Firearms?

[toaster Assassin]

Though Kenshi uses many Asian style articles of clothing and weapons, the theme is not made to be truly Japanese. (Nor is it in Japan)

[iSuck345]

I think that gunpowder weapons should be limited to maybe flintlock pistols or wheel lock pistols. I dont think that having them would make the game overly difficult or easy, as long as not every NPC has them, maybe just the empire and one or two other large factions, and have them for sale (at a very high price) in shops.

If gunpowder gets involved, players will start demanding bombs.

[iSuck345]

Though Kenshi uses many Asian style articles of clothing and weapons, the theme is not made to be truly Japanese. (Nor is it in Japan)

It should be more oriental though, so I agree with him, except about the Japan thing :I.

[Kamos]

I personally have been a proponent for adding all kinds of new weapons from global settings.
For example, I want the cannibals to have things like falchions, kopis, or falcata for instance. These are all heavy duty cleaving type weapons ideal for taking apart a corpse and that seems to fit a cannibal style.

But I don't like mixing gunplay and swordplay with concerns to the topic.

[Gazz]

Though Kenshi uses many Asian style articles of clothing and weapons, the theme is not made to be truly Japanese. (Nor is it in Japan)

It's as close to japanese as you can get without using japanese names and characteristic japanese architecture. Even the sword fighting is japanese and that's pretty unique!

Wouldn't even surprise me if there were impossibly huge Final Fantasy swo... oh, wait...

[Kamos]

Only so many ways to fight with swords.
Swish swish clang swish dead

[iSuck345]

... Kamos, where is that airgun?

[HamSpanker]

And as far as air guns go, they look like they'd still cause some pretty heart-wrenching deaths.

They are cool though, arent they? Yeah, as I read some of the more intelligent posts here I have grown to change my mind about gun powder and Kenshi. It is nice, but it's mere inclusion would turn off some gamers just flat out. The air guns are a better solution. They have all the disadvantages of virtual gunpowder ones, but with less power. This way they would be a less powerful, highly technical weapon that you could train people in easily, or it could be a stepping off point for a hand held harpoon gun (the ww2 one looks almost perfect for that). This would allow a long bow to still remain the top tier weapon, as long as you have the training to master it.

You are right though, they are still poweful. In comparison, a long bow has a velocity of about half that, but arrows weigh more and have some advantages.

Here is a picture of a Japanese air gun.



Oh, and keep in mind that any weapon kills in Kenshi. Kenshi does have perma-death but not insta-death. There is always that bleed out time. A field cannon would not kill you any faster than a crossbow.

I hate the idea of firearms, as it would decrease the amount of sword action in the game. However if we implemented air based rifles, that would have a damn long reload time a whole new strategy would come!

Imagine having 3 units you managed to get a little one handed air pistol on. Now see these 3 soldiers charge into 10 bandits, take out the pistols, shoot one shot each and then take out their katanas. With these 3 inaccurate but powerful shots, they might have been lucky to damage 1 maybe 2 bandits.

I think we should have air guns, but they should have a long reload time and not that long range, so it would be more like a, shoot and charge kind of thing. Also we dont need air guns at all, I think ninja stars and other throwable weapons would be fine.

[Mattk50]

Hamspanker, you just described the function of muskets.

[HamSpanker]

No I mean way longer than that. I only want it to be so you could fire one, maybe 2 shots and then the battle is over. That's how long it should take. A musket you can reload in what.. a minute?

But well I still don't like any idea of firearms anyway.. like what if I get hit in the head?
Instant death? A character I worked on for like what, weeks maybe can die to a low citizen who got a lucky shot.
And it will be unrealistic if he survives because really.. "I got hit in the head, glad I only lost 33 hp though!"
No, your brains would splatter and you would die. The same goes for alot else really, like a good shot in the gut will also pretty much kill you if it hits any vitals.

So as little shooting as possible, or maybe even none at all.

The same goes for bows, I'm waiting for a solution to the problem, since it doesn't really work with the medic system at all. An arrow in the face and I only get knocked down? I get bandaged on my face and I'm alright..?

[iSuck345]

Hamspanker, you just described the function of muskets.

Except theese airguns wold be even WORSE, not only that as they needed more time than other projectiles to aim, fire and reload! And the rifles wold need to be set up, and they could be more powerfull and accurate, but could take longer to reload! Do you see where I am getting at?

[Clawdius Talonious]

The idea of an air gun that takes longer to load than a musket etc is rather silly. To me it seems more reasonable to have guns be a part of the game, and just make the guns and ammo impossible to reproduce and extremely unreliable. Why fire a gun if the barrel may breach or the bullet may misfire, if that weapon is valuable enough to buy a decent sword and a couple bullets will buy you a barrel of rum? They would likely be mostly ornamental, part of some city guards arsenals. That may not be terribly realistic, but it isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility. However, if there are going to be "turrets", one wonders what it is they're going to fire if not some sort of bullets. I suppose they could have catapults in them, but the ability to aim a catapult at a moving target is somewhat questionable. It's a difficult subject to really ascertain, personally I'll wait and see what Chris has planned before I cast my vote in any way other than "air guns that take longer to reload than muskets is a bad idea".

[Marilous]

If there absolutely had to be guns because of clamoring for them then a one-shot pirate style pistol that they usually would abandoned after the shot wouldn't be too terrible. As to the remark about the medical system and guns and bows ruining that, how is it any worse than being stabbed or slashed by a sword? Plus no one has died of infection in my game so I don't think we are going for full medical accuracy here.

[Wilcol]

Plus no one has died of infection in my game so I don't think we are going for full medical accuracy here.

We are, it just hasn't been implemented yet.

[iSuck345]

The idea of an air gun that takes longer to load than a musket etc is rather silly. To me it seems more reasonable to have guns be a part of the game, and just make the guns and ammo impossible to reproduce and extremely unreliable. Why fire a gun if the barrel may breach or the bullet may misfire, if that weapon is valuable enough to buy a decent sword and a couple bullets will buy you a barrel of rum? They would likely be mostly ornamental, part of some city guards arsenals. That may not be terribly realistic, but it isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility. However, if there are going to be "turrets", one wonders what it is they're going to fire if not some sort of bullets. I suppose they could have catapults in them, but the ability to aim a catapult at a moving target is somewhat questionable. It's a difficult subject to really ascertain, personally I'll wait and see what Chris has planned before I cast my vote in any way other than "air guns that take longer to reload than muskets is a bad idea".

Yeah but then people wold demand bombs due to the gunpowder :/.

[Kilgore]

The thing is the actual air rifle itself is that it could fire faster between shots while it had air in the reservoir. It would, if anything, be worse than the musket for the issues raised because for 30ish shots it would be quite quick and just as deadly. After that it would take much longer to reload, to the point of being kind of useless. Outside of that, It's main downside is that it requires tedious maintenance to function, which isn't presently modeled.

Muskets can get about 3 shots off a minute, if you're decent at it. But it's pretty inaccurate, and armor designed for it was very effective, if heavy and expensive. It was only really good used by massed formations against other massed formations. Which means in present game, it wouldn't be very good anyway.

I think the future inclusion of bows has all the issues of muskets. For one, if you have a finite amount of people, you're going to be at a disadvantage if everyone in your group doesn't have some sort of ranged weapon. Bows are just as deadly as muskets against enemies, especially lightly armored ones, which is most of them at this point. They fire faster than muskets to boot. The only difference is that bows require much more training to be deadly.

All that being said, If Chris decides that muskets don't fit with his image of the game, I'm totally fine with that. But I don't believe that muskets would be anymore disruptive to the game as it is now than bows are going to be.

[iSuck345]

The thing is the actual air rifle itself is that it could fire faster between shots while it had air in the reservoir. It would, if anything, be worse than the musket for the issues raised because for 30ish shots it would be quite quick and just as deadly. After that it would take much longer to reload, to the point of being kind of useless. Outside of that, It's main downside is that it requires tedious maintenance to function, which isn't presently modeled.

Muskets can get about 3 shots off a minute, if you're decent at it. But it's pretty inaccurate, and armor designed for it was very effective, if heavy and expensive. It was only really good used by massed formations against other massed formations. Which means in present game, it wouldn't be very good anyway.

I think the future inclusion of bows has all the issues of muskets. For one, if you have a finite amount of people, you're going to be at a disadvantage if everyone in your group doesn't have some sort of ranged weapon. Bows are just as deadly as muskets against enemies, especially lightly armored ones, which is most of them at this point. They fire faster than muskets to boot. The only difference is that bows require much more training to be deadly.

All that being said, If Chris decides that muskets don't fit with his image of the game, I'm totally fine with that. But I don't believe that muskets would be anymore disruptive to the game as it is now than bows are going to be.

Musquets are more deadly than bows actually. The shots carry substances that can poison the body and the musquets penetrated through shields and armour with ease. This led to a reduction of armour and no more shields, because the musquets could easelly beat them. The armour could only be used against swords and was adapted to the weaker swords after that. With enough training, one person can be deadlier than an archer himself. Not only that, as muskets are easier to use and allow people to run faster, making them hard targets to hit.

[Ozark Tempses]

Yes, that's right but some peoples seems to think tthat when we mean firearms, it would be a AK-47 or a frag-grenade... Well, just try to look at MAB With Fire And Swords, and you will see that muskets and grenade might integrate really well. And even if firearms are implemented, I don't think Chris will do shit like giving you a Desert Eagle at the beginning. And finally, even if he does not implement guns, someone will, and if you are not satisfied with that, do it yourself !!!

[Clawdius Talonious]

Musquets are more deadly than bows actually. The shots carry substances that can poison the body and the musquets penetrated through shields and armour with ease.

Arrows can be deliberately poisoned with a variety of things, that could do anything from diminish your capacity to fight to incapacitate you in short order. As far as I know muskets weren't used to deliberately poison people, it was primarily infection that would set in after battle. As far as direct damage, muskets are able to splinter bone and do massive damage with one shot, arrows tend to do less damage, but more of them can be shot accurately in a shorter amount of time.

[iSuck345]

Musquets are more deadly than bows actually. The shots carry substances that can poison the body and the musquets penetrated through shields and armour with ease.

Arrows can be deliberately poisoned with a variety of things, that could do anything from diminish your capacity to fight to incapacitate you in short order. As far as I know muskets weren't used to deliberately poison people, it was primarily infection that would set in after battle. As far as direct damage, muskets are able to splinter bone and do massive damage with one shot, arrows tend to do less damage, but more of them can be shot accurately in a shorter amount of time.

I know that muskets were nto made to poison people. But seriously now, in an ambush which is supposed to have first muskets then people falling on the guys, muskets can weaken them quite alot, since their effect on the bones is immediate. And if they take a turtle formation with shields, then muskets will make short work of them.