Firearms?

[ireadam]

I THINK this has been suggested a few times, but I dont mean modern arms, or even flintlock or muskets, I'm talking matchlocks, like a Tanegashima (Japanese matchlock), they were really neat looking, and used by samurai, which the game seems to be loosely based on, but in a post apoc sense?

[Nephos]

I thought the samurai got owned by people with guns...
Whatever, seems cool, but I don't think Chris has any intention of adding firearms, could be wrong though.

[Santaissick]

I think Chris has already refused to put muskets and black powder weapons to game...

[Scotterius]

You know I admit I was all ready for a snarky retort with all kinds of links and quotes with the answer. I was even coming up with a degrading punch line ...but by golly - I found nothing from Chris on the subject. He has talked about adding crossbows, bows and harpoon gun turrets...but not guns so much. I was under the impression that Kenshi was to be gun powder free...but I cant kind find anything authoritative on it. I think I remember him bemoaning finding a way to excuse robotic limbs in a pre-gun-technology era...but I could not find it.

I agree with you. Primitive firearms would be a charming addition...especially if they fired really slow and were really innacurate. Firing them in mass would be more fun than crossbows in my opinion, and the end result is the same from a mechanic perspective. Chris is will likely try out a lot of ideas, firearms might be one.

I thought the samurai got owned by people with guns...

Well, could be said for any culture that has faced guns. I.E. : 'American Army Rangers got owned by people with guns...'

Generally, what most people think of 'Katana's were developed later than what most people think, this being the 1600s, the Edo period. Before then the blades were much shorter or forged differently. So yes they were developing the forging techniques when the west was developing the flintlock.

[Snake956]

Firearms would be too much in the game for me. We already have the post-apocalyptic ambiance where real modern civilisation has been destroyed and we are back with the art of fighting with sword.

Adding guns will simply leave the current context and could easily be overpower. We should stay with crossbow.

[Krowe]

I feel like bows/crossbows might be enough for me. I know harpoon guns are listed in the skills, and depending on if they are rubber powered or pneumatically powered; that could open a few windows.

[Scotterius]

Adding guns will simply leave the current context and could easily be overpower.

Its not simple. Most of the modern Japanese sword fighting techniques developed in the age of fire arms, during the Edo period. So the kind of sword play that we see in Kenshi existed along side of firearms historically. A primitive matchlock would fit in as well as a slender long bow to me. They have cool smoke effects and are noisy too.

Steel crossbows and composite bows (while not Japanese) hit really hard, and might even be more accurate than smooth bore early firearms...thus more powerful. I kind of doubt a harpoon gun turret would be weak ( it will be cool though).

[ireadam]

If no firearms, maybe we could have at least a fire lance?


These are some pretty crazy things, if you want to read about them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance

[Snake956]

yeah, but dont forget the game is in a post-apocaliptic environment with robotic component available in stores.

[Mattk50]

for gameplay's sake i'd say no. firearms tend to be far less interesting than melee combat especially for the purpose of a game like kenshi thats kind a RTSy. I'd also say they are less interesting than bows and whatnot.

[Cat_Fuzz]

I wouldn't really mind if they were added, but I'd prefer it if they didn't make an appearance - just for style alone, it's nice to see a game without guns being added to it.

If they were added, however, there should be one kind of rifle, and it should be incredibly rare to find.

[iSuck345]

As soon as I saw this, I was like "OMFG NOOOOOOOOOOO", but I prefer to say it this way: Kenshi is supposed to be kinda hard and I believe that ANY firearms wold make it easy or too hard. Harpoon guns are supposed to substitue ALL the firearms I think, no matter how basic and weak they are. So there you have my opinion.

[Blxz]

What scotterius said, there has been no real definitive answer from Chris yet, at least not that i recall right now. I remember a long while back when i was newish there was a fairly large thread that talked about guns a bit. In the end I don't think they are impossible to have but they would be difficult to make and balance.

If they were made so inaccurate that only massed volleys would be effective then I can see warfare evolving in a very specific direction where numbers win (much like many pre-napoleonic armies). But that may not be the direction chris wants the game to go in.

