|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:25 pm
lol; indeed.
i mean, the E-11 is pretty heavy in terms of power and rate of fire, but it's sized as a carbine, yet it's called a rifle.
wtf?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:16 pm
Look at this! Its a new pistol i created, but due to the power it packs, I'll call it a heavy repeating blaster turret!
muahaha!
Though I wouldn't be suprized if that happened...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:40 pm
and what if heavy weapons become outdated, so they're weak coompared to newer weapons? are they still considered heavy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:34 am
Quote: There really isn't any rhyme or reason to it though. There is some consistancy, but given the diversity of SW firearms, its hard to keep labels familiar with what we know. TO the previous post: I believe so. most people refer to old heavy blasters as just that even if they are less powerful than newer ones. Especially since hte tech level is not uniform throughout the galaxy and many places still use many older weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:57 pm
Classification wouldn't be hard to do though...
Like, if a blaster can or cannot penetrate a certain amount of armor, determines heavy or light.
Then, rifle vs. carbine. Carbines must be elss than a certain length and height, or otherwise they are rifles.
I mean, how hard is that? But, I still stick with my excuse of them just giving labels for the hell of it. There really isn't that much diversity of the SW firearms to make it that difficult. You just have to have standards for each type of weapon, and then supply it across to the different projecitles they fire. so blasters would have one standard, ion another, disruptor another, etc....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:32 pm
well disruptors are pretty rare/illegal/exceptional. and i think EMP/ion weapons would have their own divisions. but blasters, common blasters, are so pervasive that there must be some kind of order. i mean, if they can standardize time in a galaxy, they can classify weapons!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:56 pm
I think what clasifies Star warsongarms is range and size of weapon. a carbine is a blaster with a medium sized range and a shorter length, best used for urban and spaceboard battles. Rifles are longer with justifiably longer range.
Hey, would the proton torpedoes of a light or medium freighter pack more punch than a fighter's warhead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:43 pm
The problem is each weapon would have a different value and purpose at different places. And some weapons have multiple classificatisons combned into them, while others fit none of the categories. Quote: if they can standardize time in a galaxy, they can classify weapons! You will notice that they merely refer to Coruscanti time, most people use local time. COruscanti time is only used for interplanetary travel, discussions with otherworlders, and keeping time in space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:32 pm
I'm not going to debate it. I'm not going to drag out page after page of typing just to go nowhere.
I'm not going to develop carpal tunnel over a movie, just for the sake of wondering why the hell they didn't do this or that.
@ cale: I know some carbines can shoot quite accurately in real life out to 1000 yards. That's a fair distance for something with less than 30 inches of barrel. I also know some rifles that couldn't hit a barn at 50 feet as well. Like my AK-22, as I call it (its an AK lookalike in .22 caliber). Its only good purpose is spray and pray... its too inaccurate otherwise. Luckily, full auto is fun to play with, and .22 ammo is relatively cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:46 pm
I wonder...
Do they have slugs in SW? Or like a self-contained blaster bolt that can just be shot from the weapon?
I think why I like ballistics more than lasers is watching brass fly....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:49 pm
Slugs? yeah. why do you think they're called slugthrowers?
and the closest thing to a self contained blaster bolt would be a Bowcaster quorel(sp?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:55 pm
Maybe cause they throw slugs at people, who are disgusted by the sight of a snail outside of its shell?
I didn't know they had such a thing... or perhaps, more accurately, I didn't take note, simply thinking they were a flamethrower modified for something else or something of the sorts.
as for th Quorrells, I meant something like a shotgun cartridge, where it fires, and is discarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:57 pm
They still have shotguns in star wars. if you want a nice little list of weapons, check out the Republic Commando web page.
But the Idea of a self contained blaster bolt is not that far fetched an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
