| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | {{FOF-2|4-6-2007|[[User:ED|ED]]|Sources need to be cited}} |
| | |
| ==Size?== | | ==Size?== |
| I would like to ask about something and please forgive me if the facts i am disputing ARE correct or substantiated: | | I would like to ask about something and please forgive me if the facts i am disputing ARE correct or substantiated: |
| Line 47: |
Line 49: |
|
| |
|
| How interesting - - - - - - - /\/\/\/\/\ | | How interesting - - - - - - - /\/\/\/\/\ |
|
| |
| == Energy Projector in the Human Starships ==
| |
|
| |
| The [[UNSC]] to owe to have this type of weapon included in your heavy arsenal. I say, estan in the XXVIth century. The technology of it this must at the time have developed this type of weapon as the " Hammer of Dawn " in Gears of War.--[[User talk:H A L O Legend|H A L O Legend]] 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Doesn't make any sense... could you rephrase that?- <b>[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></b> 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I think he's trying to say the Gears of War Hammer of Dawn is an Energy Projector, and proves its part of Halo canon(?) -- <b>[[Halopedia:Administrators|<font color=blue>Administrator</font>]] [[User:Specops306|<font color=blue>Specops306</font>]] - ''[[User Talk:Specops306|<font color=purple>Qur'a 'Morhek</font>]]'' <sup>''[[halofanon:Operation: HOT GATES|<u><font color=blue>Honour Light Your Way!</font></u>]]''</sup></b> 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Energy projector vs. super MAC platform==
| |
|
| |
| I would just like to toss an idea out, and I figured this would be the most relevant page to post it on. Specifically, in the Battle of Reach (this argument also applies to the First Battle of Earth), the massive Covenant supercruiser used its projectors to obliterate human vessels at extreme range. Why, then, did it not use this tactic against the MAC platforms? Range in space combat will ultimately be determined by two things, because there is no drag in space. The first key is the firing ship's muzzle velocity, the second being the maneuverability of the target. Now, even if you believe the completely impossible (see MAC talk page) 50% speed of light muzzle speed for the super MAC, the supercruiser (or any energy projector equipped ship) still has twice that muzzle velocity. So the covenant ship wins that half of the range argument. Secondly, MAC platforms are STATIONARY (or at least move in a completely predictable orbit), whereas the supercruiser can maneuver as needed. Together, these two things should make it blindingly obvious that any covenant fleet with even one ship equipped with an energy projector should be able to effortlessly obliterate MAC platforms. On top of this, ship mounted MACs are even more limited in muzzle velocity, and human ships have their usual inferior systems, which would imply drive systems as well. Thus, a covenant fleet should be able to outrange any human vessel so horribly that the battle would be over before the human vessels even got within range. If anyone has any commentary on my arguments here, please post it. If anyone wonders, this response comes from a piece of trivia that used to be on this page stating it was unknown why the assault carriers did not destroy the MAC platforms in this manner in the First Battle of Earth. [[User talk:Quakeomaniac|Quakeomaniac]] 23:21, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| I believe that the reason is that the ship has to reroute all power to the Energy Projector which would leave it a siting duck for a minute or two if I recall correctly, which would give the MAC stations the chance to destroy it (In GoO, a large Covenant cruiser of the AJ type had to reroute all of its power to the Energy Projector which left it powerless). Also, this is Sci-fi, if you want to go against the MSAC canon speed then here is an example from ST that makes no sense: In a TOS ep. has Spock state that HALF AN OUNCE of anti-matter would blow half the atmosphere off an Earth-like planet...and it did. So if you are going to try and counter how silly things are in Halo saying "but its impossible!" Will no cut it.
