Poll: Lasers weapons or Kinetic Weapons

[RobertEHouse]

Always liked Kinetic weapons, As you actual have to think about where you are shooting at.Energy weapons seem more forgiving considering Star Wars and Star Trek portrays them. Also the point of how powerful the energy weapon is up for debate as it would matter on exactly how much 'juice' you had to keep firing at max. How fast the battery system was able to keep that level of energy output to create a beam just as strong as the last. Kinetic does not have that problem as it would use the same amount of energy placed into each launch of a round. The con is they are heavy and would be impossible to carry by a single person at this point.

 

[gigastar]

Why not fuse the two and create plasma weapons?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Elite Dangerous generally requires and rewards both.

...so the answer's both.

In Fallout it's obviously ballistic, because turning people into puddles of goo or ash looks all kinds of daft. Blow peoples limbs off or go home, as the ol' saying probably goes.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Depends greatly. Specifically if you have some kind of crazy explosive ammunition and need to blow things up then kinetic. Otherwise lasers are just cooler

 

[Ugicywapih]

I guess I generally prefer kinetic with some variety.

That being said, do you mean lasers, as in directional optic beam weaponized as means of delivering thermal damage or vague "pew pew" Star Wars blaster-style weapon?

As for variety...:

Explosive ordnance, while already mentioned, is usually not, to my knowledge classed as "kinetic" nowadays as it distributes the force delivered in a very different manner from a traditional kinetic projectile.
Given that I've pointed out laser weapons are effectively a thermal weapon subclass, I guess non-laser thermals are obviously a thing that exists.
Chemical weapons are more or less viable too. In particular, biotech-based civilizations seem to enjoy corrosive chemical weapons in sci-fi.
Since I'm mentioning chemical weapons, how about biological ones? Not necessarily WMDs, maybe like short-lived beetles bred to bore holes into enemy starships' metal hulls or a dart gun that fires darts containing parasite eggs, which will turn enemies into mind-controlled drones after hatching.
Plasma weapons often appear in sci-fi as well, usually either as guns that fire clouds of glowy shit (if it's explained, it's usually described as highly agitated particles contained in a localized magnetic field or something of the sort), or as lightning guns.
Speaking of lightning guns, EMP weaponry has actually been the go to weapon type for humans in Matrix.
Aaand then if you want a world-shattering McGuffin, you can just rend reality asunder: teleportation tech has exciting and oft overlooked prospects as far as weaponizing it goes. It'll generally ignore armor unless it's bullshit unobtainium armor that specifically prevents this kind of weaponry with plot magic and it can basically remove parts of the enemy by just zapping them away.

Granted, in most titles those will only fill a supporting role of sorts, fleshing out the setting's weaponry selection but I figure I might as well mention whatever comes to mind.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Lasers tend to just burn through things, kinetic weapons have that knockdown power that I find so vital in a fight so I gotta go for the kinetics.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Kinetic. It's perhaps the main reason I started collecting Orks as my first army in 40k. I just liked the look of all the big barrels and ammo belts more than any slick lascannons or whatever eldar weapons are. They look so much punchier and like genuine weapons of war.

[HEADING=1]NEVER ENUFF DAKKA!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!![/HEADING]

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

There's a reason to have a variety of weapons: Each one is best suited for a particular situation. And while I'm a firm believer in the idea that there is almost nothing in this universe that won't break if you hit it hard enough with something else, sometimes it's faster to get to a target's soft, squishy parts if you use an overeager flashlight to melt away the hard shell.

 

[hittite]

Kinetic. Gonna have to borrow a quote from Schlock Mercenary.

The twentieth-century reader, mind poisoned by the fantastic science-fiction of television, might wonder why there are so many bullets, and so few blasters, phasers, masers, lasers, light-sabers (sorry, Mr. Lucas) or other futuristic weapons in this sequence.
The fact is, bullets are incredibly versatile. Stunners are often easy to shield against, and on board a space station or space craft heavy energy weapons have an annoying tendency to breach the hull. Bullets, however, are nearly perfect.

 

[Laughing Man]

Any kinetic weapon is space will be painfully slow compared to a directed energy weapon or even some sort of smart missile (which will keep accelerating due to a lack of air resistance).

Not really, a railgun round would be travelling at or near as fast as a laser weapon.

I love the kinetic weapons as depicted in The Expanse books, not only because they show the potential damage that can be done to a vessel but also the potential damage caused by the likes of PDC rounds and rail gun rounds breaching the hull and living / operations quarters. It also shows the abilities and techniques that can be used to avoid and counter these weapons. In most Sci-fi it's fire laser, hit or fire laser missed because the target was doing some kinda evasive movement. The ecounters show a lot more is going on specifically orbital mechanics, which is often missed especially when it comes to laser weapons.

Mind you saying that their is one part in the third book where they start turning The Behemoth's communications tight beam laser in to a laser weapon.

