Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NUKE9.13]

I mean, I get that it would be pretty easy, if you know what you're doing. I'm not sure we do, though. I guess we can ask Joe.

@piratejoe: it isn't listed under our equipment, but can we assume our soldiers have some sort of leather/cloth armour? (That could then be revised into a more bullet-proof version)

Either way, I think lances would be a better first step. We don't have to worry about guns that much right now. Really, their only advantage over bows is their ease of use, letting untrained soldiers wield them. Which is negated by the fact that they are currently Very Expensive. So unless Nafuna does what I initially suggested and makes their matchlocks Cheap, or manages to upgrade to a substantially better gun, armour would be less useful than lances. And even if they do, offence trumps defence until artillery and machine guns.

[Kot]

I doubt we have historical Mongolian supply of silk, but it shouldn't be too hard. If we make armour, it should be done in two versions, the heavier one with arm covers and preferably some form of protection for the horse, we could use on our Winged Hussars more melee oriented breaktrough cavalrymen, while the lighter one, prefferably just in form of a simple vest leaving arms not encumbered, and thus allowing for easier use of bow. We probably shouldn't base it after historical Mongolian heavy armour, as lamellar armour isin't great against piercing weapons.
The main weakness of horses is that while horses are relatively resilent once they get up to speed and start charging, they easily die of wounds that seem possible to cure in humans (there's a reason why horses with broken legs are as good as dead), so while few shoots probably won't do much for short combat, they will drop fast, and hitting critical organs such as brain and heart can easily stop a horse dead in it's tracks, and riding a dying horse is probably (slightly, but still) worse than being on a chariot and having your horse shot.

[Madman198237]

It's actually harder to use a matchlock, skill-wise, than it is to use a bow. Sort of.

To be accurate at range and at the fire rates (And in the system) we use for combat, yes, matchlocks are easier. But sending an arrow towards a target (All you need to do for simple massed-volley shooting) is easier than the.....45ish actions needed to load and fire a flintlock musket. Matchlocks are similar, though a bit more unwieldy and unreliable.

They are sort-of OK at punching through armor, however the general consensus among people with the knowledge to make such statements (So much as I can see) is that such simple firearms aren't really better than specialized arrows and archer techniques. Especially since arrows can be shot fast enough to knock knights down with bruises, whereas non-penetrating musket balls will just leave singular, if bigger, bruises, with longer times between shots.

[NUKE9.13]

Uh, no, Madman, it takes, like, a week of training to be able to wield a bow with the bare minimum of competence. Whereas you can learn to fire a matchlock in an hour. (Both, of course, take more time to master- not that even the best marksman can do much with a matchlock's inherent inaccuracy)
Then there's the muscles required to draw a bow, whereas any weakling can fire a gun.

[Madman198237]

You *can* fire the matchlock in an hour, but in the stress of battle you're going to screw up. There's fewer ACTIONS to remember in firing a bow, and so it's easier. Oh, and you can't double-load it after forgetting to put powder in the pan/letting too much water stay in the barrel after swabbing, and then explode your face.

Also, I can confidently say that I could (If I didn't already know) learn how to fire a bow at a volley-fire-ready level of competence, and I could do it in that hour or less.

And on the field of battle, I'd REMEMBER it, too.

[NUKE9.13]

Okay, so, this discussion isn't really relevant to the game, but:

Dude, no. Archers take longer to train than gunners. Sure, you can learn how to fire an arrow at a target in an hour- I've done so myself. But to be an effective soldier, you need to be able to fire out to a specific range, over and over again without taking a break. That takes time.
Whereas a matchlock, despite being more complex and slower to reload, requires basically no thinking when it comes to the actual firing. You just point and click. Who cares if a few soldiers blow themselves up or whatever, when you have ten times more than the enemy?

Like, I'm not making this up. Historians have answered the question of why armies adopted matchlocks over bows, and the answer is invariably* that matchlocks could be handed out to untrained peasants, whereas bows could only be used by trained soldiers.


*At least, in my experience. If you have a source that suggests otherwise, please share it.

[Madman198237]

Actually, Mongolian tactics required trained archers.

