Gunpower Era Or No?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

What is your favorite era? The GunPower Era, or the Non GunPower Era, where some people say the "true contest" was with primary focus on Swords and such?

[Pontius Pilate]

I voted for No Gunpowder era as my favorite. I like hand to hand melee better than just standing a couple hundred yards away and watching people fall down. There's nothing more heroic or epic, as meeting your enemy face to face on the field, with sword and shield.

[Tristuskhan]

Well I must defend my gah even if my vote was too fast... oh nevermind...

So I'd vote "gunpower era" since there is nothing more heroic IMO than facing the bare stupidity of making war when you're caught under an artillery barrage, probably.

But anyway, gah!, that's all a matter of slaughter.:no:

[Conqueror]

Non-Gunpower Era

Because (premodern) guns = teh ugly. Gimme a line of archers to darken the sun with volley after volley of arrows. Or a wedge of lancers charging across the field. Or even a line of footmen advancing steadily with shields locked. The old way simply has way superior aesthetics to it, particularly so in naval combat (ramming & boarding or an exchange of cannon fire? no contest!)

Though when you get to modern age with tanks and airplanes, weapons start looking prettier again, even if the results of their usage are gruesome as ever :skull:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

GunPower Era. Better Tactics. You could debate the latter comment, but for sieges for instance, do you really want to sit there for years and besiege a castle, or blow it walls down and take it within months? :juggle2:

[CountArach]

I find both equally fascinating.

In the non-Gunpowder Era (Which I am studying at Uni) I find the commander to be somewhat more irrelevant in the decision-making process. All they can do is set themselves up to fight a battle in favourable conditions and choose when to commit the reserve. Most of the other decisions are made at the officer level.

In the Gunpowder Era I find that the General himself plays a much greater role (Here I refer to pre-WWI militaries). Formulations for battle plans have truly come along to a more refined level, especially after Frederick the Great. Not only does hte General hence have a Strategic role, but they also have a Tacitcal role which is just as important. I find this era the most interesting to play at a tabletop and computer level.

[Herkus]

I find renaissance era (1500 -1700) most fascinating, because of the transitional period between medieval and gunpowder warfares.

[Lord Winter]

If it was a question of which one I wanted to fight in it would gun powder if I had to be a peasent but if I could be a knight or men at arms I'd take non gunpowder just based on the causillity rates.

As for which interests me more its early modern, plenty to scheming, manuver but not the all out slaughter that would come latter on.

[Pontius Pilate]

I find both equally fascinating.

In the non-Gunpowder Era (Which I am studying at Uni) I find the commander to be somewhat more irrelevant in the decision-making process. All they can do is set themselves up to fight a battle in favourable conditions and choose when to commit the reserve. Most of the other decisions are made at the officer level.


Really? Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, etc. were all irrelevant in the descision-making process and the battle?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Really? Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, etc. were all irrelevant in the descision-making process and the battle?

Not irrelevant, surely, but only capable of exerting limited influence during the battle itself. Remember, battles are confusion and they were limited by eyesight and strength of voice to a comparatively narrow decision-making role. Certainly they tried to retain what control they could (some went to great lengths with signalling and the like), but part of their "great captain" status was recognizing the impossibility of retaining anything approaching full decision control given extent conditions and their adaptations thereto.

Try Keegan's "Face of Command." His discussion of command style by Alexander, Wellington, & Grant are a good study in many of these dynamics.

[CountArach]

Really? Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, etc. were all irrelevant in the descision-making process and the battle?
Irrelevant? No, certainly not. However they rarely did any more than ensure that Strategically they were in a better position than their opponent and they chose the right moments to commit the reserve forces. At the lower levels it was mostly up to their subordinates to decide things and act on their own initiative.

There were fewer actual decisions that were required - morale was everything. These generals were great because they could inspire their men to victory in ways that opposing generals never could.

[PanzerJaeger]

There's nothing more heroic or epic, as meeting your enemy face to face on the field, with sword and shield.

