Balancing Robots with Powered Armor

[slade the sniper]

Due to the fact that Giant Robots are rather lackluster when compared to Powered Armor. As an easy "fix" could we just say that the Robot ceases to function when the Reinforced Pilot's Compartment is reduced to zero, instead of the Main Body. This would increase the functional MDC of the Robot by 100 to 250 MDC, and making robots fairly tough in comparison to Power Armor.

Just a thought.

-STS

[Killer Cyborg]

Good thought.

[eliakon]

The main bonus of a Robot is the APM
Though, honestly one problem is that the books keep on power creeping up and adding more and more powerful weapons to power armor in a race to make the latest suit "relevant"
This, combined with the fairly hard cap on damage has resulted in there being no 'mecha scale' weapons.
The giant guns on giant robots should have... well giant stats. 6d6x10 damage, or area of effect shots, or other stuff that makes giant robots and heavy tanks valuable. otherwise for combat purposes their advantages tend to be more APM, and that they can mount LRMs and (more) MRMs

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Due to the fact that Giant Robots are rather lackluster when compared to Powered Armor.

I dont really agree with your statement to begin with (at least, since the original run of fairly lackluster robots in RMB, SB1nr, etc).

As an easy "fix" could we just say that the Robot ceases to function when the Reinforced Pilot's Compartment is reduced to zero, instead of the Main Body. This would increase the functional MDC of the Robot by 100 to 250 MDC, and making robots fairly tough in comparison to Power Armor.

Just a thought.

-STS

Considering that the decent robots generally have 2-3x the MDC of the average PA (remember that the SuperSAM, Terror Trooper, and a few of the Triax models are the exception, not the rule. Most PA has 200 or under), and 2-3x the range, and SRM, MRM, and LRM armaments... and multiple crew (meaning 2-5x the attacks)...

Im not really sure what needs to be fixed.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

The main bonus of a Robot is the APM
Though, honestly one problem is that the books keep on power creeping up and adding more and more powerful weapons to power armor in a race to make the latest suit "relevant"

Actually took a step back with NG1/2, but.. yeah. Especially the power-creep-buffet that was Triax 2. The PA in that book is absurd.

This, combined with the fairly hard cap on damage has resulted in there being no 'mecha scale' weapons.
The giant guns on giant robots should have... well giant stats. 6d6x10 damage, or area of effect shots, or other stuff that makes giant robots and heavy tanks valuable.

Generally speaking, to me, the fact that they tend to have superior range on their big guns, even if they dont do more damage, makes them valuable. When they can shoot your PA to death before it can even fire back, thats plenty valuable.

otherwise for combat purposes their advantages tend to be more APM, and that they can mount LRMs and (more) MRMs

I guess i dont feel there's an issue because i sorta see it as a rock/paper/scissors kind of exercise.

PA (particularly air-mobile PA) excels in anti-armor roles.
Armor (Tanks and Giant Robots) excels at mowing down infantry in job lots. Specialized armor can also be good at taking out air-mobile PA (but then becomes weak against other armor or infantry).
Heavy Infantry is good at taking down air-mobile PA (borgs, light/exoskeleton PA troopers) - basically anyone capable of picking up a man-portable rail-gun or mini missile launcher.

Regular Infantry being the "everyone has this and you need bodies" troop.

PA isn't particularly good at mowing down infantry in lots, so Armor will always have its role. (PA is better than infantry, for sure, but no PA can just wipe out an entire platoon of infantry like a Linebacker or Skullsmasher can).

About the only thing ive thought was a problem was how cheap PA is compared to literally everything else. PA prices could stand to do uble or triple.

[kaid]

Most people compare MDC of power armor to robot vehicles but the robots vehicles strengths tend to be different than the power armors. Their attacks per melee are higher they tend to carry more and more diverse and often times heavier weaponry/missiles than power armor is capable of and because its not power armor can move at whatever speed it can maintain for the terrain basically indeffinately. Power armor makes you very efficient endurance wise but you are still walking/running multiple days of force march level activity will really take their toll on the pilot of power armor.

[ShadowLogan]

As an easy "fix" could we just say that the Robot ceases to function when the Reinforced Pilot's Compartment is reduced to zero, instead of the Main Body. This would increase the functional MDC of the Robot by 100 to 250 MDC, and making robots fairly tough in comparison to Power Armor.

This then begs the question of why even have a RPC in the first place on the MDC by Location?

I'm not sure I would consider this an "easy fix", not because of just the question of why have an RPC section then, but also it doesn't seem to address the real issue with GRB vs PA: scale.

This, combined with the fairly hard cap on damage has resulted in there being no 'mecha scale' weapons.
The giant guns on giant robots should have... well giant stats. 6d6x10 damage, or area of effect shots, or other stuff that makes giant robots and heavy tanks valuable. otherwise for combat purposes their advantages tend to be more APM, and that they can mount LRMs and (more) MRMs

Actually the problem is that giant robots vs PA (and not confined to just these two) is the sense of scale is lacking in terms of BOTH MDC protection and Weapon Damage.

I think most people can quickly see the weapon damage aspect. What they fail to really notice though is that kg for kg in terms of MDC protection values, it favors individual PA/EBA type platforms over giant robot/vehicle platforms (1.0< vs 1.0> in terms of ratios, this seems to be a megaversal result as I find it in various MDC lines and products I have, though I don't have all the latest in Rifts books. Creatures are literally all over the place). Search the RT Forum for "Total MDC per KG Ratio" (or something along that title by me, its more than a few years old but...)

[Library Ogre]

One thing that leverages well with robots is multiple operators. A single-operator robot is an oversized power armor... a 3-operator robot can get a full set of actions from everyone. A Spider Skull Walker should have something like 20 (2 for living, 2 for hand to hand, 1 for Robot Combat: Basic) attacks a round, plus movement, since a different person can operate each of the 4 weapons systems.

[kaid]

Also most power armor has basically one main integrated weapon with some smaller backups/handful of mini missiles. There are exceptions to that but nearly all robot vehicles have multiple major weapon systems so its harder to disable their damage output by taking out a single weapon as you often can on power armor.

Like some of the new NG1 power armors are fairly bristling with weapons. Giving a lot of options for energy/kinetic/fire based damage depending what target you are shooting at and also tend to have much heavier missile loadouts and in cases larger missiles than all but a couple power armor carry.


Also robot vehicles tend to have more powerful sensor/communication suites.

If one is on a budget power armor is hard to beat but robot vehicles are very useful.

[slade2501]

Well, lets look at that old CS warhorse, the UAR enforcer. With a crew of two, we could average 10 actions per round. Movement, melee attacks and weapon systems. Say teh pilot does moving and the railgun, and teh gunner gets the laser turrets, short range missiles, medium missiles, mini-missile launcher turret and smoke dispensers. The medium missile launcher carries 6 medium missiles each with 2d6x10MD to a 20 or 40ft radius depending on type. thats 12d6x10md. the short range ML carries 10 of 1d4x10 or 1d6x10 MD missiles with a 10-20 blast radius, so thats 10d4x10md or 10d6x10md. the mini missile turret carries 20 mini missiles, of 5d6md or 1d4x10md per, for 100d6md or 20d4x10md worth of damage. The railgun does 1d6x10md per action

The railgun can deliver 1d6x10md per action
the laser turrets deliver 4d6md per attack.
the medium launcher can deliver 8d6x10md in a single attack to a 40 ft radius (non-dodge able with volley rules)
the small launcher can deliver 4d4x10 or 4d6x10md to a 10-20 ft radius in 1 action (non-dodge able with volley rules)
the mini missile turret can deliver 20d6 or 4d4x10md in a single attack (non-dodge able with volley rules)

The pilot can move, dodge, and deliver 3 railgun attacks (3d6x10md) per turn
The gunner can use the lasers, fire a 4 missile volley once from each launcher and still have an attack left over

[dreicunan]

A better question might be: Does the robot offer real value compared to an equivalent number of crew in power armors adding up to the same cost as the robot?

[Zamion138]

The mdc and ranges is what get to me about robots if you look at a titan vs a samson, i would put them both as the base pa and robot that are not cs.
Price? 950k vs 24 million extreme win for the samson
Speed? 150mph vs 60 mph. Again samson wins by more than 200%
Main gun? 1d6x10 md(100 bursts) vs. 1d4x10mdc (250 bursts) range same. More damedge vs more ammo, this is a mission specific as to who wins. But the fact they didnt at least put the same rain gun on both is an odd choice.

Missiles? 4 mini vs 10 medium and 12 mini. Titan by a land slide.

Mdc 240 vs 370 . Win for titan, but not alot more honestly for the size and price.

Titan has a small laser but since only one pilit on each in hard combat it will rarely be used.

So 25x the cost and you get 120 mdc more and medium missiles.
Medium missiles are crazy long range but you have very few and need a spotter likely at extreme range.
For the size diffrence of 11ft yall vs 25.5 feet tall there is almost no reason to field a titan as a goverment.
A medium missile truck launcher is cheaper and you can hide them easier.
If the Titan had a rail gun that did 1d6x10 or had a much longer range than the PA I could see it. Generally I try to get the mdc of robots doubled at a table for both players and NPCs/enemies across the board to make the staggering price worth it. Even if the Titan had a co-pilot/gunner its double attacks wouldn't be that great as you still can only shoot the smaller laser or missiles(finite ammo supply there) so it would not be a game changer.
The mobile howitzer with its gunner controlled heavy rail gun is when you start seeing a reason for a robot. It shoots far and hits harder than a samson suit to the point its viable.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

... you hand-picked the WORST example in all the books.

Titan robots are DELIBERATELY under-MDCed and (in most cases) underpowered... by Archie.

On purpose. He can build better. He chooses not to.

[Zamion138]

No i picked the two main ones from the core book

[HWalsh]

The thing is giant robots are unique in that they *can* be lackluster but aren't necessarily.

If you put a 1 man giant robot vs a power armor the PA tends to have the advantage. This reverses itself the second you start dealing with 2 or 3 man robots.

A 3 person giant robot with even level 1 pilots can be an unholy terror. Assuming it's a pilot and 2 gunners with elite you're looking at a single enemy with around 18 APM and that gets effectively 3 attacks to everyone else's 1 action.

Of course 3 PAs equal 1 3 person robot as well, but there are distinct advantages to the robot. The least of which is the ability for the pilot to focus on defense while the gunners are free to open fire.

4 AP missiles followed by a railgun burst is pretty effective. The fact that the robot can get 3 attacks to shoot down a missile is amazing as well. 1 Gunner that focuses on called shots to disable, while 1 Gunner opens fire, while the pilot dodges? Pretty scary.

[Zamion138]

For the size of the things their cannons should do more and thier mdc should be higher though. With or with out the attacks, when your 60ish feet tall and your running a laser system that amounts to a rifle tied to the engine, it is under whelming. Its like ww1 tanks that were basicly trench machine guns attached to a truck. You have the space and the piwer system your belly turrets should be doing 1d4x10 and your main gun 2d6x10 give or take,

[eliakon]

For the size of the things their cannons should do more and thier mdc should be higher though. With or with out the attacks, when your 60ish feet tall and your running a laser system that amounts to a rifle tied to the engine, it is under whelming. Its like ww1 tanks that were basicly trench machine guns attached to a truck. You have the space and the piwer system your belly turrets should be doing 1d4x10 and your main gun 2d6x10 give or take,

That is a game system issue.
The entire game is built around a damage curve and for the longest time 3d6x10 was the absolute maximum. Which resulted in the problems with robots, and tanks, and space ships and heavy missiles and the like.

It can be changed, and many people do house rules to alter it. But once you start down that road it opens up many cans of worms and tends to be a long, long process that results in basically rewriting whole swaths of the game itself.

[Zamion138]

For the size of the things their cannons should do more and thier mdc should be higher though. With or with out the attacks, when your 60ish feet tall and your running a laser system that amounts to a rifle tied to the engine, it is under whelming. Its like ww1 tanks that were basicly trench machine guns attached to a truck. You have the space and the piwer system your belly turrets should be doing 1d4x10 and your main gun 2d6x10 give or take,

That is a game system issue.
The entire game is built around a damage curve and for the longest time 3d6x10 was the absolute maximum. Which resulted in the problems with robots, and tanks, and space ships and heavy missiles and the like.

It can be changed, and many people do house rules to alter it. But once you start down that road it opens up many cans of worms and tends to be a long, long process that results in basically rewriting whole swaths of the game itself.

Thats why i advocated just doubling robot mdc and calling it good.
It makes the extreme pricing jump make more sense, and is quick and easy to do on the fly just flipping through a book.

[slade the sniper]

Thats why i advocated just doubling robot mdc and calling it good.
It makes the extreme pricing jump make more sense, and is quick and easy to do on the fly just flipping through a book.

I like this, except for what is your cut off for what gets doubled? If it has a reinforced pilot's compartment?

-STS

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

No i picked the two main ones from the core book

Which does not, for one single, solitary moment, invalidate what i said.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

For the size of the things their cannons should do more and thier mdc should be higher though. With or with out the attacks, when your 60ish feet tall and your running a laser system that amounts to a rifle tied to the engine,

How many laser rifles have a 6000ft range again?

Yeah, that's what i thought.

it is under whelming. Its like ww1 tanks that were basicly trench machine guns attached to a truck. You have the space and the piwer system your belly turrets should be doing 1d4x10 and your main gun 2d6x10 give or take,

Several of the better robots DO have weapons that do this kind of damage. Particularly Triax models.

Again, people are just not wrapping their heads around different uses for different machines.

Robots have a huge APM advantage, in most cases.

On top of that, they are used for different things.

To go back to Samson Vs Average Rifts Robot at the time (which would be the UAR-1, not the Titan)...

Yeah, that UAR-1 is more expensive. It's also about 1000 times better at killing infantry or defending a position.

Take 10 Samsons, and pit them vs 40 Heavy Infantry (Dead Boys).

The 10 Samsons will likely win (they have a decent amount of MDC and hit quite a bit harder), but theyre going to get roughed up.

Take 40 Heavy Infantry and pit them against a single UAR-1.

All 40 infantry are likely to die without even harming the UAR-1.

Different uses for different tools.

One of Power Armor's strengths is being good against enemy armor. One of its weaknesses is that it is NOT particularly great against infantry. It's not awful or anything, but in most cases (the number of PAs (native to Rifts Earth) armed with weapons that outrange infantry prior to Triax 2 was countable one hand, primarily.. pretty much the Samson, SAMAS, Flying Titan, and one or two of the Triax PAs - and largely only because they could carry the borg rail gun) they dont have any way to take out massed infantry, so theyre going to take their lumps and largely win by dint of their heavier armor and (generally) heavier hitting weapons (until pulse-rifles pretty much became standard issue, though..)

Robots primary weakness tends to be in quick moving enemies that pack a decent punch (Mobile PA - particularly Air Mobile) but it's strength is that when assaulting a fortified position or dealing with infantry, Armor (which includes tanks) can massacre infantry in job lots in ways that most Power Armor can only dream of.

Everything has a use.

Use your robots more intelligently (if you're worried about them not being "strong enough" opponents), and theyre fine.