| |
|
| |
| Ok to begin with, why in the world would a ship be designed such that it has to use ALL of its power just to fire one weapon? Also, go re-read the encounter between the Incorruptible and the brute frigates. You clearly missed something. Namely, it is stated that a normal energy projector shot is not sufficient to destroy a covenant ship. The Incorruptible diverted all of its power to the weapon, yes, but it was an enormously overpowered shot so that it could destroy the frigate in one hit. This is not a normal circumstance, but an act of desperation. Also, the Reverence-class ships appear to be somewhat underpowered for their size. The ship depicted in Genesis and Legends (which has been classified as a battleship based on its abilities and size) was capable of firing several projectors at once, as was the FoR supercruiser. As for Star Trek getting a number incorrect, two things to say. First, it was probably an exaggeration about the dangers of antimatter. Second, the show was made in the 60's! Come on now, give them a break. Antimatter was not as well understood at that time. I, personally, will go with the exaggeration concept. P.S sign your posts. [[User talk:Quakeomaniac|Quakeomaniac]] 17:57, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :The ship in Legends to which you are referring was a CCS-class Battlecruiser, firing pulse laser turrets, not energy projectors. - [[User:Halo-343|<span style="color: purple; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 128%;">'''Halo-343'''</span>]] [[User talk:Halo-343|<font color="red"><nowiki>(</nowiki>'''Talk'''<nowiki>)</nowiki></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Halo-343|<font color="orange"><nowiki>(</nowiki>'''Contribs'''<nowiki>)</nowiki></font>]] [[Special:Editcount/Halo-343|<font color="green"><nowiki>(</nowiki>'''Edits'''<nowiki>)</nowiki></font>]] 19:06, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Oops that's my mistake you're right. What I meant to refer to was Evolutions. I was just trying to figure out what it was that retconned the ship size for the Battle of Harvest from what Genesis had shown. [[User talk:Quakeomaniac|Quakeomaniac]] 19:19, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Anyway, regardless of my error there, the point I was trying to make is that Covenant ships logically should overwhelm human ships even worse than they are acknowledged to in the Halo canon already. Their weapons aren't just powerful, but have drastically higher effective ranges. I wanted to know if anyone else agreed with this conclusion. [[User talk:Quakeomaniac|Quakeomaniac]] 20:51, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Halo Reach info ==
| |
|
| |
| I'm wondering when will any information from Halo Reach be aplied to This page for example the article mentions the possibility of a Super Carrier haveing a Energy Projector when it is shown using it in a campain cutscene(end of Tip of the Spear).'''[[User talk:Dragrath1|Dragrath1]] 20:31, September 20, 2010 (UTC)'''
| |
| :Nothing new is revealed in ''Reach''. We already know that supercarriers have access to energy projectors.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 20:34, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::I am aware I was simply stating that the article says that wether or not they have them is speculation so I was giving proof so it could be changed, also you have to admit Reach has a far higher luse of the eneregy projector than previous games ant those instances should be at least updated'''[[User talk:Dragrath1|Dragrath1]] 22:15, September 24, 2010 (UTC)'''
| |
| :::It was quite ''colourful'' to see them in action. :P - <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 22:25, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Color ==
| |
| So I was thinking, could the color of the beam be related to the class of ship? The more powerful the beam is, the higher on the visible spectrum it could be (ie, Assault Carrier Beams are blue or purple, the highest on the visible light spectrum). It mentions that the beams in Reach are red, when actually the beam that destroys the Frigate at the end of Tip of the Spear (fired by a Supercarrier!) is a sort of bright blue. Although the beam in Halo 2 fired by the Assault Carrier is pink, it could be purple, highest on the visible spectrum. And plus, CCS Battlecruisers besides some in Halo 3 (which we don't get such a good look at anyways) fire red beams. Red is lowest on the visible spectrum. This is just conjecture and has not been confirmed in any way, but I think it's a reasonable theory. -[[User talk:Joseph-G111|Joseph-G111]] 03:29, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Perhaps. However, I don't think an energy projector beam's color is related to the vessel's size. I think it's more likely that the color changes with the intensity of the beam. As you mentioned, a red beam is the least intense, whereas a bluish purple one is more powerful, and a white hot one is the most powerful. Thus, the battlecruisers that glass New Alexandria were probably firing low-intensity beams, perhaps to keep from damaging themselves due to their proximity to the ground, while energy projectors are seen fired at or near full power in most other situations. For example, the destroyers in the ''Halo Wars'' intro fire high-intensity (whitish blue) beams from Harvest's low orbit; as they aren't close to the ground, they can unleash more energy safely. I guess the same theory could be applied to the plasma torpedo, as it has been alternately portrayed as red and blue. --[[User talk:Braidenvl|"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson]] 03:41, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Piece of Trivia ==
| |
|
| |
| Perhaps it should be added under the trivia tab that this weapon has the distinction of being the deadliest weapon in human history. After all, if this is the Covenant's weapon of choice for glassing a planet, then it follows that more humans have been killed by this particular weapon than any other. Ever.
| |
|
| |
| :The Halo Array is deadlier. And Cortana just unveiled a new power setting for the Covenant's plasma weapons that even their energy projectors were not capable of. Who knows what they could do with that. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 12:15, 16 December 2010 (EST)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| == Weapon Discrepancy ==
| |
|
| |
| After looking at the article in its current form, I have noticed a possible contradiction in the way it is written, both in content and to a degree, in citations. The description of the operation of the weapon, from its range to its appearance, and the coloration of tthe beam itself, is not consistent with the weapons mounted on the ventral surfaces of the destroyers, cruisers, and carriers that have been seen using them in the existing games.
| |
|
| |
| For starters, the article's description, particularly in the operation section, describes the unique weapon that had been employed by that large ship that the Pillar Autumn destroyed during the final space engagement of the Fall of Reach. That weapon is completely different in operation, size, function, and form to the ventral beams mounted on most large Covenant warships. That weapon was not a built-in, ventrally-mounted weapon, but was a separate device externally mounted on the ship's hull, and was in the form of a massive, spherical device on a turret emplacement, enabling it to track opposing ships.
| |
|
| |
| For the ventral cleansing beams to do that, by contrast, they would have to position and move themselves at upwards angles, or roll onto their sides, in order for their beams to be able to strike at opposing ships. The targets would have to be below or to the side of them, and the ship would have to positioned accordingly in order strike its target. Even in the case of beam fired from the top of the Solemn Penance's partner Assault Carrier at that Marathon-Class Cruiser, that weapon was still fired only when the total position and size of the firing ship was placed so that it could fire at an appropriate angle.
| |
|
| |
| As for the ventral beams themselves, those weapons have been shown to have more stringent limitations then the long-range sniping weapon used at Reach. For the ventral beams, in terms of their range, have only been shown to have either a maximum range of low orbit, for the anterior-mounted ventral beam, to a very low altitude, perhaps a mile or so above a planet's surface, in the case of the beam mounted on the gravity lift base. It seems that for the anterior ventral beam, it can strike from any altitude in atmosphere to a maximum of that in low orbit, to only a mile or so for the lift-mounted beam.
| |
|
| |
| Also, the beams shown, even with the different power settings, have only really been red, blue, partially violet, and very wide as well, not to mention being composed of plasma on top of that. Aside from the Inccoruptable's energy projector beam and those which penetrated the rock ceiling above the relic at CASTLE Base, none of the ventral beams have ever been cited or shown as being purely white or blue-white in coloration.
| |
|
| |
| From all of these facts, it seems apparent that the ventral beams and the sniping weapon are entirely separate weapons, even if they are related to each other or in the same classification ranges of Covenant weapons, just as the M247 and AIE-468H are somewhat similar if distinct from one another. However, for the ventral beams and the sniping beams, the differences are too extreme for them to be exact same weapon.
| |
|
| |
| Perhaps the most prudent form of action would be to split this into two separate articles, or at least rewrite the existing one in order to account for the clear differences between these two different weapons.
| |
| --[[User talk:Exalted Obliteration|Exalted Obliteration]] 15:19, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :I completely agree. It is apparent that the "sniping weapon" is a different weapon altogether, or at least a very specialized variation of the technology. I always thought the description of the sniping weapon was closer to a particle beam than the magnetically guided plasma fired by an energy projector. Given the fact it's essentially a more direct application of the same tech as plasma torpedoes, I can't really see a normal energy projector beam traversing hundreds of thousand kilometers in an instant. If anything, the sniping weapon seems similar in function to the weapons used by the [[Unidentified Forerunner dreadnought class|Forerunner warships]] in ''[[Origins]]''. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 15:43, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::There does seem to be some distinction, but some of these are less segregated from each other than they seem.
| |
|
| |
| ::''For the ventral cleansing beams to do that, by contrast, they would have to position and move themselves at upwards angles, or roll onto their sides, in order for their beams to be able to strike at opposing ships.'' I had simply taken that as yet another sign of poor Covenant design, limiting the range of their most powerful weapon by placing it in their vulnerable location. Still, rolling to face the opposing ship shouldn't be a problem, since there's no up-and-down in space, so all they have to do is have the top of their ship face the vessel attacking them, so their shield takes the brunt of their attack, then quickly roll upside to slice their opponent once their weapon has finished charging. The Supercruiser variant means some Prophet might have got a new idea, and so changed the location and design of the weapon to be more "turret-like", but still "firing" the same material.
| |
|
| |
| ::''The ventral beams... have only been shown to have either a maximum range of low orbit... to a very low altitude.'' Not always. At the Battle of Kholo, Covenant ship are shown glassing with those beams from much higher altitudes. [[:File:Kholo.png|Here's two]] [[:File:Kholo 14.png|examples]]. They're high enough that the planet's curvature can be seen, and Kholo appears to have Earth-like gravity, meaning it's similar in size.
| |
|
| |
| ::''Also, the beams shown, even with the different power settings, have only really been red, blue, partially violet, and very wide as well, not to mention being composed of plasma on top of that.'' The color can change with retcons, and the plasma composition may just mean a slightly different firing. When it wants to cut ships, it uses the particle beams. When it wants to glass, it uses plasma. Veronica Dare mentions an Excavation Beam, suggested to work differently than ordinary glassing, and energy projectors are also known to be located right where the gravity lift is(another example of poor Covenant design!) They may simply be altering what the firing is made of depending on what's needed, but fire it out of the same weapon.
| |
|
| |
| ::The two do appear to be slightly distinct weapons based on the design, but more in the sense of the difference between an orbital elevator and the Onager. Both of them are mass drivers, but one's been repurposed into a direct weapon. It's likely the same with these two Covenant weapons, the ventral projector is designed mostly for glassing, while the Supercruiser variant is more direct ship-to-ship combat. However, they would still operate on the same principle, and thus be energy projectors. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 15:54, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| Good points, both of you.
| |
|
| |
| Especially for you, Tuckerscreator. In the case of Kholo being glassed, and those CPV-Class Destroyers glassing Harvest from orbit in the introductory cinematic of Halo Wars, are the only instances in the visual and game canon in which we not only see those ventral beams being used in orbital bombardment, but the only cases in which we see the Covenant doing ''any'' orbital bombardment at all. And those were cases that were not done by Bungie; the only glassing shown there was always low-altitude glassing, and no other type, ever. In any event, what both you and Jugus are saying essentially boils down to the same thing, which I have suggested from the start; both are weapons are related and function on the same fundamental technologies, but are still distinct weapons in one way or another.
| |
|
| |
| As for the distinction between plasma bolts/torpedo/etc. and particle beams is actually more subtle than it may seem. For starters, though the plasma bolts and 'torpedos'/guided plasma charges are elongated, contained, and "stabilized", they are still nevertheless discrete packages of relatively chaotic charged particles, more particularly composed of super-energetic, free-floating atomic nuclei and electrons. A particle beam, in contrast, despite being composed of the same thing, is a fully linear and often continuous formation of charged particles, and often far more focused and coherent, i.e. the vast majority of the particles are moving in the same direction: forward. Such a stream, or beam, is usually much smaller in diameter, and the damage effects of its impact are far more penetrating and localized than the comparatively spread-out damage of a plasma bolt.
