Power Creep

[grandmaster z0b]

I have my own opinions about power creep, but I won't go into them all here.

I will say that the problem most people have with power creep is not just to do with weapons but also super-powerful OCCs and MDC races with supernatural strength that can also take any OCC.

Most power creep issues also don't make much sense like Xiticix weapons doing Mega Damage in the hands of normal humans.

[Comrade Corsarius]

a key example would be WWII at the begining many countries besides a few had very very similar weapons to what they had in WWI,

True. WWII spurred development of technologies at a speed that has never been duplicated before or since, to go from fabric-winged biplanes (CR-42 Falco, Gloster Gladiator) to jet fighters (Gloster Meteor, Lockheed Shooting Star, Heinkel He-162) in less than a decade is highly impressive.

but once the Germans broke out their new toys that had new destructive capabilities the rest of the world said Hey we need those too.

And here's where your argument falls down. Many people fall under the spell of the Third Reich. I can only assume you have also done so. Read on for some examples.

Tanks

At the outbreak of WWII, the most powerful tank in the world was the French 'Char bis'. Guderian's tactics were what won against De Gaulle and the other french commanders, not necessarily a deficiency of equipment. Later in the war the Germans were so impressed by the Soviet T-34 that they effectively copied it and called it the Panther, or Panzer V. The German semi-automatic infantry weapon was also a fairly close copy of a captured soviet development, from which came the Stug-44, which then went back to good old Kalashnikov for further development....

jets

Jets were seperately developed in Germany and England by Von Ohain and Whittle. Both had the stigma of official boredom poured upon them and were only dusted off later in the war. Aircraft such as the De Havilland Vampire were in development as early as 1941 (the Swiss continued to fly the Vampire as a front-line combat aircraft until the mid-80s). Russian developments such as the BI-1 (the world's first rocket fighter) preceeded the Germans as well.

strategic bombers

You mean the way they didn't really have any? The British produced the impressive Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster trio, along with the Mosquito (so good that Kurt Tank tried to copy it in Germany). The Germans were limited by a mandate that all bombers must be able to dive-bomb... even the He-177 (which had four engines in two nacelles, and caught fire all by itself more often than not due to this little fact). The US had the B-17 in service (a medium bomber with four engines... a mosquito could carry as much just as far!) and the B-24 on its way, with the mighty B-29 already in development. The Germans had nothing like this, and the 'ural bomber' and 'amerika bomber' projects were miles away.

subs

After Versailles, Germany had to be very careful about it's submarine development. The best in this quarter at the beginning of the war (and indeed, during quite a bit of it) was the impressive Japanese 'I' boats, and the US submarines of the period, along with the 's' and 't' classes of British subs.

Would you say there was a "power creep" between and during the two WW or would you call it progress in the destructive power of weapons?

I would say it was a progress, but that is because it was shared by all powers. Portions of Rifts are not at war, and yet experience severe power creep in a short amount of time. Weapons that we are told have been in use for decades or even centuries are now just so much scrap. This sudden upswing in power is what we term 'power creep', and not the smooth transition of firepower that is normally seen in a military (yes, even in WWII militaries).

Maybe I'm reading what people are saying about it wrong, and if I am let me know, I'm just commenting on what I see and read.

And so I did. QED.

[Natalya]

As I understand it, the power creep that people have a problem with is not necessarily the technology. A lot of it has to do with the fact that if you use just the main book, a person who is SDC based and can only occasionally get their hands on MDC armor/weaponry will do just fine, because MDC is a rarity. As you continue in books, more and more and more are MDC, and now there's non-technological abilities that can even turn SDC creatures into MDC pretty easily.

So essentially, issuing identical weaponry, if player A uses an OCC out of the main book and the opponent is from World Book 20+, player A might as well just kiss his character goodbye.

Plus (since I don't have every single worldbook in print), can someone answer if that much time has really passed in the Rifts world, or if the worldbooks are more or less supposed to be taking place during the same time period? If time really isn't advancing that fast, then technology shouldn't really be advancing either.

