Forums of the Megaverse®

Contragravity is basically the defining technology (separate from magic, psionics and superpowers) of the Three Galaxies. If you read through the books it is main form of propulsion for land vehicles, air vehicles, and spacecraft but it is also present on most cargo containers (DB 6: Three Galaxies, page 159-160) for ease of movement.

Now I don't think there is anything in the books about this but in your games, or just your opinion, would the major civilizations of the Three Galaxies, like the CCW and TGE, make use of older tech for any reason.

- Would CAF or Imperial Legion have tracked tanks or wheeled IFV's?
- Would you see regular cars and motorcycles in CCW cities
- Ships with rotating sections for gravity, would you see an O'neill cylinder in orbit around a TGE planet

I know there are a few hover tanks so we can probably assume there are regular hover vehicles/cycles but would we see any of this older tech or would it all be replaced.

In my games I have outer colonies and independent systems use these but I have never used them for the major civilizations.

Warshield73 wrote:Contragravity is basically the defining technology (separate from magic, psionics and superpowers) of the Three Galaxies. If you read through the books it is main form of propulsion for land vehicles, air vehicles, and spacecraft but it is also present on most cargo containers (DB 6: Three Galaxies, page 159-160) for ease of movement.

Now I don't think there is anything in the books about this but in your games, or just your opinion, would the major civilizations of the Three Galaxies, like the CCW and TGE, make use of older tech for any reason.

- Would CAF or Imperial Legion have tracked tanks or wheeled IFV's?
- Would you see regular cars and motorcycles in CCW cities
- Ships with rotating sections for gravity, would you see an O'neill cylinder in orbit around a TGE planet.

Certainly; helicopters haven't replaced cars in our modern society, after all.

The TGE already uses conventional GEV systems in its Dark Slayer MBT, so they very likely use more conventional propulsion/locomotion systems for low-end garrison and internal security vehicles. Engineering vehicles, which need traction to push/pull, also most likely use regular treads and wheels, although the higher-end engineering vehicles likely are hybrids' CG to get places high and fast, then flop down to treads to dig in and start muscling stuff around.

Both the CCW and TGE encompass a variety of worlds, species, and cultures(the former as members/clients, the latter as slaves/subjects). They can't all be made into high-flying contragravity-using cultures* overnight, so local technologies survive(and in some cases thrive, as they can pick and choose what aspects of high-tech to apply; thus we might see ground cars with wheels, but light mega damage bodies and frames, and advanced fuel cell power plants). The CCW wants, for the most part, to encourage local businesses and industries to thrive. The TGE wants its subjects to be easily dominated and produce cheap cannon fodder for the legions.
There's also the matter of local conditions that might render contra gravity problematic, or too expensive, to use.

As for older pattern space stations? Again, depending on local conditions and budgets, it may be easier to build centrifugal gravity systems into a structure at the get-go, though as a culture advances, these stations will gradually become transited over to using increasingly cheaper and more robust CG-generation systems that can be replaced piecemeal as they need maintenance(whereas a massive wheel station may require laborious swapping out of bearing units, replacement of massive brake shoes, and lots of inconveniencing downtime to replace fatigued parts.

*H. Beam Piper makes casual reference in his works to the effect contra-gravity has on a culture; tall buildings with multiple landing stages become common, with air taxis and lift-shafts replacing creaking elevators and pipes. Civilization collapses back to the horse-and-carriage level, the massive towers become untenable.

I mostly agree with your conclusions, but I few notes.

First, there would be planets that are not part of either civilization or ones that have newly joined would definitely have tech like this. I am focusing on more established worlds.

taalismn wrote:Certainly; helicopters haven't replaced cars in our modern society, after all.

To be fair this is much closer to cars replacing horses than helicopters vs cars. Helicopters are huge, hard to pilot, and is very destructive on takeoff and landing. CG vehicles tend to be smaller, computer assisted / fly-by-wire piloting, and cause no physical effect to the area.

taalismn wrote:The TGE already uses conventional GEV systems in its Dark Slayer MBT, so they very likely use more conventional propulsion/locomotion systems for low-end garrison and internal security vehicles.

Like I said we do see hover vehicles and I think you would see inexpensive hover systems for as you said low-end details, but given the lack of mobility I just am not sure we would see them in the order of battle for any top tier civilization.

taalismn wrote:Engineering vehicles, which need traction to push/pull, also most likely use regular treads and wheels, although the higher-end engineering vehicles likely are hybrids' CG to get places high and fast, then flop down to treads to dig in and start muscling stuff around.

When I look at this I tend to go the other direction. I have been watching a lot of videos about installation of bomb shelters and assembly of pre-fab homes and when you look at everything they have to do to bring a crane in for what is often only a few hours work, I would have to imagine that the savings in transport would be worth having the CG. Also you don't need tracks for grip, just but landing legs on it.

taalismn wrote:Both the CCW and TGE encompass a variety of worlds, species, and cultures(the former as members/clients, the latter as slaves/subjects). They can't all be made into high-flying contragravity-using cultures* overnight, so local technologies survive(and in some cases thrive, as they can pick and choose what aspects of high-tech to apply; thus we might see ground cars with wheels, but light mega damage bodies and frames, and advanced fuel cell power plants). The CCW wants, for the most part, to encourage local businesses and industries to thrive. The TGE wants its subjects to be easily dominated and produce cheap cannon fodder for the legions.
There's also the matter of local conditions that might render contra gravity problematic, or too expensive, to use.

Agreed.

taalismn wrote:As for older pattern space stations? Again, depending on local conditions and budgets, it may be easier to build centrifugal gravity systems into a structure at the get-go, though as a culture advances, these stations will gradually become transited over to using increasingly cheaper and more robust CG-generation systems that can be replaced piecemeal as they need maintenance(whereas a massive wheel station may require laborious swapping out of bearing units, replacement of massive brake shoes, and lots of inconveniencing downtime to replace fatigued parts.

I think this is where you would see the fastest replacements of old tech with new and I doubt any civilization that has CG tech would ever build a rotational station or ship. Too much effort for too little savings. Now if CG was only made possible by some expensive mineral, like Element Zero in Mass Effect, then I could see a giant space station like the Citadel using rotation for gravity, but with as cheap as it is I would have to say no.

taalismn wrote:*H. Beam Piper makes casual reference in his works to the effect contra-gravity has on a culture; tall buildings with multiple landing stages become common, with air taxis and lift-shafts replacing creaking elevators and pipes. Civilization collapses back to the horse-and-carriage level, the massive towers become untenable.

This is covered in David Weber's Honor Harrington series covers this too. In that series the biggest changes caused by modern tech usually take place in the first decade with the rest taking no more than another decade or three.

Warshield73 wrote:I
This is covered in David Weber's Honor Harrington series covers this too. In that series the biggest changes caused by modern tech usually take place in the first decade with the rest taking no more than another decade or three.

The Graysons certainly caught up quick once they began getting tech help from Manticore, although their fission pile systems were advanced enough that they incorporated them into many of their ship of the line designs.

taalismn wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:I
This is covered in David Weber's Honor Harrington series covers this too. In that series the biggest changes caused by modern tech usually take place in the first decade with the rest taking no more than another decade or three.

The Graysons certainly caught up quick once they began getting tech help from Manticore, although their fission pile systems were advanced enough that they incorporated them into many of their ship of the line designs.

I was thinking more of the planets in the Talbot Quadrant after the new wormhole termini were discovered. Many, not all of course, of those worlds were described as rapidly modernizing and industrializing with help of Manticore after centuries of technological and economic repression by the League.

Grayson would be easy to write off. It was coming into the alliance right before a war that everyone knew was coming so you could imagine that Manticore pulled out all the stops. I mean one system not so hard. An entire quadrant of planets, most with populations many times greater than Grayson, that would be more like what we see with conquest by the TGE or induction of new worlds by the CCW.

The real answer is that it depends on how cheap and accessable contragravity tech is.

Sure, it's a gamechanger for spaceflight, but it doesn't really offer that much of an advantage for day to day life outside of hauling cargo and things of that nature. Hovercrafts, hovercycles, and jetpacks all bring the same benefits to the Average Joe, so unless CG is ridiculously cheap (or at least competitive), then people would continue using older tech. Nevermind people who just prefer older tech for one reason or another. Think the Amish.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:The real answer is that it depends on how cheap and accessable contragravity tech is.

Sure, it's a gamechanger for spaceflight, but it doesn't really offer that much of an advantage for day to day life outside of hauling cargo and things of that nature. Hovercrafts, hovercycles, and jetpacks all bring the same benefits to the Average Joe, so unless CG is ridiculously cheap (or at least competitive), then people would continue using older tech. Nevermind people who just prefer older tech for one reason or another. Think the Amish.

That was sort the reason for this thread. I have always used stuff from the Main Rifts setting, or even conventional vehicles from Robotech, for less advanced systems, but when I was trying to bulk out the main groups, in addition to creating more hover and CG vehicles, I used other Rifts vehicles with wheels and tracks for low end garrisons.

The problem is with as cheap and common as CG is, again see DB 6: Three Galaxies, page 159-160, with it being on many if not most commercial cargo containers I'm not sure that makes sense. CG may be so cheap and it doesn't seem like it has any trade offs with weight that any non-CG might just be haplessly out of date. So I was wondering if anyone had thought about it from that angle.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:The real answer is that it depends on how cheap and accessable contragravity tech is.