Except facing a company of T-34/85s driving straight toward you, with the knowledge that your single Tiger is the only thing standing between them and the vulnerable infantry behind you. ~;)

Nothing cooler than WW2 imo...

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/mp44zf4.jpg

[Pontius Pilate]

Except facing a company of T-34/85s driving straight toward you, with the knowledge that your single Tiger is the only thing standing between them and the vulnerable infantry behind you. ~;)



https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/mp44zf4.jpg


not really. nothing more epic then hiding in a foxhole, right?:no:

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Give me a sharp sword and sturdy shield with some plate- or chain-mail any day!!! (Don't forget the cross- and long-bows!!!)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Would the bloke at Visby who took an axe from knave to chaps have preferred a bullet through the heart?

Would the fellow whose legs were removed by a canonball on some field in Flanders have wished for a quick slash across his throat?


Hard to say if I'd have a preference, it all seems pretty :daisy: to me.

[Tiberius of the Drake]

Not irrelevant, surely, but only capable of exerting limited influence during the battle itself. Remember, battles are confusion and they were limited by eyesight and strength of voice to a comparatively narrow decision-making role. Certainly they tried to retain what control they could (some went to great lengths with signalling and the like), but part of their "great captain" status was recognizing the impossibility of retaining anything approaching full decision control given extent conditions and their adaptations thereto.

Try Keegan's "Face of Command." His discussion of command style by Alexander, Wellington, & Grant are a good study in many of these dynamics.

Not to be nit picky but its The Mask of Command

[KarlXII]

I always found naval warfare to be epic.....

Anyone? :juggle2:

[Megas Methuselah]

... No. Although my opinion might change with ETW. But it largely remains, "No."

[Pontius Pilate]

I always found naval warfare to be epic.....

Anyone? :juggle2:


it really depends on the time period and the amount of ships for me. anyway I think prefer land battles.

[Ironside]

I find both equally fascinating.

In the non-Gunpowder Era (Which I am studying at Uni) I find the commander to be somewhat more irrelevant in the decision-making process. All they can do is set themselves up to fight a battle in favourable conditions and choose when to commit the reserve. Most of the other decisions are made at the officer level.

In the Gunpowder Era I find that the General himself plays a much greater role (Here I refer to pre-WWI militaries). Formulations for battle plans have truly come along to a more refined level, especially after Frederick the Great. Not only does hte General hence have a Strategic role, but they also have a Tacitcal role which is just as important. I find this era the most interesting to play at a tabletop and computer level.

Isn't that rather a development of the military tactics than anything else? The field of vision (and hence the abillity to follow the battle) dropped during the gunpowder era, particullary during the black powder era.

Prefering the old school myself :knight:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Just wait until ETW comes out... If now 90% of the RTW fans are obsessed with Rome and Antiquity and 90% of MTW and M2TW fans are obsessed with Medieval times, then after ETW comes out, and if it is going to be really great, then we will see a huge spike in the percentage of people citing the 18th century as their favorite historical period. It all depends on the game the poor ignorant brutes like the best. :laugh4::laugh4:

[Watchman]

Eh, hard to say IMO. Both have their merits. I find the pre-1700s or so times to be more interesting as far as equipement and actual down-and-dirty fighting goes - after that you basically had people in long lines shooting lead at each other, and the hardware designers got all obsessed with uniform minutiae and similar boring stuff rather than trying to figure out, say, how to make a better sword to gut the other guy with or a more protective helmet. (European military cutlery design started taking a real nosedive around the early 1800s...)

On the other hand, the *tactics* of the musket-fife-bayonet-and-drum linear-tactic era are quite fascinating. It's no easy task to steer around hundreds of men in close order under fire while still maintaining something akin to a cohesive combat formation, and tacticians, theorists and drill officers came up with all kinds of interesting evolutions and permutations when trying to figure out how to do it better than the other guy...