Please, contribute to the thread in some way if you're going to post in it. This is a discussion about guns and their affect on Minecraft, not a vote, and not a yes or no.
Besides, Minecraft already has a gun. It's called the "Mac-10 and Arrows." It fires 300 rounds per minute and does 10 hearts damage per second. We've been discussing a lowly ole musket here that wouldn't hurt Minecraft in the least to have, nor would it magically turn Minecraft into something other than a game about Mining and Crafting. If the "Mac-10 and Arrows" didn't turn Minecraft into counter-strike, then a lowly musket won't either. Please explain why you think I shouldn't be able to craft a musket in a crafting game with steam power mine carts, record players, TNT and magical electricity.
Please, contribute to the thread in some way if you're going to post in it. This is a discussion about guns and their affect on Minecraft, not a vote, and not a yes or no.
Besides, Minecraft already has a gun. It's called the "Mac-10 and Arrows." It fires 300 rounds per minute and does 10 hearts damage per second. We've been discussing a lowly ole musket here that wouldn't hurt Minecraft in the least to have, nor would it magically turn Minecraft into something other than a game about Mining and Crafting. If the "Mac-10 and Arrows" didn't turn Minecraft into counter-strike, then a lowly musket won't either. Please explain why you think I shouldn't be able to craft a musket in a crafting game with steam power mine carts, record players, TNT and magical electricity.
Cool hand cannon man, I think it may be too simple though. I think what would be desirable here would be a fairly hard to assemble weapon that would be crafted after the player has plenty of iron and gunpowder.
My recipe required 9 iron for each hand cannon and 1 pile of gunpowder for each shot, so it would be fairly expensive. I don't think many people are going to bother spending 90 iron to fill their entire tool bar with loaded hand cannons, partly because players generally need to carry a lot of other tools and supplies with them. If they do try to make up for the complex loading process by carrying multiple guns, well, that's actually not too far fetched. (another picture)
If it needs further balancing, perhaps a craftable slow match should be included as well (the flintlock mechanism wasn't invented until the 17th century).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, after enjoying Minecraft for a long time I finally broke down and contributed back: exactly one adventure map. TRY IT NOW! YAY! Fall of Kingdoms
It's possible, but it's not like they don't fit the style of Minecraft, or that they could not be adapted to the style of Minecraft.
Example: Go back and watch the Wizard of Oz. A careful eye will notice that the Mutchkins are carrying muskets, that the Scarecrow is carrying a revolver when they go to the witches castle (I think it's best noticed in the scene with the trees and flying monkeys attacking), and that the guards and the witches castle are also carrying what are either muskets or halbards (can't exactly remember).
My point is, in a fantasy world, many things can fit the theme or be adapted to fit the theme. As far as guns go, Muskets and Cannons would fit the best. I would never try to argue a minigun or something of that nature, as that certainly wouldn't fit the style, but a musket or a cannon fits just fine, is cool, and I want it!
The titular character of Farmer Giles of Ham, written by Tolkien, has a blunderbuss that he uses to scare off a roving giant. The giant returns to the mountains to tell his tale sparking the interest of a dragon, or so I recall.
Exactly. Even if it never makes it into the main game, it will undoubtedly be modded in someday. I'm hoping the discussion in this thread can be used by the more diligent modders out there to understand the limitations, game balance, materials, and all that stuff.
It goes in circles sometimes, but I'm glad to see that this thread has gone so well. Thanks, guys. :smile.gif:
1) The game already has an assault rifle, its the called the Bow and Arrows, or "Mac-10 and Arrows" as I call it. It fires at a rate of 300 rounds per minute, and does 10 DPS. When SMP adds damage to the game, players are going to be circle strafing with it and all you guys who scream Modern Warfare at any slight mention of a gun are going to be getting laughed at by me.
2) The medieval argument doesn't hold water. TNT and mine carts weren't around in medieval times, neither were blue jeans and teal t-shirts (what your character wears by default). Further, Minecraft is a fantasy game with a fantasy setting, it does not comply with any specific time period. Even if the game was set in medieval times, arquebus's were in fact around during that time period, so the medieval argument still doesn't hold water.
3) Again, I'll repeat myself, the Musket does not need to be overly expensive to either build, or make ammo for in order to make it balanced. The balance comes in the fact that it is a slow firing, high damage, long ranged weapon instead of a rapid firing, low damage, medium ranged weapon like the Bow. If you notice, the reloading procedure, the cocking procedure, and the slight delay between click and fire make this weapon finely balanced on their own. DIFFERENT, NOT BETTER OR WORSE.
