StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was idly thinking on Sunday after watching Decisive Battles: Thermapolae, wondering what would've happened if the Spartans hadn't been betrayed. This, in turn, led to an amusing mental picture of a Federation run by folks the way Sparta was, complete with modern Greek armor, shields, and swords.

Then I got to thinking. Could the Federation take a sword and build a generator into the hilt so that a forcefield would envelop the blade? Would such a weapon be effective (consider the opponents of the Federation before you answer this)? What do you think?

I imagine the Federation could build a "force field" sword, but why would they want to. The bayonet is pretty much deader than disco on today's modern battlefield, the Klingons just haven't got the memo yet. I would rather have a good phaser rifle or an ergonomic phaser pistol to shoot anyone stupid enough to get near me with a bladed weapon.

Deathstalker wrote:I imagine the Federation could build a "force field" sword, but why would they want to. The bayonet is pretty much deader than disco on today's modern battlefield, the Klingons just haven't got the memo yet. I would rather have a good phaser rifle or an ergonomic phaser pistol to shoot anyone stupid enough to get near me with a bladed weapon.

Yeah, but if you have to go undercover with a bunch of people who use primitive weapons, it wouldn't hurt to have a more powerful version

You never know what kind of weird situations will come up in Star Trek.

Praxis wrote:Yeah, but if you have to go undercover with a bunch of people who use primitive weapons, it wouldn't hurt to have a more powerful version

I'd rather have one of the "holdout" phasers in my boot or on my belt. Learning how to use a phaser, even the un-ergonomic Fed phasers, is easier than learning how to use a sword.

Praxis wrote:Yeah, but if you have to go undercover with a bunch of people who use primitive weapons, it wouldn't hurt to have a more powerful version

That'll fit right in. Imagine weapon inspection:

*Sching*
*Sching*
*Sching*
*Hum*

Even if it doesn't go off then, folks are gonna be wonderin' about why there's a big ol' switch on the grip.

Better to shoot them at a distance, run like hell when they get close, and bash their faces in with the fat end of a phaser rifle when things turn to shit. Of course, the thing would probably break, but that's what the holdout up one sleeve and the serrated survival knife up the other are for.

Now, if it was in the form of a Stilletto or a K-Bar, then I can see the application in that.

Deathstalker wrote:

Praxis wrote:Yeah, but if you have to go undercover with a bunch of people who use primitive weapons, it wouldn't hurt to have a more powerful version

I'd rather have one of the "holdout" phasers in my boot or on my belt. Learning how to use a phaser, even the un-ergonomic Fed phasers, is easier than learning how to use a sword.

I dunno. A phaser is point and shoot (compensating for the poor ergonomics and playing with the buttons) while the sword is just swing swing swing. I don't mean super proficiency. Obviously a master of either would have the phaser artist being superior, but still. Swinging a sword is like swinging a baseball bat or a stick. All you really need is muscle (depending on the weight). Now if it's a badly designed sword like a bat-leth, well then you have a good point there. ; )

Kurgan wrote: I dunno. A phaser is point and shoot (compensating for the poor ergonomics and playing with the buttons) while the sword is just swing swing swing. I don't mean super proficiency. Obviously a master of either would have the phaser artist being superior, but still. Swinging a sword is like swinging a baseball bat or a stick. All you really need is muscle (depending on the weight). Now if it's a badly designed sword like a bat-leth, well then you have a good point there. ; )

you do realize you could make the exact same argument about phasers, right? some swords, like a katana or rapier take an incredible amount of skill to be proficient at, and in the hands of experts can be exceedingly effective. requiring alot more skill than swing swing swing to really be useful.

Darth_Zod wrote:

Kurgan wrote: I dunno. A phaser is point and shoot (compensating for the poor ergonomics and playing with the buttons) while the sword is just swing swing swing. I don't mean super proficiency. Obviously a master of either would have the phaser artist being superior, but still. Swinging a sword is like swinging a baseball bat or a stick. All you really need is muscle (depending on the weight). Now if it's a badly designed sword like a bat-leth, well then you have a good point there. ; )

you do realize you could make the exact same argument about phasers, right? some swords, like a katana or rapier take an incredible amount of skill to be proficient at, and in the hands of experts can be exceedingly effective. requiring alot more skill than swing swing swing to really be useful.

against your run of the mill trek species, swing swing swing at close range will be pretty effective.

I don't really see the point to such an alteration.

But...don't trek shields typically have a bubble effect?

/eyebrow


I can make that weapon you're talking about right now.

*Picks up a stick*

Bam. Sword with a forcefield.

My philosophy is, why have one or the other when you can have both in one? A phaser that can open up into an energy blade weapon.

Or a sort of gunblade concept, like Dargo's Qualta Blade.

Darth_Zod wrote:

Kurgan wrote: I dunno. A phaser is point and shoot (compensating for the poor ergonomics and playing with the buttons) while the sword is just swing swing swing. I don't mean super proficiency. Obviously a master of either would have the phaser artist being superior, but still. Swinging a sword is like swinging a baseball bat or a stick. All you really need is muscle (depending on the weight). Now if it's a badly designed sword like a bat-leth, well then you have a good point there. ; )

you do realize you could make the exact same argument about phasers, right? some swords, like a katana or rapier take an incredible amount of skill to be proficient at, and in the hands of experts can be exceedingly effective. requiring alot more skill than swing swing swing to really be useful.

So a super-ergonomically designed phaser that has iron sights, feedback, balance, etc. vs. a sword that is light weight, sharp on both edges, nice hand guard and has ergonomical grips and a nice point to it. (Ie: the easiest possible newbie weapons on both sides) who wins? In both camps we have "hard to master" weapons. Is the average phaser easy to use effectively for a non-expert? It seems the "Tv remote control" is the preferred style, after all.