Sure, it's a gamechanger for spaceflight, but it doesn't really offer that much of an advantage for day to day life outside of hauling cargo and things of that nature. Hovercrafts, hovercycles, and jetpacks all bring the same benefits to the Average Joe, so unless CG is ridiculously cheap (or at least competitive), then people would continue using older tech. Nevermind people who just prefer older tech for one reason or another. Think the Amish.

cheap enough that they have jetpacks using it, and fit CG hover units into cargo containers the size of fridges. so odds are that it is quite widespread. but honestly, i could see it being more like in firefly, where you have antigravity stuff all over the civilize planets.. but at the same time, wheeled cars are still the main choice for getting around because they're cheaper and easier to build. (not to mention a lot safer of a driver screws up) though i could also see there being a lot of interesting mixed mobility vehicles.. wheeled cars that also have CG hover systems allowing them to turn into flying cars for example. (Delorean optional. )

A Wilk's Jetpack: 50,000 credits for an electric model (38,000 for gas-powered)
A Naruni Grav Pak: 190,000 credits with just one battery, and two batteries are "highly recommended" increasing the cost to 290,000.

A Speedster Hoverbike: 450,000 for nuclear (a mere fraction of that for electric or gas-powered)
A Naruni CG Bike: 8.6 million credits for nuclear, oh, and it specifically calls out "the Contra-Gravity system is expensive and not for everybody" to boot.

So, yeah, not really cheap outside of purpose-built cargo containers (as Warshield pointed out).

I stand by the inference of my previous post; it'll be common in areas where it offers a clear advantage such as spaceflight and shipping, as well as with the richer middle and upper classes or in racing circuits. But for the average person doing average everyday things, older tech would still be dominant, especially hovercrafts which do the same thing just slightly less well. Wheeled/tracked vehicles would probably be a rare sight outside of areas where they serve a specific purpose, like towing heavy farm equipment or something. The day the price comes down to the same as or is cheaper than hovertech, that'll change not long thereafter.

Think electric vehicles in today's world. They're nice and all, but they're way more expensive and less convenient than combustion engines, so the latter greatly dominates the former in most areas of use where they're just as practical. And then (again) you have people like the Amish who continue to cruise around in a horse and buggy for their day to day affairs, while others stick to bicycles, some to jet airliners, and still others prefer rail or sailing (both of which are quite dominant when it comes to shipping).

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:The real answer is that it depends on how cheap and accessable contragravity tech is.

Sure, it's a gamechanger for spaceflight, but it doesn't really offer that much of an advantage for day to day life outside of hauling cargo and things of that nature. Hovercrafts, hovercycles, and jetpacks all bring the same benefits to the Average Joe, so unless CG is ridiculously cheap (or at least competitive), then people would continue using older tech. Nevermind people who just prefer older tech for one reason or another. Think the Amish.

cheap enough that they have jetpacks using it, and fit CG hover units into cargo containers the size of fridges. so odds are that it is quite widespread. but honestly,

I think we need to keep two fundamental thing about CG in mind when comparing it to other forms of flight:
1 - It is reactionless. There is no massive displacement of air like with rotor craft or hover. This means I can stand next to a CG car as it lifts off and not get knocked onto my @$$ or have the shingles ripped off my house (true story I had a friend who lived out in the country and a life flight helo landed in his yard, the rotor blast ripped an entire section of shingles from his roof)

2 - There is no airspeed requirement. I can fly my CG car to 5,000 feet or 10,000 feet or just 4 feet and just stop. I do not have to maintain any speed or lift to avoid dyeing in a fiery crash. Not only that but at speeds lower than say Mach 1 I can stop instantly with no G-forces.

These two attributes would make CG one of the easiest things to fly, especially if add to it advanced computer controls. Imagine a crash avoidance system on a CG car that stops you from impacting something and you don't even get thrown forward in your seatbelt.

With these benefits it would be hard to imagine that if you had access to it that you wouldn't use it.

glitterboy2098 wrote:i could see it being more like in firefly, where you have antigravity stuff all over the civilize planets.. but at the same time, wheeled cars are still the main choice for getting around because they're cheaper and easier to build.

I agree and this is how I have been running it since long before Firefly. I just think at core worlds you are not likely to see any except as recreation vehicles.

glitterboy2098 wrote:(not to mention a lot safer of a driver screws up) though

I covered my feelings on this but if you account for advances in computer control and sensor tech at least as good as the invention of CG itself then a CG car should be far safer than a standard ground car just for the ability to stop instantly or avoid accidents in 3 dimensions.

Reactionless drives are simply going to be easier to pilot. Honor Harrington covers this in either Enemy Hands or Echoes of Honor where they don't use the gravity wedge, there version of CG, in order to achieve surprise on an enemy and piloting the ships with just thrusters is almost impossible. Imagine how much easier it would be to drive a VG semi vs a modern one.

glitterboy2098 wrote:i could also see there being a lot of interesting mixed mobility vehicles.. wheeled cars that also have CG hover systems allowing them to turn into flying cars for example. (Delorean optional. )

Exactly, where we're going we don't need roads.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:A Wilk's Jetpack: 50,000 credits for an electric model (38,000 for gas-poewred)
A Naruni Grav Pak: 190,000 credits with just one battery, and two batteries are "highly recommended" increasing the cost to 290,000.

A Speedster Hoverbike: 450,000 for nuclear
A Naruni CG Bike: 8.6 million credits for nuclear, oh, and it specifically calls out "the Contra-Gravity system is expensive and not for everybody" to boot.

So, yeah, not really cheap outside of purpose-built cargo containers (as Warshield pointed out).

I think two points need to be kept in mind:
A - These stats are for military craft which will be far more expensive that civilian versions. A base this on the CG for cargo containers being cheaper (just 3,000 credits for the smallest and 20,000 credits for a giant can compared to the 150,000 CG pack in the Phase World book that can do the same thing)
B - This book is for both Phase World and Rifts Earth, its premise is Naruni returning to Earth. In multiple entries it even talks about how repairing and maintaining CG on Rifts Earth is so difficult because of the tech base so I think this is just part of that Rifts Earth portion.

Looking at this it is possible that a civilian CG generators are cheaper and, with no moving parts, easier to maintain than comparable hover systems.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:I stand by the inference of my previous post; it'll be common in areas where it offers a clear advantage such as spaceflight and shipping, as well as with the richer middle and upper classes or in racing circuits. But for the average person doing average everyday things, older tech would still be dominant, especially hovercrafts which do the same thing just slightly less well. Wheeled/tracked vehicles would probably be a rare sight outside of areas where they serve a specific purpose, like towing heavy farm equipment or something. The day the price comes down to the same as or is cheaper than hovertech, that'll change not long thereafter.

I go back to what I said earlier, hovertech just isn't as good or safe as CG. The backwash alone is a problem to say nothing of noise. I'm not saying you are definitely wrong but the advantages of CG over hover are an order of magnitude compared to the advantages of hover vehicles over ground vehicles that I think your argument is better for that discussion than this one.

If you ask, are there still ground vehicles (wheeled and tracked) in civilizations that have hover tech than I say absolutely and in fact I think it would at the least be equal in numbers if not an out right advantage for ground vehicles.

Hover has real problems in piloting, the disruption of the blast of air needed to keep it aloft, the noise and the very real weight limits it likely has. In some ways I feel that CG would replace hover vehicles before it replaces ground vehicles, especially for civilians.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Think electric vehicles in today's world. They're nice and all, but they're way more expensive and less convenient than combustion engines, so the latter greatly dominates the former in most areas of use where they're just as practical. And then (again) you have people like the Amish who continue to cruise around in a horse and buggy for their day to day affairs, while others stick to bicycles, some to jet airliners, and still others prefer rail or sailing (both of which are quite dominant when it comes to shipping).

This isn't a good comparison for a number of reasons but the biggest is electric vehicles do not provide the ability to fly or travel 3 to 10 times faster than a combustion car.

Now I agree that there will be groups that want, for whatever reason to stay with older technologies but that is largely irrelevant to this conversation. I mean I live in the most populous city in Texas of all places and the only time a horse is allowed on the road here is right before the Rodeo. So yes there may indeed by wheeled vehicles in a major city on Tera Prime but it is likely to be some rich guys toy and probably banned from most roads, like the horse is here. The stuff about shipping makes no sense as the one thing we know from the books is CG dominates shipping at most levels.

Warshield73 wrote:I think we need to keep two fundamental thing about CG in mind when comparing it to other forms of flight:
1 - It is reactionless. There is no massive displacement of air like with rotor craft or hover. This means I can stand next to a CG car as it lifts off and not get knocked onto my @$$ or have the shingles ripped off my house (true story I had a friend who lived out in the country and a life flight helo landed in his yard, the rotor blast ripped an entire section of shingles from his roof)

2 - There is no airspeed requirement. I can fly my CG car to 5,000 feet or 10,000 feet or just 4 feet and just stop. I do not have to maintain any speed or lift to avoid dyeing in a fiery crash. Not only that but at speeds lower than say Mach 1 I can stop instantly with no G-forces.

No one's saying it doesn't have its perks.

What some (myself especially) are saying is that the perks it has isn't enough to demand paying ridiculous amounts of credits over something more affordable that does the same job you need 99.99% of the time.

These two attributes would make CG one of the easiest things to fly, especially if add to it advanced computer controls. Imagine a crash avoidance system on a CG car that stops you from impacting something and you don't even get thrown forward in your seatbelt.

And again, no one's saying it's not going to be popular and in-demand in certain aspects of society. But you don't need a 10 million credit bike to go grocery shopping.

With these benefits it would be hard to imagine that if you had access to it that you wouldn't use it.

It would if it cost 10 million credits vs. that 90,000 credit vehicle sitting right next to it. Even if it was only 1/10th the cost you'd still be able to buy a fleet of the cheaper ones that do the same job you need it to do in your everyday life.

