Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 5080632" data-attributes="member: 5834">I haven't been spouting facts. I've been generalizing about the progression of firearms and how it affected warfare and weapons. No, I'm not completely wrong. I find it strange that you would say so given how few facts I've stated and the simplicity of my argument.No it is not historical fact. The Chinese army was not this unified force with modern communication standards and the ability rally thousands of troops quickly to a given location. It didn't work that way back then. China was spread amongst the country in urban and rural communities. There are many isolated villages, cities, and the like loosely unified by an emperor. It is nowhere near likt is in the modern day.It was not the mounted archers that gave them superiority. Numbers had a great deal to do with it. If you are a student of history, you would admit this.The Mongol Horde was called a horde for a reason. Genghis first united a great many Mongol tribes into a vast army. Then he took this army on to conquer other nations.Very few were prepared to deal with an army this size because they did not maintain large standing armies that were anywhere near as mobile as the Mongol Horde.You seem to believe that horse archers were anything new in warfare to Europe or China. Mounted archers have existed for a long, long time prior to the Mongol invasion. But not the numbers the Mongols brought to bear.You going to argue this? I'd love to see you argue this one. I know just about everything involving Medieval history you listed. I was aware plate came later. I'm not the one that brought up Napoleon. I'm aware that plate armor and its descendants such as partial plate contiued to exist and be used, though full suits of plate were more for ceremonial use than warfare.The weapons were talking about are all about mass warfare. Guns, bows, mounted calvary charges, pikes, and the like were all mass warfare tactics that were most effective when employed by large, trained groups. And they changed how warfare was conducted, every single one of them and all were trumped by the gun.What part of my argument do you consider wrong?It's pretty simple. I'll state it in order.1. Guns are better than bows. They will obviate the need for bows pretty quickly. They will obsolete plate armor pretty quickly. They have a nearly open ended growth potential that far exceeds the muscle-powered bow. Muscle-power is an inherent limitation of the bow that does not exist with the gun.2. Guns change the way warfare is conducted. They change tactics, weapons, and just about everything involved in warfare including defensive contruction of buildings and fortifications.3. If you are going to introduce guns into D&D, prepare to make the extreme change to the world that guns had on the real world.You make it sound like gun advancement was slow. It wasn't unless you are looking only in terms of a few human lives. In terms of human history, gun advancement a lightning strike. The Western World went from roughly 10000 years of knives, swords, spears, bows, slings, and their variations to roughly the Arquebus to Nuclear weapons in 600 years. Do you take that into account when introducing guns into your D&D world?I do. To me 600 years is a flash in the pan. Just because Chine failed to capitalize on gunpowder and maximize its advantages doesn't change that Europe did maximize it to the effect of conquering most of the known world.You write all that and all you do is prove exactly what I stated to begin with, except you supply greater factual evidence with dates and a rough timeline. Thanks for proving my argument.Guns introduced into a D&D world will have a dramatic effect on warfare and personal weapons to the point it will obsolete plate, bows, swords, and the like. Dragons will be fought with heavy artillery as will giants. And the technology curve will speed along fairly fast.You can even begin to discuss and hypothesize how magic will affect firearms advancement. Will it accelerate it or slow it? Both sides could be argued. But it will have an effect on the advancement of firearms.</blockquote>

Verification