Multipel ammunitions
- Thread starter Arquebus
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Round spheres of lead, to be precise, and yes, there wasn't much variety of handheld ammunition at the time. Cannons had different types of ammo if I recall correctly, but muskets and pistols did not.
For every game idea that is proposed the question should be asked "How will this improve the game experience?"
What difference will it make to the player if we abstract 'ammunition' to a universal object or not?
What difference will it make to the player if we abstract 'ammunition' to a universal object or not?
Leaffordes
Veteran
I wish for some kind of particle effect when bullets hit any object like dirt flying or stone splittring, this would give the crazy intense in the battlefield that I'm looking for. And maybe also more voice acting during the battle. A question of which, are the actual voice acting for the different teams real words or native speeches?
KainZero
Recruit
wannyboy said:
I think the term is canister shot, although putting that into the game would be a tad silly, fun, yes but a little over powered, that stuff can rip huge amounts of men apart in seconds, it'd increase the challange for taking say a fort but the amount of fustration it would cause would outweigh the fun factor.
gh3tt0 gangst3r
Sergeant at Arms
it would be cool if the cannons on the forts where usable and u could put grape shot in them, or canster shot (or r they just the same thing, i think grape shot is use against sails on an enemy ship?)KainZero said:wannyboy said:
I think the term is canister shot, although putting that into the game would be a tad silly, fun, yes but a little over powered, that stuff can rip huge amounts of men apart in seconds, it'd increase the challange for taking say a fort but the amount of fustration it would cause would outweigh the fun factor.
nox said:
Question is how easy it would be to implement into M&B's system, I don't know if you can use the projectile to adjust things like reloading speed or accuracy. You could for example offer paper cartridges alongside the current loose powder which were quicker to load but less accurate or damaging. Including a few types of ammunition which allow the player to effectively tweak the operation of a given musket would introduce a little more variation into the firearms (something multi player could do with in particular).
I would expect that a pre-measured paper cartridge would be both more accurate and considerably faster to load, as there would be no fumbling with a measure nor would the soldier have to pay attention to the measurement.
That would result in faster and more consistent loads. It's a superior system all around - but, requires a greater degree of logistics as the paper cartridges have to match the firearm - different bores and barrel lengths require different powder charges.
I don't really have a way to abstract those concerns into the game though to balance it. I already dislike the 'bent ammo' and 'heavy ammo'...
That would result in faster and more consistent loads. It's a superior system all around - but, requires a greater degree of logistics as the paper cartridges have to match the firearm - different bores and barrel lengths require different powder charges.
I don't really have a way to abstract those concerns into the game though to balance it. I already dislike the 'bent ammo' and 'heavy ammo'...
Should be an easy fix for that though, right? Just changing the imodbits?nox said:
The barrels and calibre still aren't standardised at this point. AFAIK most paper cartridges were prepared by the troops prior to battle rather than at the arsenal. It's not so much the lack of measurement that makes a difference (the idea of the powder beaker was that each contained enough powder for one reload) more the fact it's much quicker than juggling powder beakers and primer horns, particularly when they're attached to your chest.nox said:
You could simply have them as a higher tier of ammo with an increase in value to match. Of course it's not entirely superior; one drawback of the paper cartridge is that paper tends to offer less protection from the environment than a metal or horn beaker; particularly in damp conditions.
Powder quality would be a more sensible modifier. Though the effects are fine as they are.
Caba`drin said:
Well, yes but I don't really have a plan for it. I was just stating a random personal quibble with it.
I don't know if it's possible without engine changes but I'd rather see something that improved accuracy or reload time, instead of damage.
What I know, is that there were different ways of doing powder delivery - there was the powder horn which was often carved by the user themselves but also there were 'powder flasks' which often had premeasuring spouts and 'levers' to release the premeasured powder into the rifle - thus ensuring a much more even load without taking the time to measure.
I'm trying to find the reference but I've seen a reenactment where the shooter picks up his powder flask, and gives it a shake to settle the powder in the measure (perhaps with one of the two handles depressed) and then pops it into the barrel and opens the second handle, releasing the premeasured powder.
http://arms2armor.com/store/flintlockacc.html said:
It's hard to nail down period on these things because this whole technology changed very rapidly with some armies having much more advanced junk than others so there's even overlap.
