Forums of the Megaverse®

Has it occured to anyone that a burst from a rail gun may have individual less energy than a single shot? They relie on electricity, each round doesn't have a pre-charge of powder like a regular bullet. Say 1 mdc per round - thats 1 to 40, or 1d4x10, which is the burst damage. I play single shots as having 50% greater range and bonuses to hit - makes a great sniper weapon.

Well, the problem I see with most of the arguments against what devo is saying, is that they aren't really supported by the rules. I mean sure it would make sense to give the rail gun the ability to spray, but it's not mentioned in the book. The Machine gun rules are used for machine guns that only have the damage listed for a single round. The rail gun has a listed damage for a burst, and it tells you how many rounds are fired, so to me it seems like it's designed to fire a burst at a single target (you gotta admit that firing 40-80 rounds in one action is a pretty high RoF in Rifts).

What I did (warning* house rule ahead), was to just take the numbers listed and cut the payload, and rate of fire in half. If you leave the damage and range alone, but cut the payload and number of rounds fired, then nothing changes. now instead of a 40 round burst doing 1D4x10, a 20 round burst does 1D4x10. You still have the exact same number of bursts, since the payload is also cut in half. Now when you roll 20MD, then you can say the hit percentage can be anywhere from 25% (5 rounds strike doing 4MD each) to 100% (all rounds strike doing 1MD each). The variable hit percentage makes for a much more variable degree of collateral damage to suit the GMs needs now.

Or you could steal the burst rules from the old Twilight 200 game: Roll 1d6 for each round in a burst, every 1 you roll is a hit doing the damage listed for a single round. The other part of the rule is to take half the misses and roll them again, each 1 rolled will hit anyone in or moving into the danger area that round. The danger area is defined as being 2 meters to either side of the target. While it is true that 40 is a lot of d6's to roll it would help bring the railgun up to where it should be.

thomp901 wrote:Has it occured to anyone that a burst from a rail gun may have individual less energy than a single shot? They relie on electricity, each round doesn't have a pre-charge of powder like a regular bullet. Say 1 mdc per round - thats 1 to 40, or 1d4x10, which is the burst damage. I play single shots as having 50% greater range and bonuses to hit - makes a great sniper weapon.

That's a very interesting theory, Thomp. However, you disproved your thesis yourself when you pointed out the range. If the burst has less power behind it per shot than the individual blasts, the range would be different for both. But given that it remains a steady 4,000 feet (for the C40R), that means that all the rounds fired have the same energy behind them. Still, good theory. I don't recall anyone coming up with that one in the pasts.

Dervish: CS Loyalist wrote:... Secondly recoil, rail guns don't have any. Recoil is produced by the explosion of a bullets propellant acting against the weapon, no explosion, no recoil simple.

Hate to contradict a fellow CS man, but you're wrong on that point. Recoil is produced by the energy of the bullet pushing along the barrel as it travels down its boar. You see, the energy of the movement of the bullet is distributed evenly between the bullet and the gun. But since the bullet only weighs 100 or so grains and the your typically modern day rifle weighs around 7 or so pounds, the bullet moves a lot more in poprotion to the gun. This proportionate movement of the gun is the recoil. Rail Guns are no different in this regard. It doesn't matter if they use a metal on metal EM system or a gauss one. The energy of one pushing on the other will cause both to move proportionate to their masses. And given the velocities of rail gun rounds, this recoil must be so immense, they must have some kind of recoil dampening systems on the weapons. Otherwise the things would be ripping a lot of arms from their sockets.

...if you actually measure the gun in the picture according to scale the gun fires a 50 plus mm projectile, which should do way more damage than 1D4 per round.

I really doubt that. Odds are the term "Rail Gun" is being used as a catch-all phrase for any EM propelled slug thrower. In all likelihood it uses a Gauss system where the bullet travels down the boar never making contact with the metal of the barrel. It floats on an EM field that gives it a good rifling spin and forces it down range in one continuous motion, not unlike a branch going down river. In this way the bullet would have a near-frictionless acceleration (baring air of course) and allow any number of other rounds be right in it tail in rapid succession, producing super cyclic rates and burst of 40 rounds that last for a split second. As such, the gauss field would take up a lot of room requiring that the barrel be much larger than the actual caliber of the bullets being fired.

Having talked at length with an elderly gentelman that worked for the Air Force conducting real life Rail gun testing, I've modified rail guns in my game. Instead of being multi-shot beefed up machine guns, true rail guns only fire one single projectile. Thus I ignore the single shot damage as listed for the weapons, and instead the single shot does the maximum damage. Basicly making most of the railguns into smaller versions of the famous Boom Gun. A SAMAS railgun fires a single solid projectile at such extreame velocity that it does 1D4x10 MD, and only carries 50 of these oversized rounds. Those railguns that are pictured as "Mini-gun" style are assumed to be advanced machinguns that are not actual Railguns at all, and thier single shot damage and everything else stands. But that's just how I run it. Keeps with true life physics and true life railgun technology much better than the books. IMHO

Perhaps I'm just forgetting it, but why hasn't the double burst ability of Howitzer Rail Gun on the Hunter Mobile Gun (SB1) seen wider replication? It doubles the damage a rail gun inflicts without a drop in accuracy.

Temporalmage wrote:Having talked at length with an elderly gentelman that worked for the Air Force conducting real life Rail gun testing, I've modified rail guns in my game. Instead of being multi-shot beefed up machine guns, true rail guns only fire one single projectile. Thus I ignore the single shot damage as listed for the weapons, and instead the single shot does the maximum damage. Basicly making most of the railguns into smaller versions of the famous Boom Gun. A SAMAS railgun fires a single solid projectile at such extreame velocity that it does 1D4x10 MD, and only carries 50 of these oversized rounds. Those railguns that are pictured as "Mini-gun" style are assumed to be advanced machinguns that are not actual Railguns at all, and thier single shot damage and everything else stands. But that's just how I run it. Keeps with true life physics and true life railgun technology much better than the books. IMHO

Yeah pretty much how I do it as well

another thing to consider is the effect of the ammo on the target. laser will usuall burn through, or part way, but they cauterize the wound too, wich if anywhere on the main part o the body could lead to internal bleeding or worse, but is pretty much harmless if any other part of the body is hit. however rail guns either punch through or stay in the body. this means that a) the character will likely be bleeding pretty badly b) have a large peice of molten metal sitting inside him or in the case of it going through the melted metal like the old metal slugs would warp meaning that while you'd have a paperclip sized whole in the entry point youd have a softball sized hole out the back. if the metal didn't get through the armor then the person has several rounds sticking out of his armor,(i once described a critical strike with a rail gun as the rail hit a previous rail that was in the armor and both went in different directions in the body....). so really, when you consider that samas wouldn't really just hover there shooting, they would make several passes on the targets at high speed, spraying the area unti a certain level of damage is done and leaving. the people they attacked will bleed to death shortly after.

Temporalmage wrote:Having talked at length with an elderly gentelman that worked for the Air Force conducting real life Rail gun testing, I've modified rail guns in my game. Instead of being multi-shot beefed up machine guns, true rail guns only fire one single projectile. Thus I ignore the single shot damage as listed for the weapons, and instead the single shot does the maximum damage... Keeps with true life physics and true life railgun technology much better than the books. IMHO

Question: Do you honestly think we have reached the apex of rail gun technology? Do you think that further advancemnts down the road won't permit a EM slug throwers to attain faster and faster cyclic rates? Remember, the tech in Rifts is a century more advanced than what we have today. I sincerily doubt that the unfieldable demo experiments we have in 2004 will hold a candle to the capabilities of rail guns circa 2098+ in power or rate of fire. It's a lot like predicting the power of computers from the standards of 1950 to today.

Dead Boy wrote:

Temporalmage wrote:Having talked at length with an elderly gentelman that worked for the Air Force conducting real life Rail gun testing, I've modified rail guns in my game. Instead of being multi-shot beefed up machine guns, true rail guns only fire one single projectile. Thus I ignore the single shot damage as listed for the weapons, and instead the single shot does the maximum damage... Keeps with true life physics and true life railgun technology much better than the books. IMHO

Question: Do you honestly think we have reached the apex of rail gun technology? Do you think that further advancemnts down the road won't permit a EM slug throwers to attain faster and faster cyclic rates? Remember, the tech in Rifts is a century more advanced than what we have today. I sincerily doubt that the unfieldable demo experiments we have in 2004 will hold a candle to the capabilities of rail guns circa 2098+ in power or rate of fire. It's a lot like predicting the power of computers from the standards of 1950 to today.

