Energy Weapons VS Ballistic Weapons

[Roudi]

As a weapon, no... and probably with good reason. Antimatter might eliminate matter, but the energy released when the two collide is theorized to be ENORMOUS (think of the E=mc^2 equation, only this is a perfect conversion to energy, with no leftover matter). An Anti-matter weapon would probably be best as a planet-killer or long-range spatial weapon. You would not want to be near it when it goes off.

That said, I think I'll kep my anti-matter safely in my warp core, thank you.

 

[hobgoblin]

heh, well i just recalled that xcom2 (enemy from the deep or something like that) use anti-matter as the human tech upgrade from normal projectile weapons.

the guns where basicly portable accelerator loops, that stuffed the anti-matter into some sort of special shell that would not react to the anti-matter (handwaving to avoid the react with air problem) and then propelled towards the target.

i recall lowing them more then the sonic weapons the aliens used as the sound was so very satisfying and the design oh so industrial

 

[Committed Hero]

A laser-type weapon should not only easy to aim; keeping it on the target would be like using a spotlight. There are definitely factors arguing for the use of both types of weapon in a future arsenal.

 

[hobgoblin]

hmm, that reminded me about a book i have here somewhere...

in there the aproach to laser weapons is that they shoot a kind of scanner beam first, and when finding a valid target (adjustable by the shooter) the laser beam gets triggerd.

most of the time it was set to humans and similar but at one point in the story they are looking for some kids that are hiding in a martian rockface. then they set the guns to allways fire the laser and just burn out the rocks and similar...

the whole story was centerd on some girl that the goverment wanted to kill or capture, and a resistance movement that wanted to turn mars into a free planet

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Sounds like the makers of XCom ripped off the Sten series there.

The Sten series used AM2 (an alterante form of Anti-Matter, the location of which it came from was undisclosed until the final book of the series) for everything from heating fuel to energy to starship to hand held weapons.

First, you had the AM2, just a few grains, wrapped in a shell of Imperium X, the shell had a small fault in it that would "pop" open upon hitting something. A laser pump was used to fire the pellet. (You can use laser pumping to move objects according to theorum, don't know if it's been proven)

So, the guy pulls the trigger, the laser pump would fire the pellet. Pellet hits, cracks open, AM2 detonates, blows a hold about 8" across in the person.

Ouch.

Sniper weapons had a linear accellerator add on that "spun" the round at a certain speed, literally allowing the weapon to shoot around corners.

The Sten series is a good series, if you get a shot at picking up all 6 books, give it a shot.

 

[Andur]

Couple of questions/points:

1) Energy weapons have recoil as well, just a whole lot less.

2) Why would one waste energy in a laser by having the beam visible?

3) With ballistic wepaons it is easier to overcome defenses. From d20 Future, the Plasma Round, which does both Ballistic and Fire damage. Comes in quite handy if GM uses rock-scissors-paper method of arms and armour. Course, if for plug and play, it is more for flavor or taking advantage of vulnerabilities.

4) Propellants are very easy to make. Using low-tech ballistic weapons (pen gun, potato gun, etc.) might get ya around security easier than ye olde laser gun.

WR, what is this Sten series you speak of?

 

[Committed Hero]

Couple of questions/points:
2) Why would one waste energy in a laser by having the beam visible?

Sighting the target. Just hold it on him till he burns.

 

[Roudi]

Yeah, but that's why weapons have sights built into them; so you can sight your target WITHOUT giving away your position. Even Iron Sights are superior to a visible beam when you consider that.

 

[swrushing]

And by Newton's laws of physics, it should do the same thing to the man who pulled the trigger. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

uhhh.... not to disagree with the good sir, but i have seen plenty of examples where one guy pushed another and the pushee fell down and the pusher did not. Go to any school playgroud to see this in practice.

bullet = pushing at range.

this is where a little physics is more dangerous than a lot of physics or no physics at all.

lot of physics guy would start talking about leverage, about stance, about bracing and about the lack of all of the above.

no physics guy would simply wait until the newton guy turned around and shov him about the shoulder area and point at his fallen geek friend and laugh "hah hah" like the bully in simpsons.

A force can knock one person down and the same force not knock someone else down simply due to stance of the respective forcees and their preparedness for the force.

this is where people get out of sorts. Someone disputes and disproves hollywood's "throw him 20' with a derringer" and someone else takes that to the extreme of suggesting bullets don't knock people down at all cuz if they did it would knock down the shooter.

Ask a six year old whether he can push someone and knock them down without knocking themselves down.

 

[hobgoblin]

never forget the issue of mass in all this tho.

more mass equals less forces needed to produce the result. allso, the bullet loose energy along its entire flight path. a push can use all the energy of the muscles right there...

physics are more complicated then it looks...

and if the person is pushed its unlikely that he will go flying 2-3 meters backwards. he will most likely just fall over if he is unprepared for it. same with a bullet. get shot and you may well fall over from the shock of being hurt, even more so if off balance at that time.

its not the drop like a sack of potatoes people have a issue with, its the fly 2-3 meters while the shooter is standing there laughing thats the issue...