[Axelmania]

For body armor and power armor I would let its MDC have a 1:10 ratio and onlynuse the 1:100 ratio for vehicles and robots. Problem solved?

Ulti-Max and Glitter Boys are a bit of a dilemma. Maybe let them have 1:20 or 1:50 ?

[Zamion138]

Thats why i advocated just doubling robot mdc and calling it good.
It makes the extreme pricing jump make more sense, and is quick and easy to do on the fly just flipping through a book.

I like this, except for what is your cut off for what gets doubled? If it has a reinforced pilot's compartment?

-STS

Doesnt actually combat wise matter as if you get to the crew compartments the machine is toast anyhow. Its likevthe cyborgs brain box, if noone goes around to collect it 2d4 days and 150 mdc dont matter as they just rot in the waste land reliving all of lifes mistakes praying a scavenger comes around.

For the size of the things their cannons should do more and thier mdc should be higher though. With or with out the attacks, when your 60ish feet tall and your running a laser system that amounts to a rifle tied to the engine,

How many laser rifles have a 6000ft range again?

Yeah, that's what i thought.

it is under whelming. Its like ww1 tanks that were basicly trench machine guns attached to a truck. You have the space and the piwer system your belly turrets should be doing 1d4x10 and your main gun 2d6x10 give or take,

Several of the better robots DO have weapons that do this kind of damage. Particularly Triax models.

Again, people are just not wrapping their heads around different uses for different machines.

Robots have a huge APM advantage, in most cases.

On top of that, they are used for different things.

To go back to Samson Vs Average Rifts Robot at the time (which would be the UAR-1, not the Titan)...

Yeah, that UAR-1 is more expensive. It's also about 1000 times better at killing infantry or defending a position.

Take 10 Samsons, and pit them vs 40 Heavy Infantry (Dead Boys).

The 10 Samsons will likely win (they have a decent amount of MDC and hit quite a bit harder), but theyre going to get roughed up.

Take 40 Heavy Infantry and pit them against a single UAR-1.

All 40 infantry are likely to die without even harming the UAR-1.

Different uses for different tools.

One of Power Armor's strengths is being good against enemy armor. One of its weaknesses is that it is NOT particularly great against infantry. It's not awful or anything, but in most cases (the number of PAs (native to Rifts Earth) armed with weapons that outrange infantry prior to Triax 2 was countable one hand, primarily.. pretty much the Samson, SAMAS, Flying Titan, and one or two of the Triax PAs - and largely only because they could carry the borg rail gun) they dont have any way to take out massed infantry, so theyre going to take their lumps and largely win by dint of their heavier armor and (generally) heavier hitting weapons (until pulse-rifles pretty much became standard issue, though..)

Robots primary weakness tends to be in quick moving enemies that pack a decent punch (Mobile PA - particularly Air Mobile) but it's strength is that when assaulting a fortified position or dealing with infantry, Armor (which includes tanks) can massacre infantry in job lots in ways that most Power Armor can only dream of.

Everything has a use.

Use your robots more intelligently (if you're worried about them not being "strong enough" opponents), and theyre fine.

I have to disagree, to the extreme.

40 trained soliders will level the uar-1 . Assuming all fight to the death, none of them on either side fight like your typical gm controlled mooks throwing their lives away . The uar-1 can easily survive if it retreats after its out of missiles. 40 cs heavy troopers is going to be two platoons, so 2 groups of 20, 1 CO (c-14 rifle, c-18 pistol,2 plasma 2 smoke grenades), 2 sargents(same as CO, except 1 has cv-212), 10 riflemen(c-12s, mix of 4 grenades), two grenadiers(sp?)(c-14s 6 hand grenades 1 extra mini-missile 1ap, the other plasma), 2 heavy weapons(1c-27, 1 cr-1, c-18 pistols, 2 extra ap, 2 extra plasma), 1 sniper(c-10, c-18, 4 smoke, 4 plasma grenades), and 2 psi...for the sake of the argument will make them riflemen so its just troops. 30%of them would as all human cs have minor psionics though .
Using its supior range the uar-1 would try to soften them up from a distence likely with short and medium ranged missiles. Using supior number of attacks and weapons this will likely fail as most if not all the missiles will be intercepted from weapons fire. Until all missiles are depleted at least 4 of the 12 riflemen(per platoon) will hold actions to shoot down incoming attacks . This will force the uar-1 to retreat or close with its rail guns/lasers/mini-missiles.

Now if this is not an open plain with 0 cover they can hide/stealth till the uar-1 gets with in 4000 feet(or closer depending on terrain) Contracting fire would be given to the rail gun with negatives given for shooting double range to the 32 guys not on missile duty 2 or 3 rounds(at best) and its toast. Mini-missiles will probably never land on the uar-1 but will serve to tie up the lasers or walkers own rockets, 1 per round can be fired if both platoons trade off on firing. Probably 5ish total troopers will die.

The 10 samsons will be harder to hit if they move close to full speed, again their rockets will be ineffective, and at the end the 40 ground pounders are still going to win if they concentrate fire, though this will be harder as the samsons are small enough to actually take cover, and fast enough to close with at least some of the scattered out units, 10 railgun blasts used similarly will be able to better concentrate fire on the lighter armored troops though, 2 to 3 blast droping 1. Probably 10 to 20 would go down before the cs mangled them.
How you think the uar-1 gets out of this unskaved im not quite catching. Due to its size alone and its singular target status it cant hide well and though its got the reach it still has to get to the targets that can take aim penalties to hit it. But with 36 rifles the odds are with the grunts.


40 grunts would more than likely have at least one cs apc, more likely 2 but thats for a diffrent scenario.

[Zamion138]

For body armor and power armor I would let its MDC have a 1:10 ratio and onlynuse the 1:100 ratio for vehicles and robots. Problem solved?

Ulti-Max and Glitter Boys are a bit of a dilemma. Maybe let them have 1:20 or 1:50 ?

So a robot with 360 mdc gets 3600 or 3.6(rounded up to 4)??
Or are you converting to sdc here?

[Axelmania]

Presently a 250 MDC SAMAS is like 25,000 SDC while a 350 Enforcer is 35,000

I am proposing the SAM be shrunk to equiv 2500 SDC while leaving robot alone.

Giving all vehicles and bots 10x MD and MDC could also work.

[Zamion138]

Presently a 250 MDC SAMAS is like 25,000 SDC while a 350 Enforcer is 35,000

I am proposing the SAM be shrunk to equiv 2500 SDC while leaving robot alone.

Giving all vehicles and bots 10x MD and MDC could also work.

I suppose if you run an sdc only game that would work, i think thats not the norm though, at least in groups ive played in and seen. Maybe its more common else where.

[Mack]

Here's a simple method I toyed with a while back...

Classify combatants into one of three categories:
1) Human size (soldiers, partial borgs, juicers, exo-skeletons, etc...)
2) PA size (SAMAS, full borgs, etc...)
3) Robot size (tanks, robot vehicles, etc...)

Then damage modifiers are used whenever an attacker and target are different sizes:
A) Human size inflicts half damage to PA size, and one-quarter damage to Robot size
B) PA size inflicts +50% damage to Human size, and half damage to Robot size
C) Robot size inflicts double damage to Human size, and +50% damage to PA size

So while the Samson PA and the UAR-1 Enforcer both have a rail gun that inflicts 1D6x10 MD, the Samson would suffer a damage penalty for shooting at the Enforcer, while the Enforcer would enjoy a bonus. This instantly makes the robot vehicle more powerful and durable without having to change the stat block.

While imperfect, the upside is that this is easy to implement. The GM just has to make a call as to which category combatants fall into.

