Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Dries007

      ATTENTION Forum Database Breach   03/04/2019

      There has been a breach of our database. Please make sure you change your password (use a password manager, like Lastpass).
      If you used this password anywhere else, change that too! The passwords themselves are stored hashed, but may old accounts still had old, insecure (by today's standards) hashes from back when they where created. This means they can be "cracked" more easily. Other leaked information includes: email, IP, account name.
      I'm trying my best to find out more and keep everyone up to date. Discord (http://invite.gg/TerraFirmaCraft) is the best option for up to date news and questions. I'm sorry for this, but the damage has been done. All I can do is try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    • Claycorp

      This forum is now READ ONLY!   01/20/2020

      As of this post and forever into the future this forum has been put into READ ONLY MODE. There will be no new posts! A replacement is coming SoonTM . If you wish to stay up-to-date on whats going on or post your content. Please use the Discord or Sub-Reddit until the new forums are running.

      Any questions or comments can be directed to Claycorp on either platform.
Lehk

Arquebus (primative 15th century firearm)

20 posts in this topic

Arquebus (primative 15th century firearm)

 

making ammo would give a use for lead, i'm thinking 16 balls per ingot made using a ceramic mold

 

Being a matchlock weapon in order to fire you must have a torch in your hot bar, similar to how you must have a hammer to use a chisel.

 

crafted using leather, a tuyere and wood board.

 

it can be loaded with 1 to 8 gunpowder and the amount of powder affects range and damage

 

the type and remaining durability of tuyere used affects how sturdy the Arquebus is against catastrophic failure, a 100% condition copper tuyere would have a 0% chance of blowing up and hurting you and a 5% chance of taking some damage if loaded with one charge, if loaded with 8 charges it would have a 70% chance of taking some damage and a 20% chance of blowing up

 

a 100% red/blue steel would have a 0% chance of blowing up with 8 charges and a 5% chance of taking some damage

 

once a Arquebus gets below 50% damage it would have an increased likelihood of blowing up by +5%

 

damage using 1 powder would be roughly similar to a stone javelin while a full 8 should be capable of one-shotting mobs

 

the amount of damage taken by a blown up gun would be affected by how bad the failure was, a copper Arquebus packed with 8 powder would nearly kill you, while a damaged copper Arquebus firing with one powder and happens to fail you would take some damage but not too bad, maybe the same as 1-2 arrow shots.

 

this would also give a use for powder kegs aside from griefing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use for lead, sounds nice!

 

Finally an use for that gunpowder aside from kegs!

I like your idea

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bioxx has said a few times that he will not implement guns in TFC.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are in iffy subject here on TFC, although firearms have existed in one form or another throughout the 1st millennia, they would be so compromising to the integrity of TFC and the era it evolves in, that guns would not be worth the hoop-jumping that it would cause.

 

Gun create an uncomfortable challenge to TFC combat, especially with the era we work with. Guns would only spoil the challenge and create a one-sided environment for players. With the range and power of guns, and with the superiority of guns over all protective armors of this era, there would be no "Believable" way for someone to initiate combat with someone with this advantage, without themselves using a gun.

 

Guns truly changed the way we approached combat. Hand to hand combat as a practice died with the era of handheld guns.

 

On the other-hand, I do believe in some firearms, like Cannons, can be used safely without ruining the gameplay; however, I do not believe TFC has either the infrastructure or the motivation to include such a feature.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think guns should have limited range, high chance of failing, and it should be crafted with ammo and gunpowder to reload every time. also, it should be noisy, really expensive, and hold 1 bullet per reload.

 

Also, guns should never fire a round exactly at the crosshair, meaning it wont be as accurate as bows. ti can also have a chance of going 'wild', sending a shot in a compleatly random direction. Also firing a gun should knock you back, just like if you got hit by a snowball

 

This would make a gun a powerful, but a one use weapon as it will take a long time to reload and only shoot one bullet at a time. also, the loud noise will make stealth impossible, and the only way to (somewhat) get over the reload would be to have multiple guns, which would be impractical due to the expensive cost of guns.

 

And a padded armor could be used to balance it as well. I could be crafted with a padded plate (plate, wool, leather) and would have a bit more protection than normal armor. But the best part of the padded armor would be that it can stop bullets, blocking a lot of the damage they do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a cool idea, though I agree that it might not mesh well with the survival theme.

