Do I see guns and gunpowder ? I hope not :S

[Krikkert]

Last I saw they are targeting for something around 14th Century. However various cultures/civilizations are all at different levels of development.

 

If it has been said that they try make a world roughly similar to 14th century, then I suppose I must admit its starting to make a little sense to have very CRUDE guns. Judging from everything else I have seen, which isn't that much yet, it seemed more standard high medieval though.

I'm just learning of this game today so I'm not as up to date as most of you folk.

 

Hopefully we won't see turrets and stuff

 

And yes, I know that is is fantasy as some of you say, but *I* think it is important that even a fictional world need to at least roughly resemble a real-world time-period and stay true to that period - and technology and such in the world should be as such.

 

F.ex There's no point in going around waving with swords if the world's technology allows for machine-guns, tanks and destroyers, right, just to make my point.

[Karranthain]

F.ex There's no point in going around waving with swords if the world's technology allows for machine-guns, tanks and destroyers, right, just to make my point.

 

You sure about that?

 

 

[Pangur]

F.ex There's no point in going around waving with swords if the world's technology allows for machine-guns, tanks and destroyers, right, just to make my point.

Well, we definitely won't see that kind of stuff in the game.

[Krikkert]

F.ex There's no point in going around waving with swords if the world's technology allows for machine-guns, tanks and destroyers, right, just to make my point.

 

You sure about that?

 

 

 

hehe

[DaWu]

I dont like the idea of having guns and rifles at all. I want this to be about swords and bows. I dont think I will ever use one to equip on my companions

[Loranc]

That picture is pure win.

[ImRhoven]

Wow, when will people wrap their heads around the fact that gunpowder is as medieval as lutes, knights, princesses and men-in-tights?

 

That's why I said High Medieval era. Most generic fantasy settings use dark ages as the backdrop.

 

But they also tend to use late medieval plate armour which actually post-dates the invention of firearms (or at least cannons).

 

Yeah, I think plate armour was developed somewhere around the time first (primitive) firearms appeared.

 

In any case, that generic medieval setting usually doesn't feature gunpowder, so I can see why some people would find that unusual.

 

That's because most generic medieval settings are based on Tolkien, who's whole point was to lament the effect of technology and "progress" on western society. Gunpowder was something definitely not on his list of positives, so not something that would be featured in his world and used by his characters.

[Karranthain]

Wow, when will people wrap their heads around the fact that gunpowder is as medieval as lutes, knights, princesses and men-in-tights?

 

That's why I said High Medieval era. Most generic fantasy settings use dark ages as the backdrop.

 

But they also tend to use late medieval plate armour which actually post-dates the invention of firearms (or at least cannons).

 

Yeah, I think plate armour was developed somewhere around the time first (primitive) firearms appeared.

 

In any case, that generic medieval setting usually doesn't feature gunpowder, so I can see why some people would find that unusual.

 

That's because most generic medieval settings are based on Tolkien, who's whole point was to lament the effect of technology and "progress" on western society. Gunpowder was something definitely not on his list of positives, so not something that would be featured in his world and used by his characters.

 

Good point, after all, it's the Isengard that uses gunpowder.

[Krikkert]

What is it they call a mixture of too many time-periods and technological gadgets in one game ? Steampunk isn't it ? I guess I just don't want to see the game ending up like that.

 

I'm still more for only swords and shields and spears and wish the world was more like year 1100, but I read the article you pasted, Pangur, and it makes more sense now. In fact, they did say late middle ages, almost like rennesaince.

 

So I suppose I can't argue anymore, sadly I want to, cuz I don't want there to be guns and stuff, but there's no ground for it

[Monte Carlo]

in Europe maybe, in Asia they were using them widely by that point as were the Ottoman Turks.

[stkaye]

Firearms should be at the level of the one used in the american revolution.

Single shot, and long time to reload the next shot.

 

I actually think that musket-level firearms (with relatively reliable flintlocks and starting to introduce rifled barrels) would already be a little too advanced. I'm hoping for super-primitive flintlocks, pre-flintlocks (hand-cannon with fuses), emplaced cannon, wheellocks and blunderbusses with zero ranged accuracy but a great deal of one-off damage potential.

 

Also, maybe something like a Chinese fire lance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance

 

Most of all, I'd like to see some amazing gunpowder/spell effect combinations!

[stratigo]

What is it they call a mixture of too many time-periods and technological gadgets in one game ? Steampunk isn't it ? I guess I just don't want to see the game ending up like that.

 

I'm still more for only swords and shields and spears and wish the world was more like year 1100, but I read the article you pasted, Pangur, and it makes more sense now. In fact, they did say late middle ages, almost like rennesaince.

 

So I suppose I can't argue anymore, sadly I want to, cuz I don't want there to be guns and stuff, but there's no ground for it

What is it they call a mixture of too many time-periods and technological gadgets in one game ? Steampunk isn't it ? I guess I just don't want to see the game ending up like that.

 

I'm still more for only swords and shields and spears and wish the world was more like year 1100, but I read the article you pasted, Pangur, and it makes more sense now. In fact, they did say late middle ages, almost like rennesaince.

 

So I suppose I can't argue anymore, sadly I want to, cuz I don't want there to be guns and stuff, but there's no ground for it

 

The primary method of european warfare from the 15th century to the 17th century was a pike and shot formation mix.

 

The primary seige weapons in european warfare were cannons from the 14th century on.

 

Guns and gun powder are common historically.

 

 

In fact I want to see my tercios represented in lore. Sick of the brain bug that guns were useless junk. Every society pretty much dropped the bow in favor of the gun as soon as possible because in almost every way, even a primitive fire arm is flat out better then the best made long bow or crossbow. Especially in mass combat

Edited October 13, 2012 by stratigo

[stratigo]

Firearms should be at the level of the one used in the american revolution.

Single shot, and long time to reload the next shot.

 

I actually think that musket-level firearms (with relatively reliable flintlocks and starting to introduce rifled barrels) would already be a little too advanced. I'm hoping for super-primitive flintlocks, pre-flintlocks (hand-cannon with fuses), emplaced cannon, wheellocks and blunderbusses with zero ranged accuracy but a great deal of one-off damage potential.

 

Also, maybe something like a Chinese fire lance: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Fire_lance

 

Most of all, I'd like to see some amazing gunpowder/spell effect combinations!

Firearms should be at the level of the one used in the american revolution.

Single shot, and long time to reload the next shot.

 

I actually think that musket-level firearms (with relatively reliable flintlocks and starting to introduce rifled barrels) would already be a little too advanced. I'm hoping for super-primitive flintlocks, pre-flintlocks (hand-cannon with fuses), emplaced cannon, wheellocks and blunderbusses with zero ranged accuracy but a great deal of one-off damage potential.

 

Also, maybe something like a Chinese fire lance: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Fire_lance

 

Most of all, I'd like to see some amazing gunpowder/spell effect combinations!

 

Specifically the early mass fire arm was a matchlock based arquebus.

 

Wheel locks also existed, but never became common because of the difficulty of making the wheel based firing mechinism, and usually was reserved for pistols weiled by nobles on horses. Though perhaps a bit past the intended time period as this would mark the transition from knights to carocals.

[Karranthain]

Every society pretty much dropped the bow in favor of the gun as soon as possible because in almost every way, even a primitive fire arm is flat out better then the best made long bow or crossbow. Especially in mass combat

 

Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better.

[stratigo]

Every society pretty much dropped the bow in favor of the gun as soon as possible because in almost every way, even a primitive fire arm is flat out better then the best made long bow or crossbow. Especially in mass combat

 

Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better.

Every society pretty much dropped the bow in favor of the gun as soon as possible because in almost every way, even a primitive fire arm is flat out better then the best made long bow or crossbow. Especially in mass combat

 

Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better.

 

If this was the only reason, everyone would have used crossbows.

 

Guns also tended to kill much better then arrows, bigger and meaner wound channels.

 

They were also superior for using behind cover, such as castle walls and earthworks that were common in seige

[Karranthain]

Every society pretty much dropped the bow in favor of the gun as soon as possible because in almost every way, even a primitive fire arm is flat out better then the best made long bow or crossbow. Especially in mass combat

 

Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better.

Every society pretty much dropped the bow in favor of the gun as soon as possible because in almost every way, even a primitive fire arm is flat out better then the best made long bow or crossbow. Especially in mass combat

 

Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better.

 

If this was the only reason, everyone would have used crossbows.

 

Guns also tended to kill much better then arrows, bigger and meaner wound channels.

 

They were also superior for using behind cover, such as castle walls and earthworks that were common in seige

 

Yeah, guns left nasty wounds. That said, a unit of well-trained Welsh longbowmen would probably slaughter a unit of Tercio musketeers.

[Vox Draco]

Some years ago I would have hated the idea of firearms in "my" fantasy game, but today, I actually like it. As long as it feel better implemented than in Arcanum I am in for it. After all, as I see it, a pre-musket firearm/arequebuse won't be much different to a slow-loading crossbow in terms of gameplay anyway. And the smoke-effects might be nice to look at, too!

 

The whole setting looks more closely to "renaissance"times ayway, which might be a nice change of feel to the usual high-medieval-settings. Though I would bite off my right left arm for a more "savage" setting a la Conan...nobody wants to kickstart something like that? No? A pity...

[stkaye]

In fact I want to see my tercios represented in lore. Sick of the brain bug that guns were useless junk. Every society pretty much dropped the bow in favor of the gun as soon as possible because in almost every way, even a primitive fire arm is flat out better then the best made long bow or crossbow. Especially in mass combat

 

Something of a generalisation. The first powder weapons were truly experimental, with a pretty high risk of killing their own operators, and thus did not become popular until a few things started happening:

• Established consistency in the composition, and thus volatility, of powder
  
• Workarounds for situations that could instantly render your weaponry useless (i.e. rain).
  
• Machining techniques capable of producing smooth or symmetrical projectiles, and barrels with few imperfections.
  

As for firearms (by which I mean individual powder weapons), for a very long time there was little that an arquebus or similar weapon could achieve that you couldn't do with the true 'superweapon' of the mid-medieval: the crossbow.

 

Crossbows were consistently more accurate than firearms (at least for several centuries), and could operate over greater distances, were usually cheaper to produce, and took the same (or less) time to reload for a similar degree of armour penetration. There's a reason why Pope Innocent II tried to ban their use in Europe: they threatened to democratise violence far too much.

 

Firearms started to replace crossbows only when they were reliably shown to pack an even bigger punch, for less training. Also, crucially, the use of massed-ranks multiplied their impact: military tactics had to catch up.

 

In PE, I think I'd rather want to turn to a crossbow for most ranged combat situations. That's the kind of time setting I'm rooting for.

[Luckmann]

I dont like the idea of having guns and rifles at all. I want this to be about swords and bows. I dont think I will ever use one to equip on my companions

Then I think you will have a bad time when trying to fight some mages.

[Aedelric]

Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better.

 

This statement is quite correct about the training.

 

It took years of training to use a bow and it was quite deadly at long distances, even when people wore adequate protection arrows could easily piece shield and armour. Early firearms were inaccurate and often large volleys failed to hit anyone at all, plus at long distance they did little to no harm due to not having the force required.

 

Regardless of the disadvantages firearms became the norm. The quick training was important as it let armies be placed on the field quickly and armed, not to forget a line of men repeatedly firing and reloading, though inaccurate could be quite fatal. Best of all was the noise and smoke, it was terrifying as people never experienced it before, especially to horses, which ruled the battlefield at that time.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Aedelric

[thracian]

I dont like the idea of having guns and rifles at all. I want this to be about swords and bows. I dont think I will ever use one to equip on my companions

Then I think you will have a bad time when trying to fight some mages.

i dont think game mechanics will force us to have certain type of characters

[Karranthain]

Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better.

 

This statement is quite correct.

 

It took years of training to use a bow and it was quite deadly at long distances, even when people wore adequate protection arrows could easily piece shield and armour. Early firearms were inaccurate and often large volleys failed to hit anyone at all, plus at long distance they did little to no harm due to not having the force required.

 

Regardless of the disadvantages firearms became the norm. The quick training was important as it let armies be placed on the field quickly and armed, not to forget a line of men repeatedly firing and reloading, though inaccurate could be quite fatal. Best of all was the noise and smoke, it was terrifying as people never experienced it before, especially to horses, which ruled the battlefield at that time.

 

Like I've mentioned before, if Welsh longbowmen and Spanish Tercio musketeers met on a battlefield, my money would definitely be on the Welsh...

[Aedelric]

You would win that bet.

[descalabro]

I'm glad with the way this game is looking so far but we really need to realize there are enough games with a classical/non-firearm setting already. In fact the only good reason I see for this game to be set in a classical type of world is the nostalgia factor, because otherwise there is still a huge postmodern/futuristic world with lots of technological/visual/plot possibilities craving for some creative team to explore (Fallout 3 wasn't the answer to it either).

[Luckmann]

I dont like the idea of having guns and rifles at all. I want this to be about swords and bows. I dont think I will ever use one to equip on my companions

Then I think you will have a bad time when trying to fight some mages.

i dont think game mechanics will force us to have certain type of characters

Really? Most games do. It's entirely possible to play a Mage-less game of Baldur's Gate 2, or a Cleric-less game of Icewind Dale 2. But let's not pretend that it wouldn't be several degrees harder than actually playing with a well-rounded team.

 

Gunpowder weaponry has a clear and specific use. If you do not use that option that is presented to you, I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption that it will be much harder to progress. Not insurmountable, for sure. But the specific reason people are even using these primitive gunpowder weapons is to blast through spell protection.