I think two points need to be kept in mind:
A - These stats are for military craft which will be far more expensive that civilian versions. A base this on the CG for cargo containers being cheaper (just 3,000 credits for the smallest and 20,000 credits for a giant can compared to the 150,000 CG pack in the Phase World book that can do the same thing)
B - This book is for both Phase World and Rifts Earth, its premise is Naruni returning to Earth. In multiple entries it even talks about how repairing and maintaining CG on Rifts Earth is so difficult because of the tech base so I think this is just part of that Rifts Earth portion.

Nope, they're the closest equivalences (and only equivalences) to their hovertech counterparts.

And again, I pointed out that purpose-built cargo containers were an exception to the costs. No one's arguing that. But that tech is completely different from those used for moving people around; a barebones system only good for making a crate weigh less so that it's easier to move does not equal a vehicle designed to carry people around town.

I go back to what I said earlier, hovertech just isn't as good or safe as CG.

It's every bit as good and safe as CG is under normal, every day circumstances. John Smith doesn't need to travel at Mach 8 when he's going to pick his kid up from school. Nor does he have to hover silently a half mile above the street when he decides to take the wife out for dinner.

The backwash alone is a problem to say nothing of noise. I'm not saying you are definitely wrong but the advantages of CG over hover are an order of magnitude compared to the advantages of hover vehicles over ground vehicles that I think your argument is better for that discussion than this one.

Wait, seriously? You think contra-gravity vehicle's advantages over hovercrafts and traditional jets is an "order of magnitude" over those of hovercraft over ground vehicles? That's, well I don't mean to be rude, but that's crazy.

This isn't a good comparison for a number of reasons but the biggest is electric vehicles do not provide the ability to fly or travel 3 to 10 times faster than a combustion car.

Mea culpa. I didn't realize Ted Johnson had to travel 650mph when he's needs to go to the barbershop or to go catch a movie at the cineplex. Silly me. And he totally has millions upon millions of credits to throw around for that privilege.

As I said before, once the price point for CG comes down to be competitive, it would definitely replace hovertech and other modes of propulsion a handful of years later. As it stands, that's not the case in the Megaverse, at least not as presented in the books. Hovertech is going to reign supreme in the day-to-day lives of most people, with CG only being used in specialty fields or by those rich enough to afford it.

Now if YOU want CG tech to be dirt cheap in YOUR take of the setting, and it's been that way for decades at the very least, then hell yes, it would definitely have become mainstream across all facets of society. As it stands in the books? No way. The cost alone prevents it.

Before I get started I would like to say that my preference (if I was writing Phase World from scratch) would be for a more expensive and difficult to manufacture CG system. There is a reason why in settings like Mass Effect or The Sojourn Audio Drama where not everyone uses the magic gravity for everything. Those have minerals like Element Zero or Drift respectively that allow that tech to work that are so rare and expensive that they just can't use it for everting. This is why you have giant space station like the Citadel that relies on spin gravity and uses ME fields only to hold the structure together. PW does not have that. Again I wish it did because that would make it more interesting, IMO, and give one more avenue for conflict but it doesn't.

Second we have to remember these are imaginary technologies and all we can do is draw some basic conclusions from the text.

There is a lot of repetition here so I am just going to reply in broad strokes. Also, when you make assertions without evidence, in this case citing something in the books by book and page number, it really just gives no room to discuss as this entire reply appears to be nothing more than your opinion.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:I think we need to keep two fundamental thing about CG in mind when comparing it to other forms of flight:
1 - It is reactionless. There is no massive displacement of air like with rotor craft or hover. This means I can stand next to a CG car as it lifts off and not get knocked onto my @$$ or have the shingles ripped off my house (true story I had a friend who lived out in the country and a life flight helo landed in his yard, the rotor blast ripped an entire section of shingles from his roof)

2 - There is no airspeed requirement. I can fly my CG car to 5,000 feet or 10,000 feet or just 4 feet and just stop. I do not have to maintain any speed or lift to avoid dyeing in a fiery crash. Not only that but at speeds lower than say Mach 1 I can stop instantly with no G-forces.

No one's saying it doesn't have its perks.

What some (myself especially) are saying is that the perks it has isn't enough to demand paying ridiculous amounts of credits over something more affordable that does the same job you need 99.99% of the time.

These two attributes would make CG one of the easiest things to fly, especially if add to it advanced computer controls. Imagine a crash avoidance system on a CG car that stops you from impacting something and you don't even get thrown forward in your seatbelt.

And again, no one's saying it's not going to be popular and in-demand in certain aspects of society. But you don't need a 10 million credit bike to go grocery shopping.

With these benefits it would be hard to imagine that if you had access to it that you wouldn't use it.

It would if it cost 10 million credits vs. that 90,000 credit vehicle sitting right next to it. Even if it was only 1/10th the cost you'd still be able to buy a fleet of the cheaper ones that do the same job you need it to do in your everyday life.

There is no evidence that a civilian CG vehicle would cost 10 million, or for that matter, even 1 million. Look at DB 8, pages 70-75 we have one CG bike and 2 hover. The CG race with a high MDC and no weapons is 8.6 (on Rifts Earth) while the hover bikes are 3.6 to 7.3.

At the same time if you compare a regular jet pack to a civilian hover vehicle (I am using prices from Triax and electric to do the best apples to apples comparison) The Falcon, WB 5 pg. 38, is 46,000 credits while a civilian hover cycle, WB 31 pg. 80, is 20,000 to 25,000 credits.

Now that means with the only avenue of comparison we have in the books is if the standard CG pack is 150,000 credits, DB 2 page 127 you could expect a civilian CG cycle to be about 75,000 credits.

Really think about this the CG powered Silverhawk power armor with all its weapons, armor, stealth and god like powers is only 3.4 million and you are saying that a civilian grade CG cycle has to be 10 million.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

I think two points need to be kept in mind:
A - These stats are for military craft which will be far more expensive that civilian versions. A base this on the CG for cargo containers being cheaper (just 3,000 credits for the smallest and 20,000 credits for a giant can compared to the 150,000 CG pack in the Phase World book that can do the same thing)
B - This book is for both Phase World and Rifts Earth, its premise is Naruni returning to Earth. In multiple entries it even talks about how repairing and maintaining CG on Rifts Earth is so difficult because of the tech base so I think this is just part of that Rifts Earth portion.

Nope, they're the closest equivalences (and only equivalences) to their hovertech counterparts.

I have no idea what you are responding to here if you have a point cite it. If it is just about the cargo containers see below.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:And again, I pointed out that purpose-built cargo containers were an exception to the costs. No one's arguing that. But that tech is completely different from those used for moving people around; a barebones system only good for making a crate weigh less so that it's easier to move does not equal a vehicle designed to carry people around town.

There are lots of comparisons for CG to hover starting with the original CG pack and going to the cargo containers. There is no reason why a system that can move 200 tons of cargo cannot be used to move a car. You are basically saying that the jet engine of a cargo plane has to be different than that of a passenger plane without providing any reason for it.

You also asserted that the tech between the two is different but that is not described as being in any way different in any of the books. In fact it seems to be just a built in version of the grav pack with the same limits. A grav pack I will remind you can move 1 ton at 10 miles an hour. Now it might operate like the grav pack where it is weightless but inertia is still a factor but even then that means cut the weight in half and it should be able to travel under its own power at some speed. That last part is supposition but it has the benefit of actually fitting the text of the Grav pack, DB 2 page 126.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

I go back to what I said earlier, hovertech just isn't as good or safe as CG.

It's every bit as good and safe as CG is under normal, every day circumstances. John Smith doesn't need to travel at Mach 8 when he's going to pick his kid up from school. Nor does he have to hover silently a half mile above the street when he decides to take the wife out for dinner.

No, it is not. I already described above why it is safer but let me add this. If you are in a hover vehicle in traffic and there is a collision in front of you and pedestrians to the side you must break fighting inertia just like a regular car. You might make it you might not. If your car is capable of hovering higher than the vehicles or pedestrians are tall, and many are not, and you go over them you will injure or kill the pedestrians with just the jet wash or damage the vehicle.

Hover vehicles do NOT break physics. They are vehicles kept a few feet above the ground by jets of air and think about how much air needs to be displaced and how fast it has to move. This is one of the reasons helicopter rotor blades are so long. You can make them shorter and just spin them faster but at a certain point the rush of air with rip the body of the helicopter apart. There was a test of a high powered rotor system in the early 2000's where the wash cracked the canopy. Now this is not much of a problem for MDC vehicles but civilian areas have lots of SDC like building, trees, most vehicles (probably, in triax most civilian vehicles are SDC but we have no examples in PW) and of course people.

Now replace that hover vehicles with a CG and all those problems go away. You can stop instantly or move anywhere you want with no damage to anyone or thing as long as you don't try moving through them. Although an out of phase field would solve that too.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

The backwash alone is a problem to say nothing of noise. I'm not saying you are definitely wrong but the advantages of CG over hover are an order of magnitude compared to the advantages of hover vehicles over ground vehicles that I think your argument is better for that discussion than this one.

Wait, seriously? You think contra-gravity vehicle's advantages over hovercrafts and traditional jets is an "order of magnitude" over those of hovercraft over ground vehicles? That's, well I don't mean to be rude, but that's crazy.

Citation from the books? No.
An in universe logical reason? No.

Now you can refute this by finding any reference to a regular jet pack being attached to a 2 ton cargo container creating an effect that would allow my 80 pound niece to push it along as fast as any forklift today. Yes the difference is an order of magnitude greater.

Rude I don't mind, it's your unwillingness, or maybe inability, to cite something from the books (a Phase World/Three Galaxies book) that annoys me.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

This isn't a good comparison for a number of reasons but the biggest is electric vehicles do not provide the ability to fly or travel 3 to 10 times faster than a combustion car.

Mea culpa.

Should've stopped there

Crimson Dynamo wrote:I didn't realize Ted Johnson had to travel 650mph when he's needs to go to the barbershop or to go catch a movie at the cineplex.

