I've always thought they should have had that on Enterprise as a secondary sidearm for the MACO's.Disc mode has to be an option
Last edited:
Would different "types" of phasers make sense?
- Thread starter evilchumlee
- Start date
Well, the show has three... but I get what you're saying and honestly more so lean in that direction.
I'm trying to expand out the weapon selection a bit, but also not going straight "rule of cool" with it. I do like the idea that although the standard Starfleet-issue phasers can pretty much fire in any more, purpose-built weapons for a specific role may be more effective/efficient and preferred in a straight combat situation.
I can also see having some dedicated weapons for beam or bolt. I'm not against the idea of like, a Phaser Shotgun that rather than a conical beam, it does fire out bolts in a spread. The beam version would be more of a less-lethal version for something like riot control or something, the phaser bolt shotgun would be for when you really need something dead.
I'm envisioning my bolt phaser shotgun as less of a single barrel that would fire a particle bolt that splits off, instead being several barrels that fire at once, each independently charging and firing their bolt. It would... make things dead quickly. The trade off would be it would use immense amounts of power to do so, so it's going only get a shot or two out of out a power pack (somewhat simulating having to reload the gun). I think that is remains fairly true to Trek while having an actual purpose other than "looks cool".
I still have that, and some disks. Got to get more disksDisc mode has to be an option
Pennys, work, however. Yes it still fires...don't know for how long.
See that Han—before you got your Broomhandle/Tec-9 Trek had it first
You only need 1 type of phaser, really.
That’s why the TNG phaser has 15 or so settings. You only need stun, kill, heat, and various powers of disintegrate.
Wasn’t there a sniper rifle in DS9 that used transporter technonogy?
It really depends on what is the purpose of the weapon. Federation phasers are for defense only. As we learned from Picard Romulan disrupters don’t have a stun setting. And Klingon Phasers are also just for killing.
Why would you need rapid-fire phasers, when you could fire one in each hand?(fire the right hand, then the left. Or if need be, both at the same time).
I suppose you could create a shotgun type for breaching doors, but why?
The only thing you really need is a strong, long lasting battery and a quick recharge rate.
That’s why the TNG phaser has 15 or so settings. You only need stun, kill, heat, and various powers of disintegrate.
Wasn’t there a sniper rifle in DS9 that used transporter technonogy?
It really depends on what is the purpose of the weapon. Federation phasers are for defense only. As we learned from Picard Romulan disrupters don’t have a stun setting. And Klingon Phasers are also just for killing.
Why would you need rapid-fire phasers, when you could fire one in each hand?(fire the right hand, then the left. Or if need be, both at the same time).
I suppose you could create a shotgun type for breaching doors, but why?
The only thing you really need is a strong, long lasting battery and a quick recharge rate.
Last edited:
Blend, chop, slice and puree
And such was the genesis of this thread.
I can see a shotgun type being useful, although your bog standard phaser is capable of wide beam settings which would also get the job done.
I can see some wisdom in that while the standard Type-II can do everything, creating purpose-built weapons for a specific profile may be more efficient overall.
Stun, heat, disrupt, and dematerlize. FASA had disintegrate. Why? Not too shock you guys too much...sitting down? I don't know everything.
Now take three deep breathes.
Okay, you should recover from that announcement.
In the Star Trek the Next Generation Technical Manual; beginning at setting eleven is explosive disruption.
What I like about setting one, according to the writer's guide, is that it is good for microwave popcorn. Popcorn, is important. So is coffee. Setting is even more important. A Chicken Pot Pie in five minutes. Chicken Pot Pie is important.
It is a pity... they didn't say what setting you should cook the Thanksgiving Turkey at...
Wide Beam settings or "Conical Mode" would only be really useful at CQB / CQC ranges.
The amount of Particle Density Energy you'll lose as the energy spreads in the cone is dramatic.
It should follow close to the Inverse Square law.
Great for "Room Clearing" as shown in DS9 where they do 'Phaser Sweeps'.
However, it's bad for taking out masses of cheap small drones at greater distances like we see more & more of on the future Gound Based Battle Field.
We know for a fact that they have lots of small tiny Drones in the 32nd century.
Even in Alternate time lines in the past, swarms of small drones are common.
Adam Soong even had his Drones back in the late 21st century.
The War in Ukraine has proven that "Small Drone" combat will become ever more important.
Also the next major technological advent will probably be "Micro Missile" barrages with high manueverability.
The Mandalorian shows what it could look like with the "Whistling Birds".
This is why the modern "Bird Shot" from Shotguns are going to be more & more important to taking out drones at greater ranges.
Hopefully we develop a form of "Bird Shot" mode for Phasers that allow that dense volume of small phaser bolt particles to down small drones in the sky.
Last edited:
I do think that's a valid use though. I do think that a "CQC" phaser that is dedicated to firing in a wide beam / conical setting has practical applications.
I think this is also reasonable.
I'm seeing something of a bolt-type phaser that wouldn't suffer the same energy loss as a beam, but instead of shooting a single bolt / "slug", it has was it essentially many tiny emitters / barrels that fire a tiny cohesive particle bolt in a spread.
Although even then, I question JUST how useful that would be over an aim-assisted phaser. The bird shot would make it easier to shoot down drones, for sure... but if we have super-computer assisted aiming that can just direct a phaser shot to the drone, does it really matter?
I lean towards... for the general universalist Starfleet, no. They would probably just use the aim assist and shoot down drones like that. If we were trying to make purpose-built weapons for military applications within the Trek framework... yeah, it could make sense. From a combat perspective, I think making the weapons more simple is a benefit. Rather than relying on a computer to calculate and aim assist a shot for you, which is probably susceptible to jamming or all sorts of electronic warfare, a good old fashioned "wall of death" can do the job without the risk.
I concur, it has a valid use, but it's very specific in what it's for.
Room clearing inside a building / facility.
I'm thinking of a Custom Emitter Crystal instead of the stock one.
Do you remember how the ST: Discovery Hand Phaser had multiple emitters you can rotate into place?
One of those emitters could be optimized for "Bird Shot".
IRL Aim Assisted is more about doing the math for Bullet Drop IRL.
Real Life Scopes have Built in Simple Computers that takes in all the data, and calculates bullet drop for you and you just have to point the reticle on target.
Given that Phaser Beams don't suffer from Bullet Drop, it's more about keeping the weapon still so that human's shakiness, especially under the stress of combat doesn't throw off your aim.
Just a few mm of shake can throw off your aim by a few degrees, at hundreds of meters of projectile travel, that easily becomes a miss if you're not careful.
This is why creating a more stable shooting platform along with using Bipods / Tripods for shooting helps out in long range engagements.
There's nothing that the Aim Assist Computer can really do for the operater.
What would be way more useful is creating a Phaser Rifle that is more ergonomic to minimize bodily shake.
Short of using Auto Stabilizing Gymbal used in modern day Steady Cam Camera Rigs to mount your weapons, but that is another complication to solve for a relatively easily solve-able problem in terms of how shakey the operator is, especially with heightened adrenaline levels in the middle of a fire fight.
Simpler weapon = Better
Less Complexity = Less Things to break.
There is a reason why "Auto Stabilizing" Gymbals aren't in use on the battle field IRL.
The simpler solution is to get behind cover or get low to the ground, deploy Bi-Pods, and have a steadier shot.
If that means deploying Shields (Physical or Energy Shields) as well, so be it.
If you want Comptuer Aided Aiming, you might as well create a Man Deployable Auto-Turret that will shoot whatever you want to target nearby.
Something the size of a large Umbrella that you can deploy on the ground, and turn it on; let it blast whatever target is near by that you choose.
I don't think you understand how Aim Assist would work in IRL guns.
See above YT Video for how US Military plans on solving it.
So now that you understand what Aim Assist is as I explained above, you might want to re-think what "Computerized Aim Assist" would mean in a world where you're firing energy beams that travel in a straight line and not Bullets that suffer from "Bullet Drop" due to Gravity & Air Resistance.
The problem isn't doing the math, the problem is ID-ing the target, holding steady, and learning how to lead the target if they're moving around.
Last edited:
1. I love the phaser birdshot idea. I believe that's the one mode of phaser fire we have never observed.
((Edit: Wait, no, I'm senile. We have.
I even covered it on my old Ground Combat pages: https://st-v-sw.net/STSWground-oldphas.html ))
2. Countering operator micromovement ("body shake") should be relatively trivial even without onboard physical means of stabilizing the weapon, provided it has a target to hit. The frequent observation of what I've previously called off-axis fire (because Frakes can't aim that thing) where the beam doesn't proceed due forward from the end of the phaser does suggest an aim assistance mode . . . there's no reason to assume this would have to be static upon trigger press. Indeed, some of the lengthy phaser cutting operations would tend to require a constant assist to avoid squiggly lines.
In other words, a phaser rifle should not require a shoulder stock unless some sort of recoil is anticipated. Even with manually aimed fire, a simple 'cheek weld' a la Sisko at AR-558 should do, though a shoulder stock might be one way to aid against fatigue in longer-term engagements. I would think there would be lighter alternatives, however.
((Edit: Wait, no, I'm senile. We have.
I even covered it on my old Ground Combat pages: https://st-v-sw.net/STSWground-oldphas.html ))
2. Countering operator micromovement ("body shake") should be relatively trivial even without onboard physical means of stabilizing the weapon, provided it has a target to hit. The frequent observation of what I've previously called off-axis fire (because Frakes can't aim that thing) where the beam doesn't proceed due forward from the end of the phaser does suggest an aim assistance mode . . . there's no reason to assume this would have to be static upon trigger press. Indeed, some of the lengthy phaser cutting operations would tend to require a constant assist to avoid squiggly lines.
In other words, a phaser rifle should not require a shoulder stock unless some sort of recoil is anticipated. Even with manually aimed fire, a simple 'cheek weld' a la Sisko at AR-558 should do, though a shoulder stock might be one way to aid against fatigue in longer-term engagements. I would think there would be lighter alternatives, however.
Last edited:
The shoulder stock isn't just to deal with recoil, it also helps with stability and is the simpler method to do so w/o any complex contraptions that is overly encumbersome & heavy.
If you're close enough to get a "Cheek Weld", you might as well go all in on a "Shoulder Stock", the difference in material requirements isn't huge & the ergonomics is less awkward.
Remember the old grunt adage "Ounces = Pounds".
You want all your gear to be as light weight as possible for the operator.
A "Shoulder Stock" is a time tested solution that is cheap & easy to implement.
A far better solution than some weird Camera Auto Stabilizing Gymbal contraption that we see in modern setups.
Exactly, but if stability isn't an issue, then recoil and volume (for storage, mechanical bits, or battery) become the only reasons to have one.
Leaning your head over a stock is way more awkward than holding the whole thing in front of you and basically bore-sighting.
Pic buttons aren't working; see Ezri in the fourth image here:
A stock is extra weight and more cumbersome unless you really need one for one or more reasons.
But stability is a issue, largely because in a real Fire Fight, accuracy drops dramatically, your body becomes shakey & adrenaline spikes.
Any edge you can have in tools makes a big difference.
No matter how well you do on a static training range, the fundamentals will become more important once you're in a actual fire fight.
Any accuracy you had while in training, expect it to drop by dramatically or more when it comes down to real world combat stress when the enemy starts shooting back.
But doing that gives you only 2x points of contact vs having a Shoulder Stock with 3x points of contact.Leaning your head over a stock is way more awkward than holding the whole thing in front of you and basically bore-sighting.
Pic buttons aren't working; see Ezri in the fourth image here:
You go from Bi-Pod like Stability to Tri-Pod like Stability.
Any Awkward-ness is largely addressed in training.
All modern FireArms shooters are used to it and anybody with experience will tell you that 3x points of contact is far superior.
Modern FireArm Polymer Stocks are largely trivial in weight and come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, & features.
The thing is we aren't talking about IRL guns, we're talking about 300 years-from-now-energy weapons.
Those computers should have no problem ID-ing the target, compensating for any movement of the operator, leading the target, etc. and directing the shot where it needs to go.
And Energy Weapons are just simpler forms of Projectiles where we have less to worry about.
No need to worry about Projectile Drop due to the effects of gravity or Air Resistance.
If anything, it's superior in nearly every way.
We can do all that, right now, in a compact form.
It's literally being done as we speak.
ID-ing if a target is there purely on optical information already works.
Movement Compensation is harder because that's a person by person & situation by situation case.
Leading the target depends on what sensor data you have on said target, calculating is relatively easy, getting good compact sensors is harder.
Auto Targeting isn't all it's cracked up to be, it's usually better to go with a fixed muzzle device or have a seperate Auto Turret or Flying Drone.
A person aiming is a better & more reliable over-all solution.
You want Auto Targeting Weapons, we have tiny flying Drones the size of Mini Frisbee's in the Trek World.
You can literally have countless dozens protecting yourself if you choose.
Phillipa Georgiou had a flying Mini Drone with her when she was part of Section 31.
So if you want "Auto Targeting", have a person carry "Mini Drones" to do the shooting for you.
Last edited:
I think there is some confusion here . . . the context was aim-assist systems. If the system reads your eyes for target designation (for example) and is able to redirect the beam to maintain the same point of impact (so long as you're pointing even vaguely in the general direction), then a Type I and a rifle with stock will have equal biomechanical stability needs (i.e. very little).
going on with aiming assist, or not.. one has to consider what even is the best method of holding a pointed weapon for aiming. Rifle and handgun designs are all predicated on kickback. Early arquebus design, following from hand gonnes, had a stock similar to a crossbow, but this did not provide proper stability at the moment the weapon kicked, leading to the buttstock (which would eventually transfer back over to crossbow designs as the crossbow was relegated to a hobby and hunting tool) becoming something to handle the recoil to the shoulder. It also provided a cheekpiece for getting a good solid weld from jawline when firing, so there's a good line of vision from eyeballs to scope or iron-sight.
all of which is pointless on a beam weapon. likewise handgun holding postures have various methods of holding the weapon. You don't hold a high power revolver, like you would a semi auto, etc. Again those methods are useless.
Maybe TNG was on to something with the dust busters. But the most part, rarely has it looked like anyone was actually aiming the hand phasers. I'd imagine anyone getting set out on away team would be tactically setup with smart-contacts paired with their side arm to give them whatever aiming they needed. Phasers don't have iron-sights.
all of which is pointless on a beam weapon. likewise handgun holding postures have various methods of holding the weapon. You don't hold a high power revolver, like you would a semi auto, etc. Again those methods are useless.
Maybe TNG was on to something with the dust busters. But the most part, rarely has it looked like anyone was actually aiming the hand phasers. I'd imagine anyone getting set out on away team would be tactically setup with smart-contacts paired with their side arm to give them whatever aiming they needed. Phasers don't have iron-sights.
At that point, you want the muzzle to "Auto-Point" for you and fire on your command.
That might as well be a mini turret mounted on the end of a muzzle since you want it to point off bore axis for you.
I just want the targeting data and allow me to point the muzzle at the target as I see fit.
Those are different levels of "Aim Assist".
One is asking for a turret mounted on the end of a Rifle's barrel.
I just want targeting data fed to my eyes so I can make all the decisions.
While there is no recoil with Beam Weapons, holding it still follows basic Human Bio Mechanics.
The Various "Gun Formats" that we all know & love still works great.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In TNG, most of their targets were fairly close.
Instinctive Point Shooting is a IRL Shooting Technique where you're not aiming directly with the provided sites on the gun.
Some called it "Hip Shooting" or "Shooting from the Hip".
It does happen, but it's not recommended for distances larger than your typical room inside a building.
Phasers can have sites placed on them if they wanted to.
ST:ENT showed what happens when you modernize, you can even have retractable scopes.
Last edited:
Similar threads
