ATL-7 modified

[Mack]

If we’re looking for a modern day comparison, I’d go with the Barret M82 (.50 cal “anti-material” rifle). It’s the same weight and serves a very similar function.

I’ve never cared for the “anti-tank” or “anti-personnel” descriptors that PB uses. I often find them irrelevant.

[Hawk258]

If we’re looking for a modern day comparison, I’d go with the Barret M82 (.50 cal “anti-material” rifle). It’s the same weight and serves a very similar function.

I’ve never cared for the “anti-tank” or “anti-personnel” descriptors that PB uses. I often find them irrelevant.

I might agree with that comparison "if" the payload and rates of fire were similar.

[The Beast]

If we’re looking for a modern day comparison, I’d go with the Barret M82 (.50 cal “anti-material” rifle). It’s the same weight and serves a very similar function.

I’ve never cared for the “anti-tank” or “anti-personnel” descriptors that PB uses. I often find them irrelevant.

That's because under Palladium's rules they are. Get rid of MDC and fix how AR works and then those descriptions might start to mean something again.

[Hawk258]

If we’re looking for a modern day comparison, I’d go with the Barret M82 (.50 cal “anti-material” rifle). It’s the same weight and serves a very similar function.

I’ve never cared for the “anti-tank” or “anti-personnel” descriptors that PB uses. I often find them irrelevant.

That's because under Palladium's rules they are. Get rid of MDC and fix how AR works and then those descriptions might start to mean something again.

Okay that would be another aspect I didn't consider. Thank you

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

The area effect of the bazooka was a side effect, not a goal. .

The goal was to punch a hole in an armoured vehicle while being light enough and with low enough recoil that the weapon could be issued to the infantry.

The downsides were low range, low rate of fire and a two man crew were required to use the weapon. Worse still, the weapon had a firing signature that told the busiest of that tank you just hit exactly where you were.

The ATL-7 doesn't have the area effect, but it's shots are both silent and invisible, so the crew is far more likely to get a second or third shot.

All of that is true.

There is still a benefit in terms of area of effect. And warhead options. Which a "laser bazooka/missile" does not get (as presented in game) And loses its singular advantage of "energy" in exchange for a "3x" single shot output.

I just believe that the trade offs don't fit. Especially compared to weapons systems that "can" do "roughly" equal damage over time, less investment of time, money, and equipment.

But not for infantry, and not at that range, and not available in that part of the setting.

While the damage is "impressive" it doesn't hold up even. (In my opinion) compared to missiles (no warhead options), anti-aircraft lasers that are "functionally similar".

Again, not for the infantry, not at that range, and not in that part of the setting.

In my "opinion" the ATL-7 needs adjustments. Or doesn't belong in my game. I believe both as a player and GM, the USER is being set up for disappointment.

There are many more potent weapons systems with less drawbacks, more versatility, and better damage per action than the atl-7 and be more rewarding to a player.

Because you’re only examaning this as a player. Not all weapons are meant for the players to use. And, not all weapons are supposed to be good at everything. In fact and in real life, they aren’t. Most weapons have downsides. There is no “one weapon for all situations”. Never has been, never will be, no matter how hard the boffins try.

While I "understand" the "spirit" of the design is "meant to be a lazer missile/bazooka" i don't think it delivers or stands up to my expectations of "anti-armor"

Then other than long-range missiles, what does? Because its right there at the top in terms of damage on-target. And its a lot easier to deploy than any of those solutions. If you lose the two man team and the gun, but they manage to take out a tank... you’re WAY ahead in tems of material and expense.

You can afford those kinds of losses all day every day. Even at two squads down per tank.

Thats what the weapon is for. Its an infantry weapon for taking out extremely expensive military vehicles for cheap. Thats it. It does that well (or as well as anything in Rifts does).

Its also an OK anti-personnel option - on an average roll itll do 100-120 damage, KOing most infantry (especially in the part of the setting in which it is available) in a single shot (especially since in that area of the setting most infantry are in 60-80MDC armor).

It’s become apparent that you either dont grasp or willfully ignore that weapons are not meant to be for all situations (i’d point to the “you cant actually even remotely create this” TW-mega-sword-of-everything that has no downsides).

And not only that, you cant seem to get that not all weapons are meant to be used by the players. Shemarian Rail guns are a great example. Theyre stated out significantly, but the players can only acquire them by GM fiat - by default they explode when the user dies. Only by the GM saying “for some reason this one didn’t” - they cant be acquired by players.

This is a great weapon to use AGAINST the players by NPCs.

Not everything has to be perfect. If thats the case, in your games... the only laser rifle that should ever exist is the Wilks pulse rifle (the JA-12 instead, if you let that exist in your game), the only plasma cannon that should ever exist is the NG E-4A, etc.

Thats just not how things work.

[Hawk258]

At 1d6x10 and a payload of 10 shots the I-11 long gun, is nearly its peer in ability to deliver as much damage with less action cost. And better range. At Half the cost for the weapon

Then you have the illapa 5 that has 6 bursts at 50 md average and 1/4th the cost and 2400 ft much lighter. And could take out a 310 md vehicle 7 or 8 actions.

Or the ARP-1 at 45mdc per burst, 10 bursts and 2000 feet and lighter. (But not for sale)

With 2 weapons that can be bought that are on par with the ATL-7 in damage, but have 1 less drawback (payload) are lower priced. For firepower options.

Which makes the ATL-7 lacking in terms of damage/action/cost

I don't "expect" perfect. I expect to role play. And when I GM as long as players use discretion and aren't hogging the action I have few limits to what "can" be done. As a GM i have tools to balance the power levels. And allow every player the ability to play.

Not everything needs dumbed down either. Flexible GM's can make a game enjoyable without breaking out gods lighter.

Also at the end of the day it is The GM'S call. Don't tell another GM not to do something.

Additionally there are "canon" adventures that actually break it's own rules. Like "Black Earth Mode".

Also I never said it had to be the "only 1" but I do like having some other options for players without feeling like I am just giving out everything. There are trade offs and limits.

[dreicunan]

At 1d6x10 and a payload of 10 shots the I-11 long gun, is nearly its peer in ability to deliver as much damage with less action cost. And better range. At Half the cost for the weapon

Then you have the illapa 5 that has 6 bursts at 50 md average and 1/4th the cost and 2400 ft much lighter. And could take out a 310 md vehicle 7 or 8 actions.

Or the ARP-1 at 45mdc per burst, 10 bursts and 2000 feet and lighter. (But not for sale)

With 2 weapons that can be bought that are on par with the ATL-7 in damage, but have 1 less drawback (payload) are lower priced. For firepower options.

Which makes the ATL-7 lacking in terms of damage/action/cost

I don't "expect" perfect. I expect to role play. And when I GM as long as players use discretion and aren't hogging the action I have few limits to what "can" be done. As a GM i have tools to balance the power levels. And allow every player the ability to play.

Not everything needs dumbed down either. Flexible GM's can make a game enjoyable without breaking out gods lighter.

Also at the end of the day it is The GM'S call. Don't tell another GM not to do something.

Additionally there are "canon" adventures that actually break it's own rules. Like "Black Earth Mode".

Also I never said it had to be the "only 1" but I do like having some other options for players without feeling like I am just giving out everything. There are trade offs and limits.

Ok, Hawk, this is getting ludicrous. The I-11 Long Gun only does 1d6x10 per action. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that 3d6x10 every three actions does less damage than 3d6x10+20 every three actions. If you want to do it as an aimed shot, than it takes 6 actions for the 1d6x10 weapon to hit 3d6x10, while the ATL-7 does 3d6x10+20 every 4. Aimed and called shots takes 9 actions to do 3d6x10 while the ATL-7 does 3d6x10+20 every 5 actions.

You can have your own opinion of the weapon all you want, but the math is the math.

The ATL-7 gives infantry the ability to do 3d6x10+20 with a single shot, not a burst, and thus maximizing the chance of hitting successfully. You don't seem to grasp that all the problems you cite, such as that the wielder of an ATL-7 might get killed before getting off a second shot. Well, the wielder of an ATL-7 can duck behind full cover while reloading the weapon and still put 3d6x10+20 downrange every 3 actions, while someone using one of the weapons that you are citing has to remain exposed if you want to put damage out every action. Since they do less damage in a single shot, that means that it is MORE likely that their target can return fire. That means that they have fewer options for avoiding damage, and thus are more likely to end up dead before being able to deal sufficient damage to keep pace.

The ATL-7 is far more likely than the Illapa 5 to take out a 310 MDC vehicle in 7 actions (not least due to a better chance of hitting since the Illapa 5 has to fire bursts), and has a decent chance of doing so in only 4.

As for other tactical issues, Colonel_Tetsuya gave a great summary (and others have noted great things as well, but his is the most recent.

[Hawk258]

Right and as stated "with better rate of fire/payload" the necessity to aim is not as "critical" when you have 1 to 1 shot:actions. Lower ammo/payload = making sure each shot counts.


At 6 rounds he reloads once in the time you reloaded 6 times.
12 actions for 6 shots of his.before needing to reload

And the other reloads once in the time you reload 10 times.
At 30 actions vs 10 shots for his.

And the illapa is lighter. Meaning he can move quicker.

And the I-11 has 1000 feet on your range.

And you are aiming at a fairly large object. We are discussing killing armored things after all.

Even if no aim is taken you have 6 md per action on 1d6x10. Not much more.

And as noted, as long as 1d6x10 rolls 4 or higher (50% chance) he will beat your average.

2d4x10+10 beats your average naturally.

They are "very close" in damage output per action.
But the 2 others are less expensive in credits (half to 3/4ths cheaper) to acquire.

One is lighter and the other has greater range.

Oh, and it can be their primary weapon too.
Hell for the cost a character could afford to own both for the cost of the ATL-7

If there were a 3 man team each with one of the weapon systems here taking on a 900+ mdc target, the ATL-7 operator would be a sitting duck.

[dreicunan]

Right and as stated "with better rate of fire/payload" the necessity to aim is not as "critical" when you have 1 to 1 shot:actions. Lower ammo/payload = making sure each shot counts.


At 6 rounds he reloads once in the time you reloaded 6 times.
12 actions for 6 shots of his.before needing to reload

And the other reloads once in the time you reload 10 times.
At 30 actions vs 10 shots for his.

And the illapa is lighter. Meaning he can move quicker.

And the I-11 has 1000 feet on your range.

And you are aiming at a fairly large object. We are discussing killing armored things after all.

Even if no aim is taken you have 6 md per action on 1d6x10. Not much more.

And as noted, as long as 1d6x10 rolls 4 or higher (50% chance) he will beat your average.

2d4x10+10 beats your average naturally.

They are "very close" in damage output per action.
But the 2 others are less expensive in credits (half to 3/4ths cheaper) to acquire.

One is lighter and the other has greater range.

Oh, and it can be their primary weapon too.
Hell for the cost a character could afford to own both for the cost of the ATL-7

If there were a 3 man team each with one of the weapon systems here taking on a 900+ mdc target, the ATL-7 operator would be a sitting duck.

If the ATL-7 operator sits around, sure, but so would anyone else who just sits around. If they work together and use decent tactics, the ATL-7 user could be eliminating a weapon location with each shot.

[Jefffar]

The ATL-7 makes little sense for a character weapon, true. As a heavy weapon within an infantry squad with an assistant gunner speeding up the reload rate, it makes a lot of sense.

[Hawk258]

Could
The bottom line, the ATL-7 really doesn't bring much to the table as a whole. All things considered in these 3 weapons the ATL-7 is redundant when either of the other 2 could perform equally as well and still do their primary jobs at far less expense, or burden of added weight and allow room for an item that may specifically deal with another task better.

The ATL-7 would benefit being a secondary weapon on power armor, (as not all power armor get a main gun anyway) and a dedicated (its own) power supply. With 1 3d6x10+20 every 2 actions. (3 if aimed) as the power armor has the ability to use it, and take damage better with less risk to that player. Taking many of the multiple drawbacks down a peg. But not eliminate.

1 shot 2 actions 3d6x10+20 (due to power and heat simple restriction right?)
Range 3000 feet
Battery cell: large 40 shots back up 10.
Takes 1 minute or 6 actions (which ever takes longer) to swap in new cell. The battery adds 30 lb. If crew served one man hauls the weapon and 2 carry 1 battery each (large) takes 1/3 the time 20 seconds to swap.

This keeps the damage per action just a bit better than 41 md. With a potential for 62.5 md. (Still not great but reasonably better)

Which to take a page from the invention of the gatlingun "less men on the field of battle the lower the body count"
Fair?

As in combat most "soldiers" in the field want efficiency. And as a crew served weapon it still isn't. But with proper ammo management it can be. I will meet you part way and treat it similar to a m2 browning.which my solution puts the damage in rough scale to per action.

Then it fits "multi-role heavy laser cannon" or "light anti-armor weapon"

[dreicunan]

The ATL-7 makes little sense for a character weapon, true. As a heavy weapon within an infantry squad with an assistant gunner speeding up the reload rate, it makes a lot of sense.

I'd adjust that slightly. It makes little sense for many characters due to the expense. For a mystic knight, it becomes one of the most efficient ways of doing big damage around (they can charge a normal e-clip for 12 PPE, and it is tough to find 3d6x10+20 damage for only 12 PPE). Get on a ley line and that means a minimum of one shot every round. On a nexus, they get 3 shots every round.

It also makes tons of sense for anyone who can hook it up to a nuclear power supply (or a naruni hip or backpack generator).

[Killer Cyborg]

The ATL-7 makes little sense for a character weapon, true. As a heavy weapon within an infantry squad with an assistant gunner speeding up the reload rate, it makes a lot of sense.

I'd adjust that slightly. It makes little sense for many characters due to the expense. For a mystic knight, it becomes one of the most efficient ways of doing big damage around (they can charge a normal e-clip for 12 PPE, and it is tough to find 3d6x10+20 damage for only 12 PPE). Get on a ley line and that means a minimum of one shot every round. On a nexus, they get 3 shots every round.

It also makes tons of sense for anyone who can hook it up to a nuclear power supply (or a naruni hip or backpack generator).

It also make sense for anybody who doesn't expect to be in prolonged combat on a regular basis, and who has access to free eclip recharging.
And that's a LOT of characters. Most gaming groups seem to hand out free recharges like candy on Halloween.
And after most battles, eclips are part of the regular loot PCs get, so it's not like there's a huge startup investment on that end.
And the gun itself is CR 100k, which is on the high end for an energy rifle... but is cheaper by far than most railguns and missile launchers, the latter being the real weapon of comparison in any case.
Every time you launch a mini-missile, it costs CR 1200-2400, and the damage is <1/3 the damage of the ATL-7, unless you launch in volleys, in which case the cost goes up proportionately.

The cost per shot for an ATL-7 is going to be ZERO for many groups/individuals.

And the cost savings of one-shot-killing somebody before they get a chance to shoot you and damage your armor?
That's pretty significant as well.

Not to mention that Rifts Earth has places like the New West, where one of the standard forms of combat only requires one shot anyway.
Any showdown or one-on-one duel would be a good place to get a first shot in for 125 MD (on average).

I'd say that it makes as much sense for a PC as any other weapon--it depends on the PC, what their role is, what their environment is, what their resources are, and so forth.

[dreicunan]

The ATL-7 makes little sense for a character weapon, true. As a heavy weapon within an infantry squad with an assistant gunner speeding up the reload rate, it makes a lot of sense.

I'd adjust that slightly. It makes little sense for many characters due to the expense. For a mystic knight, it becomes one of the most efficient ways of doing big damage around (they can charge a normal e-clip for 12 PPE, and it is tough to find 3d6x10+20 damage for only 12 PPE). Get on a ley line and that means a minimum of one shot every round. On a nexus, they get 3 shots every round.

It also makes tons of sense for anyone who can hook it up to a nuclear power supply (or a naruni hip or backpack generator).

It also make sense for anybody who doesn't expect to be in prolonged combat on a regular basis, and who has access to free eclip recharging.
And that's a LOT of characters. Most gaming groups seem to hand out free recharges like candy on Halloween.
And after most battles, eclips are part of the regular loot PCs get, so it's not like there's a huge startup investment on that end.
And the gun itself is CR 100k, which is on the high end for an energy rifle... but is cheaper by far than most railguns and missile launchers, the latter being the real weapon of comparison in any case.
Every time you launch a mini-missile, it costs CR 1200-2400, and the damage is <1/3 the damage of the ATL-7, unless you launch in volleys, in which case the cost goes up proportionately.

The cost per shot for an ATL-7 is going to be ZERO for many groups/individuals.

And the cost savings of one-shot-killing somebody before they get a chance to shoot you and damage your armor?
That's pretty significant as well.

Not to mention that Rifts Earth has places like the New West, where one of the standard forms of combat only requires one shot anyway.
Any showdown or one-on-one duel would be a good place to get a first shot in for 125 MD (on average).

I'd say that it makes as much sense for a PC as any other weapon--it depends on the PC, what their role is, what their environment is, what their resources are, and so forth.

All great points as well. I'm now getting images of a cyborg (or a Sheriff or Gunslinger in power armor; nothing prevents them from using their sharpshooting skills in power armor) with WP Sharpshooting: energy rifles taking the trick of using traditional two handed weapons one handed and dual-wielding ATL-7s. That makes for one hell of an Alpha strike at the start of an ambush!

[Hawk258]

The ATL-7 makes little sense for a character weapon, true. As a heavy weapon within an infantry squad with an assistant gunner speeding up the reload rate, it makes a lot of sense.

I'd adjust that slightly. It makes little sense for many characters due to the expense. For a mystic knight, it becomes one of the most efficient ways of doing big damage around (they can charge a normal e-clip for 12 PPE, and it is tough to find 3d6x10+20 damage for only 12 PPE). Get on a ley line and that means a minimum of one shot every round. On a nexus, they get 3 shots every round.

It also makes tons of sense for anyone who can hook it up to a nuclear power supply (or a naruni hip or backpack generator).

It also make sense for anybody who doesn't expect to be in prolonged combat on a regular basis, and who has access to free eclip recharging.
And that's a LOT of characters. Most gaming groups seem to hand out free recharges like candy on Halloween.
And after most battles, eclips are part of the regular loot PCs get, so it's not like there's a huge startup investment on that end.
And the gun itself is CR 100k, which is on the high end for an energy rifle... but is cheaper by far than most railguns and missile launchers, the latter being the real weapon of comparison in any case.
Every time you launch a mini-missile, it costs CR 1200-2400, and the damage is <1/3 the damage of the ATL-7, unless you launch in volleys, in which case the cost goes up proportionately.

The cost per shot for an ATL-7 is going to be ZERO for many groups/individuals.

And the cost savings of one-shot-killing somebody before they get a chance to shoot you and damage your armor?
That's pretty significant as well.

Not to mention that Rifts Earth has places like the New West, where one of the standard forms of combat only requires one shot anyway.
Any showdown or one-on-one duel would be a good place to get a first shot in for 125 MD (on average).

I'd say that it makes as much sense for a PC as any other weapon--it depends on the PC, what their role is, what their environment is, what their resources are, and so forth.

I believe you just listed the key to the issue of perspective in this issue.

Many GM actually utilize the economy to handle power balance in early games and low level characters.

When you begin having characters "develop " and build and improve the challenges should grow with them.

Not every fight needs to be "dusk till dawn" but as a GM there are many assets to keeping a game balanced between combat and story and keep both fun without one or 2 characters hogging the action.

