• Last Seen: MIA
  • Joined: 11 yrs ago
  • Posts: 29 (0.01 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. Mantido 11 yrs ago

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

MrFoxNews said
Well unless we pin down major wars then military technology has not advanced as much as our world.


If airships are armored in this scenario (which they are, because they are dreadnoughts), you almost certainly need armor-piercing automatic weapons to combat them. This here is a standard naval autocannon, and it is around a quarter of the size of the main guns of the first dreadnought, which conveniently was called the HMS Dreadnought. This is a reasonable armament for fighting dreadnoughts--it is in fact somewhat underpowered in my opinion.

MrFoxNews said
It doesn't matter how our weapons developed. It's a different world.


I believe it does matter. Technological development is a logical process, not a piecemeal collection of random advancements. Don't just slap some magical flintlock revolver rifles into your army because you think it's cool. There are people here who just don't seem to know how this kind of firearms technology worked, and that's not a statement against them--it just means someone should clarify so that things make sense and it's not some weird alternate universe of helicopters or whatever alongside muskets.

Armored airships means that one of the first things to be developed in warfare would be a way to reliably pierce that armor repeatedly from long distances, unless you want every battle with airships to just be an aerial Battle of Hampton Roads where we just ping useless munitions off each other, or throw heavy rocks instead of dropping bombs. This is why one of the first things they did in aerial combat was to stick machine guns and autocannons on planes. The same goes for ship-based combat, where most ships were armed with autocannons rather than any giant guns. They're an easy and effective countermeasure, and logically they'd be one of the first things developed for that purpose.

For reference, this is a pretty standard Naval autocannon designed for anti-ship warfare. It would likely be pretty much necessary for any fights against dreadnoughts. This is around one quarter of the size of the main guns of the first dreadnought, conveniently named HMS Dreadnought.
Since there seems to be some firearm confusion, let me lay out the general timeline of firearms development post-1300s. This is from memory, so there won't be exact years or anything, and I'll be skipping over some of the more minor developments. This is meant to express what standard-issue arms were. Here we go!

-1200s-1300s: development of cannons, including hand cannons. Matchlock only (meaning you light a match or a cord and often manually light the gunpowder to fire). All weapons of significant number, influence, and practicality from here until I mention this again are single-shot muzzle-loading weapons, usually unrifled.
-1400s-1500s: development of more mobile handheld firearms such as the arquebus, and at the tail end of this period, the musket. Here matchlock developed further into something with a crossbow-like trigger. You had to light a fuse and pull the trigger to bring the fuse down into the gunpowder to set the gun off. Wheel-lock was also developed, where a steel wheel would start spinning, making sparks that would light the powder. The start of flint-ignited powder was also here in the form of snaplock.
-1600s-1800: Flintlock is developed around the year 1600, where a piece of flint strikes steel to ignite the powder. Flintlock was the second to last truly significant development of muzzle-loaders.
-1820: Percussion caps are invented. These seal the ignition powder in a little contained cap, or primer, which is hit by a small hammer when the trigger is pulled. This allows muzzle-loading weapons to fire reliably in just about any weather, unless a lot of water somehow got into the barrel. At this time, the first popular breech-loaders became available, which started to make rifles practical as a standard-issue weapon.
-c.1850: Breech-loading rifles become standard issue among certain advanced nations. Artillery at this point has mostly evolved into weapons capable of accurate indirect fire (meaning they didn't have to see their targets to hit them) based on mathematics, meaning they were rifled and also breech-loading.
-c.1870: Using the advancement in breech-loaders and the new idea of cartridged rounds (where the bullet and the powder are part of the same metal piece that can be quick-loaded rather than loading in powder and then the bullet), weapons with magazines are invented, meaning you can fire multiple times without reloading. The Gatling gun was invented around 1860 and was virtually functionally identical to a machine gun. Artillery becomes one of the main deterministic factors of warfare, as does mobility in a strategic (as in large-scale) sense. This means that cavalry is fast becoming obsolete, because it relies mostly on mobility in a tactical (small-scale) sense, when compared to the mobility that locomotives give troops.
-c.1880: The first 'true' machine guns, much more compact and easy to fire, not to mention faster. This is also when the Mannlicher Model 85 was developed, the first semi-automatic weapon. Semi-automatics would not be widely adapted until the French Fusil Automatique 1917, designed in (you guessed it) 1917.
-c. 1900-1920: The first widely-adopted handheld automatic and semi-automatic weapons (not counting pistols, which were being widely adopted from the 1880s on--in fact, the famous Mauser C96 was, as you might have guessed, made in 1896, and was following in a path set out by earlier sidearms). These were usually submachine guns, although the Americans in WWI developed the Browning Automatic Rifle which was the standard SAW (squad automatic weapon) in the next two wars the the USA fought.

This is the general timeline, and I hope it clears up function and confusion. There are always exceptions, though; take for instance the Puckle Gun, which was essentially a flintlock revolver cannon designed in 1718 but never put into use. This is a fake world, after all. However, semi-automatic weapons LIKE the M1 Garand almost always use a particular kind of self-limiting gas-powered design that requires cartridged rounds in order to work. If we're doing anything pre-cartridged rounds, semi-automatic guns that do not have either revolving barrels or revolving chambers (like the Puckle Gun did) is absolutely out, and completely impractical for anything hand-held besides.
MrFoxNews said
Everyone is starting in the same technology level unless you have traits that say otherwise.

Also this isn't the real world. It's fantasy and steampunk so don't follow a normal time line because we are not the same.


I can remove those, although Gowia might want to take it out of my submitted sheet entirely. My intention was a big focus on artillery to compensate for the complete and utter lack of air power that I have, since it seems unlikely that AA guns wouldn't be under swift development given the presence of functional airships.
WilsonTurner said
I had originally [and continue to] thought this was a WW1 level of technology, since we have muskets, but also less common rifles, and etc etc


Excuse me, what?

Asura said
Zeppelins (the closest thing to airships IRL) weren't invented until the year 1900. Which would put our tech somewhere between the civil war and a couple years before WWISo yeah, I think we should probably have iron clads. Which, according to gowia, do not exist yet but can be invented?


Hence Franco-Prussian War or Boer Wars, as I said earlier. Probably not Boer Wars just yet, although my nation does have autocannons for air defense and anti-infantry purposes.


Rifles would probably be standard no matter what time we're playing in past the 1850s, but I think it's up for debate whether our rifles are single-shot or not.
Unless we start to talk about lever-actions rather than bolt-actions...

In addition, we're far past the age of ironclads here with this technological level. We should be getting close to the age of pre-dreadnoughts, which... well, take a look.
I'm with Commodore Robot here. While it would be nice if mulligans were offered, I don't know that I'd offer them if I was the GM, so I won't be disappointed if the answer is no.
Asura said
Good luck getting to the new world, though. :p


With every advantage must come a disadvantage. The point was that Beleky Kurzan is a significant economic power.
WilsonTurner said
That just means you're average at more things. Instead of being specialized, you've got a bit of everything. You won't be especially good in a single area, but you'll also have more choices, especially if you're in an area that has a variety of resources. I'm reliant on trade, because that gets me food. Others, well, I haven't really seen someone that specializes in just resource collection and trading it off. Haven't seen an economic power, I mean.


I have Strong Industry and Fertile Fields, as well as several truly massive manufacturing centers based on the real-life Tula Arms Plant and Izhmash mixed with the Krupp steelworks. With my vast territory I also have many, many natural resources, there just wasn't a trait to take for that.
edit
WilsonTurner said
What's more valuable: a compliment from someone who always berates EVERYONE, or a compliment from someone who compliments everyone for everything.Now just rephrase that and apply it to what I said, and you might grasp what I was meaning.I was apologizing for trying to make superduperdeadly grass on the non-patrolled areas [besides bandits], and saying that instead of it being deadly, it was actually very extremely healthy unless you make it wilt. And duck has never seen me apologize. I think. And @Azimuth, not only did I just discuss grass, Duck did right after your post.My point isn't superdeadly grass. My point is that, hey, I was stupid, I apologized, and then I said that, in fact, it was uncommon to kill, and instead super healthy for your horse! I practically said "No more grass!" except without those words! But there they are! No grass! I will go so far to say that it's all rock! or dirt! or whatever else you want. Rivers? Landslides? obama?


No grass discussion past page 6. Azimuth's poster is law.
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet