Blasters: why?

[Sundog]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

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.

 

I'm not surprised. Both deer and pigs (especially the latter) are significantly more physically robust than a human - damage that would kill us or send us into lethal shock won't necessarily do the same thing to a large animal (as a hunter, I'm sure you're familiar with the "dead animal running" syndrome - where a near perfect shot goes in, but the animal still manages to run a hundred meters or more before expiring).

 

It's true, though, that some human wounds don't show a lot of gore. If the weapon penetrated the abdominal cavity and did not exit, the corpse may look surprisingly peaceful. Head wounds are pretty much always a mess (even if only due to the quantities of blood vessels present on much of the head and face).

[Jhamin]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I think folks tend to think too much in terms of how well weapons work in individual battles and not how they fit into larger organizational thinking. As long as a energy weapon is inexpensive enough, the logistics of using power rather than ammunition would be a *huge* factor in favor of energy weapons for some armies.

 

In Hero's own Xenovore War setting the timeline mentions that the humans switched from Slugthrowers to Energy weapons about 2/3 of the way though the war. The lasers did less damage and the troops *hated* them for that exact reason, but the logistics division felt they were "good enough" and loved that they could supply each laser-equipped platoon with a charging station and never have to worry about ammo again.

 

They decided that not having to ship ammo to _every_single_solder_ before every battle across interstellar distances let them field larger armies that were better equipped in other ways. It was decided that when your supply lines were stretched that thin, in the long run operational flexibility was more important than individual firepower. (Kind of anathema to modern US doctrine, but then our supply lines are "only" a few tens of thousands of miles long with lots of secure friendly bases along the way)

The game did note that elite units & commando teams still tried to use slugthrowers if they could.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I'm actually with wcw43921 and more. When I see a advanced FTL civilization and they've got just slug throwers baely better than ours, it strains my credibilty way more than energy weapons that are compeltely out of the question nowadays. Kind of like modern marines using iron age swords.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I'm actually with wcw43921 and more. When I see a advanced FTL civilization and they've got just slug throwers baely better than ours' date=' it strains my credibilty way more than energy weapons that are compeltely out of the question nowadays. Kind of like modern marines using iron age swords.[/quote']

 

My credibility is strained as well, but for different reasons. Why wouldn't they have more advanced slug-throwers just as easily as advanced energy weapons? That's the route I went in my campaign: bullets with high-tech explosives, "smart" bullets with guidance systems, and other options make them competitive with those fancy laser guns.

[Escafarc]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

In the Honorverse they still use projectile weapons but don't use chemical propellants but magnetic and gravity accelerators with high rates of fire.

[Jhamin]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

My credibility is strained as well' date=' but for different reasons. Why wouldn't they have more advanced slug-throwers just as easily as advanced energy weapons? That's the route I went in my campaign: bullets with high-tech explosives, "smart" bullets with guidance systems, and other options make them competitive with those fancy laser guns.[/quote']

 

Well, if you asked a medieval archer about muskets vs Longbows I'm sure they would very rightly point out all the advantages of the longbow and how with continued advancements they will stay ahead of those unreliable muskets pretty much forever. Which is why Navy SEAL teams use Ultra-bow 4000s to this very day.

 

Don't get me wrong, slugthrowers aren't going anywhere. They will continue to get scary better, and beam weapons are currently completely underpowered and fragile. I just don't know that I want to write off directed energy weapons for FTL capable civilizations.

[Old Man]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

My credibility is strained as well' date=' but for different reasons. Why wouldn't they have more advanced slug-throwers just as easily as advanced energy weapons? That's the route I went in my campaign: bullets with high-tech explosives, "smart" bullets with guidance systems, and other options make them competitive with those fancy laser guns.[/quote']

 

What strains my credibility is that these FTL civilizations have weapons that are less effective, with lower rates of fire, than a 1960s-vintage assault rifle. Of course I expect the battlefields of the future to be unsurvivable by unprotected meatbags, with the proliferation of hyperspectral sensing, smart projectiles, and area denial weapons, to say nothing of NBC weaponry. It's a less interesting story when the human combatants are sitting in drone control pods in an office building halfway around the world from where the action is.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

What strains my credibility is that these FTL civilizations have weapons that are less effective' date=' with lower rates of fire, than a 1960s-vintage assault rifle. Of course I expect the battlefields of the future to be unsurvivable by unprotected meatbags, with the proliferation of hyperspectral sensing, smart projectiles, and area denial weapons, to say nothing of NBC weaponry. It's a less interesting story when the human combatants are sitting in drone control pods in an office building halfway around the world from where the action is.[/quote']

 

The "weapons will suck in the future" situation is often simply a result of poor game design. This can happen anywhere, not just SF. In 1st edition AD&D the mighty crossbow did 1d4 damage. The "heavy" crossbow OTOH, didn't suck nearly as much. It did 1d4+1 damage!