Well since I replied I prefer the single shot as well...

Nope...expect to see a lot more someday. I just prefer the single shot style. Blame it on watching the movie "Eraser" one to many times.

Dead Boy wrote:

Temporalmage wrote:Having talked at length with an elderly gentelman that worked for the Air Force conducting real life Rail gun testing, I've modified rail guns in my game. Instead of being multi-shot beefed up machine guns, true rail guns only fire one single projectile. Thus I ignore the single shot damage as listed for the weapons, and instead the single shot does the maximum damage... Keeps with true life physics and true life railgun technology much better than the books. IMHO

Question: Do you honestly think we have reached the apex of rail gun technology? Do you think that further advancemnts down the road won't permit a EM slug throwers to attain faster and faster cyclic rates? Remember, the tech in Rifts is a century more advanced than what we have today. I sincerily doubt that the unfieldable demo experiments we have in 2004 will hold a candle to the capabilities of rail guns circa 2098+ in power or rate of fire. It's a lot like predicting the power of computers from the standards of 1950 to today.

Well I would assume that rail gun technology would advance alot in the coming years. For example they would make the ammo somthing besides square blocks, which by the way is what they use now. As far as increasing cyclic rate, lets examine that a moment shall we??

A rail gun works by using a magnetic pulse that literally pulls the projectile down the barrol, OR, uses reverse pollarity and push's the projectile down a barrol. That's it in a nutshell. Now to actually work properly the first projectile will have to leave the barrol before the magnetics can start another series of powering up the electromagnets. If it doesn't then you run the risk of the first projectile reversing it's direction and slaming into the following one. Also remember that initially the projectiles are at a dead stop and must be increased to speeds well over the speed of sound in a very short distance, I seriously can't imagine future scientists getting over little problems like the weapon shaking itself apart as micro-seconds apart, sonic booms leave the barrol. The weapon itself has to be made of seriously tough stuff, but simple soundwaves can harm anything, especially if subjected to repeated exposure at exact harmonic time frequencys. Things like that have a habit of doing strange things, like liquifying the very bones of the user.

But remember!! This is just a game!!

For anyone wishing to familiarize themselves with modern rail gun technology, there are numerous sources online, including but not limited to:

Auburn University Rail Gun Project (which also has a useful research document, Application of Electromagnetic Guns to Future Naval Platforms on it)

RESEARCH, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A MAGNETIC MASS ACCELERATOR

Rail Guns: Technology and Applications

Temporalmage wrote:Well I would assume that rail gun technology would advance alot in the coming years. For example they would make the ammo somthing besides square blocks, which by the way is what they use now. As far as increasing cyclic rate, lets examine that a moment shall we??

A rail gun works by using a magnetic pulse that literally pulls the projectile down the barrol, OR, uses reverse pollarity and push's the projectile down a barrol. That's it in a nutshell. Now to actually work properly the first projectile will have to leave the barrol before the magnetics can start another series of powering up the electromagnets. If it doesn't then you run the risk of the first projectile reversing it's direction and slaming into the following one. Also remember that initially the projectiles are at a dead stop and must be increased to speeds well over the speed of sound in a very short distance, I seriously can't imagine future scientists getting over little problems like the weapon shaking itself apart as micro-seconds apart, sonic booms leave the barrol. The weapon itself has to be made of seriously tough stuff, but simple soundwaves can harm anything, especially if subjected to repeated exposure at exact harmonic time frequencys. Things like that have a habit of doing strange things, like liquifying the very bones of the user.

But remember!! This is just a game!!

You have many valid points concerning the state of modern rail guns, but who ever said that these aren't rail guns in name only? This game also has various energy rifles as well, but we would never expect to find an actual rifled barrel in the darn things, would we? (And let's ignore the JA-11 for now ) The same misnomer thing could be happening here with the so called rail guns of Rifts. In all likelihood they are actually Gauss Guns where the bullets never physically come in contact with the weapon's barrel, which would make it a lot easier to make it a high-tech machine gun as portrayed in the books. With a continuously flowing EM field inside the barrel it would be possible for the weapon to have several round going down the barrel at the same time, not too unlike the Metal Storm electric bullet weapons they're working on now.Your point of overcoming the sonic booms would still stand up here since I got nothing but techno-babble B.S. to cover that.

But let's assume that we are talking about actual true rail guns not too dissimilar to the ones they're working on today. Basically the way they work is a spark of electricity is shot down two rails causing the round between the rails to be accelerated forward via a magnetic force. So let's play a little what if game using the feasable possibilities that may come about over the next century. The rounds will have to come down in scale to make a man-portable rail gun a possibility. Probably making them more bullet shaped for aerodynamics and elongated so they fly like a sabo dart. So, with the rounds down-sized into something more manageable, a high-speed feeding mechanizum wouldn't be all that hard to make to allow the weapon to fire the slugs as fast as the EM gun can accommodate. With the rounds and feed taken care of, let's look at the gun itself. With traditional rail gun the round must travel down the barrel and clear the muzzle before the next can be fired. Other wise, as you pointed out, there could be a reversal of polarity between the two rails responsible for this function and the two rounds could collide, causing who-knows-what kind of damage. But, what if there were more than two rails in the barrel? What if there were a series of ten sets of rails running down the length of the barrel, each functioning on their own frequency and separated so they their electrical arcs do not jump to any of the other rails except their mates? If that were possible, then this next gen rail gun could have more than one round accelerating down its barrel at the same time. A great many more than one. And if that were the case, if the rifling of the barrel were good enough, the first round would create a vacuum in its wake allowing all other bullets there after to be accelerated in an environment devoid of air. And no air, no sonic booms. Only the first round would have a sonic boom inside the barrel. All subsequent round would have it outside after they clear the muzzle. And that is the last of the problems holding back the possibility of a high cyclic rate rail gun.

Now I'll be the first to admit, this all could be a flight of fancy in my deluded little head. But in my mind, this works.

[quote="Dead Boy]
You have many valid points concerning the state of modern rail guns, but who ever said that these aren't rail guns in name only? This game also has various energy rifles as well, but we would never expect to find an actual rifled barrel in the darn things, would we? (And let's ignore the JA-11 for now ) The same misnomer thing could be happening here with the so called rail guns of Rifts. In all likelihood they are actually Gauss Guns where the bullets never physically come in contact with the weapon's barrel, which would make it a lot easier to make it a high-tech machine gun as portrayed in the books. With a continuously flowing EM field inside the barrel it would be possible for the weapon to have several round going down the barrel at the same time, not too unlike the Metal Storm electric bullet weapons they're working on now.Your point of overcoming the sonic booms would still stand up here since I got nothing but techno-babble B.S. to cover that.

But let's assume that we are talking about actual true rail guns not too dissimilar to the ones they're working on today. Basically the way they work is a spark of electricity is shot down two rails causing the round between the rails to be accelerated forward via a magnetic force. So let's play a little what if game using the feasable possibilities that may come about over the next century. The rounds will have to come down in scale to make a man-portable rail gun a possibility. Probably making them more bullet shaped for aerodynamics and elongated so they fly like a sabo dart. So, with the rounds down-sized into something more manageable, a high-speed feeding mechanizum wouldn't be all that hard to make to allow the weapon to fire the slugs as fast as the EM gun can accommodate. With the rounds and feed taken care of, let's look at the gun itself. With traditional rail gun the round must travel down the barrel and clear the muzzle before the next can be fired. Other wise, as you pointed out, there could be a reversal of polarity between the two rails responsible for this function and the two rounds could collide, causing who-knows-what kind of damage. But, what if there were more than two rails in the barrel? What if there were a series of ten sets of rails running down the length of the barrel, each functioning on their own frequency and separated so they their electrical arcs do not jump to any of the other rails except their mates? If that were possible, then this next gen rail gun could have more than one round accelerating down its barrel at the same time. A great many more than one. And if that were the case, if the rifling of the barrel were good enough, the first round would create a vacuum in its wake allowing all other bullets there after to be accelerated in an environment devoid of air. And no air, no sonic booms. Only the first round would have a sonic boom inside the barrel. All subsequent round would have it outside after they clear the muzzle. And that is the last of the problems holding back the possibility of a high cyclic rate rail gun.

