Dog_O_War wrote:R Ditto wrote:On a side note, I don't even own RUE.
After SoT, hearing that they 'tossed out' and replaced some of the stuff for the GB was a final straw for me, I stuck with the original RMB... besides, it makes me wary that RUE has such a large errata list...
The way I feel is probably the same as W40k players back when an entire race was retconed right out of that game.
What,
Squats? They were removed, NOT ret-conned out. They make mention of them in many books - all updated to within the last edition. That and the Squats line was discontinued because they were unispired and nobody liked them.
As for not using a book because it contains errata; that's what we call "selective rules use", or
cheating.
I said the RUE book has a large errata list due to tons of mistakes, and that is one of the reasons I never bought it in the first place.
A lack of sign of good quality control is a big turn off to me.
And as glitterboy2098 said, new stuff does not fit with the continuity of the older things.
That is a partial factor as to why I didn't bother to get the RUE.
As for the W40k it, one little thing I read was from an apparently upset person who said they retcon the squats about the same way the CS tries to get rid of legit history books, toss them out and refuse to talk about it.
Dog_O_War wrote:I mean, c'mon people; If any of you had done actual measuring, you'd have realized that if the GB had a hundred-round ammo load instead of 1000, that based on the belt the backpack housing the ammo would only be 2/3 full, if that even.
Meaure? Yeah, I did, with metric, finding ratios between length and width of rounds in picturings, figuring out if the round was w long and x high, and that w = 7in, that x equalled roughly 2in. Similar for the flechettes, if a round was y long and z high, and y was 1in, that z was 1/5th of an inch.
Also trying to estimate the size of the GB by comparing its height with the 'scale' of the ammo drum, and figuring out the size is about right.
The belt is NOT a factor with ammo, the ammo is in the drum alone, and doesn't actually feed into the belt unless it happens to be attached to the Boom Gun via said belt. It is absurd to think that every ammo drum is going to be having a feed belt stuck to it, it makes a weak point in that the end attatched to the weapon would be easy to undo, especially from damage, while if it connected at the drum, then the entire GB 'covers' the connection point from frontal attack.
Myself and several others jammed an entire thread, several pages at least, with discussions of the size of the rounds, the weight of the rounds, the materials likely used in the flechettes, etc.
Dog_O_War wrote:Why would they offer a drawing that either had too much ammo, or didn't use up the space designated for the ammo many of you think it should have? Either way it makes no sense, so personally I'd forget measurements and speeds and crap as back when the Glitterboy was created for the game, KS didn't have Wiki or the internet to pull all sorts of theoretical information and calculations from. He just made crap up that sounded good. Like how the boomgun only fired at mach 2; we have planes that can out-run those railgun rounds. That and the term "railgun" itself was obviously chosen due to popularity, not scientific mechanics. It has been pointed out that these guns are "coilguns", yet we all call them railguns.
Why then is it so hard to believe that the measurements given don't add up to the possible ammo capacity? Seriously, the thing can definitely hold atleast 200 rounds at the previous size, why then would they say that it held only 100? That and the ammo drum was never a typo; it is the same now as it was 20 years ago, so clearly the mistake was on the main boxes' capacity.
Check the Compendium of Contemporary Weapons, done by Maryann Siembieda, check one of the back pages and you see the big list books, including books from "Jane's" series of books, and other books on weapons and firearms.
As I have stated, I can draw a connection between the 5.56mm round of the then (and still) standard Assault Rifle of the US military used for reffeence for guns in the CoCW, and of the flechettes of the Boom Gun based on the data from the original RMB. Just take one of the heavier hitting 5.56mm rounds, double the base muzzle velocity, increase mass 50% (due to extra length), multiply by 200, and you got BG damage on the dot.
Dog_O_War wrote:Like the Glitterboy picture in R:UE. Same picture in the original book; they don't change the art unless they have the artists' permission to do so.
Last I checked, the original artist is NOT the holder of the IP relating to the GB and Rifts.
Long is not the only artist who does stuff relating to the GB, the holder of the IP (Palladium/KS) can just as easily have another artist whip up new technical drawings, or baring that, just get permission from Long to edit the text in the old tech drawings.
Other notes:
WB22 (April 2000, first printing) 100 main ammo, 40 secondary.
The RG-14 has a total mass 867 pounds, including 100 rounds of ammo. As is, math shows that ammo at roughly 350 pounds total, leaving 517 pounds for the gun itself, maybe a little removed to account for ammo drum weight.
