On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Rupert Boleyn <rupert.boleyn@gmail.com> wrote:

On 24/06/2014 02:05, Richard Aiken wrote:

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Richard Aiken <raikenclw@gmail.com> wrote:

. . . and the largest energy weapon being the "20MGW Pulse Laser" . . .

Oops. Read the chart wrong. Which is embarassing, as it lists only two (2)
large energy weapons, the other one being a "100MGW Laser."

NOTE: From the stats, it looks like SW took to heart the CT "beam vs pulse"
laser split. The "100MGW" has twice the effective range and ten times the
armor piercing capability of the "20MGW Pulse," but the latter delivers
about the same average damage within an explosive-effect radius.

OR they just decided that those stats were about right for an anti-personnel/light armour weapon. After all, that's pretty obviously how they did the other weapon stats (compare the katana to the longsword, consider the stats of the 14.5mm HMG vs. .50 BMG, or the AK-47 vs the M1 Garand).

Thinking about it some more, I wonder if those stats should really be reversed?

I remember someone (I think it was Leonard) pointing out that a pulsed laser beam would actually penetrate armor better, since the slight (microsecond?) pauses between hits would allow the gasses produced by each hit to dissipate enough that they would not attenuate the next hit. So wouldn't that translate to a pulsed beam would have a higher AP rating than a continuous beam? Or does the wattage difference change the equation?

-- 

Richard Aiken