Blasters: why?

[McCoy]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Untrue. And one of the relatively few areas where Joss Whedon got it wrong. Modern cartridges are air-tight - they carry their own oxidizer. Provided you can overcome thermal problems (brittling of the metal due to extreme cold' date=' overheating and gang-firing due to solar exposure) modern firearms should fire just fine in vacuum.[/quote']

That's what I thought. Thanks.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Star Wars (WEG) armor had a much higher defense against physical attacks compared to energy attacks. It was roughly 3 to 1 ratio. Therefore blasters were much more effective than slugthrowers.

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Star Wars (WEG) armor had a much higher defense against physical attacks compared to energy attacks. It was roughly 3 to 1 ratio. Therefore blasters were much more effective than slugthrowers.

With the very simple armor like West (basically Bulletproof Wests) it was +1d6 vs Phsical, +1 vs Energy. (1d6 equals 3 times +1).

Stormtrooper Armor had +2d6 Physical, +1D6 Energy.

Really Strong Armor like the one Person Spacecrafts the Space Stormtrooper wore, where +3d6 Phys, +2d6 Energy or somethign else with 1d6 difference.

[Clonus]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

That's what I thought. Thanks.

 

Although in the stream of nonsense about Vera that Jayne spouted there was some vague reference to it being "gas pumped". Vera was no ordinary rifle.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Well, I only know one gameseries that features energy weaposn underwatter:

AquaNox.

They use lasers in the Blue/UV Spectrum as main Energy Weapon.

For Plasma or Particle Weapons, they first fire a laser to make a chanel of varporized watter, then fire the plasma/particle beam through said channel (in so short sequence, you only see teh plasma-sphere in game).

 

I think physical projectiles just have it way easier in that matter.

 

That's also the description of how GURPS blasters work in air. Charged particle beams don't particularly work well in atmosphere, so a laser evacuates a tunnel for the beam to travel through. Blasters are noisy and bright in this setting, as it essentially produces a "linear lightning bolt" and a thunderclap as the air rushes back into the evacuated channel.

 

JoeG

[薔薇語]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Well, given all the love for blasters over slugs, why not think about the other side?

 

What do slug throwers bring to the table that blaster, etc., don't? In a world with this kind of super tech, I'd imagine it is far easier to make a pistol, etc, than a blaster. So for the industrious gangster - the ballistics checks aren't going to bring you back to any registered gun. Normal projectile weapons can have a variety of functions added to them: double barrel guns - one for standard ammo and one for canister (grenades, etc). Slug throwers don't produce nearly as much visible cues as a bright n' flashy blaster - ideal for concealed night combat. And as to 'reloads', this would only be an easy thing to do if we assume an amazingly high level of infrastructure and compliant government / society. Need a new clip? Well, no you have to register everything with the local authorities. Need new bullets? Smelt them yourself. And, why can't blaster's be made to be traceable? Just alter the frequencies or some other suitable rubber science to give each blaster a slightly diff. sig.

 

Also, what about Guass guns? Need something (almost anything) fired at high speeds? There ya go. Sure, it isn't at the speed of light (or anything near it), but if your target is just 10 meters away, you don't exactly need lightspeed to overcome the distance.

 

And what of the effects of shooting a slug thrower vs blaster on space colonies / ships. If we get to assume such strong armor that only blasters can overcome it, then we never really have to worry about haul breaches or such from slugs - just those blasters.

 

Last, but certainly not least, any gun that packs as much energy as some of these blasters suffers from the meltdown effect. Remember, Capt. Kirk in crew were scared to death of a single phaser being set to overload while on the enterprise. I doubt they have similar concerns for slug throwers (especially Gauss).

 

Now, with all that said, I still like blasters in my SciFi. ^^

 

La Rose.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Although in the stream of nonsense about Vera that Jayne spouted there was some vague reference to it being "gas pumped". Vera was no ordinary rifle.

 

Hmmm, he said...

 

There are several ways of making automatic weapons (Machine guns). The most common is recoil, where a combination of the recoil and springs is used to 'load the next bullet'. However, there are gas-operated, which use the pressure from the expanding gas of the gunpowder to 'load the next bullet'. Gas operated are rarer, because they're more sensitive to damage and harder to make and have no advantage over recoil operated.

(The third method I know of is power operated, popular with gattling guns and chain guns. It has the advantage of ignoring misfires, it doesn't matter if a shell fires or not, the next one loads anyway. The disadvantage is that it's heavier. Best suited for aircraft and vehicle mounts, where clearing a jam is harder/impossible).

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Because blaster "ammo" doesn't have the mass of solid projectiles, casings, and propellants, and is unlikely to explode if exposed to extreme temperatures? Also, slugthrower ammo doesn't just have mass, but volume, so maybe blasters can carry more "shots" without lugging heavy cases of ammunition around?

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I am reminded of a science fiction campaign I ran inspired by the old TV series The Invaders. I gave the aliens blasters with autofire so they could "disintegrate" people and things (defined as doing more than 2x body in one hit, after all defenses are accounted for). When the PCs inevitably captured blasters from the aliens, the aliens regretted not adopting firearms similar to those used on Earth, since one of the PCs was a not-quite-mad scientist who figured out how to make disintegration bombs from blaster parts, which could breach the defenses of the alien strongholds where common explosives nor even cannonfire could not.

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Well' date=' given all the love for blasters over slugs, why not think about the other side?[/quote']

I can tell you how the Indie Space RPG Nova handles it. Blaster there are called "Impulse Weapons".

 

Advantages Impulse Weapons:

- high damage, damage kings in space (aside from missiles and ultra short range weapons like plasma throwers)

- can be designed to cut (Physical Damage) or Burn (Energy Damage)

- reusable batteries/no reaload with generator (even build-in cybernetic powercells and generators are good).

- availible in size from ship size to pistol

- can be overloaded, dealing up to double damage before amor but also damaging the weapon rapidly

 

Drawbacks of Impulse Weapons:

- lousy range in atmosheres (better in space); not 300 m with the heaviest Rifle

- fragile like hell (you could but a max range, max damage, max overload "sniper rifle", but literally single shot at full power)

- they need energy (wich makes them a bad choice for Point Defense on Ships)

- no autofire at all, but multi-barrel is no problem (also bad for Point Defense on Ships)

- no non-lethal mode

 

Advantages of Slug throwers (Rail guns; the energy comes from a microbattery in the projectile)

- equally good damage potential in Atmosphere, but not in space

- high range (in the Kilometers), unlimited in space

- autofire capable

- big magazines (up to 80 shot)

- able to fire underwatter and in space

- a big selection of special amunition: Armor Piercing (halves armor), Tungsten (double armor, but double damage after armor too), non-letahl amunition (DMSO, gum-shells, Dug-Darts), Self-propelled Amunition (unprecise, but range is multiplied by up to 4), special amunition (long burning/flying flares, microrobtos programmed to vehicle damaging or person capture...); some of those are combineable.

- multi-barrel possible, durable, no energy consuption

 

Drawbacks:

- only Physical Damage

- no overload (but tungsten/AP ammo can have similar effect against the right amount of armor)

- not reuseable Amunition, but you can have big stockpiles in ships or for implanted weapons. Still, limited.

- epsecially in space stronger regulation for higher calibres (danger for ships, planets).

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Suddenly, I"m reminded of the old "Star Trek: The Roleplaying Game" by FASA, where phaser rifles were outranged by crossbows.

 

(Of course, a phaser rifle had like a 90% instant kill on a hit, and did 75 points of damage otherwise, compared to a crossbow's 3d10... and a typical human had 50 hit points.)

[Tom Carman]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I like the versatility arguments' date=' both ethical and practical, although I suppose that depends on the nature of the blaster. A laser pistol is probably not going to be set to stun, but an electron beam might, although either could be used for welding or some such.[/quote']

 

Not necessarily: check out the Pulsed Energy Projectile section.

[Lucius]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Numbers 4 and 9 are incompatible.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

throws a snail at a palindromedary

[DusterBoy]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

In Greg Bear's Aeon, the Soviets carry vaccuum-proofed AK-style rifles.

 

And also Kinetic Weapons Are Just Better

[Sabersonic]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I'd wager that a large caliber bullet wound could do a lot more damage due to hydrostatic shock and internal bleeding than just burning a dime-sized hole through someone.

 

Weaponized laser sidearms don't exactly cause the kind of damage as seen in most sci-fi and space opera. This article on laser side arms should give some detail on the subject at hand.

 

And here's a quote on what kind of damage a laser "bolt" would do to flesh.

 

What would the Asteroid Pirate look like after they got hit?

 

The method of subsequent explosions on the back of an expanding cavity

driving the cavity through the target will leave a wound much like that of a

gunshot, except without fun stuff like the bullet fragmenting or breaking up. A

variant where nearly parallel beams a few cm apart literally rip the tissue

between them could leave a wound looking more like an ugly gash - add on a few

more of these beams on the same plane and you could literally cut someone in

half with one millisecond pulse, using only about as much energy as goes into

accelerating the bullet of a modern day battle rifle.

 

On another blog, it's described as having a cherry bomb explode in one's body. In short, it's not going to be as pretty as seen in tv and movies, but rather more graphic and bloody.

[Sabersonic]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I'd wager that a large caliber bullet wound could do a lot more damage due to hydrostatic shock and internal bleeding than just burning a dime-sized hole through someone.

 

Weaponized laser sidearms don't exactly cause the kind of damage as seen in most sci-fi and space opera. This article on laser side arms should give some detail on the subject at hand.

 

And here's a quote on what kind of damage a laser "bolt" would do to flesh.

 

What would the Asteroid Pirate look like after they got hit?

 

The method of subsequent explosions on the back of an expanding cavity

driving the cavity through the target will leave a wound much like that of a

gunshot, except without fun stuff like the bullet fragmenting or breaking up. A

variant where nearly parallel beams a few cm apart literally rip the tissue

between them could leave a wound looking more like an ugly gash - add on a few

more of these beams on the same plane and you could literally cut someone in

half with one millisecond pulse, using only about as much energy as goes into

accelerating the bullet of a modern day battle rifle.

 

On another blog, it's described as having a cherry bomb explode in one's body. In short, it's not going to be as pretty as seen in tv and movies, but rather more graphic and bloody.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Weaponized laser sidearms don't exactly cause the kind of damage as seen in most sci-fi and space opera. This article on laser side arms should give some detail on the subject at hand.

 

And here's a quote on what kind of damage a laser "bolt" would do to flesh.

 

 

 

On another blog, it's described as having a cherry bomb explode in one's body. In short, it's not going to be as pretty as seen in tv and movies, but rather more graphic and bloody.

 

Weapon damage is never as pretty as shown on TV. To quote a detective, "If you knew what kind of mess a gunshot wound made, you wouldn't ever shoot anyone in your own house."

[Sundog]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Weapon damage is never as pretty as shown on TV. To quote a detective' date=' "If you knew what kind of mess a gunshot wound made, you wouldn't ever shoot anyone in your own house."[/quote']

 

Ohh, yeah. Blood (which gets everywhere), brain matter, bone flecks - took hours to clean that one up (and it's a good thing I have a strong stomach). The cause? A .22 target pistol.

The kind of damage a high powered rifle or shotgun does to the human body? It's beyond gruesome.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Ohh' date=' yeah. Blood (which gets [i']everywhere)[/i], brain matter, bone flecks - took hours to clean that one up (and it's a good thing I have a strong stomach). The cause? A .22 target pistol.

The kind of damage a high powered rifle or shotgun does to the human body? It's beyond gruesome.

 

Add in the tendency of people who are badly wounded/dead to empty thier bowels and bladder...

(Something I've never seen in the grossest splatterpunk horror movie.)

[wcw43921]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I don't quite understand why blasters, be they lasers, particle beams, plasma throwers, masers or what have you, are somehow less than believeable in a science-fiction setting that very likely has faster-than-light travel and artificial gravity. As it stands now--as I understand it--we only have the barest inkling of an inkling as to how faster-than-light travel might be possible, and not even that when it comes to the kind of artificial gravity systems we see in TV and movies. To my mind, any civilization capable of either of those revolutionary accomplishments ought to be capable of any technological advance you could name. Look at Star Trek--not only do they have faster-than-light travel and artificial gravity, they have matter-to-energy-to-matter conversion (the transporters, the replicators), disintegrator weapons (phasers) fully immersive and interactive computer-generated simulations (the holodecks), invisibility screens (cloaking devices) medical science capable of healing almost any injury instantly, and much more. Yet few people--if any--roll their eyes in disbelief at any of Trek's technology--in fact, there are many who look at it and wonder if it could exist in reality.

 

Now if you were creating a setting without faster-than-light travel or artificial gravity--something like the 'Verse of Firefly*, or the near-future of 2001: A Space Odyssey, or something based on 1950s imaginings of space travel--then you could say blasters are just a bit far-fetched. But in a setting that includes one or both of those, I would not have a problem accepting their existence.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

 

 

*I know Firefly has artificial gravity--but it serves, I think, as a good setting for adventuring in a single solar system, like if we were to explore and colonize our own solar system.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I don't quite understand why blasters' date=' be they lasers, particle beams, plasma throwers, masers or what have you, are somehow less than believeable in a science-fiction setting that very likely has faster-than-light travel and artificial gravity. As it stands now--as I understand it--we only have the barest inkling of an inkling as to how faster-than-light travel might be possible, and not even that when it comes to the kind of artificial gravity systems we see in TV and movies. To my mind, any civilization capable of either of those revolutionary accomplishments ought to be capable of any technological advance you could name. Look at [i']Star Trek[/i]--not only do they have faster-than-light travel and artificial gravity, they have matter-to-energy-to-matter conversion (the transporters, the replicators), disintegrator weapons (phasers) fully immersive and interactive computer-generated simulations (the holodecks), invisibility screens (cloaking devices) medical science capable of healing almost any injury instantly, and much more. Yet few people--if any--roll their eyes in disbelief at any of Trek's technology--in fact, there are many who look at it and wonder if it could exist in reality.

 

Now if you were creating a setting without faster-than-light travel or artificial gravity--something like the 'Verse of Firefly*, or the near-future of 2001: A Space Odyssey, or something based on 1950s imaginings of space travel--then you could say blasters are just a bit far-fetched. But in a setting that includes one or both of those, I would not have a problem accepting their existence.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

 

 

*I know Firefly has artificial gravity--but it serves, I think, as a good setting for adventuring in a single solar system, like if we were to explore and colonize our own solar system.

 

No matter how advanced it is, technology isn't magic, and it has its limits.

 

The difference, when it comes to hand weapons, is portability. There's also the question of scalability. The tech used for FTL travel, etc. are generally not man-portable -- usually far from it. For hand weapons, you need a power source that can be scaled down to a few kilos while still having a high enough energy density and output rate to kill someone, while still being safe to operate.

 

This turns out to be extremely difficult, which is why gunpowder is going to be hard to beat for a long time to come. (There are other variations of projectile weapons on the horizon: railguns and electrothermal propellants come to mind. but those are off topic. Also, it'll be a while before they "scale down" to hand weapon size.)

 

Firefly is actually a good example. In the episode Heart of Gold, the bad guy has a fancy laser pistol. It's imported from the core worlds, and he's extremely proud of it. In the big fight at the end, he causes all kinds of carnage with it, right up until the batteries go dead. Apparently they're hard to come by on the frontier....

 

In a couple of other Firefly episodes we see security guards armed with some kind of sonic stunners (I think it was Ariel and Trash, in that order) which could be considered "blasters" of a sort. Jayne "borrows" one for a while and doesn't like it one bit. He tosses it aside in disgust when he's done with it.

[Orion]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Ohh' date=' yeah. Blood (which gets [i']everywhere)[/i], brain matter, bone flecks - took hours to clean that one up (and it's a good thing I have a strong stomach). The cause? A .22 target pistol.

The kind of damage a high powered rifle or shotgun does to the human body? It's beyond gruesome.

 

Not seen any damage to humans, but I have shot a lot of deer and wild hogs in the last 10 years. Sometimes it's a mess, but often times it's just a little hole going in, a slightly bigger hole going out, and a little blood on the ground. But once that arm has a hole in it, you're not going to be punching anyone with that arm anytime soon.

 

I heard a story once of an idiot who decided to cut up a deer carcass himself, rather than taking it to a butcher. No big deal - I do this myself. However, I'm smart enough to not use a skil-saw to cut it up while in my own kitchen! I'm told his wife just about killed him when she found the mess.

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I don't quite understand why blasters' date=' be they lasers, particle beams, plasma throwers, masers or what have you, are somehow less than believeable in a science-fiction setting that very likely has faster-than-light travel and artificial gravity. As it stands now--as I understand it--we only have the barest inkling of an inkling as to how faster-than-light travel might be possible, and not even that when it comes to the kind of artificial gravity systems we see in TV and movies.[/quote']

That is a very good point. It think Phasers/Blasters/Disruptors are just covenient lable for "Energy Weapon/Weapon in general so advanaced, we don't even have a clue to the prequisite knowledge today".

Okay, with our knowledge "every material able to store the energy need to power a laserrifle would be more interstings as warhead for bombs". But, apparently the guys in Star Trek somehow managed to build a Phaser-Energy Cell that does not explodes with a few megatons when somebody drops it (and not even under weaposn fire). The same way they somehow build: FTL-Drives, fast STL-Drives, Artificial Gravitation, FTL-Comunication and Sensors, Forcefields, Shields, Matter-/Antimatter Fusion, Transporter/Teleport, Weathercontrol Systems, Tractorbeams, etc., etc., ...

 

The only difference between Star Trek and Star Wars in that regard, is that Star Trek at least tried to sounds scientific/give the engineer something "engineery" to talk about.

 

Regardings scalability/damage:

One advantage that Energy Weapons have, is that you have no Recoil. This at first sounds like not so important, until you realise that as soon as man-portable railguns become viable, the recoil of that weapon will be the main problem. This is a lesser issue for building/vehicle mounted versions but humans have only so much limits.

In mass effect they somewhat dealt with it by using the "Mass Effect" twice: Once, to lower the mass of the projectile in the barel. And then again, to negate some of the recoil.

[dmjalund]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

is this man "reasoning from Mass Effect?"

 

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

But' date=' apparently the guys in Star Trek somehow managed to build a Phaser-Energy Cell that does [i']not[/i] explodes with a few megatons when somebody drops it (and not even under weaposn fire).

 

It can, however, be set to explode. (ref. The Conscience of the King)