Diagoras

It appears that the devs are targeting a period no earlier than about 1520, considering the introduction of wheellock firearms. From some of the designs given and the general tone of things, however, I'd think it'd be closer to about 1550 - though still in the earlier half of the 16th century. So, I'd expect a similar level of technology. Firearms and gunpowder artillery are one of the breakout military innovations of the era, despite being used for 200-300 years at this point. Through the last century, the matchlock has established its usefulness outside of the limited siege context that firearms were associated with before, thanks to the decreasing number of peasant levies on the battlefield and the increasing amount of steel armor worn making armor penetration an important consideration. Now the wheellock has arrived, prompting an explosion of experimentation in new designs and tactics that have recently stabilized in new innovations like the pistol, rifling, a new generation of multi-barreled firearms, and the caracole/fire by rank. Bows and crossbows are still used, but most commentators accept that their replacement with firearms is inevitable at some point in the future. Light artillery has become integrated into the battlefield with an emphasis on mobility, resulting in artillery having a place in field battles for the first time in history. And the pike is the heart of the battlefield, the aggressive and disciplined pike formations sweeping away enemy opposition. Cavalry has also been empowered by recent technological changes. The pistol gives both light and heavy cavalry a compact, easy-to-use, and devastating anti-infantry weapon that either replaces or complements the lance. Plate armor is reaching its peak, even as the full plate suit is abandoned in favour of half plate in order to achieve greater speed and mobility while still maintaining effective armor. Navally, firearms have also changed battles. Most cannons are still breechloaders, though as powder becomes more and more powerful muzzle loaders are increasingly being adopted to prevent escape of gases from the breech. Boarding, while still a valid tactic, occurs less often as the first truly ranged naval engagements are enabled by the range and power of cannon when compared to archers. The new carrack design has revolutionized shipbuilding, but many military ships are still galleys due to the coastal location of battles and the advantage gained from not being reliant on the wind for propulsion during battle.

The big problem, as I see it, with a lot of realistic modeling is that the weapons used at the time were military weapons with specific intended military functions. This doesn't translate very well to the small unit tactics-ish environment of most RPG combat, if you're talking completely realistically. For example, most ranged weapons of the era were intended to be used in mass volleys rather than in some sort of individual context. Using a longbow in a close-range fight in a dungeon makes no sense. Yet it's such an established trope that people demand you have ranged weapons in a 10-on-five fight at a range of 20 feet.

Fantasy Gun Control, and I'm already happy that the devs have headed it off.

We have firearms in the game as well, though, and they aren't piercing weapons. More like bludgeoning than anything, although the wounds made by shot were uniquely horrifying, even for the period.

Not quite. A Wizard can use all items that a Fighter can with the correct skill training, but the Fighter gets access to unique ability trees that a Wizard doesn't. Think of DA:O's ability system to see something similar. This is, from what I can tell, how equipment is going to work. You're never going to be unable to use something because of your class - thus the Wizards in plate armor.

But as their prohibition does nothing to reduce violent crime, homicide, or suicide rates, what advantage is gained by their prohibition? Especially as you're already allowing long guns to exist.

"I'm not willing to examine data that might challenge my conclusions, so here are some vague generalities about human nature". You're dodging the question - is feeling uneasy sufficient grounds to restrict a Constitutional right, in the court's opinion? So, we should see a rise in the homicide rate and suicide rate. We don't. Why? What actual evidence? Random musings are not evidence. And what specific statistical issues do you have with the NAS meta-analysis? Do you dismiss evidence for global warming because much of it is driven by statistical modeling? Did you even read what I said? You're just restating what he said, without answering any of the questions I raised. It doesn't provide evidence for what position? The vast majority of it is analysis and evidence. Can you speak in anything other than vague generalities? Is methodology irrelevant? You can't just say, "Those are methodological critiques" and call it a night - methodological critiques are what meta-analysis do. In fact, most of its conclusions have to do with suggestions to solve endemic methodological concerns. Do you know what methodology is? If so, why is this not reflected in the suicide data?

Right, but want argument is there against them?

Statistical science is a science.

Okay. What specific methodological critiques do you take issue with? Which do you think don't matter? You do note that the basis of its conclusion on suicide is not methodological concerns, but rather that on aggregate there is zero correlation between suicide and firearms, right? I'm confused - are you saying that you agree that there's not evidence of firearms causing suicide?

I'd recommend that you review the National Academy of Science's meta-analysis, linked below. They address this issue specifically. Among other things, once you take into account international studies, firearm ownership and suicide are uncorrelated. That's very interesting but the firearms effect on violence report posted some pages back said that outside US correlation is strong. That's the problem with scientific research - anyone with money can have one done to say anything they desire. Could you repost it? For example, the specific wording of conclusions is very important. You should also note that correlation is a necessary but insufficient condition for causation. Noting that scientific research can be flawed (though I'd adopt a less cynical take in regards to motives) is no excuse for rejecting science. Or should we throw our hands in the air and declare that the evidence around global warming is irrelevant, as it is disputed by some people?

He didn't have an AK. He had a Bushmaster .223 They are effectively restricted in the US. They have not been used in a violent crime for the past twenty years. Could you expand? Why would you want handguns banned?

Then I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the National Academy of Science before dismissing it. For example, it's not a think tank.

To talk about this point: guns are realistic in almost every era that fantasy settings model. Basically, if you have plate armor and two-handed swords, you should have guns, historically speaking. I think their general absence is more due to "Hollywood history" and a lot of misconceptions than anything else, but it is weird that everything else from the Late Medieval age to the Early Modern period has crept into the "standard fantasy setting", except for firearms. Especially as Tolkien's work was, more than anything, set in the late antiquity/early Medieval era! The question of balance is interesting. I think the one constant would be firearms having excellent armor penetration, with the next one being slower reload times. But even that could change based on a variety of factors, from training and paper cartridges to complicated or anachronistic technology (pepperboxes, self-reloading priming pans, etc.)

You know, the consistent inconsistency of claims of the relative merits of bows/longbows/crossbows/early firearms, various melee weapons, armor, etc. really aggravates me. Is there a reason more empirical testing hasn't been done? You'd think that with all we know about the weapons, testing them on reconstructed armor and on firing ranges would help us filter the various claims. Anyway, thanks for the video - it's really interesting to see.

I'd recommend that you review the National Academy of Science's meta-analysis, linked below. They address this issue specifically. Among other things, once you take into account international studies, firearm ownership and suicide are uncorrelated. If anyone is interested in the statistics of this issue, read the National Academy of Science's Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. It represents the current statistical consensus on this issue, and you really can't be informed on an issue like gun control if you don't read and understand the statistical evidence.

The National Academy of Science meta-analysis I will refer to through this post is Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. The NAS meta-analysis noted no evidence that firearm ownership is correlated with either violent crime or suicide, let alone causated. You think the National Academy of Science has been paid for by a political lobby? That's an extremely serious accusation, as it's one of the nation's most prestigious scientific organizations. Could you provide evidence for this assertion? Are you rejecting the fundamental basis of the scientific method? Or is your concern more methodological?

Okay. Do we see any evidence of this in crime statistics? The NAS study notes that homicide rates are invariant by firearm ownership. And how did the Supreme Court rule on that issue?

Is there evidence of this? Could you clarify? I understand the difference, but not how it applies.

This would be relevant if we were talking about politically feasible solutions. However, I used the phrase "optimal policy choice". What? This is not even tangentially related to the policy question at hand: domestic restriction of firearms. The answer is zero. Legal assault rifles have killed no one in twenty years. And quite possibly before that, though I don't know. Pistols, as those are the magazines that people are calling to restrict. Will it? Is there any evidence to believe this? And if so, how many people does it save? Yes, they are involved with more homicides. Do they? Because I've everything I've heard is that they're not better at killing people, and quite possible worse. Many of them have significantly lower calibers, for example. Is there any evidence that they're better? Okay. Is not desiring something with no rational reason sufficient grounds to restrict a right? Handguns are also designed to kill lots of people in a short amount of time. So are pump-action shotguns. Why are semi-automatic rifles being singled out? "that if you're saying that the guns are necessary for when the people "rise up" against their government overlords, it's a fallacy because if somebody is going to do that, they'll get the weapons they need through non-legal channels." Really? Because acquisition of weaponry is one of the major concerns for insurgencies throughout history. Is there a reason you're blithely asserting this? "Not the words "Sound exactly like" he wasn't saying that you were American, just that you sound like the worst stereotypes of americans that are found in other cultures." Okay. How is this remotely helpful? Ran out of quotes by the end, so switched to italics.

Can you explain why? I mean, why are massacres particularly important to stop, as opposed to homicides in general? Quite possibly, I just stated those examples as existence proofs of other methods of killing lots of people. No problem, and you're more than welcome. They're quite hefty, so feel free to skip to the executive summary and individual conclusions if you're not interested in the statistical minutiae.

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted?

As opposed to the emasculated, government-whipped, Politically Correct socialists of Europe who are utterly convinced that governments exist to succor and guide their subjects because the masses are too mentally and/or morally incompetent to run their own lives? Edit: you need to read the works of John Lott. Give him a listen in the following interview that's been broken up into several segments. Here's the first Read the NAS study to see their take on Lott's work. And I'm pretty convinced that you're a left-wing American pulling off an over-the-top satire. To which I say: tone it down, conservatives aren't actually like that.

For first degree homicide I can see it. How about things like second degree homicide and manslaughter? Guns are used because they are effective at killing people, and eliminate most of the physical barriers that may otherwise prevent someone from taking out a target. I feel that it's trivial that guns make killing easier. So with the substitution effect, do you feel that by removing a tool that makes killing easier, we would still see the same total number of homicides? (within reasonable discrepancy of course). My go-to sources on these issues are the National Academy of Science's 2004 Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review and the Center for Disease Control's 2002 First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws. Both indicate that there is no correlation between firearm ownership and violent crime rates, homicide, suicide, etc. The latter also talks about gun control, and the former talks about specifically right-to-carry laws, with similar conclusions. So, given that we don't see a correlation between firearm ownership and violent crime rates/homicide/suicide/insert social ill here, let alone a causal one (which is what we're really looking for), how can I sanely conclude that gun control is a reasonable policy? Hell, the NAS study dismisses a correlation between firearm ownership and firearm crime - which is mindblowing to me, as I'd think that'd be a no-brainer. It wouldn't make a difference, as overall violent crime would be our policy target, but still. It mainly dismisses it due to methodological concerns with the studies in question, however, as opposed to them turning up zero correlation as an answer. So I can keep some sense of a stable footing.

No, I explicitly stated that was an extreme example to illustrate the general principle. Can you provide evidence for the fact that in general the middle ground is the optimal policy choice? Because if that were consistently true, policy making would be easy. You'd just aggregate the choices, and pick the average. No need for in-depth analysis. I said tightly controlled, I did not say banned. And you have to go through an intense background check process. How about this: how many people have been killed by assault rifles in the last twenty years? That's interesting - because all the policy proposals I've seen involve banning what are standard magazines. Can you tell me what the "standard" is, in your opinion? Okay. Does it take spree killers longer? Does it take criminals longer? Do limitations on the size of magazines reduce crime in any sensible way? Is there evidence that they reduce crime? It's not an assault rifle, yes. Assault weapons is, by all accounts, a made-up term that arbitrarily bans firearms based on how scary they look rather than any actual damage they cause. Handguns, for example, are by far more deadly in terms of use in homicide then all the scary black rifles in the world. Handguns and shotguns are also far more lethal, as the intermediate rounds fired by assault rifles are far less deadly and they're mainly useful at the sort of intermediate engagement ranges that criminals do not operate in. Just because a weapon is in the military, doesn't automatically make it deadlier or somehow worse. Does that meet the burden of proof required to expand state power? Specifically speaking, can you cite Supreme Court precedent? I have absolutely no idea what firearm ownership has to do with people's civil rights not being protected. I can't parse this sentence. What are you saying? If you have nothing helpful to add, why are you even posting? And if you're talking about me: I'm from Hong Kong, China.