BC-No Gunpowder at all?

[boerekovic]

So, first im sorry if this was already discussed.I am not often in this forum.a quick answer is enough.

So i saw there is not a Musketeer unit at all, not even an arquebusier or hand gunner.
Thats Ok,as Guns were pretty Heavy at that time to carry them as handgun.
but i wonder if there is going to be Cannons for sieges, its really difficult without them,and they give the special flair.
Needn't to be the Most modern artillery piece,an mediocre Basilisk would do the job.
and if anyone of you is going to tell me that it doesnt fit into the timeframe,
i tell you that there were Simple Cannons in the 14xx.

cheers,
z

[Ahiga]

Short answer: Not for 1.0. Probably for a future release, once we've researched it and developed plans with how to implement it.

[Ahiga]

Long Answer:

There seems to be information pointing towards gunpowder being used by 1240 by the Turks and Moors. It's possible it was being utilized earlier. There seems to be a greater use of it into the 1300s, becoming widespread enough to be seen as a regular feature of many armies. A lot of it seems to be rather vague, with conflicting dates (Comments of a use of it in the 1100s, being reported by the Europeans in the early 1200s), and we need to clarify our understanding of it.

From that, we need to then think of ways to implement it in a way that works with our mod. History cannot be relied upon solely, because many of our factions were wiped out by this point, and those that historically took longer (Or never got) gunpowder could develop in a way that would lead them to access it earlier.

For instance, it seems that the Byzantines were using it only in the 1300s as a response to the Ottomans. Yet what if Byzantium expands into Iraq and remains a powerful force, while the Rum turks might simply be a few fragmented cities in the northern Caucasus? Makuria, or Ethiopia, took until the 1500s to get gunpowder, but what if they rule Egypt and Syria? What of Ghazni and Ghor, both of whom basically got 'wiped out' (Ghor becomming Delhi) fairly early, but both of whom come from a region who becomes notorious for the use of gunpowder?

I myself would like to see the approach of gunpowder not necessarily be even-handed. It would be more exciting for some who were perhaps weaker in the earlier eras to benefit from greater access of gunpowder, based on some level of historical context. If everyone gets the same access to the same types and quality, then there's no point in gunpowder at all. But I also think everyone should have the chance to get it. Just not the same time, and not in the same amount. Kingdom's offers us an apparent mechanic that has technology being granted to another faction once they've fought an enemy with it enough, and such an idea might work.

We need to both research the historical presence of gunpowder and figure out how to implement it.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

You should atleast give all the factions bombards...

[Ahiga]

While I do not predict any faction would be entirely without getting some sort of gunpowder, I do not think they would all get at least one type. Meaning, I don't see why a single type of cannon should be given to everyone, as that deals with history and gameplay in a fairly mundane manner. It'd be like giving everyone a horse archer of the same calibur, or giving everyone a heavy swordsmen of the same calibur.

While I do want to see every faction get gunpowder in some shape or form if certain parameters are met, I also want to see some historical influence in how it's given. There's no reason to give a faction which used gunpowder late (Byzantium), held a bias to it (The Mamluks), or they and their descendants/successors didn't get it at all (The Kypchaks or Makurians) the same quality of gunpowder as a faction which were avid users of it (Rum Turks-Ottomans), got it early (Seljuks), or whose descendants/successors got it and used a lot of it.

If we start to deal fully into the subject of what a faction would deserve if they grew stronger than was historically true, then we head down an impossibly slippery slope, as technically every faction would deserve better stuff if they got stronger. Even the powerful Mamluks held a strong bias to gunpowder I believe, which shows to me that a powerful group in our era could have very little gunpowder.

I doubt you will see a faction with access to none, as if they reached centers of gunpowder knowledge and production there's no reason they'd not adopt it. But I also doubt you will see the Byzantine or Ayyubid's approach to Gunpowder the same as the Rum's, Ottomans, or Ghorids.

As an additional note this is only my own view, and not that of the team's.

[Shadowcry]

Is it that you could make something like an event which you can chose to follow like that of gunpowder? Like you can choose to accept gunpowder or get like one or two "anti- gunpowder" units to offset that disadvantage?

[AlphaDelta]

You should atleast give all the factions bombards...

I would love to see your evidence that supports the idea of Ghorids, Sindh, Ghaznavid or even Makuria used bombards or any gunpowder weapons.

Some factions obviously do deserve gunpowder weapons. However these aren't in the majority and considering the end date of BC, gunpowder weapons are just not that important.

As I stated in the past we need to develop a strong knowledge of the spread of gunpowder, which areas of our map were rife with gunsmiths and where were the people with the knowledge and experience to create gunpowder.

There's no way we'll ever simply give every faction, whether major or minor, the ability to produce what was at the time, extremely modern technology. As with standard siege weapons, any gunpowder weapons will fall in line with a strict AoR meaning that outside certain settlements and regions, the weapons will not be found.

Cheers

[Ahiga]

If people are interested in seeing Gunpowder, then what would be helpful is any odd quotations or references towards its use in our era. I've done some preliminary research on wikipedia and will be looking elsewhere as time goes on.

Right now all we have to go on gunpowder is that brief summary of information from Wiki, which gives conflicting reports and very brief knowledge. With good information and resources we can present a good approach to gunpowder. It will not simply be a year that occurs and all of a sudden everyone's using it like they were used to it for centuries. For a lot of the soldiers of this period, I would imagine Gunpowder and it's explosive possibility was as foreign and even as scary as it was to the Natives of the America's. It wouldn't have gained a reputation as a largely psychological weapon in the early parts of our mod (the 1200s and early 1300s) had there been a largescale adoption of it.

[akd]

If people are interested in seeing Gunpowder, then what would be helpful is any odd quotations or references towards its use in our era. I've done some preliminary research on wikipedia and will be looking elsewhere as time goes on.

Right now all we have to go on gunpowder is that brief summary of information from Wiki, which gives conflicting reports and very brief knowledge. With good information and resources we can present a good approach to gunpowder. It will not simply be a year that occurs and all of a sudden everyone's using it like they were used to it for centuries. For a lot of the soldiers of this period, I would imagine Gunpowder and it's explosive possibility was as foreign and even as scary as it was to the Natives of the America's. It wouldn't have gained a reputation as a largely psychological weapon in the early parts of our mod (the 1200s and early 1300s) had there been a largescale adoption of it.

The following book contains an article on gunpowder at the Siege of Constantinople that references its development and use in the region:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6bo...wder#PPA351,M1

[Stalins Ghost]

Tough issue really. Simple aspects are that there should certainly be no arquebus or greater, and none of the later Cannons - Serpentines, Basilisks and the like. Bombards make sense, and perhaps the next largest maybe. Handguns yes, but the development of them would be harder, since they generally came later than bombards oddly enough I believe.

Thus, a possible solution when you decide to implement it could be (I suppose dependent on Kingdoms being used as a base): Random appearance of gunpowder around the mid-late 13th century, in the east. For other factions to unlock gunpowder, the Kingdoms technology stealing ability could then be used. Development of handguns could then be based on moving up the gunpowder units tech tree - building cannons, related buildings. That then unlocks the units for you... maybe

[Smarmy]

I like the idea of an AOR for gunpowder, as well the gunpowder 'production centers'.
Perhaps gunpowder could be limited to the presence of a campaign map resource? Keeping the technology within expected regions, and acting as a visual incentive for the player (and the ai?) to go on the warpath and claim it.

[Rex Armeniae]

My opinion:

Screw gunpowder!

[Malik of Sindh]

My opinion:

Screw gunpowder!

I think so too.

[AdmiringtheEnemyeh?]

At first i would be fine if the team when all out by giving *most* factions basic bombards, cannons, grand bombards or hand gunners, accordingly. But if they want to take a more systemic and complex approach based on history, balance, and AOR by all means I'm glad their doing it. After all it's not at all essential to the gameplay, yet. For this reason and to not mess anything else up its good their leaving it out for 1.0.

[_TheChevalier_]

To be honest, I don't care about gunpowder in BC. If it appears, nice, if not, I wouldn't miss it.

[Miraj]

ETW is coming out just next year. I want BC to stick as much to the classical combat as much as possible - since we'll be getting more than enough GP with TW's next installment.

But I'm more interested in seeing if its technically feasible to expand and diversify more unique forms of GP (not guns or cannons) - like different naphta troopers, different types of flamethrowers, new mechanical siege weapons that utilizes GP. Etc.

I wouldn't really want BC to have muskets or gunners and rudimentary cannons at the most.

[Ahiga]

Surprisingly Rockets seem to be a definite weapon utilized in this era. There seem to be a number of accounts of its use against the Crusaders in the 1200s.

[Rex Armeniae]

ETW is coming out just next year. I want BC to stick as much to the classical combat as much as possible - since we'll be getting more than enough GP with TW's next installment.

But I'm more interested in seeing if its technically feasible to expand and diversify more unique forms of GP (not guns or cannons) - like different naphta troopers, different types of flamethrowers, new mechanical siege weapons that utilizes GP. Etc.

I wouldn't really want BC to have muskets or gunners and rudimentary cannons at the most.

Just my thought, when ETW comes its just Gunpowder and bayonets.... so enjoy the Sword/axe/spear arrows... tha archers

[AdmiringtheEnemyeh?]

Man, Hezbolah has some strong roots

[boerekovic]

i like the campaign map resource idea the most,
But i have 2 Questions:

Will BC come out for kingdoms or for the basic M2tw?

And will you build in too much scripts?I hope you dont,
i think masses of scripts kill every good mod.