Gunpowder Units

How do i get them?
Ive been playing as the Scots and have had the gunpowder event and have built buildings allowing me to get bombards, mortars and the organ gun but i cant field gunpowder troops such as arquebusiers or musketeers
Does another event trigger such units or are they only available to certain factions and, if so, which factions can build them?
I was a huge fan of bridge battles in Shogun against the infamous hojo horde using massed ranks or arquebusier and musketeer units and was hoping for more of the same against the mongols

You have to have a huge walled city with the appropriate militia building for musket type infantry. I should have some in about 7 turns along with pikes.... :beam:

The Scots are one of the few factions (together with Byzantium), that can't get gunpowder units. They only get the cannons. Sorry lad. ;-)

I have not seen Scottish Musketeers nor Arqubeisers (sp?) in the Custom Battle unit selection. Do the Scots get gunpowder units? I hope so, for the sake of my campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

I have not seen Scottish Musketeers nor Arqubeisers (sp?) in the Custom Battle unit selection. Do the Scots get gunpowder units? I hope so, for the sake of my campaign.

---

I guess they don't too bad, the Scots have seemed to be the lackluster faction so far. Its a shame they didn't specify Scot and Irish factions seperately.

Yes. Despite my heavy bias though, I would say a Welsh Faction would be more historically correct seeing as one faction cannot do Eire justice and the Welsh were a serious kick in the arse for the English. Starting out with Longbows would be quite nice and a huge advantage!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turpitudo

The Scots are one of the few factions (together with Byzantium), that can't get gunpowder units. They only get the cannons. Sorry lad. ;-)

---

noooooo!!!!1!!1!!ONE!!ONEONE1!!!1!!1ONE!!!1!!!!ONEONE!!!!!

Tell me you can hire merc gunpowder units?????

France also (unless the Gendarmes have something to tell me) have no gunpowder units. They're limited to cannons (Basilisks though, which could be worse) and have to make do with Aventuriers for their missile requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukasa

France also (unless the Gendarmes have something to tell me) have no gunpowder units. They're limited to cannons (Basilisks though, which could be worse) and have to make do with Aventuriers for their missile requirements.

---

wrong France has Arquebusiers.

I see no reason that the Scots should lack gunpowder units. Can anyone clue me in as to why it would be so.

I have noticed a tendency to make some factions rather anachronistic without a very solid reason for doing it. The game as any game involving more than one battle is only semi-historical by nature. I can see some factions getting some technologies late but not at all is a bit much, especially if they are doing a good job of hanging on or expanding there lands.

The other view point is that archers should have a rate of fire about 10 times greater than gunpowder units, which I have not really seen on the battle fields.

The game is far from historical correctness. We fight battles which are not medieval at all, we can conquer the world as Denmark or Scotland, we can send people flying in the air with a successful charge and so on. That is not a fault, otherwise the game could be a bit boring.

You said something about bows and guns which I found very interesting. I don't like it too but the game must rely on are rather simple mechanic I fear.
(Long)bows for example. Not very effective against plate in the real world (same for crossbows by the way). That was not so important in the old times as only a small percentage of medieval warriors wore plate. But in TW end game there are lots of troops clad in plate, a lot too much in a historical sense. So crossbows and bows must be made more effective than should be. Same for arquebuses: if they were made as effective in game as they were in the real world it would be fun killing. So guns are weaker in performance but fire quicker than correct. It's a game.

That said the use of gunpowder units on the British Isles was not far spread before 1560-80. Englands army f.e. was oldfashioned between c. 1500 and that date which changed rapidly with the war in the Netherlands and Ireland. Henry VIII ever had to hire foreign mercenaries with guns. So M2TW is not so far from history in the case of Scotland. Do the English in M2TW have arquebusiers? They too should not but ... it's a game.

Actually, you may be suprised by the effectiveness of crossbows on plate armor. It was possible for a crossbow to reach a draw force of 350 lbf, which was enough to penetrate even plate mail when hit straight on. A glancing blow would, of course, just be deflected away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The other view point is that archers should have a rate of fire about 10 times greater than gunpowder units, which I have not really seen on the battle fields.

---

That's not really true... Archers trying to fire in volleys fire a little slower than one archer firing as fast as he can draw, and a musket unit can fire their weapons as fast as they can shuffle ranks. A disciplined musket unit could form up in four ranks and have almost continuous fire by having the front fire, then kneel and reload while the second rank fired, second rank kneels, third rank fires, third rank kneels, fourth rank fires, and then the first rank stands to fire again, having completed reloading.

It's somewhat reflected in this game... only one rank fires at a time, then they change places (They haven't learned the kneel and have the next rank fire over your head trick yet I guess)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musashi

That's not really true... Archers trying to fire in volleys fire a little slower than one archer firing as fast as he can draw, and a musket unit can fire their weapons as fast as they can shuffle ranks. A disciplined musket unit could form up in four ranks and have almost continuous fire by having the front fire, then kneel and reload while the second rank fired, second rank kneels, third rank fires, third rank kneels, fourth rank fires, and then the first rank stands to fire again, having completed reloading.

It's somewhat reflected in this game... only one rank fires at a time, then they change places (They haven't learned the kneel and have the next rank fire over your head trick yet I guess)

---

I'm fairly certain that this technique was perfected by Napoleon, so it's no wonder that the arquebusiers don't employ it. This would be tantamount to me being upset because my armies don't use a blitzkrieg strategy well enough.

Gentlemen, Yes indeed it is a game with a historical setting. But we are not talking about muskets or even matchlocks here. These guns were not shoulder fired the way we do it today. They were rested on a forked stake and lit with a burning rope called a match. They took several minutes to load in the most skilled hands. Something like three to five if memory serves me correctly. I am not even sure that these early fire arms has stocks yet.

It also seems to me that I ran across some reference to one of the early Stewarts acquiring masses of fire arms from Italy at an early date and terrifying the country while training men in their use... I thought they then began their manufacture, but I could be mistaken on that point. At any rate I know that Sean O´Niel was using them against the English in the mid 1500s and abandoned the Galowglass for musket and pike. (leading to his own death in a round about fashion) The arms were imported from Scotland and Germany.

Much of that is beyond the scope of the game, but thinking of Scotland as a poor and anachronistic country is not so historically accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Gentlemen, Yes indeed it is a game with a historical setting. But we are not talking about muskets or even matchlocks here. These guns were not shoulder fired the way we do it today. They were rested on a forked stake and lit with a burning rope called a match. They took several minutes to load in the most skilled hands. Something like three to five if memory serves me correctly. I am not even sure that these early fire arms has stocks yet.

---

Actually the game clearly describes the musketeers as wielding muskets. Which one would hope would be the case lol.

I hate gunpowder units. They are inaccurate, slow, and not effective against lite infantry. Stick with bows and crossbows.

That's true of Hand Gunners, and to a lesser extent, of Arquebusiers, but Musketeers > All.

Well, I don't see why muskets should be so great. They only had an effective range of a hundred yards or so and even during the English civil-war the test of a breast plate was to fire at it point-blank with a pistol. I've seen it done. You get a dent, which is a quality mark.

Cossask Musketeers are great. They're an easy unit to tech too (just need largest size wall) have attack/defense enough to hold off melee troops (including cavalry) and absolutley destroy things when giving some range and a bit of time. I'm currently using them and dismountev dvors in my russian campaign for a very effective all hybrid melee/missile army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Well, I don't see why muskets should be so great. They only had an effective range of a hundred yards or so and even during the English civil-war the test of a breast plate was to fire at it point-blank with a pistol. I've seen it done. You get a dent, which is a quality mark.

---

There's a big difference between the muzzle velocity of a pistol and a full scale battle musket.

Muskets have the same range as a longbow in this game.

PS: Has anyone else tried out the Moors' Camel Gunners? Long range missiles, decent rate of fire, the ability to fire on the move, and 16(!) ranged attack.. I'd lean towards calling them the strongest unit in the game, with the exception of the Timurid elephant cannons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musashi

That's true of Hand Gunners, and to a lesser extent, of Arquebusiers, but Musketeers > All.

---

But Musketeers can be expensive when in a long conflict, or when money is running low. I prefer the high rate of fire and cost effectiveness of archers. The only time I use Musketeers is when I'm in a siege, since the walls balance out their slow rate of fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by troymclure

Cossask Musketeers are great. They're an easy unit to tech too (just need largest size wall) have attack/defense enough to hold off melee troops (including cavalry) and absolutley destroy things when giving some range and a bit of time. I'm currently using them and dismountev dvors in my russian campaign for a very effective all hybrid melee/missile army.

---

These guys are amazing! Probably a little too uber, but I digress. My biggest problem with them so far is that they like to shoot each other sometimes...:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khisanth Magus

Actually, you may be suprised by the effectiveness of crossbows on plate armor. It was possible for a crossbow to reach a draw force of 350 lbf, which was enough to penetrate even plate mail when hit straight on. A glancing blow would, of course, just be deflected away.

---

We tried it with a 500 lbs. crossbow and a 80 lbs. longbow against a replica of a plate breast harness (original dated about 1480). Distance ca. 20 metres because of security and to avoid the strong flexing of the arrows during the first metres that hamper penetration. The plate has a thickness of between 2 (most parts) and 3 mm, which was a norm.

Total failure of the longbow which was capable to punch through 1,5 mm plate (as it was used for limb defences) but not 2 mm even if it hit straight on with 90 degree.

The crossbow bolts sometimes made holes in 2 mm plate but often did not penetrate enough to kill or severely injure the wearer (straw in that case)

Of cause, mail was no match at all for both weapons. Small, weak plate segments as in jacks may also not been the best defence but considering the enormous price of such replicas testing was not an option.

There were crossbows with pull weights up to 1000 lbs. and longbows up to 160 lbs. but presumably that was not the norm. (I cannot even shoot with a 80 lbs. bow:beam: )

By the way, bullets of an arquebus replica, dated about 1490, easily punched holes in 3 mm plates. It is not difficult to explain why that clumsy slow weapons soon replaced crossbows and bows. That arquebus was fired from the shoulder as it has a trigger. Such triggers appeared in greater numbers around 1500 and helped much to increase its use, unfortunately for the soldiers because of the terrible wounds guns inflicted and still inflict. Scientific progress is always wonderful.:inquisitive: