Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:34 pm**

As MorganKeyes said, check out world book #11, Coalition War Campaign. The CS got a serious upgrade to their armor and weaponry in that book.

Personally I don't mind the newer style, but I like the old style better.

Posted: **Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:10 pm**

New style armor sucks.
Old style armor was awesome.

Posted: **Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:51 pm**

Old Style Armor sucked.
New Style is Awesome.

Posted: **Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:40 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:New style armor sucks.
Old style armor was awesome.

Preacher wrote:Old Style Armor sucked.
New Style is Awesome.

Well, we were bound to disagree on something...

Seriously though, why do you like the new armor?
Why would you dislike the original?

The only (semi) valid improvement from old to new is that the new ones would realistically allow for more peripheral vision...
Or is it just that you think they look cooler somehow?

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:37 am**

I can't make up my mind.
I kinda like the new style better just because it looks... shiny.
The old style though... has sentimental value, also looks nice, and I like the lower MDC.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:04 am**

psionicninja2000 wrote:
Preacher wrote:Old Style Armor sucked.
New Style is Awesome.

I'm siding with Preacher on this one. The new style just has a certain "I am the bringer of your doom" vibe to it that I like.

Huh.
And here I thought the vibe was more of an "My head looks like a black egg in a white eggcup" sort of thing...

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:55 am**

psionicninja2000 wrote:
Preacher wrote:Old Style Armor sucked.
New Style is Awesome.

I'm siding with Preacher on this one. The new style just has a certain "I am the bringer of your doom" vibe to it that I like.

As opposed to the old style, which just screamed "I'm here to help and comfort you and mean no harm."

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:38 am**

I like elements of both. I like the helmet styling (minus the mouthpiece) and the spikes of the old-style. However, I like the "ribcage" and the sleeker lines of the new-style. The new Spec-Ops armor seems to be the best of both worlds. :ok:

The old armor has a more "retro" and evil feel to it, whereas the new armor has more of a futuristic styling. I do like the old-style skelebot better, but the new PA and robot vehicles are cooler than most of the older ones.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:26 pm**

Kikkoman wrote:Pretty much what makes the newstyle bad to me, the main factors are...
1) the visors. No visible eyes. Without the ability to have that 'skull gaze' they aren't as intimidating anymore.

The new armor can be just as intimidating, check out the cover to the Black Vault Adventure SB.

2) the colors, black and white. The bands of white on their armor are just big and.. gummy looking.

They look... well... skeletal to me.

the special forces armor... is it the one that looks like the old ones (no white bands, skull face)?

Yes.

'futuristic' style doesn't seem to suit the coalition to me, I think that'd be better for some other human faction that's organized.

Well, it is supposed to be their "new" war machine, thus the new look.

*have there been other changes that are notable? Do 'borgs still look like borgs/boomers, or have they gone through a change too? Cosmetically? Not really. Just a slew of new art (new GB types too).

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:06 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Seriously though, why do you like the new armor?
Why would you dislike the original?

The old armor looks clunky and is too bulky looking. The helmets always looked like they have a pacifier sticking in their mouth. The new ones look leaner and the skeleton motif is cool with me and more in line with how the Coalition should be instead of slow and bulky and clunky.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The only (semi) valid improvement from old to new is that the new ones would realistically allow for more peripheral vision...
Or is it just that you think they look cooler somehow?

My semi valid reasons are as follows.
They are lots cooler and not just for the better vision but more protection as well from 20 to 200 MDC to be precise.

And yes I think they look cooler and more streamlined and not so bulky clunky and pacifier looking.

The pacifier in the mouth always just looked kooky and took away from the dark intimidating look they were trying to convey.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm**

Having a pacifier to suck on adds +3 to your save vs horror factor...

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:06 pm**

The old armor (and vehicle) styles were ridiculous and ugly, IMO. Though I suppose the Spider Skull Walker incapacitating its opponents with laughter is a valid combat tactic...

The newer style is much, much better. Sleeker, sexier, less monstrous-looking (I mean, seriously, do you really want to look that horrifying to your own populace?) while still intimidating... and of course, I'm biased, being a huge anime fan. :lol:

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:09 pm**

Kalinda wrote:Having a pacifier to suck on adds +3 to your save vs horror factor...

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:01 pm**

I reckon the old style looks heaps better, much more menacing, the New style is too cartoonie and looks like some kid trying to draw scary skellies, and failing miserably, though the "pacifier" does take a little away, but I just say it is a small speaker.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:05 pm**

I'll tell you why they look different. Although it may get me a vacation from the forums.

