Distance of guns

[Glock36]

what is the difference between a beam and a particle weapon? light waves sometimes behave as particle streams and sometimes behave as waves. The particles are not affected by the inverse square law but the waves are.

all the weapons in this game do not obey the laws of physics. I seem to remember that to destroy something in space, you need to hit it at very high speed with a heavy solid object in order to use kinetic energy on the target. Explosives are not nearly as effective due to the need for room for a large warhead and fuel for that warhead and the lack of AIR to transmit concussion waves.

The Practical Solution:

Let's just have one gun that shoots depleted uranium rods out of a magnetic rail gun at 25,000 miles per second. (these would melt if fired in a planetary atmosphere.

you should have to buy ammo for this gun and the smaller the ship, the less ammo it would carry.

OH WHAT WAS THAT? SCREAMS???

I tried this with freelancer and yea, I got screams.

[Edited on 5-12-2009 by Glock36]

[Maarschalk]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! LOL:P:P:P:P:P

[Draakjacht]

Well, if you want to make them a little happier, use a carbon rod. Won't melt in air.

[MMaggio]

Yes, but what will happen to your little depleted uranium rods when combat occurs in a planet atmosphere, or did you forget about that?

[Earl]

Originally posted by Glock36
what is the difference between a beam and a particle weapon? light waves sometimes behave as particle streams and sometimes behave as waves. The particles are not affected by the inverse square law but the waves are.

[Edited on 5-12-2009 by Glock36]

My first impression was that the particle cannon was a mass driver of sorts, rather than a light emitter like a laser would be. The game isn't exactly clear whether we're firing energy, or some kind of glowing chunk of something. But since it sucks our energy bar, I'd guess it's the former. But then again, it doesn't hitscan like the beam. It's not going at the speed of light, it's an actual projectile.
I kindof like the idea of a coilgun. The additional requirement of carrying ammo sure sounds like a good trade. The restriction to use outside of atmospheres makes a lot of sense (But implies a fast firing speed, which might be a balance problem), and opens up planets as more viable fight zones if you want to avoid going up against the weapon.

[Draakjacht]

Maggio, Glock already said it would melt inthe atmosphere. That's why I proposed an alternative.

Glock, the idea of a particle cannon is similar to an ion engine. There would be physical matter emitted at a high energy level, but low density. As it flies, it would slowly lose energy in the form of radiation, ending as atoms (currently xenon) helplessly dispersing in space. A laser is often implemented, but only to cause light reflection off of the excited particles in order to assist aiming. Beam weapons would be light.

[Glock36]

carbon rods would be too light to work and are not magnetic so they would not work in a rail gun...if its the carbon I think you are talking about.

High Energy...Low Density? Takes high speed and high mass and high density to kill something.

put a 2x4 at your feet, shoot into it with a 25 acp pistol and then reach down and pluck the bullet out of the wood...not enough of any of the three to be deadly.

You really need rockets in a planetary atmosphere.
and rockets won't work in space due to the fact that they cannot steer themselves once launched due to NO AIR FOR FINS TO BITE.

but hell...the game is fun.

[Draakjacht]

You're right that magnets would not work on carbon rods, but given that we have tractor beams, I'm sure we can find a way. And a carbon rod can be thrust at very deadly speed and has the strength to withstand a great deal of pressure.

High energy, low denisty. I'm not talking about a physical interaction as you're imagining. Particles and beams create a chemical reaction. Just as a laser would melt material, particles excited to plasma would strip electrons, vaporizing the material.

Rockets or missiles? Rockets are unguided. Missiles can be equipped with maneuvering thrusters which would allow them to change direction in or out of the atmosphere. In reality, missiles would not be able to damage shielding is space. As I think you mentioned before, the blast would not transmit across void, doing little to a ship if shrapnel is not involved. Then again, even modern missiles penetrate a target's armor before they detonate, which in space would mean the ship itself becomes the medium for the blast. Solid-state shields would, in theory, resist penetration until appropriately weakened. So excal spamming would be useless.

Then there is the biggest catch of all! The video game doesn't care! I could program a Red Rider BB Gun for a cost of 12 credits that does more damage to a nuke, but all to a single subsystem, and the game would go with the flow. And one could debate physics and all, but we have shielding and tractor beams and can teleport to distant stars. So obviously our modern conception of physics and technological limitations are pretty out of place.

Which brings us back to our original question: Should guns have greater firing distances?

[Maarschalk]

They would, they could, they can, they should! So my vote is yes, as long as balance is maintained!;)

[Tucker]

Originally posted by Glock36
what is the difference between a beam and a particle weapon? light waves sometimes behave as particle streams and sometimes behave as waves. The particles are not affected by the inverse square law but the waves are.

I guess that depends on what exactly you mean by a particle beam weapon. I was speaking of them in the context of SDI tech ( such as SIPAPU that was experimented with at los alamos) that we have now but certainly there will be better technology in the evochron univers.

Charged particle beams have had issues but neutral particle beams have proven they could work. Neutral Particle Beam weapons produces a beam of near-light-speed-neutral atomic particles by subjecting hydrogen or deuterium gas to an enormous electrical charge. High energy neutral particles do propagate in straight lines ( NPB is strictly a line-of-sight device it really cannot be redirected).unaffected by a planets magnetic field and have a very brief flight time to targets even at extended ranges. A neutral particle beam deliversers its kinetic energy directly into the atomic and subatomic structure of the target, literally heating the target from deep within. In addition, the neutral particles become high energy charged particles upon interaction with the surface of a target increasing penetration deeply into the vehicle, thus making shielding relatively ineffective. In the case of a nuclear warhead, these particles are capable of heating the nuclear material by fission processes, neutron generation and ionization. For non-nuclear material, heating is produced by ionization, while they would need a source for producing particles it would not need to be resuppied like a projectile weapon such as a Hypervelocity Rail Gun or mass driver ( or other kinetic energy weapon) would. As I understand it neutral particle beam is strongly affected by passage through the atmosphere. You see both attenuation and diffusion when it passes through dense gas or suspended aerosols such as clouds, and dusts

Chemical lasers, x ray laser, masers, phasers, plasma based weapons hypervelocity rail guns and mass drivers would also certainly be possible in the age of evochron. As well as posibly stuff we have not even considered yet.

Kinetic weapons would have a very high fire rate at the expense of needing to be periodicaly reloaded and being effected by heat and friction as you mentioned and posibly magnetic or gavitational fields. They however would not have the speed to target of a NPB or Laser as I understand it. I would guess that they by the time there is the technology level of evochron have solved the ohmic heating of problems associated with magnetic rail gunsI would not have a problem with kinetic energy weapons that you have to buy ammo for in a space based game like this one. The trick there would be to use the right weapon to take down the shields and then switch to a gun with finite ammo to do the hull and systems damage.


BTW Glock I was just down at Grand Cayman , a great place

[Edited on 5-20-2009 by Tucker]

[Storm]

(Tucker)
That was a very interesting post. I don't suppose you've played Terminus ( Vatical Entertainment, circa 2000)? MobyGames probably has an entry on it... The weapons in Terminus were interesting, within the context of of your dialogue.

To review, there were positively charged particle weapons, negatively charged, and neutral. Ship shields in Terminus consisted of an "EM Field", which did repel the negatively charged particle weapons, but ATTRACTED the positively charged weapons, and the Neutron weapon was not effected by the EM Field.

There was a kind of "Super Gun", a "Helium Plasma Cannon", but there was (predictably) a trade off - it drained a lot of energy when used, for the damage that it imposed. And for some reason, the HPC was UNAFFECTED by EM Fields (?).

There were two "run-of-the-mill" "conventional ballistics" weapons (Rupture Cannon, Mass Driver)... and then there was the Rail Gun
The Rail Gun damaged itself a bit (and the damage "accelerated in rate", if you continued to use it without repairing it) with use. From what I've read, the hypothetical extreme-form for Rail Gun weapon would probably destroy itself when used (it it ever becomes practical).

All of this made weapons and loadout management very... interesting.