Well, even the later hussars who pretty much were a part of the army till the beginning of WW1 (I think they were even deployed in the first few months of WW1 when the war was still in the open before all sides barricaded themselves in the trenches and of course before the first tanks rolled in) did wear some armor (metal hats in particular).
@SirNikodemus I would be surprised to find out those guns were expensive. It is essentially a pipe with a handle and any blacksmith can make that rather easily. A crossbow is something much more complicated for instance.
The handgonnes were not that expensive it was mostly the powder and the big siege guns who were expensive. I dont want to deny the use a handgonnes could provide but it is still not the wild west where every peasant ownes a handgun. And thats what it sounds like in this thread. It was unlikely that a blacksmithson would get his hands on such a weapon and what for? It has no use in a close combat situation nor a small skirmish. It would have found its place on the battlefield in largescale battles but even then bows and crossbows dominated that area until the mid 16th.
I already stated that hussite used this weapons, around 1/9 of their army where equipped with handgonnes and harquebusses yet its use was still questionable till the 16th century where the armies began to deploy many arquebussiers.
I dont say they donât exist nor do I deny their use on the battlefield. But I dont see their use in a one to one situation. And KC starts 1403 and handgonnes slowly began to take impact in the 15th century but they were not a widespread weapon of medieval warfare till the 16th century. And again you are the son of a blacksmith the best use you could make of a handgonnes in a closecombat situation is hit em hard with the heavy part.
I donât think anyone claimed here that every peasant had his own firearm. And since those weapons had their use only in a large scale battle anyway and programming the usage of such a weapon would require additonal resources, it is better if they focus on implementing hammers, flails and other types of weapons you could use more than just once a game. However, there could be a battle in which there are NPCs with these guns, an a enemy battalion perhaps or something. So essentially, the guns could be something extra you very rarely encounter but which adds an extra flavour once or twice in the game.
Ordinarily I donât like using wiki but⊠sometimes it is better than giving the name of a book:
He mention it.
The wikipage about the battle.
âAccording to Froissart, the English attacked the enemy, especially the horses, with a shower of arrows. Geoffrey the Baker writes that the French armour was invulnerable to the English arrows, that the arrowheads either skidded off the armour or shattered on impact.[16] Given the following actions of the archers, it seems likely Baker was correct. The armour on the horses was weaker on the sides and back, so the archers moved to the sides of the cavalry and shot the horses in the flanks.â (It match the general description in a number of proper books about the topic)
My point is that we should not exaggerate the effectiveness of the longbow. If armor didnât work, they would not have used it⊠And the opposite is off cause also true. The longbow must have worked for the English to use it.
If just 10% of the arrows fired hits and did even some damage, the would still have bin a clear effect on the Frence.
I wrote my bachelor exam about early firearm(not that Iam an expert or anything) and I basically conclude that the reputation for blowing up and being just âsmoke and noiseâ is not fair. If that was the case, they would not have bin used.
Tests of replicas show that they can hit a target within 15-20m,(compare it to a modern pistol) they at least match the crossbow/longbow in the ability to go thought armor at close range. They where cheaper to make than crossbows during the Hussite war. They where easy to learn to use. But they can off cause in no way match the rate of fire, accuracy of the longbow. (but remember that it took 10+years to train a long bowmanâŠ))
I hope they will be in the game in one way or another⊠but it should not âharmâ the swordfighting. But that goes for longbows and crossbows too
i donât like the idea of gunpowder weapons.
historical or not, if i want to get shot by guns i would play arma, not a medieval game.
i want swordfighting, not dodging bullets.
If you have a medieval game set after 1350ish, then firearms is part of the deal. Getting shot on a battlefield in 1403 would be fitting to a medieval game. Just like getting shot by a longbow or crossbow is.
There is a number of fantasy games where they donât use gunsâŠ
I want swordfighting, not dodging arrows, bolts and bullets all the time⊠but we should do a sometimes, when fitting to the story.
If they were in use at that time but still quite rare, perhaps they should be present on occasion (e.g. in large battles), but not available for the player to use. That would save the devs having to worry about mechanics and balancing issues.
longbows might not be able to pierce plate armor, but not every soldier has full plate armor.
Some only have breastplates, some user chainmail or leather.
Knights on horses might be armored, but their horses are much bigger targets, and most likely less armored then the knight himself.
You unstring your bow and put it in a waterproof canvas bag. This actually contributed to one significant victory of the 100 years war.
The crossbow string canât be unstrung without sophisticated equipment so it will loosen up a bit when wet and loose power. The English longbowmen simply unstrung their bow and put it away, besides they usually had at least three bowstrings with them.
Personally, I do believe that early firearms should be available, both in sieges and in handheld form. It would seem, based on what has been said in this thread, that there is adequate justification for their inclusion based on historical fact. However, I do not believe they should be âimprovedâ to make them easier, or accessable; keep them with the long load times, and with the historically accurate accuracy of those early weapons.
The time of Kingdom Come: Deliverance is one of shifting change on both a political as well as a societal and technological front, so why not reflect that in what is available to players?
Not only word âpistolâ derives from old Czech. Even the word âhowitzerâ comes from old Czech word âhoufniceâ (houf = crowd even nowadays). The Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary were on the borders of Western world that time, being in touch with Ottomans (Turks, Cumani) who were using gunpowder a lot. Their eastern borders were last frontier of Christendom, it was a battlefront - that is why Guns were used there so early, when compared to western Europe.
If there will be sieges and large scale battles than gunpowder belongs to them at this period. But running with a handgone thru countryside or in small skirmishes is ridiculous. They had mostly a hook in front to support them on wooden wagons or loopholes to reduce the knockback. I cant imagine usage of an firearm in a 5 vs 5 battle.
Letâs not forget that gunpowder weaponry alone was a logistical nightmare.
You had to sacrifice manpower in favour of heavy weapons, lug said weaponry around the countryside, embed it⊠then discover your powder was damp/bad.
Overcoming the powder issue meant shipping the ingredients, then mixing on site⊠further complicating logistics and deploymentâŠ
All this for a big bang with terrible accuracyâŠ
In the early days this weaponry was as effective, and served the same purpose, as elephants⊠mostly pants in battle, but really impressiveâŠ
If weâre aiming at realism here, expect these to be the least used of the available armoury⊠;p
It is not a first thread here regarding gunpowder weapons, but I am glad these discussions are popping up; a lot of people want to have the gunpowder weapons ingame (since it is historically accurate) like myself.
But what is interesting, that in each discussion here regarding gunpowder weapons, quite a lot of people are against their implementation ingame. I wonder why? Because there is not such disagreement in discussions regarding bows and crossbows, which are also long-range weapons (and with similar efficiency as handgonne can offer).
Sadly, the âfantasyâ or âfairy taleâ picture of medieval seeded and rooted deeply the myth, that gunpowder weapons should not appear in this period. In reality, full plate armor started to appear in European battlefields in the same period as (or just slightly earlier than) gunpowder weapons. Every fantasy-medieval world with knights in full-plate armor and without gunpowder weapons is just not ârealisticâ. (NO gunpowder weapons = knights in chainmail armor)
The first gunpowder weapons in Europe are dated at the end of 14th century (in common use from first half of 15th century). So, gunpowder weapons in European armies and full-plate armor coexisted together - from 15th century till the end of 17th century.