Its because Kevin Long left palladium. His drawings had a harder edge to them. I liked them better than the new stuff. If he had stayed, he probably would have brought his style to the new equipment, and it would have looked awesome.

For those of you who have a wide variety of books made over the years, just look through them. You'll notice a definate loss in grittiness when Kevin Long stopped working on Rifts.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:29 pm**

Realistically, Long's presence is irrelevant. Other artists could have easily copied Long's designs in later books, and several have. Some of Larry MacDougall's art has been given the same treatment.

On the other hand it is certainly possible and plausible that the armor design was changed to match Vince Martin's drawings. It would not be the first time that his artwork served as the prototype for some change or new creation.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:56 am**

Preacher wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:

Seriously though, why do you like the new armor?
Why would you dislike the original?

The old armor looks clunky and is too bulky looking. The helmets always looked like they have a pacifier sticking in their mouth. The new ones look leaner and the skeleton motif is cool with me and more in line with how the Coalition should be instead of slow and bulky and clunky.

You have a point about the pacifier... I never really thought about it that way.
But it still doesn't bother me as much as the egg-head and the puffy white stuff on the new armor.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The only (semi) valid improvement from old to new is that the new ones would realistically allow for more peripheral vision...
Or is it just that you think they look cooler somehow?

My semi valid reasons are as follows.
They are lots cooler and not just for the better vision but more protection as well from 20 to 200 MDC to be precise.

I'm talking more about appearance. I mean, my characters would wear pink Plastic Man armor with a lobster bib if it would keep them alive.... but that wouldn't make it cool armor...

And yes I think they look cooler and more streamlined and not so bulky clunky and pacifier looking.

I feel the opposite way.
The new stuff has that gratuitous white crap all over it, which seems a lot less streamlined (although the egg-head is certainly more aerodynamic).
Check out CWC, p. 101.
The new armor has gigantic shoulderpads and huge knees. Especially the CA-6C.... sure, a borg could haul the weight of those massive shoulderpads, but why would he want to?
I guess that's where the extra MDC comes from... Maybe it should be listed as "Main Body- 100, Shoulder Pads- 100"....

The pacifier in the mouth always just looked kooky and took away from the dark intimidating look they were trying to convey.

Unfortunately, now that you point it out I am forced to agree with you a bit on this.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:28 am**

Qev wrote:The old armor (and vehicle) styles were ridiculous and ugly, IMO. Though I suppose the Spider Skull Walker incapacitating its opponents with laughter is a valid combat tactic...

The newer style is much, much better. Sleeker, sexier, less monstrous-looking (I mean, seriously, do you really want to look that horrifying to your own populace?) while still intimidating... and of course, I'm biased, being a huge anime fan.

I like anime too.... Good anime.

Most of the new stuff in War Campaign looks like a caricture of a gun-bunny's dream... you know, someone/something so overloaded with gratuitous weaponry that he/it immediately falls over backwards.
The original Abolisher was bad about being top-heavy, but even it is better than some of the stuff in CWC.
The proportions are all wrong for the body armor:
- Stupidly huge shoulder pads and knees.
- Wasp-waists of near Liefieldian quality (or lack thereof).
- WAY too many weapons systems. Not that the new stuff has much mroe than the old stuff, just that the older stuff was sleeker and one heck of a lot less obtrusive in the weaponry.

As for the Skull Walker, I have to say "!??!???"
Have you seen the Scout Walker and the Scorpian Walker in CWC...?

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:24 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Qev wrote:The old armor (and vehicle) styles were ridiculous and ugly, IMO. Though I suppose the Spider Skull Walker incapacitating its opponents with laughter is a valid combat tactic...

The newer style is much, much better. Sleeker, sexier, less monstrous-looking (I mean, seriously, do you really want to look that horrifying to your own populace?) while still intimidating... and of course, I'm biased, being a huge anime fan.

I like anime too.... Good anime.

Most of the new stuff in War Campaign looks like a caricture of a gun-bunny's dream... you know, someone/something so overloaded with gratuitous weaponry that he/it immediately falls over backwards.
The original Abolisher was bad about being top-heavy, but even it is better than some of the stuff in CWC.
The proportions are all wrong for the body armor:
- Stupidly huge shoulder pads and knees.
- Wasp-waists of near Liefieldian quality (or lack thereof).
- WAY too many weapons systems. Not that the new stuff has much mroe than the old stuff, just that the older stuff was sleeker and one heck of a lot less obtrusive in the weaponry.

As for the Skull Walker, I have to say "!??!???"
Have you seen the Scout Walker and the Scorpian Walker in CWC...?

Hahahaha, the old Spider Skull Walker definitely looks terrible (but it's a very good robot, stat-wise). I remember showing my group one of them during an encounter, it was creaking up in the middle of a fight, and they through it sounded like a bunch of smaller robots... they were all getting aprehensive; and then, one of those goofy looking things explodes through a building and starts attacking them. Usually, when I show them a picture of their major enemies (like a Skull Smasher or a UAR Enforcer back in the day), they cringe and get intimidated (my players don't know their CS stats well... they go by appearance). When they saw the Spider-Skull Walker, they just kind of raised their eyebrows... and one player actually said 'What the hell is that supposed to be?'

The new machine, the Scout Walker, looks awesome. I think the fact it actually has some colour variation goes a long way.

Overall, I definitely prefer the new style armor. It just looks better... the old stuff was too boxy for my tastes, and other than the helmet, really lacked style. The new fighting machines are also an incredible improvement over the old stuff, like the Hellraiser and Terror Trooper; they're just so much more stylish, regardless of how practical or impractical they are, I find the designs much better. That said, though, the UAR-1 Enforcer will probably always be my favorite Rifts robot...

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:04 am**

Kikkoman wrote:Howdy folks, this is my first post here.
I've never actually played Rifts, but read the source books like novels. A part that really stuck out was the art, and in particular the style of the coalition.

black armored troopers with skull heads, neato.

So I google'd looking for coalition pics, and found some of the old ones that I remember, but also a new style. The newer ones seem to have big bands of white in a skull-ish pattern, instead of being skull helmetted

Like... this is the style I remember

[LINK REMOVED - COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL]

[LINK REMOVED - COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL]

[LINK REMOVED - COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL]

and then I found these...

[LINK REMOVED - COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL]

[LINK REMOVED - COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL]

[LINK REMOVED - COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL]

is it just artistic license? Seems a little beyond that, more like the theme of the coalition changed.

I'm pretty sure that all of the coalition pics I remember were done by Kevin Long.

just bugs me that I think all of these 'new' pics aren't as good as the 'original' designs. They kinda look like they're made out of marzipan

*ah nuts, I meant to post this in 'rifts', not 'rifter'. Or is it fine here?

Were the links PB copyright or someone else? If it's PB what is the problem with linking? "We don't want to be held responsible by ourselves for having our own copyrighted material posted on our ownsite. Please refrain from doing this again as it may cause us to take ourselves to court and require that we shut down our own message boards." If this was not the case please ignore the previous sillyness otherwise please ignore the previous sillyness

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:57 am**

Zer0 Kay wrote:Were the links PB copyright or someone else? If it's PB what is the problem with linking? "We don't want to be held responsible by ourselves for having our own copyrighted material posted on our ownsite. Please refrain from doing this again as it may cause us to take ourselves to court and require that we shut down our own message boards." If this was not the case please ignore the previous sillyness otherwise please ignore the previous sillyness

Forums of the Megaverse Board Rules

I have highlighted the applicable section.

7. Palladium Books Copyrighted Material

No part of Palladium's publications/books may be reproduced, in part or whole, in any form or by any means, without permission from the publisher, except for brief quotes for use in reviews. This means you may not ask to have rules posted or stats posted just because you don't own the book. If you want that info buy the book. You can post the rule from a book in answer to a question, but please be brief or paraphrase the rule. In short. Just stick to your rule in question. Do not post entire books or multiple pages, PDF files, artwork, etc. If someone is asking where a rule can be found, it is preferred that you post the book title, page number, and where on that page the information can be found, rather than quoting it out of the book in its entirety. We cannot grant permission to use or create derivative works from, or to take any of Palladium Books’ registered trademarks, copyrighted materials and intellectual properties for commercial use or distribution, or financial gain. Individuals and companies looking to “license” a Palladium intellectual property are invited to contact the company directly and discuss the possibilities. A separate, written agreement between you and Palladium will always be required to use any of its trademarks, copyrighted works or intellectual properties. Also because of other licensing agreements that Palladium is actively working on, please note that permission to play online and post derivative works does not include permission to create, publish, and distribute any computer programs, whether they are computer games or computer character generators.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:32 pm**

psionicninja2000 wrote:
Kalinda wrote:
psionicninja2000 wrote:
Preacher wrote:Old Style Armor sucked.
New Style is Awesome.

I'm siding with Preacher on this one. The new style just has a certain "I am the bringer of your doom" vibe to it that I like.

As opposed to the old style, which just screamed "I'm here to help and comfort you and mean no harm."