No he doesn't. He also doesn't need to move at 35 or even 70 MPH either. He could just walk. It might take days but heck we have seen all over the world where a traffic jam can cause people to be stuck in the same place for days as well. He chooses to have a bike over walking, a car over a bike, a pickup truck/SUV over a car, because it provides a benefit in efficiency, cargo capacity or status. My old boss always drove a giant gas guzzling pickup every day just to go to work. He admitted he only used it as a truck, vs a really large inefficient car, maybe 10 days a year. My wife and I are just as bad as we paid more than double the cost of our Corola for an SUV that really is only necessary 30 to 60 days a year.

A CG vehicle would allow Ted to go anywhere, faster than a modern commercial jet, he wants to go on the planet without a TSA screening or needing to rent a car or limit his luggage. Why go to a Houston off Broadway production when you can go to New York for the evening? With a CG car the hardest part is getting the tickets. I live a thousand miles away from my family, do you have any idea how often I would take my son to see his grandmother if I could just load him up and fly myself? And if you think hover can do that I'm sorry it can't. In addition to the very low maximum altitude most conventional hover vehicles can not go over deep water.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Silly me.

Yes it is. Sorry this is cheap but since you are being so ridiculous with this I saw no reason I couldn't jump in

Crimson Dynamo wrote:And he totally has millions upon millions of credits to throw around for that privilege.

No evidence it cost even a million but if for some reason it did he could just take a $20 cargo pallet, put an old sofa on it and attach a CG pack to it. He would move faster than any car, ignore traffic and it would cost less than a luxury SUV.

Yes my players did this and it was a blast, the driver hit a T'Zee in the face with the sofa arm.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:As I said before, once the price point for CG comes down to be competitive, it would definitely replace hovertech and other modes of propulsion a handful of years later. As it stands, that's not the case in the Megaverse, at least not as presented in the books. Hovertech is going to reign supreme in the day-to-day lives of most people, with CG only being used in specialty fields or by those rich enough to afford it.

Citation? No again. It is available on commercially available cargo containers and is never once described as restricted or specialized. It also feels like you haven't read the books, the main races of the Three Galaxies have had CG tech for thousands of years. See the description DB 2 or the timeline in DB 13. In fact:

Dimension Book 2L Phase World, Page 153, under the heading of sublight Contragravity Drive wrote:Gravitonic technology also provides most of the thrust systems used by both sublight spaceships and conventional aircraft. The same technology that neutralizes the pull of gravity can also
generate acceleration in conventional vehicles.

You are trying to make it sounds as though the use of CG in the Three Galaxies brand new and highly specialized but the books make it sound very old and pretty...conventional

DB 2 page 70 makes the process of the Seljuk acquiring and mastering CG, for FTL even not the simple sub light version, as being easy and cheap. Now this was in the context of colonizing other worlds but that has to be harder than moving across the planet.

In the books there are numerous references to how easy CG is to develop once a species hits a certain point of technological development.

Every civilization that we see in the Three Galaxies uses CG. Even the UWW the only vehicles we have for them us it as opposed to hover systems. All these CG vehicles but in all the books there is only one hover tank. No conventional aircraft or anything. If it is in a Three Galaxies book (I will remind you that Naruni wave 2 is primarily a Rifts Earth book) and it moves it either walks (PA's and robots) or it uses CG. I would have done it differently but the books have it as very common.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Now if YOU want CG tech to be dirt cheap in YOUR take of the setting, and it's been that way for decades at the very least, then hell yes, it would definitely have become mainstream across all facets of society. As it stands in the books? No way. The cost alone prevents it.

My preferences have been listed multiple times and they are not as you describe them. You can find military CG vehicles that are incredibly expensive. Just like on Rifts Earth military or exploration hover vehicles are. But civilian versions are cheaper. But there is nothing in the books that says the civilian grade CG ones aren't common.

Think of Star Wars. Luke did not need that land speeder, a dune buggy would have worked, but the advantages in speed, all terrain capabilities and reduced wear and tear makes it worth it. All of this and SW repulsor lifts aren't nearly as effective as CG but they are vastly superior to Rifts hover systems.

Again all of this is based just on the books. I have vastly different preferences and a new book could come out next year that changes all of this.

Warshield73 wrote:Before I get started I would like to say that my preference (if I was writing Phase World from scratch) would be for a more expensive and difficult to manufacture CG system.

Oh nice, then you got your dream scenario in the books, where it is, indeed, more expensive and difficult to manufacture (as evident by its cost).

The books even specifically state so, WB8, p. 72: "the Contra-Gravity system is expensive and not for everybody."

Doesn't get more definitive than that.

Warshield73 wrote:No evidence it cost even a million but if for some reason it did he could just take a $20 cargo pallet, put an old sofa on it and attach a CG pack to it. He would move faster than any car, ignore traffic and it would cost less than a luxury SUV.

Yes my players did this and it was a blast, the driver hit a T'Zee in the face with the sofa arm..

My Laz-E-Boy armchair hovercycle is vindicated!!!!!

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:Before I get started I would like to say that my preference (if I was writing Phase World from scratch) would be for a more expensive and difficult to manufacture CG system.

Oh nice, then you got your dream scenario in the books, where it is, indeed, more expensive and difficult to manufacture (as evident by its cost).

The books even specifically state so, WB8, p. 72: "the Contra-Gravity system is expensive and not for everybody."

Doesn't get more definitive than that.

It’s like I already covered this,,,wait, I did.
DB 8 has a name “Naruni Wave 2” and it is mainly for Rifts Earth, with secondary for Phase World. You can tell because every main Phase World Book just says just Phase World. If you read Kevin’s description and the “Naruni Enterprises Returns'' on page 6-9 you can see that this is all about selling on Rift Earth. The CCW is never mentioned, neither is TGE or any place in the Three Galaxies except for a few characters being in Center. You can see references to Rifts Earth forces throughout the books but the best is:

DB 8: Naruni Wase 2, page 22 wrote:G.M. Note: Prices on Phase World and in the Three Galaxies may differ from those on Rifts Earth for the same product. Many are 25-30% higher on Earth, sometimes double or triple, like the Plasma Cartridges, due to the higher cost of doing business in a hostile territory and the fact that they are rare, trans-dimensional imports available nowhere else in the world. Furthermore, some of the weapons, gear and vehicles listed
many not be available to the Earth market, or in short supply at double the usual cost. Most Naruni items are comparatively uncommon on Earth and spacecraft are not available on Rifts Earth.

also

DB 8: Naruni Wase 2, page 82. Description of the Quad-Wing wrote:Maximum Altitude: Normally unlimited, but the Quad-Wing is specifically designed for use by Earthlings and has a fail-safe system that stops the wing from reaching any altitude above 40,000 feet (12,192 m).

Now with all of this, and the fact that in all the actual Phase World books there is only ONE hover vehicle, and that even the CG FTL drives are dirt cheap (a 1 LYpH drive for any size ship smaller than a Dreadnought is only 5 million - see DB 6 page 132) can we stop the nonsense.

You can not take one sentence, clearly meant for another setting, while ignoring other entries in that book, and say it overrides everything written for that setting in seven other books.

Finally, even if you had a point with this quote, and you don't, you can't refute one point out of 200 or so and declare "I'm Right!?" it really doesn't work like that.

taalismn wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:No evidence it cost even a million but if for some reason it did he could just take a $20 cargo pallet, put an old sofa on it and attach a CG pack to it. He would move faster than any car, ignore traffic and it would cost less than a luxury SUV.

Yes my players did this and it was a blast, the driver hit a T'Zee in the face with the sofa arm..

My Laz-E-Boy armchair hovercycle is vindicated!!!!!

I think a Lazy-E-Boy would actually have more style then the crappy sofa they pulled out of the apartment so yes totally vindicated and now I really wish I had some artistic talent because I would love to see a drawing of a Wolfen Quatoria and a sword wielding lunatic flying a sofa into a T'zee.

Warshield73 wrote:

DB 8: Naruni Wase 2, page 22 wrote:G.M. Note: Prices on Phase World and in the Three Galaxies may differ from those on Rifts Earth for the same product. Many are 25-30% higher on Earth, sometimes double or triple, like the Plasma Cartridges, due to the higher cost of doing business in a hostile territory and the fact that they are rare, trans-dimensional imports available nowhere else in the world. Furthermore, some of the weapons, gear and vehicles listed many not be available to the Earth market, or in short supply at double the usual cost. Most Naruni items are comparatively uncommon on Earth and spacecraft are not available on Rifts Earth.

9.8 million ÷ 3 = 3.3 million
3.3 million > 450,000 (or 90,000 since you don't really need nuclear for hovertech and I was just being nice by using the nuclear cost)

It's still an "order of magnitude" more expensive even if you go with the most extreme price change rather than the more common 25-30% (7.5-8 million) to double (5 million) figures. Hence everything I've said is still in effect.

Also lol at the "there's only ONE hovercraft in all the Phase World books!" bit. You know, versus how many comparable CG vehicles? So I guess by that logic there aren't any civilian/everyday CG vehicles at all, yeah? And out of curiosity, is there any reason why you didn't mention how much that one hover vehicle cost? It's piqued my interest now, so off to search...

Edit: LOL, there's actually quite a few hover vehicles, with most of them even demonstrating how much cheaper hovertech must be because they only use contragravity to assist or straight-up say it. Which is particularly amusing because the first two I found are in a field where one would assume they'd go all-in with the technology.

The Maniple APC (PW, p. 147): "The Maniple is a hover vehicle, floating on an air cushion and helped along by a contragravity system that enhances its maneuverability." Wonder why it would need the former if going with the latter would be so much cheaper and effective alone.

Then you have the Dark Slayer tank on the next page that specifically says: "The Dark Slayer is a heavy hover tank that uses standard air cushion systems instead of a more effective (but expensive) contragravity generator." Note that this is even on a military vehicle, where concerns over minor cost differences vs. effectiveness rarely matters. Even more daming, the Dark Slayer is 55 million, while the same book has a full CG hover tank and guess what it's price tag is. Hint: It's 150 million.

So yeah, there's two direct quotes for you now about how expensive CG is, and tons of implications of it. One of those quotes coming straight from the Phase World main book.

(Just so you know, you've convinced yourself of one thing and refuse to see or acknowledge the reality of the situation. Even if you try to pretend the reality of the situation is "secretly" what you wish it were like. It's really bizarre.)

First I want to say thank you for actually citing some things in a Phase World book. I know it might have been tough but it does make this a lot more useful. It would also be helpful if you read the preceding posts but can’t have everything.

Second, and I have already talked about this MULTIPLE times so I am going to keep it short, we have really crappy descriptions of how CG works in the books. Both FTL and sub-light. I have criticized both Gleba and Campbell for this. Both of them have created more vehicles for this than Carella and neither sat down and actually worked this out and as a result we get lots of contradictory information.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:

DB 8: Naruni Wase 2, page 22 wrote:G.M. Note: Prices on Phase World and in the Three Galaxies may differ from those on Rifts Earth for the same product. Many are 25-30% higher on Earth, sometimes double or triple, like the Plasma Cartridges, due to the higher cost of doing business in a hostile territory and the fact that they are rare, trans-dimensional imports available nowhere else in the world. Furthermore, some of the weapons, gear and vehicles listed many not be available to the Earth market, or in short supply at double the usual cost. Most Naruni items are comparatively uncommon on Earth and spacecraft are not available on Rifts Earth.

9.8 million ÷ 3 = 3.3 million
3.3 million > 450,000 (or 90,000 since you don't really need nuclear for hovertech and I was just being nice by using the nuclear cost)

It's still an "order of magnitude" more expensive even if you go with the most extreme price change rather than the more common 25-30% (7.5-8 million) to double (5 million) figures. Hence everything I've said is still in effect.

First, I am glad you have come down from your absolutely absurd claim that a civilian CG vehicle would have to cost around 10 million. We are down to 3.3 so an excellent start.

But, you continue to ignore that you are looking at 1 CG vehicle, made by Naruni with sales info for Rifts Earth, and comparing it to hover vehicles made on Rifts Earth. This is why when I did my analysis jetpack to civilian hover vehicles with CG pack to civilian CG I used all Triax. You aren’t comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples to orangutans. The Naruni Wave 2 book has hover vehicles with prices, compare those.

Finally you are still ignoring the CG on cargo containers and the price of the CG pack. Again if CG itself is so expensive then why do they have it on most cargo containers. If it was that cost prohibitive you would just have something akin to a CG forklift to move them around. You are also ignoring things like the Silverhawk with its 3.3 mil price tag or the CG packs. Again CG pack, cargo pallet, sofa is more mobile than any civilian hover vehicle.

Almost forgot, nuclear is not necessary for CG either. Both CG packs have battery options and none of the cargo containers have nukes.

I chopped this a lot so I could keep it short, I apologize if you think I took anything out of context.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Also lol at the "there's only ONE hovercraft in all the Phase World books!" bit. You know, versus how many comparable CG vehicles? So I guess by that logic there aren't any civilian/everyday CG vehicles at all, yeah?

I actually made the same joke about something else. In the Fleets of the Three Galaxies books we get our first mention of the atomiton wars and people in 3G not liking AI, despite the fact we have an AI race in the first book and an entire UWW planet of AI’s in the Anvil book. He said it made sense as there were not AI robots in the books so I said the Noro must have gone to war with there cars since there were no cars in the books either. Just found the symmetry amusing.

As for the rest of this, The Dark Slayer was mentioned in the second post on this thread and I talked about it in my response as well. It is the only hover vehicle and it is cheap in every way (no force field, small crew, mediocre weapons compared to the other two) not just hover.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:And out of curiosity, is there any reason why you didn't mention how much that one hover vehicle cost? It's piqued my interest now, so off to search...

It’s a tank with MDC armor, weapons, and missiles where I am talking about a car that might have air conditioning and since you are discussing PW I figured you could look it up.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Edit: LOL, there's actually quite a few hover vehicles, with most of them even demonstrating how much cheaper hovertech must be because they only use contragravity to assist or straight-up say it.

No there is one hover and an IFV that is described as hover with CG. In my experience 2 is a pair, not "quite a few". Now I actually forgot about the Maniple having this description because I usually just go by the stat block which is clear.

DB 2: Phase World, page 147, under the description of Maniple wrote:Speed: 200 mph (320 km) maximum speed. Can travel over ground and water, and can lift up to 20 feet (6. 1 m) off the surface. Its contragravity system allows the vehicle to float even higher, but every additional 6 feet (2 m) above 20 reduces maximum speed by 50 mph (80 km).

Now this one I missed because the stat block only says CG but I am not going to argue it too much because either of us could be right. This goes back to my complaint about not having a clear description of how CG works. We know a CG can make you move on it’s own, we have the CG pack, but what advantages do you get by putting jets on a CG vehicle? Speed seems like one but I doubt maneuverability would be helped at all.

Also if you look at the Dark Slayer you will notice that it: A) The Maniple, which is an IFV, is almost a better Tank than the DS, without troops. B) it can not go over water which is something I pointed out several times as an advantage for CG. C) is drastically inferior to the CG Phalanx. D) It has an incredibly vulnerable fan skirt which has no penalty to hit.

Seriously the book says 3 to 1 DS vs. Ph but I did let my players grab a captured Phalanx and ran it against 4 DSs to escape and it was a walk. They crippled or killed all four in a little over a melee so when you compare prices, and this is why I am BEGGING you to look at the examples of just CG generators we have, you have to remember that EVERYTHING in the CG Phalanx is better than the Dark Slayer, not just CG vs hover.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Which is particularly amusing because the first two I found are in a field where one would assume they'd go all-in with the technology.

The Maniple APC (PW, p. 147): "The Maniple is a hover vehicle, floating on an air cushion and helped along by a contragravity system that enhances its maneuverability." Wonder why it would need the former if going with the latter would be so much cheaper and effective alone.

Covered most of this above but you also missed the fact that the Maniple has no description for a fan skirt or hover jets. This goes back to what I said about CG and the vehicles associated with it being ill defined. The DS has a fan skirt and The Phalanx specifically says that it does not have a fan skirt or hover thrusters. Also, the Daark Slayer specifically says, under class that it is a “Main Battle Tank (hover)” where the others do not say CG or CG/Hover. This to me says they are trying to set it apart.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Then you have the Dark Slayer tank on the next page that specifically says: "The Dark Slayer is a heavy hover tank that uses standard air cushion systems instead of a more effective (but expensive) contragravity generator."
I already covered this above but I will, and already have many times, stipulated that CG should be more expensive than hover. The question is how much and again your assertion that a civilian CG vehicle would have to cost 10 million was ridiculous.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Note that this is even on a military vehicle, where concerns over minor cost differences vs. effectiveness rarely matters.

If you think this then I know a few dozen marines who would love to have a chat with you. Yes in high price assets where the makers can afford to bribe…I mean give contributions to those that do the procurement, yes price often takes a backseat to capabilities. But for mainline forces there is the concept of “lowest bidder” you might want to think about.

In a funny way this is kind of why I put this up here

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Even more daming, the Dark Slayer is 55 million, while the same book has a full CG hover tank and guess what it's price tag is. Hint: It's 150 million.

Covered above. You really need to look at more than price and CG vs hover. The Phalanx and Maniple are massively more capable than the DS, by every metric. They have force fields and it doesn’t so that alone is a big expense. See the whole picture and evaluate all the facts.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:So yeah, there's two direct quotes for you now about how expensive CG is, and tons of implications of it. One of those quotes coming straight from the Phase World main book.

Again, CG is more expensive, it is just not to level you had stated before. Look at my examples using the Triax materials, it is more expensive than comparable hover.

In fact if your first post had been this instead of the nonsense that was posted I probably wouldn’t even have responded/

Crimson Dynamo wrote:(Just so you know, you've convinced yourself of one thing and refuse to see or acknowledge the reality of the situation. Even if you try to pretend the reality of the situation is "secretly" what you wish it were like. It's really bizarre.)

I am looking through all the information. You are:
- Refusing to evaluate the price of a vehicle in any way other than CG vs hover. Ignoring weapons, armor, force fields, even crew and troop loads.
- Never once refuted, with any facts, that CG would be a massive advantage over hover. I listed all the things, from the books, that CG can do and hover can not and it never seems to get through to you.
- You have never once acknowledged the cost of the Sliverhawk or CG pack or the cargo container or come up with one reason why those are so cheap, but a civilian car would be more inline with a military tank than a civilian available pack and containers.

If the way you describe the setting were in any way accurate the CG pack would be a minimum 3 million credits, the Silverhawk would be 10 mil just for the CG, and a cargo container with CG would be tens of millions and only available for the most expensive cargo.

Now a few more facts to help you along. The Phalanx, the CG vehicle, is described as “one of the oldest design still in use by the CAF” so CG for land vehicles around for a minimum of a thousand years so in no way a new technology that is just taking root.

Something else for you to consider Dimension Book 14, page 117 to 119 has two robots, a medical and mechanical unit. Both have CG and they cost 900,000 and 1.4 million respectively. Again these are robots, to help colonists, in the middle of nowhere, both with CG and they are cheaper than you think a civilian car should be. Think about it, they would have to have hover systems as good as Triax, minimum, and they choose to put CG on emergency equipment for colonists, in the middle of nowhere. This means it has to be available and not impossible or even difficult to repair.

