Thoughts on Firearms

[Orogun01]

 

Devil's advocate: There's an argument for lack of technological/intellectual advancement when readily available magic accomplishes many of the same goals as tools do for real humans. If you can town portal/teleport your ass anywhere you like there's not much call for planes, trains and automobiles.

 

My own opinion: I want to see magicless, wholly tech-oriented, advanced civilizations/races go to war with magic-reliant, technologically inferior races as a broader theme in a game some day.

Counterargument: Guns are the natural progression of warfare due to ease of use, power and range. Mages (even in fantasy worlds) are usually not common.

So even if magic became the force driving progress it would still have to be adapted for the lowest common denominator, which would translate into magic guns or something similar.

[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.

 

Devil's advocate: There's an argument for lack of technological/intellectual advancement when readily available magic accomplishes many of the same goals as tools do for real humans. If you can town portal/teleport your ass anywhere you like there's not much call for planes, trains and automobiles.

 

My own opinion: I want to see magicless, wholly tech-oriented, advanced civilizations/races go to war with magic-reliant, technologically inferior races as a broader theme in a game some day.

 

Or, the existence of magic a the hands of only a small number of people spurs on the rest to search for ways of evening the odds......

Edited October 25, 2012 by Stalwart Pikeman

[TheDogProfessor]

What I'd hoping for with firearms is that they come with realistic effects; both visual and audio. Having the crack of a smooth-bore weapon discharging, accompanied by the rising blue-grey smoke from the blackpowder, would be very dramatic.

That is one of my favourite things in the Total War games (the ones with guns, at least).

[Hertzila]

So everyone seems to agree: your sneaky characters won't be using guns, most likely.

 

According to the post about tech level, there's definitely one use for the assasination types to carry a couple of wheellock pistols: breaking a wizard's arcane veil. Supposedly it can't withstand high-velocity projectiles, so firearms are pretty much ideal weapons to kill wizards.

 

Which might make for an interesting use of weaponry when magic starts to fly. Instead of fighters trying to close in to melee range and rangers pelting them with arrows, melee types would grab for the one-shot pistol they have, while ranged guys would level their rifled firearms (if they have invented rifles/rifling in the game).

Edited October 25, 2012 by Hertzila

[Grand Heresiarch]

I am curious if they intend to pursue this concept of the magic vs tech continuum. In arcanum the two were diametrically opposed and even interfered with each other. I would rather that they are seen as complementary. Think tanks powered by enslaved fire elementals... or enchanted pistols. That would be something new. There is the problem then of not abandoning wholesale enchanted swords for guns. One idea: say natural sources of potassium nitrate (saltpeter) are exceedingly rare. Perhaps only a small group has access. This would create an interesting mechanic in that guns would be undeniably powerful, but the rarity of powder would still be assured. Rate of fire issues aside (and they are many) this would work well to level the field without resorting to the tech vs magic tension that has already been done.

[Hertzila]

I am curious if they intend to pursue this concept of the magic vs tech continuum. In arcanum the two were diametrically opposed and even interfered with each other. I would rather that they are seen as complementary. Think tanks powered by enslaved fire elementals... or enchanted pistols. That would be something new. There is the problem then of not abandoning wholesale enchanted swords for guns. One idea: say natural sources of potassium nitrate (saltpeter) are exceedingly rare. Perhaps only a small group has access. This would create an interesting mechanic in that guns would be undeniably powerful, but the rarity of powder would still be assured. Rate of fire issues aside (and they are many) this would work well to level the field without resorting to the tech vs magic tension that has already been done.

 

While I wouldn't say 'no' to a magic vs. technology conflict, to me it seems more as if the arcane veil is simply unable to handle fast-moving projectiles, similarly to how our modern combat armor has trouble defending against slow melee attacks.

[Orogun01]

 

According to the post about tech level, there's definitely one use for the assasination types to carry a couple of wheellock pistols: breaking a wizard's arcane veil. Supposedly it can't withstand high-velocity projectiles, so firearms are pretty much ideal weapons to kill wizards.

