Would different "types" of phasers make sense?

[DSG2k]

Recoil isn't something you generally worry about with Beam Weaponry.

Exactly.

The rear Stock makes a "Great Place" to store the batteries needed to power your weaponry.

If you have to . . . superior weapons are more tidy:

I prefer the TNG phaser rifle. More maneuverability, less in the way, and apparently light enough to pistol-grip single-handed if one is so inclined.

The stock also helps naturally wtih stability by giving a 3rd point of contact with your body by being planted into your shoulder.

Nah, not in the context of a working aiming system, and I'm not sure it's worth the bulk, even without, in the context of a beam weapon, at least for a stationary shooter.

That said, I happen to have a way to test this, so we'll circle back later. Less rigorous early trial results are quite interesting.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But it is broke.

We're used to the idea of having to send dudes with sharp things or firesticks into battle, even after the disaster of WW1. Thing is, we didn't have another option. No other system is as intelligent or adaptable.

Yet.

But, even if we continue to not exercise alternatives in science fiction futures, it's kinda crazy to stick one's head and hands into the line of fire. We still do it because of low hit probability assuming adequate cover otherwise (not to mention quality helmets), but given that there are already scary good automated shot guidance systems it doesn't take a genius to imagine exposure becoming an increasingly bad idea. Ezri's eyepiece will start looking more and more attractive.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

If you have to . . . superior weapons are more tidy:

I prefer the TNG phaser rifle. More maneuverability, less in the way, and apparently light enough to pistol-grip single-handed if one is so inclined.

I prefer the later Phaser Rifles, the TNG one looks way to clunky.

Nah, not in the context of a working aiming system, and I'm not sure it's worth the bulk, even without, in the context of a beam weapon, at least for a stationary shooter.

Most people should be using manuever firing and not be "Too Stationary".

That said, I happen to have a way to test this, so we'll circle back later. Less rigorous early trial results are quite interesting.

Okay.

But it is broke.

We're used to the idea of having to send dudes with sharp things or firesticks into battle, even after the disaster of WW1. Thing is, we didn't have another option. No other system is as intelligent or adaptable.

Yet.

You still have to send something out, be it Drones, Robots, People, machines.

But, even if we continue to not exercise alternatives in science fiction futures, it's kinda crazy to stick one's head and hands into the line of fire. We still do it because of low hit probability assuming adequate cover otherwise (not to mention quality helmets), but given that there are already scary good automated shot guidance systems it doesn't take a genius to imagine exposure becoming an increasingly bad idea.

I'm sure we have ways of dealing with Auto Targeting turrets and drones / robots targeting you.

Ezri's eyepiece will start looking more and more attractive.

Here Eye Piece was specialty gear designed for her special Sniper Weapon, that should definitely stick around, but everybody should be wearing more armor in the modern battlefield.

The one thing DISCO got right was everybody was wearing basic armor out on the battle field / away mission when they expected hostile action.

Something the 24th century seemed to forget.