Fed Turrets, resurrecting an old discussion.

posted on August 14th, 2009, 8:25 pm

Ok this was brought up before, and the devs said they would have a look at it, but nothing happened.

The Federation has two turrets, one phaser, with medium range, and one pulse, with long range.

I don't understand at all. In everything canon I have seen about the weapons of star trek, phasers are longer ranged than phaser cannons, i.e. pulse weapons. It just seems to make sense.

Don't think of this as a rant though, it just doesm't fit in my mind. Any planned change? And if so why not? (No offence intended)

posted on August 14th, 2009, 9:35 pm

Yup, it got me as well honestly

Interestingly enough, the phaser turret is much more cost effective than the pulse turret... but that doesn't really help this issue 

posted on August 14th, 2009, 10:12 pm

Why does it make sense aboout a phaser have longer range than a pulse weapon? Can you make that a litte clearer? Currebtly i cant thinc of any provable reasons (hmm, this wil cause me a sleepless night now   :D who cares).

posted on August 14th, 2009, 11:15 pm

You don't need as complicated of targeting sensors to get the same range. Which is why the Phaser Turret is more cost effective than the Pulse Turret, IMO. Real life comparison: Try aiming bullets against missiles. Missiles have independent targeting systems, bullets need to be aimed from the base computer. (Oops, I think I compared the Torp Turret vs. the Pulse Turret by accident )

posted on August 14th, 2009, 11:36 pm

I care, because the only ship in the show to have it, as far as I'm aware is the Defiant, which always looks like it has short range.

I like this mod because it fits within already established canon and doesn't disobey it, but also expands from it and brings the devs ideas to thetable as well, a prime example being the timeline spilt from the prime ST universe in the middle of voyager. But please think about what is already established here, with pulse weapons and weapon ranges.

posted on August 14th, 2009, 11:52 pm

Mayhem's suggestion is just more logical.

An easier comparison would be lasers to machine guns. Phasers are more akin to lasers the way FO displays them - they are a focused beam of energy and instant-hit (I'm sure I've read a better way of putting that). Pulse phasers on the other hand are closer to machine guns - condensed "lumps" (of energy) (now I'm just making it up... okay, they appear as lumps....) which have a distinct velocity meaning they could more easily be evaded.*

A phaser's effectiveness therefore does not degrade over distance as much as that of a pulse phaser.

So phaser turrets should have the longer range.


Also, am I right in saying that pulse turrets also deal more damage on average?
Surely it makes more RTS sense to more harshly limit the more powerful turret's range?


[sup]*I seem to remember that what actually happens on screen is that even phasers take a short time to reach their target. Which makes scientific sense, but I suspect the main reason it's done is because the whole "Lights charging around the strip to meet at the beam's end causing the beam to lance majestically forth" looks fucking awesome.[/sup]

posted on August 15th, 2009, 1:54 am

yeah, I would have to agree.  The problem with having the pulse phasers being literal pulses of the same type of phaser, is that it would have to be plasma based.  Of course unless there is another form of matter on known to us nither light, nor sound acts the way the phasers do.  You can not have a pulse of light that would be visible like these are.  It would be moveing so fast you would mostlikely not see it at all.  Not to mentine the fact that you would never be able to fire phasers or pulse phasers during warp. 

Any way, A focused beam may have more range, but I think a plasma based pulse would not dissapate, and would travel furthest.  But, of course they are not plasma based, so I couldn't really say which one would travel further.

posted on August 15th, 2009, 2:04 am

Ah Nadion particles... what can't they do in the STU 

posted on August 15th, 2009, 8:23 am

pulse and beam platform will switch places in the next patch (so the beam platform will be the long range one)

[DarthThanatos]

posted on August 15th, 2009, 9:08 am

Last edited by DarthThanatos on August 15th, 2009, 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nice. It will make more sense.

Still, from a pure physics point of view, it doesn't matter if it's a beam or a pulse, anything photon-based has unlimited range. Light doesn't stop until it hits something, be it the ship you are aiming at or the planet in the next solar system. 

Of course, in the Star Trek universe that doesn't happen.

Also, remember that ship distances in ST are usually measured in thousands of kilometers, so with enough distance between them, light might need one or two seconds to go from attacker to attacked (IIRC that's the basis for the Piccard manoeuver), and that could allow you to see the pulses. It's the need for visual impact (in cinema and TV) that makes the ships fight so close. It's more dramatic to see both ships firing at each other than to see one ship firing against a distant dot.

[mimesot]

posted on August 15th, 2009, 10:25 am

Last edited by mimesot on August 15th, 2009, 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

You don't need as complicated of targeting sensors to get the same range.

Why's that?

An easier comparison would be lasers to machine guns. Phasers are more akin to lasers the way FO displays them - they are a focused beam of energy and instant-hit (I'm sure I've read a better way of putting that). Pulse phasers on the other hand are closer to machine guns - condensed "lumps" (of energy) (now I'm just making it up... okay, they appear as lumps....) which have a distinct velocity meaning they could more easily be evaded.*

How can you compare the phaser with a laser and a pulse with an MG? Sorry, but that makes no Sense. The grater defocussing over distance with a MG vomes from the mechanical construction of the pipe and the unknown condition and interactions if the air. For a laser things work different from their basic physics. Whereas the physics of a continuous beam of nadion particles should not differ from those of a condensed pack. Further is the LASER has monocromatic light, which means there is a koherence lengh, something that is not valid for a phaser.

You could rather compare pulse laers to conttinuous lasers.

The point with the evasion is partially true, as the pulses may, but not necessarily have, a different speed than the phaser. Maybe in he shows the phasers speed is higher than the pulses, but there is no reason for that (note that beams get bowed if moved, thus the targetting is not easier per se. Its just the particles speed).

We may discuss the difficulty to focus more energy/sec. Unfortunaty we have no canon information about that.

A phaser's effectiveness therefore does not degrade over distance as much as that of a pulse phaser.
So phaser turrets should have the longer range.

I can't see any reason for that, to he honest. The nadion particles always decay in the same way. The focus spreading should increase the same way. So what is it exaclty that decays in different manner?

Also, am I right in saying that pulse turrets also deal more damage on average?

I would agree with the idea that the amount of damage, passing by shilds is greater, as the shield cannot fous on that immediate dense energy fast enough. It is easier to deal with a weapon that delivers energy diverted over linger time.

Surely it makes more RTS sense to more harshly limit the more powerful turret's range?

Thats an unquestionable statement. 

@Unleash Mayhem
It's canon and thats a good reasen. I can only agree with you on that.

@DarthThanatos
I believe the reason that ST took the fictional nadion particles is, that they decay to light. I imagine something like Quark-Antiquark-Mesons which really exist I nature, but with a linger decay-time. Thus it is a particle beam for a long time, but decays to a pure energy beam after some time. The parts in a light-phase will probably decohere mich faster thn a particle-beam defocuses, thus the beam will probably exponential loss of energy over distance.

Anyway you are right that theres no difference between pulses and phasers, as there is no el.harge or plasma present. The only questionable thing is the focusing mechanism, that probably cant deal with the higher energy-density the same way as with a low-energy continuous beam. Yiou may compare that to a plasma-nozzle that defocuses slightly when power is increased. (well, but is is no plasma hmmm)

@Optec
I greatly appreciate that.

posted on August 15th, 2009, 4:29 pm

Hey, why don't you just make a turret that has got a beam, pulse, and torpedo weapon all in one, but is very weak. Despite that, it would be cool to watch. Like the Romulan turrets under that one admiral there. 

[Exodus]

posted on August 15th, 2009, 5:52 pm

Last edited by Exodus on August 15th, 2009, 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

An easier comparison would be lasers to machine guns. Phasers are more akin to lasers the way FO displays them - they are a focused beam of energy and instant-hit (I'm sure I've read a better way of putting that). Pulse phasers on the other hand are closer to machine guns - condensed "lumps" (of energy) (now I'm just making it up... okay, they appear as lumps....) which have a distinct velocity meaning they could more easily be evaded.*

How can you compare the phaser with a laser and a pulse with an MG?

Well sort of... like that. I'm sorry for wasting your otherwise sound and canonically viable argument though

Thats an unquestionable statement. 

Why thank you   That's what I was really getting at, the other stuff was... secondary.

[claihmsolais]

posted on August 15th, 2009, 7:57 pm

Last edited by claihmsolais on August 15th, 2009, 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, the targeting sensors for both would be rather similar; assuming that there is a real-time delay for a phaser shot to reach its target (which seems established in canon), the targeting system would have to calculate the trajectory of the target vessel, the speed of the phaser beam, and arc the weapon around while firing to maintain contact during the duration of the beam. That is the main reason the DS9 Technical Manual mentions that the Defiant's pulse phaser cannons can pivot by a few degrees.

This targeting system is the same, whether the weapon fires one continuous beam, or multiple pulses.

But there is one factor that should give beam phasers a greater range than pulse phasers, and conversely, pulse phasers a greater damage output at short range: beam cohesion. A phaser beam has a much easier time maintaining a coherent stream of whatever it consists of, because the focusing time is much longer than the nano-second discharge the DS9 Technical Manual states for the pulse phaser. This gives the phaser beam a much longer distance it could potentially travel without dissipating,

On the other hand, the DS9 TM states that the pulse phaser weapon sends out a "layered pulse" of phaser energy, something that was designed to punch through ablative armor, in concept, the first "layer" would hit the armor, damage it, and allowing the subsequent layers to gradually impact the same damaged region. The best analogy I can think of would be a stream of water slowly eroding away at a rock versus pulses of a high-pressure water hose doing the same thing.

The problems associated with creating a layered pulse and lots of them in a short period of time mean that they don't spend a lot of time in the focusing chamber, and the fact that they consist of individual layers mean that they're very prone to dispersion over long periods of time. Each layer has to maintain full cohesion for the pulse phaser to be at maximum efficiency, which severely limits its range.

posted on August 15th, 2009, 9:12 pm

Interesting points, but the real time delay is only valid in typical show-cases not in probable ST-fights as they will rahter use the greatest effevtive range. If you want I'll give you an example tomorrow.