Now I'll be the first to admit, this all could be a flight of fancy in my deluded little head. But in my mind, this works.[/quote]

The multiple rails isn't a bad idea. And extrapolating on the vacuum principle would help to explain why you can't spray an area with railguns in Rifts. The vacuum keeps all the rounds playing "Follow the Leader".
That being said I still have rail guns shooting a large projectile instead of several smaller ones. The way I see it is similar to the US's move in switching the M-16 from fully automatic to a much more sedate 3 round burst: Why waste so much ammo that is costly with possible misses, when a much smaller amount of ammo usage is much more cost effective. There is a large study done on the Veitnam War that shows how much ammo was used compared to how many rounds actually struck. And since the rail gun technology was created during the "Golden Era" prior to the coming of the Rifts, I always assume the designers and manufacturers would have similar veiws as modern military leaders. "Less is More." Many peaple in the wilderness would also have the same belief due to very limited budgets.

Temporalmage wrote:The way I see it is similar to the US's move in switching the M-16 from fully automatic to a much more sedate 3 round burst: Why waste so much ammo that is costly with possible misses, when a much smaller amount of ammo usage is much more cost effective.

Looks like that opinion is being thrown out the window. Check out the new XM-8 which is slated to replace the whole M-16/M-4/AR-15 family in a few years. Based on the H&K G-36, this new bad boy currenly doesn't have the 3 round limiter in any of its configurations. Check it out HERE.

Shadow_otm wrote:Oh, I forgot to say something in my last post. Someone was mentioning sprays and bursts draining a % of a clip. Get a current copy of whatever book that is from. The rules were changed to make each weapon use X amount of rounds for their burst/spray so that it makes much more sense.

Say what? Are you looking in one of the actual core rule books, or are you looking at that Optional Ranged Combat Rules article in Rifter 11?

Dervish: CS Loyalist wrote:Rail guns are crappy because the people who wrote this game know nothing about real world electromagnetic weapons research. You need to change everything in the game in regards to rail guns. The range is pathetic, rail guns would be able to achieve tremendous range. Secondly recoil, rail guns don't have any. Recoil is produced by the explosion of a bullets propellant acting against the weapon, no explosion, no recoil simple. The easiest thing to do is either increase the damage or lower the number of rounds fired in a burst to say 10 or 20, creating a more realistic hit ratio. The C-40R should do a lot more damage because if you actually measure the gun in the picture according to scale the gun fires a 50 plus mm projectile, which should do way more damage than 1D4 per round.

Railguns imploy what is referred to a mass driver system, they would have tremendous kick.

Do you have a website or press release about "Modern rail gun reserach," never seen one myself. Besides, remember Rifts is a post apocalyptic game, one where the golden age of technology is 300 years past hence.

And Railguns are not crappy, 1D4x10 M.D. is an awesome amount of damage. People seem to forget that most suits of eba have between 60 and 100 M.D.C., 40 damage or 80 critically is tremendous.

There may be really powerful things in Rifts, things that 40 M.D.C. is piddly too, but its also unrealistic to finish everything in one melee round.

Not to forget the knockdown to the target caused by the damn things.

Shadow_otm wrote:Yeah, I have the silver book and I don't see anything about percents when it mentions firing in bursts and volleys. Furthermore when I look at weapons, like the C-40R, NG-101, and NG-202 (all railguns) They state how many rounds are used in a burst rather than a percent. I could check the GM's guid, but I'm pretty sure it will not have %s in it either.

Really now? Ok, just for perfect clarification, on page 34 (assuming the Silver Edition has the same number sequencing) under the sub-heading "Bursts or Sprays From Automatic Weapons and Sub-Machine Guns", it does not list Short Bursts using 20% of the magazine and 50% for Long Bursts, but instead says Short Burst fires X rounds, period? Are you sure you aren't reading the example that follows each of those for a 30 round magazine? And if you are reading and recalling that correctly, just what are the new numbers? I'd really like to know.

macksting wrote:I think the best thing to do would be to look at Rifter #12, or maybe just compare the volume of fire put out by a SAMAS' gun and its damage to a single shot by that gun and that shot's damage. A similar ratio can probably be attained, allowing one to tell how many shots are actually exhausted from a similar weapon for the given damage. Figure same number of shots for sprays as for bursts of a given name.