Volley fire requires some muscle to sustain, and any subsistence/just-above-subsistence but still medieval farmer has plenty of those. All you really need is between 15 and 25 shots, because after that your quiver is empty and the enemy is closing anyways.

Now, to be a marksman with bow or gun is where the difference comes in, but I have been basing my arguments off of loose volley fire, not accuracy. Guns are MUCH easier to be accurate with than bows. Bows take *years* to be accurate with, it's why crossbows are so superior to longbows/composite bows even though they are MUCH less power-efficient, and why guns are superior to crossbows.

[Khang36]

For design should we look into making flint lock conversions to the match locks?

[piratejoe]

@piratejoe: it isn't listed under our equipment, but can we assume our soldiers have some sort of leather/cloth armour? (That could then be revised into a more bullet-proof version)

Yes, its basic cloth and leather uniform, although as Armour, its not very good.

[NUKE9.13]

For design should we look into making flint lock conversions to the match locks?

You're free to propose a design, although I'd say that- barring evidence that rapid tech-leaping is allowable- we should learn to make matchlocks properly before we make flintlocks. Elsewise it seems probable that a flintlock would be Very Very Complex (and thus Very Very Expensive, AKA National Effort).
Also, I like Thanatos' idea of going straight for naval dominance. That'll basically guarantee victory on one front, until Nafuna makes their own ship.

[piratejoe]

Gonna say this here, Very very complex isn't a thing. And you could get a good proper flintlock musket/rifle if you roll well. Just note, that the reason matchlock is very complex is because all your smiths have to work with is the guns that currently exist, so, naturally, its difficult to copy, also note that its called a matchlock rifle, and not musket.

Regardless, this is all the help/info you are getting, so use it well.

[NUKE9.13]

Ah. Well, thanks for clearing that up. I had assumed we were given muskets (and I was wondering what the fuck the French were doing out here with museum pieces- not that matchlock rifles would've been commonplace in 1890, but it's better than a musket.)

That changes things, I think. The opportunity to deploy flintlock rifles- and have them be cheaper than Very Expensive- is sorely tempting.
...
Eh, unless a bunch of folk want to switch to flintlocks, I'll stick with the boat.

[Madman198237]

Definitely go for the boat for now, we can ensure at least some major ground advantages.

Piratejoe, how close are we to true Mongolian tactics right now? How many troops are mounted, how many are not?

[piratejoe]

Normal: 5
Water Wolf: The Water wolf is a fast, light sloop able to carry 30 soldiers across the ocean, regrettably, it is unable to carry cavalry although we have been assured that such troops do not do well at sea combat. The hull of the ship is designed to be able to handle rough and choppy waves on seas as well as mild storms, however its not safe to use in harsher weather and would most likely sink or capsize in such a storm. It has open slots for oars, in case the wind dies down or blows in the wrong direction and can help the ship if it needs the extra speed. The ship has two general set ups of soldiers, either mainly manned by archers, or by soldiers, the former destroys ships by setting them aflame, and the other boards them and takes the ship and its crew. Regardless, the ship is quite promising for our naval efforts, and our shipwrights are able to make the design without too much trouble. It should take the Nafunans by surprise. Costs 2 wood, 1 ore. -Cheap

Its now the revision phase

Also, to answer madmans question, you are mostly true to Mongolian tactics, like harassing an enemy and luring them over the course of three days into a trap where they are surrounded, however, the main reason why you haven't won is because Nafunans where quick learners when it comes to such tactics, that and they are good at building defenses. Still, most of your troops are horse based, giving you a lot of mobility, although, there are a few poor sods without them.

[Madman198237]

Bear Armor
Rather less ferocious-looking than it says on the tin, this simplistic armor is made of layered cloth, intended to stop and slow swords, bullets, and arrows. However, the focus is on ease of manufacture so that all soldiers can be equipped with it. It is intended to cover the torso, shoulders (But not extending down the arms) and the sides of the legs, cut so that the 'tails' cover the legs of a cavalryman. The use of a piece of toughened leather to protect the torso further improves the protection.


So, this might serve as a highly usable form of armor for all our troops, *BUT* it might be best served as a design, or without the leather piece (To reduce costs).