 or Iowa's broadside just is inconceivable.

Now maybe bringing the boom gun into the discussion about the LOSAT was not the greatest of ideas to relate this weapon system to. But the discussion was to be what the MDC of the LOSAT system was. LOSAT is a rather big boom gun itself and naturally the comparison with what is arguably one of the biggest guns in RIFTS is natural. Everybody wants to have the biggest gun. Some people may want to add this to their game and having an open forum to discus the weapon system is great. Flipping ideas back and forth is terriffic. I've gotten some good ideas off here and hopefully shared a few if not good at least interesting thoughts. Unfortunately things got a bit more intense than they really should have.

I am sorry if I am not makign sense or rambling but I guess what I'm saying is. You are right that trying to apply reality to fantasy is kinda illogical but some people enjoy having a bit of reality in their games. Having a post to discus the OPINION or POV of another player as to what a certain thign would or would not do should not turn into a tense argument. This is one reason I have not been as active on this board as I might be as too many people have the tendency to get bent about stupid stuff.

I personally see comparing the LOSAT to the Boom gun to be reasonable. But then again I also find the Boom gun to be quite unreasonable in its existence at all. My POV I dont tell others they should think or feel the same way in their games. Heck in my games the CSA are the good guys saving the world. So anyhow just my two cents on this.

[Killer Cyborg]

Right now the big guns like on the M1 and the LOSAT and the Iowa battleships stagger the mind. Trying to conceptualize the idea that you have people running around with the firepower and destructive capability of an Iowa on their hip pocket while wearing body armor that could stand up to (and in some of the by the book rules) and protect the person inside from the full force of an M1 or Iowa's broadside just is inconceivable.

This, I believe, is the key issue.
It's not inconceivable; it's just difficult to conceive.
Which is why so many people have a problem understanding mega-damage; they don't grok the sheer amount of damage that MDC body armor is capable of withstanding.
But that's how the world of Rifts works; the small arms in the future are more powerful than the heavy vehicle-mounted weapons of today.

Now maybe bringing the boom gun into the discussion about the LOSAT was not the greatest of ideas to relate this weapon system to. But the discussion was to be what the MDC of the LOSAT system was. LOSAT is a rather big boom gun itself and naturally the comparison with what is arguably one of the biggest guns in RIFTS is natural.

I disagree.
The comparison should be to other real-world weapons that are statted out in the books, and/or to fictional armor-piercing missiles in the game, with the understanding that the damage for this modern day weapon is going to be less than the damage from futuristic weapons that use much better technology.

[Killer Cyborg]

Addressing choice bits...

It's ridiculous to say that other people should change what rules they use, because the object is to have fun, and whatever makes it fun, is well, what makes it fun.

1. I don't think that anybody has told anybody else to change what rules they use.
2. Whether or not the object of RPGs is to "have fun" is debatable.

This was a simple theoretical discussion about an existing weapon that could be compared to the physics that were written in the book relating to an in game weapon. THAT'S ALL! I don't see how it's so offensive that I brought this up, and why it seemed to elicit so many childish comments. I barely analyzed anything, I just did one simple equation and threw it out there, that's it. But I'm sorry that it made everyone so upset, I really am.

1. As far as I know, nobody is really very upset about this conversation.
Although you seem to be using a lot of exclamation points.

2. My personal annoyance is that you, just as you said, did one simple equation and threw it out there, then asked us how much damage the LOSAT would do... and when I put a lot more thought and effort into it than you did, you rejected my answer out of hand, preferring your own hasty and infinitely inferior initial opinion.
Why ask others for their input if you don't want it?

What I was saying, was that based on the information given in the books, the losat missile would be 53 times as powerful as the boom gun.

Except that this is simply not true.
For the reasons I have already explained.

I probably will allow the losat missile to do the same, or double what the boom gun does, maybe even more, I might even allow modern day depleted uranium anti tank 120mm rounds to do 1d6x10 or so, it only seems reasonable to me, but who cares? That's just my game, it shouldn't have any bearing on anyone else's games at all!

I might even say that a couple of em survived the rifts if I feel like introducing them into the campaign. Is it ok to do that, or not?
Am I allowed to have it rifted in from another dimension, do I have permission to do that? Do I need permission to do that?