I am grateful that you have stopped focusing on one line in a book that is not related to this topic, but it would help if you evaluated all the information and stop cherry picking just one thing here or there.

As for me, your opinion of me, I know you are but what am I. I have responded to your every assertion, most made without any evidence to support and offered evidence of my own, which you have never refuted. You focused everything on one quote from one book and then when that was shown to be irrelevant you just made slightly less ridiculous claims using one out of context quote (the DS tank is cheap for a lot of reason not just hover).

I ran, for more than 20 years, a Phase World game where most ground vehicles were tracked or hover. In an early Open House game that I ran the players hit a distant TGE outpost with only a few Kreeghor and the rest were either wolfen or noro I can’t remember. Not only did they not have any CG vehicles, the vehicles they used were TGE versions of the tracked Iron Heart tanks from Rifts Mercs.

I am telling you this because I want you to understand how I went from where you are to where I am now. I ran Phase World the way you are talking about because I viewed the cost of the CG pack as being an anomaly and I thought CG would be rare. This entire thread is me reimagining the setting because of the new material in the most recent books. Taking all the evidence, not one or two things. Try it. Or at least answer why CG pack, emergency robots with CG and cargo containers are so cheap but cars can't be.

Warshield73 wrote:I am looking through all the information. You are:
- Refusing to evaluate the price of a vehicle in any way other than CG vs hover. Ignoring weapons, armor, force fields, even crew and troop loads.
- Never once refuted, with any facts, that CG would be a massive advantage over hover. I listed all the things, from the books, that CG can do and hover can not and it never seems to get through to you.
- You have never once acknowledged the cost of the Sliverhawk or CG pack or the cargo container or come up with one reason why those are so cheap, but a civilian car would be more inline with a military tank than a civilian available pack and containers.

I'm not refusing any such thing. I had just been unable to find anything else comparable between two otherwise identical or even near-identical things (until now, see below) for the same reason you hadn't: Because they didn't exist for the most part. (Which itself infers that the technologies really aren't used in the same areas; hence my earlier assertion that it would only really be popular in areas where it gave a clear advantage that was actually useful in that field, such as spaceflight and shipping.)

I have admitted, repeatedly, that CG is better than hovertech in certain areas. In most areas of everyday life, those differences are just next to meaningless. You don't have to go flying miles into the air let alone into orbit when you go to work. You don't have to travel at Mach 8 to buy groceries. It's the same reason a cheap ass Hyundai Accent is seen on the road more than a Koenigsegg Gemera is; your average person doesn't need to go 250mph on a racetrack everyday in a grossly overpriced supercar. And as an even more appropriate comparison, it's why you find more people getting around town in a Hyundai Accent than you do a F-22 Raptor, even though a jet engine using JP-6 fuel has a "massive advantage" over a combustion engine using unleaded gasoline.

And I have mentioned--straight up admitted--that you were correct about the cost of the cargo containers.

Here's a few things you haven't really acknowledged:

"Contragravity" is a term that clearly covers a lot of different technologies, just like hovertech does (hover tanks, jet packs, hovercycles, skybikes, etc.). It's a broad concept that covers a ton of different things. Yes, you can put a grav pack onto a container to duplicate the effects of a CG cargo container. No, you can't use a CG cargo container to do everything else a grav pack can do. Just like you can't put a grav pack onto a tank and turn it into a hovertank, or strap it to an aircraft and claim it's now an FTL vehicle. They're all grossly different technologies. But this seems to be a concept you can't--or won't--wrap your head around.

And again, every single time the subject is broached by the rules, they go out of their way to tell you that it's more expensive than comparable hovertech systems, with the context being significantly more expensive (else they'd be using it instead, every time). Nevermind the fact that things like hovertanks are still in use in brand new modern, military vehicles in Phase World to begin with. That right there tells you everything you need to know about the two technologies. 1.) They're still heavily in use. 2.) The price difference between them demonstrates their continued popularity despite the potential (but relatively useless compared to the cost difference) improvements offered by CG. And 3.) Those advantages offered by CG aren't necessarily in everything.

Regarding the cargo "cans," they clearly just make the containers near weightless in order to make them easier to move around. They're not full propulsion systems, they don't go zipping around at Mach 11 on their own unless you strap some other type of propulsion system onto them, and you can't ride them around town as if they could. In fact, they specifically note that their CG just makes them float and easy to push around. The closest is the Super Can which is both ridiculously expensive on its own and it has to have additional tech added to make them into really **** vehicles. But by default, as their note says, they're "too big" even for full-sized grav packs and are typically moved around in microgravity via tug ships. They don't even come with a CG option in and of themselves; you have to jury-rig them into being vehicles.

But all of that aside, find two otherwise identical vehicles, show that they have similar (or better) prices for the CG version over a hover or even wheeled/tracked vehicle system, and I'll concede the point. But you can't find two identical vehicles, or when you do, they specifically mention and infer that the CG version is significantly more expensive. Even your beloved cargo containers do that; a CG micro-can costs 2.5 times more than one without the CG!

If the way you describe the setting were in any way accurate the CG pack would be a minimum 3 million credits...

Wrong. If "the way I describe" it wasn't accurate--and it is--a CG pack would be the same price as, or notably cheaper, than their counterpart. That said, thanks for bringing it up, I didn't realize Phase World listed their own version of the Naruni grav pack.

Let's look at it. PW p. 126. It's electric version (FINALLY, a CG system that doesn't imply it needs nuclear or better) is 150,000. It can go 220mph in an atmosphere with a range of 12 hours per e-clip. There, a perfectly normal, everyday item you might find on civilians who need to zip around on the regular like window washers and drek. Beep boop bop, then we have RUE where a Wilk's Jet Pack is available. 50,000 credits, 120mph, 800 mile range (or just 38,000 for the gas version which has identical speed and range, but sticking with electric for both). Does the grav pack have better stats? Overall, yep! Are those extra stats needed for your average person? Nope, aside for dock or warehouse workers arguably (and then only if they don't already deal with CG-enabled cargo containers)! But is it three times more expensive? Yep! And, you know, if we use your claims from earlier that every type of future tech in Rifts Earth is "double or triple" the cost it would be in Phase World, that makes the disparity even worse as the jet pack would only be 16,000-25,000 credits instead. (But I'm ignoring that for this as it's not even needed to prove the point.)

Between that and the cargo containers, that implies that CG is roughly 2-3 times more expensive than hovertech equivalences of the exact same thing that does the exact same task it was designed for, be it floating around or zipping through the air with the greatest of ease. That's more than enough to keep hovertech's popularity high. And yes, there are far more cars on the road that cost $50,000 than there are $150,000 ones. Way, way, way, way more.

This entire thread is me reimagining the setting... {purposely misquoting}

I am very much aware.

Phase World, p. 147: "...instead of a more effective (but expensive) contragravity generator."

That says everything that needs saying.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Let's look at it. PW p. 126. It's electric version (FINALLY, a CG system that doesn't imply it needs nuclear or better) is 150,000.

Finally(?)

Excuse me I mean FINALLY

I'm sorry man I have been reading your stuff all this time and taking you seriously and here this whole time you've been doing a comedy bit. Like performance art.


All mockery aside I was reading through your "response" and was not even going to reply thinking this has taken way too much of my time for no useful information or anything that might be charitably called insight and then you put that. I legitimately began to laugh. I actually had to leave the room to not wake the baby.

I am going to cover a few things here and then I am going to move on. I got some good ideas from glitterboy2098, as usual, and taalismn got me to rethink a few things on the reasons why CG might not be everywhere. For instance maybe the Kreeghor don't want every planet to be able to manufacture it so I figure the Kreeghor will have at least some hover designs for local production. So I am going to keep all of my TGE hover designs as hover instead of switching them to CG.

This discussion with you has blown past diminishing returns and now that you are outright ignoring what I say and intentionally misquoting me it has hit zero return. Feel free to respond though.

I am only going to quote a few bits and pieces here for context, since you don't quote much at all it shouldn't be a problem. Also, no book and page numbers here not worth the time since you've all but admitted you don't look at them.

Finally I did this of a 5 hour period between two baby feedings and his nap so if I repeat or misspeak sorry but not doing a proof read.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:I'm not refusing any such thing. I had just been unable to find anything else comparable between two otherwise identical or even near-identical things...

Yes you are refusing and you are fixated.

The two tanks are not identical I listed all the other reasons why Phalanx is better than Dark Slayer.

You compared a Naruni CG cycle to rifts Earth hovercycles and harped on that forever.

Why not compare the SilverHawk (3.4 mil) to the Rifts Earth CS Super SAMAS (5.8 mil) or Triax War Eagle (4.5 mil) if you look at this CG is clearly cheaper than hover. It would be grossly dishonest to do this but no more so then how you came up with your 10 mil figure,

Or even better in DB 2 compare the two TGE PA's. Warlord I doesn't even fly it is 5.5 mil but the Warlord II can do Mach 1 atmo, Mach 7 space and it is only 4 mil. Clearly the addition of CG to Pa's makes them cheaper, unless there are any other factors like weapons, armor, or the size of the pilot that might cause that difference.

I could do this all day. I even typed most of this out after you first brought up the Naruni cycle from a Rifts Earth book but I was trying to keep it focused on the only civilian items we had. The fact that you didn't even look at these show that you are blind to anything that does not reinforce your bias.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:I have admitted, repeatedly, that CG is better than hovertech in certain areas.

Nope, it is superior in every way.
Can you move a piano in your house with a hover vehicle without destroying the place? A CG pallet can.
Can hover go over traffic without damaging or killing someone in the examples above? CG can.
Can hover cross water? No, but the CG can.
We have no clearly defined weight limit but just looking at the Dark Slayer, which is the one thing in all the books you appear to have read, we know that hover has very low weight limits while CG, and see the Kartuhum-Terek on the very next page for this, appears to have an exponentially higher weight limit.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:In most areas of everyday life, those differences are just next to meaningless. You don't have to go flying miles into the air let alone into orbit when you go to work. You don't have to travel at Mach 8 to buy groceries. It's the same reason a cheap ass Hyundai Accent is seen on the road more than a Koenigsegg Gemera is; your average person doesn't need to go 250mph on a racetrack everyday in a grossly overpriced supercar. And as an even more appropriate comparison, it's why you find more people getting around town in a Hyundai Accent than you do a F-22 Raptor, even though a jet engine using JP-6 fuel has a "massive advantage" over a combustion engine using unleaded gasoline.

Everything you say here applies far more to hover than CG.
There is no practical reason for a person in any of those situations to have a hover vehicle over a ground car. For the great privilege of floating 3 to 5 feet off the road you get greater cost, more noise and massive air blasting everyone and everything around you. I mean my neighbor gets PO's when the lawn guy forgets to edge part of the sidewalk, can't imagine how he would react when every time I came home I blew all the leaves off the tree, flattened his rose bushes and blew dirt and trash all over his sidewalk and porch.

The one thing you have made me realize is that we probably wouldn't see conventional hover vehicles in lots of urban areas unless you assume that physics don't apply and the air they are riding on hits the ground and disappears.

The Jet engine is sloppy because comparing electric hover to electric CG the fuel (E-clips) cost the same and the range for CG is radically better.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:And I have mentioned--straight up admitted--that you were correct about the cost of the cargo containers.

Yes, you have. But, you then turn around and basically say that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of civilian vehicles while this single difference between two MAIN BATTLE TANKS is the definitive proof that the cheapest civilian CG vehicles would have a minimum cost of 10 mil or I guess now 3.3 mil which is absurd.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Here's a few things you haven't really acknowledged:

Nope covered it all, read above.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:"Contragravity" is a term that clearly covers a lot of different technologies, just like hovertech does (hover tanks, jet packs, hovercycles, skybikes, etc.). It's a broad concept that covers a ton of different things...

Great job, you got me. The first thing I haven't acknowledged is the single aspect I spent the most time on in my last post including the second paragraph of that post. Yeah we are back to me thinking this is a comedy bit.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:And again, every single time the subject is broached by the rules, they go out of their way to tell you that it's more expensive than comparable hovertech systems,

No, it isn't. In DB 2 it mentions it like twice. In the next seven Phase World books, which are full of CG and no hover, it never even mentions it.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:But all of that aside, find two otherwise identical vehicles, show that they have similar (or better) prices for the CG version over a hover or even wheeled/tracked vehicle system, and I'll concede the point. But you can't find two identical vehicles, or when you do, they specifically mention and infer that the CG version is significantly more expensive. Even your beloved cargo containers do that; a CG micro-can costs 2.5 times more than one without the CG!

First the tanks you were comparing were in no way identical, second my silverhawk to CS/Triax comparison is just as good if not better than your original on the Naruni CG bike. Finally, I can assume that the Kreeghor PA's will be enough for you. Those are far more similar than the tanks right down to who manufactures it.

I humbly accept your concession. Or, and this is just a suggestion, you can look at the 4 examples of civilian, or in the case of the CG pack civilian available item, and work from there using examples we have from Rifts.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Wrong. If "the way I describe" it wasn't accurate--and it is--a CG pack would be the same price as, or notably cheaper, than their counterpart. That said, thanks for bringing it up, I didn't realize Phase World listed their own version of the Naruni grav pack.

Let's look at it. PW p. 126. It's electric version (FINALLY, a CG system that doesn't imply it needs nuclear or better) is 150,000.

Still gives me a chuckle. This shows that you have no real knowledge of the setting you are arguing. You said finally. Excuse me. must quote you correctly "FINALLY"
This is THE first book in the series. It is the first explanation of CG we get in the book.

It is the single most ubiquitous piece of equipment in Phase World with the POSSIBLE exception of the metal spray.

The book was published in 1994, 10 years before DB8, you know the book you built your entire original argument around, I mean before you decided that MBTs were the same as civilian cars.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:It can go 220mph in an atmosphere with a range of 12 hours per e-clip. There, a perfectly normal, everyday item you might find on civilians who need to zip around on the regular like window washers and drek. Beep boop bop, then we have RUE where a Wilk's Jet Pack is available. 50,000 credits, 120mph, 800 mile range (or just 38,000 for the gas version which has identical speed and range, but sticking with electric for both).

Do you honestly think you can wash windows in a jet pack? Or move a piano? Really?

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Does the grav pack have better stats? Overall, yep! Are those extra stats needed for your average person? Nope, aside for dock or warehouse workers arguably (and then only if they don't already deal with CG-enabled cargo containers)! But is it three times more expensive?

Yes it would be around 3 times more expensive. I could have sworn I posted that already....Yes, I did

Warshield73, from the post FIVE DAYS AGO wrote:At the same time if you compare a regular jet pack to a civilian hover vehicle (I am using prices from Triax and electric to do the best apples to apples comparison) The Falcon, WB 5 pg. 38, is 46,000 credits while a civilian hover cycle, WB 31 pg. 80, is 20,000 to 25,000 credits.

Now that means with the only avenue of comparison we have in the books is if the standard CG pack is 150,000 credits, DB 2 page 127 you could expect a civilian CG cycle to be about 75,000 credits.

Really think about this the CG powered Silverhawk power armor with all its weapons, armor, stealth and god like powers is only 3.4 million and you are saying that a civilian grade CG cycle has to be 10 million.

So yes, you have gotten there. From 400 times more expensive to 132 times more expensive and finally to 2 or 3 times more expensive. If you started here we wouldn't even have had a discussion.

If you reply I would love to here your explanation of how the Silverhawk is so cheap.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:And, you know, if we use your claims from earlier that every type of future tech in Rifts Earth is "double or triple" the cost it would be in Phase World, that makes the disparity even worse as the jet pack would only be 16,000-25,000 credits instead. (But I'm ignoring that for this as it's not even needed to prove the point.)

The further I go into this the better I feel. Not only are you making me laugh but it is not just my words you ignore, it's the books.

I already quoted it so just look up but the Naruni wave 2 prices are so high because the CS, with help from other arms manufacturers are hunting them down and slaughtering them without mercy.

If you read the books it tells you that any common item, there is a list in RUE and it doesn't include jet packs or hover vehicles, can be 1/3 to 1/10. It explicitly says that this doesn't include weapons and other books put the markdown at 5% to 10% for vehicles and weapons. In one of the books it even says that a Glitter Boy is full price.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Between that and the cargo containers, that implies that CG is roughly 2-3 times more expensive than hovertech equivalences of the exact same thing that does the exact same task it was designed for, be it floating around or zipping through the air with the greatest of ease. That's more than enough to keep hovertech's popularity high. And yes, there are far more cars on the road that cost $50,000 than there are $150,000 ones. Way, way, way, way more.

And again, you are not dealing with the tech as written or described. CG is an order of magnitude greater, in every way, than hover tech. The only advantage hover has over wheeled vehicle is off road.

Again look at everything not one quote. That one quote doesn't cover 28 years and 8 books.

Look at the cargo pallets. If they make a dirt cheap CG generator that can just make 212 tons float like a feather, without I might add using any of the internal volume, then maybe you can make a very cheap CG generator that can lift a car to any altitude without causing a tornado under it. This is all I have ever said.

You can't even do this with hover because you need jets and engines which would take up mass in the container.

Look at the cargo containers, look at the 2 civilian robots and think, if it so expensive and unusual why is CG on these items.

Also remember what it says in DB 2 and 3 that people in the Three Glaxies, and especially the worlds I am talking about in the OP. people have a far higher standard of living and pay a fraction for necessities like food and shelter. Not just compared to Rifts Earth North America but to the NGR and even to modern Earth.

CG will not replace every land vehicle or every hover vehicle. But, on the planets I am talking about, the core worlds with cities of 100 million people (more than triple the largest city on Earth) most people who cannot afford CG vehicles will take public transport. Look at the description of Center in Dimensional Outbreak if you have questions about this.

Again, there will be a CG equivalent of a Ford Focus and an Escalade.
There will be a Mustang and a Lamborghini. Some of those will easily reach over a million and armored ones for VIPs even more. But there will be ones that. Some places, including the lowest levels of Center will not even have a CG personal vehicle, but most core worlds will be dominated by them.

CG is physics breaking, game changing, Clarke tech that may never actually exist and we know it can be cheap enough to put on a cargo container. Hover is something people are building right now and is just waiting for computer controls and power sources to catch up.

Now a new writer could come in and say, nope no civilian CG. It would directly contradict what is in the other books but that is nothing new. As it stands now though...

This entire thread is me reimagining the setting...

Changing someone's quote is cheap and if you had done it with my handle in the quote tag I would have reported you. At no point have I changed your words. Ha, I mean why bother they are comedy gold as is.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:{purposely misquoting}

I think we just found your new forum handle. Put in for a name change

Crimson Dynamo wrote:I am very much aware.

Now for this I can go with "Apparently not" or I can go full Vorlon and just "Of what?"

This is how an only mildly childish adult does it.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Phase World, p. 147: "...instead of a more effective (but expensive) contragravity generator."

That says everything that needs saying.

The average purchase price of a horse in the U.S. is between $100 and $10,000. The average price of a new car just went over $47,000. This tells you everything you need to know about why we still ride horses instead of driving cars...except we don't. It's almost like there is a qualitative difference between the two that transcends the cost being 4 or 5 times higher.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:That says everything that needs saying.