The "point" of such an alternation could be to "block energy blasts." But that would require some incredible dexterity/prediction or else a predictable and slow opponent. It could also be an interesting riot control weapon (since FF's have been known to give some extra knockback "oomph" from light contact).

There is a reason swords are not used on the modern battlefield. How many times have the Klingons been made fun of for forsaking their phasers in combat? In a cqb situation, I'd rather step back and phaser down anybody close to me, than get into a sword fight in which the odds of me getting wounded goes up exponentially.

Kuja wrote:I was idly thinking on Sunday after watching Decisive Battles: Thermapolae, wondering what would've happened if the Spartans hadn't been betrayed. This, in turn, led to an amusing mental picture of a Federation run by folks the way Sparta was, complete with modern Greek armor, shields, and swords.

Then I got to thinking. Could the Federation take a sword and build a generator into the hilt so that a forcefield would envelop the blade? Would such a weapon be effective (consider the opponents of the Federation before you answer this)? What do you think?

The Spartans would have eventualy been taken out it just would have take a few more days for the Persians do it. As such the Spartans might have been able to hold out until Athens was ready to fight. The Athenian Navy might have been able to criple the Persians to the point that they would not have been able to continue the campain

Actually what I had in mind when I asked the question was if the Feds could make this as a close-combat weapon to go along with regular phasers and whatnot. At range, you can gun down opponents, but when your facing a living tide of Klingons or Jem'hader, it could come down to close range anyway...at which point one of these might come in handy.

Deathstalker wrote:There is a reason swords are not used on the modern battlefield. How many times have the Klingons been made fun of for forsaking their phasers in combat? In a cqb situation, I'd rather step back and phaser down anybody close to me, than get into a sword fight in which the odds of me getting wounded goes up exponentially.

I agree. My comments were based on addressing the assumption that a phaser is inherently easier to use than a sword. The Klingons certainly are foolish for dropping ranged weapons for close range weapons merely because of "honor" and for using incredibly crappy bladed weapons at that (batleths and all their limitations which put them below just about every other sword known to man).

However, since we're dealing with people who are trained to use these weapons in all situations in Star Trek, we assume that batleth users are batleth masters. We assume that phaser users are phaser proficient. My comments were directed at the hypothetical situation brought up of somebody who had to "learn" how to use a phaser and a sword and which would be "easier."

The fact is that while the Klingons, Jem Hadar and Borg have shown themselves to have horribly suicidal tactics in ground combat, their tactics are sometimes quite effective. This is undoubtably due to bad writing and choreography, but in-universe we have to assume that their opponents also have horrible tactics to allow them any sort of success relying on close range melee fighting vs. ranged weapons.

If that wasn't directed at me, then I apologize...

Its called an entrenching tool. Deadly in close quarters, folds so it doesn't take up much space, is unpowered so it doesn't give you away to enemy sensors, and lets you actually dig in and fight from a prepared position for that one time out of a hundred that the Klingoins remember they have some form of artillery.

All hail the deadly power of Shovel-Fu!

It'd be nice to see some heads flying around in a melee scene once in a while...ol' Katz would be proud...

I see what you are saying Kurgan, and IMHO, in the hands of a novice a phaser is going to be easier to use than a sword, and a lot more forgiving. Anybody can pick up either weapon and have reasonable chance of defending themselves, but a phaser, or for that matter any firearm, is going to be more forgiving. In a cqb situation, your odds of hitting with a phaser are quite good, and you have the option of retreating and keeping some distance. You can also run away with a sword, but to go on the offensive, you are going to have to close with the enemy, increasing your odds of getting folded, spindled or mutilated. If you know what you are doing with a sword your odds of course are better, but if I just picked up a sword I would not be entirely confident that I would come away from a fight unscathed.

Encase a phaser beam in a 1 meter long forcefield and call it a lightsaber.

Deathstalker wrote:I see what you are saying Kurgan, and IMHO, in the hands of a novice a phaser is going to be easier to use than a sword, and a lot more forgiving. Anybody can pick up either weapon and have reasonable chance of defending themselves, but a phaser, or for that matter any firearm, is going to be more forgiving. In a cqb situation, your odds of hitting with a phaser are quite good, and you have the option of retreating and keeping some distance. You can also run away with a sword, but to go on the offensive, you are going to have to close with the enemy, increasing your odds of getting folded, spindled or mutilated. If you know what you are doing with a sword your odds of course are better, but if I just picked up a sword I would not be entirely confident that I would come away from a fight unscathed.

Fair enough. We started talking about ease of use for a novice, but you're talking about combat effectiveness on the modern field, ie: how "safe" does a soldier with one feel when he enters battle? And while that wasn't what I was talking about, it's ultimately relevant. I agree with you, I'd rather have a firearm than a melee weapon if I were heading into a modern battle (or battle with ranged weapons) too, much as I enjoy swords. ; )

Kuja wrote:I was idly thinking on Sunday after watching Decisive Battles: Thermapolae, wondering what would've happened if the Spartans hadn't been betrayed. This, in turn, led to an amusing mental picture of a Federation run by folks the way Sparta was, complete with modern Greek armor, shields, and swords.

Then I got to thinking. Could the Federation take a sword and build a generator into the hilt so that a forcefield would envelop the blade? Would such a weapon be effective (consider the opponents of the Federation before you answer this)? What do you think?

SIF or Polarise hull plates enhancements.

Barton wrote: SIF or Polarise hull plates enhancements.

SIF and polarised armour turns starships into power swords? KOOL!

Stark wrote:

Barton wrote: SIF or Polarise hull plates enhancements.

SIF and polarised armour turns starships into power swords? KOOL!

Now we know why ramming is such a popular tactics .