Star Trek Tech Questions

> Mark A. Siefert wrote:

In another Star Trek based game I played, disruptors did double damage.

> 2. What's the difference between photon torpedos and quantum

If I'm not mistaken the quantum torpedos are used on the Defiant, the
prototype for a dedicated (Borg busting) warship. They are probably stronger
and more difficult to counter by the Borg.

Hello Everyone: A recent post on the rec.games.miniature.misc newsgroup has
inspired me to come up with some with my own set of Star Trek rules for Full
Thrust. I do have a couple of questions about ST weapons technology:

1. Which are stronger, phasers or disruptors?

2. What's the difference between photon torpedos and quantum torpedos?

Any opinion's? Later,

> Hello Everyone:

Depends on what you watch / read.  Star Fleets Battles has disruptors as
being the Klingons heavy weapon. The various TV varieties seem to be more like
an alternate phaser, maybe a little more powerful.
> 2. What's the difference between photon torpedos and quantum
Quantum torpedos seem to be more powerful. Either that or they are slightly
less powerful but have a higher rate of fire making them more powerful in the
long run.
                 +++++++++++++++
    +------------+             +----------------+

> In message <3256BC36.A2A@csd.uwm.edu> "Mark A. Siefert" writes:

> On Sat, 5 Oct 1996, David Brewer wrote:

> In message <3256BC36.A2A@csd.uwm.edu> "Mark A. Siefert" writes:

> Federation technology is always better, isn't it? This is good old

Sigh....I miss those days. Shatner may have been a lousy actor, but at least
Kirk knew when to cap a Klingon in the arse. Now all we have is Jean Luc "Mr.
P.C." Picard, Benjamin "Mr. Clean" Sisko
and Kate "frog-in-throat" Janeway making the universe safe for galactic
communitarianism and non-sexist language.

Personally, I'm siding with the Maquis (the last rugid individualists in the
ST universe).

Later,

1: My take is that Disruptors do more damage w/ less range.

2:Quantums do more damage, (1d6+1 ?) Its hard to tell if there is a
range difference. We have been playing that if a target is unsheilded, photons
do 150 damage and quantums do 200% damage.

My take anyway......

"1. Which are stronger, phasers or disruptors?"

Well, being that the Klingons also have photon torpedoes, I think that
disrupters are probably about the same as phasers, pound for pound. (a light
disruptor = a light phaser, et al.)

"2. What's the difference between photon torpedos and quantum torpedos?"

Damned if we know. Our gaming group that uses a heavily modified FASA ruleset
(actually, all the FASA rules are gone, so I'm not sure what it is anymore)
gives the quantum torpedoe a shield penetrating quantity. Not sure how to do
that with FT shields though...

> 1: My take is that Disruptors do more damage w/ less range.

The problem with designing rules for Star Trek, is that nothing is ever
explained in detail, and what details are shown aren't always consistent. My
advice for doing a set of Star trek ships and rules is to either:

1) Design for effect. Write rules that will _feel_ like STar Trek to
_you_. That's what Mark Kochte did with his Babylon 5 rules.

2) Find a set of existing Star Trek rules and use that as a yardstick for
comparing ships and weapons. Either FASA's old set of rules, or Star Fleet
Battles would work fine.

Either way, you end up with a (relatively) original set of rules that you and
your friends will like.

> The problem with designing rules for Star Trek, is that nothing is ever

I agree. Its too hard to write hard and fast rules for a dramatic setting.
Unless you want to add a "Random Dramatic
Makes-no-sense-why-they-are-going-this" table, you can't fully recreate
some of the things that happen in Star Trek.
                 +++++++++++++++
    +------------+             +----------------+

> The problem with designing rules for Star Trek, is that nothing is ever

I agree. Its too hard to write hard and fast rules for a dramatic setting.
Unless you want to add a "Random Dramatic
Makes-no-sense-why-they-are-going-this" table, you can't fully recreate
some of the things that happen in Star Trek.
                 +++++++++++++++
    +------------+             +----------------+

> At 01:51 PM 10/5/96 -0600, you wrote:

I always had the impression that phasers had longer range but disruptors were
more powerful. It seemd that in fair fights, the phasers hit first but
disruptors seemed to be more nasty to the Feds than phaser fire on the
Klingons/Roms. My impression, anyway.

> 2. What's the difference between photon torpedos and quantum

Not sure. How about photons are easier to hit, but quantums do more damage.

Date sent:  7-OCT-1996 09:07:38

I used to be a Trekie, but I got better. Here are some answers.

> "1. Which are stronger, phasers or disruptors?"

Disruptors cause more surface damage, but phasors penetrate a greater depth.
Whether you want to include this in game mechanics or not is up to you. I use
a different set of range bands (6") for disruptors, but they roll more dice
close up. (C starts at 2d6 etc). I belive that in SFB, disruptors have a
longer range, not that I play it or anything.

> "2. What's the difference between photon torpedoes and quantum

Weren't Quantum Torpedoes used to destroy the Array in the pilot of Voyager?
I'd make quantum torpedoes more powerful, but possibly slower tracking. If
using missiles, use needle missiles for photon (always aimed at shields, even
if the target doesn't have any. (Hey it fits the background)) and Nuclear
missiles for Quantum.

1. Which are stronger, phasers or disruptors?

In Classic Trek - Phasers where more powerful. The Enterprise managed to
easily defeat a Klingon in 'Elaan Of Troyius'. Its silly but they were
actually called 'Sonic Disruptors' in Classic Trek, but this has moved on to
Matter Disruptors. Basically a Disruptor shakes its target apart at a
molecular level. STTNG Tech Manual gives ranges for phasers & photons but
there is No hard information on klingon weapon systems in any of the published
canonical material, especially for the STTNG era. This leave the fall back of
episode watching, but as the technology is moulded to fit the story line such
as in 'Rascals' or 'Generations' you are not left that much wiser. I would
concur with the general consesus that Phasers are better over a longer range,
having a better targetting system and less prone to attenuation than a
Disruptor (this is PSB but...). I use A beams as Phasers and AA Mega Batteries
as disruptors but with a shorter range limit. Disruptors are bad news close
in.

2. What's the difference between photon torpedos and quantum torpedos?

A photon torpedo warhead is an un-contolled anti matter explosion. This
just yields energy which will destroy matter by radiation & particle
collision. A Quantum torpedo by its name disrupts the total being of matter at
the Quantum level. This makes the Q trop a
horrendously powerful device - and one which DS9 hsn't really shown
correctly as the
effect would be total destrution of the target every time - destruction
at the quantum level would be virtually impossible to shield against should it
be possible. What you actually have is a good name for a gatling photon gun
which seems to fire bolts at a target each of which has the same sort of yield
as a normal photo torpedo. I'd model the Q torp as a multi fire photon torpedo
delivery system. Otherwise a proper Q torp would be a I hit you your dead
weapon.

Tim

Adam wrote

--Weren't Quantum Torpedoes used to destroy the Array in the pilot of
--Voyager?

I think it was the infamous tri-cobalt device not Q torp's.

> Mark S. wrote:

Many of my tech sources indicate disrupters are more powerful than phasers at
short range, but standard phasers have longer range bands.
Mega-phasers
and phaser cannons typically outperform disrupters in both range and output.