Giving guns their own damage type.

[Lemonater47]

Currrently firearms pretty much all do the cut damage type. Which is the same as bows, swords etc.


Really though guns should have their own damage type. Ballistic damage. This would allow for more armour and weapon options in the future. And could potentially expand the "medieval" era the game has. As you could have armour that has a high cut resistance (along with not bad blunt resistance) but with low ballistic resistance.

Not to mention bullets deal damage to people differently anyway. The main cause of damage a bullet does is actually its blunt force trauma. It hits people so hard it sends shockwaves through the body which can damage organs and vessels without even touching them. "Stopping power" is how good the round is at stopping inside someone. As you want the maximum amount of energy transferred from the round into the victim. Along with the fact that it can cut vital blood vessels and put mighty big holes in people. Though human beings are actually a bit more resilient to bullets than people think. In the end it's all totally RNG how someone will react and what a bullet will do when it enters a body.

Anyway separating it could mean the developers can implement some medieval style armour. And some more ballistic focused armour. A tempered, full plate set of armour complete with gambeson and chainmail underneath is pretty much arrow proof along with being sword proof. But a 9mm round can get through the front and back when fired from an MP5. Even though it's going through 4 different steel surfaces along with very thick clothing. Main reason is the plate armour is on average only about 2mm thick. Which is enough to stop most melee weapons and broadhead arrows from a distance. The mail is even worse against projectiles and the gambeson while designed to cushion impacts and to stop cuts isn't nearly good enough to stop something travelling at those velocities.

It also begs the question of "why did everyone in medieval europe use swords if they aren't great against the armour". The answer being the chivalry. The sword was a very chivarious weapon. Even if it took a long time to kill someone in plate armour with it. The English in the Hundred Years' War preferred weapons such as the poleaxe. Which is a two handed long axe with a big spike on the end. Along with having contracted spear equipped infantry from the peasant class which was mostly unheard of at the time. Stabbing or crushing your way through armour is far more effective than trying to cut with a sword.



So yes it would be a good stepping stone in my eyes if you start at the tribal stage. But it needs ballistic damage to be its own thing. Even if ballistic damage is a copy and paste of cut damage. It could even lead to a "medieval" faction in the world map. If it had this extra damage type added.

[Harry_Dicks]

It also begs the question of "why did everyone in medieval europe use swords if they aren't great against the armour". The answer being the chivalry. The sword was a very chivarious weapon. Even if it took a long time to kill someone in plate armour with it. The English in the Hundred Years' War preferred weapons such as the poleaxe. Which is a two handed long axe with a big spike on the end. Along with having contracted spear equipped infantry from the peasant class which was mostly unheard of at the time. Stabbing or crushing your way through armour is far more effective than trying to cut with a sword.

I honestly doubt the entire reason is chivalry. A sword is excellent against unarmored opponents. Wouldn't soldiers be more prone to using a mace, or a flail, on plate armor? Or like you said, a poleaxe or halberd. I can't imagine too many knights standing in a battlefield, watching the enemy knights charging in with plate armor, and thinking, "well this mace would absolutely penetrate and crush that armor, but I am a knight of honor, and I shall use this ineffective sword instead!" I think that sometimes people romanticize too much of this era.

[Lemonater47]

It also begs the question of "why did everyone in medieval europe use swords if they aren't great against the armour". The answer being the chivalry. The sword was a very chivarious weapon. Even if it took a long time to kill someone in plate armour with it. The English in the Hundred Years' War preferred weapons such as the poleaxe. Which is a two handed long axe with a big spike on the end. Along with having contracted spear equipped infantry from the peasant class which was mostly unheard of at the time. Stabbing or crushing your way through armour is far more effective than trying to cut with a sword.

I honestly doubt the entire reason is chivalry. A sword is excellent against unarmored opponents. Wouldn't soldiers be more prone to using a mace, or a flail, on plate armor? Or like you said, a poleaxe or halberd. I can't imagine too many knights standing in a battlefield, watching the enemy knights charging in with plate armor, and thinking, "well this mace would absolutely penetrate and crush that armor, but I am a knight of honor, and I shall use this ineffective sword instead!" I think that sometimes people romanticize too much of this era.

The thing is by the 15th century armies were tiny and made almost exclusively out of the nobility and their retainers.

They could all afford top notch gear. Though the swords used were heavy and weren't completely sharp. Which was deliberate. So a good swing at someone even wearing Armour can cause significant damage. And its a far more wieldy weapon than a great big axe. Brilliant in the defence along with the fact with enough skill you can go for the weak spots.

Fighting wasn't for lesser men. You occasionally had levies raised from the peasantry but it was rare.

England did have a system for peasants to join military campaigns. Which is why they had enforced longbow training for every male subject. But they only picked the best and most of them were actually landowners. All professional soldiers. Essentially mercenaries fighting for their own nation. Even they had decent quality armour by the 15th century.

