Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- Star Trek vs Star Wars

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser

Author:
BabyBel

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:48:45 09/06/02 Fri
Author Host/IP: firewall.menai.ac.uk/194.83.12.5
In reply to: capn hayes 's message, "Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser" on 05:03:15 09/06/02 Fri

>This Is for Baby Bel.

I'm honored.

> You failed to understand my
>point about phasers.

your point being "I don't care how powerful they are canonally stated to be, they aren't that powerflu". I understood perfectly.

> They aren't as powerful as you
>make them out to be The "Futures End" [VGR] episode
>was an example of that.

No, it wasn't. I gave specific canon evidence as to the power of phasers, and you gave examples where phasers didn't act as you expect them to with zero conclusions as to their actual power from that example, and declare the canon statement of power to be wrong.

> In "Insurection" at the cave
>scene you state power levels? Aren't phasers able to
>dial down their power and distribute that power at a
>wide angle setting eliminatine the need for multiple
>weapons hits? Yeah they are so it would be reasonable
>to assume the need for extra firepower was because
>phasers aren't as powerful as some people (like you)
>think they are!

Or that there was some other reason to use multiple phasers. You will recall that every conclusion as to phaser power I gave was a direct canon statement. It wasn't what i thought about them - it was what we were told they were.

> Believe me I could go on but I trust
>my point has been made.

Your point being a canon statement of firepower should be ignored in favour of how you think phasers should act. You made that point well enough in the previous thread.

I honestly would put a type 2
>phaser at full power to be equal to a E-Web heavy
>reapeating cannon. But a phaser would be out of power
>after around 45 second, but would over heat after 6
>seconds.

And without all the massive power packs and advanced cooling systems that cannot realistically be fitted on a single-manned weapon, the E-web would be out of power after a couple of shots, and overheat even sooner.

Of course, you'll object to this, as is your right, seeing as I have provided no evidence for my opinion. But then, you haven't provided a single reason to believe your claims regarding the type 2 are correct, either.

This post should have been made in response to the other thread - it has little to do with the discussion here.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser	TrekGOD	16:46:52 09/06/02 Fri
Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser -- capn hayes, 21:27:06 09/06/02 Fri