4) The bow and arrows are not inaccurate at all, they simply have a parabolic trajectory. They do not shoot off in random directions when you fire them, even if you fire them at the max rate. They always go right where they should given the angle of the shot and where the player is aiming.
I think a lot of you anti-gun people are afraid that somehow if there's a musket in the game then EVERYONE will use nothing but muskets and you'll be outmatched with your precious bow. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Notch added a minigun to the game that was cheap to build and bullets were plentiful, I could understand your fears, both on the balance and theme side of the argument. However, these various musket/arquebus/flint lock designs are far from being anything like that, so quit worrying so much and support us. Nobody with any sense at all wants to add some overpowered monstrosity to the game.
PS: That argument about the assault rifles is a slippery slope argument and as such is a fallacy. Just because one thing happens does not mean it necessarily leads to other more extreme things.
You sort of missed the point,
First of all, 1 and 2 sort of contradict each other. So the bow acts sort of like the machine gun, why is it a bow instead of a machinegun then? It's almost as if the combat has some sort of medieval theme. . .
Second, I'm not really anti-gun. The main point of my argument was that all of the properties you want to give the musket could easily be given to something like a hand cannon, which would be easier to balance and would better fit in with the medieval theme.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, after enjoying Minecraft for a long time I finally broke down and contributed back: exactly one adventure map. TRY IT NOW! YAY! Fall of Kingdoms
@Rrrg: The distinction between "musket," "arquebus," and so called "hand cannon," is shakey at best. Of the three only "Arquebus," is anachronistic, the other two are relatively modern terms applied to a wide variety of firearms throughout history. Before the age of gunpowder really kicked in towards the end of the 18th century terms for firearms in the english language were far from concrete. "Musket," means a smoothbore (not rifled) longarm (Long barreled gun, light enough for one man to carry). "Hand cannon" is a modern term used to describe some early muskets.
So whats wrong with muskets again? To be honest the guns described in most of these threads could have come from anywhere from the 1400s to the 1800s, unless the proponents start getting specific about barrel construction and lock mechanisms. Its kinda like saying swords are too modern because they were used in the napoleonic wars.
As for the suggestion that Minecraft is specifically medieval, most gameplay items currently in use were still being used right up into the mid 1700s. Notch describes it as "Fantasy" much more often than "Medieval." In fact I can't find a quote where he uses the word "medieval" at all. (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that he doesn't use it all that often)
@Andrew: Please don't advertise your thread, its not terribly polite :sad.gif:
Technically the terms are somewhat distinct with only hand cannon and arquebus having somewhat shaky boundries. The hand cannon was basically a small metal tube on a pole, no trigger or lock, very short barrel, and very poor accuracy. The arquebus or 'hook gun' actually refers to the addition of a matchlock mechanism (basically just a lever which was pulled to lower a match into the touch hole. Early arquebuses looked nothing like muskets.
The musket on the other hand is fairly specific by comparison, the original muskets were a Spanish invention of the mid 16th century that involved giving the later-style arquebuses much longer barrels with a much higher caliber creating a firearm that was far more powerful and accurate.
In real life, muskets and even later arquebuses would completely outclass pretty much every other weapon in the game and make armor pointless. Yes, I do realize that they could be balanced to keep bows competitive but why bring in a futuristic weapon only to nerf it down when a slightly older alternative would be much more fitting? There just isn't much reason to add muskets as firearms instead of handcannons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, after enjoying Minecraft for a long time I finally broke down and contributed back: exactly one adventure map. TRY IT NOW! YAY! Fall of Kingdoms
You seem to be basing your information on wikipedia. Have a look at their third party scources, they're not terribly well founded. Hook gun in particular I suspect is a false etymology, I can't offer any online and easily accessible authorities but I'm fairly sure the term Arquebus predates it.
The evolution of early portable firearms into something more familiar was far from a simple and identifiable leap forward in technology which would lend itself to an easy distinction between where "Musket" began and "Not Musket" ends.
In terms of word usage "Musket" has been and is applied to any portable smoothbore guns, that gives a pretty wide timeline to pick from, its one of those terms where there really isn't any widely supported specific definition. And as before, same goes for swords, armour, shovels, picks, hoes, axes and just about anything else you'd care to mention in game, they all cover a wide period of history that extends well after (and in some cases before) the medieval era.
People tend call a musket whatever they think looks like a musket. So for the most part musket is used as a misnomer to refer to later arquebuses, really it's the term arquebus that tends to denote a wide range of different weapons so it's appearent why people can get confused.
However there are clear differences between what one would call a musket and what one would call a hand cannon, most noticeably the presence of a shoulder stock, trigger, lock, longer barrel, etc.
If you want to know where 'musket' begins and 'not musket' ends it began as a heavy weapon in the 16th century to deliver accurate fire through the toughest armors then was gradually slimmed down into the 18th century until it was eventually replaced by rifles and breech-loading guns.
Quote from theicychameleon »
In real life Muskets and Arquebuses have yet to outperform longbows in terms of range or accuracy (or even, arguably, armour penetration). Their advantage lay in the fact that they required much much less training. Its been (fairly successfully) argued that longbows weren't outclassed by a portable firearm until the development of the enfield rifle in the mid 19th century.
As to how they'd perform in game relative to bows, thats all a question of balance. Quite honestly the load times being proposed for muskets are quite realistic. The very maximum number of shots perminute with a musket is around four. Brittish soldiers were famous for being able to fire 3 to 4, most armies managed around 2. by this standard an IRL musket company would be "nerfed" to hell and back by a troop of minemusketeers.
I would take any arguments that the longbow was better than the weapons that made it udderly obsolete with a heavy grain of salt. They tend to only come from sources that have a romanticized view of English history. The fact is that bows fared badly compared to muskets, everyone who saw them in action together realized this and were quick to adopt firearms. For muskets to be defined as un-nerfed in the game they would have to be completely superior to every other weapon.
Hand cannons on the other hand were used alongside bows and other medieval weapons for centuries yet were never able to outstage them.
So far I have yet seen any arguments as to why muskets should be used instead of hand cannons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, after enjoying Minecraft for a long time I finally broke down and contributed back: exactly one adventure map. TRY IT NOW! YAY! Fall of Kingdoms
I wouldn't call a handgonne an arquebus until it has a firing mechanism and something resembling a modern gunstock.
I wouldn't call and arquebus a musket until it has developed into this.
Basically, the musket was developed as what was thought to be the heaviest firearm a single man could wield. At the time, that was the difference between the arquebus and musket. Just size really. The musket is a really big arquebus.
Regarding power, a musket could only penetrate a cuirass at up to 50 paces. Past that distance, the bullet would bounce off and accuracy would dropped off quickly as well. The longbow has a greater range. The problem with the longbow is that you need highly trained, fit men. Any wretch with two arms can use a firearm. You kill my wretch I can replace him easily. I kill your highly trained bowman, you've lost an entire lifetime of training and conditioning. Also, that training requires a social system of yeomanry. Another thing, casting bullets and making powder is easier to do in large quantities than it is to make arrows. Casting bullets doesn't require much skill, making arrows does.
It's all quite irrelevent though. It seems like most of the suggestions are for a what is basically an arquebus with a flintlock mechanism. It is simpler. You don't have to figure out the mechanics for the smoldering match cord. You already have flint and iron anyway. It would be weird not to use it in the firearm.
Basically, the musket was developed as what was thought to be the heaviest firearm a single man could wield. At the time, that was the difference between the arquebus and musket. Just size really. The musket is a really big arquebus.
Hmmm, you seem to be implying that they're contemporaries. It might be a little more correct to say that one became the other. But admittedly its a little difficult to substantiate exactly what early firearms were contemporaries of what other ones, they're called the dark ages for a reason.
Early Spanish tercios had a combination of arquebusiers and musketeers. The arquebusiers often being pushed ahead of the musket and pike formation to skirmish. Even though the arquebus lacked the power to smash through the heavy munitions armour of the day, it was still used for a time because of it's portability. Of course, the handcannon or handgonne was long, long superseded by then. As time passed, each tercio had few arquebusiers and more musketeers until the former disappeared completely. The arquebus was used at the same time as the musket. It's just that the one became more popular until the other one disappeared.
Who exactly is the "one" you are referring to. While I wouldn't personally refer to a "cannon on a stick" as a "musket" there are many examples of weapons in between which are far from clear. If you want to pick the above features as a definition, fine, but its not one thats widely held.
As I mentioned above, the development of the "musket" class of weapons didn't result from any single invention or leap forward in technology. As such there is a gradual transition between them. The distinction between "musket" and "arquebus" is as distinct as "medieval" and "rennaisance." Its a term of convenience with no clear or agreed dividing line.
You could call it that but it would be a misnomer.
Muskets and arquebuses can be similar and do get confused sometimes, but a muskets and hand cannons are not the same thing.