 

The flip-side of this is, when designing hardware appropriate for a given tech level in a SF RPG, you have to be very careful what kind of toys you're putting in the hands of the PCs, and how the game is balanced versus the capabilities available to them. It's hard to challenge god-like killing machines.

 

Same goes for the bad guys' hardware, because you just know it'll end up in the hands of your PCs sooner or later. So if the blasters are lame, it could be just because the game designer decided to err on the side of caution.

[Old Man]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

The "weapons will suck in the future" situation is often simply a result of poor game design. This can happen anywhere' date=' not just SF. In 1st edition AD&D the mighty crossbow did 1d4 damage. The "heavy" crossbow OTOH, didn't suck nearly as much. It did 1d4[b']+1[/b] damage!

 

I wasn't even talking about games, just SF in general. A SW Imperial blaster is the apparent equivalent of a 1936 M1 Garand. A Star Trek phaser does more damage but is still semiautomatic. A BSG reboot pistol is equal to a 1980s-era SIG P226; Farscape's "Winona" is more deadly, but still not as powerful as a phaser. I could go on, but the point is that the only major SF franchise I can think of off the top of my head where automatic weapons are state of the art is Aliens, which is supposed to be relatively hard SF.

 

edit: Oh, and the movie version of Starship Troopers, which also had tactical nuclear weapons deployed at the platoon level.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I wasn't even talking about games, just SF in general. A SW Imperial blaster is the apparent equivalent of a 1936 M1 Garand. A Star Trek phaser does more damage but is still semiautomatic. A BSG reboot pistol is equal to a 1980s-era SIG P226; Farscape's "Winona" is more deadly, but still not as powerful as a phaser. I could go on, but the point is that the only major SF franchise I can think of off the top of my head where automatic weapons are state of the art is Aliens, which is supposed to be relatively hard SF.

 

edit: Oh, and the movie version of Starship Troopers, which also had tactical nuclear weapons deployed at the platoon level.

 

I see what you mean, although I'm not sure you're being entirely fair to the SW blaster. It was next to useless in the hands of stormtroopers, but seemed much more potent whenever somebody else grabbed one. (Han and Luke, for example.) Oh, and the ST phaser: it can one-shot anything when set to 'disintegrate' so why would it need anything other than semi-automatic fire?

 

I don't know about the rest.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I see what you mean' date=' although I'm not sure you're being entirely fair to the SW blaster. It was next to useless in the hands of stormtroopers, but seemed much more potent whenever somebody else grabbed one. (Han and Luke, for example.) Oh, and the ST phaser: it can one-shot [i']anything[/i] when set to 'disintegrate' so why would it need anything other than semi-automatic fire?

 

I don't know about the rest.

 

I seem to remember seeing some automatic phasor rifles in the later seasons of DS9

[Sundog]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I seem to remember seeing some automatic phasor rifles in the later seasons of DS9

 

Yeah, pulse Phaser rifles. Seemed to be both more effective and faster to use than the stupid "dustbusters".

[FatSteve]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Slug throwers mostly just fire a single round at a time. Even the ones that fire very rapidly (using a great weight of ammunition) don't fire continuously. A blaster could conceivably fire a continuous beam. This would make it much easier to hit a target. Alternatively, it could yield greater damage for more skilled shooters who can keep the beam on target for more of its firing cycle.

