Plasma Weapons

Dragon1

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
The plasma cannon was the prevalent weapon on Confed capital ships before and after the Kilrathi war. During the war, neutron cannons, anti-matter guns and tachyon cannons replaced the plasma weapons on the capital ships of the previous generation. Why revert to plasma weapons after the war? Furthemore, why discontinue a weapon like the AMG which appeared to be a very effective dual-purpose gun? Any thoughts?
 
Well why use more guns then you need to, besides it saved coding time for other things. Yes AMG pretty strong but as I understand needs loots of power. Similary might be asked why replace PTC with big plasma gun that is serving same purpouse as PTC?
 
The plasma cannon was the prevalent weapon on Confed capital ships before and after the Kilrathi war. During the war, neutron cannons, anti-matter guns and tachyon cannons replaced the plasma weapons on the capital ships of the previous generation. Why revert to plasma weapons after the war? Furthemore, why discontinue a weapon like the AMG which appeared to be a very effective dual-purpose gun? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it has to do with the evolution of shields and the cost effectiveness of the weapons.

Plasma Guns are high calibur weapons which batter down enemy shields and then damage the hull, and various evolutions of their technology has been used on ships of the line throughout the timeline. Anti-Matter Guns are more specialized -- they 'skip' the shields of a target and damage the hull directly... but as shields evolved post-2667 (WC2), they became less effective. Modern shield technology counters AMGs completely.

This means you have the choice between an Anti-Matter Gun which does 30 cm of damage and a Plasma Gun which does 60 cm of damage (the Mk. IV from WCP is my example -- presumably the huge guns on battleships do significantly more damage, and the fighter mounted guns do significantly less). In WC2 the AMG is a good choice, because it does those 30 cm of damage directly to a ships hull... but in WCP you're wearing down the same shields with both guns.

Well why use more guns then you need to, besides it saved coding time for other things. Yes AMG pretty strong but as I understand needs loots of power. Similary might be asked why replace PTC with big plasma gun that is serving same purpouse as PTC?
Click to expand...

Well, that's an easy answer -- the Phase-Transit Cannon was a flawed technology which tended to explode instead of fire.
 
What about the shift in plasma gun power levels between Priv, WC3/4, and WCP? The Priv and WC3/4 'feel' of the weapons are fairly similar, but Prophecy's a comepletely different gun.
 
Moonsword said:
What about the shift in plasma gun power levels between Priv, WC3/4, and WCP? The Priv and WC3/4 'feel' of the weapons are fairly similar, but Prophecy's a comepletely different gun.
Click to expand...

That's because the plasma guns of WC3-4 are different from the plasma cannons from WCP - the latter being an apparently scaled-up version with a larger payload and energy requirements, in order to penetrate current-tech phase shields by overloading a point on the shield. Plasma guns of WC3-4 have a far faster refire rate (0.5s versus 2.0s), much less energy use (44 versus the 220), and far less damage potential - 67 units versus 600 units). It's like comparing the laser or tachyon turrets on a capship to the fighter-scaled guns; two different beasts in terms of size and purpose, with different requirements. It's like they took a gun off a destroyer to stick on a fighter - you get a lot more punch, but at the expense of refire rate and energy use.
 
Haesslich said:
That's because the plasma guns of WC3-4 are different from the plasma cannons from WCP - the latter being an apparently scaled-up version with a larger payload and energy requirements, in order to penetrate current-tech phase shields by overloading a point on the shield. Plasma guns of WC3-4 have a far faster refire rate (0.5s versus 2.0s), much less energy use (44 versus the 220), and far less damage potential - 67 units versus 600 units). It's like comparing the laser or tachyon turrets on a capship to the fighter-scaled guns; two different beasts in terms of size and purpose, with different requirements. It's like they took a gun off a destroyer to stick on a fighter - you get a lot more punch, but at the expense of refire rate and energy use.
Click to expand...

Were the cap-ship Plasma weapons upgraded in the same less fire more punch fashion?
 
RogueBanshee said:
Were the cap-ship Plasma weapons upgraded in the same less fire more punch fashion?
Click to expand...

I don't recall capships using plasma turrets during the Kilrathi War, though pre-Kilrathi War battleships had them. I'm thinking the Hades-class ships, because of their mission (killing things quickly) and the reduction in AMG effectiveness has caused them to return to the employment of heavy plasma weapons on capships... though instead of having several huge turrets as per the battleships, the Plunkett-class cruisers and the Hades-class Quick Strike Cruisers mount only one such gun on the mainline.

While this means they sacrifice striking power in return for increased maneuverability, a logical trade since torpedoes made heavily armored and shielded ships far less useful than they once were. The greater speed and maneuverability of a cruiser combined with a large mainline weapon means they can ditch the heavy-turret that the battleship required as the ship can turn the weapon towards the enemy without taking forever to do so.

PS: Anyone know if the 'triple heavy plasma cannon' on the Plunketts were like the Devastator's plasma cannons, or more akin to the Mark IV of the Hades?
 
God I love the people on this forum!

I do believe that the Plasma weapons found on the Plunckett were probably higher yield than those found on the Cerberus or any of the Murphy-class Destryers (certain literature I've recently come accross states that the Murphy-class is also armed with the MKIV Plasma Cannon on the centerline).
 
The Plunkett was sometimes called an Artillery Cruiser, which would explain the triple plasma.

I actually think that the Plunkett is one of the best Confed ships we see in the games, both in its actual firepower and waht the engine is able to simulate. It has a lot of anti-fighter turrets and some serious anti capship firepower. And, unlike the previous games, it can use all that stuff in the engine.

The weirdest plasma gun of all is the triple stingray. it kills capships and fighters pretty fast, if you're not carefull.
 
PS: Anyone know if the 'triple heavy plasma cannon' on the Plunketts were like the Devastator's plasma cannons, or more akin to the Mark IV of the Hades?
Click to expand...

They were the same type found on the Hades -- Mark IV (except there were three of them).
 
Were the red things that the Plunkett Cruiser shot from the other two 3-barrelled guns particle guns or what?


overmortal said:
That's what this community is here for. To answer WC related questions. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

And to debate WC Related questions, most of the time to the betterment of the community :)
 
Iceman16 said:
Were the red things that the Plunkett Cruiser shot from the other two 3-barrelled guns particle guns or what?
Click to expand...

Yes, the other 3 turrets mount 3 heavy particle cannons each.
 
There's no mass data for the Plunkett.

It's certainly *longer* than the Hades-class (by a factor of nearly two)... and in the Wing Commander community that generally is enough to mean 'larger'.
 
Fission Cannon

So does anyone know how the (charging) Fission Cannon from the Dragon stacks up against the AMG, Hades Plasma and Devastator Plasma weapons?
Damage-wise? Would it damage capships?
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Sounds like you might be interested in the gun chart I made a while back
Click to expand...
Hmmm, shouldn't the fission cannon be in nJ/s or nW instead of nJs? (Wow, doesn't that drive home Wing Commander physics, or lack thereof...the charging current for this ridiculously powerful weapon wouldn't even light up an LED).
 
Excellent chart. Looks like it must've taken ages to make =) Is 30.0 cm the upper limit for the charging mass? What's the upper limit on the fission?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top