---------
Addendum:
Also for simplicity, I'd exclude missiles from the above since it doesn't matter what launches a missile. Plus it gives a incentive for smaller units to carry a missile payload.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

40 trained soliders will level the uar-1 . Assuming all fight to the death, none of them on either side fight like your typical gm controlled mooks throwing their lives away . The uar-1 can easily survive if it retreats after its out of missiles. 40 cs heavy troopers is going to be two platoons, so 2 groups of 20, 1 CO (c-14 rifle, c-18 pistol,2 plasma 2 smoke grenades), 2 sargents(same as CO, except 1 has cv-212), 10 riflemen(c-12s, mix of 4 grenades), two grenadiers(sp?)(c-14s 6 hand grenades 1 extra mini-missile 1ap, the other plasma), 2 heavy weapons(1c-27, 1 cr-1, c-18 pistols, 2 extra ap, 2 extra plasma), 1 sniper(c-10, c-18, 4 smoke, 4 plasma grenades), and 2 psi...for the sake of the argument will make them riflemen so its just troops. 30%of them would as all human cs have minor psionics though .

None of these guys are armed with a single weapon with a range greater than 2000ft, keep in mind, other than perhaps mini-missile launchers.

Using its supior range the uar-1 would try to soften them up from a distence likely with short and medium ranged missiles. Using supior number of attacks and weapons this will likely fail as most if not all the missiles will be intercepted from weapons fire.

I really wanted to put like 10 lines of laughing here. The mooks are -10 to -13 to hit the SRMs, and -21 to -23 to hit the MRMs. The missiles will almost ALL hit.

Until all missiles are depleted at least 4 of the 12 riflemen(per platoon) will hold actions to shoot down incoming attacks . This will force the uar-1 to retreat or close with its rail guns/lasers/mini-missiles.

Good luck with that strategy. Infantry has next to no chance to shoot down missiles effectively. And that's IF you even allow them to target missiles that aren't targeting them, since RAW, its arguable that you cant shoot at a missile aimed at someone else, and i'd just be dropping the missiles into the middle of them.

Now if this is not an open plain with 0 cover they can hide/stealth till the uar-1 gets with in 4000 feet(or closer depending on terrain) Contracting fire would be given to the rail gun with negatives given for shooting double range

You cant shoot double range... and even if you could, if they can, so can the UAR-1, and that still puts the infantry at a huge disadvantage.

to the 32 guys not on missile duty 2 or 3 rounds(at best) and its toast. Mini-missiles will probably never land on the uar-1 but will serve to tie up the lasers or walkers own rockets, 1 per round can be fired if both platoons trade off on firing. Probably 5ish total troopers will die.

The guys without mini-missile launchers will iliterally never close into range of their weapons. The Enforcer outranges them by 2000ft. It can literally stand off/fight retreating and never enter harm's way. And it moves faster than they do. So they cant ever make up the distance.

The 10 samsons will be harder to hit if they move close to full speed, again their rockets will be ineffective, and at the end the 40 ground pounders are still going to win if they concentrate fire, though this will be harder as the samsons are small enough to actually take cover, and fast enough to close with at least some of the scattered out units, 10 railgun blasts used similarly will be able to better concentrate fire on the lighter armored troops though, 2 to 3 blast droping 1. Probably 10 to 20 would go down before the cs mangled them.
How you think the uar-1 gets out of this unskaved im not quite catching.

Because it quite literally has double the range of the people it is fighting and can kill half or more of them with missiles that they have no hope of shooting down before they even get within range of its other weapons. I have no idea how you think the infantry can do squat about it, given the actual rules the game plays by.

Due to its size alone and its singular target status it cant hide well and though its got the reach it still has to get to the targets that can take aim penalties to hit it. But with 36 rifles the odds are with the grunts.

36 rifles that are outranged by every weapon the UAR-1 has by factor of 2 or more.

40 grunts would more than likely have at least one cs apc, more likely 2 but thats for a diffrent scenario.

nor is a single UAR-1 likely to be deployed by itself (usually 2-3 with SAMAS escorts), but that's not what we're discussing here.

And keep in mind, the UAR-1 is a pretty basic, low-end unit as far as robots go.

Make the UAR-1 a Skullsmasher or, say, a Linebacker MBT...

and its a turkey shoot of epic proportions.

[dreicunan]

40 trained soliders will level the uar-1 . Assuming all fight to the death, none of them on either side fight like your typical gm controlled mooks throwing their lives away . The uar-1 can easily survive if it retreats after its out of missiles. 40 cs heavy troopers is going to be two platoons, so 2 groups of 20, 1 CO (c-14 rifle, c-18 pistol,2 plasma 2 smoke grenades), 2 sargents(same as CO, except 1 has cv-212), 10 riflemen(c-12s, mix of 4 grenades), two grenadiers(sp?)(c-14s 6 hand grenades 1 extra mini-missile 1ap, the other plasma), 2 heavy weapons(1c-27, 1 cr-1, c-18 pistols, 2 extra ap, 2 extra plasma), 1 sniper(c-10, c-18, 4 smoke, 4 plasma grenades), and 2 psi...for the sake of the argument will make them riflemen so its just troops. 30%of them would as all human cs have minor psionics though .

None of these guys are armed with a single weapon with a range greater than 2000ft, keep in mind, other than perhaps mini-missile launchers.

Using its supior range the uar-1 would try to soften them up from a distence likely with short and medium ranged missiles. Using supior number of attacks and weapons this will likely fail as most if not all the missiles will be intercepted from weapons fire.

I really wanted to put like 10 lines of laughing here. The mooks are -10 to -13 to hit the SRMs, and -21 to -23 to hit the MRMs. The missiles will almost ALL hit.

Until all missiles are depleted at least 4 of the 12 riflemen(per platoon) will hold actions to shoot down incoming attacks . This will force the uar-1 to retreat or close with its rail guns/lasers/mini-missiles.

Good luck with that strategy. Infantry has next to no chance to shoot down missiles effectively. And that's IF you even allow them to target missiles that aren't targeting them, since RAW, its arguable that you cant shoot at a missile aimed at someone else, and i'd just be dropping the missiles into the middle of them.

Now if this is not an open plain with 0 cover they can hide/stealth till the uar-1 gets with in 4000 feet(or closer depending on terrain) Contracting fire would be given to the rail gun with negatives given for shooting double range

You cant shoot double range... and even if you could, if they can, so can the UAR-1, and that still puts the infantry at a huge disadvantage.

to the 32 guys not on missile duty 2 or 3 rounds(at best) and its toast. Mini-missiles will probably never land on the uar-1 but will serve to tie up the lasers or walkers own rockets, 1 per round can be fired if both platoons trade off on firing. Probably 5ish total troopers will die.

The guys without mini-missile launchers will iliterally never close into range of their weapons. The Enforcer outranges them by 2000ft. It can literally stand off/fight retreating and never enter harm's way. And it moves faster than they do. So they cant ever make up the distance.

The 10 samsons will be harder to hit if they move close to full speed, again their rockets will be ineffective, and at the end the 40 ground pounders are still going to win if they concentrate fire, though this will be harder as the samsons are small enough to actually take cover, and fast enough to close with at least some of the scattered out units, 10 railgun blasts used similarly will be able to better concentrate fire on the lighter armored troops though, 2 to 3 blast droping 1. Probably 10 to 20 would go down before the cs mangled them.
How you think the uar-1 gets out of this unskaved im not quite catching.

Because it quite literally has double the range of the people it is fighting and can kill half or more of them with missiles that they have no hope of shooting down before they even get within range of its other weapons. I have no idea how you think the infantry can do squat about it, given the actual rules the game plays by.