 

Which might make for an interesting use of weaponry when magic starts to fly. Instead of fighters trying to close in to melee range and rangers pelting them with arrows, melee types would grab for the one-shot pistol they have, while ranged guys would level their rifled firearms (if they have invented rifles/rifling in the game).

As far as stealthy assassination goes there is no one right way for every hit.

In a realistic scenario I don't see guns gaining an advantage from stealth other than maybe proper planning and picking your shots, which with just one char firing muskets there really isn't any discernible bonus. Stealth on the other hand does suffer because of guns (black powder specifically) because once the first shot is fire you have thrown your advantage away.

[jamclark]

Weapons of guns and bullets, bows and arrows, and crossbows and bolts would have their own crafting trees (and skills) just as schools of (ranged) magic and their components. Thus it would be an interesting way to create an overall game balancing systems.

 

While guns will normally be louder, give off odors, and have a higher failure rates than crossbows then bows, the "magical" side would address the inherent disadvantages. On the plus side, bullets could certainly ricochet to other targets.

 

Ultimately, there would be advantageous times for a gun or rifle, as there would be for a short bow or long bow, and cross bows. And disadvantages.

[AGX-17]

similarly to how our modern combat armor has trouble defending against slow melee attacks.

 

Which would be well and good if it were true, which it isn't.

 

give off odors

 

...Why would this be a factor? Every party member would give off odors. Anyone using poisons and potions and the like would be giving off odors. Did they announce some kind of scent system for P:E? No? Then what's this you're going on about?

Edited December 11, 2012 by AGX-17

[Diagoras]

...Why would this be a factor? Every party member would give off odors. Anyone using poisons and potions and the like would be giving off odors. Did they announce some kind of scent system for P:E? No? Then what's this you're going on about?

 

Matchlocks gave off a distinctive odor while the slow match burned which would let alert enemies know that a shooter was in the area.

 

In a realistic scenario I don't see guns gaining an advantage from stealth other than maybe proper planning and picking your shots, which with just one char firing muskets there really isn't any discernible bonus. Stealth on the other hand does suffer because of guns (black powder specifically) because once the first shot is fire you have thrown your advantage away.

 

Sharpshooters of the 16th century used firearms for a reason. Armor penetration, resistance to wind, and an enhanced ability to track moving targets are usually given. Accurate range at distance is also mentioned, though I haven't run into any confirmation for that.

[Stalwart Pikeman]

 

Matchlocks gave off a distinctive odor while the slow match burned which would let alert enemies know that a shooter was in the area.

 

 

Sharpshooters of the 16th century used firearms for a reason. Armor penetration, resistance to wind, and an enhanced ability to track moving targets are usually given. Accurate range at distance is also mentioned, though I haven't run into any confirmation for that.

 

Good point about the matchlock odor. If you read my incredibly long post on page 2, I go into why an arquebus would have the advantage in accuracy. Long story short, it mainly has to do with the increased projectile drop of the bows and crossbows requiring you to aim significantly above the target, thus breaking your line of sight. Plus, when fire is plunging down it's easier to miss by aiming just a little too high or too low. With the flatter trajectory of a gun you can just aim straight at the person's head and still hit their body over quite a distance.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Matchlocks gave off a distinctive odor while the slow match burned which would let alert enemies know that a shooter was in the area.

 

 

Sharpshooters of the 16th century used firearms for a reason. Armor penetration, resistance to wind, and an enhanced ability to track moving targets are usually given. Accurate range at distance is also mentioned, though I haven't run into any confirmation for that.

 

Good point about the matchlock odor. If you read my incredibly long post on page 2, I go into why an arquebus would have the advantage in accuracy. Long story short, it mainly has to do with the increased projectile drop of the bows and crossbows requiring you to aim significantly above the target, thus breaking your line of sight. Plus, when fire is plunging down it's easier to miss by aiming just a little too high or too low. With the flatter trajectory of a gun you can just aim straight at the person's head and still hit their body over quite a distance.

