The Original L'Aigle Thread, for the sake of history. Be ye warned.

[Patchouli Knowledge]

Those types of things make sense. The problem with different damage is that muskets almost always kill except at range. I'd have to make the damage so different that some muskets need two shots to kill or others kill with one even at long ranges. I don't want either of those things.

 

[ClearlyInvisible]

Obvious question is obvious.

Also, if Docm say's their just reskins, that'll make him look pretty bad.

Jester, that comment makes no sense at all. They all use roughly the same caliber bullet and operate the same way, why the hell would one work better than the other?

 

[NOTALLOFDALLAS!]

What about bullets? Will you include different types of bullets or powder that would modify the damage?

The powder part would be interesting, but in this time period the best your gonna get is a lead ball. And in regards to the damage and such, I think it is pointless because while muskets were bored in many different calibers, they were all very large calibers anyways and it wouldn't really make a difference. English muskets were bored in .75, French muskets were bored in .69, if you hit your mark, he's gonna die.

 

[Landgraft]

Knee-breeches usually had buttons on the sides of the knees. They couldn't get tight enough to cut off circulation to feet otherwise.

Well, you let the lower orders feel their feet and sooner or later they'll want to upset the whole applecart.

This is a much kinder solution for all involved.

 

[Bluehawk]

That's the real motivation behind the goose-step; keeps the knee-caps nice and tender.

 

[afdie]

pls make the size smaller

 

[Captured Joe]

Those types of things make sense. The problem with different damage is that muskets almost always kill except at range. I'd have to make the damage so different that some muskets need two shots to kill or others kill with one even at long ranges. I don't want either of those things.

Well you could make it so that some muskets kill horses in one shot while others need two shots to kill a heavy horse, while still they all kill people in one shot.

 

[nilloc93]

pls make the size smaller

you don't even know how large it is in the first place

 

[SomeRandomTiger]

Well you could make it so that some muskets kill horses in one shot while others need two shots to kill a heavy horse, while still they all kill people in one shot.

Surely though the difference in power would be from the amount of powder used & the calibre of the ball. The musket power wouldn't really change since they all used basically the same amount of powder and calibre.

 

[Mike Hawk]

The major difference in power would come from how tightly the ball fits the barrel. Most muskets were subsonic, that is the ball exited the barrel at slower than sound speed, but sometimes they would become supersonic due to fouling. Unburned powder would build up on the walls of the barrel after several shots, which would create a tighter fit and therefore more pressure would build up. The ball would be accelerated faster and sometimes break the sound barrier. With more energy it could travel farther and inflict more damage. Some muskets were naturally more inclined to this phenomenon than others due to having less leeway in the barrel.

The end results would still be the same though, musket ball hit = death. Even a non vital area would most likely than not be a death sentence, due to infection and blood loss.

 

[11sparky11]

The major difference in power would come from how tightly the ball fits the barrel. Most muskets were subsonic, that is the ball exited the barrel at slower than sound speed, but sometimes they would become supersonic due to fouling. Unburned powder would build up on the walls of the barrel after several shots, which would create a tighter fit and therefore more pressure would build up. The ball would be accelerated faster and sometimes break the sound barrier. With more energy it could travel farther and inflict more damage. Some muskets were naturally more inclined to this phenomenon than others due to having less leeway in the barrel.

The end results would still be the same though, musket ball hit = death. Even a non vital area would most likely than not be a death sentence, due to infection and blood loss.

Yep and I imagine most soldiers wouldn't have the stomach to keep fighting after being hit, even in a non vital area.

 

[Sir_Newton]

Perhaps there's a way to code in a "fouling" phenomenon where there's a small chance that the ball would to an abnormal amount of damage that would kill no matter where it hit whereas under normal conditions that same ball hitting, say, an arm, would only wound the soldier?

 

[Captured Joe]

It didn't really matter that much where a soldier got hit, he would be out of the fight anyway.
Except indestructible superheroes like Sharpe of course.

 

[ClearlyInvisible]

You sure? There are plenty of stories about soldiers still fighting after taking wounds, hell even cannonballs.

 

[masterborn12]

yea, But most of those soldiers either lost a arm or leg

 

[Riemer]

Except indestructible superheroes like Sharpe of course.

Shooting him only makes him angry.

The only way to kill Sharpe is to decapitate him with a sword made of Valyrian steel.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

You sure? There are plenty of stories about soldiers still fighting after taking wounds, hell even cannonballs.

Exceptions don't make a rule.

Ever wonder why people actually related or wrote down when some soldier fought on despite beings severely wounded? Because it was remarkable/exceptional event.

For every soldier that got shot and fought on there are hundreds if not thousands that got hit once and either died or spent a significant amount of time recovering their health.

 

[Sir_Newton]

in any case there should be a small per-cent chance that a soldier is wounded and not killed (wounded as in yellow text on the killfeed, not "ow my hand is shot I guess I'll keep firing")

 

[ClearlyInvisible]

You sure? There are plenty of stories about soldiers still fighting after taking wounds, hell even cannonballs.

Exceptions don't make a rule.

Ever wonder why people actually related or wrote down when some soldier fought on despite beings severely wounded? Because it was remarkable/exceptional event.

For every soldier that got shot and fought on there are hundreds if not thousands that got hit once and either died or spent a significant amount of time recovering their health.

I'm aware of that. But people surviving shots was not very uncommon.

 

[masterborn12]

You sure? There are plenty of stories about soldiers still fighting after taking wounds, hell even cannonballs.

Exceptions don't make a rule.

Ever wonder why people actually related or wrote down when some soldier fought on despite beings severely wounded? Because it was remarkable/exceptional event.

For every soldier that got shot and fought on there are hundreds if not thousands that got hit once and either died or spent a significant amount of time recovering their health.

I'm aware of that. But people surviving shots was not very uncommon.

it depends on where it hit. But all shots wound and the wounds you get takes years to recover