Quote from theicychameleon »
Muskets were never an accurate weapon much beyond 50 or 60 yards, even at that range I've repeatedly heard they're not great from people who've fired them. throughout their history they were mostly used in massed formations so that their lack of accuracy wouldn't matter. As to their armour piercing abilities, it greatly depends on the gun, the range and the armour. At 200 yeards or so a musket ball won't necessarily pierce the skin! :smile.gif: Its also important to note that by the time massed musketry appeared on the scene plate armour had already been more or less phased out by archery.
50 to 60 yards is the accurate range, as in a skilled marksman can easily get groupings of less than 12 inches across with weapons like the brown bess, in combat that would be point blank range at which any foes facing a volley would be slaughtered. I suggest you pace that out if you want to see how far away 50 yards really is. You can even count it out on Minecraft if you want.
Musketballs do lose penetration at range, although most of the tests I've seen have shown volley fire to easily penetrate wooden planks at upwards of 300 yards. Even though armor was never phased out until firearms came into wide use, even the most powerful bows couldn't beat decent plate armor. Longbows could even be defeated by mail or thick leather. There's also the matter of shields being almost impenetrable to arrows.
I'd also like to point out that archers relied even more on mass volleys than firearms, in fact, it wasn't until the musket that skirmish tactics began to see more effective use on the battlefield (the ability to easily aim at individual soldiers 50-100 yards away was a major improvement).
I have no idea what you mean by "slimmed down." If anything muskets became longer, using more metal, over time.
By slimmed down I meant that muskets went from huge matchlock behemoths that needed a stand just to fire to the lighter caliber weapons used in the Napoleonic wars.
Quote from theicychameleon »
The reason for longbows disappearing from the battlefield is a matter of wide debate and speculation. What has been put beyond doubt by field experiments is the fact that they had a longer range (200 to 250yrds) higher accuracy (modern longbow archers often practice by firing at "wands" of willow) and a much higher rate of fire (depends on the bowman, but ten arrows a minute isn't out of the question). They also have an unquestioned record of penetrating contemporary armour in fact they were famous for it, the same can't be said of muskets. Its practical archeology, not romance.
So why did they disappear? A few reasons have been postulated. 1. It takes a *long* time to train a man to fire a longbow. Comparatively a conscript can be given a musket and be ready to fight in a couple of months. 2. You need to develop muscles to the point of unbalancing your physique and sometimes developing back problems in later life. 3. Arrowmaking is labour intensive in the extreme. At the time of the hundred years war most of the english population was at it. Bullets are easier 4. By the time of Agincourt england was importing bowstaves. By the end of the hundred years war they had probably completely run out of yew.
But its all conjecture as to what exactly did it, the only thing we can actually be sure of is that the longbow vastly outperforms any musket ever known to have been produced and even (just about) the Baker Rifle.
Still part romance and part mixing statistics, a longbowman can point in the air and fire 200 yards, although even in mass they aren't going to hit anything.
The training and cost arguments I have heard before and really don't really hit the mark. First off, teaching a strong man to be proficient with a long bow doesn't take too much longer than teaching him the complicated loading process of early firearms. Secondly, if bows were more effective the elite divisions of later armies (given generous amounts of funding and training) would have still retained the longbow, but instead they quickly dumped the bow in favor of the musket just like everyone else.
Quote from theicychameleon »
Early firearms were indeed used on the same battlefields as longbows and as they developed they gradually replaced them (probably for one or more of the reasons mentioned above). You still seem to be talking about two absolutely distinct classes of weapon with a sudden paradigm shift from one to the other. This isn't quite the case.
Not muskets, bows were already pretty much out the window by the time they came around.
Bows did compete with arquebuses for a while, but once they achieved decent accuracy battlefields began to see thousands killed by bullets and almost none killed by arrows.
Quote from theicychameleon »
To get back on topic, my argument is that, other than a change in graphic, there really isn't any clear difference (as you have suggested) between musket and arquebus. The muskets suggested so far in this thread would do fine. If they were introduced and looked too modern for your tastes it would be well within your means to reskin them into something more primitive, they would still work in more or less the same manner. The actual qualities we propose to give them are no more or less abstract than those assigned to the bow.
Well, firearms haven't been added yet, but if they do get added it would make more sense to add hand cannons. Then if you really don't like the graphic you can change it into a musket
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, after enjoying Minecraft for a long time I finally broke down and contributed back: exactly one adventure map. TRY IT NOW! YAY! Fall of Kingdoms
Really? Thats quite interesting. Do you have a link by any chance? If not do you remember how the scource distinguished musketry from arquebus?
