Guild Wars 2

broken thread >:(

Absolutely Tobias, I agree it has to be huge (largest) part of it. After all if you are flinging sticks or bullets at the guy stood the other side of a battlefield and then the person next to you suddenly animates a bunch of corpse parts and sends it shambling off it’s a difficult thing to get your head around and power terms. I never played GW1 however I have read the 2 books. In that you strongly get the sense that the relative physical sizes / strength of the various different races is played out to at least some degree. Slightly different example but a few times in the books the asura have to run just to keep up with a Norn walking (which makes sense) and when they need to get somewhere quickly and no golems are present, they end up being carried around regardless of whatever magic control they have, they can’t physically keep up.

If a magical barrier can (and does) stop a projectile be it an arrow or a bullet yes that would be a huge factor. What I am trying to say is even before you get into what magic effect is or isn’t imbued into a weapon, before that even takes place the larger races are going to be sending something hurtling towards you way larger /faster than the smaller ones do.

You would imagine for example that an Asura using a bow, it wouldn’t be them doing 90% of the work, most of the force / work would be being done by some invention that propells the arrow out from the bow (In an odd way I would think of it a bit like that bow from the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoons on TV donkeys years ago where it effectively forms a magical bow string). More likely I grant you, they would invent a golem to fire the bow for them mind you

@draxy

Bottom line, to me, is that Jennah needs to figure something out with how divided the country is and unite them somehow. The whole infighting is more dangerous than anything that goes on outside Divinity’s Reach. Also needs to figure out a way to prevent that in the future – best way to deal with your enemies is to have as few as possible.

As far as the thread goes, magic’s manifestations across every profession that uses it can individually mitigate the effects of rifles and pistols, so it makes it pretty obvious that collectively you can mitigate it as well. This makes technological development of weapons centered around limiting or severing this connection to magic about the only way that it would overcome its main opposition, which seems to be very unlikely.

Just because you have giant cannons, tanks, etc. doesn’t mean that a smart group of infiltration specialists and a team dedicated to drawing fire can’t get to them and disable/destroy them.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

. . . and we got derailed talking about Robin Hood, Die Hard, and many other terrible terrible movies.

You think Die Hard is a terrible movie? GET OUT!!!!

Turial.1293:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

. . . and we got derailed talking about Robin Hood, Die Hard, and many other terrible terrible movies.

You think Die Hard is a terrible movie? GET OUT!!!!

I dropped a number, I meant the first sequel. Die Hard 2 was practically just “Die Hard 1, now in an airport”. The third movie was much improved, but I blame that on the villain actually being fun.

jmatb.6307:

@draxy
Bottom line, to me, is that Jennah needs to figure something out with how divided the country is and unite them somehow. The whole infighting is more dangerous than anything that goes on outside Divinity’s Reach. Also needs to figure out a way to prevent that in the future – best way to deal with your enemies is to have as few as possible.

That’s true – I’m pretty certain myself that the only reason the centaurs have been as much of a problem that they have been is that Caudecus has been supporting them and sabotaging Kryta’s defenses… because he’s confident that once he gains the throne and stops assisting them, the centaurs will be easily defeated making him look even better compared to Jennah.

The problem is, Caudecus clearly cares more about power than the good of Kryta, so the only way to stop him would be to surrender to him or remove him. The problems with the first should be obvious, while for the second – Caudecus has proven quite effective at building up enough support that arbitrarily removing him would just divide the country more.

Proving beyond reasonable doubt that he’s connected to the bandits would probably do it, but the Shining Blade doesn’t have that proof yet… and a big issue is likely to be that any testimony that a captured bandit might provide would be easy for the Ministry to obfuscate.

Mystic Starfish.2586:

Not exactly what you’re saying…
So I’ll talk about guns/bows. Rangers can’t use guns, because that goes against their nature philosophy. Thieves can use pistols and shortbow. If you want to think realistically, pistols only have like 6 shots, wheras a shortbow can be fired for as much as a quiver can hold. And as seen with the warrior, you can manipulate both types of projectile weapons in different ways. Warriors use the bow as a more fire arrow approach, and a rifle as more of a sniper gun. So each weapon has their own use

All of the pistols I’ve seen so far are forms of flintlock pistols, which means you get one shot and then you must reload, which takes a long time considering you need to stuff black powder in it. Bows are faster when compared to that type of gun. Same for most of the rifles I’ve seen (exception being the legendary sniper rifle).