[cornholioprime]

I don't really like the complaint about "power creep" myself.


It seems to me that a great many of the people that complain about such things apparently NEVER want Rifts Earth to change. It almost seems as if they want the Rifts series to be FOREVER at the overall "Power Levels" that they had in the first two or three Books.

And if Palladium Books did THAT, then I wonder just how long Palladium Books could have kept the Rifts Line going.

Which in itself seems incredibly silly in a Megaversal Setting like Rifts.

[Jefffar]

I have no complaint about power creep - as long as it makes sense and is done in a logical, justified manner.

Heck, most of CJ's stuff has severe limitations on it regarding power creep. For example, msot of the stuff isn't available in Rifts North America, and what is, the CS will kill you for carrying or it will take over your character's minds. Within their own settings (Phase World, South America) the stuff is balanced agaisnt the other stuff in those settings. CJ also gave us Wellington Industires, Northern Gun and Chipwell Armaments gear that is pretty reasonable.

What I do dislike is when power creep is pursued jsut to make a system that's better than the existing.

I also dislike it when a system is signifigantly nerfed to avoid affecting game balance when it really should be a comperable or superior system.

[teulisch]

well, WB 11 CWC was PA 105. the tolkeen war was 105 until 109. four years. in that time, it was the only metaplot that happened.

key examples of power creep:
standard juicer, vs juicer uprising (titan, mega, ect)
standard headhunter vs canada headhunters (who can start as partial or even full bionic, and include a psionic TW bionic headhunter option)

its not just that the technology is better. the new occ has more skills, acess to rare skills (canada headhunters can get new west sharpshooting/two pistol, or a new fanatic robophile skill), better bionics to start, and more gear in general.

now, what sells books? a lot of times, its all the cool new stuff, the power creep, that sells books. so if power creep = higher sales, you will be garunteed to see more power creep. the same thing has happened to a degree with all the d20 crap, but was limited by how many gms will simply dissalow weird feats from no-name publishers.

the problem with power creep, is that the new replaces the old. the majority of classes from the main book have been seriously upgraded in various later books. in many cases, the 'better' version uses teh same xp chart as teh old one as well.

instead of a certain character concept needing a general class with a few specific skills, there is now a class built around that concept!

[Phadeout]

Here is how I handle 'power levels' in Rifts.

I say: Play anything you want.
[I will still impose some limits, make suggestions, help those who are too weak and make munchkins calm down a little... but sometimes you still have the Undead Slayer, Rogue Scientist, GB Pilot, Full Conversoin Borg /w all the goodies type of group].

Depending on the books used and equipment choosen (allowed even), there can be a huge difference in power level here. The way I handle it (and works very well) is the Experience Table. Not the individuals table, but the table that says "Minor, Major, Great Menace". A weaker character with weaker gear will level up much more often than an extremely tough character (especially if they adventure together). I find this helps a lot.

Just my input.


On the power of weapons... I don't mind that much actually...
On the power of new "combinations" such as OCC and RCC... it can be a little overloading at times, but nothing that can't be kept in check.


I find overall, that weaker characters receive much more reward than the powerful ones.

[Phadeout]

I just whis they would power creep the whole world, not just NA... Triax survived the cataclysim, why then does the CS have stuff that the NGR/Triax cannot even touch? This is my problem with power creap...

Yeah, that does kind of suck. Even now though, I find Triax does have some stuff that even the CS can't touch. The TX-250 is the sweetest rail gun (6d6md only, but a range of 6000ft and it's own radar... just add DU rounds). JAEP augmentation (add to anyone), and the T-11 Exoskeleton is still THE best armor (100MD, ok not THE best, but bonuses stats and only a -5 to prowl!!!... no one says you can't use the "add MDC rule" for augmenting armor and tac on 20% more MD). Triax could use a little upgrade though, but they still have nice stuff.

