Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
FaxModem1
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5942
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby FaxModem1 » 2016-05-18 03:31am

In both Star Wars and Star Trek, both have stun settings on their ground energy weapons. Which is superior at this, and which is not? How or why not? Let's compare stun settings.
Image

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2136
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Adam Reynolds » 2016-05-18 05:17am

Star Trek stun seems to have the advantage of being closer to its kill setting. It also has options like widebeam, which can be useful.

Star Wars stun is potentially more effective, in that we see it neutralize Jedi(in Clone Wars), while Trek stun has been useless against enemies that can resist the energy. But it appears to also have a much shorter range.

We also see Trek stun used far more often in general, so perhaps Star Wars stun is less effecient.

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 8534
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-05-18 11:08am

Or that the majority of times blasters etc are seen used in SW, people are trying to kill each other. Because it's a war. I don't think we can draw a conclusion of "SW stun settings are less effective because we see them used less" when it's very different situations.

Though based on what we do see, I would argue that ST stuns are more versatile, since they can range from "stun" to "heavy stun thats fatal at close range" to "knocks them down but leaves them conscious" so it probably has more uses than the SW version.
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10383
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-05-18 12:12pm

We know that Type-2 phasers are suppose to have multiple settings (18 IIRC but the exact number isn't relevant at this point so if I got it wrong keep it to yourself.) so it doesn't seem that odd that there would be multiple different stun settings. After all if you need to shoot into crowd that might have children or eldery in it to stop a riot from forming you want to use a setting that probably won't kill anyone directly, on the other hand if you got someone rampaging in ST equilevant of roidrage you want a stun setting that will stop him/her right now even if there's a risk it'll be leathal basically the last step before going for a kill or vaporize setting.

That I suspect that there's no hard "possibly leathal after point" setting but rather where that point is depends on the target.

However as Eternal_Freedom pointed out more of then not in SW the situations are such that the orders are "shoot to kill" and stun setting is unviable or just unwanted.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28657
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Simon_Jester » 2016-05-18 12:30pm

Basically, yes. Stun settings that will stop a berserk Klingon in his tracks would probably be lethal when used on Caspar Milquetoast the unhealthy forty-four kilogram weakling. Settings that will stun Milquetoast without permanent harm are probably going to feel mildly itchy to the berserk Klingon. The Federation compensates by having a looot of different stun settings, though they often just default to "maximum stun" in actual combat situations, even if they don't set to kill.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10383
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-05-18 02:11pm

I suspect though we've not shown it one way or another in canon that Federation agencies might all use same type-2 phasers (at least internally) for things like local security/police forces to simplify logistics but then this is speculation as this hasn't been and probably won't be addressed in canon trek ever.

Also using Max stun in combat operations makes sense as you targets are more often then not gonna be closer to the berserk klingon then the 44 kg weakling and picking the "right" setting for each target seperatly (as we know that those settings have be changed manually) would take too long and dispite what some people might think the Federation isn't anywhere close to that stupid.

As I said before I suspect that weaker stun settings are used when there's a signigant risk of hitting a child or eldery by mistake say for example during a riot.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 651
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Khaat » 2016-05-18 02:32pm

We see Leia stunned in ANH, and the effect appears to be a wide cone/columnar effect. She's back on her feet pretty quickly, with no noticeable long term-effect, and with no time spent adjusting the setting before firing. As targets go, she's on the small/weak-yet-feisty end, yet she lives (and is stunned)!

More options on the ST phaser suggests wider versatility, but at what point do too many choices impair function? Do you start at "maximum stun"? Do you cower behind your (indestructible) packing crates to adjust for "mildly pissed-off agitator, currently on lunch from his music-store part-time job"? and hope he hasn't dropped a Molotov on your position while you tweaked your phaser settings from two to "oh, maybe a nine?" Do you waste hits ramping-up your phaser's setting until it's effective? We saw Riker ramp up the setting in The Vengeance Factor, but his target is out in the open, not evading, and not shooting back.
"Just because you're the captain doesn't mean you can order me to... oh, right. Fuck, it does." - Krep, Spacetrawler

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10383
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-05-18 02:48pm

Khaat wrote:We see Leia stunned in ANH, and the effect appears to be a wide cone/columnar effect. She's back on her feet pretty quickly, with no noticeable long term-effect, and with no time spent adjusting the setting before firing. As targets go, she's on the small/weak-yet-feisty end, yet she lives (and is stunned)!

More options on the ST phaser suggests wider versatility, but at what point do too many choices impair function? Do you start at "maximum stun"? Do you cower behind your (indestructible) packing crates to adjust for "mildly pissed-off agitator, currently on lunch from his music-store part-time job"? and hope he hasn't dropped a Molotov on your position while you tweaked your phaser settings from two to "oh, maybe a nine?" Do you waste hits ramping-up your phaser's setting until it's effective? We saw Riker ramp up the setting in The Vengeance Factor, but his target is out in the open, not evading, and not shooting back.

I suspect there's regulations as to what's needed for what situation and if it's the scene I think you're referring I pretty Riker changed from stun to kill to vaporize when the lower settings didn't work.

Also Leia might be small(ish) but she's a healthy (as far as we know) adult, so I suspect it's less about size per say and more about resistance.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2136
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Adam Reynolds » 2016-05-18 03:22pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Or that the majority of times blasters etc are seen used in SW, people are trying to kill each other. Because it's a war. I don't think we can draw a conclusion of "SW stun settings are less effective because we see them used less" when it's very different situations.

Notably I believe kill settings in SW have a higher rate of fire than stun. That is mostly what I meant by more efficient.

This does not seem to apply in Star Trek. Widebeam stun seems to imply the exact opposite.

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10383
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-05-18 04:10pm

Adam Reynolds wrote:
Eternal_Freedom wrote:Or that the majority of times blasters etc are seen used in SW, people are trying to kill each other. Because it's a war. I don't think we can draw a conclusion of "SW stun settings are less effective because we see them used less" when it's very different situations.

Notably I believe kill settings in SW have a higher rate of fire than stun. That is mostly what I meant by more efficient.

This does not seem to apply in Star Trek. Widebeam stun seems to imply the exact opposite.

There could be other reasons be efficiency why the rate of fire of stun blast is lower then kill shots, starting from the fact that you might not want shoot a person with more then 1 stun shot at a time.

Widebeam also has few unanswered questions that we need to figure out before we say anything about how efficient it is or isn't.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2136
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Adam Reynolds » 2016-05-18 04:13pm

Lord Revan wrote:There could be other reasons be efficiency why the rate of fire of stun blast is lower then kill shots, starting from the fact that you might not want shoot a person with more then 1 stun shot at a time.

Widebeam also has few unanswered questions that we need to figure out before we say anything about how efficient it is or isn't.

I was thinking purely of rate of fire when I mentioned efficiency. Not that it way anything else.

User avatar
biostem
Jedi Master
Posts: 1406
Joined: 2012-11-15 01:48pm

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby biostem » 2016-05-18 05:21pm

There was that episode of Clone Wars where Ahsoka was thought to be a traitor, and several clone troopers were chasing her, firing stun shots at her - they appeared as expanding energy rings, but the fire rate was still pretty good. I presume that making a blaster with a stun setting is more expensive or simply not a sought-after feature, (except in special cases, of course), hence why you don't see it used very often. Perhaps it uses the blaster gas less efficiently, or there's some other reason why it's not used as the "base" setting...

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 651
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Khaat » 2016-05-18 05:54pm

Lord Revan wrote:I suspect there's regulations as to what's needed for what situation and if it's the scene I think you're referring I pretty Riker changed from stun to kill to vaporize when the lower settings didn't work.

(The girl/assassin going after the other clan's man.) Not a viable combat response time, considering all she had to do was lunge while he was looking down to dial his phaser up. But that's my point: 18 options on your gun is 17 options more than you need right now. It made for a tragic/romantic ending for the girl, but after the first shot, no second chances. For the sake of arguement, though, what if she had been shooting at him, instead of reaching toward the clansman? Riker would be done.
Lord Revan wrote:Also Leia might be small(ish) but she's a healthy (as far as we know) adult, so I suspect it's less about size per say and more about resistance.

