Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Haltherrion" data-source="post: 5394079" data-attributes="member: 18253">Yes, I think there is a presumption that there will be technological progress. The same as Earth? That's not necessary. But if all you need is incremental metallurgical advancements and some experimental chemistry, a steady series of improvements in firearm technology does not seem unreasonable.&nbsp;There are multiple axis for advancement. One is the progression from anti-personal weapons to anti-personal canons to anti-fortification canons and various degrees of effectiveness thereafter. There were problems to overcome on the path but at anyone step, it isn't hard to see or desire the next step and the technical problems aren't such that it takes an Einstein to progress. For this reason, there is often a presumption of technological progress. Does it automatically lead to an industrial revolution, steam engines and the like? Less likely but certainly not out of the question.&nbsp;But here you see I may not have convinced you but we've discussed it back and forth for some time. Some of this thread went off into magic but much of it is firearm based. Some light weight arguments, some heavy weight but why go there at all? What do firearms really add to the setting? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp;For me, its simple, I don't like the aesthetics for multiple reasons already given and I don't see the need to toss my engineering, history, and firearm savvy players red-meat for an argument and why castle walls don't make sense. So no firearms for me<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses&nbsp; &nbsp; B-)" data-shortname="B-)" />&nbsp;I suppose you could posit that firearms don't advance quickly or at all because magic is so much more attractive but that seems to require a higher level of magic than most people are comfortable with, at least those saying that magic and firearms have little affect on the setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Haltherrion, post: 5394079, member: 18253"] Yes, I think there is a presumption that there will be technological progress. The same as Earth? That's not necessary. But if all you need is incremental metallurgical advancements and some experimental chemistry, a steady series of improvements in firearm technology does not seem unreasonable. There are multiple axis for advancement. One is the progression from anti-personal weapons to anti-personal canons to anti-fortification canons and various degrees of effectiveness thereafter. There were problems to overcome on the path but at anyone step, it isn't hard to see or desire the next step and the technical problems aren't such that it takes an Einstein to progress. For this reason, there is often a presumption of technological progress. Does it automatically lead to an industrial revolution, steam engines and the like? Less likely but certainly not out of the question. But here you see I may not have convinced you but we've discussed it back and forth for some time. Some of this thread went off into magic but much of it is firearm based. Some light weight arguments, some heavy weight but why go there at all? What do firearms really add to the setting? :p For me, its simple, I don't like the aesthetics for multiple reasons already given and I don't see the need to toss my engineering, history, and firearm savvy players red-meat for an argument and why castle walls don't make sense. So no firearms for meB-) I suppose you could posit that firearms don't advance quickly or at all because magic is so much more attractive but that seems to require a higher level of magic than most people are comfortable with, at least those saying that magic and firearms have little affect on the setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification