Gunpowder weapons

[Theodotos I]

How will gunpowder be handled in DotS? Will guns be able to fire in the rain? Will they have appropriately slow loading times? So forth, so on. Your thoughts. . .

[mayhem87]

i think they somehow managed to fire in rain, but maybe not in heavy rain

[davidtotalwar]

I would like to see a few changes to gunpowder weapons as they were quite annoying in the original MTW2.

I can't remember when they come into the game but its before mid point that is ok because that's when they appeared in history that's not what I have a problem with.

My problem is when they do appear in the original they became a main part of most nations armies very quickly and even advanced tips of cannons start appearing with in a few turns and they kill off every thing on the battle field and in a few shoots can bring a castle wall down.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought gunpowder weapons took along time to become a major part of nations armies. I know some nations where quicker to take them up than others but still they still were in short number. Also early guns were no more than moral weapons as they were more likely to kill their own crews than enemy soldiers, and breaking down walls in a few shots is just stupid with one unit of bombards you can make several holes in the walls and still not run out of ammunition.

So to get to the point I think gunpowder units should be harder to get in order to limit their number in battle early on and also early guns should be made less effective.

I have no idea on how any of this can be done or even if it can be done but just my thoughts.

PS sorry if its a little long winded.

[OdinX]

Well I do believe that gunpowder units did arrive quickly in the original M2TW, but some where in short request such as cannon towers, but as far open battlefields, yeah, there were plenty. Even after message of gunpowder being discovered comes in. But then again, the original setting for turns were 2 yrs a turn, and if u put that in the equation then you know, it does take a bit for it to appear.

[Giuliano Taverna]

I highly recommend making muskets and high tier gunpowder weapons much more effective. It seams silly that I can blast away at a charging unit of knights and not break the charge before it hits from a long distance away... Usually I manage to kill 1-5 of the unit, and get routed. I think guns should be much more effective, of course, not the earliest ones.

The way I see it, a unit of muskets, should be able to kill half a unit in one point blank shot. That, and cannons with exploding ammunition should actually explode, killing more than 3 people, which is about what they do in vanilla.

Gunpowder changed the entire way of war, the game should really reflect that.

[OdinX]

I highly recommend making muskets and high tier gunpowder weapons much more effective. It seams silly that I can blast away at a charging unit of knights and not break the charge before it hits from a long distance away... Usually I manage to kill 1-5 of the unit, and get routed. I think guns should be much more effective, of course, not the earliest ones.

The way I see it, a unit of muskets, should be able to kill half a unit in one point blank shot. That, and cannons with exploding ammunition should actually explode, killing more than 3 people, which is about what they do in vanilla.

Gunpowder changed the entire way of war, the game should really reflect that.

You know, I don't know why no one ever said this, but it is true; the effectiveness of gunpowder units was astonishing in the medieval era. It was in the realm of possibility for a single unit to route a number of other units in an army. The smoke and noise certainly played a big part in creating panic amongst the ranks and I bet watching your buddies falling left and right did too.

[Resurrection]

I would compare gunpowder in middle ages with tanks in WW1. They were both introduced very late, in very low numbers, low technical quality, but with insanly good effectivness. But this was not before next period (renaissaince or WW2) when these were made into main weapons and used on large scale with decisive effect...

[OdinX]

True, they weren't used as much as gunpowder weaponry in later eras, but when they were used, it was to very good effect even when some of the soldiers were killed by their own weapons.

[Giuliano Taverna]

Plus, one of the reasons they didn't catch on quickly was cost and lack of resources, so if you have the cash, you could probably get away with fielding them. I'm pretty sure that is what the Ottomans did. Naturally, that would happen late on.

[J_O_E]

one thing i never liked about gunpowder units was the way the reloaded. would it be possible to put gunpowder units into the "spear wall" formation but inset of having them of hold pikes, have them fire

[true born Lithuanian]

Yeah JOE, that would be nice. Well maybe not for those earliest shooters but for later ones that should suit well

[OdinX]

one thing i never liked about gunpowder units was the way the reloaded. would it be possible to put gunpowder units into the "spear wall" formation but inset of having them of hold pikes, have them fire

Well think about it. This is the earliest form gunpowder weaponry, do you really think they had tactics like that from the start. As Trueborn said, maybe for the later ones. Plus, early firearms like those were prone to backfiring, were loud, and inaccurate making a line like the pikewall a dangerous formation. The frontline tactic is more practical because most of the soldiers firing are out of harms way.

[Theodotos I]

You know, I don't know why no one ever said this, but it is true; the effectiveness of gunpowder units was astonishing in the medieval era. It was in the realm of possibility for a single unit to route a number of other units in an army. The smoke and noise certainly played a big part in creating panic amongst the ranks and I bet watching your buddies falling left and right did too.

Yeah, and add in the fact that people initially believed gunpowder was witchcraft and of the Devil. That thought does wonders for your average grunt's frame of mind. . .

[davidtotalwar]

Lets not get too carried away with the effect of gunpowder weapons in the medieval world.

Firstly lets look at cannons. Cannons took about 150 years to develop into weapons which were of any use. There were cannons present at the Battle of Crecy 1346 but all they did was make allowed banging noise and killed no one. Later in 1415 at the Battle of Agincourt the French used cannons again but with no success. Even in sieges they did not have a massive effect as it took them an extreamly long time to bring down the walls and were very funarable to counter fire from the enemies walls. This did change in the mid to late 14 hundreds as cannons then bagan to have a massive effect on warfare such as when in 1453 Muhammad II took Constantinople and at the end of the Hundred year war when the French drove the English out of Normandy. So in the mid to late 14 hundreds cannons were effective before that they were not.

Lastly lets look at hand held qunpowder weapons. Good quality hand held weapons (arquebuses and muskets) were not introduced untill the beginning of the 16th century, there were earlyer ones but they were usless weapons. But even these new ones had a very low rate of fire, short range and highly inacurate so in most senses they were not as good as crossbows or longbows. The only reason that most European nations started using lots of these weapons was because they were cheep and did not take long to train people to use it.

So to sum up I think cannons should only become effective weapons in mid to late 15th century before that they should be rubbish and hand held gunpowder weapons should not be that good ever but very cheep and have quick trainning times

[OdinX]

While this maybe true, making it like that will decrease the fun factor of the game. Devs should give at least an edge on gunpowder weaponry, tho I might have to agree with you on cannons, these can wait till the late 1400's to early 1500's to become effective.

[Thufir Hawat]

While this maybe true, making it like that will decrease the fun factor of the game. Devs should give at least an edge on gunpowder weaponry, tho I might have to agree with you on cannons, these can wait till the late 1400's to early 1500's to become effective.

Muhammad took Constantinople using cannons, but 23 years later, while besieging the Moldavian capital Suceava, found that they were useful only if the weather and terrain conditions were appropriate. So no, cannons were useless until the early 16th century. Muskets and weapons like that were only practical at first to lower the morale of enemy unites, terrified by the sound these guns made. Bu they were useless, and only in the late 16th century did professional musketeer units appear. So i do not believe that guns should play a significant role at all until 1500. Up to that period, they were just a novelty, like airplanes in WW 1. Also the unites back then using gunpowder were very well paid, as it costed a lot of money to pay for the equipment, however it did not take the skill of Welsh longbowmen or Genoese crossbowmen, they were used only to repel a frontal charge of an enemy, using massive firepower that was not equal at the time, at the cost of a low firerate. Such a unit could fire 1 perhaps 2 shots before the enemy cavalry could trample it, unlike crossbowmen or archers who, at the cost of lower efectiveness, were able to use a better firerate to disband, disperse or repel enemy cavalry, also having the advantage of using their weapons at a better range(250-300 metres even).

So now, gunpowder units were quite ineffective at that time, and to respect historical accuracy they should remain so in the game.

[OdinX]

Well the aim of the game IS historical accuracy, but then what would be the point of having cannons and firearms in the game if they're going to suck. Might as well replace them with a better more useful units.

[Thufir Hawat]

Well the aim of the game IS historical accuracy, but then what would be the point of having cannons and firearms in the game if they're going to suck. Might as well replace them with a better more useful units.

Historical accuracy: they were present at the time, played a big role now and then, so use them.

[OdinX]

Historical accuracy: they were present at the time, played a big role now and then, so use them.

Really, but you're saying that they were effectively useless. :hmmm:

[Thufir Hawat]

Really, but you're saying that they were effectively useless. :hmmm:

And so, to respect their uselesness, they will be quite ineffective in the game too. But they did play a role, if not essential, at least significant for being more reliable than other field or siege equipment at the time, such as catapaults, or trebuchets. Actually, they replaced them by the end of the 15th century almost completely.