You also have environmental and reputation and npc reaction for unintended collateral damage.

A gm doesn't have to give out all the tools, but if a gamer is wise can acquire many of the necessary tools without being handed to them.

Many OCC get a vehicle, if they have foresight will get one with a nuclear power plant. And use it for charging. But it is also the GM's job to insure they do recharge.

Yes an Atl-7 is under or overpowered based on what a GM throws at you.

A GM has enough resources that no single player or group of players is going to "one shot much"

One of the benefits of an ATL-7 is it 'can" be utilized in a populated area without causing harm to innocent people from the report. Unlike certain rail guns. Don't have explosive area of effect or noise. Making the ATL-7 ideal for a glitterboy instead of the boomgun around innocents. (After modifications)

I am honestly surprised that with the fact the ATL-7 is pre-Rifts tech that more Samas or other power armor that operate in urban areas don't utilize them. And haven't been modified accordingly and include variable frequency options. Especially with 14 or 15 variations of Glitterboy and 7 makers of laser resistant armors currently. (By my estimate)

Additionally with a "lower' damage option, if killing the target isn't the goal, but is still high Durability, you have the ability to do so.

In my opinion

[Killer Cyborg]

Many OCC get a vehicle, if they have foresight will get one with a nuclear power plant. And use it for charging. But it is also the GM's job to insure they do recharge.

As a GM, I generally didn't let people recharge E-Clips from just any nuclear power supply.
Extra equipment was still needed.

Yes an Atl-7 is under or overpowered based on what a GM throws at you.

Agreed.

A GM has enough resources that no single player or group of players is going to "one shot much"

I wouldn't say that. It depends a lot on the GM's goals, and what kind of storytelling they're into.
Some GMs like to let players dominate a number of fights pretty easily, to replicate the kind of action you see in movies, and to make the Boss level fights more impressive.
Of course, GMs with that goal/mindset can set that kind of thing up regardless of what weapons the players have, but the ATL-7 does allow it for larger and more impressive enemies.

I am honestly surprised that with the fact the ATL-7 is pre-Rifts tech that more Samas or other power armor that operate in urban areas don't utilize them. And haven't been modified accordingly and include variable frequency options. Especially with 14 or 15 variations of Glitterboy and 7 makers of laser resistant armors currently. (By my estimate)

Well, they're supposed to be rare or unheard of outside of South America.

[Hawk258]

Many OCC get a vehicle, if they have foresight will get one with a nuclear power plant. And use it for charging. But it is also the GM's job to insure they do recharge.

As a GM, I generally didn't let people recharge E-Clips from just any nuclear power supply.
Extra equipment was still needed.

Yes an Atl-7 is under or overpowered based on what a GM throws at you.

Agreed.

A GM has enough resources that no single player or group of players is going to "one shot much"

I wouldn't say that. It depends a lot on the GM's goals, and what kind of storytelling they're into.
Some GMs like to let players dominate a number of fights pretty easily, to replicate the kind of action you see in movies, and to make the Boss level fights more impressive.
Of course, GMs with that goal/mindset can set that kind of thing up regardless of what weapons the players have, but the ATL-7 does allow it for larger and more impressive enemies.

I am honestly surprised that with the fact the ATL-7 is pre-Rifts tech that more Samas or other power armor that operate in urban areas don't utilize them. And haven't been modified accordingly and include variable frequency options. Especially with 14 or 15 variations of Glitterboy and 7 makers of laser resistant armors currently. (By my estimate)

Well, they're supposed to be rare or unheard of outside of South America.

I largely agree with most everything. Except the ATL-7 and knowledge outside SA.

Great minds think alike, and I believe that with the global trade and travel level of rifts earth (between 1300's to 1700's depending on perspective) and military records and history, as well as the lack of similar counterparts around the world (it is not a unique idea and has several real world relations). And there are many weapons systems like it (with varying output yes) in regards to type, and function. It maybe unknown to the general masses, but I find it difficult to believe it is unknown among triax, archie, NG, or bandito arms or Japan (especially)


Especially when Naruni have a foot in South America.

There would be many opportunities to bring "exotic" weapons systems into another area. And expand weapons development in other areas that Natuni could RIP off and save on their own R&D.

Especially when its is already been noted that phase tech has arrived on earth.

[dreicunan]

Spoiler:

Many OCC get a vehicle, if they have foresight will get one with a nuclear power plant. And use it for charging. But it is also the GM's job to insure they do recharge.

As a GM, I generally didn't let people recharge E-Clips from just any nuclear power supply.
Extra equipment was still needed.

Yes an Atl-7 is under or overpowered based on what a GM throws at you.

Agreed.

A GM has enough resources that no single player or group of players is going to "one shot much"

I wouldn't say that. It depends a lot on the GM's goals, and what kind of storytelling they're into.
Some GMs like to let players dominate a number of fights pretty easily, to replicate the kind of action you see in movies, and to make the Boss level fights more impressive.
Of course, GMs with that goal/mindset can set that kind of thing up regardless of what weapons the players have, but the ATL-7 does allow it for larger and more impressive enemies.

I am honestly surprised that with the fact the ATL-7 is pre-Rifts tech that more Samas or other power armor that operate in urban areas don't utilize them. And haven't been modified accordingly and include variable frequency options. Especially with 14 or 15 variations of Glitterboy and 7 makers of laser resistant armors currently. (By my estimate)

Well, they're supposed to be rare or unheard of outside of South America.

I largely agree with most everything. Except the ATL-7 and knowledge outside SA.

Great minds think alike, and I believe that with the global trade and travel level of rifts earth (between 1300's to 1700's depending on perspective) and military records and history, as well as the lack of similar counterparts around the world (it is not a unique idea and has several real world relations). And there are many weapons systems like it (with varying output yes) in regards to type, and function. It maybe unknown to the general masses, but I find it difficult to believe it is unknown among triax, archie, NG, or bandito arms or Japan (especially)


Especially when Naruni have a foot in South America.

There would be many opportunities to bring "exotic" weapons systems into another area. And expand weapons development in other areas that Natuni could RIP off and save on their own R&D.

Especially when its is already been noted that phase tech has arrived on earth.

Japan (from Pre-Rifts people) and Triax (from records) may know of it or they may not. Even if they do, that doesn't mean that they knew anything beyond "Those crazy guys down in South America came up with a laser that uses an entire e-clip per shot." We've been debating a lot of issues. Objectively speaking, that line of research just may not appeal or be feasible for X reasons.

Travel is a tricky subject. We have what the setting tells us, and what it shows us. It tells us that long distance travel is tough and risky, then shows us that there is an airline in North America making regular runs.

When you have these issues, you decide how to explain it. Some recommend explaining it so that canon is still canon. For example, the South Americans truly had made a breakthrough with this weapon that is no mean feat, and even after examining exactly how it works may not be easily adaptable away from the exact design they used. It continues to be made in South America only because they have the exact designs. If the PCs want to adapt it, they need to spend the next 2d6+12 years doing regular R&D in appropriate facilities and skills, plus with adequate funding to be able to understand, replicate, adapt, and improve upon the design. Partnering with an organization like Wilks, Triax, or Northern Gun will reduce that time to 1d6+8 years, but also runs the risks of reduced profits or even being completely cut out of the deal. Partnering with the CS basically assures you of disappearing so that they can claim that they came up with it independently.

[Zer0 Kay]

Is there another laser weapon that has longer range? As a sniper weapon I don't think it can be beat. Range, Single Shot damage and Silent.

[Hawk258]

Is there another laser weapon that has longer range? As a sniper weapon I don't think it can be beat. Range, Single Shot damage and Silent.

Longer range? Several the ATL-7 is 3000 yards.

Single shot? Not that I am aware.


That impressive single shot becomes less impressive the longer it takes to take out intended targets and when lesser weapons do it as fast action to action.

But that does not change my opinion of "ammo management" can improve the "damage to action cost" as I have demonstrated that it is matched in damage per action by lesser weapons.

And it's utility ignored because of it.

This is like having an m2 browning firing 1 shot at a time and with under loaded rounds doing as much damage as an m16 does in 3 rounds.

Or a grenade launcher firing slugs and that's all it can fire.

Once a king always a king but once a night is never enough.

From my perspective

[Hawk258]

Spoiler:

Many OCC get a vehicle, if they have foresight will get one with a nuclear power plant. And use it for charging. But it is also the GM's job to insure they do recharge.

As a GM, I generally didn't let people recharge E-Clips from just any nuclear power supply.
Extra equipment was still needed.

Yes an Atl-7 is under or overpowered based on what a GM throws at you.

Agreed.

A GM has enough resources that no single player or group of players is going to "one shot much"

I wouldn't say that. It depends a lot on the GM's goals, and what kind of storytelling they're into.
Some GMs like to let players dominate a number of fights pretty easily, to replicate the kind of action you see in movies, and to make the Boss level fights more impressive.
Of course, GMs with that goal/mindset can set that kind of thing up regardless of what weapons the players have, but the ATL-7 does allow it for larger and more impressive enemies.

I am honestly surprised that with the fact the ATL-7 is pre-Rifts tech that more Samas or other power armor that operate in urban areas don't utilize them. And haven't been modified accordingly and include variable frequency options. Especially with 14 or 15 variations of Glitterboy and 7 makers of laser resistant armors currently. (By my estimate)

Well, they're supposed to be rare or unheard of outside of South America.

I largely agree with most everything. Except the ATL-7 and knowledge outside SA.

Great minds think alike, and I believe that with the global trade and travel level of rifts earth (between 1300's to 1700's depending on perspective) and military records and history, as well as the lack of similar counterparts around the world (it is not a unique idea and has several real world relations). And there are many weapons systems like it (with varying output yes) in regards to type, and function. It maybe unknown to the general masses, but I find it difficult to believe it is unknown among triax, archie, NG, or bandito arms or Japan (especially)


Especially when Naruni have a foot in South America.

