11-04-2015, 04:17 PM | #21 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
Quote:
|
|
11-04-2015, 04:21 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Mar 2015
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
Quote:
|
|
11-04-2015, 04:32 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Mar 2015
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
How can this be reconciled with the rules in UT that give DR vs lasers to smoke? It seem like smoke does specifically create an appreciably higher energy cost to penetrate it compared to air, per UT rules.
|
11-04-2015, 04:39 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
Quote:
This laser is not trying to pass through the air. It is trying to get absorbed by the air until the air blows away and isn't there to absorb it anymore. And adding smoke doesn't really do anything to stop the air from blowing away.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
11-04-2015, 05:02 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Mar 2015
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
Quote:
When a laser tries to pass through air, but instead hits smoke, and is unable to penetrate that smokes DR, where is that energy going? Either its easy to penetrate the smoke once an interaction is happening i.e. "the air blows away" or the smoke becomes and obstacle i.e. DR. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I can not see how these things are anything but mutually exclusive. A laser either can cut through smoke, making smoke DR no longer a rule, or it can't cut through (sufficient) smoke, thus stopping the plasma bolt that follows. If it ignores the smoke completely (like x-ray lasers) then the plasma bolt that follows will hit the smoke and explode. |
|
11-04-2015, 05:28 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
Quote:
It is important to remember that the base mechanics behind plasma guns are physical nonsense; if you've got a laser sufficient to create a path the plasma can shoot through, you just kill people with the laser and ignore the plasma part. |
|
11-04-2015, 05:50 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
The key word was "sufficient".
In this particular application, air is _not_ transparent to the laser. The weapon designers don't want it to be. Air absorbs laser energy and gets blown out of the way to create that evacuated channel for the plasma. Smoke is no different in this regard. If it's better than air at absorbing laser light, it's that much easier to blow it out of the way. The limit comes in the energy of the laser. The weapon puts out enough laser energy to clear a cylinder of air between the muzzle and the target. It has a certain effective range, which is to say a volume of air that the guide laser is designed to clear. Smoke particles might need a different amount of energy to clear*. So, it seems a reasonable effect of smoke is to reduce effective range of the weapon. "Sufficient" smoke to reduce the range to the point where the laser can no longer clear a path to the target would have the effect of blocking the shot. Lesser amounts of smoke get cleared out of the way and don't affect the plasma that follows the laser, and so aren't an effective defense. The plasma still has a path to follow and still has its normal effect on the target. So you'd really want a factor that says 1 meter of smoke counts as X meters of air, subtracting X from the range of the weapon. A given depth of smoke might help at long ranges, while the same amount of smoke is ineffective at short ones. This is different from the effect on a laser weapon, where the laser itself carries the energy that damages the target, and which frequency is intended to be transparent as possible to air. In that case, any joule you dissipate from the laser is one less joule to damage the target. For laser weapons, it seems reasonable to model smoke as DR. A little smoke saves you some damage; a little more saves you yet more. DR more than the max weapon damage means you're safe. Returning to the plasma weapon, note that if smoke does reduce the range so that it doesn't reach the target, that doesn't mean the plasma stays in the weapon. It will still follow the evacuated channel as far as that goes; the energy then gets dumped into whatever happens to be where the plasma "runs out of track". So, if your smoke is right next to you, it might not be that useful. Having a plasma / air / smoke explosion two centimeters in front of your face is perhaps better than letting that plasma hit your face, but it's not negligible. To model a smoke defense that's something like a laser detector wired to a dispenser that blows out a cloud of smoke when touched by a laser, you might want to apply the near-miss by explosions rule, and have the smoke turn contact hits into non-contact blast damage. You'd rather have that smoke in a screen some distance away from you; or, if the setting has battlesuited troopers, the splash damage might be minor enough that they just let their armor take it. -- * The actual amount would depend on the particle composition, mass, density in the volume, and so on; we're already well into technobabble just to have the weapon in the first place, so I don't know if you really want to model things in that much detail. Last edited by Anaraxes; 11-04-2015 at 05:56 PM. |
11-04-2015, 06:02 PM | #28 | |
Join Date: Mar 2015
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
Quote:
|
|
11-04-2015, 06:05 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Mar 2015
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
Quote:
|
|
11-04-2015, 06:41 PM | #30 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Questions about UT smoke, lasers, and plasma.
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
Tags |
laser, plasma weapons, ultra-tech |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|