Fed Turrets, resurrecting an old discussion.

posted on August 15th, 2009, 11:01 pm

If we're going to think realistically, surely it is possible?
We have ships travelling at reletivistic velocities (impulse can take you close to the speed of light, remember), at huge distances, firing weapons that travel at the speed of light (and in the case of torpedoes, above!)?

posted on August 16th, 2009, 1:16 am

    Not the speed of light.  We most likely wouldn't be able to see them if they traveled that fast, and you wouldn't be able to use them in warp.

    Also, I was watching Enterprise earlier today, and apperentally earlier weapons are plasma based, so maybe the current(FO) ones are as well.  That would explain alot.  A pulse might be more powerful, because it would be a charged pulse of plasma based matter, and phasers would be a constant stream of the same matter.  The traveling around the strip would be focusing, and charging the beam, so it would have a longer recharge time, but because it is more focused, it might go further.

    Pulse phasers would be a less controlled pulse of un focused plasma based material, therefore going less distance.  The reason for this would be that, even though it is in space, it is less focused, so it its target is farther away, it would have a less chance of hitting, soooo...It would be set to dissipate before it reaches that point.  It just dissipates before it becomes completely inaccurate. 


Did anyone understand that?

posted on August 16th, 2009, 1:53 am

Translation: More distance = Weaker strike/less accurate.

Did I get that right? 

posted on August 16th, 2009, 11:37 am

Translation: More distance = Weaker strike/less accurate.

Did I get that right? 

I hope so, because that's how it seems to me too. I've always wondered if that part of the weapons nature can be added to the game.

posted on August 16th, 2009, 9:54 pm

Translation: More distance = Weaker strike/less accurate.

Did I get that right? 

Yes. Basically. That's just how it works best in RTS

Translation: More distance = Weaker strike/less accurate.

Did I get that right? 

I hope so, because that's how it seems to me too. I've always wondered if that part of the weapons nature can be added to the game.

Oooh, that couldn't be anything but good!

     Not the speed of light.  We most likely wouldn't be able to see them if they traveled that fast, and you wouldn't be able to use them in warp.

Did anyone understand that?

Can't say I did mate
I give up... All we need is the turrets to be switched, which we've got already

posted on August 16th, 2009, 10:26 pm

     Not the speed of light.  We most likely wouldn't be able to see them if they traveled that fast, and you wouldn't be able to use them in warp.

If you're talking about the torps, think of supersonic speeds. The light would be trailing behind the mass, so the torp would impact before the light could catch up. In fact, that's the basis of the Picard Maneuver.


I hope that people can understand that.

I give up... All we need is the turrets to be switched, which we've got already

Well said .

posted on August 16th, 2009, 10:40 pm

Ah subspace, what ridiculous laws of physics can't it break--or at least contort into a pretzel shaped object 

posted on August 17th, 2009, 5:25 pm

Yeah, That is pritty much my point.  We can't really get much more accurate than what we have.

If you're talking about the torps, think of supersonic speeds. The light would be trailing behind the mass, so the torp would impact before the light could catch up. In fact, that's the basis of the Picard Maneuver.

Well, yes, but I was talking about how phasers couldn't be beams of light.  They would have to be As I said plasma tubes.  Also What I meant about warp is that you would have to expand your warp field around your phaser in order to fire it above light speed.  that is unless it moves faster than light.  then that applies to my earlier Idea, which is that you couldn't be able see it cause damage because it was moving so fast.

I will shut up now.

posted on August 17th, 2009, 10:34 pm

Thankyou Optec

posted on August 18th, 2009, 12:21 am

plasma tubes

Well I really hope they are not, because plasma has really annoying properties. In especial pulses would be impossible. The expansion due to heat, we obviously have at energies of TW and higher, would make the plasma-bolt behave like a H-bomb during explosion.  You surely will agree with me that is easier to shoot a H-Bomb there and detonate it at its target than to detonate it in your ship and eject the fireball. 

The idea of having an neutral decaying particle is really good IMO, as it is unnatual, but would allow us an undissipating beam.

posted on August 18th, 2009, 7:35 pm

This discussion is interesting from a physics standpoint. In the Star Wars universe, pulse-based weapons such as the "lasers" and "turbolasers" (which are actually plasma weapons according to technical manuals and other sourcebook material, which are generally kept more consistent than Trek sourcebooks) have an effective range of up to hundreds or thousands of kilometers, with their power diminishing as the target gets further away (a point-blank shot is apparently more powerful than a shot from a few hundred kilometers away), while the particle-beam weapon seen on the Republic gunships in Attack of the Clones apparently have a much shorter range, as energy transfer from weapon to target has to be sustained. Torpedo and missile weapons, meanwhile, appear to have the longest range of all Star Wars weapons, simply due to the fact that they do not dissipate as plasma or energy discharges do.

In Trek, though, the Defiant-class appears to have a significantly shorter effective range than, say, the Sovereign-class or the Dominion battleships. But in Trek, most energy weapons aren't plasma-based. That does change things up a bit.

Also, it's all science fiction.

posted on August 18th, 2009, 7:51 pm

Also, it's all science fiction.

I agree completely.  Plasma does not follow the correct physics, so that is why I say "plasma based weapons" .  We really don't know, because it is fiction, and it can't really be explained in real terms.

posted on August 18th, 2009, 7:53 pm

I perosnally wasn't considering the physics, because it seems already established in the show, through inference, rather than through assumption.

posted on August 24th, 2009, 11:08 am

Well, IMO science fiction means to describe an outlook on the future of a technicallly and scientifical evolving population. Thus we cannot say what will happen realistically, but we can of course say what is impossible. Scifi authors cross the borders to keep the stories interesting and to allow neccessary features of their fictional universe, therefore moving into hantasies territory. Nevertheless if one has the choice and no necessity to break natural rules it should not be done IMO.

Laserturrets would be a cool invention for a future race, as they are pulsed but behave diferent, e.g.have no flight-duration in that game.

posted on August 24th, 2009, 9:28 pm

To further muddle the water  the reason you  see  it on screen is EYE candy. Who wants to see  a show where  they fire on a ship  and you see nothing  and then the ship goes boom. BORING!!!!!! the have taken a little artistic liscense  with the visuals.  Just like the Old Flash Gordons serials (pre  1980's) The ray guns was a directed MASER device, yet you saw a beam come out of it for visual effect.