Due to its size alone and its singular target status it cant hide well and though its got the reach it still has to get to the targets that can take aim penalties to hit it. But with 36 rifles the odds are with the grunts.

36 rifles that are outranged by every weapon the UAR-1 has by factor of 2 or more.

40 grunts would more than likely have at least one cs apc, more likely 2 but thats for a diffrent scenario.

nor is a single UAR-1 likely to be deployed by itself (usually 2-3 with SAMAS escorts), but that's not what we're discussing here.

And keep in mind, the UAR-1 is a pretty basic, low-end unit as far as robots go.

Make the UAR-1 a Skullsmasher or, say, a Linebacker MBT...

and its a turkey shoot of epic proportions.

My question would be that if this is not on a flat plain with no cover, how is the robot pilot and gunner locating the opponents reliably? If they have to rely on visual identification, dropping those missiles accurately could be tough.

40 heavy infantry troopers all clumped together on a plain would be annihilated. 40 heavy infantry troopers spreading out and using solid tactics would have a chance if the UAR-1 had to come within range of their weapons. I do agree with you that if the UAR-1 kites them, there is little that standard heavy infantry could do about it. They'd have to draw it into an.ambush. Now, if they do succeed at doing so, the UAR-1 would likely lose, though not before doing some damage.

[Axelmania]

A) Human size inflicts half damage to PA size, and one-quarter damage to Robot size
B) PA size inflicts +50% damage to Human size, and half damage to Robot size
C) Robot size inflicts double damage to Human size, and +50% damage to PA size
.

I like the scale of A. Dunlike 50%s. To match it I was thinking...
B) PA double to human half to bot.
C) Robot quadruple to human double to PA.

[ShadowLogan]

Classify combatants into one of three categories:
1) Human size (soldiers, partial borgs, juicers, exo-skeletons, etc...)
2) PA size (SAMAS, full borgs, etc...)
3) Robot size (tanks, robot vehicles, etc...)

Actually in terms of Total MDC to Mass Ratio "scale categories", at least for constructs (and not creatures) you still get three basic ranges:
-human-size EBAs, borgs, and PA
-giant robots and vehicles
-super-sized vehicles (talking naval vessels like Destroyers or starships)

This was based on a huge sample of megaverse books I did in the past (the sample did not include every book out at the time). The results where surprisingly consistent placing something of XYZ category in the same range (1.0>=, 0.##, 0.#####). The one area I looked at was all over the place was creatures, but I had them entered into the datapool as one big category, I'm not sure how easy it would be to sub-categorize them so they easily fall into the above construct notions.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

My question would be that if this is not on a flat plain with no cover, how is the robot pilot and gunner locating the opponents reliably? If they have to rely on visual identification, dropping those missiles accurately could be tough.

40 heavy infantry troopers all clumped together on a plain would be annihilated. 40 heavy infantry troopers spreading out and using solid tactics would have a chance if the UAR-1 had to come within range of their weapons. I do agree with you that if the UAR-1 kites them, there is little that standard heavy infantry could do about it. They'd have to draw it into an.ambush. Now, if they do succeed at doing so, the UAR-1 would likely lose, though not before doing some damage.

To me the discussion was more about raw capabilities and what kind of troops are good at what. A lot of people just look at main body MDC and weapon damage (but not range, types, extra APM, etc) and call it a day.

No dispute on my part that terrain, situation, etc make a lot of difference.

Drawn into an ambush, 3-5 infantry could waste the UAR-1, much less 40. Similarly, if the UAR-1 ambushes the infantry while they are marching, theyre likely all dead before they even realize they are under attack (a couple of MRM's come in out of the blue and most of them are dead).

Hell, given about a round of prep time, my 4th level TW could SOLO a UAR-1. Thats neither here nor there.

The discussion was, to my mind, just about the how and why Robots exist, and i was defending-ish my personal take that Robots really dont need a tune-up. They dont make a lot of sense in certain situations, but they make a ton of sense in others.

[dreicunan]

My question would be that if this is not on a flat plain with no cover, how is the robot pilot and gunner locating the opponents reliably? If they have to rely on visual identification, dropping those missiles accurately could be tough.

40 heavy infantry troopers all clumped together on a plain would be annihilated. 40 heavy infantry troopers spreading out and using solid tactics would have a chance if the UAR-1 had to come within range of their weapons. I do agree with you that if the UAR-1 kites them, there is little that standard heavy infantry could do about it. They'd have to draw it into an.ambush. Now, if they do succeed at doing so, the UAR-1 would likely lose, though not before doing some damage.

To me the discussion was more about raw capabilities and what kind of troops are good at what. A lot of people just look at main body MDC and weapon damage (but not range, types, extra APM, etc) and call it a day.

No dispute on my part that terrain, situation, etc make a lot of difference.

Drawn into an ambush, 3-5 infantry could waste the UAR-1, much less 40. Similarly, if the UAR-1 ambushes the infantry while they are marching, theyre likely all dead before they even realize they are under attack (a couple of MRM's come in out of the blue and most of them are dead).

Hell, given about a round of prep time, my 4th level TW could SOLO a UAR-1. Thats neither here nor there.

The discussion was, to my mind, just about the how and why Robots exist, and i was defending-ish my personal take that Robots really dont need a tune-up. They dont make a lot of sense in certain situations, but they make a ton of sense in others.

I'd agree that they don't need a tune-up from that perspective; your analysis of different tools for different roles is spot on. That said, I've also always thought that the mdc values of robots were too low as an issue of pure mass and strength. If you can make Crusader body armor that weighs 24 lbs and has a main body MDC of 95 that is useable with a normal, non-exceptional human PS, how on earth does a UAR-1 that weighs 18 tons and has a robotic PS of 40 only have enough armor plating to hit 350 for the main body?

I've always assumed that the low armor on robots has been a result of Kevin S's bias towards infantry level small squad action (most characters in most Palladium games are not fighting in giant robots) and fantastic play (remember in the GMG when he talked about how his error with the original ranged combat rules was trying to make them too realistic/simulationist?).

I'm also now wondering how robots and Tanks end up shaking out in terms of usefulness versus cost since, as I believe you noted, they do many of the same things well.

[Jefffar]

I'd say halving the MDC of most body armour, power armour, cyborgs and supernatural critters is a roughly efficient way to scale things.

Then double the damage of most missiles, railguns, and weapons too large to fit on power armour.

That's where I would start anyway, some specific items might need to be dialed up or down from there.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I'd agree that they don't need a tune-up from that perspective; your analysis of different tools for different roles is spot on. That said, I've also always thought that the mdc values of robots were too low as an issue of pure mass and strength. If you can make Crusader body armor that weighs 24 lbs and has a main body MDC of 95 that is useable with a normal, non-exceptional human PS, how on earth does a UAR-1 that weighs 18 tons and has a robotic PS of 40 only have enough armor plating to hit 350 for the main body?

When ive bothered to think about this, it's two reasons. The in-game/mechanical reason is along the same lines as why, say, a a guided missile destroyer doesn't have much more armor plating than a patrol boat and less than an amphibious assault vehicle in real life.

you build the vehicle to do what it needs to do, with internals and mechanicals, and all that jazz, and then layer on as much armor as the remaining load allows.

So, the majority of the UAR-1 in this case is the robotics, pistons, mounting hardware for the armaments, the larger nuclear power system, et al...and then whatever mass was left over in the budget is the armor. Its been shown that with advancement in armor technology it can be up-armored (Free Quebec up-armored their UAR-1s with more modern armor); but there's an upward limit just based on how much mass budget you have left after all the essentials are factored in.

And part two...

