Regarding gunpowder and some basic associated technologies, I can see myself playing either way, really, since I'm not that picky. If I had to choose between having gunpowder on or off in a release distribution init file, it would be off, because Arnold got shot in Commando not Conan, and the Argonauts didn't get shot by handguns or cannons, and Medusa had a bow not a gun, and stuff. We grew up with that crap, and our core DF, our myth/fantasy game, mainly hovers around that sort of fluffy nostalgia, but it doesn't need to impact you more than a one line file change.
Man-portable firearms are moddable even now, although their stats and rate of fire will not make much sense before the game can handle armour-piercing and reloading more accurately.
Gunpowder-based artillery will be possible via modding after the siege engine and moving parts overhaul, which i believe is planned.
What is really interesting and impossible to mod right now i believe is explosions. From this suggestion the ability to set mines, throw bombs which really explode, set fires and blow up entire mountains and fortresses is what i like the most. This may make more sense setting-wise, too: advanced firearms maybe a little anachronous for 1400, but gunpowder itself is definitely not.
why cant people just make there own guns instead of make three threads a day about firearms almost every noob thinks its a great suggestion then posts it it gets annoying
"I have an idea! Let me suggest something that's been suggested and shot down so many times that it's bound to be a good idea! Hell, there's even a discussion going on right now about it!"
How about "no"? There's a reason the thread is called Missing Pre-1400s Technology. As in things that existed BEFORE the 1400s. And while the 1400s aren't an absolute cutoff (nor an indication that things that existed before it will absolutely be considered for adding into the game) it's a rough guideline for people like you and I on whether or not it'd be a good idea to suggest it.
Guns are most definitely a post 1400s invention. The earliest handheld firearm we have ever found dates to 1396 (not counting anything found in China, which is out due to the fact that we're talking about technology in the Western world) and there are no references to any such things earlier than 1382. Devices of this sort at this time were crude and amounted to little more than a man-portable cannon.
(not counting anything found in China, which is out due to the fact that we're talking about technology in the Western world)
Not true. The first firearm IN EUROPE dates to 1396. Europe =! World. The Chinese and Arabs had them about a hundred years before that, which definitely makes them eligible. And how are man-portable cannons not dwarven? Seriously!
It does seem a bit Tolken however. The Hobbit had goblins (later renamed orcs) which love gunpowered. Using it to kill prsioners or if I remember right a form of funeral for high ranking gobbos.I don't recognise that but then it's been a while since I read any Tolkien. They did use something like gunpowder against the walls of Helm's Deep. I'd imagine something like this would fit nicely in sieges and perhaps part of alchemy or magic.
The Hobbit had goblins (later renamed orcs)
It's my understanding that Goblins and Orcs are seperate?Not to completely turn this into a discussion of Tolkien's works but they are the same thing. In his early works they are used synonymously and in the Hobbit he explains:
Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbit's form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin-kind.During and after LotR he stops using the word goblin at least for the most part.
It's my understanding that Goblins and Orcs are seperate?Not to completely turn this into a discussion of Tolkien's works but they are the same thing. In his early works they are used synonymously and in the Hobbit he explains:QuoteOrc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbit's form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin-kind.During and after LotR he stops using the word goblin at least for the most part.
Hrm, guess i'm confused since LoTR: Battle for Middle Earth (the second one at least) has Orcs and Goblins as seperate factions to play as.
Tolkien sometimes, particularly in The Hobbit, used the word "goblin" instead of "orc" to describe the same type of creature, with the smaller cave-dwelling variety that lived in the Misty Mountains being referred to as "goblins" and the larger ones elsewhere referred to as "orcs".[2] Later in his life he expressed an intention to change the spelling of "orc" to "ork" in The Silmarillion[3] but the only place where that spelling surfaced in his lifetime was in the published version of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, in the poem Bombadil Goes Boating ("I'll call the orks on you: that'll send you running!"). In the posthumously published Silmarillion, the spelling "orcs" was retained.
Forget useful: any rain and you're done, every part of the gun is useless damp.
Or should we just go ahead and implement skill trees for each fortress where you have to research different technologies for your dwarves to use?
Or should we just go ahead and implement skill trees for each fortress where you have to research different technologies for your dwarves to use?
I like that idea.
"dwarwen"
Eventually DF will get to a stage where we can mod in our own gunpowder weapons.
If you want to make it sensible to invest in armor and skills, guns are out. If you want villains whose legions of evil could conceivably be kept at bay for a moment by a small band of heroes, guns are out. If you want heroism, guns are out.
I want my dwarves to have some firebombs. OMGWTFBBQ indeed, goblins.Modding. All the cool kids are doing it.
(also they weren't only 300 in real life, you are thinking about the movie)
I don't follow... you mention 300 vs Starwars and quoting TVtrophes... and I got lost there... really... anyway in real life, those 300 weren't only 300. Yes, there was 300 Spartans, but also 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans, accounts goes from 1000 to 4000 Greeks.