I would have to imagine the size (well, okay, mass) of someone would directly affect how much "stun setting" blaster energy they could safely absorb, second only to general health, in that the same energy could cause underlying conditions to manifest (a heart problem, seizures, etc.)
"Resistance" is a suitably vague non-quantifiable value in this context (she's not an inert electrical component, after all.) Please extrapolate.
"Just because you're the captain doesn't mean you can order me to... oh, right. Fuck, it does." - Krep, Spacetrawler

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10383
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-05-18 06:16pm

Khaat wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:I suspect there's regulations as to what's needed for what situation and if it's the scene I think you're referring I pretty Riker changed from stun to kill to vaporize when the lower settings didn't work.

(The girl/assassin going after the other clan's man.) Not a viable combat response time, considering all she had to do was lunge while he was looking down to dial his phaser up. But that's my point: 18 options on your gun is 17 options more than you need right now. It made for a tragic/romantic ending for the girl, but after the first shot, no second chances. For the sake of arguement, though, what if she had been shooting at him, instead of reaching toward the clansman? Riker would be done.
Riker gave her no second chances that second shot was a "kill" setting shot, there was no "hmm what setting I should use now?", it stun didn't work, kill worked but target is still an active threat, vaporize. Doing into a situation like that with stun as default isn't a bad idea as shooting the wrong guy high stress situation isn't good for the diplomats. while 18 might be excessive there's situations where you might want to use something else then "vaporize" setting
Lord Revan wrote:Also Leia might be small(ish) but she's a healthy (as far as we know) adult, so I suspect it's less about size per say and more about resistance.

I would have to imagine the size (well, okay, mass) of someone would directly affect how much "stun setting" blaster energy they could safely absorb, second only to general health, in that the same energy could cause underlying conditions to manifest (a heart problem, seizures, etc.)
"Resistance" is a suitably vague non-quantifiable value in this context (she's not an inert electrical component, after all.) Please extrapolate.
We don't know how exactly stun setting in either Trek or Wars work however they do seem to work somewhat independent of the size of the target. With resistance I meant how resistant the target is to injury, as simple as that Klingons for example we are told are more resistant to injury then humans and there's times when a single stun shot doesn't know a klingon out. Yet I've not seen Riker being more resistant to stun blasts then other TNG human characters dispite being one of largest member of the human characters.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 651
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Khaat » 2016-05-18 06:37pm

Lord Revan wrote:Riker gave her no second chances that second shot was a "kill" setting shot, there was no "hmm what setting I should use now?", it stun didn't work, kill worked but target is still an active threat, vaporize. Doing into a situation like that with stun as default isn't a bad idea as shooting the wrong guy high stress situation isn't good for the diplomats. while 18 might be excessive there's situations where you might want to use something else then "vaporize" setting

Riker ended up shooting her three times: 1. same stun setting that knocked the clansman guard off his feet - but not out, 2. stepped it up for the second - staggered her, 3. stepped it up to full - disintegrated her. (I did have issue with staging of that scene: "And if Riker misses, he shoots Picard?!")
Lord Revan wrote:We don't know how exactly stun setting in either Trek or Wars work however they do seem to work somewhat independent of the size of the target. With resistance I meant how resistant the target is to injury, as simple as that Klingons for example we are told are more resistant to injury then humans and there's times when a single stun shot doesn't know a klingon out. Yet I've not seen Riker being more resistant to stun blasts then other TNG human characters dispite being one of largest member of the human characters.