If the weapons were more accurate then the damage would need to be balanced which makes them unrealistic when people take multiple shots and keep walking.

If some sort of middle ground was acheived where they were powerful but inaccurate BUT were so incredibly hard to make and then supply with material/powder that only a huge faction could actually do this...then I can see some sort of utility in this. If well balanced/designed then there could acctually be a gradual shift in warfare in the game world over time as factions or the player slowly manage to get some sort of production chain set up and to gradually arm larger and larger numbers of soldiers. Again, this may not be the direction chris wants the game to go.

[Scotterius]

Kenshi is supposed to be kinda hard and I believe that ANY firearms wold make it easy or too hard. Harpoon guns are supposed to substitue ALL the firearms I think, no matter how basic and weak they are. So there you have my opinion.

(harpoon guns have only been mentioned as turrets, but yes...you might be right and they would fit the firearm niche without the resulting prejudice)

As far as balance goes, firearms are no harder to balance than bows or harpoon guns. No one is asking for an Heckler & Koch G36. Historically there was a time when bows, cross bows, tachi swords and firearms existed together. For a long time long bows were far more powerful, cross bows and firearms were just quicker and cheaper to train. It was economics more than effectiveness that powered the gunpowder revolution.

There is a prejudice against the idea though. the idea kind of triggers an unwarranted knee jerk reaction, because gun fighters just kill sword fighters...right? Or maybe once firearms are added every one has to wear them and I cant run around with a sword and full plate anymore. I can see where you are coming from, I felt it too. I also think that this nonrational argument is the most rational reason to not include them. I might be less conservative than many of you, I would like to try something new and single-shot, smooth-bore firearms sound very exciting.

I see them as being a low teir equalizer. Anyone can incapacitate with them, but they cant control what they hit. This makes them less dangerous than bows, unless they are fielded in mass. An elite squad would use more accurate weapons or close to melee where they can do serious damage.

[Cat_Fuzz]

[quote="Scotterius")
(harpoon guns have only been mentioned as turrets, but yes...you might be right and they would fit the firearm niche without the resulting prejudice)

As far as balance goes, firearms are no harder to balance than bows or harpoon guns. No one is asking for an Heckler & Koch G36. Historically there was a time when bows, cross bows, tachi swords and firearms existed together. For a long time long bows were far more powerful, cross bows and firearms were just quicker and cheaper to train. It was economics more than effectiveness that powered the gunpowder revolution.

There is a prejudice against the idea though. the idea kind of triggers an unwarranted knee jerk reaction, because gun fighters just kill sword fighters...right? Or maybe once firearms are added every one has to wear them and I cant run around with a sword and full plate anymore. I can see where you are coming from, I felt it too. I also think that this nonrational argument is the most rational reason to not include them. I might be less conservative than many of you, I would like to try something new and single-shot, smooth-bore firearms sound very exciting.

I see them as being a low tier equalizer. Anyone can incapacitate with them, but they cant control what they hit. This makes them less dangerous than bows, unless they are fielded in mass. An elite squad would use more accurate weapons or close to melee where they can do serious damage.[/quote]

I agree that what you are saying is a valid point - this would discern those who fancy being a lone gunman, as this would prove to be an ineffective tactic. But when you say that the only way around this would be to have more people with guns, surely the game would then boil down to "whoever has the most people wins".

The only other way around this would be if you'd make guns rare to gather and craft - but some of these materials should be incredibly rare and be unable to be harvested. Making all the materials come from renewable resources would just mean players (and probably AI) B-Line for those resource areas, and I could see the game growing stale when someone else (either you or the AI) get there first.

And, whilst the game is still in its infancy and could change, there are seperate skills for turrets and harpoon guns.

[iSuck345]

Even thought Kenshi has major oriental influence, it'snot in Japan (not saying that you are saying that it's set in Japan, but it looks like everyone is thinking like that and putting Japan as the reason of their ideas). Even though the Japanese have used basic firearms in the feudal times, I still like kenshi the way it is: Post Apocalyptic, hard & realistic. Adding firearms there will just make it look a bit ridiculous.