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Turial.1293:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

. . . and we got derailed talking about Robin Hood, Die Hard, and many other terrible terrible movies.

You think Die Hard is a terrible movie? GET OUT!!!!

I dropped a number, I meant the first sequel. Die Hard 2 was practically just “Die Hard 1, now in an airport”. The third movie was much improved, but I blame that on the villain actually being fun.

This is why you spellcheck, you could hurt a lot of people.

Jelle.2807:

Running around swining a sword right next to a tank column supported by aircraft, artillery and whatnot, just doesn’t make any flipping sense.

If you ask me this game needs to decide wether it wants to be heavy steampunk modern combat fantasy or either your regular fantasy setting with a touch of tech, because right now it’s so darn conflicting.

Swords were used for a long time after the invention of firearms. Until the development of magazines and rapid firing weapons you still needed a backup weapon in case you missed.

Don’t forget us Humans love our big walls. The Great northern wall, Ebonhawke has a huge wall, even Divinity’s Reach is just one huge circular wall from the outside. So yes maybe Charr would win any war in an open field but humans have a huge advantage on defense with the height and might of their walls.

Wanderer.3248:

Jelle.2807:

Running around swining a sword right next to a tank column supported by aircraft, artillery and whatnot, just doesn’t make any flipping sense.

If you ask me this game needs to decide wether it wants to be heavy steampunk modern combat fantasy or either your regular fantasy setting with a touch of tech, because right now it’s so darn conflicting.

Swords were used for a long time after the invention of firearms. Until the development of magazines and rapid firing weapons you still needed a backup weapon in case you missed.

Swords and Pistols were usually reserved for officers and Cavalry. Fusiliers or Line infantry had a bayonet(shovel maybe a small knife for food). On that note the chances of you being killed by a bayonet were incredibly low. You see melee combat primarily in cities, towns, and Forts. On a open battle field you usually charged when the enemy is physically and emotionally exhausted. The reason for this is most of the time infantry charges were repeled by the people shooting at them.

draxynnic.3719:

jmatb.6307:

@draxy
Bottom line, to me, is that Jennah needs to figure something out with how divided the country is and unite them somehow. The whole infighting is more dangerous than anything that goes on outside Divinity’s Reach. Also needs to figure out a way to prevent that in the future – best way to deal with your enemies is to have as few as possible.

That’s true – I’m pretty certain myself that the only reason the centaurs have been as much of a problem that they have been is that Caudecus has been supporting them and sabotaging Kryta’s defenses… because he’s confident that once he gains the throne and stops assisting them, the centaurs will be easily defeated making him look even better compared to Jennah.

The problem is, Caudecus clearly cares more about power than the good of Kryta, so the only way to stop him would be to surrender to him or remove him. The problems with the first should be obvious, while for the second – Caudecus has proven quite effective at building up enough support that arbitrarily removing him would just divide the country more.

Proving beyond reasonable doubt that he’s connected to the bandits would probably do it, but the Shining Blade doesn’t have that proof yet… and a big issue is likely to be that any testimony that a captured bandit might provide would be easy for the Ministry to obfuscate.

Actually at the end of CM story Queen Jennah goes all Louis the XIV on Caudecus by forcing him to live at the palace. Historically when this happens in China and France the nobles ,in this case Caudecus, lose their power. Easiest way to get rid of him by not killing him.

I think that’s pretty much what she had in mind, yeah – after seeing that cinematic, my response went something along the lines of ‘and that’s why Jennah’s the queen and Logan’s just a general’.

Under the circumstances, Caudecus couldn’t refuse without looking suspicious, but being in the palace under the guard of the Shining Blade makes it hard for Caudecus to pull something off without Jennah noticing. It may not shut him down entirely (especially if he’s a mesmer himself or has one on his payroll) but it will certainly slow him down.

One of the issues we have in figuring out what sort of condition Kryta is in is that we don’t really go back to it after Claw Island. It could be in quite good condition now, we just can’t see it. Maybe when the Living Story comes around to Kryta we’ll find out.

The Brigadier.3847:

Swords and Pistols were usually reserved for officers and Cavalry. Fusiliers or Line infantry had a bayonet(shovel maybe a small knife for food). On that note the chances of you being killed by a bayonet were incredibly low. You see melee combat primarily in cities, towns, and Forts. On a open battle field you usually charged when the enemy is physically and emotionally exhausted. The reason for this is most of the time infantry charges were repeled by the people shooting at them.

Battle in cities, towns and forts is still combat. You might as well separate snipers into their own element to prove how a sniper rifle is the ultimate weapon.

Dustfinger.9510:

The Brigadier.3847:

Swords and Pistols were usually reserved for officers and Cavalry. Fusiliers or Line infantry had a bayonet(shovel maybe a small knife for food). On that note the chances of you being killed by a bayonet were incredibly low. You see melee combat primarily in cities, towns, and Forts. On a open battle field you usually charged when the enemy is physically and emotionally exhausted. The reason for this is most of the time infantry charges were repeled by the people shooting at them.

Battle in cities, towns and forts is still combat. You might as well separate snipers into their own element to prove how a sniper rifle is the ultimate weapon.

In some cases, it is, isn’t it?

Umm…why is everyone trying to come up with a plausible explanation for this? The decision to put rifles/guns/bombs in the game was made waaaay before the lore was written to support it, not the other way around.

I mean, it’s not like the combat designers were handed the finished story of GW2 Tyria and said, “Ok…let’s come up with some legit animations for firearms!” They knew gunpowder-related weapons were going to be in the game almost since its conception. Seems to me that by denying this concept to certain classes, ANet has created a Living Anachronism for lack of a better phrase. It’s their own fault really.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

In some cases, it is, isn’t it?

True enough ;P

Obsidian.1328:

Umm…why is everyone trying to come up with a plausible explanation for this? The decision to put rifles/guns/bombs in the game was made waaaay before the lore was written to support it, not the other way around.

I’m terribly sorry, but I feel the need to tell you some bad news and I need you to be sitting down for it.

Bombs and cannons were present in Guild Wars 1.

I know this might come as a bit of a shock, but I’m sure with counseling we can get you through this.

Lol, like the giant turtles with a cannon strapped to their backs? Those were few and far between and unwieldy to say the least. Hardly common. No class could use explosives really, they were environmental novelties at most. Now you see stuff like that more often than Koss dying.

But, you just validated my point kinda. They wanted to expand on explosive/projectile devices, so what’s the obvious first step?:

“How do we do that?”
“Hrmm, let’s make this next game be waaaay in the future.”
“How far?”
“Idk, 250 years sounds good.”
“Sweet!”

It’s not rocket science.

The dwarves had bombs and explosives built into ballista bolts. The siege turtles may have been about as common as WW1 tanks, but they showed that the technology existed. There’s those mortars defending Dzagonur Bastion, although to be fair it’s questionable whether they’re more magic than technology, but the magic may simply have been in the mounting. And that’s without considering EOTN, since that’s explicitly setup for GW2.

The gunpowder genie was already out of the bottle. They could have maintained medieval fantasy stasis if they’d really wanted to, sure, but that would be about as believable as medieval stasis ever is when explosive powder has already entered the scene – which is to say, not very.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Bombs and cannons were present in Guild Wars 1.

Bombs and cannons are pretty crude. Sure it requires enormous craftsmanship and precision to make and operate a cannon for instance, but the technology behind it is late medieval at best.

Automatic fire arms and motorized vehicles however….what such tech ingame swords and bows would be long since outdated.

Jelle.2807:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Bombs and cannons were present in Guild Wars 1.

Bombs and cannons are pretty crude. Sure it requires enormous craftsmanship and precision to make and operate a cannon for instance, but the technology behind it is late medieval at best.

Automatic fire arms and motorized vehicles however….what such tech ingame swords and bows would be long since outdated.

Thing is, the rifles may behave like automatic fire (Warrior skill 3) but they look primarily like flintlock and such . . .

…and it wouldn’t be the only impossible thing being done with a weapon in GW2.

And a-net says the different races tend to use different kinds of weapons. Charr mass produce them. Humans approach them as artisans, Norn are comfortable with black powder rifles while asura also use them but have personal magitech modifications to assist with reload/payload/etc.

Dustfinger.9510:

The Brigadier.3847:

Swords and Pistols were usually reserved for officers and Cavalry. Fusiliers or Line infantry had a bayonet(shovel maybe a small knife for food). On that note the chances of you being killed by a bayonet were incredibly low. You see melee combat primarily in cities, towns, and Forts. On a open battle field you usually charged when the enemy is physically and emotionally exhausted. The reason for this is most of the time infantry charges were repeled by the people shooting at them.

Battle in cities, towns and forts is still combat. You might as well separate snipers into their own element to prove how a sniper rifle is the ultimate weapon.

Yes but total casualties by bayonets in the Napoleonic wars only 2%-4% of all casualties. In the Napoleonic wars and muskets were 69%-71% and about 13% artillery and 14% from swords so no matter how us slice it there were more casualties from musket fire than anything else combined. And most of the damage done with swords and lances would be done by cavalry not infantry. On that note most Cavalry also had pistols as well as swords which they would also use in close combat. Winged hussars could have up to four guns, a lance, sword, and the coolest armor ever invented by man.

The Brigadier.3847:

Yes but total casualties by bayonets in the Napoleonic wars only 2%-4% of all casualties. In the Napoleonic wars and muskets were 69%-71% and about 13% artillery and 14% from swords so no matter how us slice it there were more casualties from musket fire than anything else combined. And most of the damage done with swords and lances would be done by cavalry not infantry. On that note most Cavalry also had pistols as well as swords which they would also use in close combat. Winged hussars could have up to four guns, a lance, sword, and the coolest armor ever invented by man.

That’s because of the manner in which they fought most of the battles. The “civilized” fashion of formations firing into other formations. Muskets get increasingly ineffective if one or both parties refuses to follow those rules. That’s how the Zulus beat England and the American Colonists also beat the them. And, how the Native Americans continually beat the colonists before disease decimated their numbers.

Edit:
so Zulus won with spears and animal hide shields.

Colonists won with gurilla tactics, muskets, hatchets and swords against more muskets and better discipline

Native Americans won with hatchets, knives, bows, clubs and animal hide shields that could deflect all but the most direct musket fire.

Conquistadors had guns and saw a great use of swords and spears in their arsenal.

And even between “civilised” armies, part of the reason why muskets won out on casualties was because of the tactics. Cavalry was one of the most feared things by infantry – infantry facing other infantry or artillery was better off spreading out and commanders knew this, but spreading out would leave them vulnerable to a surprise attack by cavalry that dispersed infantry would be almost defenseless against. So unless commanders were pretty darn certain there was no cavalry around, infantry fought in formations – and that left them vulnerable to musket fire.

The distinction here was that clumping up to be an easy target for musket fire was considered better than the possibility of being mopped up by cavalry. Musket fire won out on kills because people were so scared of the alternative that they chose tactics that made them easy targets for musket fire.

In the world of Guild Wars, though, the balance is tipped the other way. Clumping in a universe where the other side could have a battalion of elementalists and you’d never know until rocks fell and everyone died is tantamount to suicide, while there’s no fast-moving cavalry to clean up dispersed troops. So standard tactics are to disperse, which greatly limits the power of inaccurate musket fire.

I didn’t know that about why they preferred clumping up. good info.

draxynnic.3719:

The dwarves had bombs and explosives built into ballista bolts. The siege turtles may have been about as common as WW1 tanks, but they showed that the technology existed. There’s those mortars defending Dzagonur Bastion, although to be fair it’s questionable whether they’re more magic than technology, but the magic may simply have been in the mounting. And that’s without considering EOTN, since that’s explicitly setup for GW2.

The gunpowder genie was already out of the bottle. They could have maintained medieval fantasy stasis if they’d really wanted to, sure, but that would be about as believable as medieval stasis ever is when explosive powder has already entered the scene – which is to say, not very.

Well…they could have maintained that stasis easy had they not decided to pick up the GW story 250 years down the road. In real life, it took decades and decades of research/trial-&-error between the introduction of the rudimentary cannon to something “rifle-esque” that could be used by a lone infantryman. But, of course, that fits in with their time-frame just fine.