Medieval Europe was a strange place indeed when it came to military combat. For example, if you were captured by the enemy to be held for ransom your captors would let you go back to your families. Provided you turned up at a particular place by a particular date to be ransomed back to your family. Which makes no sense. Yet everyone turned up.

You did not question the code of chivalry. The French followed it the closest. While the English much less so.

Then again The french won more battles numerically speaking during the 100 years war and the English never accomplished their goal at all during that time. It's just many of the battles the English did win were crushing defeats on the French.

[SpaceDorf]

Yes the long blade was used against unarmored peasentry.

Knights where the Tanks of the middle ages.
120kg armored and trained killer against soft targets.

Chivalry was used as social glue and to soften the picture.

Against armored foes you take the sword by the blade and use the hilt.

[Lemonater47]

Yes the long blade was used against unarmored peasentry.

Knights where the Tanks of the middle ages.
120kg armored and trained killer against soft targets.

Chivalry was used as social glue and to soften the picture.

Against armored foes you take the sword by the blade and use the hilt.

By the 14th and 15th century it was very hard to find an army that had any peasantry fighting within it. Especially mainland Europe. With the sword being the most widely used weapons. Sounds rather hard to believe all of them used it by the blade.

A large medieval army would be made up of around 10,000 men. Go back just over 1000 years prior and nations with smaller populations were fielding armies of close to 100,000 men. Which also suggests that they essentially dropped the lower classes from fighting in these medieval armies.


Anyway we may be getting slightly off topic here lol. This is about seperatinh bullets to have their own damage type. For the potential to see greater variety in "pre gun" weaponry and armour. Rather than simply Neolithic.

[Dargaron]

I honestly doubt the entire reason is chivalry. A sword is excellent against unarmored opponents. Wouldn't soldiers be more prone to using a mace, or a flail, on plate armor? Or like you said, a poleaxe or halberd. I can't imagine too many knights standing in a battlefield, watching the enemy knights charging in with plate armor, and thinking, "well this mace would absolutely penetrate and crush that armor, but I am a knight of honor, and I shall use this ineffective sword instead!" I think that sometimes people romanticize too much of this era.

Plate armor (as a semi-regular feature on the Western European battlefield) is a product of the 15th-16th centuries, shading into the Early Modern Period. By that point, such weapons as you describe were often in-use by folks who expected to come to blows with a fully-armored individual (and had the means to reasonably acquire a poleaxe/warhammer/mace etc.)

The sword was almost never used as the primary weapon in European warfare (incidentally, this is also the case across much of the world). It was usually kept as a sidearm, status symbol, or personal defense weapon (PDW). In the case of English-Frankish-Germanic aristocrats of the Early-to-Late Middle Ages, the lance would've been their primary offensive  armament. In Japan (the other "famous" sword-culture), the most common weapon used by the warrior caste (before and after they stared calling themselves Samurai) was the bow, usually fired from horseback, closely followed by various spear types.

Part of the reason why the sword remains so emblematic in our image of the Middle Ages is because it was a lot less awkward to carry around and/or use in close quarters, hence it was the preferred PDW for those who could afford it: think about how many folks you know who would carry an M16 with them while going about their errands, vs. folks who keep a pistol on their belt. The fact that the nobility were able (in some countries/jurisdictions) to monopolize sword-carrying (after all, they're the folks who most need personal protection...) also added to the mystique.

Basically, the reason you see a lot of medieval characters in fiction using swords is the same reason you'll see a lot more pistols on TV than rifles or mortars: they're easier to carry and more convenient to use in non-battlefield contexts.

"But wait!" I hear you saying, "what about the Roman Legions? They fought with swords!" That's why I said "almost never." The Late Republican/Principate Legionnaire did use the sword as a primary weapon (although some would argue that the Pila was equally as important). The large shield/short sword combination was effective against the enemies said legionnaires were facing: infantry forces that either weren't equipped for close-in fighting (Macedonian Phalanxes, primarily) or did not have the same kind of massive proto-industrial capacity that Late Republican/Principate Rome did, and had an overall lighter kit of armor (Celtic Europe, Iberian-speakers, Germanic tribes etc.)

Funnily enough, the Roman Legionnaire had a side-arm dagger, called a Pugio, and it was seen as a mark of prestige to get a kill with it, since it was an emergency weapon only. Effectively, the Legionnaire could say, "I was in the thick of the fighting, and had to use my Pugio, and I'm still standing here talking to you."

1:The thing is by the 15th century armies were tiny and made almost exclusively out of the nobility and their retainers.

They could all afford top notch gear. Though the swords used were heavy and weren't completely sharp. Which was deliberate. So a good swing at someone even wearing Armour can cause significant damage. And its a far more wieldy weapon than a great big axe. Brilliant in the defence along with the fact with enough skill you can go for the weak spots.

