The marines don't use projectile weapons, aside from the gl, they use hitscan weapons. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
other than that; sticking more to my opinions, i hope the marines invent a super duper huge l33t gun that owns all the aliens kind of like a (insert really cool name here)
<!--QuoteBegin-Nexus 7+Feb 2 2005, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nexus 7 @ Feb 2 2005, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> OMG this is all moot. Nanobots I tell you! NANOBOTS! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was the TSA's first idea. Then the Kharaa have Bacterium which combat our nano-bots. This results in a Grid-lock at the nanite level. That's why bigger creatures (Marines, skulks, lerks, etc) must be sent in to fight the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The marines don't use projectile weapons, aside from the gl, they use hitscan weapons. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lol, so true.
No because blowing the ship up with explosives is so much easier then sending marines in, spending resources, manpower, time. One well placed bomb would kill the Kharaa... unless the kharaa are fire proof... and can breathe in space... <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ahnteis+Feb 2 2005, 07:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ahnteis @ Feb 2 2005, 07:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nexus 7+Feb 2 2005, 11:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nexus 7 @ Feb 2 2005, 11:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why use projectile weapons when you can have swarms of nanobots sweeping through anything, even a vacuum, and metabolizing whatever you want? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0061015725/qid=1107391778/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0332018-7461513?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>nanobots?</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> or bacteria, metabolizing everything... including humans <a href='http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bloom/excerpt.html' target='_blank'>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bloom/excerpt.html</a>
i think nanotech is quite dangerous toy. remember terminator? now imagine fighting robots that you can't shoot at, cause you can't see them
as for the topic... think different. in hundred years there might be no need for any projectile (steel bullet or energy bolt) to travel from point A to point B. if teleportation ever becomes possible why not materialize an object inside enemy. it would be taken straight from armory - no need to carry clips, just a device to tag the target. 3d set of bars going through guts of an alien would render it inactive. or the other way - teleport an alien to secured containment or pool filled with acid, whatever.
and what about mind control? maybe it wouldn't be neccesary to kill/blow up anything.
people imagine aliens are human-like. and bullets can harm flesh. but what if we encounter lifeform without organs/bodyparts? marine A: blow his head off! marine B: there is no head! marine C: omg and it hov4rs without flapping!
umm.. liquid or gas lifeform? or even some kind of immaterial inteligence?
sigh, i need a drink <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Because The Matrix, Man on Fire, and all those other great movies just wouldn't work with a lazer gun. And no- that really is the reason. Thats how heavy the world's fixation is on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Star Wars? Star Trek? No projectiles there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you just proved Quau's point...
Anyway, for the purposes of NS, there's only one reason for the use of 'traditional' guns: We think it fits. End of discussion, really <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Mankind is a very adaptive species, any future advance in warfare will be based on a specific requirement, if you are taliking about clearing house while leaving the structure intact think thermobaric weapons (thats assuming you are fighting something that requires oxygen to sustain itself) which burns so hot that oxygen is pulled from anyone/anything in the target areas lungs leaving them a bloody puddle.
These munitions are already available and have been used: "For the first time in combat, America has lobbed a still-experimental bomb so fierce it can crush an enemy's internal organs as he hides far beneath the surface of the earth. U.S. military officials said American bombers dropped two of the little-tested munitions on Saturday in the rough mountains of eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. and allied fighters are locked in a new ground offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda forces. " "The American military's newest laser-guided bomb, "Big Blue Two," is so deadly that some critics say it should be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. Despite its one-two destructive punch, the bomb leaves cave structures intact so they can be searched later. Military planners say the mix of explosive in the fuel-rich warhead can even be tailored to destroy chemical or biological weapons without dispersing them into the atmosphere. "
This weapon can be used on a much smaller scale and is already available in a hand held launcher for use on "rebel" held buildings.
On the laZer - America already is developing the technology to use lazer tech in conventional theatres, in tests a lazer mounted in a humvee has sucsessfully (spelling) shot down supersonic artillery shells (IN THE AIR ---- > OMG HAX BS1 plz admin) so point defence of large areas is becoming a reality.
"mankind will grow tired of women, dance and drink before he tires of war" (to quote some old dead guy)
seriously tho, if we come across a similarly evolved species to the khaara (are they space travel capable!??!?!) we would devolpe some seriously nasty FUBAR weapons - mankind is not the apex predator for nothing!
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven+Feb 2 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven @ Feb 2 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Projectile weapons are very effective weapons in this day and age. A single .223/5.56mm 62gr FMJ bullet has a 99% chance of instant incapacitation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you know that 72% of statistics without meaningful context are complete nonsense?
Because The Matrix, Man on Fire, and all those other great movies just wouldn't work with a lazer gun. And no- that really is the reason. Thats how heavy the world's fixation is on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Star Wars? Star Trek? No projectiles there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you just proved Quau's point... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I did? O_o I was saying that the two are quite popular, yet have no projecticle weapons.
Because The Matrix, Man on Fire, and all those other great movies just wouldn't work with a lazer gun. And no- that really is the reason. Thats how heavy the world's fixation is on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Star Wars? Star Trek? No projectiles there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you just proved Quau's point... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I did? O_o I was saying that the two are quite popular, yet have no projecticle weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But the movies aren't "cool" movies. Notice- The Matrix defined "style". As did Man on Fire. Kill Bill(hence why swords will never die), great movies like those.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nexus 7+Feb 2 2005, 06:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nexus 7 @ Feb 2 2005, 06:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why use a knife when a machine gun can put a few pounds of lead into a target in a minute?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who uses knives?
[QUOTE] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> you've obviously never played CS in your life
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 3 2005, 06:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 3 2005, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why use a knife when a machine gun can put a few pounds of lead into a target in a minute? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because the machine gun can't be fired by someone without a hand, or a disabled hand.
I don't think a knife will work too well under those circumstances either.
The knife has the advantage of never running out of ammo, hence why they're popular IRL and in video games. The knife is also a lot quieter than the machine gun and enables the attacker to dispose of the body.
The machine gun has the advantage of range, and the ability to deliver massive damage to the opponent from that range. Its main limitation is ammunition, which becomes depleted after firing.
The machine gun will almost always be the best weapon for the job because it's so much more efficient than using a knife, however a knife/bayonet should always be considered a necessary back-up weapon, should the gun experience any mechanical failure or run out of ammo.
The questions really needs to be updated with some variables...
How far into the future are we talking?
Speculative science is iffy, but if we're talking a couple hundred years, and everyone is still around, we'll be looking at radical changes in the way we make war.
I don't think that projectile weapons will be a primary source of weaponry. You might think of them as a fallback weapon. We'll likely understand physics at the quantum level and will have solved the energy production/storage problems we're held back by now.
Beam weaponry will likely be the weapons of choice. Nanotechnology will probably be a means rather than an end in this case. Everything will be nanomanufactured and the cost to manufacture them will much lower.
War will probably be MUCH more dangerous and predicting HOW conflict will be resolved will be much more difficult than determining just the weapons we will be using.
<!--QuoteBegin-Necrosis+Feb 3 2005, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Necrosis @ Feb 3 2005, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem with BEAM weaponry is that its very very visible and thus easy to track back to source.
Bullets are a bit vaguer, and very hard to track back "on the fly" if a person is not using tracers or a very visible muzzle flash. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The visible spectrum of light is actually very small, and the majority of wavelengths currently can't be seen by the naked human eye.
Beam weapons aren't just LASERs though. It could refer to microwave, sound, or other energy types.
Bit of NS story, Reason they dont just unleash nanos on aliens is cuase the bacteria that make them up cuase some sort of nano "gridlock" that keep humans from from a one sided victory.
"Well jeez, the most effective way of delivering x amount of energy to a target is to smack it really hard with something, not to shoot something that then flies "burning" its own energy. "
Ok 1: "burning" is how the energy bonded in the fuel is released. and it happens to be a vary effienct way of getting it out 2: Yes in the end it ALL comes down to "smacking somone really hard with something be it bullets a club or photons. Energy weapons do do some things well, they have a flat trajectery and no recoil which would probly make them good for space combat but, were not talking Star Trek so who cares
<!--QuoteBegin-Mooby+Feb 3 2005, 01:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mooby @ Feb 3 2005, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you see something moving at the speed of light? I think not!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can see light, and im pretty sure that moves at the speed of light 8p
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Feb 3 2005, 07:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Feb 3 2005, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven+Feb 2 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven @ Feb 2 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Projectile weapons are very effective weapons in this day and age. A single .223/5.56mm 62gr FMJ bullet has a 99% chance of instant incapacitation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you know that 72% of statistics without meaningful context are complete nonsense? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The quote is highly meaningful, it shows that projectile weapons are extremely effective and don't really need an immediate replacement <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven+Feb 3 2005, 09:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven @ Feb 3 2005, 09:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Feb 3 2005, 07:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Feb 3 2005, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven+Feb 2 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven @ Feb 2 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Projectile weapons are very effective weapons in this day and age. A single .223/5.56mm 62gr FMJ bullet has a 99% chance of instant incapacitation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you know that 72% of statistics without meaningful context are complete nonsense? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The quote is highly meaningful, it shows that projectile weapons are extremely effective and don't really need an immediate replacement <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Until, of course, people start wearing spidersilk clothing that renders most bullet weapons useless, and almost all non-fatal. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just saying that defenses have always maintained pace with offensive weaponry. Whatever we have today that we think is so effective will be rendered useless someday by some easy-to-use defense.
i heard that the main reason hand held projectile weapons won't be phased (oll) out and replaced with laser type weapons (which are available) is because of the nature of projectile weapons being less than deadly but very incapacitating in alot of cases. It's considered a better option to almost kill someone and force his two friends to treat him than just to fry that one guy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Anderval+Feb 3 2005, 09:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anderval @ Feb 3 2005, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i heard that the main reason hand held projectile weapons won't be phased (oll) out and replaced with laser type weapons (which are available) is because of the nature of projectile weapons being less than deadly but very incapacitating in alot of cases. It's considered a better option to almost kill someone and force his two friends to treat him than just to fry that one guy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's actually the whole concept for the M16.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Feb 3 2005, 09:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Feb 3 2005, 09:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven+Feb 3 2005, 09:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven @ Feb 3 2005, 09:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Feb 3 2005, 07:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Feb 3 2005, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven+Feb 2 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven @ Feb 2 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Projectile weapons are very effective weapons in this day and age. A single .223/5.56mm 62gr FMJ bullet has a 99% chance of instant incapacitation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you know that 72% of statistics without meaningful context are complete nonsense? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The quote is highly meaningful, it shows that projectile weapons are extremely effective and don't really need an immediate replacement <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Until, of course, people start wearing spidersilk clothing that renders most bullet weapons useless, and almost all non-fatal. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just saying that defenses have always maintained pace with offensive weaponry. Whatever we have today that we think is so effective will be rendered useless someday by some easy-to-use defense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> EXCEPT BOMBS!! NOTHING CAN STOP BOMBS!!1! <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The main problem with energy based weapons would be, energy based sheilding, making them obsolete in a conflict. OR simply silver foil. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yes there may also be body armour good enough to stop a bullet dead in its tracks by then also.
Also, what happens if (assuming these energy weapons are heat based) the human race comes accross a hostile life, that is almost 100% immune to that kind of radiation. Screwed by technology, Also your assuming that energy based weapons have some kind of infinite resourse to fire? They would more likely have a limited amount of shots, more or less depending on the intensity of the beam fired, remember this is a hand held weapon your talking about, giving it enough power to fire infinately, would be bad for the poor sod carrying it.
The only sure fire way to go is, some throwing object that is really a skin chip that makes the target act like a kitten <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, it depends on how much money you have. In the future if energy weapons are mass producable, they should be VERY expensive, to the extent where only Bill Gates could buy 10. This in turn will drop the price of projectile based weapons, theoretically.
With that in place, it would make sense for poor people to stick to projectile based weapons, while the OMGWTHRICHLOLHAX people and government can afford energy based weapons. This would make sense since the TSA in NS don't have that much money for weapon technology. They instead spend it on counter-kharaa technology, and some others (Those who have read the storyline knows that the Kharaa isn't the only problem the TSA deals with)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cj the Dj+Feb 4 2005, 06:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cj the Dj @ Feb 4 2005, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> actually the karaa "got on earth" through a chipped-off-meteor or comet or something like that....i think <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm... the kharaa are no where near Earth. They were encountered at the far reaches of human exploration, and this is where NS takes place.
Comments
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
other than that; sticking more to my opinions,
i hope the marines invent a super duper huge l33t gun that owns all the aliens kind of like a (insert really cool name here)
Nanobots I tell you!
NANOBOTS! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was the TSA's first idea. Then the Kharaa have Bacterium which combat our nano-bots. This results in a Grid-lock at the nanite level. That's why bigger creatures (Marines, skulks, lerks, etc) must be sent in to fight the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The marines don't use projectile weapons, aside from the gl, they use hitscan weapons.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lol, so true.
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0061015725/qid=1107391778/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0332018-7461513?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>nanobots?</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
or bacteria, metabolizing everything... including humans
<a href='http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bloom/excerpt.html' target='_blank'>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bloom/excerpt.html</a>
i think nanotech is quite dangerous toy. remember terminator? now imagine fighting robots that you can't shoot at, cause you can't see them
as for the topic... think different. in hundred years there might be no need for any projectile (steel bullet or energy bolt) to travel from point A to point B. if teleportation ever becomes possible why not materialize an object inside enemy. it would be taken straight from armory - no need to carry clips, just a device to tag the target. 3d set of bars going through guts of an alien would render it inactive.
or the other way - teleport an alien to secured containment or pool filled with acid, whatever.
and what about mind control? maybe it wouldn't be neccesary to kill/blow up anything.
people imagine aliens are human-like. and bullets can harm flesh. but what if we encounter lifeform without organs/bodyparts?
marine A: blow his head off!
marine B: there is no head!
marine C: omg and it hov4rs without flapping!
umm.. liquid or gas lifeform? or even some kind of immaterial inteligence?
sigh, i need a drink <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Because The Matrix, Man on Fire, and all those other great movies just wouldn't work with a lazer gun. And no- that really is the reason. Thats how heavy the world's fixation is on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Star Wars? Star Trek? No projectiles there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you just proved Quau's point...
Anyway, for the purposes of NS, there's only one reason for the use of 'traditional' guns: We think it fits. End of discussion, really <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
These munitions are already available and have been used:
"For the first time in combat, America has lobbed a still-experimental bomb so fierce it can crush an enemy's internal organs as he hides far beneath the surface of the earth. U.S. military officials said American bombers dropped two of the little-tested munitions on Saturday in the rough mountains of eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. and allied fighters are locked in a new ground offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda forces. "
"The American military's newest laser-guided bomb, "Big Blue Two," is so deadly that some critics say it should be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. Despite its one-two destructive punch, the bomb leaves cave structures intact so they can be searched later. Military planners say the mix of explosive in the fuel-rich warhead can even be tailored to destroy chemical or biological weapons without dispersing them into the atmosphere. "
This weapon can be used on a much smaller scale and is already available in a hand held launcher for use on "rebel" held buildings.
On the laZer - America already is developing the technology to use lazer tech in conventional theatres, in tests a lazer mounted in a humvee has sucsessfully (spelling) shot down supersonic artillery shells (IN THE AIR ---- > OMG HAX BS1 plz admin) so point defence of large areas is becoming a reality.
"mankind will grow tired of women, dance and drink before he tires of war" (to quote some old dead guy)
seriously tho, if we come across a similarly evolved species to the khaara (are they space travel capable!??!?!) we would devolpe some seriously nasty FUBAR weapons - mankind is not the apex predator for nothing!
Did you know that 72% of statistics without meaningful context are complete nonsense?
Because The Matrix, Man on Fire, and all those other great movies just wouldn't work with a lazer gun. And no- that really is the reason. Thats how heavy the world's fixation is on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Star Wars? Star Trek? No projectiles there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you just proved Quau's point... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did? O_o I was saying that the two are quite popular, yet have no projecticle weapons.
Because The Matrix, Man on Fire, and all those other great movies just wouldn't work with a lazer gun. And no- that really is the reason. Thats how heavy the world's fixation is on it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Star Wars? Star Trek? No projectiles there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you just proved Quau's point... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did? O_o I was saying that the two are quite popular, yet have no projecticle weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the movies aren't "cool" movies. Notice- The Matrix defined "style". As did Man on Fire. Kill Bill(hence why swords will never die), great movies like those.
Who uses knives?
[QUOTE]
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you've obviously never played CS in your life
Because the machine gun can't be fired by someone without a hand, or a disabled hand.
The knife has the advantage of never running out of ammo, hence why they're popular IRL and in video games. The knife is also a lot quieter than the machine gun and enables the attacker to dispose of the body.
The machine gun has the advantage of range, and the ability to deliver massive damage to the opponent from that range. Its main limitation is ammunition, which becomes depleted after firing.
The machine gun will almost always be the best weapon for the job because it's so much more efficient than using a knife, however a knife/bayonet should always be considered a necessary back-up weapon, should the gun experience any mechanical failure or run out of ammo.
How far into the future are we talking?
Speculative science is iffy, but if we're talking a couple hundred years, and everyone is still around, we'll be looking at radical changes in the way we make war.
I don't think that projectile weapons will be a primary source of weaponry. You might think of them as a fallback weapon. We'll likely understand physics at the quantum level and will have solved the energy production/storage problems we're held back by now.
Beam weaponry will likely be the weapons of choice. Nanotechnology will probably be a means rather than an end in this case. Everything will be nanomanufactured and the cost to manufacture them will much lower.
War will probably be MUCH more dangerous and predicting HOW conflict will be resolved will be much more difficult than determining just the weapons we will be using.
Bullets are a bit vaguer, and very hard to track back "on the fly" if a person is not using tracers or a very visible muzzle flash.
Bullets are a bit vaguer, and very hard to track back "on the fly" if a person is not using tracers or a very visible muzzle flash. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The visible spectrum of light is actually very small, and the majority of wavelengths currently can't be seen by the naked human eye.
Beam weapons aren't just LASERs though. It could refer to microwave, sound, or other energy types.
"Well jeez, the most effective way of delivering x amount of energy to a target is to smack it really hard with something, not to shoot something that then flies "burning" its own energy. "
Ok 1: "burning" is how the energy bonded in the fuel is released. and it happens to be a vary effienct way of getting it out
2: Yes in the end it ALL comes down to "smacking somone really hard with something be it bullets a club or photons.
Energy weapons do do some things well, they have a flat trajectery and no recoil which would probly make them good for space combat but, were not talking Star Trek so who cares
Beam weaponry would move at the speed of light. Can you see something moving at the speed of light? I think not!
Also you dont see laser beams unless they strike something, dust, a wall, YOU....so it would be invisible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see light, and im pretty sure that moves at the speed of light 8p
Did you know that 72% of statistics without meaningful context are complete nonsense? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The quote is highly meaningful, it shows that projectile weapons are extremely effective and don't really need an immediate replacement <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Did you know that 72% of statistics without meaningful context are complete nonsense? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The quote is highly meaningful, it shows that projectile weapons are extremely effective and don't really need an immediate replacement <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Until, of course, people start wearing spidersilk clothing that renders most bullet weapons useless, and almost all non-fatal. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just saying that defenses have always maintained pace with offensive weaponry. Whatever we have today that we think is so effective will be rendered useless someday by some easy-to-use defense.
<span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
That's actually the whole concept for the M16.
<!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Did you know that 72% of statistics without meaningful context are complete nonsense? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The quote is highly meaningful, it shows that projectile weapons are extremely effective and don't really need an immediate replacement <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Until, of course, people start wearing spidersilk clothing that renders most bullet weapons useless, and almost all non-fatal. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just saying that defenses have always maintained pace with offensive weaponry. Whatever we have today that we think is so effective will be rendered useless someday by some easy-to-use defense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
EXCEPT BOMBS!! NOTHING CAN STOP BOMBS!!1! <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The main problem with energy based weapons would be, energy based sheilding, making them obsolete in a conflict. OR simply silver foil. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yes there may also be body armour good enough to stop a bullet dead in its tracks by then also.
Also, what happens if (assuming these energy weapons are heat based) the human race comes accross a hostile life, that is almost 100% immune to that kind of radiation. Screwed by technology, Also your assuming that energy based weapons have some kind of infinite resourse to fire? They would more likely have a limited amount of shots, more or less depending on the intensity of the beam fired, remember this is a hand held weapon your talking about, giving it enough power to fire infinately, would be bad for the poor sod carrying it.
The only sure fire way to go is, some throwing object that is really a skin chip that makes the target act like a kitten <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, it depends on how much money you have. In the future if energy weapons are mass producable, they should be VERY expensive, to the extent where only Bill Gates could buy 10. This in turn will drop the price of projectile based weapons, theoretically.
With that in place, it would make sense for poor people to stick to projectile based weapons, while the OMGWTHRICHLOLHAX people and government can afford energy based weapons. This would make sense since the TSA in NS don't have that much money for weapon technology. They instead spend it on counter-kharaa technology, and some others (Those who have read the storyline knows that the Kharaa isn't the only problem the TSA deals with)
Second, I was referring more to plasma weaponry, and plasma is very much visible.
Umm... the kharaa are no where near Earth. They were encountered at the far reaches of human exploration, and this is where NS takes place.