All I was really saying was that the decision to have 250 years between GW1 & 2 had a lot more to do with what kind of game they wanted to produce(multiple player races and guns for weapons) than it did with any anchor in established lore. I mean, it’s hard to believe the writers had this all worked out before hand, then came to the designers and said, “Ok…we’re going to need animations and coding for pistols, rifles, mortars, cannons, tanks…aww heck, just throw in helicopters too.” I’m pretty sure they knew this stuff was going to be in this game before they wrote out the story for it.

Obsidian.1328:

I’m pretty sure they knew this stuff was going to be in this game before they wrote out the story for it.

I’m not so sure, speaking from the experience of a tabletop GM who had a persistent game world I used for several years and several gaming groups which sometimes had the same people around who wanted to know what their old characters had been doing. You figure out pretty quickly that if the two games are far apart enough spatially or temporally then you don’t have to worry about that kind of continuity as close as if you were starting up in the backyard of where your last group had been playing around.

It gets worse if, as in the case of GW1 and GW2 . . . two games are connected lore-wise and one hasn’t quite . . . kinda, sorta maybe finished . . .

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Obsidian.1328:

I’m pretty sure they knew this stuff was going to be in this game before they wrote out the story for it.

I’m not so sure, speaking from the experience of a tabletop GM who had a persistent game world I used for several years and several gaming groups which sometimes had the same people around who wanted to know what their old characters had been doing. You figure out pretty quickly that if the two games are far apart enough spatially or temporally then you don’t have to worry about that kind of continuity as close as if you were starting up in the backyard of where your last group had been playing around.

It gets worse if, as in the case of GW1 and GW2 . . . two games are connected lore-wise and one hasn’t quite . . . kinda, sorta maybe finished . . .

Oh I understand that. I just think it’s fairly obvious that they wanted to make it a long time between games from the beginning. I mean, think of all that long time-frame would allow them to do, both creatively and mechanically: the addition of new, novel, and “cool”(for lack of a better word) design mechanics like rifles/airships/etc., deep development of the player races that had either a very different portrayal in the past(Charr) or were non-existant(Asura, Norn, Sylvari), the introduction of new, universal antagonists(dragons), a lot of geographic design freedom while still keeping bits and pieces of the old world in tact for nostalgia, etc.

Just paging through the old concept design clips, you can easily tell the direction they wanted to go with GW2 in terms of style and atmosphere. I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to think the long interval was anything but planned from the start.

draxynnic.3719:

And even between “civilised” armies, part of the reason why muskets won out on casualties was because of the tactics. Cavalry was one of the most feared things by infantry – infantry facing other infantry or artillery was better off spreading out and commanders knew this, but spreading out would leave them vulnerable to a surprise attack by cavalry that dispersed infantry would be almost defenseless against. So unless commanders were pretty darn certain there was no cavalry around, infantry fought in formations – and that left them vulnerable to musket fire.

The distinction here was that clumping up to be an easy target for musket fire was considered better than the possibility of being mopped up by cavalry. Musket fire won out on kills because people were so scared of the alternative that they chose tactics that made them easy targets for musket fire.

In the world of Guild Wars, though, the balance is tipped the other way. Clumping in a universe where the other side could have a battalion of elementalists and you’d never know until rocks fell and everyone died is tantamount to suicide, while there’s no fast-moving cavalry to clean up dispersed troops. So standard tactics are to disperse, which greatly limits the power of inaccurate musket fire.

The issue with they have magic debate is it takes longer to learn magic than a month so after a period of extended war and the availability of muskets magic would fall out of favor out side of medics. While I agree with most of what you said I would clarify that Light infantry regiments would actually aim at targets(and hit them) where Line infantry would just fire at the other mass of soldiers. Another thing worth adding is that you would usually march in denser formations like you said for two reasons one protection from and two it was faster than marching in formation. That said one of Napoleon’s maxim’s says this:
The formation of infantry in line should be always in two ranks, because the length of the musket only admits of an effective fire in this formation. The discharge of the third rank is not only uncertain, but frequently dangerous to the ranks in its front. In drawing up infantry in two ranks, there should be a supernumerary behind every fourth of fifth file. A reserve should likewise be placed twenty-five paces in rear of each flank.
Given the validity of this maxim is debatable because historians debate on whether or not 2 ranks if enough to stop a cavalry charge. Some says it is some say it isn’t.

Dustfinger.9510:

The Brigadier.3847:

Yes but total casualties by bayonets in the Napoleonic wars only 2%-4% of all casualties. In the Napoleonic wars and muskets were 69%-71% and about 13% artillery and 14% from swords so no matter how us slice it there were more casualties from musket fire than anything else combined. And most of the damage done with swords and lances would be done by cavalry not infantry. On that note most Cavalry also had pistols as well as swords which they would also use in close combat. Winged hussars could have up to four guns, a lance, sword, and the coolest armor ever invented by man.

That’s because of the manner in which they fought most of the battles. The “civilized” fashion of formations firing into other formations. Muskets get increasingly ineffective if one or both parties refuses to follow those rules. That’s how the Zulus beat England and the American Colonists also beat the them. And, how the Native Americans continually beat the colonists before disease decimated their numbers.

Edit:
so Zulus won with spears and animal hide shields.

Colonists won with gurilla tactics, muskets, hatchets and swords against more muskets and better discipline

Native Americans won with hatchets, knives, bows, clubs and animal hide shields that could deflect all but the most direct musket fire.

Conquistadors had guns and saw a great use of swords and spears in their arsenal.

Conquistadors also fought people with no metal armor and no horses. This was also in 1500’s before Fusiliers became the backbone of the army.

Zulus lose the 2nd invasion. This is not a good comparison as the British used the Martini Henry which was breach loading rifle,used cartridges and hide shields didn’t block those bullets.
Hide shields can not block most musket balls. It is true the Comanche shields could deflect glancing shots but my guess is you don’t want to stand with a hide shield and have me test whether or not a musket will go through that shield, at fifty paces of course.

It isn’t hard to kill a small settlement when they are not prepared for an assault doesn’t matter if you have muskets or melee weapons. Most of the colonial warfare was characterized by small skirmishes and guerilla warfare. And guerilla warfare isn’t about having the best equipment it is about using what you have to defeat a superior force.

One example of failure for guerilla warfare is when Napoleon defeats the Spanish guerilla tactics, not to be fair it is only while he is physically present. When he leaves that is another story because his brother was incompetent. On that note most Americans had used muskets or some kind of fire arm in the revolutionary war. they didn’t charge in with hatchets.

Last muskets inaccuracy is exaggerated for many reasons. Line infantry wasn’t told to aim at an actual soldier just shoot at the mass. Light infantry or Skirmishers would actually aim and their accuracy was much greater.
You couldn’t actually see what you were shooting at after a couple of rounds.
Many people think arquebus and Musket is the same thing it is not. Arquebus came before and were less accurate and more prone to break in battle.
And last many times people would make the actual shot smaller so they could reload faster. This sacrificed accuracy but helped insure you got 3 rounds a minute off.

If I sound snappy I am sorry I am just trying to strengthen my point not make you mad.

The Brigadier.3847:

Conquistadors also fought people with no metal armor and no horses. This was also in 1500’s before Fusiliers became the backbone of the army.

The fact that it is before fusiliers became the backbone of the army seems to strengthen why it makes sense for GW2.

Zulus lose the 2nd invasion. This is not a good comparison as the British used the Martini Henry which was breach loading rifle,used cartridges and hide shields didn’t block those bullets.

It is a better comparison because the rifles were more advanced and the Zulus still won. It strengthens the point that the tech isn’t the be all end all.

Hide shields can not block most musket balls. It is true the Comanche shields could deflect glancing shots but my guess is you don’t want to stand with a hide shield and have me test whether or not a musket will go through that shield, at fifty paces of course.

I wouldn’t want to test a modern bullet proof vest against a .22 but it has no bearing on the conversation. :P But the fact is, shields struck at otherwise lethal angles were tough enough to deflect smoothbore balls at midrange. Furthering the point that primitive stone-age tech was effective against the advanced tech of the time.

It isn’t hard to kill a small settlement when they are not prepared for an assault doesn’t matter if you have muskets or melee weapons. Most of the colonial warfare was characterized by small skirmishes and guerilla warfare. And guerilla warfare isn’t about having the best equipment it is about using what you have to defeat a superior force.

The settlements were often built in fort fashion with posted guards because of the constant threat of attack. The primitive tech was effective here.