 

Guns would not be used fot sharpshooting in this time period. While they have flatter trajectories their accuracy was poor due to the fact that the bullet would leave the barrel in an unpredictable direction, meaning that the ball wouldn't head in the direction you were pointing. Thats why they would fire in blocks, since then you don't need to aim. Sharpshooters only came about with the invention of rifling the barrel (where the name rifle comes from) which allowed accurate shots but the early ones had the problem of becoming fouled. They were not common and most people used smoothbores, which could not be used for sharpshooting. You wouldn't use an arquebus for sharpshooting as it was a smoothbore.

[Diagoras]

Matchlocks gave off a distinctive odor while the slow match burned which would let alert enemies know that a shooter was in the area.

 

 

Sharpshooters of the 16th century used firearms for a reason. Armor penetration, resistance to wind, and an enhanced ability to track moving targets are usually given. Accurate range at distance is also mentioned, though I haven't run into any confirmation for that.

 

Good point about the matchlock odor. If you read my incredibly long post on page 2, I go into why an arquebus would have the advantage in accuracy. Long story short, it mainly has to do with the increased projectile drop of the bows and crossbows requiring you to aim significantly above the target, thus breaking your line of sight. Plus, when fire is plunging down it's easier to miss by aiming just a little too high or too low. With the flatter trajectory of a gun you can just aim straight at the person's head and still hit their body over quite a distance.

 

Guns would not be used fot sharpshooting in this time period. While they have flatter trajectories their accuracy was poor due to the fact that the bullet would leave the barrel in an unpredictable direction, meaning that the ball wouldn't head in the direction you were pointing. Thats why they would fire in blocks, since then you don't need to aim. Sharpshooters only came about with the invention of rifling the barrel (where the name rifle comes from) which allowed accurate shots but the early ones had the problem of becoming fouled. They were not common and most people used smoothbores, which could not be used for sharpshooting. You wouldn't use an arquebus for sharpshooting as it was a smoothbore.

 

This is set during the wheellock era, by Word of God. Sharpshooter/irregulars did use smoothbore weapons. And rifling was invented in about 1490, while the wheellock (and thus, P:E) was about 1520-1530.

 

High quality firearms, including smoothbores, could pull off accurate shots. The inaccuracy of fire had more to do with the combined inaccuracy of most levies and the poor quality of their weapons. Applying expectations based on arquebus levies to various elite firearm users is like judging all melee combat by the effectiveness of peasant levies.

[FlintlockJazz]

Matchlocks gave off a distinctive odor while the slow match burned which would let alert enemies know that a shooter was in the area.

 

 

Sharpshooters of the 16th century used firearms for a reason. Armor penetration, resistance to wind, and an enhanced ability to track moving targets are usually given. Accurate range at distance is also mentioned, though I haven't run into any confirmation for that.

 

Good point about the matchlock odor. If you read my incredibly long post on page 2, I go into why an arquebus would have the advantage in accuracy. Long story short, it mainly has to do with the increased projectile drop of the bows and crossbows requiring you to aim significantly above the target, thus breaking your line of sight. Plus, when fire is plunging down it's easier to miss by aiming just a little too high or too low. With the flatter trajectory of a gun you can just aim straight at the person's head and still hit their body over quite a distance.

 

Guns would not be used fot sharpshooting in this time period. While they have flatter trajectories their accuracy was poor due to the fact that the bullet would leave the barrel in an unpredictable direction, meaning that the ball wouldn't head in the direction you were pointing. Thats why they would fire in blocks, since then you don't need to aim. Sharpshooters only came about with the invention of rifling the barrel (where the name rifle comes from) which allowed accurate shots but the early ones had the problem of becoming fouled. They were not common and most people used smoothbores, which could not be used for sharpshooting. You wouldn't use an arquebus for sharpshooting as it was a smoothbore.

 

This is set during the wheellock era, by Word of God. Sharpshooter/irregulars did use smoothbore weapons. And rifling was invented in about 1490, while the wheellock (and thus, P:E) was about 1520-1530.

