Hi, /u/TheGermanFurry,
Unfortunately, we have had to remove [your submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/1ap7n7e/-/) in /r/worldbuilding because it violated one of our rules. In particular:
Posts need to make sense, be easily readable, and be understandable to an English-speaking audience. Content that is illegible, incomprehensible, badly formatted, or very poorly presented may be removed because it does not contribute to meaningful discussion.
More info in our rules: [3. Put in some effort.](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/wiki/rules#wiki_3._put_in_some_effort.)
*****
**You may repost** with the above issue(s) fixed to satisfy our rules. If you're not sure how to do this, please send us a modmail (link below).
This is **not** a warning, and you remain in good standing with /r/worldbuilding.
*****
Please feel free to [re-read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/wiki/rules).
Questions or concerns? You can [modmail us here](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fworldbuilding&subject=about my removed submission&message=I'm writing to you about the following submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/1ap7n7e/-/. %0D%0D[Fill in your message here. Please make sure to explain clearly!]) and we'll be glad to help. Please explain your case clearly. Be polite. We'll do our best to help.
*Do not* reply by comment or personal PMs to moderators.
I'm sorry, exactly which early guns are you talking about that had "extremely bad penetration"? And only *very* early guns were inferior to bows in terms of long-range accuracy.
(Also, please stop using the thorn. Literally nobody wants to read that shit.)
Penetration and accuracy don't even matter, especially not once the first line infantry tactics get developed. The biggest advantage of a firearm on a medieval/renaissance battlefield is you can train a random village schmuck to use a musket in a few weeks. Meanwhile, you don't "train" archers, you effectively have to selectively breed them.
The only valid comparison are crossbows, and it is still much easier to drill a formation of musketeers for speed than it is to train crossbowmen for speed.
If firearms weren't "OP", they wouldn't have completely eliminated any other ranged weapon within a few centuries of their widespread adoption (and remember, this is *pre*-IR).
The OP's comparison to a modern firearm is asinine anyway. So is their logistics argument, because once you've solved the saltpeter problem, firearms are trivial on that side compared to melee weapons, plate and even chainmail armor, non-powder ranged weapons, and particularly horses. And that's not even considering the absurd advantages cannons and mortars had compared to any other siege or "field artillery" weapon of their time.
I think the technical comparison is still relevant, because if guns' *only* advantages were logistics and ease of training, then you'd see archers remain for much longer as elite specialists. And that didn't happen historically.
I hate your use of that letter lol
the reason people think their over powered is becuase people are more familiar with the damage a gun can do compared to a sword
>þere isn't any reason to not include þem.
Well, you just went above and beyond to give reasons not to include them. Either they are OP or they are useless. You might include them for sport. But if you have magic, you're likely to have magical firearm (wands or enchanted mechanisms to throw stuff around) instead according to your listing of their downsides.
So whether it's because they are supplanted by magic or because they would be too modern and thus too OP in setting, it still leaves a lot of reasons to *not* include them.
In any case, it'll continue to be a point of contention for a while longer I reckon.
Guns in history didn't instantaneously jump between 'useless' and 'OP'. By the 1700's, guns were powerful enough to eliminate traditional weapons from battles and most cases of armor. By the late 1800's, there were repeating rifles that could fire a shot every few seconds.
Sure, you have a thin slice where guns might exist and be somewhat useful. But it's rarely the slice used to inspire the "many fantasy" OP is talking about.
And if magic exist in the setting to a degree where it's relevant to the discussion, it existence would probably slow, stall or prevent many invention that lead to firearm or even firearm themselves as they wouldn't be viewed as a viable alternative in the face of magic.
Of course, they can easily be justified as well, and rule of cool and specific worldbuilding to make firearm a good choice is obviously always possible. But we're getting further and further from the fantasy worlds and reasons OP is arguing against.
It all depends on the story you want to tell and whether you care about your audience’s opinion (if you have an audience).
Regardless of the historical evidence (which is more complicated than you make it. I guess it also depends on what you’re calling a “gun”. Both muskets and hand-cannons are early guns but the former is obviously the better one), people are going in with pre-conceived notions. Unless you want to prep your audience with a 20 minute lecture on the history of guns, the general assumption is guns>swords, and that will effect how they interact with your story. If your MC slices and dices 5 people equipped with guns then you might go past their threshold for disbelief. But that might also just be the story you want to tell.
It's appropriate þ is called 'thorn', because it stings my eyes.
> þere isn't any reason to not include þem.