I recall one House Rule someone used (I forget who just now) that allowed a person to dictate exactly how many shots are fired in a burst and then use a die of the same number to determine the burst's damage multiple. For Example: If you fired off a burst of 8 shots from a C-14, the attack would inflict 3D6 MD times 1D8. Though this limits you to bursts the size of the variety of dice you have to work with, this isn't a bad House Rule. So go out and buy all those odd numbered dice that doesn't come with your traditional polyset to improve your options. I personally have a few D3's, D5's, D16's, D18's, D24's, and D30's on hand to cover whatever comes up in game. I haven't been able to get a D32, but I did invent a really good D14 that I gave to die-maker Lou Zocchi, (the man damn near creamed his jeans when he saw it ).

Jaguar Wong wrote:
What I did (warning* house rule ahead), was to just take the numbers listed and cut the payload, and rate of fire in half. If you leave the damage and range alone, but cut the payload and number of rounds fired, then nothing changes. now instead of a 40 round burst doing 1D4x10, a 20 round burst does 1D4x10. You still have the exact same number of bursts, since the payload is also cut in half. Now when you roll 20MD, then you can say the hit percentage can be anywhere from 25% (5 rounds strike doing 4MD each) to 100% (all rounds strike doing 1MD each). The variable hit percentage makes for a much more variable degree of collateral damage to suit the GMs needs now.

Aye. I have something like your house rule but instead of a rule I use Weapon Engineer skill. Payload stays the same.

Shadow_otm wrote:Ah, the idea of short controlled burst to increase your accuracy.

Remember though, Palladium does try to make use of real life concepts, and that's what they did with bursts and sprays. In real life when someone fires like that it usually is a small percentage that hit the intended target. Such firing is really only the best when you have targets bunched together... but this is how Americans go about it: Fire as many bullets as you can and hope one hits the target.

Oh it ain't just the Americans....it's every nation that can afford to supply its soldiers with bullets. Rebel groups are the ones that have limited ammo so they're the ones who have to conserve their ammo

Shin Kenshiro wrote:

Shadow_otm wrote:Ah, the idea of short controlled burst to increase your accuracy.

Remember though, Palladium does try to make use of real life concepts, and that's what they did with bursts and sprays. In real life when someone fires like that it usually is a small percentage that hit the intended target. Such firing is really only the best when you have targets bunched together... but this is how Americans go about it: Fire as many bullets as you can and hope one hits the target.

Oh it ain't just the Americans....it's every nation that can afford to supply its soldiers with bullets. Rebel groups are the ones that have limited ammo so they're the ones who have to conserve their ammo

Actually it is very true in the case of the American military because they are the richest and can afford huge amounts of ammo and have a large standing army. Countries that have small but modern armies (like Australia) learn to use smaller amounts of ammo in shorter bursts. The average soldier also learns to use cover, higher ground, flanking etc. more effectively because they have to to be an effective fighting force.

Did you know that in Vietnam Australian soldiers dropped and hid when there were American patrols around becuase their stray fire was too dangerous? That and their "shoot first and find out if it's an enemy later" tactic.

I'm not trying to disrespect the American military and those examples from Vietnam are more of a case of what happens when you introduce large scale conscription than what's wrong with American strategy.

That was just a large collection of mistakes. I finally got to hear what actually went on and why in my US history class in college. Before that all I could get out of people were their opinions on it. Not very informative.


As to the 3 round burst option, it's currently slated to be removed from most US military weapons. Why? simply because soldiers burn through too much ammo too quickly. You think you have X number of shots, and then click, click, click. You are dry. If you are on full auto, you know you are gonna be out soon, on single fire they are slow enough to count.

Yes I realize that most people are capable of counting by threes, but try doing it when someone else is shooting at you. Just try to do anything while they are shooting at you.

z0b wrote: Did you know that in Vietnam Australian soldiers dropped and hid when there were American patrols around becuase their stray fire was too dangerous? That and their "shoot first and find out if it's an enemy later" tactic.