Being allowed to do something does not make the doing of it sensible.

[Killer Cyborg]

Christ, who ARE you?

Well, not Christ, if that helps any...

Where did you get that sort of superior attitude?

Healthy self-esteem.

How old are you, really?

"For a cabbage, I am very old. For a mountain I am barely begun. For a man, I am just right."

You do realize the amount of subtly and/or overtly rude comments you put in your posts don't you?

Trick question.
If I didn't realize it, I wouldn't know that I didn't realize it.

I'd like to ask: Why do you act like that? Seriously, why? Is it just part and parcel of your vastly superior intellect?

Probably.
And my attitude varies a bit depending on the attitude of the person I'm talking with.

Also I'd like to ask:

if object A weighs x number of pounds and is travelling at 300 feet per second, and object B weighs x + 100 lbs and is travelling at 300 feet per second, which object has more kinetic energy?

I'm no physicist, but I'd guess that Object B would be the way to bet.

and: What, your omniscience, is the true point of a role playing game, if not for entertainment's sake?
Or are you just saying that it's debatable in some sort of philosophy 101 metaphysical "everything is debatable" sort of way, just so that you can try to disagree with me some more?

Look Here:
viewtopic.php?t=60716

And one final thing: when you see the video of the missile hitting the bunker, do you really still think that a guy wearing dead boy body armor would be a-ok, because he only just took 11 mega-damage?

As I said earlier, I'd consider giving him high-speed crash impact damage, which would likely kill him.
But his armor would be pretty much fine.

What you're touching on here is one of the things that makes a lot of people problems with suspension of disbelief: the lack of realistic knockdown/knockback tables.

[Rahmota]

Which is why so many people have a problem understanding mega-damage; they don't grok the sheer amount of damage that MDC body armor is capable of withstanding.
But that's how the world of Rifts works; the small arms in the future are more powerful than the heavy vehicle-mounted weapons of today.

This is true. I'm not asking for a compleate degree of reality from my fantasy. I just do like to have a bit of internal self consistency shall we say. I mean as long as things make sense and function the way they do for a reason then I'm reasonably happy.

I disagree.
The comparison should be to other real-world weapons that are statted out in the books, and/or to fictional armor-piercing missiles in the game, with the understanding that the damage for this modern day weapon is going to be less than the damage from futuristic weapons that use much better technology.

As you wish. I particularly am not conerned as the Glitter boy doesnt exist in the same form in my riftsverse so the discussion is really rather moot. By the book I am not going to go back into this as I can see elements from both sides of the argument going on here.

Oh and KC. You can come off a bit brusqe and sounding like Fraiser Crane at times. Actually in most of yer posts. Not that its a bad thing just an observation. (Oh and I know I dont sound like the brightest bulb on the tree at times either but *shrug* oh well)

[Killer Cyborg]

Oh and KC. You can come off a bit brusqe and sounding like Fraiser Crane at times. Actually in most of yer posts. Not that its a bad thing just an observation. (Oh and I know I dont sound like the brightest bulb on the tree at times either but *shrug* oh well)

No offense taken.

[Rahmota]

KC:

No offense taken.

Good I'm glad as I didnt intend any. Its just with the lack of verbal emotional cues in posts like these my mind generally fills in a "voice" for the various posters and you for some reasons sound like Fraiser Crane/Kelsey Grammer to me. Which is cool as the Fraiser show was funny, Cheers was funny and Down Periscope was hillarious.

[glitterboy2098]

having run various combinations of penetrator and velocity through a KEW calculator, i have to agree. i'd say the boomgun definate needs to be closer to mach 20 (6000+ m/s) to do the kinds of damage it does.
BTW, assuming tungsten for the slugs, a figure of roughly 6.5 kg of projectiles per boomgun shell can be arrived at, by figuring the rough volume of the slugs vs. the density of the metal.

compared to a 120mm smoothbore, the LOSAT is quite a bit more powerful in terms of impact (most APFSDS seem to run 3-4 kg per projectile).

so i'll stand by my 5D6md choice for the LOSAT. not a bad pre-rifts weapon to use in rifts, provided you can make them. they ought to be easier to produce than most dedicated MDC weapons (not unlike the poorman's MDC weapon, the LAW. 1D6md with no modification to the weapon from 20th century specs? sweet...)

[Killer Cyborg]

KC:

No offense taken.

Good I'm glad as I didnt intend any. Its just with the lack of verbal emotional cues in posts like these my mind generally fills in a "voice" for the various posters and you for some reasons sound like Fraiser Crane/Kelsey Grammer to me. Which is cool as the Fraiser show was funny, Cheers was funny and Down Periscope was hillarious.

The fact that you have seen Down Periscope, and liked it, shows that you have style and sophistication.

[glitterboy2098]

This link mentions how much energy is behind the LOSAT KEM.

40 Megajoules

It is rough, but that is impressive.

lets see...4184 joules is equal to 1 gram of TNT. so the LOSAT is going an equivilent to 9560 grams of TNT. 9.5kg?

the 120mm APFSDS runs around 1.4kg.

so if a 120mm does 2d4x100sd, the LOSAT runs what 6 times the impact, so call it..what, 2d4x100x5? thats what, roughly 1d4x1000sd (1D4x10md?)

[Killer Cyborg]

This link mentions how much energy is behind the LOSAT KEM.

40 Megajoules

It is rough, but that is impressive.

lets see...4184 joules is equal to 1 gram of TNT. so the LOSAT is going an equivilent to 9560 grams of TNT. 9.5kg?

the 120mm APFSDS runs around 1.4kg.

so if a 120mm does 2d4x100sd, the LOSAT runs what 6 times the impact, so call it..what, 2d4x100x5?

So how much does a stick of TNT weigh?

[glitterboy2098]

This link mentions how much energy is behind the LOSAT KEM.

40 Megajoules

It is rough, but that is impressive.

lets see...4184 joules is equal to 1 gram of TNT. so the LOSAT is going an equivilent to 9560 grams of TNT. 9.5kg?

the 120mm APFSDS runs around 1.4kg.

so if a 120mm does 2d4x100sd, the LOSAT runs what 6 times the impact, so call it..what, 2d4x100x5?

So how much does a stick of TNT weigh?

no clue. but someone pointed out that TNT is twice as potent as dynamite, and dynamite does about 1D6x10sd per kg in palladium, IIRC.

as it is, the Kg's of TNT figure is a means of comparison, not really a direct equivilence. we can compare the figure to similar weapons and work out the details.

[Rahmota]

Glitterboy: Yeah thats what I basically did in my own verse. The fluff text got a bit of a rewrite as did some of the other basic stuff. Like extra rounds available and different damages for different rounds. basically the flechettes are highly aerdynamic high density/light weight, advanced composite alloys that do their damage through multiple mico supersonic booms, physical impact and frictional heating. Makes nice techno babble, shut the rules lawyer in my group up before we shut him up and by giving a reason other than magic kittens makes a nice satisfying internal consistency when used with other weapons.

Zylo:[quote]It says the motor for the missile weighs 110 lbs, which is huge, so the penetrator must weigh 67 or so pounds, but it isn't a sabot and the engine is still attached when the sucker slams into the target. I guess the mass still counts?[/quote] Actually depending on how much of that 110 pounds is casing and how much is fuel it might.

40 megajoules? Interesting. Are there any other weapon systems in Rifts that have a statement of how many megajoules of energy they produce? That might be an excellent way of comparing systems. I think I recall in Trek 40 megajoules is a hand phaser on one of the higher kill settings. (TNG tech manual) so I guess giving the LOSAT the same damage as a hand weapon in Rifts has precedence in sci-fi. Makes sense to me anyhow.

KC: Thank you sir. Coming from ou a high compliment indeed.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

how about a better question. What would the Rifts equivalent LOSAT do in terms of megadamage?

The CS has commissioned the design and construction of a robot/supernatural threat killer using known GB technology and have asked to supersize it with a large coke to boot. It's made to kill a modern MDC tank or large supernatural beastie (fury beetle or spiney ravager lets say) in one hit. What damage would it do?