2:Fighting wasn't for lesser men. You occasionally had levies raised from the peasantry but it was rare.

England did have a system for peasants to join military campaigns. Which is why they had enforced longbow training for every male subject. But they only picked the best and most of them were actually landowners. All professional soldiers. Essentially mercenaries fighting for their own nation. Even they had decent quality armour by the 15th century.

1:"The nobility and their retainers" is a rather odd way to describe armies that may have included up to 1/3rd mercenaries: The Battle of Cerignola featured ~2,500 Landsknects and ~3,500 Swiss Pikemen out of ~6,000 and ~9,000 Hapsburg and French soldiers, respectively. At best, the French managed a close to 1-to-1 ration of "cavalry" (meaning light cavalry, squires, etc in addition to full-on knights) to infantry in their contribution to the Battle of Nicopolis in 1444 Considering that the career of Gran Capitan Gonzolo De Cordoba runs right up to 1510, and he is regarded as the father of the Spanish Tercio (whose members were definitely not aristocrats, at least not in the sense you seem to be using it), as well as leading large forces of light infantry during the 1494-1498 Hapsburg-Valois War, I'm going to need some actual info to back that up.

As a side note, Professors Kenneth Harl (Specializing in Byzantine/Crusader history, as well as the history of Anatolia in general), Philip Daileader (specializing in Medieval social history, particularly Spain and France) and Jonathan Roth (specialist in Military History, logistics and World History) all state that Medieval-Early Modern armies were overwhelmingly infantry, usually not of the high aristocracy.

2:Erm, not quite. To quote: "In England, for example, the militia system received a new lease on life under Henry VIII. All those with £10 in land and the equivalent in goods were obligated to to keep weapons and armour and be ready to serve the king. The enquiry of 1552 revealed the existence of 128,250 available men, though their military knowledge and ability to equip themselves was patchy." (Tallett 137) Heck, ~12% of English fighting men during the 14th century were criminals forcibly serving in lieu of other sentencing. (Tallett 137

Additionally, high aristocrats could and did continue to bring their feudal levies onto the field well into the 16th century. The Earl of Pembroke alone raised some 2,000 soldiers from his Welsh possessions in 1549. (Tallett 138)


Work Cited:
Tallett, Frank. "Soldiers in Western Europe, c. 1500-1790." Fighting for a Living: A Comparative Study of Military Labour 1500-2000, published 2013

EDIT: Wow, it took so long to get my sources that I missed the next two posts. Sorry 'bout that.

3:By the 14th and 15th century it was very hard to find an army that had any peasantry fighting within it. Especially mainland Europe. With the sword being the most widely used weapons. Sounds rather hard to believe all of them used it by the blade.

4:A large medieval army would be made up of around 10,000 men. Go back just over 1000 years prior and nations with smaller populations were fielding armies of close to 100,000 men. Which also suggests that they essentially dropped the lower classes from fighting in these medieval armies.


5:Anyway we may be getting slightly off topic here lol. This is about seperatinh bullets to have their own damage type. For the potential to see greater variety in "pre gun" weaponry and armour. Rather than simply Neolithic.

3: Depends on your definition of "peasant." It's true that you usually wouldn't see folks who are primarily agriculturalists being used for major fighting: the "yeoman farmer" image is not the norm for the Late Middle Ages. However, a large proportion of a Late Medieval army would likely consist of mercenaries of various, non-noble backgrounds: peasants who had been forced off their land, second-third-fourth sons, unsuccessful craftsmen, etc. One of the chronic issues with 15th-16th century wars was that, once the fighting was over, there wasn't any particularly convenient way to get rid of the large number of now non-unemployed fighting men. Hence, the French monarchy experimented with semi-permanent garrison troops in the latter half of the Hunderd Years War, which seems to have paid off.

4: I assume you're talking about the armies of Gauls/Germans/Britons that Julius Caeser talks about. I don't think there's any serious scholar today who still takes ancient sources seriously when talking about the numbers of a "barbarian" opponent. The usual size for a Late Classical army was ~20-40,000 soldiers, since that's the limit of the period's logistical support.

(Funnily enough, we have an illuminating example from a later period: after the 751 Battle of Talas between an army of the Abbasid Caliphate and the Tang Dynasty, we have the reports from both commanders back to their superiors. In both the Chinese and the Arab case, the numbers for their own side are fairly accurate, based on archaeological evidence, but they grossly exaggerate the numbers of their opponents: the Chinese to explain why they lost, and the Arabs/Abbasds to magnify their victory)

5: As to the subject of the thread: It'd be nice to see weapon stats reworked at some point. I have no problems with the OP. One of the features of GURPS is that, in general, low-tech missiles do Impaling damage (which means that any damage that gets past armor is doubled) while guns do significantly larger damage, but of the Small Piercing, Piercing, and Large Piercing type, which deals x1, x1.5 and x2 damage, respectively after armor.

[Harry_Dicks]

Dargaron just came in to whoop ass and take names, and he already knew everyone's name. Works cited son, WORKS CITED!!!

[Lemonater47]

Well we won't be able to get any of this medieval stuff until they seperate the guns to have their own damage type. Instead of all doing "sharp" damage. I think I called it "cut" in the OP.

Because yeah. Any potential medieval gear they make would have a high cut resistance. Which would make them rather good at stopping bullets. Which they shouldn't.

[Bolgfred]

I can't imagine too many knights standing in a battlefield, watching the enemy knights charging in with plate armor, and thinking, "well this mace would absolutely penetrate and crush that armor, but I am a knight of honor, and I shall use this ineffective sword instead!" I think that sometimes people romanticize too much of this era.

You might be unable to imagine, but I am absolutely sure this is how knighting did work in the past. And they probably did say "huzzah!", "I shall smite thee!" or someting comparable. You probably watch more game of thrones, which is unrealistic aswell if you check the knight:huzzah ratio, so you better ignore that argument.


Nevertheless I think one can say bullet and knifes ain't the same damage type, or one cannot. Both arguments have their own value.

The more important point than damage source, in my opinion, is the armor part. I youre looking at it, you see only 2-3 resistance types, relevant for weapons: blunt, sharp and fire maybe. This is a thing I think is very cool, as it's quite clearly. The actual boring part are the materials as there are almost no differences in fabrics. If these get tweaked right with armor and offset, there can be made many different armor types.

[lancar]

The traditional RPG way of solving this is to just include the "Piercing" damage type and have guns do damage in that category instead, as well as bows.

Sure, it'd gloss over the differences between being hit with an arrow and a bullet, but I don't see much problem with that as if you have guns you usually use them over any bow anyway due to their fire rate, accuracy and raw damage output.

[Harry_Dicks]

I can't imagine too many knights standing in a battlefield, watching the enemy knights charging in with plate armor, and thinking, "well this mace would absolutely penetrate and crush that armor, but I am a knight of honor, and I shall use this ineffective sword instead!" I think that sometimes people romanticize too much of this era.

You might be unable to imagine, but I am absolutely sure this is how knighting did work in the past. And they probably did say "huzzah!", "I shall smite thee!" or someting comparable. You probably watch more game of thrones, which is unrealistic aswell if you check the knight:huzzah ratio, so you better ignore that argument.

As per earlier:

Plate armor (as a semi-regular feature on the Western European battlefield) is a product of the 15th-16th centuries, shading into the Early Modern Period. By that point, such weapons as you describe were often in-use by folks who expected to come to blows with a fully-armored individual (and had the means to reasonably acquire a poleaxe/warhammer/mace etc.)

The sword was almost never used as the primary weapon in European warfare (incidentally, this is also the case across much of the world). It was usually kept as a sidearm, status symbol, or personal defense weapon (PDW). In the case of English-Frankish-Germanic aristocrats of the Early-to-Late Middle Ages, the lance would've been their primary offensive  armament. In Japan (the other "famous" sword-culture), the most common weapon used by the warrior caste (before and after they stared calling themselves Samurai) was the bow, usually fired from horseback, closely followed by various spear types.

So you're telling me that in a knight on knight situation in heavy platemail, they are using ineffective swords against each other because of chivalry. When these knights very easily could have afforded armor piercing weapons. That's bullshit and you know it. I also don't watch Game of Thrones and the fact that you would even use that as a reasoning for someone you don't knows argument shows how much you actually idolize consumer brands. The other guy even posted a whole reasoning as to why they didn't use the sword, and later on he is even citing resources. I don't see you trying to refute any of that so you obviously didn't read his post, you are just trying to pick apart my comment because it was a lower hanging fruit. C'mon man, I feel like you are just insulting everyone's intelligence now, but most of all your own.

[jamaicancastle]

If you read actual knightly sagas, even their most hagiographic works don't believe in using swords to the exclusion of more effective weapons. The Song of Roland, for instance, has people getting lanced left and right, and a priest with a big ol' warhammer. And this is the work that tries to tell you the Moors had an army of like a million guys with support from those secret Muslims, the Burgundians.

[Bolgfred]

Maybe all historians and their honorable knights should open a new thread to discuss chivalry and armament in detail, as this thread was more about damage types in Rimworld, instead of mediveal brawling behaviour. Huzzah!

[Lemonater47]

Maybe all historians and their honorable knights should open a new thread to discuss chivalry and armament in detail, as this thread was more about damage types in Rimworld, instead of mediveal brawling behaviour. Huzzah!

To be fair I sorta derailed my own thread lol.