Good 'ol Vietnam... not exactly America's proudest hour. There were a great many flub-up that made that war more unpleasent than it had to be, most originating from the White House on down. But on the plus side, if it weren't for the vast number of mistakes made during 'Nam we wouldn't have the ultra-awesome military we have today. Leson 1, use an army of professional soldiers, not a collection of hippy losers who didn't want to be there in the first place. That greatly contributed to the "Spray & Pray" tactic that lead to the statistic of only 1 bullet out of every 10,000 leading to a kill, as well as what z0b mentioned.

I'm not trying to disrespect the American military and those examples from Vietnam are more of a case of what happens when you introduce large scale conscription than what's wrong with American strategy.

No offense taken. As it was once said by a very wise man, "Defeat is more instructive than victory."
I think that was from Batman the Animted Series.

Two points I've noted so far, at least one has been flogged almost to death, but here we go...

First: Rail Guns have an obscene amount of kick...I've seen footage of one firing, it swung back almost 3 feet after it fired. We're talking a 300+ pound block of metals, ceramics and electromagnets hung in an 800+ pound frame on a skid plate (the frame moved back from the target almost 6" as well). Like I said...this one has been almost flogged to death. Anyone else note that this argument seems to reappear every couple of weeks/months?

Second: Lasers are not IR based. Unless, of course it is an IR laser. Even a visible light laser can cauterise the wound it creates due to the high energy levels of the photon packet. The laser transfers energy to the target on contact, and the energy is turned into heat IN the target (which causes the cauterisation effect, along with additional effects due to that heat). If this does not make sense, consider a sunburn - it is cause 100% by UV radiation, not IR radiation.

What about range? Most railguns have a range of 4000 ft +. That's almost a mile. The Boom Gun is 11,000 ft! With the proper optics & targeting systems.... pretty much a guaranteed first strike.

Dervish: CS Loyalist wrote:Rail guns are crappy because the people who wrote this game know nothing about real world electromagnetic weapons research. You need to change everything in the game in regards to rail guns. The range is pathetic, rail guns would be able to achieve tremendous range. Secondly recoil, rail guns don't have any. Recoil is produced by the explosion of a bullets propellant acting against the weapon, no explosion, no recoil simple. The easiest thing to do is either increase the damage or lower the number of rounds fired in a burst to say 10 or 20, creating a more realistic hit ratio. The C-40R should do a lot more damage because if you actually measure the gun in the picture according to scale the gun fires a 50 plus mm projectile, which should do way more damage than 1D4 per round.

Right, I haven't quite gotten around to reading the rest of this thread, so I hope that someone by now will have pointed out that Dervish here gets a big fat F in physics if he thinks railguns have no recoil.



Meanwhile, on to MY beef about railguns. Damage.

really, what the hell is the point having a railgun in Rifts when it's COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY USELESS. The thing weighs more than a hundred pounds, plus another hundred pounds or so for the powerpack, plus the weight of all the ammunition, and whaddaya get? Bugger all. The maximum damage from an entire burst at a single target won't be enough to kill one guy in medium body armor.

And as for being the machinegun of the MDC battlefield, forget it. The damn things have got no stopping power at ALL. Going by machinegun burst rules, the most damage you can do if you're spraying an area is single-round damage x2. Which means that if you open up with your average railgun on a platoon of enemy soldiers, you'll be able to achieve the-AWE-INSPIRING result of a small handful of them suffering 2d4MD.

I mean really, what's the point? Weapons in general don't do enough damage in Rifts, but railguns are truly the lowest of the low, since they've got more penalties than pretty much any other mega-damage weapon in town, and if you use them for what they were apparently designed for, they're laughably gay. And I mean that in the lame way, not the two guys having lots of fun way.



Rallan

Your use of the word gay in that manner amuses me greatly.

It's a word more people should use in that way. Screw PC, it's just such a good diss.

Shin Kenshiro wrote:Oh it ain't just the Americans....it's every nation that can afford to supply its soldiers with bullets. Rebel groups are the ones that have limited ammo so they're the ones who have to conserve their ammo

Actually, that goes directly against how Canadian Troops are trained. They're trained to conserve ammo (to a degree).