Archonsod said:
One of the challenges here is that this all varied with who we're talking about. The prusso-austrians had fully integral cartridges with a 'needle hammer' that caused internal ignition using a flash paper cartridge without a flash plate at all while many western and eastern europeans were still using powder measures.
I'll agree, the benefit of the horn was that it was water tight - though actual downpour would pretty much shut down matchlocks. Wheellocks however worked in rain but I don't know if they could be loaded in rain.
It's not so much a technology split as a personal one. Horns were the cheap and dirty method, beakers were the more expensive solution. Both were certainly common amongst the forces involved in the English Civil War, and for the most part equipment was still purchased by the individual (or the regimental owner) rather than a centralised structure as such.nox said:
Yep, but again it's still somewhat before the idea of standard issue took hold so having individuals (or even regiments for that matter) utilising "foreign" equipment isn't necessarily out of place. One possible way of handling and balancing such things would be to have them as rare exotic equipment, somewhat similar to the custom weapons orders we already have.
Depends on the precise design of the gun. Provided you could keep the pan and muzzle covered while loading (even if just holding out a cloak or the like) loading wouldn't be a problem. The problem with the matchlock wasn't so much the powder as keeping the match dry (since you usually don't want it held close while you're reloading!).
Thundertrod
Sergeant at Arms
It was not uncommon for some of the pesent class who managed to get a fire arm to use use crude matreal fro shot. pebbels being a old standy by you find small stones close to the right size in most steams and the watted will have smothe and mostly rounded the stone. so bent bullets could be called stone, or thay we also made from pottey It small shot for fowel was use basicly right from the start. in game this coul give a bonus to acuracy but penalty to dammage
Actually, a lot of ammunition types were used during this period.
For example, dragoons should be using dragons (i.e., short-barreled shotguns) not pistols firing a ball. Because smoothbores were used, you could fire practically any of these weapons with shot instead of a slug (tales of using metal junk are just tales, though; IRL, that makes the barrel explode), although a long-barreled musket would not have had a desirable shot dispersal for most uses, so this wasn't terribly common for anything with a longer barrel than a carbine.
Multiple large balls weren't uncommon loads, either; even small versions of chain shot were tried out, but found to be pretty unsatisfactory and expensive. But the really big thing that sticks out atm is the lack of a shotgun; dragoons remained in use for such a long time largely because of those deadly little shotguns they carried, and the current way it's handled in the game is totally incorrect. Moreover, shotguns of various types were quite common by this period, and as anybody who knows about guns will tell you, a shotgun is an excellent weapon for killing people with.
For example, dragoons should be using dragons (i.e., short-barreled shotguns) not pistols firing a ball. Because smoothbores were used, you could fire practically any of these weapons with shot instead of a slug (tales of using metal junk are just tales, though; IRL, that makes the barrel explode), although a long-barreled musket would not have had a desirable shot dispersal for most uses, so this wasn't terribly common for anything with a longer barrel than a carbine.
Multiple large balls weren't uncommon loads, either; even small versions of chain shot were tried out, but found to be pretty unsatisfactory and expensive. But the really big thing that sticks out atm is the lack of a shotgun; dragoons remained in use for such a long time largely because of those deadly little shotguns they carried, and the current way it's handled in the game is totally incorrect. Moreover, shotguns of various types were quite common by this period, and as anybody who knows about guns will tell you, a shotgun is an excellent weapon for killing people with.
Only if they're French. Tbh I think we're about 20 years or so too late for the dragon (though I'm not 100% sure if the carbine was in use yet).xenoargh said:
They'd shoot, but they wouldn't necessarily have any stopping power. If the weapon isn't specifically designed to take a shot load there's as much chance of you getting a nice explosion followed by the bullets rolling out of the barrel as there is of firing it. Even if you did successfully load and fire shot, the odds on it causing any serious damage are rather low - even the fowling pieces of the time tended to have trouble killing anything larger than a pigeon.
Dragoons remained in use because they were mobile infantry. Technically, modern mechanised infantry is no different from a dragoon. They didn't carry shotguns either; the first use of a shotgun in battle is WW1; the closest prior to that would be akin to the blunderbuss and similar designs which were almost exclusively used by naval forces (replacing the swivel mounted small cannon)
Actually shotguns are poor weapons for killing people with, as anyone familiar with body armour will tell you
