Matchlocks and wheellocks. Any stats for those handy? What about the damage tables? Will this be in the Flower of Battle?
Quote from: Eamon VossMatchlocks and wheellocks. Any stats for those handy? What about the damage tables? Will this be in the Flower of Battle?
Various people have worked on guns in TROS. Perhaps they will share their work with you.
Quote from: ShadelingQuote from: Eamon VossMatchlocks and wheellocks. Any stats for those handy? What about the damage tables? Will this be in the Flower of Battle?
Various people have worked on guns in TROS. Perhaps they will share their work with you.
Thanks! Errr... can anyone provide me with their invented gun stats? Or direct me to a website for TROS black powder weapons?
I did up some flintlock pistol stats for my Three Musketeers-esque game.
I came up with:
Prep time: 20 (figuring three shots a minute is about right)
ATN: 7
Range: +1/5 yards
Dmg: 4 (though I'm considering pumping this up to 6).
Quote from: Thor OlavsrudI did up some flintlock pistol stats for my Three Musketeers-esque game.
Flintlock? That is way in the future for the Musketeers. During Louis XIII (or was it Louis XIV?) all they had were matchlocks and wheellocks. Still, you have my thanks!
Very true. My setting, in some ways, is closer to late 18th-early 19th century than it is to the Musketeers, though Dumas himself had a flexible sense of time. ;)
Quote from: Thor OlavsrudI did up some flintlock pistol stats for my Three Musketeers-esque game.
I came up with:
Prep time: 20 (figuring three shots a minute is about right)
ATN: 7
Range: +1/5 yards
Dmg: 4 (though I'm considering pumping this up to 6).
It should some armour piercing, at least equal to war hammers, I believe. +2 damage against armour, isn't that the number?
Quote from: murazorIt should some armour piercing, at least equal to war hammers, I believe. +2 damage against armour, isn't that the number?
Not necessarily. 1500s firearms simply weren't that good at penetrating armor. Even in 1600 you could still buy bullet-tested armor. It was around 1650 that two factors saw the reduction of armor on the battlefield:
1. Rise of professional armies (it was more economical to have a troop of men armed with muskets and pike than a single armored knight). In my opinion, this was the death-knell of the armored knight, and could have been done with crossbows and pike, instead of guns and pike.
2. The armor the man was wearing might be capable of stopping the bullet, but the armor the horse was wearing generally was not.
3. Even the best armor could fail under a massed volley.
Remember, the disappearance of armor on the battlefield was a slow event that took generations, and did not wholly occur because of the appearance of gunpowder. It was a complex sociological event that is generally misunderstood as a simple process, much like fencers seem to think that their sport is the 'evolution of western swordplay'.
Therefore, considering the technological level of Riddle of Steel, I would not give guns an armor-piercing trait. I might give them an increased shock rating of 1 or 2.
Yup, somewhere around here is a thread where I made the claim that the disappearance of armor had more to do with cost than with the effectiveness of firearms as an armor penetrating weapon.
You make a good case, Eamon Voss.
I concede that pistols are probably too weak to penetrate armour - especially the armour redesigned to cope with firearms. I certainly don't want to imply that early smoothbore firearms could shear through armour like butter. The change to mass tactics is indeed more important than guns, as testified by the presence of the armoured dragoons from the napoleonic wars.
But what about muskets? No armour piercing at all for them either?
It's probably more important to accentuate ease of use and higher shock values than armour piercing. Come to think of it, it occurs to me that the fragile large caliber bullets of early guns could make it even harder for them to penetrate armour, though the wounds would be horrible.
Quote from: murazorIt's probably more important to accentuate ease of use
To be nitpicky, this would probably be more accurate as "ease of training" than ease of use. Arquebus's were actually a pretty big pain in the ass to use. But it was much easier to train a couple thousand people to use one through rote memorization.
Who do you think would have guns, and how would they get used? Are people planning on introducing them to the campaign, or edit the world that guns exist?
I don't have my book handy, but one of the barbarian groups in central Weyrth has firearms. No stats on them, but it struck me as unusual they had them.
Quote from: ValamirTo be nitpicky, this would probably be more accurate as "ease of training" than ease of use. Arquebus's were actually a pretty big pain in the ass to use. But it was much easier to train a couple thousand people to use one through rote memorization.
A bow or crossbow is nealy infinitely simpler than an arquebus. But...