No, I don't have a link. It's just stuff I remember from random books. I do know that Samuel de Champlain had arquebusiers when he went to war against the Iroquois with the Huron in 1609. By then the musket very common. The arquebus may not have been extremely common on European battlefields at the time but it would be highly suited to the Canadian wilderness. The first musketeers where added to tercios to augment the firepower of the formation.
I'm very sure that the difference between an arquebus and musket is size. It's like that in every drill manual I've seen. When a firearm is large enough to necessitate the use of a fork to make it easier to use, it becomes a musket. Arquebuses more often just have a serpentine and muskets without variation have a spring mechanism. Looking at everything I've seen denoted as an arquebus and musket, those are the differences that are apparent.
Regarding bows, the English had bowmen in militia lists up to the 1590s. Henry VIII had longbowmen at the "Battle of the Spurs" but I have no clued how that went. I think the decline of the bow is due to many things. Advances in armour, see the Battle of Verneuil and the Battle of Patay, reducing the effectiveness of the weapon. The changing social systems that reduced the pool of trained archers. That's totally ignoring the rest of the world though. The bow was still used heavily in many places for hundreds of years after.
I have read this and I am utterly speechless. You, sir, are a genius. You have completely CRUSHED the argument that guns don't fit in Minecraft. I admire you. Are you a lwayer or something of the sort?
Those three battles sound very interesting. I didn't have time to read much but I have to admit, my knowledge of history (and the hundred years war in particular) is depressingly patchy in places. Of course, as you point out, the above debate is rather eurocentric. I guess we were stuck on the whole "medieval" thing. Japan is a particularly obvious example of Archery continuin long after the advent of firearms. Especially as they had no problem obtaining the rescources for their bows, finding young men willing to dedicate their lives to learning how to use them and finding the labour to manufacture the arrows and bows in the first place.
Verneuil - The English arrows bounce off the steel harness and barding of the Flemish mercenaries fighting for France. The day is won by English desperation in the hand to hand combat.
Patay - The field is dry, the English haven't had time to prepare field works. There is no mud or wooden stakes to stop the French knights, they ride down the English bowmen like nothing. Their horses are armoured, unlike at Crecy.
Just trying to give examples of armour blunting the effectiveness of the longbow.
I've always thought of Minecraft as being somewhat anachronistic. Having flintlock muskets wouldn't bother me because of that.
No, thats ok. as it happens 50 yards is almost exactly the distance from the gate of where I live to the next gate up. 300 yards, where exactly did you see that? I suspect those may have been rifles, quite modern ones at that. The baker rifle had an effective range of about 200yrds, roughly around that of the longbow.
Armour wasn't phased out until long after the age of gunpowder was in full swing (it was still being used right up through the 19th century) but longbows had done for suits of heavy plate armour far before guns came on to the battlefield in any strength.
Regarding bows being unable to penetrate armour, let alone mail and leather thats quite simply untrue. I recommend reading anything (even wikipedia) regarding the battles of Crecy and Agincourt. Also modern bowmen have proven it to be untrue many, many times.
It was testing various Napoleonic muskets against a formation-sized target at 300 yards, if I remember correctly the accuracy was about 20%.
Crecy and Agincourt had more to do with shooting out the French horses and the excellent English positions then penetrating armor. I've seen a number of different tests and they all seem to suggest that longbows are unable to penetrate all but the thinnest plate armor.
Even armor made out of hardened leather and thick cloths are extremely tough and can successfully stop arrows at range, if combined with riveted mail it would act like a bullet proof vest and became extremely difficult to penetrate.
This was one of the biggest problems with the longbow, it just wasn't powerful enough to stop a charge by armored infantry.
Quote from theicychameleon »
The stand was for accuracy and to make it easier to fire (I have this from recreationalists who actually do it). When longarms were manufactured in sufficient quantities to allow massed formations rather than elite troops accuracy was no longer issue and forked staff was a hinderence in large infantry formations. The actual weight of guns varies wildly down the years, it kinda depends on the gun :smile.gif:.
it needs the help of a stand for accuracy because of the weight. The weight does vary quite a bit, although as a general rule it goes down over the centuries as muskets are made with lower calibers.
Quote from theicychameleon »
Sorry, but even with a solo archer modern experimentation has proven that to be false, theres no mixing of statistics, the facts are on the target butts. :smile.gif:
Teaching a strong man (or any size of man) to be proficient with a longbow takes years of practice and training. Some longbows have draw weights of 140lbs, even a strong man would struggle with that first go, let alone manage to fire an arrow, for one archery uses very different muscles to most usual forms of excercise. Most longbowmen trained regularly from an early age, the training period0 of soldiers for the napoleonic wars around the turn of the 18th century was a few months!