One line in a 200 page book which is one of 8 books on the setting. Thank you though for admitting you have no interest in looking at the entire setting.

For this Master Yoda really did say it best: "That is why you fail"

Warshield73 wrote:One line in a 200 page book which is one of 8 books on the setting.

One line repeated directly and otherwise inferred repeatedly and exhaustively throughout every single book in which the technology is mentioned, Phase World or otherwise. Every. Single. One.

Thank you though for admitting you have no interest in looking at the entire setting.

As mentioned previously, you've convinced yourself of one thing and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. You're the one at fault. You're the one refusing to see the reality of the situation. You're the one ignoring everything that goes against your erroneous view of the setting. You. This mentality is right up there with climate deniers, flat Earthers, and Trump supporters. All people who cannot admit they're wrong for Reasons™.

Contragravity is well out of the price range of most average people. Hovertech is still used everywhere and even in areas where CG offers a distinct advantage, even the military (which is admittedly absurd). Yes, it's relatively popular in areas where it offers that distinct advantage and/or with people who have the money to spend on it, but people are still using hovertech in those areas despite the superiority of the technology. That's the reality of the situation in the books, no matter how much you wish it weren't so so that you could be right on a meaningless message forum on the Internet.

You are objectively wrong. It's that simple. There's nothing subjective about it. The books are clear in that CG tech is absurdly expensive and out of the price range of the common person, and even the not-so-common person. Hover vehicles and to a lesser extent even conventional vehicles are still used quite extensively throughout the Three Galaxies.

(mage simply floats by the argument on her flying carpet...)

Just a side note. I always took the Naruni Wave 2 book prices to be quoted in Rifts Earth Credits. (CS/NGR/black market take your pick since they seem to pegged, which I find problematic to say the least) And I believe the exchange rate of Earth credits to Phase world universal credits (which is the credits price quoted in all the other phase world books) is 10 to 1. That would mean that an 8mil earth credit item sold at a triple mark up would theoretically only cost 300k phase world credits making it pretty darned cheap on phase world and in many parts of the 3 galaxies.

That doesn't change any of the quotes from the Phase World books that unequivocally state that contragravity options are more expensive--with the implication and inference that it's significantly more expensive--than competing technologies. Again, Phase World, p. 147: "...instead of a more effective (but expensive) contragravity generator."

Crimson Dynamo wrote:That doesn't change any of the quotes from the Phase World books that unequivocally state that contragravity options are more expensive--with the implication and inference that it's significantly more expensive--than competing technologies. Again, Phase World, p. 147: "...instead of a more effective (but expensive) contragravity generator."

"More" is a relative term that does not imply "significantly", it could mean 10% more or 5% or 10000000000% more. In and of itself without a basis for comparison this statement only tells us that we would have to pay more for contra grav vs Hover. This also leaves aside that more expensive within the TGE might not mean the same thing as more expensive to the CCW or UWW. It also does not give a reason why it is more expensive.

In the case of the phalanx vs the dark slayer though it is double the price. So no doubt military applications 500-1000 years ago, when the tanks were designed and built this might have been the case.

If you look at our modern procurement cycles of military vs civilian applications of technology and its relative costs, older technologies actually cost a lot more for military use than they do in civilian use. There are many reasons for this and I will touch upon this a little

LCD screens are a great example, the military used them first and they were much more expensive than Cathode ray screens. Civilian use was also initially prohibitively expensive. Now, over time civilian screens dropped significantly in price, but military lcd screens did not actually see very much of a price drop at all.
I am simplifying a complex issue that has many contributing factors but this might be one of the most important factors:
Once a system is qualified for military use, it is qualified as it currently exists. So the producer can’t, for example, switch to a newer cheaper generation of the same product. Which means prices would remain relatively static for military gear but not civilian gear.

In the case of the phalanx and the dark slayer having been around for so long with all the infrastructure and tech approved and stuck in place it is easy to see how they would not be indicative in any way of civilian prices.

Also military hardware is expensive because it has to meet very specific mission parameters.

Case in point is the US Air Force’s $7,622 10-cup coffee makers. It was a major news story and scandal back in the 1980s. re’s the problem. The $7,622 coffee makers were designed to be used on the C-5 Galaxy and C-141 Starlifter transport aircraft. These planes carried cargo, but also large numbers of troops. Cruising at over 30,000 feet above sea level they got cold, and coffee was an important item for both morale and comfort.

But even the best commercial coffee maker can not bring water to a boil at 30,000 feet in a transport plane’s fuselage. You need a vacuum sealed system with specialized heating units to boil the water to make the coffee. And that costs $7,622 a unit. Partly because it is a sophisticated piece of hardware, and partly because the manufacturer is never going to make more military than civilian coffee makers so mass-production cost reductions will always be less than civilian coffee makers.

Now if this were in an rpg sourcebook, I might write that having a C-141 starlifter with a coffee makers is more expensive than without. But this would not in anyway constitute proof that civilian use of coffee makers is similarly prohibitively expensive.
Looking at how cheap current CG for civilian cargo use is in the 3 galaxies, it is not difficult to imagine that military procurement and spending patterns vs civilian prices tend to follow the same trends.

stt1976 wrote:"More" is a relative term that does not imply "significantly", it could mean 10% more or 5% or 10000000000% more.

I'm going to stop you right there.

It most definitely does not mean a tiny fraction in context. Yes, the word "more" in and of itself could mean anything, but the context of it's usage--every single time it's brought up in the books--is that it is significantly more. if it was only a tiny fraction more expensive, the fragging military wouldn't be using hovertech in place of contragravity generators on their tanks. Especially when--again, in context--they also state, unequivocally and in the same sentence, that the contragravity systems are vastly superior. In fact, you wouldn't find hardly any examples of non-contragravity systems anywhere in the Dimension Books if it were only a tiny fraction more expensive anymore than you would find steam engines or rowboats.

Every. Single. Time. It's brought up.

Attempting to infer and argue that it doesn't mean that is completely disingenuous.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:

stt1976 wrote:"More" is a relative term that does not imply "significantly", it could mean 10% more or 5% or 10000000000% more.

I'm going to stop you right there.

It most definitely does not mean a tiny fraction in context. Yes, the word "more" in and of itself could mean anything, but the context of it's usage--every single time it's brought up in the books--is that it is significantly more. if it was only a tiny fraction more expensive, the fragging military wouldn't be using hovertech in place of contragravity generators on their tanks. Especially when--again, in context--they also state, unequivocally and in the same sentence, that the contragravity systems are vastly superior. In fact, you wouldn't find hardly any examples of non-contragravity systems anywhere in the Dimension Books if it were only a tiny fraction more expensive anymore than you would find steam engines or peddle-powered bicycles.

Every. Single. Time. It's brought up.

Attempting to infer and argue that it doesn't mean that is completely disingenuous.

Ignoring the rest of my post wherein I gave a systemic comparison and explanation for how military hardware is not necessarily indicative of civilian prices and only addressing an opening statement, is even more disingenuous.

Again, I say military prices are not necessarily indicative of civilian prices based on real world comparisons.
It could be the case that in the 3 galaxies this is totally not true and in fact the civilian CG cargo haulers are solitary outliers. But simply based on the information in the books, one could argue either way. There is nothing in the books that "definitively" proves it to statistical significance one way or another.
There are arguments that one person might find more convincing than another, but this does not detract from the fact in the absence of concrete figures from palladium regarding a significant range of purely commercial civilian use and or costs of commercial civilian CG that any direction a GM chooses to take is a judgment call and a "dreaded" house rule rather than canon.

stt1976 wrote:Ignoring the rest of my post wherein I gave a systemic comparison and explanation for how military hardware is not necessarily indicative of civilian prices and only addressing an opening statement, is even more disingenuous.

No, because none of that is relevant to either the discussion or the books/setting in question. There is absolutely nothing in those books even remotely suggesting what you're trying to state.

Again, I say military prices are not necessarily indicative of civilian prices based on real world comparisons.

And again, it's not limited to military products in the books. "Every single time it's mentioned" is not hyperbole. Every. single. time. that the subject is brought up in the books, it infers if not outright states that contragravity systems are signfiicantly more expensive than other available options. There are no exceptions. Even Warshield's beloved cargo crates are four times the cost of alternative options. The jetpack is more expensive than non-contra versions (even from the same manufacturer in the same book on the same page). The racing hover bike is also way more expensive than other racing bikes. Starships with contragravity systems are notably more expensive than their counterparts. At least compared to those not using even more sophisticated/alien/magical/advanced systems. It runs the full gauntlet.

As I said before: IF contragravity systems were ridiculously cheap or even competitive with hovertech or other similar systems, then no one would be using hovertech or other similar systems unless they provided some unique benefit in specific situations (of which I can't think of a single situation off the top of my head, but it bared stating). Just like how there are no sailboats, rowboats, or steam-powered automobiles. Contragravity systems blow all of those out of the water--literally and figuratively--and if they were only slightly more expensive, then no one in their right mind would be buying hovertech, especially given all the reasons mentioned earlier in the thread by people like Warshield.

But no, hovertech is found all throughout the same books that include contragravity systems. Because--as the text repeatedly states--they're significantly more expensive and out of the price range of most people, and even some militaries/governments.

There are arguments that one person might find more convincing than another, but this does not detract from the fact in the absence of concrete figures from palladium regarding a significant range of purely commercial civilian use and or costs of commercial civilian CG that any direction a GM chooses to take is a judgment call and a "dreaded" house rule rather than canon.

Again: The text directly tells you that it's more expensive. You and Warshield trying to pretend otherwise--or flat out ignoring it in most cases in this thread--is where the house rulings are coming from.

You're the ones making drek up to support your case.