The only time they don't is if they can cons some Yank in the next bivouac to give him some extra "unaccounted for" ammo... Our kill ratings tend to be a "tad" higher too.

I guess it's a difference between "get 'im down and scared to fire, as opposed to wound a couple, and for eache injured, that's 4-5 fewer soldiers on the battlefield firing at you.

ACTUALLY...you still do have to duck the big guns.

After all, Just because your armour can protect you from the impact of the gun. However, if you don't want to be thrown around like a piece of paper in a windstorm, you'd best not let it hit you.

Massive kinetic impact vs a 200lb human in armour.
This equation results in said human rolling tail over teakettle for several metres and several seconds. (ie: loose initiative and 1 action...)

So, if you want a chance to kill the tank, don't let it hit you.

Bohica wrote:You know, that has always bugged me too.
There was a band a while back we went to see called "Baby Shaker".
Now this got me thinking that even if you are in padded, MD armor or strapped down in a mech, you can still incure severe injuries from being tossed around! To only loose init' and 1 attack is pretty wimpy.
Coalition Deadboy in EBA is rifted to a busy city where said soldier is struck by a bus! No MDC is done of course but the trooper would have some kind of internal injuries...They would have to.

actually, a bus WOULD do enough SDC to deal some MDC. (100=1 remember)

personally, I don't like the idea of doing that.

I say that the padding is enough that you take little actual damage (bruse is the most)

Bohica wrote:You know, that has always bugged me too.
There was a band a while back we went to see called "Baby Shaker".
Now this got me thinking that even if you are in padded, MD armor or strapped down in a mech, you can still incure severe injuries from being tossed around! To only loose init' and 1 attack is pretty wimpy.
Coalition Deadboy in EBA is rifted to a busy city where said soldier is struck by a bus! No MDC is done of course but the trooper would have some kind of internal injuries...They would have to.

Crash damage.

In 1 car colliosn there is 3 collisons going on. The car hitting what ever it hit. You hitting the car. Your internal organs hitting your ribs and other internal organs. You don't want to have a full bladder or full colon if your about to get into a car crash

Y'had to go an make me log on and do this... >sigh<

Esckey wrote:You don't want to have a full bladder or full colon if your about to get into a car crash

You won't have to worry about the full bladder or colon, 'cause when you see the tree approaching you at 100kph, you're going to take care of both in about 2.1 seconds BEFORE impact...


To quote a pain in the >censored< blond
"I did it again..."

I really have to try to vent my humour more often...that way I won't do this so often...

Bohica wrote:But in Rifts, the soldiers don't have to duck the big guns. They are no more powerful than the hand held versions. This upsets me.
Maybe vehicle guns like plasma, etc. can hit larger areas but doing the same damage.

Actually, that's not exactly correct. Most of the large vehicle and bot based weapon systems are listed with a ROF of "Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks". The thing is, that particular ROF is not, ( I repeat, not), what common-sense tells you what it is. If you'll take a look at the Errata section of this website, in the Cutting Room Floor, under the Rate of Fire file, you'll see it in black and white straight from Kevin Sembedia himself. That particular ROF does allow for automatic fire, from short, long to full bursts. So, technically speaking, and even though it's not as commonly known as it should be, those big guns that you scoff at are actually capable of inflicting 2, 3 and 7 times as much damage as you previously thought!

Dead Boy wrote:Actually, that's not exactly correct. Most of the large vehicle and bot based weapon systems are listed with a ROF of "Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks". The thing is, that particular ROF is not, ( I repeat, not), what common-sense tells you what it is. If you'll take a look at the Errata section of this website, in the Cutting Room Floor, under the Rate of Fire file, you'll see it in black and white straight from Kevin Sembedia himself. That particular ROF does allow for automatic fire, from short, long to full bursts. So, technically speaking, and even though it's not as commonly known as it should be, those big guns that you scoff at are actually capable of inflicting 2, 3 and 7 times as much damage as you previously thought!

Actually that's Standard rate of fire.
Equal to the number of hand to hand attacks is single shots or bursts if listed.