 

I wouldn't mind eventually seeing support for "optional" features (eg: the crossbow exists in an add-on), with a properties file for enabling/disabling specific ones.  Even if the optional features were maintained by third party (4th party?) developers.

 

As for the inaccurate guns, I dare say it could be reasonable.  Especially if it only had accuracy at about 5 meters.  Might be good for taking out some of those pesky zombie hordes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that TFC is compatible with Flans mod right? and TFC is also compatible with 1.6.4 (As far as I've seen) so if you go here

http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/182918-164flans-mod-40-mechas-planes-vehicles-guns-multiplayer-tdm-conquest/

you can get it.

 

and myself is a content creator for said mod (Well I am not the best but I can make some weapons yes.) I'll put a link for a content pack (But you need the "Simple Parts pack" from flan as well)

 

You can't craft any of the weapons currently (I has no clue as to how to make them, I can only 2x2 to 3x3 crafting TFC stuff would require REAL modding I think) but there's a crossbow, a musket/Arquebus and a rifle.

 

My content pack, it's in a WinRAR

http://www.mediafire.com/download/707733r4xbqyf6s/Musket%20of%20war.rar

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long long time ago, when TFC was just starting out, Bioxx and I came onto the topic of guns. We decided that whichever direction the mod went, we weren't going to include guns. You can make any argument you want, but that's just the way it's going to be.

 

 

Guns mark the end of the middle ages. They made many types of armour obsolete and changed the face of warfare completely, devaluing highly skilled soldiers in favour of untrained infantry. Medieval combat gets turned on it's head. To be clear, this isn't an opportunity to say "but what if you made it balanced?". That's not the point. It's a rule and we're sticking with it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that TFC is compatible with Flans mod right? and TFC is also compatible with 1.6.4 (As far as I've seen) so if you go here

http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/182918-164flans-mod-40-mechas-planes-vehicles-guns-multiplayer-tdm-conquest/

you can get it.

 

and myself is a content creator for said mod (Well I am not the best but I can make some weapons yes.) I'll put a link for a content pack (But you need the "Simple Parts pack" from flan as well)

 

You can't craft any of the weapons currently (I has no clue as to how to make them, I can only 2x2 to 3x3 crafting TFC stuff would require REAL modding I think) but there's a crossbow, a musket/Arquebus and a rifle.

 

My content pack, it's in a WinRAR

http://www.mediafire.com/download/707733r4xbqyf6s/Musket%20of%20war.rar

/

yes, but I don't like flan's mod for survival.

Feels too op

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/

yes, but I don't like flan's mod for survival.

Feels too op

 

 

Well it's a module mod so you don't need to have everything ;-{)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early firearms weren't really effective except when fired en masse, anyway. Why? Smoothbore, misfires, black powder.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there will be no guns in vanilla TFC, there should be addons for different ages. There would be 4 ages. The stone age, the ancient age, the Medieval age, and the Renaissance age. The Medieval age will add a crude gun (its basically a metal barrel on a stick), and the Renaissance age will add better guns like wheel-locks and flint-locks, and even add maybe cannons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 devaluing highly skilled soldiers in favour of untrained infantry.

Are you sure about that? Most medieval army was composed of poorly trained and equipped peasants. At the same time, many of the gunpowder-era armies went though hard drills to make soldiers able reload and shoot fast even under fire and extreme stress. Also, early gunpowder soldiers usually integrated with melee, simply because early guns were both expensive and not that effective.

 

If we want to discuss guns, we should differentiate between modern semi-automatic guns and early gunpowder front-loaded guns. Because there is huge difference in effectivness and usage.

 

And if we are discussing skill, then why is usage of bow practically from the point of view of experienced archer? Because who else could be able to hit exactly where you aim while in the middle of the jump?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that? Most medieval army was composed of poorly trained and equipped peasants. At the same time, many of the gunpowder-era armies went though hard drills to make soldiers able reload and shoot fast even under fire and extreme stress. Also, early gunpowder soldiers usually integrated with melee, simply because early guns were both expensive and not that effective.

 

If we want to discuss guns, we should differentiate between modern semi-automatic guns and early gunpowder front-loaded guns. Because there is huge difference in effectivness and usage.

 

And if we are discussing skill, then why is usage of bow practically from the point of view of experienced archer? Because who else could be able to hit exactly where you aim while in the middle of the jump?

 

Quite sure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that? Most medieval army was composed of poorly trained and equipped peasants. At the same time, many of the gunpowder-era armies went though hard drills to make soldiers able reload and shoot fast even under fire and extreme stress. Also, early gunpowder soldiers usually integrated with melee, simply because early guns were both expensive and not that effective.

 

If we want to discuss guns, we should differentiate between modern semi-automatic guns and early gunpowder front-loaded guns. Because there is huge difference in effectivness and usage.

 

And if we are discussing skill, then why is usage of bow practically from the point of view of experienced archer? Because who else could be able to hit exactly where you aim while in the middle of the jump?

 

Most medieval armies consisted of conscripted peasant skirmishers backed by highly trained nobility wearing the finest in period armor. Highly trained mercenary armies were also quite common at the time.

 

What the smoothbore firearm did was allow those skirmishers, who were once rather ineffective at fighting armoured nobility whether on horseback or not, suddenly capable of utterly destroying entire cavalry charges.

 

While the British trained rigorously with their weapons, this wasn't done to better fight traditional armies. The French and Austrians and others had already made the shift to firearm conscripts by that time, because the musket et al had already rendered the 'elite' nobility and professional mercenary armies obsolete. They could train a conscript army in hours and it would crush a traditional army. Mainly because the firearms they were using didn't need to be aimed. Indeed, after the first one or two volleys you could hardly see the enemy through the powder smoke anyway. It didn't matter. When you have a few hundred people firing, many of those shots will find targets. And that was pretty much how most of Europe did their thing.

 

What the British did was perfect a strategy for beating other armies who were also using firearms. Their strategy was also insane, because they would march through volley after volley of fire until they were very close and then they would fire all at once. It worked because they knew the enemy wouldn't be able to fire accurately, and they would progressively blind themselves as the British approached. Then when the Brits were close enough to see their enemies (the whites of their eyes) they would stop, fire all their volleys in short succession, and the vast majority of the time the entire enemy line would crumble.

 

But doing that didn't take a whole lot of skill. It took enormous, giant balls of steel. They pulled that off with rigorous drill.

 

If you want something to do with gunpowder, how about crude thrown bombs that do a small area of effect explosion. Capable of dislodging a few blocks of dirt or whatever, but mostly for killing grouped enemies.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who knows? when Japanese attacked Korea(a long long time ago)

The Koreans opted to use bows instead of guns that the Japanese used, because the guns were slower, weaker, had shorter range, missed a lot, and tended to have 'accidents'. the bows were a superior weapons to the guns, and the only advantage the guns had was that it was easier to make (it can take seasend craftsmen months to make a good war bow), and the fact that it was a lot easier to learn. the old guns were more of a quantity over quality deal.

 

on the same note, a crossbow had better range, and power than the longbow, and you could get tons of good crossbowmen in a short time, a longbow had a much faster firerate. once a crossbowmen fired, he was out for the count for at leas 30 seconds

 

Also, the reasons an army used the old flintlocks en mass wasn't just because of the aiming thing. if they did individual shots with a flintlock, there was a good chance that sparks from one man could light(and fire) the gun of the man next to him.... while he was reloading. if not carefully drilled, the guns could be more of a danger to the users then their opponents.

 

Really, the only upside the guns and such had was the ability to train fresh troops faster. as I said, quantity over quality

It didn't matter if you only killed 10 archers while they killed 100 of your men. you could train a extra 200 before they even got 10 new bows

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bows were indeed superior weapons compared to early firearms. They were far more accurate when used by a skilled bowman, could go through many types of armor, could fire faster, and were effective weapons at longer ranges. But skilled bowmen were hard to come by, as you said. Crossbows were faster to fire than guns, and could be aimed and shot in much the same manner as guns - they required little skill to use. There was one particular kind of heavy crossbow that was banned by the pope because of its ability to allow an untrained peasant to kill an armored noble. It was considered unfair. Which is funny. Nobody considered it unfair when heavily armored nobles were riding down unarmored peasants with pitchforks. =P

 

Anyway, crossbows were actually more difficult to produce than firearms. It was actually remarkably easy to build firearms - they were not complicated by any measure and their barrels and firing mechanisms were mass produced using metal casting. It took little craftsmanship, and many guns could be produced rapidly. Early firearms had almost no moving parts. Crossbows required hand manufacturing and fine tuning by skilled craftsmen, as they are quite intricate pieces of engineering.

 

So yes, no argument from me that bows and crossbows were, individually, superior weapons. They clearly were. But if you needed to put together an army, you don't want to require skilled archers (which were always in woefully short supply), and you want to spend as little time and money producing their weaponry as possible. Manpower was cheap, their weapons and training was not. Thus the gun was clearly the best choice. it was capable of halting cavalry charges, wiping out lines of heavy infantry, and anyone and their mother could fire the things.

 

When you are talking about what is 'better,' you kinda have to look at cost - whether that is in training or production time/resources. The Panther tank was so far ahead of its time we hardly knew how to respond to the thing. Instead of producing a copycat American version of the Panther, they designed a cheap, mass-producable tommy-cooker, which couldn't go toe-to-toe against a Panther in a million years. Why? Because they didn't need a better tank. They knew (hoped) that German Industry would never be able to keep up with production. They were 'better' because on a strategic level the Sherman exploited a cost weakness in the expensive enemy tanks, in the same way that guns exploited the cost weakness of archers and crossbowmen. In war, a cost weakness is as real a weakness as is firing more slowly, or being less accurate. In the end it's hard to say that guns weren't 'better' weapons, especially since they did completely replace the latter. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-summery-

guns were 'better' than bows due to being cheaper to produce and easier to train people with

/

yes, that is true, just saying, the advantage of guns were being cheap, easy to make, and easy to use.

on a 1 on 1, bows were better, so I don't really see the problem of adding them. I mean, I don't think any server can marshal enough people to make a effective gun-force, so a gun would most likely be a cheap bow replacement.(if the bow recipe was re-vamped)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crossbows were faster to fire than guns, and could be aimed and shot in much the same manner as guns - they required little skill to use. There was one particular kind of heavy crossbow that was banned by the pope because of its ability to allow an untrained peasant to kill an armored noble. It was considered unfair. Which is funny. Nobody considered it unfair when heavily armored nobles were riding down unarmored peasants with pitchforks. =P

/

It's because being a noble has previages, on of them being that life should never unfair against your favor

 

on the other hand, being a peasant had disadvantages, one of them being that life is always unfair for you

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who knows? when Japanese attacked Korea(a long long time ago)

The Koreans opted to use bows instead of guns that the Japanese used, because the guns were slower, weaker, had shorter range, missed a lot, and tended to have 'accidents'. the bows were a superior weapons to the guns, and the only advantage the guns had was that it was easier to make (it can take seasend craftsmen months to make a good war bow), and the fact that it was a lot easier to learn. the old guns were more of a quantity over quality deal.

 

on the same note, a crossbow had better range, and power than the longbow, and you could get tons of good crossbowmen in a short time, a longbow had a much faster firerate. once a crossbowmen fired, he was out for the count for at leas 30 seconds

 

Also, the reasons an army used the old flintlocks en mass wasn't just because of the aiming thing. if they did individual shots with a flintlock, there was a good chance that sparks from one man could light(and fire) the gun of the man next to him.... while he was reloading. if not carefully drilled, the guns could be more of a danger to the users then their opponents.

 

Really, the only upside the guns and such had was the ability to train fresh troops faster. as I said, quantity over quality

It didn't matter if you only killed 10 archers while they killed 100 of your men. you could train a extra 200 before they even got 10 new bows

The crossbow wasn't quite so slow as you think. Lighter crossbows could be quickly drawn back with your hand, and could be relatively close to the draw and fire rate of a good bow (mostly because of the rapid aiming)

The fact of the matter is though, a crossbow requires on average, 3x the draw weight to have the same power as a bow, and because they utilized heavy bolts in the past, generally had a shorter range.

In the end, the most effective crossbows (in action) were usually the lightest ones, that were pulled back by hand, or had a simple lever. People could utilize them quickly without much training or physical strength. They could also be used from horseback.

 

In medieval warfare, the vast majority of the structured archers were novices, with only a handful of well trained ones in the bunch. They were raining arrows down by the hundreds, so you only needed a few skilled people to gauge the distance, and the rest were, more or less, mimics. They obviously took the basic training on how to handle a bow. The archers on the wall though, those were a different breed. Generally more skilled, more practiced, and needed to be able to function on their own.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites