The only type of firearms that would have been available c.1400 would have been hand gonnes: Pretty much just a metal tube on a wooden handle, and you had to manually touch the match to the touch hole to fire it, so good luck with your aim. The first matchlocks didn’t appear until the middle of the century.
They’d be a fun toy, but not very practical.
The early firearms have a bad reputation that is simply not based on facts…
Firearms was widely used by the Hussites… so they really should be in the game (or at least part two)
Suggest anyone who think that they where not effective to read this page:
http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html
Our “hero” should offcause not be running around with a “Tannenberggun”… but they should be in the game since they where actually used in this period and area.
That is the one on the picture I posted, isn’t it? Only that one is probably even more primitive that those in the article you linked to (thank you for that by the way).
Since alchemy is mentioned, perhaps you could create gunpowder in the game though.
I just wonder what power could a crossbow or a longbow provide. The early handguns could penetrate plate armor from 2 metres away, but I think a crossbow or a longbow can do the same. So while they were not useless, there still is a question whether they were more or less powerful than bows. The big advantage was you could arm peasants with them and train them in a couple of days. You cannot do that with a bow. And it was probably why hussites were using them as a lot of them were peasants with no prior military training.
Further on the topic (wiki again):
“The advent of firearms eventually rendered bows obsolete in warfare. Despite the high social status, ongoing utility, and widespread pleasure of archery, almost every culture that gained access to even early firearms used them widely, to the relative neglect of archery. Although early firearms were vastly inferior in rate-of-fire, and were very susceptible to wet weather, they had a longer effective range,[29] greater penetration,[30] and were tactically superior in the common situation of soldiers shooting at each other from behind obstructions. They also required significantly less training to use properly, in particular penetrating steel armour without any need to develop special musculature. Armies equipped with guns could thus provide superior firepower, and highly trained archers became obsolete on the battlefield.”
I checked with Warhorse, there will no guns in act1 since i last asked them.
good. thank you ahmad.
I once saw a presentation about firearms in the Medieval/Renaissance period, and these pop up in dozens of paintings.
Frankly, they remind me of this:
@Janus3003 That (the link, not the video) was pretty much what I was describing: Metal tube on a pole, and you had to touch the match to the powder by hand.
Royal armouries have done some tests.
The best longbow reconstructed from the Mary Rose find, had an average velocity of 44.5m/s.
The best crossbow tested, a replica of a 15th-century crossbow with a steel bow and a draw weight of 440lb, spanned by a windlass, had an average velocity of 44.7m/s.
“Next the team tested a replica 15th-century hackbut firing a 15.75mm lead ball and using a 50-grain charge of modern gunpowder. This had the astonishing average velocity of 180.5m/s, more than four times that of the best crossbow or longbow.” (the use of modern gunpowder is offcause a problem, but as the link I posted showed, medieval powder can actually be more effective in some cases)
And remember that Energy (Joule) = m/2 x V x V
So the energy is much, higher on the firearms than the longbow or crossbow.
(source: “The medieval Handgunnes” from osprey publishing. by SEAN MCLACHLAN)
Ofcause if a “object” go thought armour or not is a lot more complex than just the energy. But more engery is a good starting point.
Not having them in act one is properly not a big loss.
But as I understand it the 2nd act takes place during the Hussite wars… and since they used firearms like the Tannenberg Gun to good effect it would be a pretty big problem for a game branding itself as “historical” if they do not have firearm…
They became more powerful than bows and crossbows toward the middle of the 18th century, but started becoming he armament of choice in the late 16th. It was far more practical to replace a peasant who could be trained to fire a firearm in a few weeks than a hunter who had been learning to use a bow for the last 10 years, and in prolonged wars the nobility needed to replace their men. Really until the advent of the mini ball a longbow was more accurate, had a longer range, could be reloaded faster, and with a Bodkin arrowhead penetrate most armor and shields of the day at 50m or less, not that many even wore armor in the mid 19th century. During the US revolution Benjamin Franklin asked Congress to approve the purchase and training of several hundred longbows to act as an elite force in the continental army.
Anyways as to the topic- no. firearms in the 1400s had been little more than an exotic novelty that was rarely even used in battle. These “cannons” and later “Hand cannons” had been siege weapons, not the personal firearms we would see later. The Ottomans had been the first to adopt a corpse of firearm wielding soldiers in the early 1500s, but that isn’t the setting of the game. Practical firearms didn’t start to appear in Central Europe until 1520s and 30s. Besides, adding firearms would require an entire ballistics system and models that only would be valid to perhaps the player and one other person out there given the rarity.
Will it actually take place during the Hussite wars? That is quite a leap from the time of the first game. The hero would suddenly be at least 15 years older (assuming that the act I itself covers some period of time) than in the first act. I thought they said the acts were supposed to be close together timewise, 15 years is not what I see as “close together”, that is about a quarter of a lifetime for an average medieval person (who survived childhood).
Also, thanks about the weapons reply. The arrows and crossbow bolts have a slight advantage of being pointed, so the pressure is more concentrated. But probably not 4 times as much.
So I guess the advantages of each type of weapon go like this:
Bows - faster firing speed, good even in rainy weather, easier to maintain
early handguns - easy to train, more power (and reach), psychological effect on animals and (at least in the very early use when the opponent was potentially not acquainted with those guns) enemy soldiers, easier to use in cramped space (such as the wagon wall of the hussites)
crossbows - slower than bows, faster than guns, easier to train than bows
What you are writing is simply very very fare from the truth.
As early as the battle of Poiters (1356) the longbows have problems with penetrating the best armour worn by the Frence… and armor kept improving, the longbow did not.
The numbers i showed you show that by 1500 the gun was very likely allready more powerfull in terms of energy,
Also a simply gun like the Tannenberggun can be made by a village blacksmith… making it a lot easier to make large numbers of it compared to crossbows… and if was a lot cheaper.
A written source tell us that 25% of the handheld range weapons used by the Hussite was handguns. (the rest crossbows)
I used the name Tannenberg gun a few times. It is a gun found in an excavation of the ruins of the Tannenberg Castle destroyed in 1399. (So naturally it have to have to be made before this)
Illustration from the Hussite war show the same type in use and a few weapons of the same type have bin found at a site used as a base of operations by the Hussite.
So you simply cant get around the fact that handheld firearms was used by this time. (or at least by the Hussite wars) And they where not that rare.
But they where used as a weapon on the battlefield. Not something you carry around loaded. (you need a lighted slow burning match cord to fire the thing…)
about act two. hmm can’t find where I read it… will try to find it.
Again, thanks for the correction. I did not say they were rare during the Hussite wars, though. But are there any records of their mass use prior to that? I know they existed but I am not sure if they were already widespread enough. And I thought your data were persuasive, I just pointed out (no pun intended) that with the pointy end, the arrow has a slight advantage over a bullet. But not enough to compensate the 4 times higher velocity of the bullet.
Still, rain was a problem was it not? During rain you can use bows (maybe it negatively affects them, especially composite bows i think…but not immediately) and crossbows as usual, but wet gunpowder is useless. I know they had special pouches for that which were probably water resistant, but you had tu manually load the gunpowder into the weapon and during that process you could get it all soaked.
The Teutonic Knights are supposed to have had 100 field artillery pieces at the battle of Tannenberg in 1410. I understand they were deployed right across the front line with infantry behind and used to try and disrupt any orderly charge.
Even they don’t need to be in by the release date would I like to see gunpowder weapons in the game with all the dangers and uncertainty which comes with it.
I remember on my visit in Schloss Braunfels in Braunfels in Germany the very impressive armory which has a lot of weapons including gunpowder weapons and you realized how very dangerous and messy it must have been to use them as NOTHING was standardized like we are used from modern arms with pre-determined calibers. Every weapon was a unique piece and it was an art of its own to learn how to handle it, load it and use it without destroying the gun in the process and yourself.
Because they were all unique handmade pieces they all had their own quirks and issues, figuring out how much powder it needs to operate without creating cracks which eventually lead to a disastrous misfire one day. They were far from being elegant, mostly metal tubes of different materials which could do easily more harm to the handler then the enemy. Basically cannon tubes with wooden poles which could come in all kind of sizes.
Because hey were cumbersome and gunpowder was dangerous in handling and storing they were most of the time just used in stationary battles like sieges or on battle fields. Check out the Russian movie ‘1612’ which can give some idea about a siege with melee and gunpowder weapons even some designs there are of course too advanced for KC. But there are not many good examples in movies, just check on YT for ‘1612 battle scene’.
A lot of people got maimed and/or died from explosions of insecure handling of gunpowder and storing it safely as well. IT is hard to find some good examples of gunpowder explosions as we are all used to Hollywood explosions with black, billowing clouds which is ever indicating gasoline and other petrochemicals involved. Gunpowder creates big white clouds. Just search on YT for ‘realistic gunpowder explosion’.
So if KC will introduce powder weapons I am sure they will do their homework and present us with the whole experience of this non-standardized and still highly dangerous invention.
No. Sorry. I just flat-out disagree. Not gunpowder weapons of any sort please.
Earliest European contact with gunpowder weapons is often cited to be the Mongol Invasion of Europe - and notably Hungary which is relevant to the game - this was about mid, early 13th century. These would of been single-shot hand-cannons dubbed ‘firelances’. More a weapon to scare beast and men, than to kill them. Also single and multi-staged rockets, possibly.
Possible they could of traded for lethal working gunpowder through the middle east or India, but if a recipe for working gunpowder was known in the area, it would of been under strict Royal control.
I can understand very well where the fear and discomfort comes from about early gunpowder weapons as fantasy games, silly movies (if they ever used any pre-flintlock or matchlock weapon anyway) and the problems with modern firearms shakes people ‘romantic’ view have about fantasy but also medieval ages. In games they keep firing gunpowder weapons in ridiculous belt-fed speeds and eve if they could reload them magically in a second the powder would go off right away by the loading process as the gun would be simply too hot.
But you have to keep in mind that way before the inventions of the weapons mentioned above that powder weapons were extremely dangerous but with time cheaper to produce and people easier to train then some archer with a longbow which reacts like a modern firearm in a controlled way so that a skillful archer can replicate a good single shot much better than anyone could with one of those early brute, crude ‘hand cannons’ .
The other big fear comes from other players using their knowledge of science and modern weapons on such early powder weapons and rampaging with them through the game. But I think this fear can be easily countered by remembering that those weapons had no standardized ammunition and production standards.
Players which try to use gunpowder weapons without any skill for it would have a very high risk to injure themselves with every try and/or maybe even start a fire in the process.
IF they would put points into that skill then that would not help them much either as those weapons were almost exclusively used just in sieges and battle fields because they were damn heavy and cumbersome and powder supply would be VERY difficult outside any army and the danger for the powder going bad through rain and storage reduces that risk significantly.
If some players would really create several characters with their hands maimed by exploding fire arms they might try to find something else to waste their time with.
So besides the known issues with those contraptions I think the biggest problem some have is the romanticized look they have of fantasy and medieval game worlds and any gun no matter how primitive is seen as an immersion breaker. Frankly, I have the same issue with those stupid Gnomes in most fantasy games with their gadget obsession for mechanical devices as they remind me of modern day age and the smart phone and i-pottie craze which I would like to forget when playing a fantasy game. But luckily the world is large enough and they are rare enough to avoid them.
And if I ran into one anyway I just ignored my feelings about them as they are part of the world I like to play in and treated them like anybody else. So if I have to choose between historic accuracy and personal preference then I prefer accuracy and I have the strong feeling that most history buffs tend to see it the same way.
Time will tell, it would not kill me if they are left out but it would feel wrong like chainmail bikinis and ‘perfect’ hairstyles for people on KC’s fields and villages.
I again suggest that you use this topic: It have replies from the devs and a debate about what weapons was actually in use during this period.