Granted, no-way, no-how has any writer given the audience a "how" for "phaser power setting", other than "uh, STORY REASONS!"
We also don't know how each of those examples actually compare to the others. The times we're shown the phaser power setting are few and far between. Off hand I can think of maybe two other examples in TNG, and one in a TNG movie (ST: First Contact) - though that may have only been Picard telling Lily that it "would have vaporized me."
It's also plausible that klingon armor actually serves a purpose (other than getting them into biker bars); it could be insulated, or it could be klingons' duplexed nervous system (Ethics) that gives them improved damage resistance.
"Just because you're the captain doesn't mean you can order me to... oh, right. Fuck, it does." - Krep, Spacetrawler

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10383
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-05-18 08:44pm

the thing is that you don't always get the "optimal" firing position where the target will explain in detail what setting to use, stay absolutly still and there's no friendlies (or at least targets you don't want to hit) in the firing line.

Riker's actions are perfectly logical given the situation, he starts of with a stun setting since he doesn't want to accidently kill the VIPs or Picard, when that doesn't work does for a kill setting no point in wasting energy and potentially destroying evidence by going any higher as said setting is generally enough and only when the kill setting fails to prevent the assassin does he go for the vaporize setting as he has no other choice. Bare in mind that starfleet officer Will Riker does not have access to the script only the actor Jonathan Frakes does so unless Riker was told "this assassin can resist even phasers set to kill, use max setting" there no logical reason for him to assume he needs to use it.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

Prometheus Unbound
Jedi Master
Posts: 1027
Joined: 2007-09-28 06:46am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Prometheus Unbound » 2016-08-23 09:02am

They have an insanely low level "tap on the shoulder" stun setting - Tasha uses this in the drug addict episode when two of them start fighting.
NecronLord wrote:
Also, shorten your signature a couple of lines please.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11787
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2016-08-23 11:33am

I believe Riker uses it on Cochrane in First Contact as well.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11787
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2016-08-23 11:39am

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Or that the majority of times blasters etc are seen used in SW, people are trying to kill each other. Because it's a war. I don't think we can draw a conclusion of "SW stun settings are less effective because we see them used less" when it's very different situations.

Though based on what we do see, I would argue that ST stuns are more versatile, since they can range from "stun" to "heavy stun thats fatal at close range" to "knocks them down but leaves them conscious" so it probably has more uses than the SW version.


Perhaps a reflection of the fact that Starfleet Security is used for both military and police duties, while the forces we tend to see in Star Wars are mostly pure military, or at least closer to it? Thus Starfleet has more need of a weapon that can be used to subdue someone non-lethally.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 651
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Differences in Stun weaponry. Which is better?

Postby Khaat » 2016-08-23 11:50am

Lord Revan wrote:the thing is that you don't always get the "optimal" firing position where the target will explain in detail what setting to use, stay absolutly still and there's no friendlies (or at least targets you don't want to hit) in the firing line.

But rather than have Riker step to interpose himself between the assassin and the target (and simultaneously take Picard and the grand pooh-bah out of the line of fire), the director chose to not change the arrangement. Sure, Riker doesn't know he's in a play about "spaceships and rayguns," but Riker is supposed to be trained in tactics, and would have zero difficulty in moving to secure a minimal-collateral damage line of fire, while keeping his weapon on the target/"suspect". He does the opposite: he orders that no-one move.

Lord Revan wrote:Riker's actions are perfectly logical given the situation, he starts of with a stun setting since he doesn't want to accidently kill the VIPs or Picard, when that doesn't work does for a kill setting no point in wasting energy and potentially destroying evidence by going any higher as said setting is generally enough and only when the kill setting fails to prevent the assassin does he go for the vaporize setting as he has no other choice. Bare in mind that starfleet officer Will Riker does not have access to the script only the actor Jonathan Frakes does so unless Riker was told "this assassin can resist even phasers set to kill, use max setting" there no logical reason for him to assume he needs to use it.

I don't have issue with Riker starting with "basic stun setting" then ramping it up, I have issue in that he is the only guy in the room with a readied weapon and he absolutely fails to take command of the tactical situation by minimizing risk to senior officers, diplomats, or by-standers by repositioning.

tl;dr - my gripe is with the crap stage direction, not turning up the phaser
"Just because you're the captain doesn't mean you can order me to... oh, right. Fuck, it does." - Krep, Spacetrawler


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests