StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Now obviously the level of power is different, but are there other differences between the ground phasers (Type 1, 2, 3, etc and the Phaser canon that they used in "The Cage" etc) and the phasers on the Enterprise, A, B, D, E, etc?

What I mean is, we've been talking about how phasers seem weaker against metals than against flesh (the crappy "hide behind packing crates during a phaser fight" thing), but why are phasers effective against (metal hulled) ships? Or are they only effective against shields?

If phasers are useless against metals, why use them at all in battle? How about disruptors?

Sorry if this has been answered already, I just wondered...

Erm, well it makes sense to say that ship based phasers are modified from hand ones to have more effect on shields and metal.

TOS demonstrated that ship phasers can eb set to stun, but I think that would no longer occur with 24th century ships. In the 24th century, the same phaser beam would probably totally destroy that block, even more.

I dunno if ship phasers are more effective against shields than metal hulls, though there are numerous scenes of phaser impacts on hulls yielding reasonable results.

So could hand phasers be modified to be better against metal? Maybe we haven't seen any canon results to support that theory, but why not?

I guess since the use of armor in ground battles in Trek is somewhat unusual, it makes sense they don't optimize their hand weapons for this, but still...

Or would the theory be that in order to make phasers strong enough to take to metals, they'd need to be the power of ship-board phasers and thus overkill for infantry?

Now obviously the level of power is different, but are there other differences between the ground phasers (Type 1, 2, 3, etc and the Phaser canon that they used in "The Cage" etc) and the phasers on the Enterprise, A, B, D, E, etc?

From all that I have seen and know, they operate basically the same. It's only in scale and power fed to em that makes em different.

What I mean is, we've been talking about how phasers seem weaker against metals than against flesh (the crappy "hide behind packing crates during a phaser fight" thing), but why are phasers effective against (metal hulled) ships? Or are they only effective against shields?

- Ochams Razor - Because the dumbass writers said that it would be that way. An actual competant writer would never place such flimsy barracades to interdict phaser fire.

Shipboard phasers are likley to be tuned in to affect hull alloy and shields best, as hand phasers have a wide variety of effects that are all user selectable. Since shipboard phasers have been shown at least a small part of this user selectability, it's likely they have nearly the same ammount of it as the hand phasers.

If phasers are useless against metals, why use them at all in battle? How about disruptors?

They aren't. It's just that through a combination of bad writing and character shields, the enemy is too stuipid to max out the energy setting and vape the cover the heros are cowering behind.

Same reason why the stormies used low powered shots on the log Liea and the ewok were hiding behind in RotJ rather than full powered shots to blast THROUGH the cover and kill the target.

So could hand phasers be modified to be better against metal? Maybe we haven't seen any canon results to support that theory, but why not?

^ See above ^

I guess since the use of armor in ground battles in Trek is somewhat unusual, it makes sense they don't optimize their hand weapons for this, but still...

It doesn't have to be optimized. Just have one of your party max the energy setting up to 14, the fire. Sure he drains his cell or almost so, but that removes the cover and allows the rest of you to kill the target.

Reason why we haven't seen this? ^ See above ^

Or would the theory be that in order to make phasers strong enough to take to metals, they'd need to be the power of ship-board phasers and thus overkill for infantry?

They can destroy metals. While I can't remember the eppisodes off the top of my head, they can do so. Which just makes the reason why they often CAN'T all the more irritating.

Good points. ; )

- Ochams Razor - Because the dumbass writers said that it would be that way. An actual competant writer would never place such flimsy barracades to interdict phaser fire.

Oh yeah... didn't some guy hide behind a curtain during a firefight in the first battle of Bajor in ds9?

Kurgan wrote:Good points. ; )

- Ochams Razor - Because the dumbass writers said that it would be that way. An actual competant writer would never place such flimsy barracades to interdict phaser fire.

Oh yeah... didn't some guy hide behind a curtain during a firefight in the first battle of Bajor in ds9?

Oh god I hope it didn't actually stop the fire...

Kurgan wrote:What I mean is, we've been talking about how phasers seem weaker against metals than against flesh (the crappy "hide behind packing crates during a phaser fight" thing), but why are phasers effective against (metal hulled) ships? Or are they only effective against shields?

Hiding behind objects that would never protect you from enymy fire isn't excatly new to TV and movies. How many times have we seen guys take cover behind a card table in westerns? A round table a meter in diameter so light that one man can effortlesly flip it on it's side using only one hand isn't going to stop .45 Long Colts, except in westerns. An aluminum lamp post isn't going to stop 7.62x39's from an AK and not suffer a scratch, except in True Lies. A centimeter thick bulletproof class isn't going to stop a .50 BMG round, except in The Profiler. And so on.

Oh yeah... didn't some guy hide behind a curtain during a firefight in the first battle of Bajor in ds9?

IIRC I think there was a Darwin Award candidate that did indeed try to use a curtain as cover. (Bangs head against desk at the sheer iddiocy of the idea) Reasons why it's very nice to have competant writers, or tech advisers that are competant and are actually listened to and acted uppon, or both. (walks away grumbeling about stupid drastically sub par application of previously established canon capablities/use of tech.)

Yeah, eventually there comes a point when I wonder if we're taking writing/production gaffs too far. I have similar feelings on that "stormtroopers get killed by invisible bolts" theory (what if the visual FX guys just screwed up?). Because it's sci fi?

Still, oh well. ; p