Thoughts on Firearms

[Matthiasa]

I like the fact they are adding in firearms because it's the natural progression in a society. I always hated games that have thousands of years of history and they never moved past the bow.

Just an FYI but even for us it was over over 4000 years from the the time of Sumer until to first firearms were made.

If you want to go from the first cultures such as Hassuna and Samarra it was over 7000 years.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Matthiasa

[Orogun01]

A good archer can shoot faster and farther away then a good rifleman. Over long distances, the trained archer is also more accurate because the rifleman weapon is not very accurate, not matter how good the shooter is. I'm not sure of the place they want to give to firearms in the game but I would say that they should be good medium to short range weapon. They are not as good as a bow in long range and not as good as melee weapon in short range, but they can more or less be useful in both situation.

 

Again, I think it depends on if you're firing Minié Ball style conical sabbots out of rifled barrels or not. Once you have a musket with a rifled barrel and you move away from round ball ammunition, it's effective range goes from 50-75 yards to 500. There's no way you're going to hit targets consistently at 500 yards with a bow and arrow, or if you did, the arrow wouldn't have the same penetration at all.

 

Anyway... I guess all of that is moot. You're unlikely to engage any enemy at a range of 500 yards in an isometric RPG. :D

A Minié Ball might be a little bit overpowering for the game, specially if you consider that they might not use gunpowder (or at least a better formula) higher muzzle velocities equal more accuracy. Plus, if they are going to have blunderbuss and handcannons a Minié ball might be too advanced.

 

Also I think Bokob overestimated the effectiveness of a bow and arrow, at those distances a single bowman wouldn't be as accurate. That's why they fired in volleys, at close quarters they actually took care when firing since ammo was limited and expensive.

[rjshae]

I like the fact they are adding in firearms because it's the natural progression in a society. I always hated games that have thousands of years of history and they never moved past the bow.

Just an FYI but even for us it was over over 4000 years from the the time of Sumer until to first firearms were made.

If you want to go from the first cultures such as Hassuna and Samarra it was over 7000 years.

 

It's not a foregone conclusion that gunpowder and firearms would have appeared in Europe when they did if the alchemical technique hadn't been imported from China. Instead, they likely would have appeared much later after further scientific progress had been made.

 

We can't assume this new setting would follow the same sequence of progression as Europe.

[Bokob]

...

 

Again, I think it depends on if you're firing Minié Ball style conical sabbots out of rifled barrels or not. Once you have a musket with a rifled barrel and you move away from round ball ammunition, it's effective range goes from 50-75 yards to 500. There's no way you're going to hit targets consistently at 500 yards with a bow and arrow, or if you did, the arrow wouldn't have the same penetration at all.

 

Anyway... I guess all of that is moot. You're unlikely to engage any enemy at a range of 500 yards in an isometric RPG. :D

A Minié Ball might be a little bit overpowering for the game, specially if you consider that they might not use gunpowder (or at least a better formula) higher muzzle velocities equal more accuracy. Plus, if they are going to have blunderbuss and handcannons a Minié ball might be too advanced.

 

Also I think Bokob overestimated the effectiveness of a bow and arrow, at those distances a single bowman wouldn't be as accurate. That's why they fired in volleys, at close quarters they actually took care when firing since ammo was limited and expensive.

 

I was in fact referring to smooth bore muskets, since rifled muskets only appeared in the 1500s. The 500yd effective range you are referring to is from the Springfield Model 1861, as the name suggest, a weapon that appeared in the 2nd half of the 19th century. A typical smoothbore musket had a range of 100 to 150yds according to your own source. while : "The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with estimates from 165 to 228 m (180 to 249 yds). Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd)" (source here http://en.wikipedia....English_longbow).

 

The relative technological time-line of the game, as I understood it, would seem to take place in something equivalent to the late medieval era, hence why musket are said to be rare by the dev (My own personal opinion). This is why I assume Rifled barrels do not exist yet. If they do, yes, they will make the bow and arrow obsolete, make naval warfare very different and make walls around castle completely obsolete.

 

Regardless, it all comes down to game mechanics to decide of the difference between weapons and their usefulness in specific situations. ^.^

Edited October 22, 2012 by Bokob

[Matthiasa]

It's not a foregone conclusion that gunpowder and firearms would have appeared in Europe when they did if the alchemical technique hadn't been imported from China. Instead, they likely would have appeared much later after further scientific progress had been made.

 

We can't assume this new setting would follow the same sequence of progression as Europe.

 

Since you missed the point... I was pointing out that even for us it took "thousands of years of history" which was something he hated about games.

It was something they thought was unrealistic, and yet something that we know occured in our history.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Matthiasa

[rjshae]

It's not a foregone conclusion that gunpowder and firearms would have appeared in Europe when they did if the alchemical technique hadn't been imported from China. Instead, they likely would have appeared much later after further scientific progress had been made.

 

We can't assume this new setting would follow the same sequence of progression as Europe.

 

Since you missed the point... I was pointing out that even for us it took "thousands of years of history" which was something he hated about games.

It was something they thought was unrealistic, and yet something that we know occured in our history.

No need to be snarky. I was making my own point. Cheers.

Edited October 22, 2012 by rjshae

[Uszi]

Well, having now actually looked at what's been said on this, they keep saying it's 15th century tech.

http://www.pcgamer.c...we-know-so-far/

 

So... We're talking some pretty basic firearms. Definitely not cartridges, or Minié Balls, definitely not rifled barrels.

 

We're, really, barely even talking about wheellock guns, but I think the developers specifically mentioned them in an interview somewhere... Here:

 

"Black powder firearms are of the single-shot wheellock variety. Largely considered complex curiosities, these weapons are not employed extensively by military forces. Their long reload times are considered a liability in battles against foes that are too monstrous to drop with a single volley, foes that fly or move at high speed, and foes that have the power of invisibility. Despite this, some individuals do employ firearms for one specific purpose: close range penetration of the arcane veil, a standard magical defense employed by wizards. The arcane veil is powerful, but it does not react well to the high-velocity projectiles generated by arquebuses and handguns. As a result, more wizards who previously relied on the veil and similar abjurations have turned to traditional armor for additional defense."

source: http://www.kickstart...ty/posts/312639

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheellock

 

I mean, look at this thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8q4DicVBws

 

@2:13s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDklcdznZ-E&NR=1#t=02m13s

 

Bows and crosssbows are still going to be relevant... for sure.

 

Um... Kind of sad that they're said in Project Updates on Kickstarter that a gun is basically only used for slapping wizards back in place. I think it'd be fun to be a full-time gun using character given how complicated the operation of wheellock firearms are. I mean, to fight effectively in close quarters with wheellock pistols or longarms would require about as much skill with your chosen implement as any bowman or swordsman.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Uszi

[khango]

I hope some of the weapons have sabot and flechette style ammo. Over history there have been lots of interesting and weird things tried with firearms, from firing large leather-sheathed metal bars (rebar-like) to using rocks as cannon ammo. The Mongols and Chinese used a whole variety of non-firearm gunpowder based weapons, mostly variations on the rocket, and they were credited with making the difference in several victories over European armies.

Edited October 22, 2012 by khango

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I find it a bit peculiar that firearms exist in a setting where the printing press does not.

 

I think that it would be very telling for a variety or even a single culture to have all of the knowledge required to build a firearm (metallurgy, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.), yet not have thought of a printing press to record or convey this knowledge ever occur to them.

 

This speaks very ill for the people and theif state of lives within P:E.

[Orogun01]

 

I was in fact referring to smooth bore muskets, since rifled muskets only appeared in the 1500s. The 500yd effective range you are referring to is from the Springfield Model 1861, as the name suggest, a weapon that appeared in the 2nd half of the 19th century. A typical smoothbore musket had a range of 100 to 150yds according to your own source. while : "The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with estimates from 165 to 228 m (180 to 249 yds). Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd)" (source here http://en.wikipedia....English_longbow).

 

The relative technological time-line of the game, as I understood it, would seem to take place in something equivalent to the late medieval era, hence why musket are said to be rare by the dev (My own personal opinion). This is why I assume Rifled barrels do not exist yet. If they do, yes, they will make the bow and arrow obsolete, make naval warfare very different and make walls around castle completely obsolete.

 

Regardless, it all comes down to game mechanics to decide of the difference between weapons and their usefulness in specific situations. ^.^

Ok, first of all is a fantasy world and that means they have magic and a whole other set of technology than us.

Second, if you want to go by pure realism then arrows don't penetrate plate armor or laminar armor.

 

The numbers that you'r quoting are the maximum range and not the maximum effective range. At those distances they fired in volleys (as I said before), meaning there were a bunch of bowmen firing at a high angle to a large group of soldiers hoping that an arrow catches one of the weak spots in the armor. Not a viable tactic when you're dealing with small groups. At those ranges guns were worth the trade in accuracy just because of power and versatility, since most guns where also used as clubs once spent.

Just because of armor penetration guns are more effective, I mean guns completely eliminated plate armor and took it off the battlefield.

[Adhin]

Guns 'eventually' eliminated plate armor. The kind there talking about did not and it took quite awhile for all plate armor to just stop being used. I mean we're talking into the 1700 is about when it really started declining, and the Wheellock was 1500. By the time armor stopped being used widely, Wheellock wasn't being used much.

 

Add to all that people being capable of magic, creating explosions with 'out' the aid of science, large monsters, and... frankly guns being developed into are era and we'd still be using plate armor and swords. They'd just be a **** load more advanced since it's not just the basic of what works best vs people. Ultimately your best bet for taking out a mage is stabbing him. But that's not what PE is on about, and I think the inclusion of Wheellocks kinda nifty.

 

I'd imagine they'll have weapon set stuff like IE had but, hopefully, a little better implemented. And as has been mentioned I kinda hope you can fire the wheellock then use it as a club till it gets reloaded. Would be an interesting 'once per battle' scenario per wheellock (keep having to not type rifle heh) then it turns into a melee club of a sort. Would be pretty awesome, make a lot of sense for priests as they've mentioned. Also, printing press.... yeah crazy stuff, talk about prioritizing things weirdly... but I just think that makes the world more interesting in the end.

[Stalwart Pikeman]

I like the fact they are adding in firearms because it's the natural progression in a society. I always hated games that have thousands of years of history and they never moved past the bow.

 

It is far from certain that something akin to blackpowder can even be made in a given fantasy world, just like electricity does not necessarily exist.

 

All you need is sulfur, charcoal, and bat ****. (Or you could use ammonium nitrate derived from pig ****) All of these ingredients are either prevalent (native sulfur, ****) or easily made (charcoal) Cavemen could have made black powder if they'd known how. Frankly it's surprising we didn't have black powder much sooner.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Stalwart Pikeman

[Stalwart Pikeman]

I find it a bit peculiar that firearms exist in a setting where the printing press does not.

 

I think that it would be very telling for a variety or even a single culture to have all of the knowledge required to build a firearm (metallurgy, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.), yet not have thought of a printing press to record or convey this knowledge ever occur to them.

 

This speaks very ill for the people and theif state of lives within P:E.

 

Um, in our world the first firearms were invented in the 1100s, while the printing press wasn't made until 1440. If you can make a sword, you can make a musket. It actually requires less metallurgical knowledge if you're willing to put up with extra weight from a thicker barrel. All you really need is the basic concept. When Portuguese merchants introduced the musket in Japan in 1543, the Japanese easily figured out how to mass produce them.

[Stalwart Pikeman]

Not really sure why an arquebus should have such a terribly long reload time

Remember, the arquebus replaced the crossbow as the ranged weapon of choice for the european armies of the 16th century

Most importantly, it's probably a matter of game balancing. I prefer guns to be balanced rather than game breaking.

 

Then our real world is one thing, the engineers in PE might not have developed their guns as well as we have.

 

From a game perspectives it would be more about overlapping weapon. Penetration against heavy armour (plate) is about equal, reload speed is about equal. Damage against unarmored targets probably favors the arguebus (bullets tear the target while the bolt cuts through it). User-friendliness (ease of aiming etc.) should also favor the arquebus from what I have read.

 

Ultimately the potentially unbalancing weapon would be the longbow. Given that the training factor (by far the main disadvantage of the longbow) is not really relevant (we can assume the pc knows how to use the weapon effectively) it would by far win over the other weapons. I once found an article that stated that the longbowmen Henry V had at Agincourt more than matched the muskets used by the russian soldiers during the crimean war in rate of fire, penetration power and range.

 

There is a long-standing argument amongst historians about how effective the longbow actually was against plate armor. A big part of this debate is that we don't really know how powerful the things were. A particular point to keep in mind is that an arrow loses a large amount of its velocity over range, while a musket ball doesn't lose as much (the arrow has more drag due to its surface area). I did some quick research into weights and velocities of muskets vs an English Longbow. It seems like a 75 pound draw longbow could shoot an arrow weighing one ounce at around 185 fps. This gives us an initial energy of 45 joules. A more powerful bow (100 pounds) is estimated to shoot a 1.5 ounce arrow at the same velocity, for an initial energy of 68 joules. If we totally abandon the evidence, and increase the longbow's numbers to some of the most ridiculous claims (2.5 ounce arrow at 250 fps), we still only get 206 joules. An arquebus ball of .80 caliber weighed about 1.77 ounces and traveled between 650 and 750 fps. That's an initial energy of between 987 and 1315 joules. (calculator used: http://billstclair.com/energy.html) As you can see, there's just no comparison in the punch of the longbow and the arquebus. Even if you ramp up the English longbow's numbers to the level of the most absurd claims, there's still no competition.

 

Now let's look at crossbows. An important thing to remember about the crossbow is that while many of them had impressive draw weights of 1000 pounds or so, the distance across which they applied that force to the bolt was much shorter than a bow, so the transfer of energy wasn't nearly as efficient. They applied greater acceleration, but over less distance (and therefore time). I found one test of a powerful crossbow that provided both bolt mass and fps. It was a 780 pound draw arbalest, firing a 4.5 ounce bolt at 159fps. this comes out to an initial energy of 150 joules. Again, this is far weaker than the arquebus. Even if we give a more powerful crossbow very generous numbers (I chose a 6 ounce bolt at 200 fps), we still only get 317 joules, which is less than a third of the lower estimate for the arquebus.

 

Regarding accuracy: It is difficult to find reliable accuracy data for medieval bows and crossbows. However, there are a few points of info that will help us get a crude idea. According to a couple of bowhunting sites I looked at, hitting a deer at 100 yards with a modern crossbow (far superior in terms of accuracy) is considered a shot only for very talented crossbow hunters. This is not actually that bad when compared with an arquebus, and when firing at a mass of men the point becomes moot. An important fact to consider is that the slower your projectile is traveling, the higher angle it has to be fired at in order to prevent it from hitting the ground. Projectiles fall towards the ground at the same rate no matter how fast they're traveling horizontally. If you fired the crossbow I mentioned above, from eye level (~5'6" for a 5'11" person) at an enemy's head 100 yards away, but you didn't elevate it at all, the bolt would strike the ground less than halfway to the target. (This is disregarding air resistance, which would make it fall even faster, but is hard to calculate) The longbow fired in the same situation would go slightly farther, but still fall pathetically short. The lower range arquebus shot fired in the same circumstances would still be about three feet from the ground, and impact the poor sod in his dangly bits if it flew true. Also, increased velocity makes it easier to hit a moving target, since the target won't have as much time to get out of the way. (Projectile drop calculations from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#bul) Let's look at the specific angles you would need to shoot to hit a person's head with these three weapons. To make that shot with the crossbow, you must elevate to 11.2 degrees. With the longbow, it's 8.2 degree. With the low end arquebus, it's only .65 degrees. (calculations from the section titled "angle of launch" at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html#tra16) Greater projectile velocity = a much flatter trajectory = a much easier shot. Also, a steeper angle of shot means the projectile will spend much more of its flight above the height of your enemy, giving you less wiggle room in estimating the range. Basically, the steeper the angle, the less you can afford to be wrong by. Also, when the angle gets really steep, people become smaller targets. A projectile traveling fairly flat has a much larger target to hit than a projectile plunging downwards, because people are much taller than they are wide.