[Scotterius]

Even thought Kenshi has major oriental influence, it'snot in Japan

I think overlooking Medieval Japan as an analogue is silly. It is the only example of where some of these sword fighting ideas existed. It grew out of a bubble of imperial imposed isolation that saw tropes impossible anywhere else in the world. Its why Japan was so unsuccessful with it's warrior techniques when compared to the Mongols. It's why you cant think of another medieval army that fought without shields. (well I cant at least)

Firearms was a part of that. Now, I think that cross bows could be used to exactly the same effect. I just think that firearms are a more interesting alternative. Mining sulfur, refining potassium nitrate are important aspects that require a little more sophistication to be independent. It has the potential to be more of a dynamic driving element than say 'attaching string to a piece of wood'.

[EtherealNodachi]

At first, I thought guns would be cool in this game... But what happens when you're a 5-minute old character and you get gunned down in a hail of gunfire? Well, sure, you could make it so only big armies had guns, but then your favorite characters get killed with a relatively cheap tactic after ALLLL THAAAAT TRAAIIIINGIIINGGG AND EFFFOOOORRRRRTTTT. Plus, the only way to make gun (matchlock, I'm assuming in this scenario) tactics feasible would be to have maybe 10-20 people armed with them. If you accomplished that, surely to god it'd be tough for people to charge you at all. It'd get boring, and cheap. Plus the AI would be changed to use that same tactic, and that'd REALLY suck.

I really think this game NEEDS ranged weapons, but I think harpoons, or bows, or even just ninja stars or some other throwing weapons would be just fine. (grenades would be pretty great, but then the absence of guns would make less sense)

[Scotterius]

(grenades would be pretty great, but then the absence of guns would make less sense)

Hey, welcome to the forums!

I feel grenades would be terrible, you could loose your entire squad. I think cannons, grenades, and explosions are the strongest arguments against fire arms. I do think an element of your argument has merit, and that is the bit about charging into massed fire. Long bows are worse though, they hit just as hard and have a much faster rate of fire.

Here let me make your argument for you

• There is a huge prejudice against firearms, because they are seen as killing the age of chivalry. It sounds like this: 'If there are guns I cant sword fight anymore, I have to use guns. I want to use swords, so guns are bad.' While irrational, it is a rational reason to abandon firearms. Combined with the slippery slope of gunpowder technology (that will seriously threaten sword play, ie grenades, mortars, and cannons) it is difficult to imagine gunpowder in a game that rotates around swordplay.

While not a firearm in the traditional sense. Here is something interesting. An austrian air gun from 1790.

These things could fire a 50 caliber slug at 305ms. They gave off no muzzel flash, no smoke and were extremely quiet. See that enlarged stock? Its an compressed air tank. They were so demoralizing to Napoleon's troops, the weapons were banned for being 'terror weapons' breaking the rules of war. Napoleon had every Austrian caught with one executed (which might not be saying much, I dont know.)

Here are the pump up bits.

They played around with this idea again in world war 2. Here is another Austrian one. It is interesting because the only thing the user needed to supply for the operation of this gun was lead balls. Kind of like a super sling shot. This one has a bolt action, and more modern design...but it shows the concept.


Essentially, with these things you could have traditional looking Japanese and Chinese weapons without gunpowder. What do you think?

[EtherealNodachi]

I feel grenades would be terrible, you could loose your entire squad. I think cannons, grenades, and explosions are the strongest arguments against fire arms.

Thanks, Scott. Glad to be here.

And when I mentioned grenades, I was only thinking about their usefulness in damaging buildings or fortifications, not about how much damage you could recieve.

I'm honestly really stumped about gunpowder being used in the game. Perhaps they should only appear very late in the game, to allow yourself to adjust to anti-ranged tactics, or to get armor good enough to repel shot.

It sounds like bows or crossbows are pretty sure to get into the game, so it's entirely possible that a well planned archer ambush would take out a fair amount of musketmen, therefore making their volleys much less effective, or possibly useless. If you've heard or read anything the Yumi Samurai of old Japan, then you've probably heard they could fire off arrows pretty quickly, and with impressive accuracy. Besides, have you ever seen a Yumi bow? They're freaking gigantic. You can't tell me they didn't pack a punch.

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