This is a really good point that I try to make every time I have this conversation.
I am a proponent of having primitive firearms and cannons. Things that are dangerous to use, but if used in the proper setting/situation can be a viable and fun alternative to bows. Plus, being a pirate is more fun with cannons and flintlocks! lol.
Effective personal firearms are (probably) out of the question for the research arc of CoE. However, there are all sorts of fun with gunpowder that can be had much more quickly- primitive firearms, grenades, rockets, and cannon were all in use in Europe by the 14th century. This is a similar timeline to many other things that we already expect to see in game.
Join the (NA-W) County of Kalevasuo, explore the harvestable, craftable world, research alchemical concoctions, develop tools of warfare and test them on the battlefield!
You make good points Gutzai, and I agree with all of them.
It's also worth pointing out that the dev's have said before (If I'm remembering correctly) that they will be inaccurate. Because the best we will get is crappy flintlock muskets. Not only will they miss a lot, but they have a chance to backfire with every shot or just jam in general.
Full plate was came into use for various socio-economic reasons, some of which would be the black death making it more costly to produce mail, the development of the blast furnace, water powered hammers etc. This happened nearly two centuries before handheld firearms became relatively common. (mid 14th century vs. mid 16th century)
What I mean to say is, that it is plain wrong to say that full plate came to be specifically to "block shots from firearms".
Longbows and crossbows are also very much battlefield weapons, and not 'personal' weapons. 'Personal' weapons would be stuff you can carry around with you at all times without being inconvenieced by it, for example daggers, swords, hatchets, bucklers etc.
Early firearms are also vastly more powerful than crossbows or longbows. Both crossbows and longbows fail to reliably pierce even 1.5 mm of hardended steel, while the more widespread use of muskets and arquebuses led to armour reaching a thickness of sometimes ~4 mm. Eventually non-essential pieces of protection were discarded to allow for heavier torso and head protection, without completely disabling the wearer.
This development eventually lead to cuirassiers being heavy cavalry.
So to compare the lethality of longbows and crossbows to that of early firearms, and even call it "more damagingly" is quite something.
So while firearms might not be the catastrophe some are making it out to be, it would nonetheless make atleast crossbows obsolete ...
(Fun little side note: there are records of some people surviving being hit by a cannon ball in the chest, because of their cuirass.)
The truth is born in argument
Posted By Luminios at 7:11 PM - Fri Aug 18 2017
Full plate was came into use for various socio-economic reasons, some of which would be the black death making it more costly to produce mail, the development of the blast furnace, water powered hammers etc. This happened nearly two centuries before handheld firearms became relatively common. (mid 14th century vs. mid 16th century)
What I mean to say is, that it is plain wrong to say that full plate came to be specifically to "block shots from firearms".
Longbows and crossbows are also very much battlefield weapons, and not 'personal' weapons. 'Personal' weapons would be stuff you can carry around with you at all times without being inconvenieced by it, for example daggers, swords, hatchets, bucklers etc.
Early firearms are also vastly more powerful than crossbows or longbows. Both crossbows and longbows fail to reliably pierce even 1.5 mm of hardended steel, while the more widespread use of muskets and arquebuses led to armour reaching a thickness of sometimes ~4 mm. Eventually non-essential pieces of protection were discarded to allow for heavier torso and head protection, without completely disabling the wearer.
This development eventually lead to cuirassiers being heavy cavalry.
So to compare the lethality of longbows and crossbows to that of early firearms, and even call it "more damagingly" is quite something.
So while firearms might not be the catastrophe some are making it out to be, it would nonetheless make atleast crossbows obsolete ...
True, I was somewhat pressed for time. Apologies. However, if firearms make crossbows obsolete, than we should welcome that change. That's what the game is about, after all. If you don't want change, go play WoW.
Posted By Till Death at 7:11 PM - Fri Aug 18 2017
You make good points Gutzai, and I agree with all of them.
It's also worth pointing out that the dev's have said before (If I'm remembering correctly) that they will be inaccurate. Because the best we will get is crappy flintlock muskets. Not only will they miss a lot, but they have a chance to backfire with every shot or just jam in general.
I think that the level of development of firearms will be determined by players - if players focus a significant amount of research on firearms, we may progress to rifling. If players focus a significant amount of research on mechanization, we may get an industrial revolution.
Oh, I'd definitely like to see some forms of blackpowder weapons ... (cannons) ... I think you can't really say what impact handheld firearms will have in Elyria, so we can't really make any calls on it being broken or not.
To me there are two deciding factors:
How will armour work: will it be close to reality or to fantasy tropes?
Who will fight in wars: will it only be professional soldier PCs and NPCs or will you have masses of badly equiped levies?
I guess it is pretty obvious which answers would allow the longbow to enjoy continued usage.
To clarify, while I like the idea of handheld firearms not being used for quite some time, it wouldn't be the end of the world to me, if they came around sooner than the previously stated (eight?) years. I wouldn't mind them not making it at all either, though.
The truth is born in argument
The handheld firearm was mindbogglingly inaccurate. Hitting a target farther than 50 to 60 yards away was virtually impossible. So think about that. Your average bow or crossbow might not have the sheer force, but you were far more likely to hit what you were aiming at. That was the non-rifled musket. And there was the likelihood of cracking the weapon or even explosion if you used too much powder. It was not uncommon for a musket to misfire or break even under the best conditions, and the inclusion of wooden materials in the making of the weapon was to facilitate easy repair as much as it was to lighten the weapon weight.