I've always assumed that the low armor on robots has been a result of Kevin S's bias towards infantry level small squad action (most characters in most Palladium games are not fighting in giant robots) and fantastic play (remember in the GMG when he talked about how his error with the original ranged combat rules was trying to make them too realistic/simulationist?).

You get pretty much spot on. Part one up there is the in-game science/mechanical explanation for the OOG/game balance explanation (but also happens to be a perfectly good reason that has parallels in real life). Its a game balance issue, and a game-fun issue.

I'm also now wondering how robots and Tanks end up shaking out in terms of usefulness versus cost since, as I believe you noted, they do many of the same things well.

The tanks tend to also be quite expensive.

The Linebacker is 32 million credits cost to the CS, according to CWC. The Hellfire robot (which has similar firepower, but less MDC) is 25 million. The Skull-smasher is 72 million (but has more MDC, more armaments, and a similar sized crew).

So, primarily they fit in pretty well with robots from that perspective. They have some disadvantages (tanks cant fit all the places Robots can, or not as easily) but also advantages (lots of armor for their size because they dont have complicated robot systems to support) and depending on the tank (like, say, the Linebacker) they can cross rivers and stuff far more easily.

Now, the IHA tanks that didn't run on Nuclear power were SUPER cheap for their value, IMO. Decent MDC (600+ for the MBT), great armaments, and like.. 7 million or less for the gas or electric models?

They seem to have been the exception, rather than the rule, though. (Though i wonder what NG could do with traditional tracked tanks, since the only tank they produce is a relatively expensive and mediocre hover tank).

[slade the sniper]

OK, everyone is making some fantastic points that I agree with:

1. There is a disconnect with regards to mass/MDC, but it breaks down into three rough "scales" human/giant robot/spaceships
2. The location and range of combat plays a huge role into how useful robots are with regard to powered armor and human infantry
3. Robots with multiple crew members have an advantage against an equal number of powered armor suits due to the action economy (at least until about 4 crew vs 4 powered armor or more when the number of attackers strips the number of actions available to dodge)
4. The cost of robots is still not in line with the capabilities they provide (range, increased weapons options).

I agree with all of these. However, none of the points really change my original opinion.

Thusly, this is my house rule (for what it is worth):
If a character has Robot Combat: Elite, and the Robot or Vehicle has a Reinforced Pilots Compartment, the character is capable of rerouting the essential functions of the robot to make it still operate, but every hit that the robot/vehicle takes it will damage something (I am using the Optional Damage Rolls from page 40 of Robotech the RPG...because otherwise the damage table is just brutal, and Rifts doesn't penalize taking damage).
That allows the Elite skill to be even more useful by basically giving a bonus of several hundred MDC. This helps to fix the mass/MDC issue over powered armor and still allows the robots to have longer range AND greater staying power to justify the frankly ridiculous costs.

Again, just my interpretation (and using another book's rules) to help fix a minor issue. I hope I didn't irritate anybody, especially since I am pretty much agreeing with you.

...they just rot in the waste land reliving all of life's mistakes praying a scavenger comes around.

That is the start of a great horror adventure. Pretty sure surviving that would lead to some insanity.

-STS

[dreicunan]

I'd agree that they don't need a tune-up from that perspective; your analysis of different tools for different roles is spot on. That said, I've also always thought that the mdc values of robots were too low as an issue of pure mass and strength. If you can make Crusader body armor that weighs 24 lbs and has a main body MDC of 95 that is useable with a normal, non-exceptional human PS, how on earth does a UAR-1 that weighs 18 tons and has a robotic PS of 40 only have enough armor plating to hit 350 for the main body?

When ive bothered to think about this, it's two reasons. The in-game/mechanical reason is along the same lines as why, say, a a guided missile destroyer doesn't have much more armor plating than a patrol boat and less than an amphibious assault vehicle in real life.

you build the vehicle to do what it needs to do, with internals and mechanicals, and all that jazz, and then layer on as much armor as the remaining load allows.

So, the majority of the UAR-1 in this case is the robotics, pistons, mounting hardware for the armaments, the larger nuclear power system, et al...and then whatever mass was left over in the budget is the armor. Its been shown that with advancement in armor technology it can be up-armored (Free Quebec up-armored their UAR-1s with more modern armor); but there's an upward limit just based on how much mass budget you have left after all the essentials are factored in.

And part two...

I've always assumed that the low armor on robots has been a result of Kevin S's bias towards infantry level small squad action (most characters in most Palladium games are not fighting in giant robots) and fantastic play (remember in the GMG when he talked about how his error with the original ranged combat rules was trying to make them too realistic/simulationist?).

You get pretty much spot on. Part one up there is the in-game science/mechanical explanation for the OOG/game balance explanation (but also happens to be a perfectly good reason that has parallels in real life). Its a game balance issue, and a game-fun issue.

I'm also now wondering how robots and Tanks end up shaking out in terms of usefulness versus cost since, as I believe you noted, they do many of the same things well.

The tanks tend to also be quite expensive.

The Linebacker is 32 million credits cost to the CS, according to CWC. The Hellfire robot (which has similar firepower, but less MDC) is 25 million. The Skull-smasher is 72 million (but has more MDC, more armaments, and a similar sized crew).

So, primarily they fit in pretty well with robots from that perspective. They have some disadvantages (tanks cant fit all the places Robots can, or not as easily) but also advantages (lots of armor for their size because they dont have complicated robot systems to support) and depending on the tank (like, say, the Linebacker) they can cross rivers and stuff far more easily.

Now, the IHA tanks that didn't run on Nuclear power were SUPER cheap for their value, IMO. Decent MDC (600+ for the MBT), great armaments, and like.. 7 million or less for the gas or electric models?

They seem to have been the exception, rather than the rule, though. (Though i wonder what NG could do with traditional tracked tanks, since the only tank they produce is a relatively expensive and mediocre hover tank).

Iron Heart MBT was 4 million for Gas and 6 for electric, but 35 with a nuclear. Medium was 2.5, 3, or 23 respectively. Heck, their APC had a main weapon capable of bursting for 2d6x10 out to 3000 ft and a laser capable of 6d6 out to 4000 while boasting 450 MDC for 3, 3.3, or 14.

You could field 7 diesel MBTs for the cost of an Enforcer. That is 70 medium range missiles. On the attack fuel may be an issue, but is there a more cost effective vehicle on the defensive?

[Shorty Lickens]

A long time ago I noticed robots are very expensive compared to PA when you take into account their weapons and armor. So in some of my games I implemented a special rule: Military grade robots can automate their secondary weapons systems. This adds a crapload of extra attacks but with a minimal bonus to strike.

In my most recent game (liberating the slaves of Atlantis) the players thought that was overpowering and decided to not use it.
But we did give PC's two extra attacks per round.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Iron Heart MBT was 4 million for Gas and 6 for electric, but 35 with a nuclear. Medium was 2.5, 3, or 23 respectively. Heck, their APC had a main weapon capable of bursting for 2d6x10 out to 3000 ft and a laser capable of 6d6 out to 4000 while boasting 450 MDC for 3, 3.3, or 14.

You could field 7 diesel MBTs for the cost of an Enforcer. That is 70 medium range missiles. On the attack fuel may be an issue, but is there a more cost effective vehicle on the defensive?

It does mention that the missiles cost extra (arent included in the purchase price), however they are apparently super cheap if you bought them from IHA (15k each).

The other benefit of going with the Electric is you can TW convert it (or at least you could when Merc's launched, when a straight-up engine conversion was an ability outright listed in the TW section, im not sure of the status of this under RUE).

But yeah, those IHA tanks were the bees knees.

A long time ago I noticed robots are very expensive compared to PA when you take into account their weapons and armor.