[Killer Cyborg]

how about a better question. What would the Rifts equivalent LOSAT do in terms of megadamage?

The CS has commissioned the design and construction of a robot/supernatural threat killer using known GB technology and have asked to supersize it with a large coke to boot. It's made to kill a modern MDC tank or large supernatural beastie (fury beetle or spiney ravager lets say) in one hit. What damage would it do?

Same as an armor piercing missile.

[Rahmota]

How much does a stick of TNT weigh? From what I have in my notes a traditional "stick" of dynamite weighs about a pound. This is according to a book on Coal Mining I read and put the info in my notes. Oddly enough this question came up often enough in my games that I needed to write this down because a player of mine wanted to run around using sticks of tnt as weapons in a wild west game and wanted to know how many they could carry.

Now about the Boom Gun. i went to the garage and got my notes and rifts main book out. I also took a ruler nd measured the picture just for some info. The slug is depicted as a 1" long cylinder that fits witin a 7" long shell. Given these dimensions measuring the width of the slug itself and the shell gives a barrel diameter of about 1 and 1/3rd inches and a slug diameter of about 1/8th inches. So by my measuring the slug is 1" long and 1/8th inch across cylinder. So it may depend on what the mass is as for the damage. althouhg they are not very aerodynamic looking.

Also another thign I noted is there is a casing ejection port on the Boom Gun. And the Shell is drawn as if it was a large shotgun shell not much different than the one in my 12 guage, just bigger. But lookign under the entry for railguns they say :

"The projectiles need no gunpowder or explosive charge to inflict mega damage ......The famous Boom gun of the Glitter Boys is a rail gun."

So a rail gun shouldnt be ejecting anything or need an ejection port, so that begs the question what is the Boom gun doing with an ejection port.

This last paragrap really doesnt have anythign to do with much. but the first paragraph is one way that the mass of the slugs can be figured out so that more meaningful comparisons could be drawn with the boom Gun's ammo and other weapons.

[glitterboy2098]

How much does a stick of TNT weigh? From what I have in my notes a traditional "stick" of dynamite weighs about a pound. This is according to a book on Coal Mining I read and put the info in my notes. Oddly enough this question came up often enough in my games that I needed to write this down because a player of mine wanted to run around using sticks of tnt as weapons in a wild west game and wanted to know how many they could carry.

just FYI, TNT and dynamite are two different explosives. TNT is a chemical compound. dynamite is Nitroglycerin soaked into a rare earth to make it stable. dynamite is weaker than TNT, although nitroglycerin is generally stronger in it's pure form (just so volitile that it's rare to find in that form.)

[Killer Cyborg]

How much does a stick of TNT weigh? From what I have in my notes a traditional "stick" of dynamite weighs about a pound. This is according to a book on Coal Mining I read and put the info in my notes. Oddly enough this question came up often enough in my games that I needed to write this down because a player of mine wanted to run around using sticks of tnt as weapons in a wild west game and wanted to know how many they could carry.

just FYI, TNT and dynamite are two different explosives. TNT is a chemical compound. dynamite is Nitroglycerin soaked into a rare earth to make it stable. dynamite is weaker than TNT, although nitroglycerin is generally stronger in it's pure form (just so volitile that it's rare to find in that form.)

Yup.
Question is, do TNT and dynamite weigh the same?

[Rahmota]

I have no idea. I'm just going off what I had in my notes. I guess at one time I had done some research on things in depth but that was a long loooing time ago. I do know I have written down that a "stick" is 8 inches long and an inch thick as well if that helps.

After a quick wiki search I did find this out.

TNT density is:1.654 g/cm³
Explosive velocity:6,900 m/s (density: 1,6 g/cm³)

A gram of TNT releases 980–1100 calories upon explosion. To define the tonne of TNT, this was arbitrarily standardized to 1000 thermochemical calories = 1 gram TNT = 4184 J (exactly).[1]

Nitroglycerin itself has the following properties:
Density:1.6 g/cm³ at 15 °C
explosive velocity:7700 m/s

ANFO has a density of:1.3
Explosive Velocity of:5,270 m/s

So while that doesnt answer the exact question it might help those more mathematically attuned.

[The Beast]

I know they only test the LOSAT on ONE tank. That's because when the weapon hits an object, it destroys itself. If the losat missile would not deform or disintegrate in any way when it struck, it just might have enough energy to punch through more than one tank, just like a .22 going through pop cans ( look at the videos, the thing is insane!!). But when a high speed object hits something thick and tough like a tank, the energy is transfered into the tank, and into the projectile (which destroys it, so it can't fly through and into another tank). The thing is definitely overkill, it'll make the turret part of the tank (including the main gun and its barrel) fly 30 feet up into the air, flipping end over end, when it hits.

There's your problem right there. A MD projectile weapon would shread the tank and everything behind the tank until it spent all of its energy or it hit something massive enough to stop it (like the Earth). The weapon you're describing seems to stop after just hitting one tank.

[Sentinel]

I think that the real problem in attempting to extrapolate real world weapons into meta-fictional game worlds is the idea that no matter what, any weapon invented now is simply "inferior" to weapons of the future.
Weapons are invented all the time today, and they are certainly innovative and advanced, compared to weapons of even a decade ago.
But, in a sci-fi enviornment (like Rifts), they are simply and automatically behind the curve. Thus, when quantifying these new weapons of today, they have to be scaled behind the meta-fictional weapons we , as GMs, know are coming.
Since the "Boom Gun" is supposed to be the bad-boy on the block as far as pre-Rifts weapons go, anything invented before it must automatically be inferior to it.

Since Rifts was not intended to adequately encompass the larger aspects of military weapons then there is an issue about the scaling of such things.
Everything after man-portable and personal weapons and armour often break down. Add in the elements of advanced sci-fi weapons (like the weapons of Naruni, or things found in and around Phase World), and the issue is compounded.

Add to that the idea of things like Vampires: a LOSAT won't destroy a vampire.
And there will be people on both sides of the issue, offering ideas to either support that, or to tear it down. Essentially, the idea that any man-sized creature would be able to stand up such a weapon is hard to swallow. But, this is a game world that supports not only that, but people who can fly and are invulnerable, people who can cast magic spells, and more besides.

My feelings are, for Rifts and Palladium in general, you can't simply isolate and expand one element (such as a missle weapon of this type) without looking at the whole context of the game enviornment and system, and where it will fit in.

[Sentinel]

Depending on the magnitude of destruction I have done everything from no real effects, to small damage instantly healed, to massive bodily disfigurement, but also instantly re-healed.

A player once shot a vamp in the eye with a railgun. I described it as "...the eye bursts like a melon shot with a shotgun. But, no sooner does the projectile pass through, than the eye's matter falls back together, resuming it's original shape in less than a second."

[Killer Cyborg]

I think that the real problem in attempting to extrapolate real world weapons into meta-fictional game worlds is the idea that no matter what, any weapon invented now is simply "inferior" to weapons of the future.
Weapons are invented all the time today, and they are certainly innovative and advanced, compared to weapons of even a decade ago.
But, in a sci-fi enviornment (like Rifts), they are simply and automatically behind the curve. Thus, when quantifying these new weapons of today, they have to be scaled behind the meta-fictional weapons we , as GMs, know are coming.
Since the "Boom Gun" is supposed to be the bad-boy on the block as far as pre-Rifts weapons go, anything invented before it must automatically be inferior to it.

Since Rifts was not intended to adequately encompass the larger aspects of military weapons then there is an issue about the scaling of such things.
Everything after man-portable and personal weapons and armour often break down. Add in the elements of advanced sci-fi weapons (like the weapons of Naruni, or things found in and around Phase World), and the issue is compounded.

Add to that the idea of things like Vampires: a LOSAT won't destroy a vampire.
And there will be people on both sides of the issue, offering ideas to either support that, or to tear it down. Essentially, the idea that any man-sized creature would be able to stand up such a weapon is hard to swallow. But, this is a game world that supports not only that, but people who can fly and are invulnerable, people who can cast magic spells, and more besides.

My feelings are, for Rifts and Palladium in general, you can't simply isolate and expand one element (such as a missle weapon of this type) without looking at the whole context of the game enviornment and system, and where it will fit in.

Exactly.