 

[BarkBarker]

Kinetic is usually very aatisfying, a laser weapon that takes an eternity to fire a big fuck off shot would be cool too.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Er...when you say "like", do you mean "literally"? Though, the most common one was the UK Sterling.

Interestingly, there's a lot of that sort of thing, but usually with a blank firing weapon covered in plastic rubbish to obscure the original, rather than something that doesn't need to fire with extra bits added on.

'Literally' doesn't really work, however. Because one is a kinetic weapon and the other is a laser wespon, which is at the core of what we're arguing.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

[I never liked the Star Wars blasters actually. The stormtrooper ones are okay but when their too obviously just regular guns with backwards scopes seems lazy
Plus I get too distracted by there not being a magazine where there should be

Really? Honestly the blasters have so much more character than the lightsabers, however. I like how many Rebel blasters have seemingly homemade stocks and look like the weapons a rag tag militia might have. Imperial blasters look awesome as well...

You definitely feel like after the Death Star explosion the Empire is struggling under the weight of its debts when you look at the flimsy scout trooper pistol.

Blasters have far more character, IMO. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, but I'd be able to pick out Han Solo's pistol. Show me a collection of unactivated lightsabers and I'll probably just shrug trying to figure out what was Luke's first and second one without looking at blade colour.

 

[twistedmic]

I'd go more for kinetic weapons for personnel-sized weaponry, mostly because a kinetic weapon can quickly and easily be converted into a makeshift club or spear with minimal damage done (usually) to the weapon itself.
Most laser weapons seem to be a quite delicate and more susceptible to impact trauma.
Crew-sized weapons (tanks to capitol ships) should have a mix of both, though I will say kinetic weaponry (missiles and rail guns) still have a slight edge.

 

[Zhukov]

Lasers are inherently lame and always have been.

boom > pew

throwing a rock > shining a flashlight

 

[Souplex]

"Pew-pew" is a cooler sound effect than "Bang-bang"

 

[Thaluikhain]

Any kinetic weapon is space will be painfully slow compared to a directed energy weapon or even some sort of smart missile (which will keep accelerating due to a lack of air resistance).

Not really, a railgun round would be travelling at or near as fast as a laser weapon.

Why?

Firstly, you can't get a projectile to travel at light speed, it's impossible. Secondly, a railgun projectile can travel at any speed you can get the projectile to travel. The US navy, IIRC, is experimenting with railguns that with fire at hypersonic speeds, but that's nowhere near lightspeed.

 

[FalloutJack]

True, but that said if we're talking about Fallout kinetic weapons have significantly more versatility and the ammo is a lot easier to get a hold of, while laser and plasma weapons in Fallout and it's spiritual predecessor Wasteland tend to get shafted in some way and aren't as easy to get a hold of and supply ammo for. Either they aren't able to cause as much damage as kinetic weapons except against a specific type of defense if they aren't just weaker in general and can't be silenced.

I wouldn't exactly say that my experiences in Fallout games about some of those nuances has been too terribly bad OR good in regards to the points you made. With great versatility of bullets comes great need of looking for supplies OF those different calibers, whereas when you find your steady supply of laser (or plasma, or whatever), you're pretty set. Finding supplies for energy weapons CAN be rough, admittedly, but it still pays off. I was referring to all Fallout games, of course, but this does seem mostly relevent in more recent games, since I could handle Deathclaws in Fallout 2 with a Super Sledge, but anything past the Fallout 3 mark requires kick-ass super weapons and lightning reflexes.

 

[Laughing Man]

Why?

because it's sci-fi why wouldn't they have more advanced versions of the tech we have now? Firing tiny rounds via a railgun that come close to the speed of light when leaving the barrel would have tremendous energy, At least that is the way they are depicted in The Expanse which as far as I can remember is really the only sci-fi that I've encountered that has used railguns (although they haven't used them in the TV series yet), most other scifi seems to use energy based weapons.

 

[Thaluikhain]

because it's sci-fi why wouldn't they have more advanced versions of the tech we have now?

As it's fiction, this could be due to literally any reason.

Anyway, let's say that that in an unspecified sci-fi setting the projectiles move 10 times as fast as anything possible now. Or maybe 100 or 1000 times. That is still nowhere near lightspeed.

Firing tiny rounds via a railgun that come close to the speed of light when leaving the barrel would have tremendous energy,

Yes...so? That doesn't mean that sci-fi stories that have railguns need to have projectiles going at a certain speed. In any case, if you have anything travelling near lightspeed you are moving from sci fi to fantasy, both to propel something that fast and to not be destroyed by recoil.

At least that is the way they are depicted in The Expanse which as far as I can remember is really the only sci-fi that I've encountered that has used railguns (although they haven't used them in the TV series yet), most other scifi seems to use energy based weapons.

No reason why all scifi railguns must be like the oes in Expanse.