View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Both blaster and laser cannon fire has a special effect (SFX) that looks like a colored bolt of energy or light traveling from weapon towards the target. The bolts don't appear different on screen nor is it clear from the WEG stats for blaster cannons and laser cannons that the two types of weapon are intended to be significantly different.
In addition, I am unconvinced that the SFX that we see in the films should be taken too literally. If we were to do so, we would then have to presume space in Star Wars is some sort of etheric material that efficiently conducts sound.
I also note that this type of weapon SFX is similar to what we see in other shows like Star Trek (though the weapons tend to have longer bolts and sometimes even beams), OS Battlestar Galactica, and Babylon 5. I suggest that we see blasters and laser cannons firing a bolt of light because that makes it easier for the audience to judge the volume and direction of fire and it makes the battle scenes more dramatic or intense.
Logically, if both firearms and blasters exist in the SWU, there must be a rationale for why blasters are nearly universally used and preferred over firearms. Weapons generally supercede other weapons for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) Learning curve - one reason muskets replaced longbows in England was that muskets were quicker and easier to learn to use than a full-size longbow.
(2) Price - weapon and ammo.
(3) Range.
(4) Accuracy.
(5) Damage - including armor penetration.
(6) Ammo capacity.
According to the WEG stats.
(1) Equal
(2) Firearm weapon is about 1/2 the price or less of a blaster, blaster ammo is cheaper about 1/5 the price of firearm ammo.
(3) Range - varies, the effective range seems to be longer for blaster pistols and shorter for blaster rifles.
(4) Equal
(5) Blasters are superior by +1D damage vs unarmored targets; armor almost always provides additional protection against firearms; some special firearm ammo will mitigate the difference a bit.
(6) Blasters are superior. Only caseless low calibar/high velocity firearms have similar ammo capacity to blasters.
According to the RAW, blasters are generally equal or roughly equivalent to firearms on (1) - (4) and are superior on (5) and (6). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14036 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True, but it is cause that i have my hiracy of why firearms are better..
1) cause they suck against armors, most imperial worlds don't look to clamp down so easy.
2) cause they are less usable in many people's eyes, they should be cheeper to get
and #3... THEY CAN BE SILENCED! _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 6207 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't a silencer only reduce the sound/muzzle flash of the projectile leaving the barrel?
I'm not sure that it actually stops or reduces the sound of the explosion that launches the projectile. _________________ Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you pricing firearms below the WEG RAW prices?
Real cost will likely be driven more by manufacturing cost and regulation than by low demand. Where regulation is high, availability will be low, so cost will be high. Low demand will be balanced by higher manufacturing costs due to minimal production runs. So I don't think low demand would drive cost down much at all.
I don't see why Imperial worlds wouldn't clamp down on firearms. They do about the same damage as sporting blasters. And preventing import is pretty easy. You can scan for firearms with simple x-ray and metal detectors and scanning for ammo is easy since the chemical propellant will be readily detectable. IIR weapon scanners like those in the corporate sector already detect explosive and firearms.
I know the Spec Forces sourcebook talks about silencing firearms, but I don't really see any reason you couldn't silence a blaster. The same sort of sound baffles should work. The one clear advantage firearms have is that unlike a blaster bolt, a bullet is pretty near invisible in flight. Tracking back to the source of the shot is much easier for a blaster weapon than for a firearm, especially at night. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16180 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esoomian wrote: | Doesn't a silencer only reduce the sound/muzzle flash of the projectile leaving the barrel?
I'm not sure that it actually stops or reduces the sound of the explosion that launches the projectile. |
The explosion of the propellant is what generates the sound and the muzzle flash leaving the barrel. A silencer uses a series of baffles to muffle and disperse both. _________________ "No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 6207 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, thanks for that. However in the quick Google search I did it seems that the more powerful the firearm the less effective a silencer is. For supersonic projectiles it seems a silencer helps the firer not to suffer any hearing loss but does not prevent the shot from being clearly audible.
Also the silencer does nothing to prevent the sound of the projectile travelling through the air so while it can help prevent a firers location from being easily identified I don't think it would be a sure fire way to prevent the fact that someone was shooting from being detected. _________________ Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmanski Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed. Silencer is not the appropriate term- suppressor is. A suppressor "quiets" the shot but does not make it "silent" (but it does help hide the muzzle flash).
Personally I've always disliked the argument that you can silence a firearm but not a blaster. I see it a different way. I think you can silence a blaster but only suppress a firearm. _________________ Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16180 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esoomian wrote: | Ah, thanks for that. However in the quick Google search I did it seems that the more powerful the firearm the less effective a silencer is. For supersonic projectiles it seems a silencer helps the firer not to suffer any hearing loss but does not prevent the shot from being clearly audible.
Also the silencer does nothing to prevent the sound of the projectile travelling through the air so while it can help prevent a firers location from being easily identified I don't think it would be a sure fire way to prevent the fact that someone was shooting from being detected. |
Correct on all counts. The most effective "silenced" rounds are all subsonic. The De Lisle Carbine is a good example of how this can be overcome (subsonic .45 round combined with an excellent suppressor system). _________________ "No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 1846 Location: Tacoma, WA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esoomian wrote: | Doesn't a silencer only reduce the sound/muzzle flash of the projectile leaving the barrel?
I'm not sure that it actually stops or reduces the sound of the explosion that launches the projectile. |
That explosion is exactly what a silencer suppresses. What it doesn't and can't suppress is the sonic boom of a supersonic bullet. As crmcneill pointed out, effectively suppressed firearms use subsonic ammo. since this reduces muzzle energy by a lot in several cases, range and damage can be effected. See .458 SOCOM ammo.
Bren wrote: |
I don't see why Imperial worlds wouldn't clamp down on firearms. They do about the same damage as sporting blasters. And preventing import is pretty easy. You can scan for firearms with simple x-ray and metal detectors and scanning for ammo is easy since the chemical propellant will be readily detectable. IIR weapon scanners like those in the corporate sector already detect explosive and firearms.
I know the Spec Forces sourcebook talks about silencing firearms, but I don't really see any reason you couldn't silence a blaster. The same sort of sound baffles should work. The one clear advantage firearms have is that unlike a blaster bolt, a bullet is pretty near invisible in flight. Tracking back to the source of the shot is much easier for a blaster weapon than for a firearm, especially at night. |
I think the most common weapons scanners in SW look for the energy signature and specific gasses associated with blasters. A firearm isn't undetectable by any stretch, but it isn't as easily detectable as a blaster.
Also, the sound of a blaster is probably not caused by an explosion inside of it, but rather more likely, by the bolt itself. As we've already established on this thread, a suppressor can't silence the "projectile". IIRC, the Wookieepedia article on slugthrowers states that blasters can't be suppressed. _________________ Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Posts: 2460
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jmanski wrote: | Indeed. Silencer is not the appropriate term- suppressor is. A suppressor "quiets" the shot but does not make it "silent" (but it does help hide the muzzle flash). |
Not all "silcers" supress muzzle flash.
Quote: |
Personally I've always disliked the argument that you can silence a firearm but not a blaster. I see it a different way. I think you can silence a blaster but only suppress a firearm. |
I think it is a case of the volitile nature of he bolt. If I were trying to make a silent weapon, I'd use a laser, rather than a blaster,and I7d use one that fired an invisible beam/bolt. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Posts: 2460
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallon Kell wrote: |
We can see blaster bolts travelling slower than bullets in the films, |
Not necessarily. We see something zip across the screen, but the effect looks a lot like what travcer rounds look like, and they can be travelling much faster than 300-500 feet per second.
Quote: |
and we can clearly see that they travel in straight lines, without dropping. |
No, we can't celaerly see that they travel without dropping.. Since the rate of drop is based on the acceleration due to gravity, the drop would be unnoticable over shot distances. For example, flashlight beams and laser pointers don't show any "drop" but they have it.
[quote]
We don't know exactly why they don't drop, but I can come up with some possible solutions:
Quote: |
1: They are no more dense than air, and they "float". |
Does not makethem immne to gravity. And slow moving, low density shots would have trouble moving through the air.
Quote: |
2: A straight trajectory is actively maintained, possibly by magnetic fields. (There's a shot in ANH where an X-Wing fires while pulling up and the bolts seem to remain co-linear with the gun barrels. I generally write this off as an ILM mistake, but it could be evidence of guidance of blaster bolts after launch. This would open up a new can of worms) |
Possible, but why? If blots break up at relatively short distances, why bother ?
Quote: |
3: Some form of repulsorlift/antigravity technology incorporated in the bolt. |
Again, why?
I makes a lot more sense that the bolts are travelling faster than airsoft pellets. Why go to all the trouble? it would be much easier just to have the bolts travel faster.
Perhaps the "slow bolt" effect we seeon screen is an optinal illusion, much like the way a fast moving fan blade seems to rotate in the opposite direction? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmanski Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
atgxtg wrote: | jmanski wrote: | Indeed. Silencer is not the appropriate term- suppressor is. A suppressor "quiets" the shot but does not make it "silent" (but it does help hide the muzzle flash). |
Not all "silcers" supress muzzle flash.
Quote: |
Personally I've always disliked the argument that you can silence a firearm but not a blaster. I see it a different way. I think you can silence a blaster but only suppress a firearm. |
I think it is a case of the volitile nature of he bolt. If I were trying to make a silent weapon, I'd use a laser, rather than a blaster,and I7d use one that fired an invisible beam/bolt. |
True and True. But in most cases a flash suppressor is more important than a noise suppressor. _________________ Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallon Kell wrote: | That explosion is exactly what a silencer suppresses. | If you suppress the explosion you end up with what is in effect a dud round. I don't think you want that, nor is that what suppressors - commonly referred to as silencers do. They suppress the sound.
Quote: | I think the most common weapons scanners in SW look for the energy signature and specific gasses associated with blasters. A firearm isn't undetectable by any stretch, but it isn't as easily detectable as a blaster. | I haven't noticed any stats that indicate that weapons scanners are less effective at detecting explosives, flammable chemicals, or firearms. Anyone have a source that does show that?
Quote: | IIRC, the Wookieepedia article on slugthrowers states that blasters can't be suppressed. | Well if it does, that directly contradicts this article on a sound suppressed blaster. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 1846 Location: Tacoma, WA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
atgxtg wrote: | Fallon Kell wrote: |
We can see blaster bolts travelling slower than bullets in the films, |
Not necessarily. We see something zip across the screen, but the effect looks a lot like what travcer rounds look like, and they can be travelling much faster than 300-500 feet per second.
Quote: |
and we can clearly see that they travel in straight lines, without dropping. |
No, we can't celaerly see that they travel without dropping.. Since the rate of drop is based on the acceleration due to gravity, the drop would be unnoticable over shot distances. For example, flashlight beams and laser pointers don't show any "drop" but they have it.
|
We can see the last frame the blaster is aimed at the target and count frames until the target is hit and the sparks fly out. That shows relatively slow bolts, compared to firearms. Also since the speed is low and the time on screen is a few frames, we can determine that the drop would be noticeable.
atgxtg wrote: |
Quote: |
We don't know exactly why they don't drop, but I can come up with some possible solutions:
Quote: |
1: They are no more dense than air, and they "float". |
Does not makethem immne to gravity. And slow moving, low density shots would have trouble moving through the air.
|
| In this instance, buoyancy counteracts gravity. You are right though, that operating on this system, blaster and laser cannon bolts would exhibit drop in space, and they would have some difficulty retaining momentum in an atmosphere. Maybe they travel in a self sustained electromagnetic vacuum bubble or something. I haven't had time to figure it out all the way, yet. atgxtg wrote: |
Quote: |
2: A straight trajectory is actively maintained, possibly by magnetic fields. (There's a shot in ANH where an X-Wing fires while pulling up and the bolts seem to remain co-linear with the gun barrels. I generally write this off as an ILM mistake, but it could be evidence of guidance of blaster bolts after launch. This would open up a new can of worms) |
Possible, but why? If blots break up at relatively short distances, why bother ?
Quote: |
3: Some form of repulsorlift/antigravity technology incorporated in the bolt. |
Again, why?
I makes a lot more sense that the bolts are travelling faster than airsoft pellets. Why go to all the trouble? it would be much easier just to have the bolts travel faster.
|
I really haven't had time to work out exactly why blasters don't exhibit drop, but I'm leaning toward the magnetic reason as the easiest to write techsplanations for. When I get something remotely workable figured out, I'll post it.
atgxtg wrote: |
Perhaps the "slow bolt" effect we seeon screen is an optinal illusion, much like the way a fast moving fan blade seems to rotate in the opposite direction? |
That would require many bursts in rapid succession at a very high fire rate, and also suffers from issues rooted in the fact that sometimes blaster bolts hit after the blaster has been pointed somewhere else. Incidentally, this is also the most significant detractor from the magnetically constrained no-drop idea... _________________ Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallon Kell wrote: | We can see the last frame the blaster is aimed at the target and count frames until the target is hit and the sparks fly out. That shows relatively slow bolts, compared to firearms. | And the assumption in doing a frame count is that what you see on the screen is an accurate depiction of SWU reality. But then if what you see on the screen is an accurate depiction, then what we hear during the film is also likely to be an accurate depiction of SWU reality. In which case sound travels in a vacuum. Most of us would tend to see that as a contradiction. Therefore what hear (and see) in the film must not always be an accurate depiction of SWU reality. So counting frames may not be valid for judging speed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|