The average loading time for the musket for a trained musketeer was twice a minute, or so. Some claimed 3 shots in a minute, but I've rarely seen this accomplished enough to make it believable. So imagine how much happens in the 20 to 30 second that you're there loading your weapon between shots. Many units had musketeers fight in pairs or trios to keep up the fire, and some irregular forces had a pair of people with a skilled musketman to hold up a tower shield to prevent return fire kills by more accurate archers and crossbowmen.
The pistol (which was far larger than our modern pistols) were even less accurate, and if you shot a pistol at an opposing force about 100 feet away, you had little likelyhood of hitting the man you were aiming at, but maybe you might hit someone in the line he was standing in, perhaps 25-50 feet on either side of him. So the pistol was usually a bit of flash and a near-point blank form of death. It shouldn't surprise you that some people held a few loaded pistols in a belt or bandolier, though. When you could see the man across from you was a better swordsman, you could ruin his day with a quick pistol shot, and then turn your attention to someone else who you had better chances against. If you had three pistols, loaded, tamped, and ready to fire, that could potentially be three trump cards to turn a melee in your favor. But you wouldn't waste your time fighting exclusively with your pistol. It was actually quite common to drop the pistol rather than waste time waiting for the barrel to cool so you could tuck it in your belt. Time enough to retrieve it once your enemies were incapacitated.
And that's the last part. Ball shot was catastrophically damaging to the human body. Sometimes you killed your enemy. But more often you maimed them, and shock or infection killed them. So if your foe was crumpled, screaming, and clutching broken, shattered, or mangled body parts, they were out of the battle. And no game is going to simulate the sheer shock and incapacity of a pistol or musket shot. No one is going to want to have their avatar incapacitated for hours, days, or weeks trying to recover and relearn to use their body. It's just not game style. Create the whine and deafness of a near-miss shot? Sure. Create the flash and fire? Can do. It wouldn't be hard to make the fire and brimstone scent for a live performance, or the concussive thump of the report. But the incapacity of the injury is just not something people would accept.
Xiasmus,
Very true. I would also like to add that it's because of the short range for accuracy that the idea of "shoot when you see the whites of their eyes". You have to be fairly close to properly see sclera.
So, my idea is that early firearms were meant to be used just before the clash to thin out the ranks, for the reason you said, a good number of the enemy would fall either maimed or dead, given the closeness.
I think this also likely influenced when warfare changed style to become the modern day manifestations.
Cheers
~ Goody Odsbodikins, Count of the Highest State. ~
Friend Code: F41EFF
A short while after the invention of gunpowder, there was a noticeable lack of castles and fortresses being built compared to just beforehand. This is because Cannons completely trivialized most stone walls.
I'm not so much worried about the eventual late-game usage of hand cannons and muskets, but the early on usage of cannons. These will likely decimate our pride and joy, the fortresses we probably will slave away for months to create.
Hopefully, gunpowder is just as expensive. Tread carefully.
I'm all for leaving it up to the players to develop the tech required. As long as they are doing it organically.
Your friendly neighborhood Alchemist could turn out to be the inventor of an "exploding powder."
But it may take a lifetime (or two) to develop and perfect
With some very interesting trial and error along the way.
And a wise King or Duke may want to invest in these schools of learning.
We Are The Many... We Are The One... We Are THE WAERD !!!
I like the concept of firearms. Main selling point in my opinion is indeed training period, but in another way.
Bows, and to an extent crossbows, require strength to use. Bows gain damage the stronger you pull the string. Crossbows also can be reloaded faster, the higher you strength stat is.
Firearms do not have this requirement, making them a really nice choice of arm for players who would wish to make a character not focused on main combat stats.
They are also balanced out by reload time compared to "manual" ranged weapons. And gunpowder can be more expensive in comparison to arrows and bolts.
Posted By Barri at 1:09 PM - Sat Aug 19 2017
A short while after the invention of gunpowder, there was a noticeable lack of castles and fortresses being built compared to just beforehand. This is because Cannons completely trivialized most stone walls.
I'm not so much worried about the eventual late-game usage of hand cannons and muskets, but the early on usage of cannons. These will likely decimate our pride and joy, the fortresses we probably will slave away for months to create.
Hopefully, gunpowder is just as expensive. Tread carefully.
^ This here is how I feel on the matter. I don't mind the eventual inclusion of cannons and firearms in CoE, the evolution of technology is a big part of the game afterall, but let those of us who enjoy the medieval atmosphere of castles, catapults and pre-gunpowder era warfare have our moment before the inevitable happens and warfare changes from medieval crusades to the revolutionary wars of the industrious revolution. Your opportunity to go bang-bang in combat will come soon enough.
And that is another matter to consider - technological progress. If you add guns to the game at the outset what little is left to progress for the five in-game centuries we will have to play out over the next ten years? By the time CoE finishes will we be fighting with AK47s instead of a firearm more suited to a steampunk/pseudo-industrial age that the devs aimed as the progress limit? Bearing in mind that progression can be exponentially faster than it it occurred in real-life with players using their meta knowledge of the evolution of gun technology to drive research where they will.