[Markdoc]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I'm not surprised. Both deer and pigs (especially the latter) are significantly more physically robust than a human - damage that would kill us or send us into lethal shock won't necessarily do the same thing to a large animal (as a hunter' date=' I'm sure you're familiar with the "dead animal running" syndrome - where a near perfect shot goes in, but the animal still manages to run a hundred meters or more before expiring).[/quote']

 

I've seen a human do that - quite literally. There's nothing "physically more robust" about a pig than a human. Same kind of organs, same reaction to be shot or stabbed. Take my word for it: I've seen both. You're right about wounds though. I've never seen a fatal wound that didn't involve lots of blood (every essential organ is either filled with blood, wrapped in arteries or both) - but abdominal wounds can have that bleeding as mostly internal.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

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

But Kiloton-Explosions? Far from it. I seems impossible to use a phaer energy-cell as atom-bomb equivalent. You can make a explosion, but not nearly convert all the stored energy into explosive force.

 

My credibility is strained as well' date=' but for different reasons. Why wouldn't they have more advanced slug-throwers just as easily as advanced energy weapons? That's the route I went in my campaign: bullets with high-tech explosives, "smart" bullets with guidance systems, and other options make them competitive with those fancy laser guns.[/quote']

 

In the Honorverse they still use projectile weapons but don't use chemical propellants but magnetic and gravity accelerators with high rates of fire.

Yes you can advance Slug throwers, but there is still teh problem that you somehow need to compensate Recoil in a Man-Portable Version. That still doesn't means they don't use it.

Like I said: Phaser/Blaster are just a convenient therm for "very advanced weapon". They could be just as easily be an advanced Slug Thrower or Advanced Energy Weapon.

 

Why they are depicted as Energy Weapons:

- Sci Fi Autors aren't aware how far Slug-Throwers can go

- They are aware, but think the Recoil problems hasn't been overcome.

- You can see shots.

- Shots can be collor coded.

- Shots can be sound-coded (you can tell a bad guy DEW from the good guys DEW, simply by sound; try telling two Rifles appart)

- They aren't as loud (unpractical for firefights. I am pretty certain it was not that silent a a battlefield in the wild west)

 

Oh' date=' and the ST phaser: it can one-shot [i']anything[/i] when set to 'disintegrate' so why would it need anything other than semi-automatic fire?

Inculding a few TONS of Rock. According to the Entperprise manual a Typ 2 (Cobrahead) and Typ 3 Phaserrifle have 21 Settings. First 3 Stun, 3 Kill, 3 Vaporize humaniods and then...varporize anything, but more and more of it.

[Jhamin]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

The issues with most sci-fi weapons mostly come from writers or directors that want a good action scene. Phasors had continuous beams that could disintegrate things right up until someone wanted to film a shootout. Then they shot these little pulses that corridor beams could provide cover against.

 

So I see that as more of a problem with the production staff than the weapons.

[sinanju]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I've seen a human do that - quite literally. There's nothing "physically more robust" about a pig than a human. Same kind of organs, same reaction to be shot or stabbed. Take my word for it: I've seen both. You're right about wounds though. I've never seen a fatal wound that didn't involve lots of blood (every essential organ is either filled with blood, wrapped in arteries or both) - but abdominal wounds can have that bleeding as mostly internal.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Ditto that. A friend of mine who is much more knowledgeable about this stuff than me, often mentions documented cases of seemingly superhuman endurance. Crooks and cops both have taken "instantly" fatal wounds--bullets through the heart or brain, sometimes multiple wounds--and kept fighting without even slowing down. Oh, they'll die, sure. But not before they try their damnedest to take you with them. On the other hand, sometimes the slightest injury can take someone out. Humans, like every other animal, are very complex organisms designed to survive a heck of a lot of punishment in the interest of survival. There's just no telling how it will play out in any given instance.

 

The problem with vastly more effective futuristic weapons--in games, at least--is that they take a lot of the fun out of it. GURPS, for instance, works pretty well until you get to about TL 9. At that point, either you have enough armor to make you invulnerable to most weapons...OR everyone is an eggshell with a sledgehammer and the first guy to hit will annihilate his opponent.

[Old Man]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

- Shots can be sound-coded (you can tell a bad guy DEW from the good guys DEW, simply by sound; try telling two Rifles appart)

 

Nitpick: many firearms have readily identifiable sound signatures, especially assault and battle rifles.