One example of failure for guerilla warfare is when Napoleon defeats the Spanish guerilla tactics, not to be fair it is only while he is physically present. When he leaves that is another story because his brother was incompetent. On that note most Americans had used muskets or some kind of fire arm in the revolutionary war. they didn’t charge in with hatchets.

nothing will be the be all end all. But this is the point of why rifles aren’t either. and why swords and armor usefulness had lasted long after we would have expected.

Last muskets inaccuracy is exaggerated for many reasons. Line infantry wasn’t told to aim at an actual soldier just shoot at the mass. Light infantry or Skirmishers would actually aim and their accuracy was much greater.
You couldn’t actually see what you were shooting at after a couple of rounds.
Many people think arquebus and Musket is the same thing it is not. Arquebus came before and were less accurate and more prone to break in battle.
And last many times people would make the actual shot smaller so they could reload faster. This sacrificed accuracy but helped insure you got 3 rounds a minute off.

Your describing why it’s inaccurate. Not why it isn’t. But the accuracy of a good moothbore rifle was only good for 100-150 yards. and accuracy was defined as the ability to hit a man sized target. anywhere on the target.

If I sound snappy I am sorry I am just trying to strengthen my point not make you mad.

No problem. I often come off the same way when I’m really just listing points in a scientific, unemotional fashion.

The Brigadier.3847:

The issue with they have magic debate is it takes longer to learn magic than a month so after a period of extended war and the availability of muskets magic would fall out of favor out side of medics.

You’re assuming that the spellcasters are no less protected than the common footsoldier.

This is a bad assumption. It would only take one well-timed Wall of Reflection, Feedback bubble, or similar effect to really ruin the day of a block of muskets, and that’s just considering the spellcaster’s own ability to protect themselves. A general with spellcasters is, however, naturally likely to value them over a common footsoldier who took a month to train and take steps to prevent them from falling casualty to a random musket shot as part of a volley. In the meantime, they’re free to rain death on any clumps of troops that present a good target – meteor showers and chaos storms don’t care about such barriers, after all. On top of that, many armed forces in Tyria don’t just deal with other armed forces, but hostile creatures and dragon minions that don’t face the same economic considerations.

From a investment/payoff perspective, mages are better compared to officers or a combination of artillery piece and crew in one highly mobile individual, with the added benefit that some spellcasters can actually stop incoming fire. Additionally, of the two races that have the most military background, the charr treat all education of their children as part of the military training regime, so if a particular cub proves to have an aptitude for magic, it’s probably not costing the legion much more to raise a magic-user than it is to raise a common soldier. Humans probably rely on the civilian magic teaching methods, and then lure spellcasters in on the basis of receiving greater pay and prestige. (This distinction, incidentally, may be part of the reason why charr and humans have rough parity when it comes to combat spellcasters despite the charr disdain of magic – charr spellcasters WILL be funneled to the battle lines, while human spellcasters are free to opt out.)

I’m aware that light infantry operate with different rules to blocks – there’s a reason why British light infantry were the first to be issued with rifles. Without rifles, though, they really were doing the best they could with a weapon that wasn’t really suited to it. Dustfinger’s given a figure for the accurate range of a smoothbore musket of 100-150 yards – the estimated range of reasonably effective range for a longbow, on the other hand, is in the 180-250 yard range. Thing is, when everyone else is using effectively the same weapon, you can get away with this.

In terms of defense against cavalry – calculating based on the number of troops that can effectively fire at once has the problem that even the best soldiers could only manage one shot every 10 seconds or so with a muzzle-loading musket – and cavalry can cover a lot of ground in ten seconds. After that shot, the infantryman has to choose between reloading (a very vulnerable position to be in with a cavalry charge bearing down on you) or setting their bayonetted musket for the charge – and two ranks of infantry with sword-bayonets does not make a block of pike. Furthermore, this assumes that the cavalry is considerate enough to charge from the front rather than rolling up a flank or something unpleasant like that.