Again, given that most Robots can score kills on PA from far outside the PA's attack range... im not really sure i buy that. If anything, what i think this says is that PA is too damn cheap and should be more expensive. (And given that some PAs cost less than a million, i think that's an understatement).

So in some of my games I implemented a special rule: Military grade robots can automate their secondary weapons systems. This adds a crapload of extra attacks but with a minimal bonus to strike.

... or, they could just be properly crewed and have all those attacks (probably more) and better strike bonuses anyway. Thats part of the point of Robots. Most of them have multiple crew. Lets take the Skull Smasher:

Pilot, Co-Pilot, Two Gunners, and a communications officer. Pilot and Co-Pilot can take movement actions and dodge, Pilot (by default) operates the fore-arm lasers, one gunner manages the long-range laser, one gunner operates the particle beam and one of them uses the missiles.

So... yeah. Thats a lot of freaking attacks. Without some weird automation.

In my most recent game (liberating the slaves of Atlantis) the players thought that was overpowering and decided to not use it.

Well, yeah. Allowing them to go without the appropriate crew and still function at 100% capacity is.... sure, ill go with "busted".

Another great thing Robots or Crewed Vehicles are good for in PC parties is allowing non-combatant PCs to participate in Combat without being a liability and/or exposed to getting wasted.

In the game i currently guest-star in occasionally, there are two fairly non-combatant characters (A Cyber-Doc and a Psychic who focuses mainly on non-combative powers). They do both have Weapon Systems, though, so they can contribute when the party gets into a big fight by manning weapons on the party APC without exposing themselves (and their low armor and poor weapon skills) to danger.

[dreicunan]

Quite right; I missed the "extra" part. So 6 MBTs and over 260 medium range missiles to load into the 6 of them.

[ShadowLogan]

. If you can make Crusader body armor that weighs 24 lbs and has a main body MDC of 95 that is useable with a normal, non-exceptional human PS, how on earth does a UAR-1 that weighs 18 tons and has a robotic PS of 40 only have enough armor plating to hit 350 for the main body?

I think it is important to also remember that MDC (and even SDC/HP) is not strictly an "armor" protective value. If you take enough damage you can start to see secondary effects that impact performance (this goes back to 1E RT, but can be found in Rifts UE on pg353-4 currently). These are presented as optional rules, but there are specific cases where it isn't optional (megaversally speaking).

I'd say halving the MDC of most body armour, power armour, cyborgs and supernatural critters is a roughly efficient way to scale things.

Then double the damage of most missiles, railguns, and weapons too large to fit on power armour.

That's where I would start anyway, some specific items might need to be dialed up or down from there.

It's more like reducing the value to 1/10th in terms of fixing MDC values for those categories, not 1/2 IMHO.

As for damage output, that can be a bit tricker. I have to say that I've toyed with the idea of using the SDC conversion notes (in CB1r) to modify explosives by x10 but apply to MDC as a way to make missiles more lethal.

MDC/SDC system is generally a bit to "basic" and something like the SDC system's plug in for Penetration might help balance things out to both in terms of damage output and soak. Something like this might be a better "fix" because then it can be less about the damage/soak values and allow the big beefy bot/tank to shrug off stuff that the smaller EBA/borg/PA can't.

[Library Ogre]

Here's a simple method I toyed with a while back...

Classify combatants into one of three categories:
1) Human size (soldiers, partial borgs, juicers, exo-skeletons, etc...)
2) PA size (SAMAS, full borgs, etc...)
3) Robot size (tanks, robot vehicles, etc...)

Then damage modifiers are used whenever an attacker and target are different sizes:
A) Human size inflicts half damage to PA size, and one-quarter damage to Robot size
B) PA size inflicts +50% damage to Human size, and half damage to Robot size
C) Robot size inflicts double damage to Human size, and +50% damage to PA size

This is similar to how d6 system handles it; they have a variety of scale categories (Character, Speeder, Walker, Starfighter, Capital, and Death Star), and weapons of one size have a bonus to hit larger scale targets... but those targets gain the same number of dice as a bonus to resist the damage. So, if you're Character Scale and shooting at a Walker, you will almost always hit, but you will seldom do any damage to speak of.

[slade the sniper]

This is similar to how d6 system handles it; they have a variety of scale categories (Character, Speeder, Walker, Starfighter, Capital, and Death Star), and weapons of one size have a bonus to hit larger scale targets... but those targets gain the same number of dice as a bonus to resist the damage. So, if you're Character Scale and shooting at a Walker, you will almost always hit, but you will seldom do any damage to speak of.

This scaling mechanic is really useful. The only thing I didn't like about it is that Walker and Starfighter should have been the same unless velocity was counted into the Starfighter defense bonus. It has been a LONG time since I even looked at my D6 WEG books.

I still see the value of having a scaling mechanic in Palladium
Character 1:1
Vehicles 1:10
Military 1:100 (which allows us to backronym MDC into Military Damage Capacity, because "Mega" is the wrong SI prefix)
Capital 1:1000 (just to keep the order of magnitude thing going)

Of course, the cutoffs between those groups would be a bit fuzzy which makes my OCD act up...

-STS

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

This is similar to how d6 system handles it; they have a variety of scale categories (Character, Speeder, Walker, Starfighter, Capital, and Death Star), and weapons of one size have a bonus to hit larger scale targets... but those targets gain the same number of dice as a bonus to resist the damage. So, if you're Character Scale and shooting at a Walker, you will almost always hit, but you will seldom do any damage to speak of.

This scaling mechanic is really useful. The only thing I didn't like about it is that Walker and Starfighter should have been the same unless velocity was counted into the Starfighter defense bonus. It has been a LONG time since I even looked at my D6 WEG books.

I still see the value of having a scaling mechanic in Palladium
Character 1:1
Vehicles 1:10
Military 1:100 (which allows us to backronym MDC into Military Damage Capacity, because "Mega" is the wrong SI prefix)
Capital 1:1000 (just to keep the order of magnitude thing going)

Of course, the cutoffs between those groups would be a bit fuzzy which makes my OCD act up...

-STS

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that then eliminates the entire point of MDC. In-game, MDC weapons were the breakthrough that put the firepower of a tank into the hands of an infantryman.

Thats a deliberate piece of the setting.

[slade the sniper]

This is similar to how d6 system handles it; they have a variety of scale categories (Character, Speeder, Walker, Starfighter, Capital, and Death Star), and weapons of one size have a bonus to hit larger scale targets... but those targets gain the same number of dice as a bonus to resist the damage. So, if you're Character Scale and shooting at a Walker, you will almost always hit, but you will seldom do any damage to speak of.

This scaling mechanic is really useful. The only thing I didn't like about it is that Walker and Starfighter should have been the same unless velocity was counted into the Starfighter defense bonus. It has been a LONG time since I even looked at my D6 WEG books.

I still see the value of having a scaling mechanic in Palladium
Character 1:1
Vehicles 1:10
Military 1:100 (which allows us to backronym MDC into Military Damage Capacity, because "Mega" is the wrong SI prefix)
Capital 1:1000 (just to keep the order of magnitude thing going)

Of course, the cutoffs between those groups would be a bit fuzzy which makes my OCD act up...

-STS

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that then eliminates the entire point of MDC. In-game, MDC weapons were the breakthrough that put the firepower of a tank into the hands of an infantryman.

Thats a deliberate piece of the setting.

I guess I should've pointed out that I wouldn't change anything...everything is purely by the book, I just change the "Mega-" to "Military." The Vehicular and Capital ship scale are there, but not really used...like placeholders. Granted you could use them for vehicles (cars and such) to ensure that you don't destroy a car with 1d6 SDC punches by making the car have ~30 Vehicular damage and you can't damage the car unless you do 10+ SDC damage per hit (which in my mind makes some sense), and you can have big things like the SDF-1 be functionally immune to attacks from 1-9 MDC.

TLDR: I am not changing the setting or damage at all, just making some things a bit tougher (vehicles and capital ships).

-STS

[kaid]

One thing to note about tanks is while they are pretty cost effective for defense if you do gas/electric their biggest issue in rifts would be the fact that the prime killer of tanks is even nastier and more dangerous in rifts earth. One of the biggest threats to tanks is infantry that can get in close to them. On rifts the infantry is both faster/and in a lot of cases capable of ripping a tank up with their bare hands if they close range.

robot vehicles/power armor have martial arts hand to hand combat abilities to fend off infantry that get up close. Tanks if you can get near them have a lot of blind spots where they are likely incapable of putting fire down on a close proximity opponent with anything other than last ditch defensive weapon systems.


Also note with robot vehicles their crew has a lot higher chance of surviving the loss of their vehicle than power armor. Power armor if you can wear any body armor inside it is going to need to be very very light jump suit style armor. In robot vehicles even once the unit is wrecked you still have the protected pilot compartment before anybody is exposed to enemy fire and inside that compartment depending on the armor you are likely wearing normal light/medium armor and in some you can pilot/crew it while wearing light power armor. So it is very likely even after the unit is "destroyed" the crew are still going to be in good shape/armed and able to defend themselves.

In power armor once your suit is breached and MDC depleted you are exposed to direct harm and unlikely to be able to wear much to protect you and possibly lacking in any usable weapon to defend yourself unless your power armor has a man portable weapon that has not been wrecked.

[Eagle]

Certain things about robots bother me (like the Triax robot that is 100 feet tall, and carries a laser rifle the size of a tree -- and does D6x10 MD). But generally I've learned to live with it. I just figure that robots are fairly disposable and aren't expected to survive combat. They're mobile heavy weapons platforms, not invulnerable titans that shrug off massive damage.

Why do they have lower MDC? Surface area. There's a lot of armor, but it's spread over a decent sized robot. Measuring MDC per kilogram is a waste of time because the UAR-1 Enforcer has way more armor than a Crusader suit. Not just 3 1/2-ish times as much armor, but probably 50 times as much armor plating. Is it out of the question for a 20 foot robot to have 1200 lbs of armor strapped to it? It's just protecting a much larger target, so the armor is (relatively) thinner.

Think about this. What does an Enforcer that has taken 349 points of MD look like? Is it stripped perfectly clean of armor, all the way around? I don't think so. I think it looks like a functional Enforcer robot, scuffed and banged up a bit, but probably with at least one big gaping hole in the armor plate. There's probably some internal damage as well, but nothing that has actually stopped it from functioning. But the very next shot is going to go right into that hole and hit something really important, and then the robot doesn't move anymore.

The number of MDC points a target has is just a game abstraction. In-universe, they'd describe it as having a certain thickness of armor plate, and as being resistant to temperatures of a certain amount. In game we just give it an MDC rating for ease of use and playability.

[slade the sniper]

Certain things about robots bother me (like the Triax robot that is 100 feet tall, and carries a laser rifle the size of a tree -- and does D6x10 MD). But generally I've learned to live with it. I just figure that robots are fairly disposable and aren't expected to survive combat. They're mobile heavy weapons platforms, not invulnerable titans that shrug off massive damage.

Why do they have lower MDC? Surface area. There's a lot of armor, but it's spread over a decent sized robot. Measuring MDC per kilogram is a waste of time because the UAR-1 Enforcer has way more armor than a Crusader suit. Not just 3 1/2-ish times as much armor, but probably 50 times as much armor plating. Is it out of the question for a 20 foot robot to have 1200 lbs of armor strapped to it? It's just protecting a much larger target, so the armor is (relatively) thinner.

Think about this. What does an Enforcer that has taken 349 points of MD look like? Is it stripped perfectly clean of armor, all the way around? I don't think so. I think it looks like a functional Enforcer robot, scuffed and banged up a bit, but probably with at least one big gaping hole in the armor plate. There's probably some internal damage as well, but nothing that has actually stopped it from functioning. But the very next shot is going to go right into that hole and hit something really important, and then the robot doesn't move anymore.

The number of MDC points a target has is just a game abstraction. In-universe, they'd describe it as having a certain thickness of armor plate, and as being resistant to temperatures of a certain amount. In game we just give it an MDC rating for ease of use and playability.

I can buy off on this... but the gaping hole directly center mass being where the bullets go is also described in universe as the very advanced fire control systems? It just means that GMs will have to have some consistency of description. Rather like in D&D where 10 HP of damage is a fatal wound to a 1st level wizard but 100 HP of damage to a high level fighter (in 3E) is definitely not. Description and context matters...

-STS

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

One thing to note about tanks is while they are pretty cost effective for defense if you do gas/electric their biggest issue in rifts would be the fact that the prime killer of tanks is even nastier and more dangerous in rifts earth. One of the biggest threats to tanks is infantry that can get in close to them. On rifts the infantry is both faster/and in a lot of cases capable of ripping a tank up with their bare hands if they close range.

"A lot of cases"? Hardly. Not even "many" cases.

Usually, its just dudes. Difference is, in reality, infantry with a single tank-killing missile can KO a tank in one shot if they get close. In Rifts, they cant. Tanks are actually LESS vulnerable to infantry in Rifts because of how durable they are than in reality. Which is not to say a mob of guys with rifles that got close couldn't hose down a tank pretty quickly - they could - but they could do the same to any other thing you care to name as well. Moot point really.

robot vehicles/power armor have martial arts hand to hand combat abilities to fend off infantry that get up close. Tanks if you can get near them have a lot of blind spots where they are likely incapable of putting fire down on a close proximity opponent with anything other than last ditch defensive weapon systems.

-Most- of the tanks in Rifts earth are fairly well covered as far as blind spots go, or can outmaneuver infantry handily if they are not. (The Linebacker is covered by two top mounted guns that can hit just about any area around the tank other than right up against the hull, for instance, and they can hit HARD - the cupola gun can be a Particle Beam cannon, Missile Rifle, C40R, or other heavy gun, and the rear laser turret does a not-too-shabby 6D6 per shot. It can also move 100+ MPH. Its not super vulnerable to being meleed.

The IHA tanks are a little more vulnerable, because they are tracked and comparatively slower, but even they have a plethora of close-in weapons.

Also note with robot vehicles their crew has a lot higher chance of surviving the loss of their vehicle than power armor. Power armor if you can wear any body armor inside it is going to need to be very very light jump suit style armor.

Agreed.

The only PA that you can wear armor inside of, that im aware of, is the Glitter Boy (specifically, the light MDC pilots suit).

In robot vehicles even once the unit is wrecked you still have the protected pilot compartment before anybody is exposed to enemy fire and inside that compartment depending on the armor you are likely wearing normal light/medium armor and in some you can pilot/crew it while wearing light power armor. So it is very likely even after the unit is "destroyed" the crew are still going to be in good shape/armed and able to defend themselves.

Most robots even store extra guns and supplies for the pilots.

In power armor once your suit is breached and MDC depleted you are exposed to direct harm and unlikely to be able to wear much to protect you and possibly lacking in any usable weapon to defend yourself unless your power armor has a man portable weapon that has not been wrecked.

Yep.

[Mack]

This reminds me of a CONOPS change I toyed with for the CS: any robot vehicle or tank would have 2-4 Skelebots assigned to it to assist against infantry, help clear a path, watch its blind spots, etc.