Yep, if I gave the heavy Arquebus longer range I would need to decrease the accuracy which is kind of making them pointless. Their tactical use was to focus fire on opposing heavy armored units behind a screen of infantry/barricades. The reload was quite slow but they were probably the most accurate guns aside from early rifled muskets which specialized shooters used already in 1600s but fouled so often they were not militarily useful. Also that is why I gave the heavy arquebus such low ammo- even if they carried enough for 12 shots usually there was misfires or wasted powder that would need to be cleaned out to get a good shot- hence why they were often assigned a helper and had 2-3 guns they fired in rotation. (I am still contemplating a way to reflect this practice but I can't think of a good way within MTW2 system).
Probably only in a very general way by increasing reload times but about as much has been done with those as is possible so I think we are stuck here 
My approach on range is usually give +30 at least since game seems to have trouble knowing when enemy enter or leave max range and reload anim has to go through completely or start over. However even if muskets could fire 400 yards before losing enough energy to become non-lethal there were no units which engaged purposely at that range because muskets were so inaccurate. There are records of arquebus competitions just as for crossbows and bows and the generally accepted max range seems to have started about 50m and reach 120m by late 17th century (where to be competitive that is the range competitors dropped out at). That remained the range for most regimental contests until 1800s though of course there were professional shooters using special guns that could shoot further, such men were never employed in a formal military way until French Indian war and US Civil War and then mostly due to rifles becoming widespread.
So that would be about 80-160 for aimed shots in game in the eras were are dealing with-
Great 
its good we are coming up with similar figures, RC has ranges of 80-140m (with better shooters adding a little)
however aside from heavy arquebus and some long barreled muskets preferred in the east most European armies adopted shorter, looser barreled guns that could be reloaded much faster and shot en masse at targets starting at 200-300m max(though usually the range was much less than 200 when fire command was given). Men were already shedding armor by 1600s so at some point in mid-late 1500s is when guns became lethal enough to most armor that the benefit of protection did not overcome the increased weight and cost of heavy armor except for specialized troops or troops on the front ranks of a formation (where records show in a Spanish pike unit of 200 men in 1634: 60 men in armor, 60 arquebusiers with half wearing armor, 80 pikemen with little to no armor in the rear ranks. Arquebusiers got double pay of the armored pikemen who made 50% more than the unarmored men. I don't know if the armored arquebusiers got more than the unarmored but it seems it was a small enough difference not to be noted. Perhaps they just got more rations or despite armor not being as effective as it had been it was still effective enough that serving long enough to wear it was its own reward.
Anyway the entire quandary is that some earlier heavier guns were actually more accurate and just as powerful as later guns but much slower to load
Absolutely and this comes as a surprise to most - there were some very (relatively) accurate Renaissance firearms, its just that you had to spend half your day loading the weapon.
and once large parts of potential enemies were not wearing armor warfare became less about aiming for the armored guys then about firepower and reload speed is key in that. Partly this is why I think arquebuses and muskets were so mixed in service... armor took a long time to fade out completely as melee remained the key part of most battles into 1700s. Even in Napoleonic wars many units were famous for charging with unloaded muskets to engage in melee since the distances that units lined up to fire at the enemy were still so close.
I definitely recommend to anyone interested in this period's warfare to install AlphaDelta's outstanding 'For King or Country' English Civil War mod, have you tried it Ichon? Its very, very good 
Reiters have mixed opinions on their success- there were some battles they did notably well, others were they were routed and suffered large losses. It seems a similar story to sword and buckler men where they were very effective used correctly in the right circumstances. The biggest impact they seemed to have is eliminating horse armor since Reiters themselves still wore heavy armor but they removed it from the horses to have a speed advantage.
Heavy lancer pursuing them could not catch up and took point blank shots which despite pistols being exceptionally inaccurate at 10-20 feet could still hit something fairly often when aimed at a man mounted on a horse (hence also why I give cavalry an armor penalty
Already handled in battle_config.xml mate, cav gets hit more
<missile-target-accuracy>
<infantry>1.0</infantry>
<cavalry>1.5</cavalry>
<elephants>2.0</elephants>
</missile-target-accuracy>
as the bigger target actually makes hits more likely). Most Reiters had braces of 4-6 pistols and wore armor themselves.
Yep RC gives Reiters only 4 shots but the Reiter animation has been heavily altered so that there is essentially no reload time, just sufficient interval to depict getting hold of another pre-loaded pistol from the brace of 4 that are carried
The pistols basically replaced the lance where the Reiters were still heavy cavalry and would approach enemy, fire to disrupt the formation and then charge in with swords or maces.
Re: Update
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Polycarpe