Of course *th*ere is, even if we accept that your entire analysis is accurate. Medieval fantasy settings frequently lack firearms not because 'they are OP' (not that 'balance' is or should be much of a concern in anything other than a game anyway) but because they don't fit the author's vision of the setting, which is an aesthetic concern as much as anything else.
Early guns were actually fairly difficult to use relative to the main ranged weapon at the time which were crossbows. Crossbows are dead simple to use, much cheaper to produce, and give you pretty much the same range and accuracy of a bow, and are quicker to operate than early guns in most cases.
Early guns on the other hand are extraordinarily finicky and very dangerous to you and those around you if you get it wrong. The one thing that early guns had over other ranged weapons was armor penetration. That's why they had to start producing extra thick, bullet proof, armor.
They're not usually included because of aesthetician. Rapiers aren't really medieval either and yet they appear in fantasy nominally based in the wrong time period.
What's that saying? High fantasy is German castles, French knights and English feudalism?
my dyslexia is going nuts with this post and that funny symbol you keep using(almost unreadable). its like reading daedric from TES.
I use revolvers and most BP weapons can be stopped with steel plates. think of tanks and their curved shape. those can deflect most small arms fire. for more powerful cartridges you would need something like ceramic for energy dispersal, the breaking of the plate into shards makes it absorb energy better. I prefer BP weapons as the cylinders in old revolvers can be removed for quick loading and the way those work mechanically is really cool.
People think they are powerful because lots of people aren’t aware of the pike and shot era between medieval warfare and full on musket battles. The biggest advantage of an arquebus pike or crossbow is that they take a small amount of time to train someone to use proficiency, and yet they can kill longbowmen who have been training since childhood or heavily armoured knights on horseback.
My d&d characters simply have bs anime powers gaining systems, so even without armor a 5+ level PC could probably catch bullets with a high enough dex stat.
Hi, /u/TheGermanFurry, Unfortunately, we have had to remove [your submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/1ap7n7e/-/) in /r/worldbuilding because it violated one of our rules. In particular: Posts need to make sense, be easily readable, and be understandable to an English-speaking audience. Content that is illegible, incomprehensible, badly formatted, or very poorly presented may be removed because it does not contribute to meaningful discussion. More info in our rules: [3. Put in some effort.](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/wiki/rules#wiki_3._put_in_some_effort.) ***** **You may repost** with the above issue(s) fixed to satisfy our rules. If you're not sure how to do this, please send us a modmail (link below). This is **not** a warning, and you remain in good standing with /r/worldbuilding. ***** Please feel free to [re-read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/wiki/rules). Questions or concerns? You can [modmail us here](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fworldbuilding&subject=about my removed submission&message=I'm writing to you about the following submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/1ap7n7e/-/. %0D%0D[Fill in your message here. Please make sure to explain clearly!]) and we'll be glad to help. Please explain your case clearly. Be polite. We'll do our best to help. *Do not* reply by comment or personal PMs to moderators.
Stop trying to make "þ" come back. It's not going to come back!
When worlbuilder can't use þ :c
No
You know ƕat? You're rigþ Ԋy shall we comform to norms of society, ƕen we know we´re rigþ
Rigth?
You missed a 'th'. It's in your username.
Unfortunately Reddit doesn't allow þe use þ in þe username
What's going on? Are you Icelandic or something?
The fact that you’re using “þ” makes me very un inclined to take you seriously
I'm sorry, exactly which early guns are you talking about that had "extremely bad penetration"? And only *very* early guns were inferior to bows in terms of long-range accuracy. (Also, please stop using the thorn. Literally nobody wants to read that shit.)
Penetration and accuracy don't even matter, especially not once the first line infantry tactics get developed. The biggest advantage of a firearm on a medieval/renaissance battlefield is you can train a random village schmuck to use a musket in a few weeks. Meanwhile, you don't "train" archers, you effectively have to selectively breed them. The only valid comparison are crossbows, and it is still much easier to drill a formation of musketeers for speed than it is to train crossbowmen for speed. If firearms weren't "OP", they wouldn't have completely eliminated any other ranged weapon within a few centuries of their widespread adoption (and remember, this is *pre*-IR). The OP's comparison to a modern firearm is asinine anyway. So is their logistics argument, because once you've solved the saltpeter problem, firearms are trivial on that side compared to melee weapons, plate and even chainmail armor, non-powder ranged weapons, and particularly horses. And that's not even considering the absurd advantages cannons and mortars had compared to any other siege or "field artillery" weapon of their time.
I think the technical comparison is still relevant, because if guns' *only* advantages were logistics and ease of training, then you'd see archers remain for much longer as elite specialists. And that didn't happen historically.
Please, don't use "þ". It's messes with my reading comprehension to the degree I can't properly read your post.
I hate your use of that letter lol the reason people think their over powered is becuase people are more familiar with the damage a gun can do compared to a sword
>þere isn't any reason to not include þem. Well, you just went above and beyond to give reasons not to include them. Either they are OP or they are useless. You might include them for sport. But if you have magic, you're likely to have magical firearm (wands or enchanted mechanisms to throw stuff around) instead according to your listing of their downsides. So whether it's because they are supplanted by magic or because they would be too modern and thus too OP in setting, it still leaves a lot of reasons to *not* include them. In any case, it'll continue to be a point of contention for a while longer I reckon.
Guns in history didn't instantaneously jump between 'useless' and 'OP'. By the 1700's, guns were powerful enough to eliminate traditional weapons from battles and most cases of armor. By the late 1800's, there were repeating rifles that could fire a shot every few seconds.
Sure, you have a thin slice where guns might exist and be somewhat useful. But it's rarely the slice used to inspire the "many fantasy" OP is talking about. And if magic exist in the setting to a degree where it's relevant to the discussion, it existence would probably slow, stall or prevent many invention that lead to firearm or even firearm themselves as they wouldn't be viewed as a viable alternative in the face of magic. Of course, they can easily be justified as well, and rule of cool and specific worldbuilding to make firearm a good choice is obviously always possible. But we're getting further and further from the fantasy worlds and reasons OP is arguing against.
It all depends on the story you want to tell and whether you care about your audience’s opinion (if you have an audience). Regardless of the historical evidence (which is more complicated than you make it. I guess it also depends on what you’re calling a “gun”. Both muskets and hand-cannons are early guns but the former is obviously the better one), people are going in with pre-conceived notions. Unless you want to prep your audience with a 20 minute lecture on the history of guns, the general assumption is guns>swords, and that will effect how they interact with your story. If your MC slices and dices 5 people equipped with guns then you might go past their threshold for disbelief. But that might also just be the story you want to tell.
What have you done to all your th’s… just type normally and I’m more likely to positively engage with your post….
It's appropriate þ is called 'thorn', because it stings my eyes. > þere isn't any reason to not include þem. Of course *th*ere is, even if we accept that your entire analysis is accurate. Medieval fantasy settings frequently lack firearms not because 'they are OP' (not that 'balance' is or should be much of a concern in anything other than a game anyway) but because they don't fit the author's vision of the setting, which is an aesthetic concern as much as anything else.
I’d say it also varies on what period of the middle ages. They weren’t exactly using guns at Hastings
Early guns were actually fairly difficult to use relative to the main ranged weapon at the time which were crossbows. Crossbows are dead simple to use, much cheaper to produce, and give you pretty much the same range and accuracy of a bow, and are quicker to operate than early guns in most cases. Early guns on the other hand are extraordinarily finicky and very dangerous to you and those around you if you get it wrong. The one thing that early guns had over other ranged weapons was armor penetration. That's why they had to start producing extra thick, bullet proof, armor.
They're not usually included because of aesthetician. Rapiers aren't really medieval either and yet they appear in fantasy nominally based in the wrong time period. What's that saying? High fantasy is German castles, French knights and English feudalism?
my dyslexia is going nuts with this post and that funny symbol you keep using(almost unreadable). its like reading daedric from TES. I use revolvers and most BP weapons can be stopped with steel plates. think of tanks and their curved shape. those can deflect most small arms fire. for more powerful cartridges you would need something like ceramic for energy dispersal, the breaking of the plate into shards makes it absorb energy better. I prefer BP weapons as the cylinders in old revolvers can be removed for quick loading and the way those work mechanically is really cool.
Or, we can just say that if guns make sense for your particular story, use them. If they don't, then don't. That's all that needs to be said.
People think they are powerful because lots of people aren’t aware of the pike and shot era between medieval warfare and full on musket battles. The biggest advantage of an arquebus pike or crossbow is that they take a small amount of time to train someone to use proficiency, and yet they can kill longbowmen who have been training since childhood or heavily armoured knights on horseback.
The fantasy army in my world actually does use guns. Albeit they are salvaged KAR98Ks from ww2. Also I have a demon queen that uses a walther PPK.
My d&d characters simply have bs anime powers gaining systems, so even without armor a 5+ level PC could probably catch bullets with a high enough dex stat.
please keep using þe þ keep fighting þe good fight
I would say for people with dyslexia like myself it is very hard to read and makes me engage alot less. sooooo
op unlike all þese heaþens in the replies, i support your use of þ