Gunpowder Poll

**Pontifex Maximus** · December 19, 2016, 02:27 PM

A proposal for a full rework of the battle rules as well as an overhaul of the military system in general is forthcoming. Effectively I have investigated and found that there really are no effective battles rules for the game right now and the unit types and function are so muddled they can't even truly be represented properly. In other words, things look nice but they really aren't nice.

One point of debate is the relative preeminence of gunpowder units. Some RP has been done to basically advance the firearm technology to 19th century levels. I think this is a bit too much an unworkable with every other unit. And that's why gunpowder units compose 3/5 of the overall force because, well, you've invented line infantry. The unit layout and the strategies it suggests is no longer medieval or even recognizable as belonging to the 15th or even 16th centuries.

So what I'm going to ask everyone is to rank, on a scale of 1-10, how effective artillery and gunpowder should be in the rules relative to other units (how many yeoman longbows would it take to counter a cannon?). Secondly, a rank of 1-10 about how hard it should be to get them - keeping in mind that a sliding scale can be created where more effective gunpowder units exist but they take more effort to get (note that investments made up to this point will probably be refunded and compensated for if/when new rule changes take effect.)

Your post should look like this:

How effective should gunpowder units be: x/10
How easy should it be to get them?: x/10

**Dirty Chai** · December 19, 2016, 03:32 PM

2/10 at best

**Lucius Malfoy** · December 19, 2016, 03:52 PM

How effective should gunpowder units be: 3/10
How easy should it be to get them?: 3/10

**Mary The Quene** · December 19, 2016, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lucius Malfoy

How effective should gunpowder units be: 3/10
How easy should it be to get them?: 3/10

same.

**Xion** · December 19, 2016, 04:06 PM

How effective should gunpowder units be: 2/10
How easy should it be to get them?: 4/10

**Dirty Chai** · December 19, 2016, 04:08 PM

Well, they've built foundries everywhere to produce guns, so getting them isn't hard now. At least, with royal authority anyway, as I think the arsenals or at least the majority of them are royally owned?

Anyways, there's no actual technological obstacle to the English getting iron foundries in the 1400's. They just didn't. I'd argue it was because of the war of the roses - instability doesn't exactly allow for such royally-funded reforms. However we've entered a large period of peace where a huge number of the players were interested in upgrading or reforming things - particularly the creation of a professional army. Henry VII was likewise in history able to create iron foundries, probably because the war of the roses was over.

TLDR; Iron foundries = more cannon

**Barry Goldwater** · December 19, 2016, 04:37 PM

I wouldn't say we've jumped to 19th century tech, haha. I mostly took inspiration from the Spanish tercios (which admittedly don't exist yet but are only about 30-35 years away) and the Burgundian ordonnance army (which already exists) for the royal army's organization. Gunners also don't make up more than 1/3 of the army, they only make 3/5 if you combine them with the archers - late medieval English military forces have always been very missile-heavy (ex. the English army at Agincourt was 5/6ths archers, 1/6 heavy infantry & dismounted knights) and I wanted to reflect that. Really, the biggest breakthroughs we've made in firearm tech would've just gotten the royal army's gunners to stop looking like the guy on the left and more like the guy on the right here, or for less heavily armored examples, like this and this - all pretty contemporary stuff for the 1470s, it's not like we've got redcoats marching around lol. We're also fast approaching the time period where gunpowder becomes as important as melee weapons, and where personal firearms were rapidly evolving into a form that looked less like a bazooka and more like a recognizable gun. I will concede however, that gunpowder still couldn't be relied on to win battles on their own, and had to be carefully deployed (keeping the terrain & weather in mind) in conjunction with archers & infantry to be truly effective: otherwise we'd be reading about how Charles the Bold, Lotharingian Emperor, obliterated the Swiss today instead of the other way around.

As for cannons, fielding large numbers of those isn't unreasonable IMO. The French had 300 cannons at Castillon which were instrumental in annihilating their English foes, only 20 years ago; Burgundy's duke Charles the Bold fielded 200-400 at Grandson in 1476, lost that entire artillery corps when he was defeated by the Swiss, and replaced it all just in time to lose it again three months later at the Battle of Morat. (unfortunately he's one of our main allies on the continent for the war with France

) Even if we assume England's so poor and far behind technologically that they can't field more than half that, we'd still be looking at a maximum of 150-200 cannons IMO. (admittedly that would only be true of like, our main invasion army of France, and the feudal armies of nobility would be pretty slim on the gunpowder front if they had it at all) Most would be lighter field pieces like murderers, culverins and falconets rather than the really big badass bombards, so I think a reasonable solution as raised by Lucius on Discord would be to group guns into two types: 'field artillery' and 'siege artillery', and then just RP the characteristics of each in battle (translating, for example, 50 'field artillery' into 25 murderers, 15 falconets and 10 culverins).

And yes, as BF said we've got foundries to produce large quantities of firearms and cannons now. Britain had no natural obstacle to getting them IRL, it was just that pesky 'three decades of warfare and political instability' that got in the way, and pretty much everyone on the continent was able to outrace them in this area as a result. However we've so far had 10 straight years of peace and Burgundian aid in the form of gunpowder experts, unlike the real English (who didn't enjoy an extended period of peace until the second half of Edward IV's reign 1471-83, his first half was pretty troubled) so that shouldn't be a concern.

Ultimately I'd have to say:
How effective should gunpowder units be: 2-3/10
How easy should it be to get them?: 5/10

**Pontifex Maximus** · December 19, 2016, 04:55 PM

So the consensus thus far seems to be that gunpowder units should be easy to get, but not very effective.

**Barry Goldwater** · December 19, 2016, 05:55 PM

Yeah, I think that makes sense & would be fair. For the longest time firearms were used not because they were particularly much better than bows at anything other than piercing through plate armor, but because they were easier and cheaper to produce & train with.

**Gandalfus** · December 19, 2016, 05:55 PM

I'd agree with that. They'd only be truly effective given large numbers of them and the correct context.

**General Brewster** · December 20, 2016, 06:21 PM

2/10 for effect however I'd favor a 6/10 for difficulty to get them. The resources for making cannons weren't particular cheap. Perhaps it's an idea to incorporate that.