[Killer Cyborg]

I have a question,


What is the problem with power creep?

I notice on most topics someone says something about power creep and it never sounds good.

I personally don't mind it, I view it as normal evolution of technology and knowledge.

Then you're not paying attention.
Much of the power creep in Rifts is NOT in the form of technology.

-Originally, Supernatural PS did not inflict mega-damage... now it does.
-Originally, dinosaurs had 1d4x10 MDC at most... now they have hundreds upon hundreds of megadamage.
-Originally, Juicers were incapable of inflicting mega-damage. Now they can do a mega-damage power punch.

For example many of the weapons in the Main book are comparativly much weaker than newer weapons like the ones in Merc Ops. Wouldn't neccesity dictate the need for more powerful weapons. I mean after Tolkeen fell "if you use that model of the world" and even before it fell the need for Mercs to have access to equally powerful weapons as the Coalition was a neccesity. I don't see an army of Mercs carrying the NG-L5 from the Main Rifts book when the Coalition are toten around Dragon and Hellfire rifles it just doesn't seem logical. I can also see how weapons manufacturers would want to make bigger more powerful weapons for the paying customers. I can see a problem with a book having a weapon listed from a particular manufacturer as the most powerful then a year PA later the same manufacturer has a weapon that does triple but most other upgrades seem normal.

"Power Creep" to me just seems like normal progress, a key example would be WWII at the begining many countries besides a few had very very similar weapons to what they had in WWI, but once the Germans broke out their new toys that had new destructive capabilities the rest of the world said Hey we need those too. Tanks, jets, strategic bombers, subs, the list goes on and on. Would you say there was a "power creep" between and during the two WW or would you call it progress in the destructive power of weapons?

Maybe I'm reading what people are saying about it wrong, and if I am let me know, I'm just commenting on what I see and read.

If you're looking for an In-Game justification of the technological (and magical) power creep, your explanation works as well as any... but the reason for Power Creep is NOT an in-game reason.
The reason why there is Power Creep is because of poor writing.
Every book, the writers want their creations to be the be the Billy Badass of Rifts Earth, so they put the power level slightly higher than previous stuff.. or at least on an equivilant level as the more powerful stuff from the previous books.
The writers are NOT sitting there thinking, "Well, logically it has been three years since the standard laser did 2d6 MD, so let's raise it up to 3d6 for this rifle to represent the new technology that they would have realistically developed..."
They're thinking, "I want these guys to be TOUGH... let's give them guns that do an extra d6 worth of damage..."

Basically, power creep comes from an arms race between the writers at Palladium... not from any in-game arms race going on in Rifts Earth.

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't really like the complaint about "power creep" myself.


It seems to me that a great many of the people that complain about such things apparently NEVER want Rifts Earth to change. It almost seems as if they want the Rifts series to be FOREVER at the overall "Power Levels" that they had in the first two or three Books.

And if Palladium Books did THAT, then I wonder just how long Palladium Books could have kept the Rifts Line going.

Which in itself seems incredibly silly in a Megaversal Setting like Rifts.

Right.
That's like saying, "AD&D would have crumbled if they didn't raise the damage of the average non-magical swords and daggers every other book...."

[Killer Cyborg]

The whole OCC's becoming more powerful I can agree with to I don't neccessarily like it but I don't hate it by any means. I can see the problem though if you have characters from the main book like the juicer go up against his juicer uprising counterparts. I can buy that and I bought it for a dollar.

Worse yet, try taking a main-book headhunter up against a Techno-Warrior Headhunter... The Technos can literally do everything the main book guys can, only the have more skills, better bonuses, better cybernetic/bionic options, and special class abilities.

[The Galactus Kid]

Worse yet, try taking a main-book headhunter up against a Techno-Warrior Headhunter... The Technos can literally do everything the main book guys can, only the have more skills, better bonuses, better cybernetic/bionic options, and special class abilities.