[Old Man]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Ditto that. A friend of mine who is much more knowledgeable about this stuff than me' date=' often mentions documented cases of seemingly superhuman endurance. Crooks and cops both have taken "instantly" fatal wounds--bullets through the heart or brain, sometimes multiple wounds--and kept fighting without even slowing down. Oh, they'll die, sure. But not before they try their damnedest to take you with them. On the other hand, sometimes the slightest injury can take someone out. Humans, like every other animal, are very complex organisms designed to survive a heck of a lot of punishment in the interest of survival. There's just no telling how it will play out in any given instance.[/quote']

 

These occurrences are notorious if not commonplace. A mortally wounded suspect slew two agents in the Miami FBI shootout in the '80s; the FBI promptly increased the caliber of its agents' sidearms to .40 from 9mm or .38. That criminal wasn't even on drugs like the ones in the North Hollywood shootout that went on and on, which caused the LAPD to equip its sergeants with M16s to be carried in the trunk of their police cruisers.

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Nitpick: many firearms have readily identifiable sound signatures' date=' especially assault and battle rifles.[/quote']

But it is easier, even for the audience, the discern a Bayonra Phaser from a Jem'Hadar Polaron Weapon.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Crooks and cops both have taken "instantly" fatal wounds--bullets through the heart or brain, sometimes multiple wounds--and kept fighting without even slowing down. Oh, they'll die, sure.

 

Ahem.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mister Phineas Gage.

[Markdoc]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Nitpick: many firearms have readily identifiable sound signatures' date=' especially assault and battle rifles.[/quote']

 

You're right. Actually I would say most firearms have pretty distinctive sounds - an AK47 has very distinct "Pop,pop,pop" sound, an M16 has a far sharper crack and an FN a louder, sharp report - you can easily tell 'em apart even at a couple of kilometres distance. But then the same is true of hunting rifles - the report of a mauser-type rifle is quite different from a .303, even though they're roughly similar cartridge sizes. And my Brno 9 mm short made a totally different sound than the standard mauser action rifle.

 

That said, it's easy to give fake energy weapons totally different sounds (and coloured blasts), so I can see teh movie attraction.

 

cheers, Mark

 

cheers, Mark

[The Weapon]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I see what you mean' date=' although I'm not sure you're being entirely fair to the SW blaster. It was next to useless in the hands of stormtroopers, but seemed much more potent whenever somebody else grabbed one. (Han and Luke, for example.) Oh, and the ST phaser: it can one-shot [i']anything[/i] when set to 'disintegrate' so why would it need anything other than semi-automatic fire?

 

I don't know about the rest.

 

 

SW blasters are next to useless in the hands of stormtroopers _aiming at force capable characters_. When they're not facing main characters (and I think we can assume that almost all the main characters have significant force-potential) they're pretty much continually kicking butt, even in situations where they have to force their way through a narrow door. Presumably the Ewoks had higher than average force-potential in their population. So why are the STs useless against force capable characters? Well no is in charge of their training? Someone both force capable and paranoid. Who knew better than him that a large enough force of STs could kill even the strongest force-practitioner if they weren't nobbled?

[Folded]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Mass Effect had two useful improvements to man-portable slug throwers. First, they were collapsible (only visible in the first game). This reasonably and logically allowed everyone to carry four different weapons (pistol, shotgun, AR and sniper rifle) without obvious encumbrance issues. First-point-five, they were stated to be made of ultra-tech type materials, both stronger and lighter than anything in the 21st.

 

Second, there was no ammo, as such. Each weapon had a block of material (forget what it was), that the weapon stripped small pieces off of. Those pieces were then accelerated by the ubiquitous mass effect generator in the weapon to extremely high velocities. A single block of material was said to last for years or decades, even under high usage. A heat generation system prevented the player from simply pulling the trigger and never letting go, and it worked pretty well.

 

No explanation was ever given as to why no-one used personal energy weapons. The second game had an 'Arc Projector' that worked as sort of a chain lightning gun with a long powerup.

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Presumably the Ewoks had higher than average force-potential in their population.

Superior numbers + advantageous terain + prepared traps. And without Han, Leia or Chewie the missions would have totally failed.

 

No explanation was ever given as to why no-one used personal energy weapons. The second game had an 'Arc Projector' that worked as sort of a chain lightning gun with a long powerup.

It was noted that they do use Laser's as Point Defense on ships. My guess it that it is just so much easier to build a stronger Mass Effect Slug thrower (you only need realtively weak currents to work) that nobody ever bothered to develop man portable lasers.