There would be many opportunities to bring "exotic" weapons systems into another area. And expand weapons development in other areas that Natuni could RIP off and save on their own R&D.

Especially when its is already been noted that phase tech has arrived on earth.

Japan (from Pre-Rifts people) and Triax (from records) may know of it or they may not. Even if they do, that doesn't mean that they knew anything beyond "Those crazy guys down in South America came up with a laser that uses an entire e-clip per shot." We've been debating a lot of issues. Objectively speaking, that line of research just may not appeal or be feasible for X reasons.

Travel is a tricky subject. We have what the setting tells us, and what it shows us. It tells us that long distance travel is tough and risky, then shows us that there is an airline in North America making regular runs.

When you have these issues, you decide how to explain it. Some recommend explaining it so that canon is still canon. For example, the South Americans truly had made a breakthrough with this weapon that is no mean feat, and even after examining exactly how it works may not be easily adaptable away from the exact design they used. It continues to be made in South America only because they have the exact designs. If the PCs want to adapt it, they need to spend the next 2d6+12 years doing regular R&D in appropriate facilities and skills, plus with adequate funding to be able to understand, replicate, adapt, and improve upon the design. Partnering with an organization like Wilks, Triax, or Northern Gun will reduce that time to 1d6+8 years, but also runs the risks of reduced profits or even being completely cut out of the deal. Partnering with the CS basically assures you of disappearing so that they can claim that they came up with it independently.

True and why I put travel in the 1300 to 1700, there is "limited" global trade but expensive and dangerous. But there are several ways examples of the ATL-7 can get around. Naruni, Slugorth, horune pirates, and gargoyles and even the atlantians and anti-monsters.

And yes for another faction to reproduce it would take time.

However the folks that build and sell the ATL-7 don't have that issue. As the potential hasn't been explored for many reasons.

However there is a point of competition and war.

So a handful of engineers sit down and say "well let's make it a bit better"

Decide that safely improving its rate of fire safely is the first goal.

So they create a cabling system that can be used on nuclear power plants and batteries. But for safety they limit the rate of fire to 2 actions for 1 shot.

As the barrel is insulated the heat has to travel somewhere.
The electronics is logical. Which could cause issues with higher rates of fire than 1 shot every 2 actions.

The other is power demand, the cables and battery/nuclear plant are under extreme demand and may fail critically if fired faster which may cause batteries to explode or nuclear power plants to shut down until safe operating temperatures are reached.

[eliakon]

I would like to point out that the ATL-7 was developed pre-rifts.
That means that a full up major league R&D program, with golden age funding, drawing upon golden age infrastructure and access to a highly trained golden age populace with golden age education.
They then had the years, if not decades that full military R&D takes to work on this.
And the ATL-7 was the best that they were able to come up with.

It sort of beggars belief that someone is going to do better than that with out having some serious mojo backing them.

This is one reason I am always so harsh when PCs want to pimp out their gear. Your dealing with stuff that has already been worked on by well funded teams of experts who have huge budgets, full labs, research teams, all the blueprints, and all the time in the world... so why is your guy going to figure out what they all missed and figure out how to make something that is two or three times better working out of a tent in the back of beyond?

[eliakon]

Is there another laser weapon that has longer range? As a sniper weapon I don't think it can be beat. Range, Single Shot damage and Silent.

Longer range? Several the ATL-7 is 3000 yards.

Single shot? Not that I am aware.

so which man-portable laser weapons out range it?
My sniper is telling me to ask...she says it's for a friend.

[Hawk258]

Is there another laser weapon that has longer range? As a sniper weapon I don't think it can be beat. Range, Single Shot damage and Silent.

Longer range? Several the ATL-7 is 3000 yards.

Single shot? Not that I am aware.

so which man-portable laser weapons out range it?
My sniper is telling me to ask...she says it's for a friend.

Well J9, J11, J12 rifles. 18% of a mile longer. For a total of 3/4ths of a mile.

But that's besides the point.

I am not changing anything unrealistic.

Not changing the range, it is still 3000 feet

Not changing the damage: still 3d6x10+20 per single shot.

Not changing how much of an eclip it uses.

Didn't make it lighter.

Just a balanced way to be more efficient with power supply and better maintain damage average. Not like I made it fire burst or full automatic.

[Mack]

Had another amusing thought regarding the ATL-7: Should the operator use a Single Shot, or an Aimed Shot? The Single Shot saves an action, while the Aimed Shot provides a +2 Strike.

Assume we have a hypothetical solder with 5 actions per melee, and a +2 Strike from his WP.

A roll of 8 is required to hit a ranged target.
-- A Single Shot would hit with a roll of 6+, or 75% of the time.
-- An Aimed Shot would hit with a roll of 4+, or 85% of the time.

So over the long run (meaning the average including hits, misses, and criticals) a Single Shot will inflict 100 MD, while an Aimed will hit for 112.5 MD.

After 2 melees, he'd fire 4 Single Shots for 400 MD, or 3 Aimed for 337.5 MD.
After 4 melees, he'd fire 7 Single Shots for 700 MD, or 5 Aimed for 562.5 MD.

So over the long run the soldier is better off just firing Single Shots as the extra attacks more than compensate for the lost accuracy.


[Note - Obviously, dice could be fickle over the short run, or circumstances may dictate that he not have the luxury of giving up some accuracy. YMMV]


EDIT...
For giggles I ran the same math but added a +3 laser targeting scope to the aimed shot. The long term result is the same: the soldier is still better off using Single Shots.

[Hawk258]

Had another amusing thought regarding the ATL-7: Should the operator use a Single Shot, or an Aimed Shot? The Single Shot saves an action, while the Aimed Shot provides a +2 Strike.

Assume we have a hypothetical solder with 5 actions per melee, and a +2 Strike from his WP.

A roll of 8 is required to hit a ranged target.
-- A Single Shot would hit with a roll of 6+, or 75% of the time.
-- An Aimed Shot would hit with a roll of 4+, or 85% of the time.

So over the long run (meaning the average including hits, misses, and criticals) a Single Shot will inflict 100 MD, while an Aimed will hit for 112.5 MD.

After 2 melees, he'd fire 4 Single Shots for 400 MD, or 3 Aimed for 337.5 MD.
After 4 melees, he'd fire 7 Single Shots for 700 MD, or 5 Aimed for 562.5 MD.

So over the long run the soldier is better off just firing Single Shots as the extra attacks more than compensate for the lost accuracy.


[Note - Obviously, dice could be fickle over the short run, or circumstances may dictate that he not have the luxury of giving up some accuracy. YMMV]


EDIT...
For giggles I ran the same math but added a +3 laser targeting scope to the aimed shot. The long term result is the same: the soldier is still better off using Single Shots.

So in other words same conclusion different approaches.

Fewer actions = greater damage potential.

[Killer Cyborg]

Had another amusing thought regarding the ATL-7: Should the operator use a Single Shot, or an Aimed Shot? The Single Shot saves an action, while the Aimed Shot provides a +2 Strike.

Assume we have a hypothetical solder with 5 actions per melee, and a +2 Strike from his WP.

A roll of 8 is required to hit a ranged target.
-- A Single Shot would hit with a roll of 6+, or 75% of the time.
-- An Aimed Shot would hit with a roll of 4+, or 85% of the time.

So over the long run (meaning the average including hits, misses, and criticals) a Single Shot will inflict 100 MD, while an Aimed will hit for 112.5 MD.

After 2 melees, he'd fire 4 Single Shots for 400 MD, or 3 Aimed for 337.5 MD.
After 4 melees, he'd fire 7 Single Shots for 700 MD, or 5 Aimed for 562.5 MD.

So over the long run the soldier is better off just firing Single Shots as the extra attacks more than compensate for the lost accuracy.


[Note - Obviously, dice could be fickle over the short run, or circumstances may dictate that he not have the luxury of giving up some accuracy. YMMV]


EDIT...
For giggles I ran the same math but added a +3 laser targeting scope to the aimed shot. The long term result is the same: the soldier is still better off using Single Shots.

So in other words same conclusion different approaches.

Fewer actions = greater damage potential.

Yes, IF the damage per shot is the same.

[Mack]

KC is correct.

And just to be clear, this means that when analyzing the ATL-7 one should use 3 actions and not 4.

[ShadowLogan]

Had another amusing thought regarding the ATL-7: Should the operator use a Single Shot, or an Aimed Shot? The Single Shot saves an action, while the Aimed Shot provides a +2 Strike.

Assume we have a hypothetical solder with 5 actions per melee, and a +2 Strike from his WP.

A roll of 8 is required to hit a ranged target.
-- A Single Shot would hit with a roll of 6+, or 75% of the time.
-- An Aimed Shot would hit with a roll of 4+, or 85% of the time.

So over the long run (meaning the average including hits, misses, and criticals) a Single Shot will inflict 100 MD, while an Aimed will hit for 112.5 MD.

After 2 melees, he'd fire 4 Single Shots for 400 MD, or 3 Aimed for 337.5 MD.
After 4 melees, he'd fire 7 Single Shots for 700 MD, or 5 Aimed for 562.5 MD.

So over the long run the soldier is better off just firing Single Shots as the extra attacks more than compensate for the lost accuracy.


[Note - Obviously, dice could be fickle over the short run, or circumstances may dictate that he not have the luxury of giving up some accuracy. YMMV]


EDIT...
For giggles I ran the same math but added a +3 laser targeting scope to the aimed shot. The long term result is the same: the soldier is still better off using Single Shots.

The ATL-7 was written under Rifts Main Book Rules, and NOT Rifts Ultimate Edition. That means when it was conceived Aimed Shot did not incur an extra action. "An aimed shot ...Each individual shot takes one full attack. Thus, if a character has four attacks per melee he/she can shoot FOUR Aimed shots."-RMB pg34. So when it was written the situation would actually favor the aimed shot shooter as both would attack 7 times in 4 melees, but the Aimed Shooter should hit more often.

I realize that RUE trumps RMB, and Aimed Shot action penalty was added sometime between RMB and RUE.

At 5APM, 2 spent shooting and 2 reloading, would the number of attacks for Aimed actually be less since you can't carry over actions between melees like this (not saying you can't do it this way, but you can't apply credit for dodge actions on next melee round AFAIK so I can't see doing it for attacks).

Then again if the Aimed Shot guy/gal has a reload team working for him/her that reduces the number of attacks for reload to 1 (instead of 2) then he/she could fire 7 times in 4 melees (granted single shot guy/gal goes up to 10 under these conditions). It should probably also be noted that non-Reload teams the Aimed Shot guy/gal would be ready to fire at the start of the next (5th melee) and the single shot guy/gal would still be reloading (the reverse is true for reload teams).

[eliakon]

You can cut your reload time significantly by using one of the many E-Packs as well.
Which alters radically the time factors involved.
so assuming you only have 5 APM (which is, frankly absurd, but lets go with it).
That is still 2.5 aimed shots per round for several rounds (and before people say that you can't save actions.. I am not "saving" anything. If I start an extended action though, it takes as long as it takes. If that means it starts in round 1 and ends in round 2 so be it.. we can see this applies because there are actions that take more than 15 seconds to perform)
Then when your pack is empty you spend 1 action swapping out the power cord and start back up

[Zer0 Kay]

That's why I, when I had the chance, used the CAF battle armor with the power pack

[Hawk258]

Going through various books offered a solution for the lack of armor rating. Some weapons listed have a note stating "a natural roll of 18, 19, or 20 penetrates the armor"

They are rare however in the case of the ATL-7 could apply.

[Hawk258]

Had another amusing thought regarding the ATL-7: Should the operator use a Single Shot, or an Aimed Shot? The Single Shot saves an action, while the Aimed Shot provides a +2 Strike.

Assume we have a hypothetical solder with 5 actions per melee, and a +2 Strike from his WP.

A roll of 8 is required to hit a ranged target.
-- A Single Shot would hit with a roll of 6+, or 75% of the time.
-- An Aimed Shot would hit with a roll of 4+, or 85% of the time.

So over the long run (meaning the average including hits, misses, and criticals) a Single Shot will inflict 100 MD, while an Aimed will hit for 112.5 MD.

After 2 melees, he'd fire 4 Single Shots for 400 MD, or 3 Aimed for 337.5 MD.
After 4 melees, he'd fire 7 Single Shots for 700 MD, or 5 Aimed for 562.5 MD.

So over the long run the soldier is better off just firing Single Shots as the extra attacks more than compensate for the lost accuracy.


[Note - Obviously, dice could be fickle over the short run, or circumstances may dictate that he not have the luxury of giving up some accuracy. YMMV]


EDIT...
For giggles I ran the same math but added a +3 laser targeting scope to the aimed shot. The long term result is the same: the soldier is still better off using Single Shots.

So in other words same conclusion different approaches.

Fewer actions = greater damage potential.

Yes, IF the damage per shot is the same.

"Potential" is the key word there.

[dreicunan]

Going through various books offered a solution for the lack of armor rating. Some weapons listed have a note stating "a natural roll of 18, 19, or 20 penetrates the armor"

They are rare however in the case of the ATL-7 could apply.

This is the kind of adaptation that makes more sense to me. Rather than try to change or expand the role of the weapon, make it better at what it is supposed to do: be an anti-armor weapon.

Now, adapting that to the way things work in Rifts might take the form of the weapon doing a critical hit on an 18, 19, or 20. Another alternative would be to say that any roll of 20 or above (including bonuses) is a critical hit, and natural 20s inflict triple damage, but only against tanks and robots (because reasons).

Actually, I like the idea of having any of 20 or above inflict extra damage precisely because it then does incentivize aiming.

[Hawk258]

Going through various books offered a solution for the lack of armor rating. Some weapons listed have a note stating "a natural roll of 18, 19, or 20 penetrates the armor"

They are rare however in the case of the ATL-7 could apply.

This is the kind of adaptation that makes more sense to me. Rather than try to change or expand the role of the weapon, make it better at what it is supposed to do: be an anti-armor weapon.

Now, adapting that to the way things work in Rifts might take the form of the weapon doing a critical hit on an 18, 19, or 20. Another alternative would be to say that any roll of 20 or above (including bonuses) is a critical hit, and natural 20s inflict triple damage, but only against tanks and robots (because reasons).

Actually, I like the idea of having any of 20 or above inflict extra damage precisely because it then does incentivize aiming.

Pardon me if I believe a "battery" powered device should keep up with a missile launcher and not take longer to reload, that does the same damage, and is actually dishing out the damage it should do.

I mean we aren't talking about physical ammo we are discussing a "bad" design than can be addressed many ways, relocation of the e-clip port being 1. Where 1 shot and 1 reload can be done as well. Which puts the damage per action at 62.5 md average.

when you have a man portable missile system in game that actually fires 3 round bursts in 1 action for 3d6x10, has 6 round payload, and can be reloaded in 3 seconds. 2 attacks and 3 actions. Vs 1 attack and 3. For 1/10th the cost. From a book released 1 year before. And would be anywhere in the world.

There are hand loaded missile systems that take less time to reload. 30 seconds to hand load 8 rounds.
At less than 1/20th to 1/30th the cost.


I might agree with the ATL-7 in Europe or Africa but South America isn't exactly technologically lacking.
They have knowledge to both create a glitterboy and its laser resistant plating. Has Human soldiers with access to advanced technology that could also improve it.

Personally I wouldn't add the armor piercing on the ATL-7
Because then you need to apply the same rules to rounds that are AP. And then have to debate small weapons AP rounds.

Which honestly the increase of payload is far easier and actually makes more sense in the long term.

Unless you want to write up new AP tables for various ammo and weapons

[dreicunan]

Going through various books offered a solution for the lack of armor rating. Some weapons listed have a note stating "a natural roll of 18, 19, or 20 penetrates the armor"

They are rare however in the case of the ATL-7 could apply.

This is the kind of adaptation that makes more sense to me. Rather than try to change or expand the role of the weapon, make it better at what it is supposed to do: be an anti-armor weapon.

Now, adapting that to the way things work in Rifts might take the form of the weapon doing a critical hit on an 18, 19, or 20. Another alternative would be to say that any roll of 20 or above (including bonuses) is a critical hit, and natural 20s inflict triple damage, but only against tanks and robots (because reasons).

Actually, I like the idea of having any of 20 or above inflict extra damage precisely because it then does incentivize aiming.

Pardon me if I believe a "battery" powered device should keep up with a missile launcher and not take longer to reload, that does the same damage, and is actually dishing out the damage it should do.

I mean we aren't talking about physical ammo we are discussing a "bad" design than can be addressed many ways, relocation of the e-clip port being 1. Where 1 shot and 1 reload can be done as well. Which puts the damage per action at 62.5 md average.

when you have a man portable missile system in game that actually fires 3 round bursts in 1 action for 3d6x10, has 6 round payload, and can be reloaded in 3 seconds. 2 attacks and 3 actions. Vs 1 attack and 3. For 1/10th the cost. From a book released 1 year before. And would be anywhere in the world.

There are hand loaded missile systems that take less time to reload. 30 seconds to hand load 8 rounds.
At less than 1/20th to 1/30th the cost.


I might agree with the ATL-7 in Europe or Africa but South America isn't exactly technologically lacking.
They have knowledge to both create a glitterboy and its laser resistant plating. Has Human soldiers with access to advanced technology that could also improve it.

Personally I wouldn't add the armor piercing on the ATL-7
Because then you need to apply the same rules to rounds that are AP. And then have to debate small weapons AP rounds.

Which honestly the increase of payload is far easier and actually makes more sense in the long term.

Unless you want to write up new AP tables for various ammo and weapons

Ok. You are pardoned. As for the rest of your argument the "ease" of fixing the "flaws" in the design, there are so many assumptions that you are off in head-canon land. It is just as easy to argue all your points the other way, as I already illustrated earlier in the thread, regarding the supposed ability of the ATL-7 to be altered. Having the ability to make chromium armor doesn't mean that you have the ability to improve a laser weapon. Nothing says that the ATL-7 SHOULD work any way other than how it works. Nothing says that it should be just as cheap as other systems. Not all weapon systems are created equal. No one is forcing your character to use an ATL-7 over one of those other systems your character would find that preferable.

There is also nothing stopping you from hooking the canon ATL-7 up to a nuclear reactor and just firing the thing every single action except GM fiat. GM Fiat is also the only thing stopping a Gizmoteer from converting it to run on a single ISP per shot, or 2 PPE (see p. 158 of South America 2; the cost to recharge the weapon is equal to the number of shots that you get from an e-clip, so the fewer shots it gets the cheaper it is to recharge). Gizmoteer's for the win!

[Killer Cyborg]

Going through various books offered a solution for the lack of armor rating. Some weapons listed have a note stating "a natural roll of 18, 19, or 20 penetrates the armor"

They are rare however in the case of the ATL-7 could apply.

This is the kind of adaptation that makes more sense to me. Rather than try to change or expand the role of the weapon, make it better at what it is supposed to do: be an anti-armor weapon.

Now, adapting that to the way things work in Rifts might take the form of the weapon doing a critical hit on an 18, 19, or 20. Another alternative would be to say that any roll of 20 or above (including bonuses) is a critical hit, and natural 20s inflict triple damage, but only against tanks and robots (because reasons).

Actually, I like the idea of having any of 20 or above inflict extra damage precisely because it then does incentivize aiming.

Pardon me if I believe a "battery" powered device should keep up with a missile launcher and not take longer to reload, that does the same damage, and is actually dishing out the damage it should do.

I mean we aren't talking about physical ammo we are discussing a "bad" design than can be addressed many ways, relocation of the e-clip port being 1. Where 1 shot and 1 reload can be done as well.

One of my many problems with the weapon is that all its limitations are poorly thought-out, and have easy work-arounds.
Like the reloading issue, which--as you say--just seems like a deliberately poor design.
WHY does it take so long to reload? Because game balance. NO in-game reason.

From an in-game perspective, there's no apparent reason why the thing cannot:
a) be rigged to a nuclear powers supply, and have unlimited ammo.
b) use power packs that contain more power than a single e-clip, allowing for more than one shot.
c) be redesigned or modified for faster reloading.
d) have additional e-clip ports, so it can hold more than one e-clip.

when you have a man portable missile system in game that actually fires 3 round bursts in 1 action for 3d6x10, has 6 round payload, and can be reloaded in 3 seconds.

Which one's that?

[Hawk258]

Going through various books offered a solution for the lack of armor rating. Some weapons listed have a note stating "a natural roll of 18, 19, or 20 penetrates the armor"

They are rare however in the case of the ATL-7 could apply.

This is the kind of adaptation that makes more sense to me. Rather than try to change or expand the role of the weapon, make it better at what it is supposed to do: be an anti-armor weapon.

Now, adapting that to the way things work in Rifts might take the form of the weapon doing a critical hit on an 18, 19, or 20. Another alternative would be to say that any roll of 20 or above (including bonuses) is a critical hit, and natural 20s inflict triple damage, but only against tanks and robots (because reasons).

Actually, I like the idea of having any of 20 or above inflict extra damage precisely because it then does incentivize aiming.

Pardon me if I believe a "battery" powered device should keep up with a missile launcher and not take longer to reload, that does the same damage, and is actually dishing out the damage it should do.

I mean we aren't talking about physical ammo we are discussing a "bad" design than can be addressed many ways, relocation of the e-clip port being 1. Where 1 shot and 1 reload can be done as well.

One of my many problems with the weapon is that all its limitations are poorly thought-out, and have easy work-arounds.
Like the reloading issue, which--as you say--just seems like a deliberately poor design.
WHY does it take so long to reload? Because game balance. NO in-game reason.

From an in-game perspective, there's no apparent reason why the thing cannot:
a) be rigged to a nuclear powers supply, and have unlimited ammo.
b) use power packs that contain more power than a single e-clip, allowing for more than one shot.
c) be redesigned or modified for faster reloading.
d) have additional e-clip ports, so it can hold more than one e-clip.

when you have a man portable missile system in game that actually fires 3 round bursts in 1 action for 3d6x10, has 6 round payload, and can be reloaded in 3 seconds.

Which one's that?

undersea books page 116
Rapid fire LAWS 3

And "rocket" launcher... AKA dumb missile

[Killer Cyborg]

when you have a man portable missile system in game that actually fires 3 round bursts in 1 action for 3d6x10, has 6 round payload, and can be reloaded in 3 seconds.

Which one's that?

undersea books page 116
Rapid fire LAWS 3

And "rocket" launcher... AKA dumb missile

Okay, well the LAWS-3 and the ATL-7 are both pre-Rifts technology, so they're comparable on that level.

Let's take a look...
The LAWs-3 costs CR 45,000 to buy the weapon, and the rockets cost... well, the Armor Piercing are CR 3,000 per clip, and CR 2,100 for Frag.
I'm looking at RGMG 156, and can't find a price listed for HE, which is the one that does 1d6x10 MD.
I don't have Underseas handy--is there a price listed in it?
Regardless, normal mini-missiles cost (SB1 55) CR 2400 EACH for Armor Piercing, and CR 1200 EACH for HE or Frag. I have no idea where the discounted rates listed for the LAWs-3 is coming from, other than author fiat.
(Really, the more I look at this, the more I think you've just found an even more broken outlier of a weapon, NOT a standard by which the ATL-7 should be judged)

Anyway, let's compare prices.

The LAWs-3 costs CR 45,000, and the AP missiles (1d4x10 MD) effectively cost CR 500 each if I'm understanding that correctly.
The ATL-7 costs CR 100,000, and E-Clips cost CR 6,000 each initially, with CR 1200-1500 per recharge.

A LAWs-3 with enough ammunition for 10 volleys of 3 (at 3d4x10 MD) would need 5 clips, so that's (CR 45,000 + CR 15,000) about CR 60,000.
An ATL-7 with enough ammunition for 10 shots at 3d6x10+20 MD would need 10 e-clips, so that's (CR 100,000 + CR 60,000) about CR 160,000!

Initially the LAWs is MUCH cheaper if you buy everything at book prices.
But the ATL-7 does more damage, so there's that.

Also, the ATL-7 has a range of 3,000', and can make Aimed or Called shots to that full distance with no penalty.
The LAWs has a range of 4,000'... technically. But everything over 2,000' comes at a -2 to strike penalty. And if you're firing burst, you're NOT making Aimed or Called Shots.
That seems like a draw to me, overall. Depending on what you want to DO, either weapon might come out ahead.

And the LAWs does area of effect damage, while the ATL only hits one target.
Again, depending on what you want to DO, either one could be an advantage or a disadvantage compared to the other.
Sometimes you don't WANT to hit everything in a 40' area (or whatever... the AP & HE blast areas for this weapon aren't listed).
Sometimes you DO.
Again, I call that a draw.

So let's get back to ammunition costs.

IF you start out with enough brand new ammo for TEN blasts, there's a CR 100,000 dollar difference for choosing the ATL.
The ATL has--at full book prices--a cost of as much as CR 1500 per shot.
and the LAWs has a static cost of CR 500 per shot (for AP rockets. Again, HE prices are unknown).
Advantage in both cases go to the LAWs.

However...
If you buy USED eclips, the ATL's initial cost drops to as low as CR 125,000.
If you have access to free recharges, the cost of the ATL stays at CR 125,000, no matter how many shots you make.
Which isn't possible for the LAWs.
If the life expectancy of the weapon is 130 shots (That's 43.33 burst for the LAWs) or fewer, the LAWs retains this advantage.
But every shot after that, the ATL starts being the cheaper weapon.
And, of course, that's comparing the AP rounds (30-120 MD, with an average of 75 MD) to the ATL (50-200 MD, with an average of 125 MD), so damage is still generally on the side of the ATL.

Also, the ATL-7 uses standard e-clips, which are found all over the planet.
The LAWs-3 uses it's own unique funky rockets, which are found... well, only with the New Navy, it seems.
So for the most part, comparing costs is irrelvant: that LAWs-3 isn't going to get reloaded by anybody BUT the New Navy, or by somebody who can custom-build rockets specifically for that weapon (which isn't cheap or free).

[ShadowLogan]

I don't have Underseas handy--is there a price listed in it?

No, HE prices are not listed.

Regardless, normal mini-missiles cost (SB1 55) CR 2400 EACH for Armor Piercing, and CR 1200 EACH for HE or Frag. I have no idea where the discounted rates listed for the LAWs-3 is coming from, other than author fiat.

And the LAWS-3 rockets are laser guided. The only thing I can think of is that either:
A. the market prices for mini missiles have a huge markup
B. New Navy production methods are much cheaper than the sources for those other market missiles
C. Bulk Discount for the LAWS-3? I mean you can buy mini missiles individually, but the LAWS-3 are by the clip (ie 3).
D. The New Navy (or their manufacturer) is taking a financial loss on the sale of the missiles for whatever reason

[Hawk258]

when you have a man portable missile system in game that actually fires 3 round bursts in 1 action for 3d6x10, has 6 round payload, and can be reloaded in 3 seconds.

Which one's that?

undersea books page 116
Rapid fire LAWS 3

And "rocket" launcher... AKA dumb missile

Okay, well the LAWS-3 and the ATL-7 are both pre-Rifts technology, so they're comparable on that level.

Let's take a look...
The LAWs-3 costs CR 45,000 to buy the weapon, and the rockets cost... well, the Armor Piercing are CR 3,000 per clip, and CR 2,100 for Frag.
I'm looking at RGMG 156, and can't find a price listed for HE, which is the one that does 1d6x10 MD.
I don't have Underseas handy--is there a price listed in it?
Regardless, normal mini-missiles cost (SB1 55) CR 2400 EACH for Armor Piercing, and CR 1200 EACH for HE or Frag. I have no idea where the discounted rates listed for the LAWs-3 is coming from, other than author fiat.
(Really, the more I look at this, the more I think you've just found an even more broken outlier of a weapon, NOT a standard by which the ATL-7 should be judged)

Anyway, let's compare prices.

The LAWs-3 costs CR 45,000, and the AP missiles (1d4x10 MD) effectively cost CR 500 each if I'm understanding that correctly.
The ATL-7 costs CR 100,000, and E-Clips cost CR 6,000 each initially, with CR 1200-1500 per recharge.

A LAWs-3 with enough ammunition for 10 volleys of 3 (at 3d4x10 MD) would need 5 clips, so that's (CR 45,000 + CR 15,000) about CR 60,000.
An ATL-7 with enough ammunition for 10 shots at 3d6x10+20 MD would need 10 e-clips, so that's (CR 100,000 + CR 60,000) about CR 160,000!

Initially the LAWs is MUCH cheaper if you buy everything at book prices.
But the ATL-7 does more damage, so there's that.

Also, the ATL-7 has a range of 3,000', and can make Aimed or Called shots to that full distance with no penalty.
The LAWs has a range of 4,000'... technically. But everything over 2,000' comes at a -2 to strike penalty. And if you're firing burst, you're NOT making Aimed or Called Shots.
That seems like a draw to me, overall. Depending on what you want to DO, either weapon might come out ahead.