They aren't meant to be equal. Kevin has said from the begining that not everything is equal. That is why you have the option to play a vagabond and a glitterboy. The Techno warrior and the headhunter are two different classes.

On a side note, in RIFTER #31 my friend and I have an article that updates some of the stuff in the NGR, adds some weapons, gives rules for research and development, and more. Check it out. (Shameless plug complete)

[Dr. Doom III]

Normal evolution and regional differences.

[Gm Under Fire]

Ah power creep....... As one of three Rifts GMs in my group, I would say each one handles it differently.

Tiny: Limits characters to main book and conversion book 1 (unrevised) only with no super powers. Anyone insists on playing something else, he pulls out the Pantheons book.

Nitewolf: Anything less powerful than a Cosmo-Knight. But than again he specializes in dimension hopping.

IMHO: Look at the setting. If you're in the New West, use New West. If in Canada (one of the best world books I think) use Canada. Keep it fairly regional. Unless the characters have access to flight or some other means of fast travel, they are just not going to get their hands on the cool toys. With OCC power creep, I just pick and chose what's allowable and what's not, in keeping with the golden rule:

GM HAS FINAL SAY!!!

Also, I honestly think most OCC, RCC has in story controls built in.

Not to mention it is partly the players responsibility to keep their characters resonable. For maturity's sake.

[Danger]

Correct me if I'm wrong Killer Cy didn't you give up playing rifts? I thought I read that on this board somewhere.

I recall him saying much the same thing.

[Hystrix]

Yeah, Killer! So don't come on these boards no more! Ya hear?!?

[Jefffar]

Unfortunatey, while the CS tech has been advanced to the 109 PA Level, we haven't seen what the NGR / Triax has developed over the past 6 years or so.

I'd be willing to bet the CS tech don't look so hot when compared with the next generation of NGR stuff.

[Kelorin]

Unfortunatey, while the CS tech has been advanced to the 109 PA Level, we haven't seen what the NGR / Triax has developed over the past 6 years or so.

I'd be willing to bet the CS tech don't look so hot when compared with the next generation of NGR stuff.

Considering that the NGR is partially responsible for a lot of the new CS Tech, and being slightly paranoid, we would have to assume that they kept a lot of the good stuff for themselves, we can only assume that NGR gear is now completely l33t, and would pwn anything the CS can field.

[The Galactus Kid]

...just wait.

[Comrade Corsarius]

Comrade Corsarius

I was just using the Germany pre-post WWII as an example I have not fallen under the German spell by any means. I play Call of Duty online all the time and I am always the allies always. I realize that after the War and during some of the Allies toys were much better than the German ones, but I was trying to make the point that Germany Spurred this Weapon Revolution and that the CS are spurring many other weapons manufactureres in rifts to make better more powerful weapons.


The whole OCC's becoming more powerful I can agree with to I don't neccessarily like it but I don't hate it by any means. I can see the problem though if you have characters from the main book like the juicer go up against his juicer uprising counterparts. I can buy that and I bought it for a dollar.

Don't sweat it. I play IL2FB and I'm more than happy to play the Axis powers.

My point was that the other powers out there were equal to or even superior to Germany at the outbreak of war. It was only after desperation became apparrent that Germany started developing 1950s and -60s level technology while everyone else soldiered on (and won) with the best they could get from 1930s level technology.

But in the beginning, Germany was no better nor worse than any other power out there, as I pointed out in my previous post. The best weapons of the Third Reich were intelligence, good communications, planning, tactics, and strategy. These were what won the early part of the war.

[Killer Cyborg]

Worse yet, try taking a main-book headhunter up against a Techno-Warrior Headhunter... The Technos can literally do everything the main book guys can, only the have more skills, better bonuses, better cybernetic/bionic options, and special class abilities.

They aren't meant to be equal. Kevin has said from the begining that not everything is equal. That is why you have the option to play a vagabond and a glitterboy. The Techno warrior and the headhunter are two different classes.

The vagabond can do things that the GB pilot can do, and vice-versa.
The new Headhunter OCC makes the old one obsolete.

[Killer Cyborg]

Correct me if I'm wrong Killer Cy didn't you give up playing rifts? I thought I read that on this board somewhere.

Yup.
Power Creep was a factor, but mostly it was the increasingly broken system that Clockwork-Oranged me out of playing/running my favorite game.

But I may be recovering... I managed to run an adventure last month, and it went pretty well.
I'm hoping that Ultimate Rifts will fix a lot of problems and make the game playable again.

[Toc Rat]

Unfortunatey, while the CS tech has been advanced to the 109 PA Level, we haven't seen what the NGR / Triax has developed over the past 6 years or so.

I'd be willing to bet the CS tech don't look so hot when compared with the next generation of NGR stuff.

Yeah, and if that happens, they'll both be silly-powerful when compared to Kitanni stuff and they've only been a high-tech, space-faring race for how long?

Both very good n true points. Same goes for Japan. Japan and the NGR both came out of the "dark age" with their pre-rifts technology and industrial base intact. Both continue to fight against powerful enemies, thus their tech should be advancing too, not just the CS.

Maybe Ulitmate Rifts will help clear some of this up. I'm holding judgement till I get that book in my hands. Hopefully it will turn out to be worth the 90$ dollars I spent on the pre-order.

[Jefffar]

Both very good n true points. Same goes for Japan. Japan and the NGR both came out of the "dark age" with their pre-rifts technology and industrial base intact. Both continue to fight against powerful enemies, thus their tech should be advancing too, not just the CS.

Yes, and how many books have come out to deal with those areas since Coalition War Campaign?

The answer can be found by counting on no hands.

[The Galactus Kid]

The vagabond can do things that the GB pilot can do, and vice-versa.
The new Headhunter OCC makes the old one obsolete.

Obsolete if you are a power gamer. The new one is just different from the old ones if you are looking at it objectively.

[grandmaster z0b]

I have no complaint about power creep - as long as it makes sense and is done in a logical, justified manner.

Heck, most of CJ's stuff has severe limitations on it regarding power creep. For example, msot of the stuff isn't available in Rifts North America, and what is, the CS will kill you for carrying or it will take over your character's minds. Within their own settings (Phase World, South America) the stuff is balanced agaisnt the other stuff in those settings. CJ also gave us Wellington Industires, Northern Gun and Chipwell Armaments gear that is pretty reasonable.

What I do dislike is when power creep is pursued jsut to make a system that's better than the existing.

I also dislike it when a system is signifigantly nerfed to avoid affecting game balance when it really should be a comperable or superior system.

Totally agree - I think CJ was trying to correct the damage scale in Rifts but got nerfed. He wanted heavy anti-armor weapons that could actually damage a tank or robot not do the same damage as a pulse rifle. He wanted tanks that could take out a guy in body armour in one shot or seriously damage power armour.
To be honest CJ didn't do it in a proper way as to do this the entire system needs to be changed/upgraded.

I can't understand how it annoys people so much though, a good GM will only allow what they feel is appropriate in their game. You may not like the new stuff but at least it's giving you the option of getting better gear as you go up levels.

The things that bother me about the game are things that take forever to find or fix, while weapons or equipment that I don't like I don't allow - that doesn't seem very hard.

[Killer Cyborg]

The vagabond can do things that the GB pilot can do, and vice-versa.
The new Headhunter OCC makes the old one obsolete.

Obsolete if you are a power gamer. The new one is just different from the old ones if you are looking at it objectively.

Uh, no... it's just obsolete.
The new Headhunter OCC fills every function that the original OCC does, mechanically and socially, and it does it at least as well as the original in every way... better in most.

My old Mac + computer is obsolete, because the newer computers can do everything it can and more... and better.
I could try to keep using it, but that wouldn't keep it from being obsolete.

[Killer Cyborg]

Could you say that the newer Headhunter OCC's are because of better training?

For example the Old Headhunter could be compared to the Canadian Military and the new Headhunter the USA military.

Since the USA has better training and better available equipment they are better as a whole. While the Canadians well their Canadian.

Certainly that would be a good answer... but it's not in the books.
The Techno-Warrior headhunters don't seem to have any restrictions on where they can be found, or where they learn their trade, or who their teacher was (if any), or anything like that.

Personally, I just don't use the new ones when I game.

[Kelorin]

Could you say that the newer Headhunter OCC's are because of better training?

For example the Old Headhunter could be compared to the Canadian Military and the new Headhunter the USA military.

Since the USA has better training and better available equipment they are better as a whole. While the Canadians well their Canadian.

Actually in international competitions, and joint training exercises Canadian troops frequently perform better than American troops. They have to, since they can't rely on wizbang gadgets and gear as much as the Americans. But for the best training in the world, you'd need to look at the Israeli army.

Besides which, the new Headhunters are from RIFTS: CANADA!! Wouldn't that make the new Headhunters Canadian, and the old ones American?

[Jefffar]

I wouldn't say Israel is the best trained so much as the most practiced. Their military is mostly reservists.

[Comrade Corsarius]

Since the USA has better training and better available equipment they are better as a whole.

[grandmaster z0b]

Could you say that the newer Headhunter OCC's are because of better training?

For example the Old Headhunter could be compared to the Canadian Military and the new Headhunter the USA military.

Since the USA has better training and better available equipment they are better as a whole. While the Canadians well their Canadian.

Actually in international competitions, and joint training exercises Canadian troops frequently perform better than American troops. They have to, since they can't rely on wizbang gadgets and gear as much as the Americans. But for the best training in the world, you'd need to look at the Israeli army.

Besides which, the new Headhunters are from RIFTS: CANADA!! Wouldn't that make the new Headhunters Canadian, and the old ones American?

Well one would have to say that the US has a better military in terms of superior equipment and the ability to produce massive amounts of it, they also have the advantage of numbers. I have heard some ex-military types say that the US's troop training is inferior, at least in the infantry, to troops from the UK, Canada, Australia and parts of Europe. As these countries don't have the large numbers of troops that the US or China has they have to focus more on the training of each individual soldier.
However I'm not saying that's true because I've never been in the military it's just what some ex-military guys have told me.

[demos606]

Having survived Parris Island, I'll agree that taken individually, US infantry personnel aren't as practiced as most other major nations infantry. However, that is due less to lack of training than the fact that the infantry plays a much less pivital role in US military success. Something to consider at those international competitions - how often is the US represented by anything other than Rangers or Green Berets? The creme of the US military is Seal Teams and Force Recon - people you *never* hear about unless something goes unbelievably wrong (think Beirut embassy).

As a rule, the modern US infantry goes in behind massive air strikes and is more of a cleanup operation than any real front line fighting - any time US generals are actually calling the shots anyway, UN "police actions" don't %$&$^%^%$%*^% count.

[Kelorin]

Good points there demos606. I'd agree about the US military not being as reliant on the individual soldier as the rest of the world, but the US does have some major advantages over the rest of us in Canada, Australia, and Europe.

Namely population base, and budget. Because the US has more people than Canada, or Australia, or any of the individual European nations, that gives the US a greater pool of both recruits and tax base. More population translates into more people available as recruits for your armed forces, and the more taxes allows the US to spend more on R&D for new weapons and technology. The rest of the allies have to rely more on the individual trooper, and therefore training is a greater priority, since we can't afford to have the latest and greatest in weapons and gear all the time.

Also, the individual US soldier doesn't need to be as well trained as his/her Canadian, Australian, or European counterpart for 2 reasons. 1) There are a lot more US soldiers and other support to fall back on. 2) For really specialized tasks, the US has more special forces groups available then anyone else. Navy SEALs, Rangers, Delta Force, etc. I think other countries end up filling the Special Forces gap with regular troops some of the time.

[teulisch]

ive noticed something about rifts weapons.

A pistol does less damage than a rifle of comparable technology. (some pistols can outdamage some rifles).
a rifle does less damage than a comparable heavy weapons- BUT the better heavy weapons usualy have a minimum strength to use, regardless of if the requirement makes much sense. the requirement means only FC borgs can effectively use the better heavy weapons- everyone else is better with a rifle.

and where the system breaks down completely- Vehicular weapons are usualy weaker than comparable heavy weapons! the only time you see a vehicle weapon do better damage than a well-armed FC borg is when two or more guns add damage when used together.

theres a couple things to this:
1) keeping the boom gun as the BIGGEST bang, regardless of any other factors.
2) keeping FC borgs and power armor better than anything else for weapons damage- even better than many giant robots.

[Comrade Corsarius]

Ok in all actualality I was just making a joke about the whole Canada thing. I have no clue who's infantry or army is better than whose when it comes down to soldier vs soldier. I just like making fun of Canada its low, shameless and makes me look foolish, but by God I love doing it.

No Worries RB. Thank you for apologising, We have far too little of common courtesy on the forums, and you've gone up in my eyes for it.

And to finish this: I have been in the military (Royal Australian Navy), and I have worked with US forces. I also know the amount of training that goes in with each force as well. It's an oft-mentioned statistic: A regular Australian Army soldier has the same amount of training and the same abilities as that of a US 'special forces'. The US derives its superiority from its endless income, manpower, and technology. Funny, but that's how the old soviet union used to be! Some friends of mine in the Army (from different branches who don't know one another) all say the same about US soldiers. 'nice blokes, but boy scouts with guns. God help 'em if they ever have to fight a real war'.

Okay. Gripe over and hopefully I've not simply added fuel to the fire. Just giving you an Australian standpoint to view. I suppose I'd better go and look at the thread to try and bring it back on track....

[Comrade Corsarius]

ive noticed something about rifts weapons.

A pistol does less damage than a rifle of comparable technology. (some pistols can outdamage some rifles).
a rifle does less damage than a comparable heavy weapons- BUT the better heavy weapons usualy have a minimum strength to use, regardless of if the requirement makes much sense. the requirement means only FC borgs can effectively use the better heavy weapons- everyone else is better with a rifle.

A great system so far, I agree completely!

and where the system breaks down completely- Vehicular weapons are usualy weaker than comparable heavy weapons! the only time you see a vehicle weapon do better damage than a well-armed FC borg is when two or more guns add damage when used together.

theres a couple things to this:
1) keeping the boom gun as the BIGGEST bang, regardless of any other factors.
2) keeping FC borgs and power armor better than anything else for weapons damage- even better than many giant robots.

Once again, I agree completely. And this is also with the same tech level! CS tanks are hopelessly out-gunned by their own supporting infantry!
The mortar weapons on the 'artillery platform' Taurus GB do a measly 1d6x10MD each and only have six rounds each!

I think you forgot #3. Unless in VERY special circumstances, the highest damage from any weapon ever will be 1d6x10 or 2d4x10 in order to maintain status quo of Rule #1.

[Killer Cyborg]

One of the things that sucks about power creep is that, because Palladium is keeping the Boom Gun as the high-water mark of firepower, it means that eventually everything will do 2d4x10 or so damage...

[Killer Cyborg]

Define what you mean by everything. Because reading the new Merc ops book not everything did 2d4x10 damage. Or are you saying most heavier equipment will do that much.

I'm saying that the low-end gear keeps raising, and that there is a ceiling.
The high-end of the energy pistols was at 3d6 MD in the main book, and raised to 5d6 MD in Mercenaries.
If this trend continues, then things are all going to level out around the same level... not NOW, mind you.. or even in the next 6 books... but eventually.

[Kelorin]

This is all to be expected! Remember, Rifts states frequently that a warrior in MDC armor carrying a laser rifle, is the equivalent of a tank!

I've made the comment before that if by some miracle, somebody could come up with a way to give your typical grunt a hand held rifle with the firepower of the 120 mm main gun of a M1A1 tank, and at the same time outfit him with armor with nearly the same protection as 2 inches of tank battle armor all at the fraction of the cost, well then tanks would become obsolete mighty darn quick. Of course, by current tech, they can't. That's why we still have tanks.

OK, back to Rifts. The most cost effective solution available to the CS would have to be skelebots. For the cost of a single UAR-1 Enforcer, you can build 9 skelebots. OK, so they can't fire medium-range missiles, but for the same cost you get 9 low-profile targets, no loss of human life, and a combat unit with a combined 45 attacks per melee doing 4D6 MD damage per attack and a combined MDC of 1170. It's like Astroboy, the smaller you make the robot, apparently, the more powerful it is. I'd really like to see the stats for one of the nanites in the IRMSS kit.

Seriously though. There is no conceivable reason to sink millions of credits into giant combat robots in Rifts, considering the return on the investment. It is always more cost effective to buy infantry rifles and armor for a group of guys, since they will have more available attacks when combined, and therefore will always win in equivalent cost matchups.

[cornholioprime]

This is all to be expected! Remember, Rifts states frequently that a warrior in MDC armor carrying a laser rifle, is the equivalent of a tank!

I've made the comment before that if by some miracle, somebody could come up with a way to give your typical grunt a hand held rifle with the firepower of the 120 mm main gun of a M1A1 tank, and at the same time outfit him with armor with nearly the same protection as 2 inches of tank battle armor all at the fraction of the cost, well then tanks would become obsolete mighty darn quick. Of course, by current tech, they can't. That's why we still have tanks.

OK, back to Rifts. The most cost effective solution available to the CS would have to be skelebots. For the cost of a single UAR-1 Enforcer, you can build 9 skelebots. OK, so they can't fire medium-range missiles, but for the same cost you get 9 low-profile targets, no loss of human life, and a combat unit with a combined 45 attacks per melee doing 4D6 MD damage per attack and a combined MDC of 1170. It's like Astroboy, the smaller you make the robot, apparently, the more powerful it is. I'd really like to see the stats for one of the nanites in the IRMSS kit.

Seriously though. There is no conceivable reason to sink millions of credits into giant combat robots in Rifts, considering the return on the investment. It is always more cost effective to buy infantry rifles and armor for a group of guys, since they will have more available attacks when combined, and therefore will always win in equivalent cost matchups.

All well and good...but like the man says:

Chicks..dig...Giant Robots!!!
You...dig...Giant Robots!!!
I...dig...Giant Robots!!!
We...dig...Giant Robots!!!!

[Kelorin]

This is all to be expected! Remember, Rifts states frequently that a warrior in MDC armor carrying a laser rifle, is the equivalent of a tank!

I've made the comment before that if by some miracle, somebody could come up with a way to give your typical grunt a hand held rifle with the firepower of the 120 mm main gun of a M1A1 tank, and at the same time outfit him with armor with nearly the same protection as 2 inches of tank battle armor all at the fraction of the cost, well then tanks would become obsolete mighty darn quick. Of course, by current tech, they can't. That's why we still have tanks.

But couldn't you use that same technology and build a better tank?

One would think so, but using Rifts as an example, apparently not.

[Jefffar]

Well if the tanks and robots had stats that reflected their relative strenghts and weaknesses . . . well maybe chicks would dig giant robots but tanks would blow those giant robots into itty bitty pieces.

[The Beast]

The main book is set in 104 PA, Tolkeen fell in 109 PA. The WWII analogy is appropriate but has a few flaws, as arrisa65 pointed out already

My Mainbook says the present time is 101 PA

Mine too.

Maybe it's another one of those things Palladium likes to change.