A block means you can make a credible equivalent to a block of pikemen. Furthermore, behind that first couple of ranks, you can have people busy reloading, so if the unit is drilled well enough at firing, falling back to reload, then advancing to fire again, an infantry block can achieve a near-continuous volley that a unit of cavalry just isn’t going to be able to get close enough to do serious damage to (however willing the riders may be, there’s a limit to what even the best-trained horse will go into). Combine the two effects and a large enough block of infantry can make itself pretty much impregnable to being attacked by cavalry – it just comes at the cost of making itself a great target for everything else. Even if a cavalryman does make contact, the momentum of their charge is then likely to carry them into the middle of a mob of soldiers looking to cut them down, and a cavalryman who gets bogged down in the middle of an infantry unit is actually rendered fairly vulnerable – two or three lines, however, is fairly easy to punch through and then you get cavalry on both sides of the line riding up and down killing with near-impunity.

The bottom line really is that we just can’t assume that the evolution of military tactics and equipment in Tyria is going to mirror that of European military history, because military realities in Tyria – the presence of magic and the lack of cavalry – means that Tyrian armies are under entirely different evolutionary pressures than gunpowder age European ones.

If you can get hold of a copy of the D&D 3.5 supplement Heroes of Battle (and can look past its shameful misrepresentation of the Gallipolli campaign) that has an interesting discussion of the effect of a large amount of fantastical elements (magic, tamed powerful monsters a la siege devourers). It paints the result as being quite similar to modern warfare – instead of blocks that present an attractive target to mages and monsters with AoE attacks, infantry is better off spreading out, seeking cover, and, well, generally acting like modern infantry. And that’s still with an assumption of substantially smaller proportions of spellcasters than we often see in the Guild Wars games.

Fantasy mmos/worlds have use rifles/guns before in game. World of Warcraft for instance has rifles, pistals I believe?

Draymos.5489:

Fantasy mmos/worlds have use rifles/guns before in game. World of Warcraft for instance has rifles, pistals I believe?

It’s better than the world of Filgaia. It’s better not to own a gun when you’re there.

Frankly, black powder weapons, or magically-driven rifles I can handle. I remember some game where magic weapons were designed to basically be braced under an arm, but can’t remember for the life of me what it was.

draxynnic.3719:

The bottom line really is that we just can’t assume that the evolution of military tactics and equipment in Tyria is going to mirror that of European military history, because military realities in Tyria – the presence of magic and the lack of cavalry – means that Tyrian armies are under entirely different evolutionary pressures than gunpowder age European ones.

Just two things in game. No cavalry in the conventional sense but the humans are at war with centaurs all the time and they are half horse half person so in essence cavalry. That said I don’t think that would rear like real horses do when attacking empty boxes.
2nd if 1 person can block ranged attacks you would be in dense formations because one person can protect multiple people if attacked with magic, bows, or guns.

That said fair enough magic is a game changer but I think it would still follow similar rules to archery, because magic wielders are weaker in melee combat by comparison and they have to be trained for a longer period of time to become proficient with magic than the time it takes become proficient with a musket.

The main enemy of humans has been charr for longer than centaurs – until recently the centaurs were generally confined to raiding at the borders. And charr don’t have anything that’s even vaguely similar to cavalry in behaviour, but they have had siege devourers since EOTN, which tactically speaking are are effectively tanks.

To be honest, Iron Legion bravado aside, even in GW2 I’d probably be inclined to take a siege devourer over one of the armoured tricyles though call tanks.

On the second point – go and actually use one of the skills in question in-game. Wall of Reflection, Feedback, traited Illusionarr Curtain, etc… perfect protection against projectiles. Don’t do squat about an elementalist who decides to start dropping rocks on your head, though. That one person can protect multiple people against guns quite easily – but if a group tries to gather in order to take advantage of this, it’s asking to be hit with some form of magical attack that will bypass the defence.

These conditions favour skirmishers – which might gather temporarily to take advantage of a defence when it’s tactically advantageous to do so, but which will be just as ready to disperse when the enemy responds by calling in the artillery (magical or otherwise).

While magic does require extra training than just handing some random schmuck a musket, the payoff is also much greater. Your assertion that magic wielders are weaker in melee combat also doesn’t match what we see in-game – most are quite capable at handling themselves in melee, and guardians especially excel at it. In fact, I’d be tempted to say that your typical gunpowder age ‘give someone a musket and a few month’s training’ soldier would get ripped apart by any spellcaster you’d see on the battlefield – for a character without magic to match or exceed them, you’d probably be looking at a warrior that represents a similar degree of training and/or combat experience.

Siege devourers can dance, tricycle tanks cannot. Easy decision really.