The new style has this cool skeleton motif while the old looks like something hammered out of cheap plastic. Granted it looks intimidating at first, but after it looks Prosek is sending a bunch of cheap action figures at you.

The new stuff looks like a cheap Halloween costume with a styrafoam skeleton on it.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:53 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:As for the Skull Walker, I have to say "!??!???"
Have you seen the Scout Walker and the Scorpian Walker in CWC...?

I actually like the Scout Walker a hell of a lot better than the original Skull Walker. The Scorpion... well, that's kinda silly. :lol:

I have to agree that they did go kinda... overboard, on some of the new style designs. The skinny waist problem is definitely there. But I'm sorry, the old style armor looked like something a gradeschooler would hack together out of styrofoam for Hallow'een or something.

In the end, it's all going to be opinion anyway, so I guess I'll agree to disagree.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:58 pm**

Qev wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:As for the Skull Walker, I have to say "!??!???"
Have you seen the Scout Walker and the Scorpian Walker in CWC...?

I actually like the Scout Walker a hell of a lot better than the original Skull Walker. The Scorpion... well, that's kinda silly.

I have to agree that they did go kinda... overboard, on some of the new style designs. The skinny waist problem is definitely there. But I'm sorry, the old style armor looked like something a gradeschooler would hack together out of styrofoam for Hallow'een or something.

To me it always looked like Storm Trooper armor, only better.

In the end, it's all going to be opinion anyway, so I guess I'll agree to disagree.

Yup.
(but your opinion is wrong

)

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:18 pm**

The white on the new style armor always reminded me of the dayglow stripes on contruction vests.

Either way most field troops would coat either suit with low reflective camo paint.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:35 pm**

MorganKeyes wrote:
RockJock wrote:The white on the new style armor always reminded me of the dayglow stripes on contruction vests.

Either way most field troops would coat either suit with low reflective camo paint.

Course the description in CWC says the white areas are in fact a light grey and are able to darken.

Yup.
They must have been watching "Megaforce"....

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:03 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:Yup.
(but your opinion is wrong )

Don't I know it. I failed an opinion question on a school exam once. Seriously! That'll teach me to have opinions of my own...

Say, howcome the CS doesn't have any sort of active camoflage systems ('chameleoflage' as I like to call it) for their armor? It's not like they couldn't develop something like that easily enough, considering the other sorts of technology they toss around like candy at a Santa Claus parade...

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:32 am**

Qev wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Yup.
(but your opinion is wrong )

Don't I know it. I failed an opinion question on a school exam once. Seriously! That'll teach me to have opinions of my own...

Don't you just love that?

Say, howcome the CS doesn't have any sort of active camoflage systems ('chameleoflage' as I like to call it) for their armor? It's not like they couldn't develop something like that easily enough, considering the other sorts of technology they toss around like candy at a Santa Claus parade...

You mean like the Naruni gear?
It's supposed to be beyond their abilities.
I tend to think that their tech level has weird peaks and valleys because most of it is based on pre-rifts tech... they have figured out how to replicate it, but generally not how to improve upon it.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:49 am**

A set of spray paint cans is still worth the credits, and I don't know why the CS doesn't use it. Well, I do know why. It would make it harder to pick out the Dead Boys since we all know that if you paint CS armor it is now not CS. At least the Rangers paint their armor.

Oddly enough this reminds me of a Punisher comic I read ages ago where Frank talks about different weapons and equipment. He uses paper jumpsuits like painters wear and spraypaints them to match the general background.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:39 pm**

I kinda like both styles of CS armor. The old style has a certain menace to it and the new style has this faceless, massproduced feel to it.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:50 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:You mean like the Naruni gear?
It's supposed to be beyond their abilities.
I tend to think that their tech level has weird peaks and valleys because most of it is based on pre-rifts tech... they have figured out how to replicate it, but generally not how to improve upon it.

Well, yeah, kinda like the Naruni stuff... though it doesn't have to provide such 'perfect' camoflage (I'm not talking 2902 Thermoptic camoflage here!), just something that could scan the environment and adjust the colouring and patterning of the armor to suit. Even just a series of preconfigured camo patterns that the wearer could select from would be useful.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:19 pm**

Qev wrote:Well, yeah, kinda like the Naruni stuff... though it doesn't have to provide such 'perfect' camoflage (I'm not talking 2902 Thermoptic camoflage here!), just something that could scan the environment and adjust the colouring and patterning of the armor to suit. Even just a series of preconfigured camo patterns that the wearer could select from would be useful.

