And, Another Weapon Idea.



  • The Handcannon
    In the 12-1300’s they had these early guns, very early guns, they were basically wooden handheld cannons.

    I think it would be a good weapon for archer due to it’s range, It could also be same power/more powerful than Heavy crossbow but longer reload it would be a good Con for the weapon to have a chance of exploding killing/highly damaging you. a Pro would be faster projectile and (or) you can move around slowly while reloading it unlike Crossbows Handcannons were also Armor piercing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZJ88UlIy-U

    Please, Tell me what you think! :)



  • You got your history wrong there.

    They had similar things is asia but not in Europe. And they only became properly used in 1450 round about.

    They were developing cannons in 1340 and they were used in 1346. But they were cannons. First hand cannons in Europe was 1396.

    This game is more 12th or 13th century. Not 14th or 15th century.



  • @lemonater47:

    You got your history wrong there.

    They had similar things is asia but not in Europe. And they only became properly used in 1450 round about.

    They were developing cannons in 1340 and they were used in 1346. But they were cannons. First hand cannons in Europe was 1396.

    This game is more 12th or 13th century. Not 14th or 15th century.

    Hmm… Well only 96 years off. lol



  • Yeah splitting hairs regarding the 96 years.

    I like it, what would be cool to distinguish it from the heavy crossbow would be if it fired scattershot so that it could hit multiple opponents - but less damage per person.



  • Just give it some months. someone is bound to make a muskets mod for this game someday ;)



  • No firearms of any kind please. :x



  • Its true that this “handcannons” (they are called “Handrohr” in german) didnt come up before the 14/15th century BUT some of the other weapons in Chivalry didnt exist earlier as well ( Zweihänder for example).

    For historical accuracy they should be there BUT they would be totally rubbish in a game and noone would want to use one - they took minutes to reload while not being deadlier or more accurate than crossbows or longbows ;)



  • @NIB:

    some of the other weapons in Chivalry didnt exist earlier as well ( Zweihänder for example).

    We should remove the Zweihander, no questions asked, then! Anything to ease my life as a Man at Arms!
    I don’t think firearms is suitable for this game - and NIB has a point. Handguns at that age were rubbish.



  • @Sir:

    No firearms of any kind please. :x

    I didn’t know a stick that fires a rock is really a gun?



  • @NIB:

    Its true that this “handcannons” (they are called “Handrohr” in german) didnt come up before the 14/15th century BUT some of the other weapons in Chivalry didnt exist earlier as well ( Zweihänder for example).

    For historical accuracy they should be there BUT they would be totally rubbish in a game and noone would want to use one - they took minutes to reload while not being deadlier or more accurate than crossbows or longbows ;)

    If you were fast, it would only take a few seconds longer than Heavy crossbow, In YouTube link it looked like it. :D



  • @lemonater47:

    You got your history wrong there.

    They had similar things is asia but not in Europe. And they only became properly used in 1450 round about.

    They were developing cannons in 1340 and they were used in 1346. But they were cannons. First hand cannons in Europe was 1396.

    This game is more 12th or 13th century. Not 14th or 15th century.

    I think the game is clearly based on 14th and 15th century stuff, knights in full plate and all of the two handed swords are very clearly based on 15th century gear.

    Vanguards look like late 13th century knights but all of their primary weapons (except the thrusting spear and fork) are from the 14th century at least.

    The only 12th century weapons are the dane axe, the bearded axe, the norse sword, the broadsword, the cudgel and daggers.

    That being said I do NOT want any firearms in this game.



  • @NIB:

    not being deadlier or more accurate than crossbows or longbows ;)

    They were also armor piercing. :P



  • A line of Arquebus weapons would actually be kind of neat for the Archer. But there’s one problem with this.

    They would need to be extremely unrealistic to fit into the game. That is, they would need a far slower travel time than actual firearms, they would need to be more accurate, and they would need to do far less damage and finally be blockable by shields.

    They’d be louder, smokier Crossbows. Making them anywhere close to realistic would be frustrating for both the user and target.

    While I myself enjoyed Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword, it was only because I accepted that the game revolved around firearms. They weren’t even very realistic, but they were still not fun to play against, nor did they have a terribly high skill ceiling. The game never seemed to get as popular as Warband, nor even Napoleonic Wars (in which almost everyone had a gun, due to the setting).

    Besides, the only reason I’d like the Archers to have a third weapon is so the Peltast/Skirmisher class can finally become a reality. :D



  • @NikolaiLev:

    A line of Arquebus weapons would actually be kind of neat for the Archer. But there’s one problem with this.

    They would need to be extremely unrealistic to fit into the game. That is, they would need a far slower travel time than actual firearms, they would need to be more accurate, and they would need to do far less damage and finally be blockable by shields.

    They’d be louder, smokier Crossbows. Making them anywhere close to realistic would be frustrating for both the user and target.

    While I myself enjoyed Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword, it was only because I accepted that the game revolved around firearms. They weren’t even very realistic, but they were still not fun to play against, nor did they have a terribly high skill ceiling. The game never seemed to get as popular as Warband, nor even Napoleonic Wars (in which almost everyone had a gun, due to the setting).

    Besides, the only reason I’d like the Archers to have a third weapon is so the Peltast/Skirmisher class can finally become a reality. :D

    It would be good if added as a downside, the Loudness and inaccuracy and long reload. :D



  • @Riuuii:

    It would be good if added as a downside, the Loudness and inaccuracy and long reload. :D

    That’s the problem. Such polarizing downsides make the weapon unfun for the user and the target.

    As a logical extreme, imagine a weapon that had only one ammunition, and killed you when you used it. It also had a cooldown of fifty minutes and you were stuck with it for the rest of the round. But when you used it, everyone on the enemy team died. You could tweak the numbers until “balance” was achieved; theoretically speaking, the DPS would be far lower than any conventional weapon.

    But I think you can see my point; it’s an incredibly unfun and pointless weapon. A firearm is obviously not as extreme, but it’s subject to the same principle. It’s so inaccurate, so it’s not dependent on skill. When you do hit, it was just luck, and it’ll generally result in a kill no matter where it hits or what class the enemy is. There’s no counterplay because it goes through shields.

    You can make the weapon incredibly unrealistic to mitigate all these factors. But really, is it still worth it? We could just implement a Gastraphetes to accomplish the same gameplay effect (a super-heavy crossbow).



  • @NikolaiLev:

    @Riuuii:

    It would be good if added as a downside, the Loudness and inaccuracy and long reload. :D

    That’s the problem. Such polarizing downsides make the weapon unfun for the user and the target.

    As a logical extreme, imagine a weapon that had only one ammunition, and killed you when you used it. It also had a cooldown of fifty minutes and you were stuck with it for the rest of the round. But when you used it, everyone on the enemy team died. You could tweak the numbers until “balance” was achieved; theoretically speaking, the DPS would be far lower than any conventional weapon.

    But I think you can see my point; it’s an incredibly unfun and pointless weapon. A firearm is obviously not as extreme, but it’s subject to the same principle. It’s so inaccurate, so it’s not dependent on skill. When you do hit, it was just luck, and it’ll generally result in a kill no matter where it hits or what class the enemy is. There’s no counterplay because it goes through shields.

    You can make the weapon incredibly unrealistic to mitigate all these factors. But really, is it still worth it? We could just implement a Gastraphetes to accomplish the same gameplay effect (a super-heavy crossbow).

    Isn’t the Gastraphetes from a different era (from what I’ve read)?



  • @Riuuii:

    Isn’t the Gastraphetes from a different era (from what I’ve read)?

    What era does the game take place in? ;)

    Yes, the Gastraphetes was a Greek weapon. But we have anachronisms everywhere in Chivalry. Zweihanders and Halberds next to Slings and Axes. The game’s not supposed to be very realistic or historical; it’s a fictional setting.

    The game just happens to be a little more realistic than, say, PvK2. From a gameplay perspective (which is the priority), the Gastraphetes fits far more in the game.

    P.S. At this point it probably sounds like I’m insisting that the Gastraphetes should be in the game. That’s definitely not my standpoint, since it’d basically need to 1h Knights in the torso to be unique at all, or something along those lines. You can feel free to “steal” the idea though.



  • @NikolaiLev:

    @Riuuii:

    Isn’t the Gastraphetes from a different era (from what I’ve read)?

    What era does the game take place in? ;)

    Yes, the Gastraphetes was a Greek weapon. But we have anachronisms everywhere in Chivalry. Zweihanders and Halberds next to Slings and Axes. The game’s not supposed to be very realistic or historical; it’s a fictional setting.

    The game just happens to be a little more realistic than, say, PvK2. From a gameplay perspective (which is the priority), the Gastraphetes fits far more in the game.

    P.S. At this point it probably sounds like I’m insisting that the Gastraphetes should be in the game. That’s definitely not my standpoint, since it’d basically need to 1h Knights in the torso to be unique at all, or something along those lines. You can feel free to “steal” the idea though.

    If It 1 shot knight what would the cons be? Chivalry is set in 12-1300’s however I don’t really think it matters that super heavy crossbow being out of date.



  • w0w0w0 let’s add wolverine claws and plasma rifles too! And catapults should shoot nukes.



  • @Riuuii:

    Chivalry is set in 12-1300’s however

    As Dr z0b and myself stated allready in this topic: Chivalry is definitly set in the 15th century, because thats when all weapons of the game had been available in real life.

    @havz0r:

    w0w0w0 let’s add wolverine claws and plasma rifles too! And catapults should shoot nukes.

    The middle ages lastet for about 1000 years. And yes there had been guns in the late middle ages. So theres no point to get sarcastic about it. There is just no way to balance guns for this game and we are better off without them, i think.


Log in to reply