| |
|
| |
| In the context of the two weapons in question, the energy projectors/cleansing beams and the "sniper" weapon, they are both more in line with a particle beam, though the latter is far closer in mode and operation to such a device. In terms of similarities, the cleansing beams and other similar weapons '''are''' particle beams, because in their cases, they are coherent, linear masses/streams of charged particles almost entirely moving in the same direction and at the same speed. In these key characteristics, the energy projectors/cleansing beams are indeed particle beam weapons, albeit one that has a wide and visible diameter.
| |
|
| |
| The sniping weapon, as it has been shown, is a particle beam weapon in the strictest sense of the term. Its speed, coherence, energy content, and its tiny diameter render it a much "purer" form of a particle beam weapon than the standard cleansing beam is. In fact, in the context of the weapon first being seen, Cpt. Keyes refers to it as a "new weapon", which is stated in the context of him being familiar with the other weapons employed by Covenant warships, from their pulse lasers, to their various plasma turrets, and of course, the ventral cleansing beams. Given how late in the war this sniping weapon appears, i.e. August 30, 2552, it is likely a new and distinct variation upon the Covenant's existing particle beam technology.
| |
|
| |
| That said, I still suggest that the article be amended to make a distinction between these two similar but different weapons.
| |
| --[[User talk:Exalted Obliteration|Exalted Obliteration]] 23:53, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :Thanks for the compliment! There's actually been twice that Bungie has shown high-orbit glassing, in the E3 trailer for ''Halo: Reach'' and during a cutscene for ''Long Night of Solace''. During those two cases, the ship(s) performing the attack could not be seen, but the attack seemed to be done in a different manner, that is, charging the plasma to an enormous package then dropping it down as a bomb, which covers a range hundreds of times larger than the ship's size. The partial glassing on Harvest was instead the "low-altitude beam method", which is probably why it only seems to consist on lines on various areas, which could by why the Assembly initially underestimated glassing. So two different methods, one example of how the Covenant vary the weapons use.
| |
|
| |
| :Anyway, mainly what I was trying to determine from your main argument was whether you were arguing that the "sniping" supercruiser weapon was the "true" energy projector, or a entirely different weapon, akin to the difference between a pulse laser and a plasma torpedo. What I was arguing was they're two variants of the same weapon, repurposed for different uses. So I would agree to a "partial" split, but more to describe the distinct uses of each weapon, on the same page, much like what has done with the [[Magnetic Accelerator Cannon]] page. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 01:31, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| Once again, thanks for the feedback.
| |
|
| |
| As for what you propose, I agree that it is a good idea as well. On another note, what you pointed out about the explosions seen in those two cinematics, those are indeed interesting. In the case of the LNoS cinematic, it is hard to tell if they are enlarged plasma charges detonating on the planet's surface, or nuclear detonations, but given the fact that the UNSC's nuclear armarments were gone, I would have to agree that those are plasma charges, though given how visible they are, especially relative to Anchor 9's distance, it could be several discharges striking the surface at the same time. As for large, super-charged plasma torpedoes, there is a precedent in Halo: First Strike; on page 46, prior to Fred and Kelly acquiring Banshees, a plasma torpedo a hundred meters across flies above them, lands on the horizon, and sends millions of tons of ash and debris into the air.
| |
|
| |
| Given this, and what we see in that cinematic, which is cinematic 15 in the game, when Jorge and Six dock at Anchor 9 and acquire the improvised bomb, then it seems pretty indisputable that what you are saying is correct. As for the Halo: Reach announcement from Christmas 2009, that bluish surge of light comes ''upwards'' from the horizon beneath that cruiser, not from above, suggesting an explosion on the planet's surface, perhaps a low-altitude plasma charge, though it could be from an orbital charge that we simply couldn't see because of distance and the cruiser. Still, it seems that we are in agreement about this.