Bows took a lot of muscle power, and very specific muscles at that. That meant meat-fed archers who had the time to practice enough to build up the muscles required. This sort of stuff was expensive in the long-term strategic sort of view, and even the English weren't quite as good as we would like to believe.
Crossbows are difficult to make compared to an arquebus. One is a metal tube with a match attached to a hinge. The other is several pieces of different materials that during the draw and firing come under amazingly different types of stress during each process of loading, holding, and loosing. This meant skilled craftsmen and that meant added expense.
Guns, when you had a bunch of people working on them at once, were easy to make. Gunpowder was easy to make once you got the hang of it. Ammunition could be lead, rocks, bits of iron, or nails. Any bonehead who could lift one and follow a drill could shoot it, unlike the harder-to-master pike drills. Accuracy didn't matter so much, as the Japanese proved in the pivotal battle of Segikahara, where they used the just invented rotating ranks of fire system, which the Portuguese brought back to Europe. Guns allowed you total logistical domination on and off the battlefield, so long as you kept your powder dry!
Quote from: ValamirYup, somewhere around here is a thread where I made the claim that the disappearance of armor had more to do with cost than with the effectiveness of firearms as an armor penetrating weapon.
I suspect this is true, becoming a real factor as the age of Imperialism necessitated the support of much larger standing armies to control extensive areas of land.
With the increase in standing armies, knights -- who required plunder and land grants to make their service worthwhile -- would have lost importance.
Also, each knight required multiple horses and servants to maintain him, creating a logistical nightmare. Provisioning large armies was extremely difficult to begin with (Napoleon's advances in that regard were one of the reasons for his rapid conquest of Europe).
As for wounds, during the Napoleonic Wars, when gunsmithing had advanced from the early days, muskets were quite capable of punching through the breast plates worn by heavy cavalry, like the Cuirassiers. But I believe the range had to be fairly close.
Muskets did create awful wounds, because the shape of the bullets meant they rarely exited the body, often lodging on and breaking bones. But those wounds rarely killed. The real killer was wool!
When the bullet struck, wool clothing the victim was wearing would disintegrate, entering the wound and becoming next to impossible to remove. The wounds invariably turned septic, especially since the tools a surgeon would use to try to remove a bullet (if attempted at all) were also dirty.
That's why, in the Napoleonic Wars, officers would almost always wear silk clothing, since silk was much easier to remove from the wounds.
Quote from: Nick PagnuccoWho do you think would have guns, and how would they get used? Are people planning on introducing them to the campaign, or edit the world that guns exist?
I love TROS already. But I am not so enamored of the world. So I will probably create my own new world. If I did want to set it in Wyerth, it would be easy enough to introduce guns. They have the metallurgical skills to use the stuff.
QuoteI don't have my book handy, but one of the barbarian groups in central Weyrth has firearms. No stats on them, but it struck me as unusual they had them.
I thought it kind of neat. We always have this idea that it is 'advanced civilizations' that invent the kewl stuff. What if this were not the case? Heck, the Turks and Mongols used awesome bows that were wieldier than the longbow and have more power. And even though the Mongols created the 300 year Yuan dynasty in China, developed the first postal system, opened up trade routes between Asia and Europe, made reading and writing mandatory for soldiers, and were the first to have freedom of religion, we still think of them as destructive barbarians who never did anything.
Quote from: Thor OlavsrudThat's why, in the Napoleonic Wars, officers would almost always wear silk clothing, since silk was much easier to remove from the wounds.
Another Mongolian original! The Mongolians wore silk under the furs and wools to make it easier to remove arrows and make the wound easier to clean.
Ahem... I am a big fan of Mongols...
Quote from: Eamon Voss
I love TROS already. But I am not so enamored of the world. So I will probably create my own new world. If I did want to set it in Wyerth, it would be easy enough to introduce guns. They have the metallurgical skills to use the stuff.
Oh, I agree... I was just curious what people were going to do.
I'll be curious to see anything you post about your own TROS setting.
Quote from: Eamon Voss
I thought it kind of neat. We always have this idea that it is 'advanced civilizations' that invent the kewl stuff. What if this were not the case? Heck, the Turks and Mongols used awesome bows that were wieldier than the longbow and have more power. And even though the Mongols created the 300 year Yuan dynasty in China, developed the first postal system, opened up trade routes between Asia and Europe, made reading and writing mandatory for soldiers, and were the first to have freedom of religion, we still think of them as destructive barbarians who never did anything.
