How different would early guns be in a fantasy setting? Would

Depends entirely on what you want them to be.

Firearms coexisted with most fantasy staples for a long long time, so there's no reason their introduction would immediately warp the entire setting around them, especially if they're rare, expensive and not mass produced.

>>54426369
>Would line infantry still be a thing with magic and monsters around?

Line infantry were still a thing with guns and cannons and grapeshot and explosive shrapnel around...

>>54426369
Draph are love.

>>54426442

When both sides used it. It wasn't so good when other side didn't give a fuck. Look at Brits vs Afghans.

>>54426369
>Would line infantry still be a thing with magic and monsters around?
No. War would've evolved into squad tactics long before guns came on the scene, if they ever do.

>>54426651
Depends on how common those things are, melee weapons and squad tactics aren't very compatible with each other. So in a world with magic being a rare thing, it'd be more or less the same as real life.

I can't see line infantry being a thing if races like goblins or elves with a lot of archery are around.

>>54426400

They would really reduce importance of large monsters.

>>54427681

Why? That doesn't logically follow at all.

>>54426516
Draph are life

>>54427800

Because gunpowder weapons can kill them much easier?

>>54426522
Brits won every pitched battle, despite having unrifled weapons...

losing the occasional grunt only qualifies as defeat to modern Americans.

>>54428492

Is an assumption you are making which is not implicitly true.

>>54427681
Gunpowder is better at punching monsters than mook muscles. Gunpowder can do it from a bigger radius than bows, which increases the number of units that can target the monster. And gunpowder has a smaller logistical train than archery, so the bigger, more powerful army is now also better supplied.

>>54428582

All of which relies on assumptions that might not necessarily be true.

>>54428580

Are you stupid? Cannons will kill giants much easier than catapults ever could. Not even mentioning stuff like falconets.

Gunpowder is a game changer.

>>54428704

What assumptions? Those are facts.

>>54428730

Those are facts in reality, yes.

That they will apply equally and absolutely in a fantasy setting is an assumption you are making.

>>54428713

Gunpowder is only a gamechanger if you make it one. Stop putting your biases and assumptions before the premise. Just because things work one way in our world does not necessarily mean they must function identically in a fantasy world, even if they are superficially similar.

File: ballista (1).jpg (35KB, 600x347px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x347px

>>54428713

That said, it is very stupid to attack a monster with a sword. Why would you ever bother with it? Pikes would be an extreme case. It makes far more sense to attack big beast with siege weapons like ballistas and cannons.

>>54428803

Because you are in a heroic setting, not a realistic one.

Heroic settings have different rules. Heroes kill giant monsters with personal scale melee weapons, because that is how the world works. Siege weapons manned by faceless mooks get obliterated without doing much good, although a hero using one can get something done.

>>54428752

Why the fuck would gunpowder work different in a fantasy world? And worse on top of that? If anything alchemists could make it better.

>>54428828
>every fantasy must be super heroic

Go away.

>>54428842

Because whether it works the same, or better, or worse, is something that whoever is creating the world can define as they wish. You were making the assumption of absolute equivalency, which is not necessarily true.

And of all the many reasons why you would change it, restrict it and limit it? This thread started out with one of the best ones- If you want gunpowder to be an element without dominating the setting. Adapting the laws of the world, the setting and such to that end is entirely understandable.

File: thdos-trailer02-083.jpg (701KB, 1920x799px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 1920x799px

>>54428828

There are plenty fantasy settings where you do most of the damage against dragons with the help of siege weapons.

>>54428862

I'm not saying every fantasy has to be. I'm just saying they can be.

>>54428842
>Why the fuck would gunpowder work different in a fantasy world?

Works a SHIT tonne worse in the Iron Kingdoms setting. Which is why guns have such short ranges/.

>>54428828
That's your assumption, and many settings don't share it.

>>54428972

Absolutely. But I stated my assumptions, while the post I replied to failed to do so, seeming to be making a general point that is not true in all cases.

File: Cucouroux_A.png (119KB, 960x800px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 960x800px

>>54426369
Posting cuter sister

It was handled nicely in Pillars of Eternity and Arcanum (lore-wise that is).

Peasants now have a fighting chance against monsters lurking in the woods, and the power gap between spellcasters and normal people is lessened greatly.

>>54428582
>>54428713

Every one of these arguements can also be made for ballistas, which commonly exist in these fantasy settings without the giants and trolls going extinct.

Indeed, I can think of a number of reasons why bringing cannons to fight a dragon would be an idea that sounds good on paper but in practice ends up with your army killed by its own gunpowder.

File: Picture_053.jpg (836KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 1280x960px

>>54429503
Swivel-guns loaded with shot would be incredibly useful.

A dragon that proportioned in a way where it'd be physically possible for it to fly is not a tough target. Lead shot will do a number on it.

>>54429503

Early guns wouldn't be that good against fast flying targets.

But against things like giants or trolls they would be super effective.

>>54429623

Assuming that kind of realism has a place in the setting, maybe.

If the Dragon is, however, as fast and maneuverable as they're often depicted, as well as tough, it might have a lot of problems.

>>54429623
Gun against a dragon is fair game.
Dragon with a gun not so much.

>>54429623
I always wondered, what's the rigger mechanism on swivel guns?

>>54429646
>Assuming that kind of realism has a place in the setting, maybe.
Personal preference, but I really enjoy that kind of realism.

>>54429671
I don't think black powder guns would be all that useful for a dragon other than against other dragons. Grenades though could be incredibly useful - a dragon could swoop in fast and low to minimize the risk of getting then drop a cast iron ball full of powder right into infantry formations.

Dragon(s) on their own couldn't handle a large scale battle, but with human or human-equivalent allies on their side in a combined arms army they would be be a brutally effective cavalry/artillery of sorts.

>>54429735
A slow match on a stick in all likelihood.

File: QUETZALCOATLUS.jpg (36KB, 600x598px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x598px

>>54429623
>A dragon that proportioned in a way where it'd be physically possible for it to fly
Congratulations, you've killed off all dragons due to such a thing not being possible. There is a reason Quetzalcoatlus (the largest flying animal) looks nothing like a dragon.

>>54429884
They'd basically have to either be living hot air balloons, or have some of the most ridiculous muscles and wingspan imaginable

>>54429623
On the other hand, a dragon from most pop culture and myth would be as protected as plate against early firearms, they ain't giving a shit about lower power shot with more balls.

This also gets into fighting intelligent dragons who will figure out very quickly how to ruin a gunpowder equipped army's day. You think people spiking your guns and wetting your powder is bad as a sneak attack? Dragon just pulled a high altitude dive on a cloudy night, blew your powder store, and melted your guns.

Now where powder would be useful against an intelligent dragon is as a sneak attack on its lair. Just dynamite the cave down on top of it as it sleeps.

>>54429884
I know of those. It's however a false assumption that something larger would necessarily be unable to fly - it could simply be that the evolutionary path to such a creature is extremely unlikely.

I mean it would have to take flight from a knuckle-running start or from a cliff.

>>54430100
Dude, quetzalcoatlus pushes the boundaries of what's possible on Earth. It's literally a matter of balancing the required musculature vs ability to get off the ground reasonably, and jumping off cliffs just isnt reasonable.

Evolution is pretty good at finding the optimal shape and design for boundary conditions, and quetzalcoatlus and its relatives are pretty much it for large flying creatures that aren't magical.

>>54428862

How about you suck a dick. Not every fantasy setting has to be these "gritty low magic settings" where magic is so rare but there are magic users fucking everywhere.

>>54428828
And why your shiny gunpowder siege weapons would fare better than balistas and what not?
After all, genre staples and all that

>>54430415

People like you are the exact reason gunpowder never works in fantasy games. One fucking chemical reaction and suddenly the whole setting better obey whatever you think physics should be, or so help you god you will never let anyone forget it.

Everyone uses swords and bows? Its fantasy, its fine.

Someone, somewhere, made gunpowder once? [15 pages of autistic pop science arguements]

Every. Fucking. Time.

>>54430506
It's not like guns would be immediately practical for "adventuring" types anyway. Early firearms were useful in the military sense because of firing lines, but when it's just you and a few other guys I think it wouldn't really be a huge improvement over the standard fantasy character equipment since generally monsters aren't something that die in one shot (without some sort of "magical quick loading" element anyway). It would probably just be a thing used to open a fight or in a pinch

>>54430506
Dude, I run Pathfinder, where there is a literal gunslinger class. These are revolvers and such, more advanced than the simple firearms of the late medieval period. Guns don't matter to me. I'm just trying to correct that fucknugget on his expectations of what is possible without magic, If he wants sizable dragons, he's going to have to suspend certain ideas about "realistic" physics to have them be possible.

For me at least, 7foot tall dragonmen wielding large guns to fight off the rampaging behemoths that plague their empire due to the god of destruction spawning lesser versions of it self is my jam, and features heavily in the setting.

>>54430654

This is the thing that kills me. Everyone is willing to speculate with total realism how guns would steam roll fantasy settings with no thought of what happens when that technology is equally accessible to the fantasy races.

What do you do when you have giants walking around with Rotary guns you normally have to mount on vehicles and they are carrying them like rifles? What happens when trolls burst through the walls with shotguns and knives and are tanking bullets with their regeneration?

>>54430877
People've got some weird blindspot when it comes to firearms in fantasy settings. They think Gunpowder has to be some magical material that slowly turns the setting from High Fantasy to Low Fantasy. Personally I blame the games and books that claim that the rise of technology meant that magic got it's ass kicked

>>54428713
What if the Giants have cannons too?

>>54430877

Eh. I think it makes sense that intelligent races with good hand-eye coordination and dexterity would invent firearms of any description. A troll or many giants just wouldn't have the intelligence nor inclination to patiently work out gunpowder.

And even if they up and steal someone else's weapons, seeing them use them would be the exception considering they'd need to know how they work without blowing themselves up and where to find more shot and powder ...

... And most creatures that are both intelligent, and have full ability to invent and craft firearms - But aren't humanoid? Well, often they've got all sorts of other potent abilities, magical or not, that they don't really need guns t

>>54429382
Repeating early firearms like this often get downplayed in fantasy systems so much.

They existed since early days of firearms they were just too expensive for common soldiers. For rich adventurers they would be perfectly affordable.

>>54430095

Anon, armies without gunpowder would be even less effective vs dragons.

At least against an army with anti air falkonets he would need to be really careful.

>>54431145

Battles turn into artillery duels?

>>54430877
>>54431046
It's part of the HFY mental disease that /tg/ suffers. Real world tech is only ever a boon for humans because it makes us seem more impressive, thus strokes our epeen.

>>54431312
I wasn't making an argument in defense of a regular army either, everything is fucked against a dragon. This is how it should be, killing a dragon is the stuff of legends after all.

>>54430616

Adventuring types used them in reality. Nothing is stopping you from walking around with 4 loaded pistols.

>>54431387
Eh, I don't think I'd agree, because the addition of guns in fiction that insists that it changes the meta rarely portrays it as a good thing.

>>54430877

To make guns you need industry. You need industry to make bullets and gunpowder too. And the likes of trolls are too dumb to operate guns.

>>54431457

As long as their function and support absolutely obeys the same rules as the real world. Which is not implicitly the case.

Warhammer always had guns. Including experimental repeating guns.

And I don't remember people crying about it or claiming it destroys fantasy.

Guns are a problem in D&D because slow firing weapons simply don't work well in D20.

>>54431470

Anon, laws of physics are the same in 99% of fantasy. For settings where everything farts magic this discussion is pointless anyways.

>>54431470

Where exactly do guns work completely different than they do in reality? Because in all settings I know they are the same.

>>54431145
Then the Giants are always gonna win. They can carry heavy artillery with them. If you introduce realistic cannons into a setting with evil, intelligent monsters, human settlements are gonna cease to be a thing.

Fantasy guns are incredibly underrated. Try to tell me that swords are cooler than shit like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_hnC6x036Q

>>54432417

Humans have numbers and industry to support those numbers.

Giants are also giant targets.

>>54432976
Giants can use enough armour to stop anything short of a big cannon. Because giant giants are giant.
Also, Orcs outnumber people by a lot.
I wonder how ant-man would fare with firearms... Mad discipline yo

>>54430877

Forget giants. What about the fucking ELVES?

Assume for the sake of argument that the generally more advanced elvish civilization didn't invent this shit in the first place, its only a matter of time before Superior Elvish Craftsmanship (tm) means that your traditional elvish archers who can fire 5 arrows on a single draw evolve into Elvish Muskateers that play a game where they see how many people they can kill with a single musket ball by curving the path of the bullet. Because with the stereotypical elvish keen eyes and whatnot, the elves WILL be excellent fucking shots.

Do you really want Legolas "They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard!" son of Thranduil to to have a sniper rifle whose range can keep up with his eyesight? Cause that's going to happen.

I actually am enjoying the entire thought of where warfare would go. Racial kingdoms would give way to multi-racial empires. Dwarfs for siege, sapping, production, maintenance and mountain warfare. Elves from sharpshooting, skirmishing, and scouting. Gnomes could put their illusion skills to awesome effect as they throw off enemy intelligence. Orc/Ogre/Giant shock troops and grenadiers! Bugbear/Gnoll ambushers! Goblin/Kobold Sappers! Hobgoblin and Human line troops! Hell, Half-orcs are probably grabbed as much as possible for guard units. Halfling irregulars and cooks of course. Wyvern, Griffon, Dragon, ect. ect. air corps. I mean, it goes on and on.

>>54433155
Guns prevailed because they are cheap and easy and could outrange bows in the field.
But bows were arguably superior to early guns in many ways, they just weren't worth it. Except when they were: Mounted archers being a nice example, coexisting with guns for a long time before finally taking the gun up the horse.

Elves live a lot, train a lot, move fast and tend to be quality > quantity. Can't see a gun being better for them than a bow.

>>54433155

Yes, yes I do actually.

I want the dwarves who roll out a massive gatling gun with each barrel carefully hand crafted and set into a rotary mechanism that resembles a dragons head while they feed belts of bullets into the thing while another dude is cranking it full bore.

I want the one human who's gone crazy and lives out in the woods and only shows up in town to buy more lead so he can smelt them into bullets and trade the various monsters he kills for shit.

I want fucking orc pirates who had his hand cut off and decided to pull a Guts and has a small cannon in place of a hook because fuck you captain bitch ass wig wearing boy molesting fruit, have some grape shot.

>>54433155
Yeah, good luck keeping up with the increased fatality in combat with that long as fuck life cycle.

>>54433075

How do they get the metal and how are they turning it into armor? Do they make giant forges?

And can you even imagine orcs calmly loading early guns?

>>54433633
>orcs calmly loading early guns?
No, if I was their commander I would give them a brace of pistols and send them off for an old Highland Charge. Hobgoblins are your line troops dude.

>>54433075

Why do orcs outnumber people, though? Unless they control an enourmous territory, orcs should be inferior in number to races that farm.

>>54433859
Orcs do farm. They farm mushrooms, which they also ferment into beer, and they raise squigs as livestock. They also reproduce asexually by releasing spores on death. That's a huge advantage and why they can attain such high numbers

>>54433633
>Do they make giant forges?
Why not? They often have a culture, weapons, etc.

>>54433936

You're thinking of Orks

>>54433859
Orcs (or some other kind of non-human barbarian horde) outnumbering everyone is a fantasy stable.

>>54434004

Orcs in Lord of the Rings do because they are industrious and Mordor is very fertile. Orcs in warhammer do because they are fungous. Otherwise, it is rarely explained.

The Mongols, for example, never relied on superior numbers to win their battles.

>>54434649
So what? (hint: firearms don't mean realism, or change of genre)

File: 5sbcjegEv1rk4kk5o5_500.jpg (28KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 460x276px

>Boromir would of recaptured Minas Morgul if his men could fire 5 volleys per minute

>>54428828
>heroic settings can't be realistic

Get a load of Buzz-kill Aldrin over here!