 

High quality firearms, including smoothbores, could pull off accurate shots. The inaccuracy of fire had more to do with the combined inaccuracy of most levies and the poor quality of their weapons. Applying expectations based on arquebus levies to various elite firearm users is like judging all melee combat by the effectiveness of peasant levies.

 

You made the claim that arquebuses would have the advantage in accuracy, which is not true. I clarified the situation that most guns would not, especially not arquebuses. As to the time period, PE does not have the printing press which was invented in the 1400s and guns are viewed as curios so we have no guarantee that rifling has been work out yet.

[Stalwart Pikeman]

Matchlocks gave off a distinctive odor while the slow match burned which would let alert enemies know that a shooter was in the area.

 

 

Sharpshooters of the 16th century used firearms for a reason. Armor penetration, resistance to wind, and an enhanced ability to track moving targets are usually given. Accurate range at distance is also mentioned, though I haven't run into any confirmation for that.

 

Good point about the matchlock odor. If you read my incredibly long post on page 2, I go into why an arquebus would have the advantage in accuracy. Long story short, it mainly has to do with the increased projectile drop of the bows and crossbows requiring you to aim significantly above the target, thus breaking your line of sight. Plus, when fire is plunging down it's easier to miss by aiming just a little too high or too low. With the flatter trajectory of a gun you can just aim straight at the person's head and still hit their body over quite a distance.

 

Guns would not be used fot sharpshooting in this time period. While they have flatter trajectories their accuracy was poor due to the fact that the bullet would leave the barrel in an unpredictable direction, meaning that the ball wouldn't head in the direction you were pointing. Thats why they would fire in blocks, since then you don't need to aim. Sharpshooters only came about with the invention of rifling the barrel (where the name rifle comes from) which allowed accurate shots but the early ones had the problem of becoming fouled. They were not common and most people used smoothbores, which could not be used for sharpshooting. You wouldn't use an arquebus for sharpshooting as it was a smoothbore.

 

When did I say that smoothbore guns were used for "sharpshooting"? It's not that these guns were used for sharpshooting, since they weren't super accurate. They were just more accurate than the bow/crossbow. Sharpshooting didn't exist until the rifled barrel. (If you want to be technical, "sharpshooting" didn't exist until the Sharps Rifle was used in the American Civil War, but that's just being pedantic).

 

Crossbows and bows are not more accurate than a smoothbore gun. They have similar deflection-at-origin problems (not traveling in a perfectly straight line from the barrel/stock/bow when fired). In addition to this, the higher angles of fire and slower projectile trajectories make accurate shooting of bows and crossbows more difficult.

[Diagoras]

You made the claim that arquebuses would have the advantage in accuracy, which is not true.

 

No, you said that they weren't used for sharpshooting, and they were. Accuracy against man-sized moving target - not formations - at distance, combined with long range armor penetration ability is often given as the reason. ie. The ability to hit a distant figure riding on horseback and penetrate his plate armor. All of those traits together is what lead to the rise of various irregular soldiers/sharpshooters wielding firearms, though their precise battlefield role can be hard to discern outside of accounts of them shooting random important people. The level of recognition and separate use of sharpshooters varied by period and country. The Turks made perhaps the best use of dedicated irregular units and firearm accuracy training, for example. Finally, there's a definite cycle in which during wars the importance of dedicated irregular/sharpshooter units emerges and they are constituted, followed by being dissolved in favor of more dependable and controllable line infantry during peacetime. The same trend occurred with American snipers, in fact, until after Vietnam the Marines finally established a permanent sniper school.

 

I clarified the situation that most guns would not, especially not arquebuses.

 

Why especially not arquebus? I'd think that a shoulder-fired weapon would be best for that role. Still, this isn't my area of expertise.

 

As to the time period, PE does not have the printing press which was invented in the 1400s and guns are viewed as curios so we have no guarantee that rifling has been work out yet.

 

The fact that the non-existence of the printing press was explicitly mentioned suggests things are in unless we're told they're out. Still, it's possible that all sorts of things are in. I don't think we can assume rifling is non-existent until it's confirmed.

[Diagoras]

They were just more accurate than the bow/crossbow.

 

From what I can tell, this assertion is very controversial, even among professional historians, and the exact point when it became true is unclear. I prefer the more moderate "better against man-sized targets in armor who are moving" to avoid longbow and crossbow enthusiasts from jumping down my throat.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Diagoras

[Stalwart Pikeman]

They were just more accurate than the bow/crossbow.

 

From what I can tell, this assertion is very controversial, even among professional historians, and the exact point when it became true is unclear. I prefer the more moderate "better against man-sized targets in armor who are moving" to avoid longbow and crossbow enthusiasts from jumping down my throat.

 

I've perused the evidence as best I can, and while I'm not a professional, I am a published amateur. After my post earlier where I went into a breakdown of the details I've decided to do a bit more research into it, and while there aren't many reliable sources to go by I've become more and more convinced that the historical bow and crossbow are both highly overrated. I come down firmly on the side of the gun being more accurate, especially when we're talking about the typical battle distances of about 20-200 yards. What I'd really like to do is find someone with a genuine replica crossbow and someone else with a genuine arquebus and do some testing, with the proper meal powder, etc. Unfortunately, this is proving to be difficult for someone without any budget to speak of....

[FlintlockJazz]

Matchlocks gave off a distinctive odor while the slow match burned which would let alert enemies know that a shooter was in the area.

 

 

Sharpshooters of the 16th century used firearms for a reason. Armor penetration, resistance to wind, and an enhanced ability to track moving targets are usually given. Accurate range at distance is also mentioned, though I haven't run into any confirmation for that.

 

Good point about the matchlock odor. If you read my incredibly long post on page 2, I go into why an arquebus would have the advantage in accuracy. Long story short, it mainly has to do with the increased projectile drop of the bows and crossbows requiring you to aim significantly above the target, thus breaking your line of sight. Plus, when fire is plunging down it's easier to miss by aiming just a little too high or too low. With the flatter trajectory of a gun you can just aim straight at the person's head and still hit their body over quite a distance.

 

Guns would not be used fot sharpshooting in this time period. While they have flatter trajectories their accuracy was poor due to the fact that the bullet would leave the barrel in an unpredictable direction, meaning that the ball wouldn't head in the direction you were pointing. Thats why they would fire in blocks, since then you don't need to aim. Sharpshooters only came about with the invention of rifling the barrel (where the name rifle comes from) which allowed accurate shots but the early ones had the problem of becoming fouled. They were not common and most people used smoothbores, which could not be used for sharpshooting. You wouldn't use an arquebus for sharpshooting as it was a smoothbore.

 

When did I say that smoothbore guns were used for "sharpshooting"? It's not that these guns were used for sharpshooting, since they weren't super accurate. They were just more accurate than the bow/crossbow. Sharpshooting didn't exist until the rifled barrel. (If you want to be technical, "sharpshooting" didn't exist until the Sharps Rifle was used in the American Civil War, but that's just being pedantic).

 

Crossbows and bows are not more accurate than a smoothbore gun. They have similar deflection-at-origin problems (not traveling in a perfectly straight line from the barrel/stock/bow when fired). In addition to this, the higher angles of fire and slower projectile trajectories make accurate shooting of bows and crossbows more difficult.

 

Sorry it was Diagoras who wrote that, thought I was talking to the same person awkward to keep track on a phone. Bows are more accurate than smoothbore, hence why they were used for hunting and still used alongside guns for so long along with their higher rate of fire. The advantage of guns back then was that they were easier to train people up to use, not requiring the building of specific muscles and could do more damage, penetrating plate at close enough range.

Edited December 18, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Diagoras]

I've perused the evidence as best I can, and while I'm not a professional, I am a published amateur. After my post earlier where I went into a breakdown of the details I've decided to do a bit more research into it, and while there aren't many reliable sources to go by I've become more and more convinced that the historical bow and crossbow are both highly overrated.

 

Yeah, I know recent reconstructed longbow testing has really put down the myths surrounding their armor penetration ability, but I didn't know about crossbows. Do you have any links you could toss my way to read up on this? I'd be interested in reading up on this issue.

 

I come down firmly on the side of the gun being more accurate, especially when we're talking about the typical battle distances of about 20-200 yards.

 

If you're talking about individual accuracy, then I agree - at least with crossbows (to remain cautious). I think we should qualify this though, as it depends on the shooter and the weapon. However, at the upper bound of both, I think you're right here.

 

What I'd really like to do is find someone with a genuine replica crossbow and someone else with a genuine arquebus and do some testing, with the proper meal powder, etc. Unfortunately, this is proving to be difficult for someone without any budget to speak of....

 

Dude, if you ever do, please let me know how it does. I'd love to read about it. I read someone's account of test-firing a handgonne (stockless hand cannon from the 14th century), and he was surprised at how accurate he could get. Might be interesting to see what you can do with an arquebus.

[Diagoras]

Bows are more accurate than smoothbore, hence why they were used for hunting and still used alongside guns for so long along with their higher rate of fire.

 

"More accurate than" really isn't a useful measure. More accurate in volley fire? For individual targets? How does the accuracy change with range? Movement? Wind conditions?

 

Matchlocks weren't used for hunting - but the reasons given are never accuracy, but instead the burning slow match both alerting creatures to the hunter and threatening to set the undergrowth ablaze. Indeed, you see shooting competitions in the Imperial city-states all through the 15th century alongside crossbow shooting competitions, with the best shooters being awarded prizes for their accuracy, and that's in the matchlock era.

 

However, by the time of P:E, the wheellock has been invented, meaning that firearms are used in hunting. We have several examples of hunting firearms from the first half of the 16th century, for example.

 

Note that while firearms have higher individual accuracy at range, that does not meant they have higher volley accuracy. And you're right that bows were used alongside firearms, with each weapon filling a particular military niche. But to describe firearms as inaccurate, especially in individual accuracy and irregular use, is not giving them due credit.

 

The advantage of guns back then was that they were easier to train people up to use, not requiring the building of specific muscles and could do more damage, penetrating plate at close enough range.

 

While both ease of effective use and armor penetration were advantages, and I'd agree that armor penetration at range was one of the key advantages due to the rise of cheaper plate armor and metal armor in general, I'd caution against considering these as the only advantages - and note that the different firearms had different advantages, and different military units used them in different ways. Trying to summarize them all under a single heading is like trying to summarize all polearms.

 

For example, the reason that massed levies of arquebusiers were used was arguably mainly a combination of ease of effective use and armor penetration. However, the era we're in is host to a variety of firearm infantry and cavalry. Mounted knights and men-at-arms use pistols and petronels to rip infantry formations to shreds, before charging home with lance and sword. Pistoliers use the caracole to keep up a sustained, devastating wave of fire against enemy infantry while using their mobility to avoid melee combat. Sharpshooters and irregulars advance under cover and concealment before battles, and pull off long-ranged shots against enemy commanders that lead to them being accused of sorcery due to their unprecedented accuracy. Musketmen use their heavy weapons and rigid discipline to shred heavy infantry with once they've deployed themselves in a good position. Finally, field artillery is used against blocks of enemy troops, and to devastating effect in siege battles on both sides.

 

While the massed arquebusiers are the majority of combatants, the same holds true for peasant levies and polearm weapons. But characterizing all polearms by the effectiveness and tactics of peasant soldiers would be inaccurate, and the same holds true for firearms and arquebus levies.

[Stalwart Pikeman]

Yeah, I know recent reconstructed longbow testing has really put down the myths surrounding their armor penetration ability, but I didn't know about crossbows. Do you have any links you could toss my way to read up on this? I'd be interested in reading up on this issue.

Well, here's a test that found some difficulties in penetrating maille with a midrange crossbow:

http://www.historiav...beschuss1-e.htm

When they used the right bolts it worked out alright.

 

There isn't any well documented test of a heavy crossbow versus properly hardened steel and padding that I know of. (One of the reasons I'd like to do a serious test some day) The closest I've seen is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO1J7ku70P4&feature=youtu.be

Which is a video of a test that unfortunately has lost its documentation. It's a video I've had for awhile and uploaded to YouTube to help answer your question. I'll just paste the video description here to explain it:

 

"This is a video which has appeared on several Medieval forums. It is supposedly the testing of a 900-950 lbs crossbow at short range against a properly heat treated chestplate and another piece of properly heat treated metal. I say supposedly because all of the accompanying documentation has vanished, and I located a solitary claim that it was in fact a 500 lbs crossbow. It's always possible that the first shot was from a 900lbs crossbow and the latter was from a 500lbs crossbow. In any case, both the plate and steel sheet are in the upper range of thickness of armors actually found from the Middle Ages. The manner of securing (wood behind the plate and some sort of firm securing for the chestplate), as well as the lack of proper padding likely negate the advantage of the thicker armor, however."

 

Remember also that crossbow power is frequently overrated. They had much greater draw weights than bows, but that force was applied over a much shorter distance, greatly reducing the energy transfer. Crossbows didn't actually have a whole lot more "umph" than heavy bows, at least according to some tests that have been done (which I referenced on my post on page 2).

 

 

If you're talking about individual accuracy, then I agree - at least with crossbows (to remain cautious). I think we should qualify this though, as it depends on the shooter and the weapon. However, at the upper bound of both, I think you're right here.

Oh certainly. When I speak of the accuracy of a weapon I'm referring to its inherent accuracy, not the user, although firearms do have the benefit of being easier to train people in shooting accurately because of the flatter trajectories.

 

Dude, if you ever do, please let me know how it does. I'd love to read about it. I read someone's account of test-firing a handgonne (stockless hand cannon from the 14th century), and he was surprised at how accurate he could get. Might be interesting to see what you can do with an arquebus.

 

Provided this forum's even still around when I do it, I shall. At the moment I have very little cash. Testing the accuracy mainly requires gathering together some decent replica weapons and owners who are willing to help. Testing penetration would require the purchase of multiple heat treated breastplates likely costing upwards of $400 each. And this would be destructive testing, so it's not like I could sell them afterwards.....

Edited December 19, 2012 by Stalwart Pikeman

[ShadowTiger]

I was pretty disappointed that firearms were being included. I don't really know the history of it, but it seems like WoW was a big influence in proliferating guns into the fantasy world. In many settings, it really seems out of place with no reason for inclusion other than the designers like guns.

 

I thought Arcanum was well done, but they had 3 factors that made it a good addition. First of all, it was set in a period where there was lots of technology. Then they added cultural distinctions, where magical cultures disliked technology and vice versa. Finally, it had mechanical effects because technology could cancel out magic, and magic could cancel out technology. This encouraged you to have a diversity of weapons, abilities, and party members.

 

For project eternity, I think firearms could work if they make it part of the various cultures. For example, if there is a group that has little or no access to magic so they furiously industrialized in order to compete, and maybe they had some sort of bonus such as heightened intelligence or geographical access to superior metals, it could make sense.

 

In terms of balance, I think that it doesn't make a big difference. On kickstarter there was an interesting game about spanish explorers and I think they have a great balance going between firearms, melee, and bows. Obviously in this game the melee tanks also have guns but have low accuracy to compensate, and there is no reload times so its not as realistic as you guys are going for, but I think it looks like a fun and manageable system.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-D1Rh0y1FEY

 

So even though I don't like guns in fantasy games, I am not very worried about it and I trust the developers to make it mesh well with everything else. I do hope that I can choose to play the game gun free and not have any major problems doing so.

Edited December 19, 2012 by ShadowTiger

[Diagoras]

Provided this forum's even still around when I do it, I shall. At the moment I have very little cash. Testing the accuracy mainly requires gathering together some decent replica weapons and owners who are willing to help. Testing penetration would require the purchase of multiple heat treated breastplates likely costing upwards of $400 each. And this would be destructive testing, so it's not like I could sell them afterwards.....

 

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.

[Diagoras]

In many settings, it really seems out of place with no reason for inclusion other than the designers like guns.

 

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.)

Edited December 19, 2012 by Diagoras