Later armies had no corps of longbowmen because there were none available. It isn't a simple matter of picking conscripts and training them up, not everyone can do it and it takes years to build up accuracy. One of the reasons England had so many archers to draw on during the hundred years war was due to the fact that the whole country was at it. Every community was involved in training, arrow manufacture and bowmaking. Noone seems to know why it was so popular in England and Wales as opposed to other countries, but whatever the reasons it was. Even today Archer, Fletcher and Bower/Boyer are pretty common English names. Also as mentioned theres significant evidence to suggest that England's supply of suitable Yew coppicery was dwindling. Incidentally Wellington enquired as to the possibility of setting up a longbow corps around 1810 but wasn't able to find enough archers.
I haven't seen any experiments which definitively prove the longbow to be more accurate than the musket. The only one I can think of was a documentary which included a longbowman unloading all his arrows at an armored manikin and missing completely while someone with a matchlock hits square in the chest and punches clean through the armor.
I think you are greatly overestimating the amount of time it takes to train a longbowman. Yes a strong man might struggle on the first try, but after a week of training he should be able to fire easily and after a month he could even be pretty proficient. Training many years from a young age may sound impressive, but when it's only a few arrows being loosed every Sunday there's not too much to catch up.
There's no reason later armies wouldn't have been able to train archer battalions to serve as elite troops if longbows were better. In fact, there would be no reason for them to disband their best archers in the first place if they were better than musketeers.
And firearms were more costly than longbows in England, records show that the price of equipping new units rose 50% once the longbow was replaced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, after enjoying Minecraft for a long time I finally broke down and contributed back: exactly one adventure map. TRY IT NOW! YAY! Fall of Kingdoms
Please, contribute to the thread in some way if you're going to post in it. This is a discussion about guns and their affect on Minecraft, not a vote, and not a yes or no.
Besides, Minecraft already has a gun. It's called the "Mac-10 and Arrows." It fires 300 rounds per minute and does 10 hearts damage per second. We've been discussing a lowly ole musket here that wouldn't hurt Minecraft in the least to have, nor would it magically turn Minecraft into something other than a game about Mining and Crafting. If the "Mac-10 and Arrows" didn't turn Minecraft into counter-strike, then a lowly musket won't either. Please explain why you think I shouldn't be able to craft a musket in a crafting game with steam power mine carts, record players, TNT and magical electricity.
+1 For truth.
My recipe required 9 iron for each hand cannon and 1 pile of gunpowder for each shot, so it would be fairly expensive. I don't think many people are going to bother spending 90 iron to fill their entire tool bar with loaded hand cannons, partly because players generally need to carry a lot of other tools and supplies with them. If they do try to make up for the complex loading process by carrying multiple guns, well, that's actually not too far fetched. (another picture)
If it needs further balancing, perhaps a craftable slow match should be included as well (the flintlock mechanism wasn't invented until the 17th century).
Example: Go back and watch the Wizard of Oz. A careful eye will notice that the Mutchkins are carrying muskets, that the Scarecrow is carrying a revolver when they go to the witches castle (I think it's best noticed in the scene with the trees and flying monkeys attacking), and that the guards and the witches castle are also carrying what are either muskets or halbards (can't exactly remember).
Here's some pictures for you:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jinxo/scarecrowgun2.jpg
My point is, in a fantasy world, many things can fit the theme or be adapted to fit the theme. As far as guns go, Muskets and Cannons would fit the best. I would never try to argue a minigun or something of that nature, as that certainly wouldn't fit the style, but a musket or a cannon fits just fine, is cool, and I want it!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffIt goes in circles sometimes, but I'm glad to see that this thread has gone so well. Thanks, guys. :smile.gif:
You sort of missed the point,
First of all, 1 and 2 sort of contradict each other. So the bow acts sort of like the machine gun, why is it a bow instead of a machinegun then? It's almost as if the combat has some sort of medieval theme. . .
Second, I'm not really anti-gun. The main point of my argument was that all of the properties you want to give the musket could easily be given to something like a hand cannon, which would be easier to balance and would better fit in with the medieval theme.
I uhh, have a list of detailed suggestions (points to the URL in sig) towards the expansion of the bow.
Of course nearly half of you even posting here won't bother to check it out, but hey.
Also, every idea suggested is and will be changed to fit the Minecraftian archers community.
