Why are lasers generally associated with being armour piercing in space games - General

see title For me I associate lasers with being more accurate

Because lasers are hot, and hot things melt armor(generally), ergo, lasers melt steel

Lasers are more advanced than solid projectiles, thus they must be better!

Whenever laser guns are mentioned I always think of the one from Goldeneye 64

The only feasible way to shoot a dude dead with a laser is to use the laser to ionize the air which would provide a pathway to direct electricity, not necessarily kill the person, and send 10,000 volts down this ionized air beam which would generate 100 milliamps in accordance with the human body's relative resistance of 100,000 ohms. 100 milliamps is enough to cause muscle spasms, irregular heartbeat and would cause extensive nerve damage. This would also fry any circuitry and explode any ammunition or batteries the opponent is wearing or using while also shocking them. I suppose it would also corrode away any metallic thing you shoot at as well due to our oxygen rich atmosphere. Lasers are terrible efficiency wise when it comes to transmitting heat however when they hit the 100 to 50 nm range they turn the air into a conductive primer for electricity to flow which is REALLY good for transmitting heat and exploding things. This technology is called a "Laser Induced Plasma Channel". As for the reason you don't see LIPC guns is batteries are heavier than bullets, so until we get lithium oxygen batteries going they won't ever really be feasible. But developers don't give a fuck and still say lasers burn people without knowing how insane the energy requirements are to turn someone into ashes with just the heat of a laser.

Just so we're clear, are they red lasers or blue lasers?

[QUOTE=Callinstead;53120087]Just so we're clear, are they red lasers or blue lasers?[/QUOTE] Shouldn't matter. The only light that would be able burn through armor or polyesters would be UV or Gamma rays.

I've feel that laser's bonus should be unmatched precision and range, but perhaps less damage than ballistics and slower rate of fire due to power and heatsink constraints.

I think projectile weapons in space would be [I]slightly[/I] worse in that there's nothing really holding anything in place so projectiles energy goes a little bit into knocking things around than breaking through them. But otherwise, lasers, eh they're not great and use a lot of power. It's really their precision and their ability to destroy fast things like rockets. In other weapon missteps: Shotguns have a way smaller cone in real life. Daggers don't really do less damage than other one handed blades. Swords are secondary weapons on a battlefield, excluding the huge variants. Body armour is almost always done terribly. People can survive headshots. Flamethrower tanks don't ignite when hit, unless you're using something to specifically facilitate that.

[QUOTE=The Jack;53120765]I think projectile weapons in space would be [I]slightly[/I] worse in that there's nothing really holding anything in place so projectiles energy goes a little bit into knocking things around than breaking through them. [/QUOTE] They're actually stronger because there's no air resistance to slow the projectile, it'll keep moving in a straight line at the same speed it was when it left the muzzle. Space debris flying around at hypervelocity is a real concern for spacecraft because these projectiles are extremely dangerous. But if we don't have a railgun capable of doing that, there's still the good ol' shaped-charge that simulates a hypervelocity impact once it detonates.

lasers in space are garbage beyond short range. diffraction fucks them over way more than speed fucks over missiles or railguns. lasers are also extremely easy to defeat with ablative coatings, making their armor penetration basically null. [editline]10th February 2018[/editline] that aside they're not useless. they could be used to destroy unarmored stuff like antennae, drones and rocket nozzles. they wouldn't be useful against missiles in space as those are way too easy to armor with enough ablative plating to make lasers once again pointless.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;53119894]Because lasers are hot, and hot things melt armor(generally), ergo, lasers melt steel[/QUOTE] This got me thinking, we used ceramic tiles coated in heat-resistant paint for the Space Shuttle. Couldn't we just make a new lot of the space paint, and dump it over regular body armor to give it a small advantage over energy weapons?

[QUOTE=T553412;53127305]This got me thinking, we used ceramic tiles coated in heat-resistant paint for the Space Shuttle. Couldn't we just make a new lot of the space paint, and dump it over regular body armor to give it a small advantage over energy weapons?[/QUOTE] You have to remember that most personnel armor is encased in some kevlar/nylon plate carrier so you'd have to treat that instead. And ideally you'd have reflective instead of ablative coatings so you dont absorb that energy in the first place. Given that any decent directed energy weapon is either microwave or infrared, you don't have to be visibly reflective

Always been a fan of mass drivers.

Probably because lasers in science fiction are often portrayed as bullets made of pure energy, rather than a focused ray of light.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;53127494]Always been a fan of mass drivers.[/QUOTE] The intention behind this topic was gathering ideas for a space thing I'm going to try and make, mainly to see what people think the role of lasers would play. My intention will be to have lasers as a medium range, super accurate, low AP weapon for destroying missles/small craft. With different types of mass drivers as shorter range/lower accurate weapons doing more damage (then missiles and torpedos as longer range weapons with different warheads doing different things).

Wouldn't the most armor piercing projectile be from a coilgun or a plasma gun?

[QUOTE=Destroyox;53128500]Wouldn't the most armor piercing projectile be from a coilgun or a plasma gun?[/QUOTE] what exactly is a plasma gun? [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] I can imagine a "plasma missile" perhaps producing a stream of plasma to penetrate armour - akin to how a HEAT warhead produces a stream of molten metal to cut through stuff.

If I remember correctly, the point of lasers in space weaponry is the fact that they travel (essentially) instantaneously to their target without warping/arcing. Most lasers in the more hard sci-fi are used to penetrate shields (if present) and do lots of damage to electronic components. What makes that last part important is that, unlike a ship at sea, if certain components of a spacecraft are damaged, there is no way to repair them "on the go", and being stranded in space is a lot more dangerous than being stranded at sea. Laser weapons are also great at taking out projectiles en-route and just generally making someone's day very, very bad from a long distance. Also, lasers can't be seen in vacuum most of the time so they're an invisible threat. In books like [i]Live Free or Die[/i], lasers have a minute, almost unnoticeable travel time even at immense distances because of the fact that they travel at the speed of light. However, I don't understand the "armor piercing" aspect that video games give lasers. If anything, really basic armor would be able to absorb or even deflect lasers if used properly. Meanwhile, nuclear weapons tend to be the go-to in fiction thanks to their one-two punch effect of EMF interference and radiation, as well as the fact that they can cause some serious ruckus. Personally, I feel that solid projectiles are the best weapons for space combat as not only do they rip through anything if going at a fast enough speed, they can be used as orbit-to-ground weapons. Rather than irradiate an enemy region and send up plumes of toxic ash, just throw a rock [I]really fucking hard[/I] at them.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53128503]what exactly is a plasma gun? [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] I can imagine a "plasma missile" perhaps producing a stream of plasma to penetrate armour - akin to how a HEAT warhead produces a stream of molten metal to cut through stuff.[/QUOTE] Iirc typical plasma gun in sci-fi fires superheated gas or matter warped into a bolt or beam by an electromagnetic field, kind of like an invisible container for the plasma that, depending on the author, can break down with distance and stuff.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53128552]If I remember correctly, the point of lasers in space weaponry is the fact that they travel (essentially) instantaneously to their target without warping/arcing.[/quote] Yeah, I suppose reason being in space things would be further spaced apart and engagement distances would be greater so at the high engagement distances kinetic stuff like mass drivers would have a fairly long flight time making then "easy" to evade. [quote]Most lasers in the more hard sci-fi are used to penetrate shields (if present) and do lots of damage to electronic components.[/quote] I've noticed this pattern to, though in space empires 3 (one of my fav scifi/sci fantasy games) shields had "phasing" like a frequency which energy weapons could exploit by being "phased". [quote]What makes that last part important is that, unlike a ship at sea, if certain components of a spacecraft are damaged, there is no way to repair them "on the go", and being stranded in space is a lot more dangerous than being stranded at sea.[/quote] I think with the bulkhead type system we have on modern ships it presents an interesting thing. A person might be safe/with oxygen/systems in their current compartment but all the surrounding compartments are vented/fucked. With navy ships this would likely mean sinking but with space craft the crippled vessel could survive for a little while. In The Expanse there is a part where a ship is like this and without communication, the crew observe that to other they would just look like space junk. That would be pretty terrifying to have survived a battle but to have key systems failing with no way to improving your sitsh. [quote] Laser weapons are also great at taking out projectiles en-route and just generally making someone's day very, very bad from a long distance. Also, lasers can't be seen in vacuum most of the time so they're an invisible threat. In books like [i]Live Free or Die[/i], lasers have a minute, almost unnoticeable travel time even at immense distances because of the fact that they travel at the speed of light.[/quote] This is exactly what I see lasers as, perhaps with precision too, so the laser targetting module can target the seeking part of an incoming missile or something. [quote] However, I don't understand the "armor piercing" aspect that video games give lasers. If anything, really basic armor would be able to absorb or even deflect lasers if used properly. Meanwhile, nuclear weapons tend to be the go-to in fiction thanks to their one-two punch effect of EMF interference and radiation, as well as the fact that they can cause some serious ruckus. Personally, I feel that solid projectiles are the best weapons for space combat as not only do they rip through anything if going at a fast enough speed, they can be used as orbit-to-ground weapons. Rather than irradiate an enemy region and send up plumes of toxic ash, just throw a rock [I]really fucking hard[/I] at them.[/QUOTE] I think nukes might have their place, since your ship is probably going to be shielded and engagements would be far enough away to mean less "you're both fucked" from a nuke. Again to reference the Expanse in that they use missiles are long range and use kinetic/mass drivers in close since at longer distances the travel time means you're less likely to hit. Thanks for this p in depth response to this, particularly the EMF thing [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Milkdairy;53128575]Iirc typical plasma gun in sci-fi fires superheated gas or matter warped into a bolt or beam by an electromagnetic field, kind of like an invisible container for the plasma that, depending on the author, can break down with distance and stuff.[/QUOTE] Like a balloon of molten matter. Seems like it wouldn't be super effective though. I sound pedantic/boring but I wanna try to imagine stuff being doable irl

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53128595] Thanks for this p in depth response to this, particularly the EMF thing[/QUOTE] Check out the forum Spacebattles. They tend to have a lot of debates on sci-fi stuff and would probably give you a better answer. Also The Expanse rocks so good taste confirmed [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53128595] Like a balloon of molten matter. Seems like it wouldn't be super effective though. I sound pedantic/boring but I wanna try to imagine stuff being doable irl[/QUOTE] It'd be effective against joe-schmoe body armor depending on the density of the projectile upon contact. Big issue with using the whole "molten projectile" thing is that it's a one way trip to setting a lot of stuff on fire, or sucking up all the oxygen in say, a space ship.

As part of some rp stuff I did a writeup of offensive tech in my world, following a rock-paper-scissors format that might be useful to you: Lasers: Instant travel time, effective vs. particle shields, invisible, high power draw, diminished power at range, bad performance vs. armor Electromagnetic kinetic (ie gauss guns, railguns): Very high armor penetration, good against particle shields, solid state action means very high accuracy, slow fire-rate/charge up time due to capacitors, high power draw, low ammo versatility, range only limited by fire-control computer/instruments Missiles/self-propelled: Very adaptive/versatile, Very good accuracy, can track target, can switch targets, devastating against all defensive types, very long range, can be specialized or serve niche roles (imagine missiles with ftl drives that can chase fleeing ships), low power draw, long time to target, can be shot down by point defense and flak screens Particle weapons/ plasma: Super high stopping power, slow travel time, low range, etc etc Chemical propellant weapons: Low penetration/speed/accuracy relative to EM kinetic, but much more versatile (explosive ammo, armor piercing, self guided etc), cheap, virtually No power overhead, unlimited range and an unmatched rate of fire, generally. Generally it helps when there is context and circumstance to offensive tech, like in the real world. You might use the ostensibly 'best' tech only, but that's only if your prospective scifi society has the logistics/energy technologies to support that. If you've got a fledgling space empire who've barely cracked nuclear fission, it might be more feasible for them to use more primitive technology over something clearly superior but then a more advanced group might favor lower tech means in a circumstance that benefits it, like if you favor firerate over stopping power or somesuch, or adaptability and cost effectiveness.

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;53128626]-snip-.[/QUOTE] The setting (in my head) is one with only humans a 100-300 years or so in the future (assuming ai singularity didn't happen) so just one race, I'm assuming "particle weapons" wouldn't have been made yet, unless it's some sorta coilgun firing particles. I like the "pros and cons" type of break down. An idea I had for my setting was "nanite" warheads, where you fire a very expensive missile at another ship and the nanites slowly consume the other ship. The nanites then remain "live" floating through space, you then need to use an emp to shut them down to retrieve them (nanites being a "rare resource"). You could opt to nuke/blow up the nanite clump but then you can't retrieve them and it ends up being sorta expensive. Space empires 3 (and 4) had "smart missiles" which target specific components of the enemy ships which I liked. I think for the sake of setting smaller/civilian ships would still have some form of weaponry - to see off asteroids and the like - though realistically I guess destroying 1 big asteroid head toward you just turns it into a shotgun blast of 100s of smaller rocks each travelling fast enough to mess you up. [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53128603]Check out the forum Spacebattles. They tend to have a lot of debates on sci-fi stuff and would probably give you a better answer. Also The Expanse rocks so good taste confirmed [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] It'd be effective against joe-schmoe body armor depending on the density of the projectile upon contact. Big issue with using the whole "molten projectile" thing is that it's a one way trip to setting a lot of stuff on fire, or sucking up all the oxygen in say, a space ship.[/QUOTE] Cheers, I'll check that site out

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53128092]The intention behind this topic was gathering ideas for a space thing I'm going to try and make, mainly to see what people think the role of lasers would play. My intention will be to have lasers as a medium range, super accurate, low AP weapon for destroying missles/small craft. With different types of mass drivers as shorter range/lower accurate weapons doing more damage (then missiles and torpedos as longer range weapons with different warheads doing different things).[/QUOTE] here's an excellent site for a more hard-scifi approach on scifi topics, this page is about conventional weapons: [url]http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php[/url]

[video=youtube;mOmuQnKjJc4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOmuQnKjJc4[/video] for everything else, there's always Gundam UC.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;53120130]Shouldn't matter. The only light that would be able burn through armor or polyesters would be UV or Gamma rays.[/QUOTE] Any wavelength of light can burn through any material with enough power backing it.

[QUOTE=Metaru;53130288][video=youtube;mOmuQnKjJc4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOmuQnKjJc4[/video] for everything else, there's always Gundam UC.[/QUOTE] i always love how gundam has a (semi) realistic depiction of mecha and energy weapons.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53128503]what exactly is a plasma gun? [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] I can imagine a "plasma missile" perhaps producing a stream of plasma to penetrate armour - akin to how a HEAT warhead produces a stream of molten metal to cut through stuff.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Star[/url] It can shoot out condensed EMP toroids. Obviously this tech can be condensed at the expense of speed and range but I don't think you could get it small enough for a foot soldier to use it however I'd like to be proven wrong. [QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53130302]Any wavelength of light can burn through any material with enough power backing it.[/QUOTE] Fair, I should have said practically and not requiring massive matrices of low energy lasers on top of the large power requirement.

[QUOTE=nAXiom090;53130353]i always love how gundam has a (semi) realistic depiction of mecha and energy weapons.[/QUOTE] its the whole point of UC after all. Zeon often had the upper hand in terms of tech but the federation still had far more resources.