And the LAWs does area of effect damage, while the ATL only hits one target.
Again, depending on what you want to DO, either one could be an advantage or a disadvantage compared to the other.
Sometimes you don't WANT to hit everything in a 40' area (or whatever... the AP & HE blast areas for this weapon aren't listed).
Sometimes you DO.
Again, I call that a draw.

So let's get back to ammunition costs.

IF you start out with enough brand new ammo for TEN blasts, there's a CR 100,000 dollar difference for choosing the ATL.
The ATL has--at full book prices--a cost of as much as CR 1500 per shot.
and the LAWs has a static cost of CR 500 per shot (for AP rockets. Again, HE prices are unknown).
Advantage in both cases go to the LAWs.

However...
If you buy USED eclips, the ATL's initial cost drops to as low as CR 125,000.
If you have access to free recharges, the cost of the ATL stays at CR 125,000, no matter how many shots you make.
Which isn't possible for the LAWs.
If the life expectancy of the weapon is 130 shots (That's 43.33 burst for the LAWs) or fewer, the LAWs retains this advantage.
But every shot after that, the ATL starts being the cheaper weapon.
And, of course, that's comparing the AP rounds (30-120 MD, with an average of 75 MD) to the ATL (50-200 MD, with an average of 125 MD), so damage is still generally on the side of the ATL.

Also, the ATL-7 uses standard e-clips, which are found all over the planet.
The LAWs-3 uses it's own unique funky rockets, which are found... well, only with the New Navy, it seems.
So for the most part, comparing costs is irrelvant: that LAWs-3 isn't going to get reloaded by anybody BUT the New Navy, or by somebody who can custom-build rockets specifically for that weapon (which isn't cheap or free).

You are correct but again Nero and the New Navy have the capability to operate globally. The point being the ATL-7 is a prime candidate for improvements. In fact if its short comings were addressed by the new navy or original creators it might be a lazer they would use. (They are not exactly fond of them.)

The point being that the new navy population don't necessarily stay in one place. It isn't like naruni Plasma cartridges where you have to leave the dimension or find a salesman.

Let's also not forget weight on the LAW3 is lighter even fully loaded.

And honestly rockets aren't exactly difficult to deal with. I believe (checking) there are multiple sources of rockets in rifts.

In fact as I am currently "hunting" for rockets I did notice a similar weapon To the LAW3 but handed very similar to the ATL-7. Which is with lazer tech being "generally" universal for the majority of factions should be a prime candidate for the same treatment.

The WI-23 Missile Launcher which is was an improvement to begin with of The CR-1.

Which the CR1 was 1 per 15 seconds solo op, 3 per 15 crew served to reload and fire.

The WI-23 is equal to attacks per round for 6 rounds, with a magazine reload of 3 actions or full 15 loading loose individual rounds

And The LAW3 1 action :1 attack and 1 action to reload.

Rockets (minus laser guidance, however lazer targeting) with CR-1 lower damage but I digress. The tech isn't unknown and can be addressed.

[Zer0 Kay]

If we’re looking for a modern day comparison, I’d go with the Barret M82 (.50 cal “anti-material” rifle). It’s the same weight and serves a very similar function.

I’ve never cared for the “anti-tank” or “anti-personnel” descriptors that PB uses. I often find them irrelevant.

That's because under Palladium's rules they are. Get rid of MDC and fix how AR works and then those descriptions might start to mean something again.

Nah keep MDC make MAR and AP penetrates 1/2 MAR OR rounds and/or weapons can have a different PV wich knocks that value off the MAR before the attack roll. If the attacker rolls under MAR no damage if it is over then it does damage to the armor, so kinda like NAR.# Reduce the MDC of everything. It still takes 100 SDC to take a single MDC.

[Killer Cyborg]

You are correct but again Nero and the New Navy have the capability to operate globally.

Sure... but if you're not IN the New Navy, I don't know that'd work well for you when trying to buy more ammo!

The point being the ATL-7 is a prime candidate for improvements. In fact if its short comings were addressed by the new navy or original creators it might be a lazer they would use. (They are not exactly fond of them.)

Well, what shortcomings do you see that wouldn't be fixed by simply hooking the ATL-7 to a better power supply than an E-clip?
Like nuclear?
Your main objection seems to be that it's got a slow rate of fire, and that'd be taken care of if it just didn't run out of ammo.

And honestly rockets aren't exactly difficult to deal with. I believe (checking) there are multiple sources of rockets in rifts.

Not THESE rockets specifically, though. This thing uses a different ammo than anything else I'm aware of.

[eliakon]

Just a side point here...
But the official ruling on the ATL-7 is that it can't be hooked up to nuclear power plants to fire indefinitely.
Yes I know that rule is bizarre... but it is the rule.

[Killer Cyborg]

Just a side point here...
But the official ruling on the ATL-7 is that it can't be hooked up to nuclear power plants to fire indefinitely.
Yes I know that rule is bizarre... but it is the rule.

Huh.
Where/when was that official ruling made?

Also, any verdict on Long E-Clips, Power Packs, or non-nuclear power supplies like Mechanoid crystals?

[Hawk258]

You are correct but again Nero and the New Navy have the capability to operate globally.

Sure... but if you're not IN the New Navy, I don't know that'd work well for you when trying to buy more ammo!

The point being the ATL-7 is a prime candidate for improvements. In fact if its short comings were addressed by the new navy or original creators it might be a lazer they would use. (They are not exactly fond of them.)

Well, what shortcomings do you see that wouldn't be fixed by simply hooking the ATL-7 to a better power supply than an E-clip?
Like nuclear?
Your main objection seems to be that it's got a slow rate of fire, and that'd be taken care of if it just didn't run out of ammo.

And honestly rockets aren't exactly difficult to deal with. I believe (checking) there are multiple sources of rockets in rifts.

Not THESE rockets specifically, though. This thing uses a different ammo than anything else I'm aware of.

It is not stated that it isn't an item they don't sell or trade unlike other equipment in their control. Like the Semper Fi PA.

Additionally since the ammo sizes are not stated I would rule other rockets could be used WITH the limitations of the ammo in question. No lazer targeting and the listed damage of the rocket. As most are "conventional" weapons were based on a NATO standard. I don't imagine making the correct sized rocket Is much of an issue for Iron heart or bandito arms.


And my point is the CR1, WI-23, and LAW3 is an example of "evolution of weapons"

As with everything else things in books are improved. And the ATL-7 is one such item that should be.

As I believe that the ATL-7 was the basis for NG's NG-x16 lazer cannon. Add in what is being done with solar charging and kinetic charging (laser bows) and honestly there is many ways to feed the pig.

[dreicunan]

You are correct but again Nero and the New Navy have the capability to operate globally.

Sure... but if you're not IN the New Navy, I don't know that'd work well for you when trying to buy more ammo!

The point being the ATL-7 is a prime candidate for improvements. In fact if its short comings were addressed by the new navy or original creators it might be a lazer they would use. (They are not exactly fond of them.)

Well, what shortcomings do you see that wouldn't be fixed by simply hooking the ATL-7 to a better power supply than an E-clip?
Like nuclear?
Your main objection seems to be that it's got a slow rate of fire, and that'd be taken care of if it just didn't run out of ammo.

And honestly rockets aren't exactly difficult to deal with. I believe (checking) there are multiple sources of rockets in rifts.

Not THESE rockets specifically, though. This thing uses a different ammo than anything else I'm aware of.

It is not stated that it isn't an item they don't sell or trade unlike other equipment in their control. Like the Semper Fi PA.

Additionally since the ammo sizes are not stated I would rule other rockets could be used WITH the limitations of the ammo in question. No lazer targeting and the listed damage of the rocket. As most are "conventional" weapons were based on a NATO standard. I don't imagine making the correct sized rocket Is much of an issue for Iron heart or bandito arms.


And my point is the CR1, WI-23, and LAW3 is an example of "evolution of weapons"

As with everything else things in books are improved. And the ATL-7 is one such item that should be.

As I believe that the ATL-7 was the basis for NG's NG-x16 lazer cannon. Add in what is being done with solar charging and kinetic charging (laser bows) and honestly there is many ways to feed the pig.

What NG-x16 laser cannon are you talking about? The one from the Midas NG-116 power armor that is basically a pulse rifle with better range?

[eliakon]

You are correct but again Nero and the New Navy have the capability to operate globally.

<snip>

And honestly rockets aren't exactly difficult to deal with. I believe (checking) there are multiple sources of rockets in rifts.

Not THESE rockets specifically, though. This thing uses a different ammo than anything else I'm aware of.

It is not stated that it isn't an item they don't sell or trade unlike other equipment in their control. Like the Semper Fi PA.

Additionally since the ammo sizes are not stated I would rule other rockets could be used WITH the limitations of the ammo in question.

No lazer targeting and the listed damage of the rocket. As most are "conventional" weapons were based on a NATO standard. I don't imagine making the correct sized rocket Is much of an issue for Iron heart or bandito arms.

We know canonically that of them Northern Gun at least has the needed plans actually. And since NG makes most of the missiles that the black market sales (according to NG1)...
The question is if they are bothering to ramp up a factory to produce rocket propelled grenades (not any other kind of rocket or missile, they will need to be specific RPGs, which are not used by or in any other weapon)
It is a fairly niche market and unless someone is buying a few hundred thousand of them it just isn't worth their time.

And my point is the CR1, WI-23, and LAW3 is an example of "evolution of weapons"

As with everything else things in books are improved. And the ATL-7 is one such item that should be.

That does not follow.
Just because some things have improved does not support the claim that everything else should improve as well.

As I believe that the ATL-7 was the basis for NG's NG-x16 lazer cannon. Add in what is being done with solar charging and kinetic charging (laser bows) and honestly there is many ways to feed the pig.

I would just like to point out that places like Northern Gun are unable to reverse engineer CS gear with much precision. The idea that someone like that can reverse engineer a top notch golden age item.
Then figure out how it was designed (the physics of it, the mechanics that went into the design... all the back work that led to the specific design and why it was done the way it was done)
Then figure out how to improve it so that they get a better result than what the best highly paid minds of the Golden Age could get with their AI computers aiding their vast staffs of expertly trained (and genetically engineered for intelligence) scientists. With out spending trillions of credits over decades seems...unlikely.
And they have one of the better R&D programs on Rifts Earth!

Seriously the size of R&D programs is mind boggling. And the nations of Rifts Earth just don't have the population to throw at it. The US has something like 153,000 Electrical Engineers (what we call that, not the Palladium "I have a skill")...that is a tenth the entire population of Northern Gun and Ishpeming. Combined.
Don't get me started on "computer programmers" or "materials engineers" or any other specialty..
Scope and scale people. Scope and scale.
Remember that the entire population of Rifts North America is, if I recall correctly, less than that of Callifornia.
Meaning that you could almost, not quite, but almost support a tech group the size of Silicon Valley... if you used all of North America as your population base!

[Hawk258]

You are correct but again Nero and the New Navy have the capability to operate globally.

<snip>

And honestly rockets aren't exactly difficult to deal with. I believe (checking) there are multiple sources of rockets in rifts.

Not THESE rockets specifically, though. This thing uses a different ammo than anything else I'm aware of.

It is not stated that it isn't an item they don't sell or trade unlike other equipment in their control. Like the Semper Fi PA.

Additionally since the ammo sizes are not stated I would rule other rockets could be used WITH the limitations of the ammo in question.

No lazer targeting and the listed damage of the rocket. As most are "conventional" weapons were based on a NATO standard. I don't imagine making the correct sized rocket Is much of an issue for Iron heart or bandito arms.

We know canonically that of them Northern Gun at least has the needed plans actually. And since NG makes most of the missiles that the black market sales (according to NG1)...
The question is if they are bothering to ramp up a factory to produce rocket propelled grenades (not any other kind of rocket or missile, they will need to be specific RPGs, which are not used by or in any other weapon)
It is a fairly niche market and unless someone is buying a few hundred thousand of them it just isn't worth their time.

And my point is the CR1, WI-23, and LAW3 is an example of "evolution of weapons"

As with everything else things in books are improved. And the ATL-7 is one such item that should be.

That does not follow.
Just because some things have improved does not support the claim that everything else should improve as well.

As I believe that the ATL-7 was the basis for NG's NG-x16 lazer cannon. Add in what is being done with solar charging and kinetic charging (laser bows) and honestly there is many ways to feed the pig.

I would just like to point out that places like Northern Gun are unable to reverse engineer CS gear with much precision. The idea that someone like that can reverse engineer a top notch golden age item.
Then figure out how it was designed (the physics of it, the mechanics that went into the design... all the back work that led to the specific design and why it was done the way it was done)
Then figure out how to improve it so that they get a better result than what the best highly paid minds of the Golden Age could get with their AI computers aiding their vast staffs of expertly trained (and genetically engineered for intelligence) scientists. With out spending trillions of credits over decades seems...unlikely.
And they have one of the better R&D programs on Rifts Earth!

Seriously the size of R&D programs is mind boggling. And the nations of Rifts Earth just don't have the population to throw at it. The US has something like 153,000 Electrical Engineers (what we call that, not the Palladium "I have a skill")...that is a tenth the entire population of Northern Gun and Ishpeming. Combined.
Don't get me started on "computer programmers" or "materials engineers" or any other specialty..
Scope and scale people. Scope and scale.
Remember that the entire population of Rifts North America is, if I recall correctly, less than that of Callifornia.
Meaning that you could almost, not quite, but almost support a tech group the size of Silicon Valley... if you used all of North America as your population base!

1: "mass production" in rifts also follows your population argument.

2: I didn't say "everything" I am talking in regards to the ATL-7.
(But most everything already has been upgraded in one respect or another. (There are many variations of many types of tech that are functionally similar.)

3: quality of engineers is more important than quantity of engineers.

4: list books and pages for
NG "Not being able to reverse engineer CS tech" (can't... if it's a choice not to that is "won't" 2 different things)
As well as where it states The ATL-7 cannot be connected to an external power supply.

Also as a side note rockets, and missile tech is fairly interchangeable and most of it comes down to sizing. Much like conversation firearm rounds in regards to basic functions.

Laser guidance is a another issue.

[eliakon]

Spoiler:

You are correct but again Nero and the New Navy have the capability to operate globally.

<snip>

And honestly rockets aren't exactly difficult to deal with. I believe (checking) there are multiple sources of rockets in rifts.

Not THESE rockets specifically, though. This thing uses a different ammo than anything else I'm aware of.

It is not stated that it isn't an item they don't sell or trade unlike other equipment in their control. Like the Semper Fi PA.

Additionally since the ammo sizes are not stated I would rule other rockets could be used WITH the limitations of the ammo in question.

No lazer targeting and the listed damage of the rocket. As most are "conventional" weapons were based on a NATO standard. I don't imagine making the correct sized rocket Is much of an issue for Iron heart or bandito arms.

We know canonically that of them Northern Gun at least has the needed plans actually. And since NG makes most of the missiles that the black market sales (according to NG1)...
The question is if they are bothering to ramp up a factory to produce rocket propelled grenades (not any other kind of rocket or missile, they will need to be specific RPGs, which are not used by or in any other weapon)
It is a fairly niche market and unless someone is buying a few hundred thousand of them it just isn't worth their time.

And my point is the CR1, WI-23, and LAW3 is an example of "evolution of weapons"

As with everything else things in books are improved. And the ATL-7 is one such item that should be.

That does not follow.
Just because some things have improved does not support the claim that everything else should improve as well.

As I believe that the ATL-7 was the basis for NG's NG-x16 lazer cannon. Add in what is being done with solar charging and kinetic charging (laser bows) and honestly there is many ways to feed the pig.

I would just like to point out that places like Northern Gun are unable to reverse engineer CS gear with much precision. The idea that someone like that can reverse engineer a top notch golden age item.
Then figure out how it was designed (the physics of it, the mechanics that went into the design... all the back work that led to the specific design and why it was done the way it was done)
Then figure out how to improve it so that they get a better result than what the best highly paid minds of the Golden Age could get with their AI computers aiding their vast staffs of expertly trained (and genetically engineered for intelligence) scientists. With out spending trillions of credits over decades seems...unlikely.
And they have one of the better R&D programs on Rifts Earth!

Seriously the size of R&D programs is mind boggling. And the nations of Rifts Earth just don't have the population to throw at it. The US has something like 153,000 Electrical Engineers (what we call that, not the Palladium "I have a skill")...that is a tenth the entire population of Northern Gun and Ishpeming. Combined.
Don't get me started on "computer programmers" or "materials engineers" or any other specialty..
Scope and scale people. Scope and scale.
Remember that the entire population of Rifts North America is, if I recall correctly, less than that of Callifornia.
Meaning that you could almost, not quite, but almost support a tech group the size of Silicon Valley... if you used all of North America as your population base!

1: "mass production" in rifts also follows your population argument.

I am not sure I understand you comment here?
Because mass production does not require giant populations...

2: I didn't say "everything" I am talking in regards to the ATL-7.
(But most everything already has been upgraded in one respect or another. (There are many variations of many types of tech that are functionally similar.)

The argument still stands. The justification for the increase is "this should get an increase because everything else is too"

3: quality of engineers is more important than quantity of engineers.

Which is again a problem.
Which is more likely to provide better engineers
Thousands of competing, collages in a peaceful and open society with free access to publicly funded education, universal literacy, AI educational support, on demand educational databases, world wide sharing of information can select from pools of millions of top notch candidates many of whom are genetically engineered for intelligence...
or tiny balkanized states who have to train each generation from scratch, have to rediscover everything themselves as there is no sharing, have to do all their research and teaching themselves, can't outsource anything and are pulling from population pools in hundreds (if they are really lucky they might get as many as a thousand in a ludicrously good year) of qualified candidates, a pool that is the same pool that they must draw from for their administration, politician, medical staff, military officers, police detectives and literally every other trained and expert field! ...

4: list books and pages for
NG "Not being able to reverse engineer CS tech" (can't... if it's a choice not to that is "won't" 2 different things)

The entire reverse engineering section (NG 1 pg 16) talks about how difficult it is to reverse engineer technology. That even with the exact same tech base (pre rifts US military) and decades of work... the best they could do was gain some "insights" from the SAMAS for their Red Hawk suit!
That suggests that one of the top R&D facilities on the planet has trouble reverse engineering technology, technology that they already have most of the information on mind you! So how exactly are they (or anyone else) going to pull off this amazing ATL-7 job? which is not just a knock off (which are almost invariably worse) But a categorical improvement in every way, over what the Golden Age weapons teams were able to come up with?
And how long did they take to do it?

As well as where it states The ATL-7 cannot be connected to an external power supply.

Rifter 25 page 92 the official Q&A article.
And yes, the Q&A is official, the entire series of Q&A was explicitly stated to be official while it was run.
The answer may not make sense, it may be something that is likely to be Rule Zeroed... but it is the canon.

EDIT: My mistake it should be Rifter 24 page 18 the official Q & A. Thank you Dreicunan for bringing it to my attention

Also as a side note rockets, and missile tech is fairly interchangeable and most of it comes down to sizing. Much like conversation firearm rounds in regards to basic functions.

Rocket Propelled grenades are not mini-missiles.
They are not "interchangeable" at all. Seriously they have different weight, size, range, damage, blast, sensors.... the only thing the same is that they fly and explode! That is about the opposite of "interchangeable" as it gets!

Now you can make a house rule that they are identical... but there is zero canon support for the claim that an RPG is really a Mini-Missile...

Laser guidance is a another issue.

[/quote]
Laser guidance is not even something I was adressing so I'm not sure how it is relevant... but okay?