Guys, I need some help. I'm making a story where the world

File: 13551679_434482063343307_709955580_n.jpg (29KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x480px

>4chan
>smart discussion

pick one

>>33027215
You haven't asked a question.

Also, the English longbow, employed en masse, was the best weapon in the world until the repeating rifle.

>>33027255
Ah, sorry. The question is, what would modern weaponry be like without the invention of guns, however, that may have happened, and if with guns, what downsides would they need to be considered inferior to bows or be made so that close combat, in general, is more viable than ranged.

>>33027255
Also, I am planning on keeping bows in my story. Taking them out would be ridiculous.

>>33027215
You're going to have to put the divergence pretty far back. Black powder small arms started showing up around 1300 in the middle east, and were fairly common sights in Europe by 1350. Powder-based siege weaponry shows up as early as 800. There's no easy way to just hand-wave guns out of an otherwise modern setting. The best you can do is stunt development, and even then the natural flow of arms development would only be held back by a few generations at best.

The main thing we need to know is why you need guns weakened in the setting. Its easier to build the bridge if you know whats on the other side of it.

>>33027344
Well, let's say that guns are on the same level of development as they were in let's say mid-1800's. Perhaps armour and shields could have developed way further? I am willing to accept guns in the story, as long as melee fights are still the main way of handling 1v1 fights. As far as I know, some revolvers had quite a short distance in the mid-1800's, making them more or less balanced to use in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just saying that the development of medieval weaponry and siege equipment would have evolved as well, so those would have to be taken into consideration as well.

Wow, this thread is already going way better than the one I posted in /his/.

File: saladin.jpg (107KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1280x720px

>>33027215
arms race between armor and weapons would come to the logical conclusion of shitloads pf piercing weapons. polearms and compound bows would dominate the battlefield. People would wear full body suits of armor that are made of exotic alloys that are both lightweight and strong. siege engines presumably made of fiber glass and other fancy bullshit would be a staple of modern warfare. and the biggest difference of all, cities would still have walls.

>>33027485
Alright, I'll be saving your post to my notes. Thank you for the response, and I would LOVE to hear more! What about the casual peasant and the regular mercenary? What would their gear be like?

>>33027376
If that's the way you're dealing with it, you could knock out a few key discoveries and end up with a weapon that's still somewhat useful, but not overwhelmingly powerful. However, you need to think of weapons development as an organic creature. If a niche exists, a weapon WILL evolve to fill it. You will need reasons as to why the niches advanced guns fill no longer exist.

>Conical bullets
Without conical bullets, range and accuracy are severely hindered. Simple softcast lead-ball projectiles suck at penetration, but hit like a sledgehammer. Perhaps weapon development went for heavier impacts -- trading accuracy and range for raw power and force of impact. The thing is speed, not mass, is what defeats armor; guns in setting would wreck soft targets but lose effectiveness against armor.

>Rifling
Without rifling to impart stabilization, range and accuracy take another significant hit. Maximum effective range to hit a man-sized target is about 75 yards with a smoothebore barrel and lead shot. It's worth noting that rifling was originally invented as an attempt to make guns work better between cleanings, the spin imparted was accidental. It's an easy innovation to miss.

>Self-contained cartridge
No matter how advanced the firing mechanism gets, a practical self loading weapon is impossible without modern cartridge technology. Reloading times will always be a hindrance.

>>33027503
another thing worth thinking about is whether or not chemical weapons developed. because if they did it would play a big role in conflicts.

>>33027522
>>33027527
Well in my story the world is still dominated with the medieval hierarchy, the King standing on top. Most likely chemical weapons would be allowed, which indeed does change things quite a bit. I'll have to research more on that.

My best idea for the story is that guns were simply developed a bit too late, meaning that the guns would dynamically evolve even during. the story. As a shitbag, I simply thought that guns could be weaker. But clearly, it is more about how easy they are to use, and how much more convenient they are. So what exactly would be the proper stage of guns to integrate into the story, where melee weapons, shields and armour are still viable?

File: 40k.jpg (184KB, 1378x1177px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1378x1177px

>>33027215

>>33027572
My wording is all over the place. I blame this on my fever, not on my carelessness.

>>33027577
I have indeed thought about looking into Warhammer 40k for reference, but it does seem a bit too sci-fi. However, it could have great ideas that I could take inspiration from.

>>33027284
Just look at the slingshot channel on youtube.

>>33027609
Thank you, I will.

>>33027594
the electrified weapons is interesting.

>>33027572
The general progression was

>Handgonne
Heavy as shit, and with no firing mechanism. It was basically a portable cannon you would light by hand with a matchfuse. Used in a relatively unchanged form for hundreds of years.
>Matchlock
Finally added a firing mechanism, but early ones were unreliable. Having a trigger instead of a touch-fuse meant that stocks became more important for stabilizing, greatly increasing accuracy. Often much smaller than handgonnes, seeing as actual accurate fire was more achievable. Still required a lit matchfuse, locking mechanisms developed and advanced over time, resulting in better reliability. Even late models were prone to misfire.
>Flintlock
Not having to carry a lit match goes leagues towards battlefield reliability. Mechanism is mechanically similar to matchlock, though a small amount of powder needs to be kept in the "pan" for the sparks to catch. There's always a chance the pan didn't ignite the main charge.
>Percussion cap.
This is what modern muzzle loading firearms are. Load the barrel, cock the hammer, place a primer on the nipple, pull the trigger. 0% chance of misfire unless you fuck up loading.

You could probably stick to late handgonne, in the early transition to matchlock.

>>33027707
So muskets, right?

>inb4 retar-d

>>33027215
hmm you haven't figured out a plausible way to make that work in a story?
lol i figured that out years ago are you a brainlet or something?
also the consequences of that would mean most fights would be CQB and more casualties your story is going to be stupid as all fuck if it's just gigantic armies getting slaughtered and not having any real effect as all the resources getting sucked up to make one army and the huge population hit means nothing it's just going to be a drab action flick of eye ball rolling scenes where people scoff "sure"

File: 13549943733519.gif (638KB, 330x186px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 330x186px

>>33027255
>the English longbow, employed en masse, was the best weapon in the world until the repeating rifle

>>33027733
As I said, initially I had planned to remove them completely. It is just one aspect after all, but I would like to find a proper solution rather than just remove one vital part of combat with no consequences.

>>33027255
>Also, the English longbow, employed en masse, was the best weapon in the world until the repeating rifle.
[laughter stops]

>>33027724
When most people think musket they're thinking of wheel-locks, a late model of the flintlock style of firing mechanism. Muskets weren't really a thing until the 1650s, and by then they were already dominating the battlefield.

>>33027376
>mid-1800's
>melee fights are still the main way of handling 1v1 fights
Melee fights were far from the main way of handling 1v1 fights in 1800's. Also, if you like bows, you should be more concerned about crossbows than guns.

>>33027769
>wheel-locks, a late model of the flintlock style
Wut?

>>33027769
Alright, thank you. I'll start researching on handgonnes and matchlocks, then start thinking of how to make them work in this given setting.

>>33027402
You can also post one on /tg/

>>33027777
n-nice quads?

Yes, crossbows are a problem as well. I could just make crossbows replace guns, but that would seem lazy.

>>33027787
Should I really?

>>33027748
Yes I understand what you mean that's why I'm taunting you because I've had the same exact idea of the knight story and thinking of how to get rid of guns. It's honestly rather simple.
Story development around fighting is stupid as fuck though it's really boring in writing and projectiles are an easy way to have a battle end realistically (e.g. retreat) without a bunch of people being killed and adding useless cannon fodder characters.

>>33027793
You also should take into consideration that if armour is as advanced and available as this anon >>33027485 suggests, then what's the point of bows? There is no handheld range weaponry except firearms that can pierce late plate armour. Although you could make a very powerful crossbow, reloading it would probably require an engine.

>Should I really?
Why not? They like this sort of stuff there.

>>33027820
The fights will not be the main attraction, but I would prefer melee over range because of the psychological stuff that I just LOVE to write about. And melee fights, in my opinion, are more fun to write, though I wouldn't mind adding in guns to give it an extra layer.

Chainswords and ballistic fists.

Need I say more?

Oh, Also taser shields for when you need to crush someone's face in AND electrocute them for getting in your grill.

>>33027907
>Need I say more?
Yeah. Like, how is a chainsword a viable concept?

>>33027907
Would melee weaponry have developed to such a point? it sounds a bit more sci-fi than modern, really. But, I'll still take those into consideration.

>>33027862
it's so dry to read though, the only decent fighting literature I've ever found interesting was in Vampire the Masquerade. There really isn't a lot of psychological stuff you can dig into about that junk.
Fighting is one of those things that's fun to watch but it's kind of boring rubbish to read. Like it doesn't really do anything to advance a story.

>>33027255
>Also, the English longbow, employed en masse, was the best weapon in the world until the repeating rifle.


which is why every single european nation apart from England used the crossbow?

and the english had to impose taxation and mandatory training to ensure proficiency with it to match the crossbow?

No.
The longbow was not the "best weapon in the world". In fact, it had been abandoned by the end of the 16th century for all those important little details of war like logistics, infrastructure, and ease of learning which you forgot.

>>33027932
It could be a personal bias as well. More often than not, a fight will have lots of feelings attached to them. What also matters is, why are these two people fighting, and what are the stakes? I do agree that writing detailed fight scenes is not easy and can be dry, which is why I'm considering if I should add in mental powers that function through computers attached to one's brain. Still a very raw concept, but one that can be developed and not necessarily added in. I like to compare these brain programs to Stands in JoJo's, as you could have a dangerous and terrifying power like erasing time from your opponents mind, but you'd still just be a mortal human. If this concept could enhance the fights in your opinion, let me know.

>>33027736
It was though. Battle of agincourt proved it. Melee has been obsolete for many hundreds of years.

If you don't think that's true, what was the best weapon in the world in the 1400-1800s?

>>33028051
>It was though. Battle of agincourt proved it.

In which case the battle of Verneuil disproves it, as there the english archers were decimated, ridden down by the french knights and man-at-arms, who were able to complete their charge and slaughter the English archers.

Its almost like Agincourt was a victory because the sodden land conditions were atrocious for cavalry, or something...

>>33027215

Your idea is shit. Guns were an inevitability at some point or other.

>>33028180
>doesn't listen to given reasons and alternatives
ok :^)

>>33027941
There's also the little detail that flintlocks already surpassed all non-firearm ranged weapons long before repeating rifles appeared.

>>33028051
Okay, you're probably trolling, but I don't mind answering.

>Battle of agincourt
But not answering to memes, sorry.

>Melee has been obsolete for many hundreds of years
In the 1400's? It wasn't. It wasn't obsolete in the 1600's and it started to get obsolete in the 1700's. However, even in the Napoleonic wars melee was very important, cavalry was still used extensively and it relied on melee. Only by the time of the Crimean War melee had become more or less obsolete. And then, that's only true for Europe, in the Indian Mutiny melee was as important as ever. It wasn't until WWI that it was truly evident that melee is a thing of the past.

>what was the best weapon in the world in the 1400-1800s?
That's a very long period.

>1400's
Lance, pike, warhammer, crossbow or longbow.

>Early 1500's
Lance, pike or halberd, warhammer, crossbow, arquebus or longbow.

>Late 1500's
Lance, halberd, warhammer, musket.

>1600's
Musket, lance, halberd.

>1700's
Musket.

>Early 1800's
Musket.

>>33027215
Well, guns are a byproduct of advancements in chemistry, metallurgy and industry, and you're gonna have a hard time selling a story where a modern world evolved to our 2017 age with computers and shit without firearms. Kinda like if you'd want to have 2017 tech without cars and internal combustion engines, and modern medicine, this shit just falls flat and kills people's suspension of disbelief. The entirety of human history is fragile as fuck up until about 1950s, taking out anything shits on pretty much everything else.

Either go with a cultural approach "1v1 swords only faget no dishonorabru" or go with some personal energy shields that can stop small projectiles but can't deflect a sword/axe.
Or place your story way back in 1500s.

>>33027215
>I'm making a story where the world has evolved to our modern age without guns dominating the battlefield in the early 1700's (I think?)
Set it in the sandlot.

>>33028282
Well, I would need to work more on the culture then. I'm not sure how well people would stick to customs, so psychology will need to be researched as well.

>>33028282
>>33028321

Continuation to what I just said because I am a fagetti, guns still should be less viable to make certain aspects work, so I wouldn't rely solely on just the honour part.

>>33027255
>Also, the English longbow, employed en masse, was the best weapon in the world until the repeating rifle.
>It was though. Battle of agincourt proved it. Melee has been obsolete for many hundreds of years.
Une date, 18 Juin 1429...

>>33028337
Yeah, in my opinion if you relied only on the honour part it would be even less believable.

File: IMG_3886.jpg (59KB, 591x591px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 591x591px

>>33028227
>WWI
>Melee a thing of the past
Lol ok

>>33028481
Yeah, I didn't say it didn't happen, also bayonets were a standard thing for a rifle in the WWII and even later, but all those are just last resort measures. If you look at the statistics, the casualties in the melee were a fraction of a percent of all casualties.

>>33028002
so basically you'd put the cyberpunk game "Syndicate" agents - into a medieval knight story?

it is rather personal bias. I often find fighting rather pointless mainly because of the motivations for it it's typically just senseless and most people would go out of their way to avoid it even if there was some huge pressing concern for it to happen.

>>33028051
most of them got stuck in the mud, tied up, then executed with daggers.

>>33028321
>>33028337
actually a sci fi thing making most fighting with guns irrelevant could probably work pretty well. I mean if you're already at a point with sophisticated computers and such most people are going to be more concerned about lawyer and judicial preceding than actual fighting

>>33028481
Trench knives didn't contribute a significant portion of the casualties though, you dimwit. Are you saying you'd charge across open ground at a machine gun nest with one of those? That you wouldn't rather have a rifle if put in that terrible situation? Jesus, dude.

>>33027215
>writing a story
>I know fuck all about the subject
hmm

>>33029441
That's what we call research.