Two words: Disposable Soldiers. :lol:

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:30 pm**

Warwolf wrote:
Qev wrote:Well, yeah, kinda like the Naruni stuff... though it doesn't have to provide such 'perfect' camoflage (I'm not talking 2902 Thermoptic camoflage here!), just something that could scan the environment and adjust the colouring and patterning of the armor to suit. Even just a series of preconfigured camo patterns that the wearer could select from would be useful.

Two words: Disposable Soldiers.

In general I think they'd rather keep their human troops alive. If they need cannon fodder they can just send in the dog boys.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:40 pm**

Kalinda wrote:In general I think they'd rather keep their human troops alive. If they need cannon fodder they can just send in the dog boys.

I was referring to the fact that they don't sink large amounts of resources into saving or equipping a single soldier. Thus the use of overwhelming numbers and Blitzkrieg-style tactics. It's a resource allocation thing, the same reason why they dropped the damage capacity of the C-40R.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:35 am**

Defender_X wrote:I kinda like both styles of CS armor. The old style has a certain menace to it and the new style has this faceless, massproduced feel to it.

I feel the same way. I like both styles for different reasons.

From what I've read in CWC, I came away with the impression that the radical departure from the old design was a deliberate one -- in other words, the CS wanted something that bore no resemblance to the old design. Maybe it's just my subconscious trying to rationalize things, but here's my personal take:

The old design was so (in)famous and easily recognizeable that any design closely resembling it would be quickly identified as Coaltion, which is something the high command wanted to avoid during field testing. No sense giving away any free information to the CS' enemies until it's ready to be unveiled to the world.

Plus, I believe there was some psychological decision-making at work here. Prosek wanted to initiate a new offensive push (including finally getting rid of Tolkeen), and with the new design it would send a clear signal that this is not the old Coaltion you're used to dealing with.

Third, and maybe this is the one furthest out on the limb, but from watching some football players with tinted visors it occurred to me that it's much harder to read someone's expression when you can't see their eyes. Perhaps that could have something to do with the 'all-inclusive visor' motif.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am**

Uncle Servo wrote:I feel the same way. I like both styles for different reasons.

From what I've read in CWC, I came away with the impression that the radical departure from the old design was a deliberate one -- in other words, the CS wanted something that bore no resemblance to the old design. Maybe it's just my subconscious trying to rationalize things, but here's my personal take:

The old design was so (in)famous and easily recognizeable that any design closely resembling it would be quickly identified as Coaltion, which is something the high command wanted to avoid during field testing. No sense giving away any free information to the CS' enemies until it's ready to be unveiled to the world.

Plus, I believe there was some psychological decision-making at work here. Prosek wanted to initiate a new offensive push (including finally getting rid of Tolkeen), and with the new design it would send a clear signal that this is not the old Coaltion you're used to dealing with.

Third, and maybe this is the one furthest out on the limb, but from watching some football players with tinted visors it occurred to me that it's much harder to read someone's expression when you can't see their eyes. Perhaps that could have something to do with the 'all-inclusive visor' motif.

All good points. :ok:

I believe I just read an adventure in one of the indexes that supports your first one. :-)

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:12 pm**

Uncle Servo wrote:Third, and maybe this is the one furthest out on the limb, but from watching some football players with tinted visors it occurred to me that it's much harder to read someone's expression when you can't see their eyes. Perhaps that could have something to do with the 'all-inclusive visor' motif.

Funny, I think the same thing. It makes them seem more faceless and uncaring, indiscriminately destructive. All in all, I find the new armor is intimidating in a way that's different from the old armor.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:58 pm**

Uncle Servo wrote:Third, and maybe this is the one furthest out on the limb, but from watching some football players with tinted visors it occurred to me that it's much harder to read someone's expression when you can't see their eyes. Perhaps that could have something to do with the 'all-inclusive visor' motif.

You couldn't see the eyes through the old helmets either.

Psychologically, I think that the new armor is a mistake. It's a heck of a lot easier to kill something without a face.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:05 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:You couldn't see the eyes through the old helmets either.

I always attributed the fact that I never saw eyeballs drawn behind the old helmets to established 'comic book convention.' After all, one rarely (if ever) saw Batman's eyes either.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:56 pm**

Uncle Servo wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:You couldn't see the eyes through the old helmets either.

I always attributed the fact that I never saw eyeballs drawn behind the old helmets to established 'comic book convention.' After all, one rarely (if ever) saw Batman's eyes either.

I always attributed that to lenses in Batman's mask.

Forums of the Megaverse®

wardrobe change for the Coalition? (help a newb out)

Re: wardrobe change for the Coalition? (help a newb out)