| |
|
| |
| Further examples of variable power settings for the long-range, heavy grade plasma cannons/turrets come not only from these examples, but in practically every instance when plasma torpedoes are fired at UNSC vessels; unless a ship is hit by multiple torpedoes, is struck in its reactor core, or some other similar instance, UNSC vessels, even frigates, are seldom ever entirely vaporized. Though the vast majority of the torpedoes can burn through and tear apart a UNSC vessel, especially the common-as-wallpaper frigates, their normal power settings are not sufficient to entirely vaporize such a vessel, let alone a destroyer or the various cruisers that the UNSC have used. Only multiple torpedoes fired on the same target, enmasse barrages, or higher power levels seem to be able to entirely liquify if not vaporize altogether, the targeted vessels.
| |
|
| |
| Also Halo: The Fall of Reach book itself demonstrates the Covenant fleets using massed torpedo barrages to glass enemy worlds. Still, one thing I noticed is that in those instances, no time frame was ever given for how long it would take the massed fleets to thoroughly glass a planet; that only came from Dr. Halsey's Journal and the Assembly's logs, though that had more to do with calculating what a single CCS-Class Battlecruiser could do with one sustained discharge from one of its cleansing beams. In that entry, they did not take into account the properties and effects of the expanded plasma torpedo settings useful for orbital bombardment. Still, even with that, the firing rate of a single ship using such settings would probably be fairly slow, since so much energy would have to be placed into the plasma turret/cannon before it is fired, not to mention the recharge and cooldown times.
| |
|
| |
| In fact, that may be a reason why so many ships are present when a planet is glassed, even when using such methods; the firing rates of a single ship, even that of the most powerful vessels, is simply not enough for the task at hand to be done in a timely fashion, so hundreds of ships are required for each instance of a total planetary glassing.
| |
| --[[User talk:Exalted Obliteration|Exalted Obliteration]] 21:54, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :''As for the Halo: Reach announcement from Christmas 2009'': [[Halo: Reach Video Games Awards Trailer|Not that trailer]], the [[Halo: Reach announcement trailer|the announcement trailer from E3]]. It too features wide-scale bombardment from orbit. The "high-orbit beam method" shown in ''The Return'' was probably for the sake of carving the glyph, since the Shipmaster needed to be in direct control of that. But the rest is valid. As for the time it takes, our [[Glassing]] page gives of a reference anywhere from days to two weeks. But otherwise, the main issue of the energy projector seems to be settled, so the page can be altered. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 01:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Different types of Energy Projector: ==
| |
|
| |
| So just finished warfleet and as we already knew there are multiple types of energy projectors, I hope everyone can use this as a reference as we update the wiki.
| |
|
| |
| - Excavation beams
| |
| * Infernus-pattern superheavy beam (CAS & CPV)
| |
| * Phar-pattern excavation beam (ORS)
| |
| * Profero-pattern excavation beam (CCS)
| |
| * Pherex pattern excavation beam (Blockade Runner)
| |
| - Plasma lances
| |
| * Urpeon-pattern superheavy plasma lance (CAS-class & presumably High Charity)
| |
| * Ventrax-pattern heavy plasma lance (ORS)
| |
| * Ignis-pattern plasma lance
| |
| * Emri Ka-pattern light plasma lances (DAS-class)
| |
| - Plasma beam emitters
| |
| * Luxor-pattern heavy plasma beam emitter (CAS)
| |
| * Felo-pattern plasma beam emitter (ORS)
| |
| * Aljordan-pattern plasma beam emitter (CPV)
| |
| * Corven-pattern plasma beam emitter (Blockade runner)
| |
| * Erex-pattern plasma beam emitter (CRS)
| |
| * Enteros-pattern plasma beam emitter (DAS)
| |
|
| |
| This is a pretty comprehensive list. If I have time later and its useful I'll also do pulse lasers, plasma torpedoes, & plasma cannons. Hope this helps. --[[User:Councilor 'Rumilee|Councilor 'Rumilee]] ([[User talk:Councilor 'Rumilee|talk]]) 23:31, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :Awesome, thanks![[User:TheEld|TheEld]] ([[User talk:TheEld|talk]]) 23:38, 9 September 2017 (EDT)TheEld
| |