And now...
The MATH!Pulling out my old RMB and a calculator, and redo stuff right here and now...
Lets redo my measurements, right here, right now...
Using a ruler, metric side for better accuracy...
GB: 167mm tall
Ammo Drum: 17mm tall, 40mm wide
Since the GB is listed as 3.1m tall, that comes out to 18.5 to 1 scale.
Ammo Drum estimates.
Estimated 31cm diameter, estimated 2.5cm thickness for armor material (based on cross sections, the armor is only 2.5cm/1 inch thick, not bad considering it is likely 100 stronger than steel and likely equal to over 8ft thick armor plate steel), which puts 5cm of diameter as being accounted for by armor, allowing for 26cm internal diameter.
Estimated length is 74cm, estimated 69cm internal length accounting for 5cm thickness in the ammo drum wall.
Estimated internal volume is 36,634 cubic cm, (or 2235.5 cubic inches.)
Volume of a 50mm (2in) diameter and 177.8mm (7in) long cylinder comes to 360.37 cubic cm (21.99 cubic inches), multiplied by 100 comes to 36037 cubic cm (2199 cubic inches) which is VERY close to the estimated internal volume of the ammo drum.
Looking at the ammo itself.
30-180 MD, 200 flechettes, that's only 15-90 SDC per individual fletchette, 200 mankillers per shot
The flechettes are comparable in size fo a 5.56mm round.
Looking into CoCW, and trying to find the heavy hitters of the 5.56mm rounds...
5.56mm rounds have muzzle velocities apparently from mach 2.5-3.3
Damage for rifles and such is 3D6-5D6 (1D6 for weak SMG type weapons)
Accounting for AP rounds increases damage, high density materials likely would also increase damge due to extra hitting power.
Although, taking not at some of the guns, I noticed it was not +50% mass and +100% speed, but the other way around, +100% mass and +50% speed.
A baseline is a 5.56mm round that does 5D6, muzzle velocity of mach 3.3 (1,000m/s). Old notes show an average mass of a 5.56mm round of 4 grams.
Doubling the mass of the 5.56mm will effectively double the to 10D6 damage, increasing the muzzle velocity by 50% brings it from mach 3.3 to mach 5 (1,500m/s), upping damage again, to 15D6 damage.
The doubled mass comes to 8 grams, same as the old estimates for the mass of a BG fletchette (if it used a good AP material such as tungsten or DU for the basis of the flechette).
Same result as before, 15-90 damage, same as the indivudual damage of a single BG fletchette.
This helps to further backup that the original 100 shot capacity is accurate.
With that math stuff done...
Now, seriously, how the heck is the old stuff wrong and the new nonsensical absurd stuff right?
KS apparently knew VERY WELL what he was doing when it came to the original details of the GB.
New is NOT better.
Example, the M1 Abrams, the older M60 is a better tank in different ways... many modern rifled 105mm guns can outperform a 120mm smoothbore in assorted ways, and thanks to the US Military, the M1 Abrams is one of the best tank killers out there... which apparently causes problems for the 95% of ground threats that aren't tanks/heavy armored... and the gas turbine apparently makes the Abrams stick out like a soar thumb on thermal imagers, and they apparently are NOT allowed to carry any sort of tank gun ammo useful against other targets, except the canister shot, which is redundant with a 7.62mm MG packing 11k rounds and a .50 cal HMG packing almost 4k rounds...
Or the the M16... they 'new and improved' version of the original, which they released for full production in the Vietnam War, sucked... they new and improved it into a very unreliable weapon... at least little has changed since they got it right the second time around...
Heck, the GB itself falls into this trend, with only one ammo type and no backup weapons, giving it a purpose that is very specific and not very flexible... a perfect example of what the American generals would likely choose in the future... something that does its (single specified) job great, looks great on paper, and which does little else right, although it still does 'good' on other things, just not as well as it 'could' do if properly designed and equipped for more than mowing down infantry targets (soldiers, borgs, pa, juicers, crazies, etc) at long range...
Probably why I love the GB as much as I hate parts the design...
(glitter armor compromises ability to be unseen at distance, only has fletchette rounds, no backup weapons unless you use the secondary ammo drum mounting spot for a rail gun ammo drum for a hand held PA/Borg scale rail gun like the SAMAS rail gun, unaccounted 3in of BG cartridge space apparently used for the worlds loudest flashbang...)