Primative firearms?

[FLank Sinatra]

I was just thinking this morning how great it would be to have primative firearms included into the game. It would be strictly for a side arm purpose, for when your horse has been killed and you are surrounded by people who want you dead.

It could be extremly expensive, maybe about the same or 5K more then the sniper crossbow. It could take about twice as long to reload as the cross bow, but, it can be reloaded on horse back (not moving of course). Also, it would completly negant armor, so you can still take out a dark knight with a solid shot to the chest or head. Also, it shouldn't be very accurate, 30-40 yard maximum range.

What do you guys think? btw, I'm not talking about flintlock muskets, I mean really old school flash-pan or matchlock.

 

[zwaps]

For me an absolute no-go.
I definitly want early medieaval times like 1200-1400 or so.

 

[FLank Sinatra]

in the 1300-1400's they did have the fire arms I am speaking of, infact they started to become fairly common in the 1400's. Of course, in the game it would be extremly rare.

http://www.warehamforge.ca/impact.html

 

[zwaps]

Ok my bad then substract 200 years.
For me, it just would not feel right, same with Katanas.
I have this picture in my mind while I play and right now I can connect to this world. Firearms would distract me

 

[Mechstra]

Fairly common in the 1500s, perhaps, but still not outfitting entire armies. And the reload time would preclude its use as a last-resort side-arm. So no.

 

[Bluesman]

It's not a bad idea as such. As mentioned there were some pretty early (among Turks for one). As mentioned before this is not mideaval as such but a resemblance of that era, dressed into a fantasy world.

Would be even cooler if sieges were added in the far future(2.0 or so), with cannons .

BM

 

[FLank Sinatra]

I can understand your reasoning, I'm just thinking you might not be picturing it the same as I am.

Just think, you're riding along with your horse, slicing the infantry with your sword and all the sudden a spear hits your horse and it collapses, throwing you off of it. A sea raider is charging you, sword in the air ready to give you his deadly blow, you whip out your sidearm and you cock the the rope quickly as you fire it into his chest watching him fall dead onto the ground. You then bring out your sword and shield, fighting on foot as you try to regroup with your army.

That makes a nice picture in my mind. [/quote]

 

[FLank Sinatra]

Fairly common in the 1500s, perhaps, but still not outfitting entire armies. And the reload time would preclude its use as a last-resort side-arm. So no.

like I said, the entire army wouldn't be fitted with it. Just a very few such as some knights etc, as they were extremly expensive.

Also, it would be a last resort type of weapon, as if a guy is charging you and you use it to take him out, then you proceed to fight like normal.

 

[Mechstra]

like I said, the entire army wouldn't be fitted with it. Just a very few such as some knights etc, as they were extremly expensive.

Actually, it was the other way around - you needed little training to fire a primitive gun and it was less expensive to produce than - for example - a crossbow, having far fewer working parts and being basically just a metal tube with a wooden stock.

Just think, you're riding along with your horse, slicing the infantry with your sword and all the sudden a spear hits your horse and it collapses, throwing you off of it. A sea raider is charging you, sword in the air ready to give you his deadly blow, you whip out your sidearm and fumble quickly with the ball, powder, and ramrod before being cut down bloodily where you stand and butchered messily on the ground because it would take you upwards of 10 seconds to load, as you wouldn't carry around a loaded gun for safety/practicality reasons.

Fixed.

 

[FLank Sinatra]

like I said, the entire army wouldn't be fitted with it. Just a very few such as some knights etc, as they were extremly expensive.

Actually, it was the other way around - you needed little training to fire a primitive gun and it was less expensive to produce than - for example - a crossbow, having far fewer working parts and being basically just a metal tube with a wooden stock.

Just think, you're riding along with your horse, slicing the infantry with your sword and all the sudden a spear hits your horse and it collapses, throwing you off of it. A sea raider is charging you, sword in the air ready to give you his deadly blow, you whip out your sidearm and fumble quickly with the ball, powder, and ramrod before being cut down bloodily where you stand and butchered messily on the ground because it would take you upwards of 10 seconds to load, as you wouldn't carry around a loaded gun for safety/practicality reasons.

Fixed.

ouch, pwned lol

ok, ok. you win

But that does raise a good question, and I was thinking about that when I posted it. I wonder if they did carry it loaded for that type of situation? I am researching the subject right now. But I do agree that would be a bit dangerous

 

[Mechstra]

Horsemen generally didn't carry firearms. They were given to unskilled peasants who stood in line and blasted at the enemy - it was an 'honourless' position that required little skill and rich nobles (who could afford horses) preferred to use lances/swords or other mêlée weapons.

 

[FLank Sinatra]

alright, I stand corrected. But hey, it was a good idea, at least I thought. Just trying to help the community.

 

[Bluesman]

If you disregard the fact that it isn't historic as such(which it isn't). One could add this twist to the whole matter.

How about; The world isn't on the same technology level? Sounds familiar to anyone?

If in the future more areas are added to the west/east(which we can assume). How about some areas have more advanced weapons than others? Then you could also rationalize in other weapons such as katanas and similar exotic stuff.

And another twist. The world developes over time and isn't static. New stuff emerge after a certain time, replacing older stuff and so forth.

Just some ideas I'm throwing around, hate them if you like .

BM

 

[n00854180t]

Bleh, no cannons. Catapults and trebuchets are much cooler.

 

[Lascivius Lam]

I would definitely prefer to see no firearms in this game... I like the appeal that it has as a low-tech type of game... the more tech you put in there, the less I will find it appealing, but that's just my opinion... )

 

[corksacker69]

instead, how about stationary ballistas that shoot big ass arrows that arereally accurate at long range but take forever to reload

 

[Bigwig]

I think a few arquebuses here and there would add a lot of variety to the game and not be unbalanced at all. There are a ton of shortcomings to early firearms that will more than make up for their killing power. I also don't get the whole "it doesn't fit in" thing, what's so historical about a make-believe world with vikings, mongols, byzantines and knights fighting each other that would make you hate the idea of primative firearms anyway?

 

[Tzarius]

I also don't get the whole "it doesn't fit in" thing, what's so historical about a make-believe world with vikings, mongols, byzantines and knights fighting each other that would make you hate the idea of primative firearms anyway?

Same reason people hate the AWP from Counterstrike. Point, shoot, bang you're dead. Not much fun.

 

[Orange]

Well, maybe as a modification, then? An option, if you like. Arm said he's be releasing a dev pack soon, right? I like the idea, if only for the explody.

 

[Blackspirit]

trebuchets would be sooooo sweet. I love watching them work, very elegent.

OffTopic : Tzarius you avatar pic is mad. Its an entire movie.