Technically the terms are somewhat distinct with only hand cannon and arquebus having somewhat shaky boundries. The hand cannon was basically a small metal tube on a pole, no trigger or lock, very short barrel, and very poor accuracy. The arquebus or 'hook gun' actually refers to the addition of a matchlock mechanism (basically just a lever which was pulled to lower a match into the touch hole. Early arquebuses looked nothing like muskets.
The musket on the other hand is fairly specific by comparison, the original muskets were a Spanish invention of the mid 16th century that involved giving the later-style arquebuses much longer barrels with a much higher caliber creating a firearm that was far more powerful and accurate.
In real life, muskets and even later arquebuses would completely outclass pretty much every other weapon in the game and make armor pointless. Yes, I do realize that they could be balanced to keep bows competitive but why bring in a futuristic weapon only to nerf it down when a slightly older alternative would be much more fitting? There just isn't much reason to add muskets as firearms instead of handcannons.
People tend call a musket whatever they think looks like a musket. So for the most part musket is used as a misnomer to refer to later arquebuses, really it's the term arquebus that tends to denote a wide range of different weapons so it's appearent why people can get confused.
However there are clear differences between what one would call a musket and what one would call a hand cannon, most noticeably the presence of a shoulder stock, trigger, lock, longer barrel, etc.
If you want to know where 'musket' begins and 'not musket' ends it began as a heavy weapon in the 16th century to deliver accurate fire through the toughest armors then was gradually slimmed down into the 18th century until it was eventually replaced by rifles and breech-loading guns.
I would take any arguments that the longbow was better than the weapons that made it udderly obsolete with a heavy grain of salt. They tend to only come from sources that have a romanticized view of English history. The fact is that bows fared badly compared to muskets, everyone who saw them in action together realized this and were quick to adopt firearms. For muskets to be defined as un-nerfed in the game they would have to be completely superior to every other weapon.
Hand cannons on the other hand were used alongside bows and other medieval weapons for centuries yet were never able to outstage them.
So far I have yet seen any arguments as to why muskets should be used instead of hand cannons.
I wouldn't call and arquebus a musket until it has developed into this.
Basically, the musket was developed as what was thought to be the heaviest firearm a single man could wield. At the time, that was the difference between the arquebus and musket. Just size really. The musket is a really big arquebus.
Regarding power, a musket could only penetrate a cuirass at up to 50 paces. Past that distance, the bullet would bounce off and accuracy would dropped off quickly as well. The longbow has a greater range. The problem with the longbow is that you need highly trained, fit men. Any wretch with two arms can use a firearm. You kill my wretch I can replace him easily. I kill your highly trained bowman, you've lost an entire lifetime of training and conditioning. Also, that training requires a social system of yeomanry. Another thing, casting bullets and making powder is easier to do in large quantities than it is to make arrows. Casting bullets doesn't require much skill, making arrows does.
It's all quite irrelevent though. It seems like most of the suggestions are for a what is basically an arquebus with a flintlock mechanism. It is simpler. You don't have to figure out the mechanics for the smoldering match cord. You already have flint and iron anyway. It would be weird not to use it in the firearm.
The way I think of it is that
Cannons.
Sore wa himitsu desu!
That's a secret!
Xellos, The Mysterious Wandering Priest
Early Spanish tercios had a combination of arquebusiers and musketeers. The arquebusiers often being pushed ahead of the musket and pike formation to skirmish. Even though the arquebus lacked the power to smash through the heavy munitions armour of the day, it was still used for a time because of it's portability. Of course, the handcannon or handgonne was long, long superseded by then. As time passed, each tercio had few arquebusiers and more musketeers until the former disappeared completely. The arquebus was used at the same time as the musket. It's just that the one became more popular until the other one disappeared.
You could call it that but it would be a misnomer.
Muskets and arquebuses can be similar and do get confused sometimes, but a muskets and hand cannons are not the same thing.
50 to 60 yards is the accurate range, as in a skilled marksman can easily get groupings of less than 12 inches across with weapons like the brown bess, in combat that would be point blank range at which any foes facing a volley would be slaughtered. I suggest you pace that out if you want to see how far away 50 yards really is. You can even count it out on Minecraft if you want.
Musketballs do lose penetration at range, although most of the tests I've seen have shown volley fire to easily penetrate wooden planks at upwards of 300 yards. Even though armor was never phased out until firearms came into wide use, even the most powerful bows couldn't beat decent plate armor. Longbows could even be defeated by mail or thick leather. There's also the matter of shields being almost impenetrable to arrows.
I'd also like to point out that archers relied even more on mass volleys than firearms, in fact, it wasn't until the musket that skirmish tactics began to see more effective use on the battlefield (the ability to easily aim at individual soldiers 50-100 yards away was a major improvement).
By slimmed down I meant that muskets went from huge matchlock behemoths that needed a stand just to fire to the lighter caliber weapons used in the Napoleonic wars.
Still part romance and part mixing statistics, a longbowman can point in the air and fire 200 yards, although even in mass they aren't going to hit anything.
The training and cost arguments I have heard before and really don't really hit the mark. First off, teaching a strong man to be proficient with a long bow doesn't take too much longer than teaching him the complicated loading process of early firearms. Secondly, if bows were more effective the elite divisions of later armies (given generous amounts of funding and training) would have still retained the longbow, but instead they quickly dumped the bow in favor of the musket just like everyone else.
Not muskets, bows were already pretty much out the window by the time they came around.
Bows did compete with arquebuses for a while, but once they achieved decent accuracy battlefields began to see thousands killed by bullets and almost none killed by arrows.
Well, firearms haven't been added yet, but if they do get added it would make more sense to add hand cannons. Then if you really don't like the graphic you can change it into a musket
very well :>
technically I was more so stating that bows should expanded, I was more so putting my thread as an example, sorry if you guys thought differently :>
now, this gun, one shot per reload seems pretty useless, and the reload is painful as well :/
No, I don't have a link. It's just stuff I remember from random books. I do know that Samuel de Champlain had arquebusiers when he went to war against the Iroquois with the Huron in 1609. By then the musket very common. The arquebus may not have been extremely common on European battlefields at the time but it would be highly suited to the Canadian wilderness. The first musketeers where added to tercios to augment the firepower of the formation.
I'm very sure that the difference between an arquebus and musket is size. It's like that in every drill manual I've seen. When a firearm is large enough to necessitate the use of a fork to make it easier to use, it becomes a musket. Arquebuses more often just have a serpentine and muskets without variation have a spring mechanism. Looking at everything I've seen denoted as an arquebus and musket, those are the differences that are apparent.
Regarding bows, the English had bowmen in militia lists up to the 1590s. Henry VIII had longbowmen at the "Battle of the Spurs" but I have no clued how that went. I think the decline of the bow is due to many things. Advances in armour, see the Battle of Verneuil and the Battle of Patay, reducing the effectiveness of the weapon. The changing social systems that reduced the pool of trained archers. That's totally ignoring the rest of the world though. The bow was still used heavily in many places for hundreds of years after.
Verneuil - The English arrows bounce off the steel harness and barding of the Flemish mercenaries fighting for France. The day is won by English desperation in the hand to hand combat.
Patay - The field is dry, the English haven't had time to prepare field works. There is no mud or wooden stakes to stop the French knights, they ride down the English bowmen like nothing. Their horses are armoured, unlike at Crecy.
Just trying to give examples of armour blunting the effectiveness of the longbow.
I've always thought of Minecraft as being somewhat anachronistic. Having flintlock muskets wouldn't bother me because of that.
It was testing various Napoleonic muskets against a formation-sized target at 300 yards, if I remember correctly the accuracy was about 20%.
Crecy and Agincourt had more to do with shooting out the French horses and the excellent English positions then penetrating armor. I've seen a number of different tests and they all seem to suggest that longbows are unable to penetrate all but the thinnest plate armor.
Even armor made out of hardened leather and thick cloths are extremely tough and can successfully stop arrows at range, if combined with riveted mail it would act like a bullet proof vest and became extremely difficult to penetrate.
This was one of the biggest problems with the longbow, it just wasn't powerful enough to stop a charge by armored infantry.
it needs the help of a stand for accuracy because of the weight. The weight does vary quite a bit, although as a general rule it goes down over the centuries as muskets are made with lower calibers.
I haven't seen any experiments which definitively prove the longbow to be more accurate than the musket. The only one I can think of was a documentary which included a longbowman unloading all his arrows at an armored manikin and missing completely while someone with a matchlock hits square in the chest and punches clean through the armor.
I think you are greatly overestimating the amount of time it takes to train a longbowman. Yes a strong man might struggle on the first try, but after a week of training he should be able to fire easily and after a month he could even be pretty proficient. Training many years from a young age may sound impressive, but when it's only a few arrows being loosed every Sunday there's not too much to catch up.
There's no reason later armies wouldn't have been able to train archer battalions to serve as elite troops if longbows were better. In fact, there would be no reason for them to disband their best archers in the first place if they were better than musketeers.
And firearms were more costly than longbows in England, records show that the price of equipping new units rose 50% once the longbow was replaced.