StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Besides looking cool, do the cannons used on the LAAT and SPHA-T have any advantages over the normal pulse cannons used most of the time?

Jim Raynor wrote:Besides looking cool, do the cannons used on the LAAT and SPHA-T have any advantages over the normal pulse cannons used most of the time?

Depends in what context. Was there specific ones you were thinking of?

Jim Raynor wrote:Besides looking cool, do the cannons used on the LAAT and SPHA-T have any advantages over the normal pulse cannons used most of the time?

Deeper penetration because the beam is constantly adding to the damage it's doing, rather than hitting and that's it.

Continuous beams can also 'sweep' left or right, cutting down a line of troops or carving up one of the TF Core Ships.

Disadvantages: they use more power and generate more heat.

IG-88E wrote:

Jim Raynor wrote:Besides looking cool, do the cannons used on the LAAT and SPHA-T have any advantages over the normal pulse cannons used most of the time?

Deeper penetration because the beam is constantly adding to the damage it's doing, rather than hitting and that's it.

Continuous beams can also 'sweep' left or right, cutting down a line of troops or carving up one of the TF Core Ships.

Disadvantages: they use more power and generate more heat.

To add to the disadvantages: You also have to maintain a direct LOS with the target. With non-beam weapons, you can fire a volley and then dodge or hide behind an asteroid or something.

Shinova wrote:

IG-88E wrote:

Jim Raynor wrote:Besides looking cool, do the cannons used on the LAAT and SPHA-T have any advantages over the normal pulse cannons used most of the time?

Deeper penetration because the beam is constantly adding to the damage it's doing, rather than hitting and that's it.

Continuous beams can also 'sweep' left or right, cutting down a line of troops or carving up one of the TF Core Ships.

Disadvantages: they use more power and generate more heat.

To add to the disadvantages: You also have to maintain a direct LOS with the target. With non-beam weapons, you can fire a volley and then dodge or hide behind an asteroid or something.

And one other disadvantage: if you want to try sweeping, there'd better not be any friendly troops mixing it up, or you'll cut them down as well.

Another advantage would be that because they are instantaneous they are perfect for pinpoint strikes on specific targets.

They seem like excellent weapons for what they were used for in the movies--directed heavy fire against enemy troop concentrations. They have disadvantages and advantages over other weapons, but their application was actually pretty good in the movie.

Icehawk wrote:Another advantage would be that because they are instantaneous they are perfect for pinpoint strikes on specific targets.

What? They weren't instantaneous.

Master of Ossus wrote:They seem like excellent weapons for what they were used for in the movies--directed heavy fire against enemy troop concentrations. They have disadvantages and advantages over other weapons, but their application was actually pretty good in the movie.

They seem to be meant largely as a kind of blaster weapon with extremely high rapid fire and a better "concentration" pattern of shots (more or less, assuming a stable platform, all the component shots would hit the exact same point.) Given that superlasers are more or less compound weapons, this seems to be their primary advantage.

Continuous weapons are probably good in limited applications - antipersonnel or anti-armor work where your opponent does not have strong shields or a strongly-dispersing armor hull. Shielding (And p robably the dispersing armor) require large near-isntantaneous inputs of energy to match/exceed thresholds, and a sustained beam would not neccesarily do this.

Plus you have to consider its probably better where you have large concentrations of soldiers or droids together, since you cannot effectively "control" where the shots land, its somewhat wasteful compared to individual bolts as well.

They DO seem to propogate noticibly faster than TLs do (at least the visible component does) The visible component suggests, however, they dissipate much more rapidly than a TL bolt does.

I dont recall if any of the micro superlasers actually fired for much beyond a second, though.

What? They weren't instantaneous.

Ummm yes, they were. The beams in AOTC hit there targets instantaneously once they fired. They are beams which travel at c, or at least something close to it.