Print

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

[Ampersand]

The only game series that gets it right is the Total War franchise. Crossbows aren't inherently better or worse than muskets. The tactical application of a musket or crossbow is far more important than the power of the weapon itself. The only inherent difference is the armor penetrating power of either one.

But a single squad of musket men should never and will never be be effective against even basic archer calvary.

In the Total War series, even Peasants have some utility, even into the late game, if for nothing beyond temporarily engaging some enemy units, or absorbing arrows and bolts so they can't be used on more valuable units. The technologies in the total war series Are not purely additive, but rather open up new tactical opportunities.

[Granite26]

Machine guns use gunpowder to throw the projectile. Repeaters would throw bolts with their own force, and use gunpowder to amplify damage. They would eventually evolve into quite deadly weapons. If crossbow research was still active when electricity and magnetism were discovered, we would probably have railguns by now.

I'll argue that, given the physics model of our existing universe, muskets -> rifles is a more efficient (higher damage per materials) weapon than crossbows->mechanical repeating crossbows.  We can base it entirely upon the compressed gas recocking as well as firing vs the inherent mechanical complexity of re'cocking' a crossbow. (OK, pulling the string back with an electromagnetic advantage WOULD be cool)

But a single squad of musket men should never and will never be be effective against even basic archer calvary.

Funny, I seem to recall cowboys and indians turning out differently...

[Sean Mirrsen]

I thought cowboys had rifles, not muskets?

Anyway. With our world being what it is, the only way to prevent the simpler-to-use rifle replacing the crossbow is prevent the advent of gunpowder. So, if gunpowder wasn't invented when it was, more basic weapons would have seen more use, and would eventually evolve into better weapons if other technologies were introduced in the meantime. While there's little we can do about bows or trebuchets, but some weapons would definetly be interesting to see. Giant siege engines with electric motors rotating enormous slings filled with basic explosives (powder would be invented anyway, sooner or later), myomer-stringed crossbows...

[Mephansteras]

There is also always the political aspect. Gunpowder was invented in China, but if I remember correctly it didn't get really weaponized as much because some emperor forbade it as being too powerful.

It should be noted that the Chinese did invent a repeating crossbow.

[deadlycairn]

Yeah, but cause of the technology of the time, it sucked. Pretty sure it was only as a last resort for the emperor.

Also, who says they need to invent gunpowder? To stop players from being able to go with muskets and instead have some super-medieval weapons you could just make gunpowder (or the materials required to make it) not easily accessible near the player's base. They could either go hunting around for gunpowder, steal it off others or forgo it entirely to focus on the weapons they had. Works for meta-gamers and realism. (This is of course assuming the materials required for gunpowder are hard to come by, although it could apply to any technology I suppose)

[Granite26]

I thought cowboys had rifles, not muskets?

Fine, conquistadors, but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it

[Sean Mirrsen]

And conquistadors were the ones with the cavalry, the other side was more or less afraid of horses and that was one of the major factors of victory. If my memory serves me right. Really, while it is easier to fire a musket than a bow, a well-trained squad of bowmen will take out two squads of musketeers, only because of greater rate of fire.

Also, if bows were still the main weapon today, there would be far less crime. Can you think of concealing a bow under a longcoat, and firing it from a crowd? Plus, a bank robbery with bows...  yeah, fun. On another plus side, the military people would ALWAYS have strong arms, because you can't use bows properly without those.

[Granite26]

Also, if bows were still the main weapon today, there would be far less crime. Can you think of concealing a bow under a longcoat, and firing it from a crowd? Plus, a bank robbery with bows...  yeah, fun. On another plus side, the military people would ALWAYS have strong arms, because you can't use bows properly without those.

God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal

[Sean Mirrsen]

You forget that I am Russian, your American affairs mean little to me.

Btw, There would be no America at all without guns - the indians would just take it back.

[Sowelu]

I think Malkari had a similarly innovative research system.

As I recall, it had a more or less standard research system of 'N points gets you tech Y', but with some important twists.  First, you can spread your points between 'new tech' and 'upgrade to existing tech'.  Second, you get free research points just by USING technologies! (also you get some from your numerous allies)

So let's say you pour a bunch of research into engines until you get a nuclear drive, then you never touch engine research again.  Each nuclear engine you build...that gives you points, that you can move a slider between 'improve nuclear engines' and 'research the next thingy'.  Any of your allies that don't even have nuclear engines yet get a tiny bit of research for you using them, so people don't fall behind too much.  Every turn that you drive your nuclear engine, or shoot your gun, (or maybe just have those parts in service), you get MORE points, like 1/10th the amount from building one...so fifty months down the line, your old first gen engines can still be getting better, if you keep improving them instead of pumping all your research onto the new best stuff.

You could still be a relatively peaceful player who focused on research...but unlike in MOO, you'd get a very nasty surprise as soon as you discover that your warlike enemy who spends all his research on ships has gotten a lot of free refinements to his own guns just from using them so much, so his ships are cheap and fast to build.  I mean seriously, wtf GalCiv2, that whole "getting a hundred years more advanced wartech than your constantly-fighting enemies without ever firing a shot" is lame.

It was a fun system and seemed pretty fairly balanced, and their ship builder was way more awesome than MOO's (although designed for small skirmishes instead of massive fleets).  Combat itself took place on a 3d grid, one combat turn per one game turn, so you could bring in reinforcements.

Only problem is, the game doesn't run on XP or later

[Granite26]

You forget that I am Russian, your American affairs mean little to me.

Btw, There would be no America at all without guns - the indians would just take it back.

Not enough Indians left...  (Mostly from Small Pox, which gets into the 'Indians were peaceful' myth)

What I meant to imply was that yes, 'crime' goes down, because the abuses of a government lording it over a populace that can't fight back (due to lack of skill and strength only gained through massive amounts of time spent training) doesn't get recorded in the 'crime' column.  Bank Robberies vs Confiscatory Taxes, I'll take the robberies...

[Ampersand]

I thought cowboys had rifles, not muskets?

Fine, conquistadors, but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it

Uh. Horses are not native to the Americas. the Conquistadors brought them, and the natives never used them against the Spanish invaders. They thought the Horse and the Horseman were a single creature.

[Neonivek]

"which gets into the 'Indians were peaceful' myth"

Personally I think treating them as if they were all one group with similar practices is a myth in it of itself.

[Sowelu]

I thought cowboys had rifles, not muskets?

Fine, conquistadors, but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it

Uh. Horses are not native to the Americas. the Conquistadors brought them, and the natives never used them against the Spanish invaders. They thought the Horse and the Horseman were a single creature.

Yeah, for maybe like the first few hours, and in central america.

Horses sure got used on the plains, for example...

[Ampersand]

Which is, again, not against the Conquistadors. They got used in the plains a few generations later, after wild horses were able to breed to a population large enough.