 

Alright, I think that's about enough of this. It's 5:25, and I've had my fill of math for the week. Later.

[Gallenger]

Guns are fine - and they can easily make a progression that balances them while not being absurd or limiting folks from playing with other weapons. They'll be an option just like anything else if done right and that'd be good fun.

 

As for their history in game, well you can't really draw much from the real world - since there are elves, dwarves, and magic. Who knows maybe some mage was doing alchemical experiements and accidently discovered gunpowder and started blowing things up. Or maybe the dwarves have a special penchant for guns since they're always mining and would need something hefty to clear all that stone and so it'd come naturally. Even in human history development occurs unevenly. Just look at modern societies that have satillite tv, but no in door plumbing, etc.

[kalniel]

Even if you ramp up the English longbow's numbers to the level of the most absurd claims, there's still no competition.

I think you've missed the point.. I mean literally - a flint or other sharp head arrow (or crossbow for that matter) is applying its energy over a much smaller area than round shot is. Hence the ability to punch through plate if you fluked the loose and didn't have too much wobble in the arrow. Not so much good against chain mail however - you'd use bulbous tips for that to try and expand the rings and break them - shot would be perfect for that however.

 

Not that it matters a jot for PE

Edited October 22, 2012 by kalniel

[Stalwart Pikeman]

Even if you ramp up the English longbow's numbers to the level of the most absurd claims, there's still no competition.

I think you've missed the point.. I mean literally - a flint or other sharp head arrow (or crossbow for that matter) is applying its energy over a much smaller area than round shot is. Hence the ability to punch through plate if you fluked the loose and didn't have too much wobble in the arrow. Not so much good against chain mail however - you'd use bulbous tips for that to try and expand the rings and break them - shot would be perfect for that however.

 

Not that it matters a jot for PE

 

Oh yeah, I know it doesn't matter for PE, but the poster I was responding to got me thinking, so I went off on a tangent. Doing that sort of thing with history is sort of my hobby. I didn't mean to exclude the point, I just forgot to type that bit up. Basically, if an arrowhead is going to punch through a piece of plate armor and all the padding underneath it, deep enough to kill, the shaft has to penetrate at least partially. According to the longbow stats I used, the shafts were 3/8th of an inch wide. 68 joules distributed across a shaft 3/8ths of an inch wide equates to roughly 483 joules per square inch. 987 joules distributed across a musket ball .8 inch in diameter gives you 1542 joules per square inch, and that's with the lower numbers for the arquebus. You still have more force relative to the area of the projectile that is trying to pass through the armor.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Stalwart Pikeman

[Nerei]

Not really sure why an arquebus should have such a terribly long reload time

Remember, the arquebus replaced the crossbow as the ranged weapon of choice for the european armies of the 16th century

Most importantly, it's probably a matter of game balancing. I prefer guns to be balanced rather than game breaking.

 

Then our real world is one thing, the engineers in PE might not have developed their guns as well as we have.

 

From a game perspectives it would be more about overlapping weapon. Penetration against heavy armour (plate) is about equal, reload speed is about equal. Damage against unarmored targets probably favors the arguebus (bullets tear the target while the bolt cuts through it). User-friendliness (ease of aiming etc.) should also favor the arquebus from what I have read.

 

Ultimately the potentially unbalancing weapon would be the longbow. Given that the training factor (by far the main disadvantage of the longbow) is not really relevant (we can assume the pc knows how to use the weapon effectively) it would by far win over the other weapons. I once found an article that stated that the longbowmen Henry V had at Agincourt more than matched the muskets used by the russian soldiers during the crimean war in rate of fire, penetration power and range.

 

There is a long-standing argument amongst historians about how effective the longbow actually was against plate armor. A big part of this debate is that we don't really know how powerful the things were. A particular point to keep in mind is that an arrow loses a large amount of its velocity over range, while a musket ball doesn't lose as much (the arrow has more drag due to its surface area). I did some quick research into weights and velocities of muskets vs an English Longbow. It seems like a 75 pound draw longbow could shoot an arrow weighing one ounce at around 185 fps. This gives us an initial energy of 45 joules. A more powerful bow (100 pounds) is estimated to shoot a 1.5 ounce arrow at the same velocity, for an initial energy of 68 joules. If we totally abandon the evidence, and increase the longbow's numbers to some of the most ridiculous claims (2.5 ounce arrow at 250 fps), we still only get 206 joules. An arquebus ball of .80 caliber weighed about 1.77 ounces and traveled between 650 and 750 fps. That's an initial energy of between 987 and 1315 joules. (calculator used: http://billstclair.com/energy.html) As you can see, there's just no comparison in the punch of the longbow and the arquebus. Even if you ramp up the English longbow's numbers to the level of the most absurd claims, there's still no competition.

 

Now let's look at crossbows. An important thing to remember about the crossbow is that while many of them had impressive draw weights of 1000 pounds or so, the distance across which they applied that force to the bolt was much shorter than a bow, so the transfer of energy wasn't nearly as efficient. They applied greater acceleration, but over less distance (and therefore time). I found one test of a powerful crossbow that provided both bolt mass and fps. It was a 780 pound draw arbalest, firing a 4.5 ounce bolt at 159fps. this comes out to an initial energy of 150 joules. Again, this is far weaker than the arquebus. Even if we give a more powerful crossbow very generous numbers (I chose a 6 ounce bolt at 200 fps), we still only get 317 joules, which is less than a third of the lower estimate for the arquebus.

 

Regarding accuracy: It is difficult to find reliable accuracy data for medieval bows and crossbows. However, there are a few points of info that will help us get a crude idea. According to a couple of bowhunting sites I looked at, hitting a deer at 100 yards with a modern crossbow (far superior in terms of accuracy) is considered a shot only for very talented crossbow hunters. This is not actually that bad when compared with an arquebus, and when firing at a mass of men the point becomes moot. An important fact to consider is that the slower your projectile is traveling, the higher angle it has to be fired at in order to prevent it from hitting the ground. Projectiles fall towards the ground at the same rate no matter how fast they're traveling horizontally. If you fired the crossbow I mentioned above, from eye level (~5'6" for a 5'11" person) at an enemy's head 100 yards away, but you didn't elevate it at all, the bolt would strike the ground less than halfway to the target. (This is disregarding air resistance, which would make it fall even faster, but is hard to calculate) The longbow fired in the same situation would go slightly farther, but still fall pathetically short. The lower range arquebus shot fired in the same circumstances would still be about three feet from the ground, and impact the poor sod in his dangly bits if it flew true. Also, increased velocity makes it easier to hit a moving target, since the target won't have as much time to get out of the way. (Projectile drop calculations from http://hyperphysics....e/grav.html#bul) Let's look at the specific angles you would need to shoot to hit a person's head with these three weapons. To make that shot with the crossbow, you must elevate to 11.2 degrees. With the longbow, it's 8.2 degree. With the low end arquebus, it's only .65 degrees. (calculations from the section titled "angle of launch" at http://hyperphysics....traj.html#tra16) Greater projectile velocity = a much flatter trajectory = a much easier shot. Also, a steeper angle of shot means the projectile will spend much more of its flight above the height of your enemy, giving you less wiggle room in estimating the range. Basically, the steeper the angle, the less you can afford to be wrong by. Also, when the angle gets really steep, people become smaller targets. A projectile traveling fairly flat has a much larger target to hit than a projectile plunging downwards, because people are much taller than they are wide.

 

Alright, I think that's about enough of this. It's 5:25, and I've had my fill of math for the week. Later.

 

Not going to argue about longbows penetrating a well made suit of plate armour, there is no point. It has limited success against those.

I know that and I agree it will not work well against those.

However remember the armies that the longbowmen went up against, by far the majority of soldiers did not wear a nice well-crafted suit of steel plate armour. Basically the medieval army consisted of the core elite (knights etc.) with some support from men-at-arms and maybe mercenaries, however the majority of the army was made up of levied peasant troops.

 

Yes the longbow will have a limited success against the plated knight on a horse, but maybe 90% of the army, the peasants, will be eaten alive by the arrows. Even the men at arms, which most likely wear mail etc. will have much fun out of the arrows as they can penetrate mail at a decent range. Here rate of fire is what matters as a hit is likely to take the combatant out of the fight or at least slow him down and that is very much in the longbows favor.

 

As for the knights in plate they can then continue the charge after the peasants have broken ranks and half the men-at-arms have fallen down bleeding. At that point the battle is pretty much over.

 

Only the guy in full plate will have a good chance of being fairly immune, but then again he is also going to have a decent chance against a crossbow or arquebus except maybe at point blank range.

However both weapons will have a problem with their reload times and definitely do not get more than one chance at point blank range against a knight on a horse if they even get that.

 

Considering that the majority of the enemies the PC will face in PE is very unlikely to wear a suit of gothic plate armour (after all if the brigands could afford that they could also afford a life in comfort) I will still say that the rate of fire would make the longbow far more deadly than a crossbow or arquebus against light to medium armoured opponents, which should be the majority.

[Hormalakh]

I like the fact they are adding in firearms because it's the natural progression in a society. I always hated games that have thousands of years of history and they never moved past the bow.

 

It is far from certain that something akin to blackpowder can even be made in a given fantasy world, just like electricity does not necessarily exist.

 

Chain lightning anyone?

[Hormalakh]

Reading the latest interview on sorcerer's place (lookee here: http://www.sorcerers...ead.php?t=58248) I'm surprised guns are a common weapon of Priests. Well, surprised and excited - I keep thinking they'll be sporting weapons reminiscent of those used in Constantine. But as to their inclusion in general, yeah I am and always was all for it. Just play Medieval II: Total War - all factions bust out gunpowder late game.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but... will the Priests be carrying holy hand grenades?

 

As long as they can count to five, er three.

[Nerei]

I like the fact they are adding in firearms because it's the natural progression in a society. I always hated games that have thousands of years of history and they never moved past the bow.

 

It is far from certain that something akin to blackpowder can even be made in a given fantasy world, just like electricity does not necessarily exist.

 

Chain lightning anyone?

 

How about a thunderstorm?

[Hormalakh]

I really love this thread, I mean I know this game is fantasy and all, but actually applying historical perspective to a game is soooo interesting. It makes fantasy a "what if" scenario. What-if we had elves, dwarves, etc? What if the printing press wasn't made?

 

These are really interesting questions and I think a fantasy setting that's based on an anthropological and historical view is very cool.

[Tsuga C]

I'll be curious to see whether or not the wheel locks cease working under wet conditions and whether or not the metallurgy of the era is good enough to prevent the firearms from blowing up once in a while. Both would tend to put a damper on the aspiring fusiliers around here.

[The Guilty Party]

I'll be curious to see whether or not the wheel locks cease working under wet conditions and whether or not the metallurgy of the era is good enough to prevent the firearms from blowing up once in a while. Both would tend to put a damper on the aspiring fusiliers around here.

 

If you add too many situational/random drawbacks to a weapon, you make it so that it's basically pointless, since there are tons of other weapons that work just fine in the rain and don't ever explode. And if you try to do a 'really powerful, but rare chance of big backfire' you end up just encouraging people to reload their save when something bad happens. Introducing that kind of realism just doesn't usually end up with fun game mechanics.

[Nerei]

I'll be curious to see whether or not the wheel locks cease working under wet conditions and whether or not the metallurgy of the era is good enough to prevent the firearms from blowing up once in a while. Both would tend to put a damper on the aspiring fusiliers around here.

I am mostly with The Guilty Party on this one. Personally I like realism, and could accept having this as an option and only an option.

However I am also pretty sure that basically screwing the players over for something they cannot control and cannot predict will really force a large to reload and many other will just hate the mechanic and ask why it is there. Many will simply not take it for fear of it biting them at some point. Any sane person definitely would not bring firearms to an ironman run or similar where a bad die roll could leave permanent harm

 

It is definitely something only for an "expert" or "realism" mode and even then I would say implementing it should be a low priority.