Blasters: why?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

SW blasters are next to useless in the hands of stormtroopers _aiming at force capable characters_.

 

Everyone seems to forget that those stormtroopers on the Death Star were under orders to ALLOW the main characters to escape, so that the tracking device planted on the Falcon would lead the way to the Rebel base.

 

The discipline required to stand there and deliberately miss when your buddies are dying beside you is phenomenal.

[sinanju]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

MY personal theory (prior to the Battle of Endor) was that Stormtrooper armor was proof against any kinetic weapon you cared to name, but didn't defend well against blasters. And that blasters were prohibited weapons to the masses. Our heroes, of course, being terrorists freedom fighters and supposedly-extinct Jedi (with those annoying, omnipotent lightsabres of theirs), nonetheless used energy weapons.

 

The stormtroopers, therefore, were so rattled by facing weapons that could actually KILL them that they couldn't shoot for beans.

 

Then...*sigh*...the Battle of Endor demonstrated conclusively that pint-sized teddy bears could kill stormtroopers in job lots with rocks and pointy sticks. Oh well.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Rocks: the original kinetic weapon!

[csyphrett]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Rocks: the original kinetic weapon!

 

If throwing a rock was good enough for Doc Smith, it's good enough for me.

CES

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

MY personal theory (prior to the Battle of Endor) was that Stormtrooper armor was proof against any kinetic weapon you cared to name' date=' but didn't defend well against blasters. And that blasters were prohibited weapons to the masses. Our heroes, of course, being [strike']terrorists[/strike] freedom fighters and supposedly-extinct Jedi (with those annoying, omnipotent lightsabres of theirs), nonetheless used energy weapons.

 

The stormtroopers, therefore, were so rattled by facing weapons that could actually KILL them that they couldn't shoot for beans.

 

Then...*sigh*...the Battle of Endor demonstrated conclusively that pint-sized teddy bears could kill stormtroopers in job lots with rocks and pointy sticks. Oh well.

 

There's nothing in that battle that insinuates that the stormtroopers were actually killed by the ewoks primitive weapons. They were merely defeated by them (again a stretch, but I am assuming the ewoks vastly superior numbers and intimate knowledge of their home terrain factored heavily in their victory.)

 

Chances are that the vast majority of the troopers were KOed, stunned, disabled etc by the ewoks weapons rather than outright killed.

[sinanju]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

The Ewoks also crushed those two-legged walkers with logs suspended from vines. CRUSHED them! Yes, they were big logs, and all that--but c'mon! Do you think a modern tank would collapse like cardboard if subjected to that kind of force? No.

 

The Battle of Endor proved conclusively that Imperial armor (of the personal or vehicular sort) is crap. It doesn't stop energy weapons. It doesn't stop rocks, pointed sticks or logs. No wonder the stormtroopers can't hit anything. They're forced to go into battle in bulky, heavy, vision-obscuring armor...that doesn't even work as armor.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I grant that I didn't read the entire thread ...

 

... and though I agree to a certain extent with the bit about Ewoks &c, I blame Lucas, because the entire theory behind armor in the SW universe is that though it doesn't do much against energy weapons like blasters, it rocks (pun intended) against physical projectiles...

 

... one of the things at least about Star Wars is that it's not actually a laser/whatever, driven by a power pack -- it's a particle packet sourced by 'blaster gas'. Gas under extraordinarily high pressure, though, means that instead of having 15 bullets in a pistol, you can have 50 (or 500) blaster shots in a pistol. And if you're shooting bullets, well, then you have to really contend against stormtrooper armor instead of blasting it apart.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

The Ewoks also crushed those two-legged walkers with logs suspended from vines. CRUSHED them! Yes' date=' they were big logs, and all that--but c'mon! Do you think a modern tank would collapse like cardboard if subjected to that kind of force? No.[/quote']

 

True. Those logs must've been extremely heavy to do that. Or AT-ST armor is extremely thin.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I grant that I didn't read the entire thread ...

 

... and though I agree to a certain extent with the bit about Ewoks &c, I blame Lucas, because the entire theory behind armor in the SW universe is that though it doesn't do much against energy weapons like blasters, it rocks (pun intended) against physical projectiles...

 

... one of the things at least about Star Wars is that it's not actually a laser/whatever, driven by a power pack -- it's a particle packet sourced by 'blaster gas'. Gas under extraordinarily high pressure, though, means that instead of having 15 bullets in a pistol, you can have 50 (or 500) blaster shots in a pistol. And if you're shooting bullets, well, then you have to really contend against stormtrooper armor instead of blasting it apart.

 

My personal theory is that the blasters in Star Wars have no scientific/technological basis whatsoever. They fire really awesome-looking bolts of special effects which cause some actors to fall down on cue and leave others standing.

 

Likewise, the armor's actual performance v. kinetic or energy attacks had less to do with the characters' survival than how much the actor playing them was being paid, and how many lines they had in the script.

[Gary Miles]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

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

 

To quote Elliot from "Leverage": "It's a very distinctive sound..."

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

The Ewoks also crushed those two-legged walkers with logs suspended from vines. CRUSHED them! Yes' date=' they were big logs, and all that--but c'mon! Do you think a modern tank would collapse like cardboard if subjected to that kind of force? No.[/quote']

Well, it's called AT-ST (Scout Transporter) for a reason. It was propably handblasterproof but the form does not really allows for strong side armor.

 

There a tanks you could only kill with a rocket to the butt, and those where a handmine and the front did the job. The general rule is that the harder the armor is, the slower the vehicle becomes and I have the feeling speed and mobility was more interesting with the AT-ST. And perhaps thes Star Wars Tank/walker Armor is Strong vs. Energy, but (relatively) weak vs. kinetik impacts?

[Old Man]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

My personal theory is that the blasters in Star Wars have no scientific/technological basis whatsoever. They fire really awesome-looking bolts of special effects which cause some actors to fall down on cue and leave others standing.

 

So the Star Wars universe is a Hero campaign?

[Sundog]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Yeah, the AT-AT seemed like a fairly light vehicle. I like to compare it to the M113 APC, which could be holed by large-caliber rifle fire.

It's big brother, the AT-AT, was shrugging off emplacement weapons fire on Hoth. I do not think big logs would have stopped one.

[Escafarc]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Rocks: the original kinetic weapon!

 

If throwing a rock was good enough for Doc Smith, it's good enough for me.

CES

They used rocks in the last episode of Top Shot.

[Old Man]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Which I thought was a going a little too far; spears would have been a better alternative.

 

I'd love to see them have a slings event.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Hey, Rocks are almost the only weapon used in the S/F novel A Killing Star

 

 

Granted, rocks moving over .9 C, but rocks none the less.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Hey' date=' Rocks are almost the only weapon used in the S/F novel [i']A Killing Star[/i]

 

 

Granted, rocks moving over .9 C, but rocks none the less.

 

Well it's nice to know I'm not the only one here who read that.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Hey' date=' Rocks are almost the only weapon used in the S/F novel [i']A Killing Star[/i]

 

 

Granted, rocks moving over .9 C, but rocks none the less.

 

In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", the main weapon is also rock. Several tons, falling through a gravity well...

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Maybe we need a "blasters v. bullets v. big rocks" poll....

[Folded]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Maybe we need a "blasters v. bullets v. big rocks" poll....

 

Except that Big Rocks are really just Slug Throwers writ large. Its still directed radiant energy vs. directed kinetic energy.

 

OTOH, there is nothing cooler than using the highest technology to propel the very oldest of weapons to incredible effect. Except maybe building your own moon and then putting a gigantic blaster on it. Hmmm...

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Electro Laser-Tazer - the laser ionizes the air between the weapon and the target. An electrical charge runs down the ionized particles like a lightning bolt. Modified current to Stun Only. Tazer like

 

Link forethcoming

 

QM

[sinanju]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Except that Big Rocks are really just Slug Throwers writ large. Its still directed radiant energy vs. directed kinetic energy.

 

OTOH, there is nothing cooler than using the highest technology to propel the very oldest of weapons to incredible effect. Except maybe building your own moon and then putting a gigantic blaster on it. Hmmm...

 

Heh. The "Wunderland Treatymaker" for instance. In Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe, the residents of Wunderland tired of being attacked by the Kzinti (intelligent, carnivorous cat-like species). So they scaled up the Slaver Disintegrator, which had a slow but effective single-barrel digging mode and a fantastically destructive double-barrel mode, and threatened the Kzinti on a nearby world to surrender "Or else."

 

The Kzinti, of course, refused to surrender. So the Wunderlanders used the Treatymaker to dig a mile deep canyon the size of Southern California into the planet in question. At which point, the Kzin decided that maybe negotiating an end to hostilities wasn't such a bad idea. Hence, "treatymaker".

[Vondy]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

8. It might be easier to switch batteris between 3 dozen Models of Blaster Pistols - al with different hitting power - than switchting bullets between gun with different callibers.

 

You might also be able to plug it into a standard wall outlet for recharge.

[Vondy]

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.

 

I don't even think you need to go to the extreme of FTL travel to make the argument. A lot of "hard" science fiction without FTL has theoretical technological leaps like Particle Combustion Chambers, Laser Lift Elevators (or the popular beanstalk concept), self-replicating nano, artificial intelligence, and the like. None of these things are less improbable than a working energy weapon. I do think durability is going to be an issue due to lenses and alignment, but not necessarily an issue that can't be overcome.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Except that Big Rocks are really just Slug Throwers writ large. Its still directed radiant energy vs. directed kinetic energy.

 

Fair enough.