I agree the Mongols and Genghis got a reputation they didn't wholly deserve. The thing that got me wasn't "oh goodness, the eurasian barbarians have guns!" as much as they have them, nobody else does, and it was mentioned as an aside and not an important thing. While I can understand unreliable, early firearms not being of major import, it caught me offguard.
Quote from: Nick PagnuccoOh, I agree... I was just curious what people were going to do. I'll be curious to see anything you post about your own TROS setting.
Thanks! I plan to get the website for it up sometime today, probably tonight.
QuoteI agree the Mongols and Genghis got a reputation they didn't wholly deserve.
Well... some of their reputation they did deserve. They weren't the nicest of people. But then again, what they did was pretty much the norm of their time (and our time). Genocide is not new. Neither is torture (which they taught to the Russians during their 250 year domination). But as far as I know they committed genocide for purely strategic reasons (Tatars and Kwarazim come to mind) rather than because of inter-tribal or inter-religious conflict. Not that it being a strategic reason makes it any better of course...
QuoteThe thing that got me wasn't "oh goodness, the eurasian barbarians have guns!" as much as they have them, nobody else does, and it was mentioned as an aside and not an important thing. While I can understand unreliable, early firearms not being of major import, it caught me offguard.
Good point. It does make you wonder.
Quote from: Thor OlavsrudMuskets did create awful wounds, because the shape of the bullets meant they rarely exited the body, often lodging on and breaking bones. But those wounds rarely killed. The real killer was wool!
When the bullet struck, wool clothing the victim was wearing would disintegrate, entering the wound and becoming next to impossible to remove. The wounds invariably turned septic, especially since the tools a surgeon would use to try to remove a bullet (if attempted at all) were also dirty.
That's why, in the Napoleonic Wars, officers would almost always wear silk clothing, since silk was much easier to remove from the wounds.
I know it's a little off-topic, but Mongol
arrow riders wore long silk shirts as a defense against arrows. Arrow would pierce the skin without piercing the shirt, enabling an easier removal process. At that was 12-13th century CE.
Very Cool.
[edit text]Damn. Really ought to read the whole thread prior to posting. Kudos to you Eamon.[/edit text]
Chris
Uh, the Mongols weren't totally backwards, and in fact had some really interesting military innovations.
But let's not go down the road about them being "not so bad". They were bad. As bad as bad gets. You think genocide is bad? They did lot's worse than that. Hard to believe? I don't even want to tell the examples that I'm aware of. Let's just say that if you really want to be squicked out, read up on it.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesBut let's not go down the road about them being "not so bad". They were bad. As bad as bad gets. You think genocide is bad? They did lot's worse than that. Hard to believe? I don't even want to tell the examples that I'm aware of. Let's just say that if you really want to be squicked out, read up on it.
You are right. The Mongols were bad. Really bad. So was Europe and China and the rest of the world. The Mongols just happened to give 'it' to people who either normally gave 'it' to others. Every brutal action the Mongols performed, you can find corrollaries of similiar actions performed in the same century by those who condemn(ed) the Mongols.
The one thing I have to say about the Mongols is that they generally don't make a good addition to role-playing games, especially the Riddle of Steel. Unless, of course, you are playing Mongols or forces that know Mongol tactics and weapons (Post Ayn Julat Mameluks, Cossacks etc)
QuoteThe one thing I have to say about the Mongols is that they generally don't make a good addition to role-playing games
Could you elaborate on that please? I'm really interested to know why you say that.
Quote from: Nick PagnuccoWho do you think would have guns, and how would they get used? Are people planning on introducing them to the campaign, or edit the world that guns exist?
I don't plan to use Weyrth. It's close enough to the real world that I'd rather use a historical setting or another world entirely, with ICE's Shadow World being my preferred fantasy setting.
For my (still pending) first test of TROS, I had an idea to set a scenario at the time of the St Bartholomew massacre in Paris in 1572 - inspired by the Dumas story Queen Margot.
Quote from: arxhonQuoteThe one thing I have to say about the Mongols is that they generally don't make a good addition to role-playing games
Could you elaborate on that please? I'm really interested to know why you say that.
I write something up and post it to a different thread. We could be in for a long discussion.