>>54435182

Wilful misunderstandings aren't clever, anon.

>>54433155
This is why in my setting elves are Prussian Mercenaries who are rightly feared skirmishers and Jagers because of their exceedingly well crafted rifles (actual rifles, minie ball ammunition, while everyone else is using muskets), and literally centuries of experience. The only thing keeping them from being the major power is their lack of numbers, which is why they work as mercenaries for everyone so no one wants to be on their bad side.

Their rifles are enchanted to destroy themselves if a non-elf tries to fire them or take them apart

>>54433459
So Warhammer Fantasy
>>54433663
I give the orcs blunderbus' with a big old bayonet on the bottom

>>54429382
The older sister is the cutest

>>54429623
Swivel cannons wouldn't do dick to an Ancient Red Dragon. They have +33 natural armor (to give you a comparison, a set of the highest quality steel full plate armor is +8. On top of this they have Damage Reduction 15 against all mundane weaponry. You'd have an easier time killing a dragon with an enchanted ballista than you would a swivel gun.

>A dragon that proportioned in a way where it'd be physically possible for it to fly is not a tough target

That's not really a dragon then.

>>54429984
>or have some of the most ridiculous muscles and wingspan imaginable

An ancient red dragon has 39 strength. In comparison, Solar's, literal ANGELS that protect and serve as the guardians of actual GODS, have a strength of 29. Welcome to D&D mother fucker.

>>54435215
>misunderstandings

He literally just separated heroic fantasy and realistic fantasy into two different categories. How did I misunderstand him?

>>54435344

Because you're showing your ignorance of what those terms mean. It's about the fundamental conceits and assumptions of the setting. At no point is it implied that heroism is impossible in realistic settings.

File: Geronimo and a group of his followers.jpg (144KB, 882x600px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 882x600px

>>54431457
>To make guns you need industry. You need industry to make bullets and gunpowder too.

>>54431457

A bunch of Duergar could totally churn out guns and arm dangerous, high-level monsters with them.

In fact, Gracklestug is basically a colossal gun factory in my main setting.

>>54435364
>ignorance of what those terms mean

>It's about the fundamental conceits and assumptions of the setting.

So what you're saying is you have no idea what those terms mean then? Heroic does not imply at all about anything he was saying in his post, heroism by definition just means "great bravery", while also describing such things as "noble" and "self-sacrificial", so again, wrong and wrong.

Even by his own terms as he laid out (which were incorrect to begin with) he was wrong. So who am I misunderstanding, really? Because I sure as shit aren't misunderstanding you. The only reasonable conclusion is that the "realism" he was describing could also include heroic attributes.

>>54433993
Orks are just WHF Orcs in space.

>>54435476

Context is everything, and if you're going to flagrantly ignore it to try and save face, you're not worth talking to. Fuck, it's even spelled out in the post you're bitching about.

Heroic fantasy implies mythological storytelling, focusing on classical themes, over the top characters with less emphasis on authentic or accurate historical details. D&D has tended towards heroic fantasy more and more over its lifespan, with 5e being the first real step backwards in that regard. Realistic fantasy, by contrast, strives for more of that authenticity and realism. But all of this should be blatantly obvious if you actually read the thread or, fuck, the bloody post.

>>54435552
>flagrantly ignore it

But I'm not. You're the only one ignoring the attributes to heroic fantasy, even when ascribed to the context of his post. It simply doesn't make sense any way you slice it. Realism goes hand in hand with heroism day in and day out.

>Heroic fantasy implies mythological storytelling

No it does not.

>Heroic fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy which chronicles the tales of heroes in imaginary lands. Frequently, the protagonist is reluctant to be a champion, and/or is of low or humble origin, may have royal ancestors or parents but does not know it.

So what definition are we going by, just some anecdotal context that appeals to your sensibilities so you can seem right, or actual definitions and descriptions of what has already existed for thousands of years?

If we're going by some useless definition that you're making up on the spot, then okay, by all means, "i misunderstood you", just as you "misunderstood me", seeing as I had no idea what insane implications you had about the definition of "heroic fantasy."

>>54435626

I was using the term as it tends to be used in conversation on /tg/. I'm not sure what book you're dragging out archaic definitions from, but you seem really fond of trying to prove yourself correct with technicalities. It's kinda pathetic.

>>54435552
>Realistic fantasy

That's not a genre. There's "Hard fantasy", but even that over-laps constantly with heroic fantasy so not sure what to tell you.

>>54435385
Thanks for proving his point. The natives during the Indian war heavily relied on Mexican Trader's to deliver them guns and ammo.

>>54435654
>I was using the term as it tends to be used in conversation on /tg/.

So a made up term that has no actual bearing?

>I'm not sure what book you're dragging out archaic definitions from

You mean google? Yes, the archaic definitions of google, back in the time of Ozymandias and Ramesses.

>>54435654
>It's kinda pathetic.

Coming from the one who started the argument to begin with, and has the arrogance to ignore actual definitions and call them "technicalities".

>>54435692
What about the guns in the medieval era? Did they have a large industry supporting harquebuses and what not?

>>54435703

Compared to definitions directly drawn from the context of the discussion, they're about as relevant. Obsessive pedantry isn't cool.

File: 1470946284324.jpg (99KB, 654x1112px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 654x1112px

>>54426369
well, in my own setting, all early guns are kind of on the 'fuck-huge' side.

This is because the first time the concept of a gun was realized was when a giant, protecting an artillery crew during a siege, grew impatient with the crew's fumbling to get the cannon aimed he just picked the damn thing up and fired it himself.

For the rest of the battle, both sides of the army watched the mighty giant pick up his own side's cannons and use them as personal weapons/.

After that, every royal was inspired to try to develop something that non-giants could wield to similarly dangerous effectiveness.

In otherwords: man-portable siege weaponry.

As you can imagine, this didn't work out so well, and eventually you got firearms down to .75-.25 inch bore muskets and pistols.

Due to the nature of powerful beasts in the world though, this has lead to an early development of rifling and shaped charges.

>>54435731

Even if you assume language works like that (it doesn't), the fact the post itself defined its terms makes his drawing a nonsensical conclusion from it fucking bizarre.

>>54435760
>>54435692
Or how the Japanese could make guns from the 1500s onwards, despite being everything but industrialized.

>>54435834
Sorry, but the fact that I refuted the post by stating the obvious is in no way "bizarre" nor is it "nonsensical".

If you have a problem with how these definitions function, then we can discuss that, but me using evidence to support my argument isn't pathetic, being angry and petty over it while name-calling is.

>>54436016

You don't have an argument. You have a misunderstanding you cling to because you can't admit you were wrong. The post defined its own terms. It spelled out what it meant by them.

Hell, it didn't even use the term heroic fantasy. It said 'heroic setting', and then clearly defined what it meant by that.

>>54428713
Actually guns are good only against small and squishy humans. Large monsters have tough hides and lot of mass to absorb the impact, making them impervious to firearms and thus valuable shock troops to close the enemy lines i.e. they serve the role of tanks in modern warfare.

It's trivial to kill a human with .32 revolver while the round doesn't even penetrate elephant's skin, basically.

>>54436079
>you have a misunderstand you cling to

I understand him perfectly fine. He's giving an improper definition of heroism and realism, so I ignored him and pointed out the obvious. You refuse to accept the actual definitions because your argument hinges on the connotation that the word carries in this specific instance as you defined it, which I soundly reject, which you have absolutely no basis to rule me out of disputing you for it.

If you want to get autistic about it, I can get autistic about it. It all depends on how long you're willing argue about such a small point that has very little relevance. No skin off my nose.

>>54436165

So you're admitting you ignored the point of his post and brought up something unrelated and irrelevant? Good to know we're on the same page.

>>54436142
Then what do you call African big-game safari guns?

>>54436189
So you just ignored my entire post and cling to your irrational definitions and insecure biases?

Good to know we're on the same page.

>>54432976
Giants can operate larger guns than humans, thus their artillery far outreaches ours reducing us to target practice. It's like Brits in the Falkland war, park your fleet beyond the range of argie coastal guns and fire away at your leisure.

>>54436079
>the post defined its own terms

hey, the moon is made of cheese! but don't correct me, i'm just defining it on my own terms!

lmao, what fucking asinine behavior

>>54436203
Sports weapons that historically were never used on a battlefield by any army.

>>54436079
>because you can't admit you were wrong

What exactly was that post "wrong" about? Nothing that's been posted in response to you has been "objectively" wrong, only wrong based on the fact that it didn't align with your personal beliefs, which are entirely irrelevant. If we could all just make up our own personal beliefs for things there would be no room for objectivity and no one could argue against it. You're creating a strawman, which is a logical fallacy, sorry, but you're wrong.

>>54426369
Yes?

Just because you have one new way of killing people at range doesn't mean the older way vanishes. That happening is an extreme rarity. People still used bows regardless of crossbows being a thing and we still use tanks regardless of the fact that they are very clearly outdated.

If I were a general in some fantasy setting war and I had the choice between mages and guns, I would pick BOTH. Throw those riflemen out front for a killing line and keep those mages in the back for magical artillery bombardment. Hell, have those mages ENCHANT those rifles for unlimited ammo.

If anyone ever wanted to know what virgins sounded like, I would direct them to this thread.

File: Remnants_of_an_army2.jpg (773KB, 2180x1245px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 2180x1245px

>>54428543
What a wonderful 'victory'

>>54428543
>won every pitched battle

They sure as shit didn't win the Battles of Saratoga.

File: 435634563456.gif (2MB, 354x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 354x200px

>>54426369
More ways of killing your enemy is preferable to less OP. War is greedy. It's pretty cut and dry.

>>54428543
>One more such victory and we are lost.

>t. the guy who knows a lot more about unacceptable casualties for a battlefield victory than you do, because that sort of thing was named after him

>>54436578
Phyrrus, worlds first Napoleon Complex

Watching him bungle everything over and over is hysterical

>>54436671
Except Napoleon was actually successful.

>>54428543
Is that what your british history teacher told you? Lmao

>>54436761
He wasn't all /that/ successful.

His empire only lasted 10 years, and then he got 100 more days.

Alexander beat that by a year, and he's the classic example of "it fell apart right after he finished conquering it." The Qin Dynasty beat him by 5 years, and Denmark's North Sea Empire by 9. His own nephew held onto power for 8 years longer than he did.

But at least, he did technically achieve an empire, which is more than can be said for Pyrrhus.

>>54436942
>his empire only lasted 10 years

Due to the circumstances. Overall, he accomplished a lot, more than anyone thought he could have or would have.

Even Waterloo is thought to have been due more to the circumstances of the weather and environment than his actual command.

>>54428828
Is Warhammer fantasy (or 40k) a heroic setting? Because it has cool guys with swords, Dragons, and Siege weapons, all of which have a reasonable chance against each other under the right conditions.

What if the hands of the orcs are too big for the trigger of their looted weapon?

>>54427681
As always it is dependent.

If the monster you are trying to kill, is large, thickly shelled and ground bound then a canon ball is likely to crush its bones and kill it in that fashion. Other weapons like ballistas may or may not pierce it due to it coating.

For a monster like a dragon, that is large, flying and nimble but much lighter on the armour the ballista is still a better option because you will never hit it with a canon given the substantial lack of accuracy.

Low accuracy of firearms is exaggerated and it is mostly a characteristic of the napoleonic era where quantity and speed trumped quality for line troops.

>>54435385
Which point are you trying to prove?

>>54438124

He means that primitives often get guns themselves by trading with industrial powers. There was a case where the English and the Spanish unwillingly equipped the natives horses and guns because they were unaware that the other party was selling them the other good.

>"So long they don't get guns, there won't be a problem"

>"So long they don't get horses, they won't cause too much trouble.