On the Inaccuracy of Muskets...

[Did you expect a name?]

I feel like the devs never actually did any research on military history of the period - they just said "hurr durr muskets are innaccurate, it's a design feature"

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/c1assr/did_europeans_have_any_guns_similar_to_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/69fntq/does_greater_windage_play_a_factor_in_a/

"At 300 paces (150 m), aim at the enemy's belt;

At 150 paces (75 m), aim at the enemy's knees.

(Only the last two, moreover, were regarded as being likely hits.)"

Which meant that you could LIKELY hit somebody at 150 meters. Last I checked, 'likely' in colloquial usage is a word that likely means > 50/50 odds.

I think anyone who's read into history of the period would agree that the accuracy (or rather, inaccuracy) of muskets is plainly unrealistic in this game.

So I've heard - muskets were very accurate up to 100 meters! So really, that's when the RNG should begin to apply. Why aim at the knees though? Recoil. Just recoil. Muskets were high caliber hand cannons. They had to be shoulder fired, or there could be pain. They often weighed over 10 lbs to reduce recoil further (inertia and all that). Even so, this was still an improvement over the hand cannons of the 1600s, which were overbuilt at 20lbs. and more, and which needed a fork to keep the gun aimed properly.

But why bother aiming a musket at all? The priming powder burns your eyes when it goes off in your face. It also nearly blinds you every time. And they were inaccurate at 10 meters, right? Wrong.

My theory is that the accuracy of the musket was why the adoption of rifles wasn't immediately obvious. Why would people use muskets for 400 years? 1460s (early 'pike and shot' era) - 1860s (american civil war?). Muskets were not as accurate as rifles - but they were accurate enough!

By the american civil war, mass rifles was discovered to be very effective - in a range context rather than lethality context. If there casualties were at all shocking, it had more to do with advances in explosives, cannon, the greater range of engagement afforded by faster firing rifles (minie ball), and the increasing role of sharp shooters and spotters with telescopes.

But this isn't a total consensus - it's just the theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIoUr5GJa24

In the video above, we learn that gunpowder warfare was way more lethal than ancient warfare, and would remain so from then on.

A lot of civil war casualties may simply have had to do with the nature of having so many battles going on + gunpowder - similarly, there were a lot of casualties in the 30 years war as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej7eFLgFzN4

I was thinking the game could have RNG damage instead of accuracy - accuracy only takes control out of the hands of players. That is LESS FUN.

In the spirit of control I would recommend guaranteed one shot kills at certain close ranges. 10 or 15 meters, a heavy 0.6-0.75 caliber musket ball blasts through just about anything, including french curassier armor.


RNG damage would mean most of the time, people die in 1 or 2 hits, but if they're lucky, 3. A french curassier might get lucky more often - unless having greater HP is already a thing for them. Last I checked, every class had identical stats, except those who were highlighted with traits/abilities (which seemed redundant... why have stats if they're all the same and only adjustable through traits, right?).

MELEE - Melee weapons are a lot more RNG, but bayonet charges would be very effective and easy to do. Realistically, you just point and stick it in. Like in Battlefield 1, which I think included such a mechanic fairly well.

But why use swords if you can just bayonet charge? Context! Swords are deadly in skilled hands. They are the noble officer's weapon. They would therefore be harder to block (unless you also have a sword), and this is because they're more nimble than gun stocks (easier to feign, even attack around a block for partial damage) and can attack from more angles (give more animations or attack controls). But this would have to assume that the sword is in range - the bayonet's advantage is reach. If he's lucky, then he can thrust true, but if not; then that is why the lineman is a lineman! Not even the finest swordsman can beat back 3 or 4 bayonets at once, all thrusting in concert and steadily walking forward.

I do appreciate the Road Map plan to reduce accuracy when you fix bayonet, and player would also detach bayonet to increase accuracy, which i like.

However, since I'm strongly against RNG accuracy at less than 100 meters - adjusting accuracy should logically instead mean adjusting the range at which the RNG applies. 95 or 90 meters sounds about right? If it's a fully 10% reduction (which seems like a lot), let it reduce range instead. This isn't a table top game where you roll dice all the time, this is an FPS where players are given direct agency... just remember that.

I dunno so much about pistols.


"BUT ALL THIS RULE TWEAKING WOULD CHANGE THE GAME!" Players and devs cry.

Maybe that's the point? As it stands, this game isn't as fun as Napoleonic Wars. Muskets are more accurate in that game. Players in M&B: Napoleonic Wars don't want to close in melee as often. They actually deliberately prefer line tactics to optimize their firepower, which is fun, and involves player co-operation. It's not just a chaotic battle royale whenever you join a public match.

They are also more likely to look around and be aware of who is shooting at them, and to take cover, because it isn't just RNG deciding who gets killed. Players stick together in NW, because they know they'll get killed. In HF, there's no benefit to sticking together; it's harder to rally players - it's medieval and dumb.

Just my opinion. Easy fix - make muskets more accurate. It already looks like a reskin of NW anyway.

-------

And if the devs could cite what historical material they've based their game on, that would be helpful too.

More sources

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/

[Did you expect a name?]

I would add that muskets were of varying qualities, so maybe the 'no RNG until 100 meters' applies only to the highest quality muskets? Others might have imperfect barrels, increased windage, too much gun powder per load which causes greater bullet vibration and earlier lateral movement (maybe that's a shooter skill thing; intentionally overloading a musket to do more damage and penetrate multiple targets?)... that sort of stuff. Though would that be too much RPG for a game like this?

Perhaps a compromise would be 70 meters? Right now, they are ridiculously inaccurate, regardless of historical counter arguments.

While I'm at it, guns should have a more satisfying sound to them. A high CRACK and boom. No poof; the poof is probably from reenactors.

[Tellashim[GIF]]

All the OPs research was done in a lab environment, with weapons of the late 1800s.... nothing like the weapons in this game. Disregard OP. Muskets were extremely inaccurate.

[Did you expect a name?]

Where do you get that from?

[Did you expect a name?]

Weapons of late 1800s were exclusively breech loading rifles, many which had smokeless powder.

[MiSFiT77]

Holdfast isn't a realistic historical simulator, it's a game. If you want to play a more co op style then I suggest joining a regiment and playing only line battles. There's a full list of all the regiments here.
https://discord.gg/qjnGRA

It is incredibly unlikely that people will play the type of game you want on the public servers. Bottom line players adapt to/learn the game mechanics and play accordingly. Only a fool is going to get into a tight clump of bodies in the open on a public server and be picked off like fish in a barrel. As I said that's why line battles are a thing. Pub server games are more skirmishes where 3 game modes are available. Conquest (cap the flag), Siege and Battlefield. Siege and Conquest do not require forming lines in fact if you do your team will lose every time. On Battlefield people will sometimes form loose firing lines if an officer throws down a firing line that provides buffs, but even then it really depends on the map terrain as to how effective this is.

You can learn more about the public server side of the game here https://discord.gg/QfGtvX

In short pub play is very different from line battle play. The people who play predominantly on the public servers will generally not appreciate people trying to enforce a style of play on their game that ends in defeat 99% of the time. Likewise the line battle players do not like pub players going rambo and ruining line battles. Both are correct in my opinion. The problems only start when someone decides everyone else needs to change because the game isn't "how I imagined it would be".

As far as musket accuracy goes. Yeh maybe they aren't as accurate as they should be. The rng and bullet drop simply replicates inaccuracy, as you said. However wether they are too accurate or too inaccurate is a debate that will never go away. Personally I like the muskets just as they are and I don't really care if they are historically accurate or not.

[Seizure Salad | Tenf]

Rng is trash right now like I said before no one likes shooting the air no satisfaction in that.

[provo]

Usually I wouldn't reply to dumb suggestions, but occasionally I see something so asinine and out of touch I feel compelled to respond. This is one of those times.

Go play Verdun if you want to snipe people in a trench. This game feels way too much like a modern military shooter with everyone taking guerilla pot shots at each other. The muskets in Holdfast are very accurate if you crouch and get the music/officer buffs, if you have trouble shooting to 50 meters it's because you can't gauge the game's bullet drop correctly.

[Lowke]

I managed to shoot a bird out of the sky with one. They're not that innacurate. It just your skills that are lacking tbh.

[ShadoSnake]

I think it's more poor crosshairs (even the dot seems inaccurately positioned) and some sketchy netcode sometimes rather than RNG
I believe if you aim on the rightmost side of a target it's more accurate because shots seem to go left of xhairs

[Did you expect a name?]

In any case, bullets shouldn't drop at less than 100 meters, even if subsonic. They're heavy, so they have a lot of inertia.

Gravity is merely a force counteracting that, but inertia itself is also a force - especially if it becomes greater with greater mass.

Nothing to do with air friction - which may only slow down the bullet over greater distances; which would happen sooner than with a conical bullet. You might have a briefly supersonic round shot that, for all I know, becomes subsonic at 30 meters and then wavers off course because of it. I wouldn't know about that.

[MiSFiT77]

Originally posted by nofreewill:

In any case, bullets shouldn't drop at less than 100 meters, even if subsonic. They're heavy, so they have a lot of inertia.

Gravity is merely a force counteracting that, but inertia itself is also a force - especially if it becomes greater with greater mass.

Nothing to do with air friction - which may only slow down the bullet over greater distances; which would happen sooner than with a conical bullet. You might have a briefly supersonic round shot that, for all I know, becomes subsonic at 30 meters and then wavers off course because of it. I wouldn't know about that.

But that's the physics of "the real world". A bullet in a game engine will just keep going unless forces are simulated to stop it or divert it. It's not real, it's a game. It's an approximation of a Napoleonic battlefield and as such it is incredibly unlikely that everyone is going to agree on "at what point a bullet should start dropping". Also being a game everything is scaled down. The size of the armies are massively scaled down. The size of the battlefields are massively scaled down. If cannons (for example) had the range that real cannons had the cannon balls would be out of the map through the skybox and end up on one of AGSs desktops. It's a scaled down impression of a Napoleonic battle within an arena. Also making bullets more accurate over greater distance would imo make the pub server games boring as hell. Both teams will just sit in their own spawns and take pot shots at each other. We already had this with rifles before they where nerfed.

[ShadoSnake]

Originally posted by MiSFiT77:

Originally posted by nofreewill:

In any case, bullets shouldn't drop at less than 100 meters, even if subsonic. They're heavy, so they have a lot of inertia.

Gravity is merely a force counteracting that, but inertia itself is also a force - especially if it becomes greater with greater mass.

Nothing to do with air friction - which may only slow down the bullet over greater distances; which would happen sooner than with a conical bullet. You might have a briefly supersonic round shot that, for all I know, becomes subsonic at 30 meters and then wavers off course because of it. I wouldn't know about that.

But that's the physics of "the real world". A bullet in a game engine will just keep going unless forces are simulated to stop it or divert it. It's not real, it's a game. It's an approximation of a Napoleonic battlefield and as such it is incredibly unlikely that everyone is going to agree on "at what point a bullet should start dropping". Also being a game everything is scaled down. The size of the armies are massively scaled down. The size of the battlefields are massively scaled down. If cannons (for example) had the range that real cannons had the cannon balls would be out of the map through the skybox and end up on one of AGSs desktops. It's a scaled down impression of a Napoleonic battle within an arena. Also making bullets more accurate over greater distance would imo make the pub server games boring as hell. Both teams will just sit in their own spawns and take pot shots at each other. We already had this with rifles before they where nerfed.

Both teams already sit in their spawns
especially in objective modes

plus some battlefields are near a kilometer in length and it feels silly to run half a kilometer just to shoot, miss, and get stabbed by a lagging prussian who isn't even looking at you. the gun nerfs have been sketchy at best and the loudest voices for them are the people who abuse the melee jank or that dude who loads in first and stacks prussia with 50+ cav kills every game. In the wake of cav I'd say that ranged needs a boost again to compete.

[Did you expect a name?]

1. Cannon range shouldn't a problem. Sure, it can shoot all the way across the map (though you'd probably need a telescope to see where it's going). Easy defense against a cannon is a hill side. If you're in a building, get out of the building, because that cannon ball is going through. I recall that NW allowed cannon balls to bounce in random directions, but it wasn't a visible animation; so death by cannon ball felt a bit random (though the concept is exciting).

2. Just because armies are scaled down doesn't mean weapons have to be scaled down. If the battlefield is even just 300 meters across, it's still reasonable to give muskets full range. Most wouldn't hit at 100 meters, but some would. And 300 meters is too far to get a clear view, so the telescope becomes a useful item - since officers typically have telescopes, then players naturally want to hear what they have to say (if they're smart).
So the line formation becomes a more reasonable tactic, so long as the enemy is far away. And it can also be devastating up close. And it can be devastated by flanking cavalry or 'shaken up' by kids on your team who're trying to flee sneaky bush buggers that scream into their mics.

3. I'm not asking for muskets to be so accurate that you can sit in your own spawn and shoot at each other. If anything, there should be ways of getting to cover and then running along hidden paths. Also, zig zagging is a valid way to avoid getting hit (and basically was until machine guns entered the scene). Better map design solves this problem.

---------

Anyway, my point is that sticking to realism tends to be more fun at a tactical and co-operative level.

[Did you expect a name?]

"Fourth- The gun must be well sighted, in the manner described for the rifle that a point-blank may be formed to suit a greater or less range."
- From Bosworth's 'Treaty on Rifle, Musket, Pistol and Fowling Piece' written in the 1800s.

Basically, sighting a musket to point blank, is described as possible and described as 'in the manner for a rifle' - sighting a musket is the same as sighting a rifle!

Also, point blank simply means 'point and shoot; the bullet arrives where you aim it'. So, properly made muskets could be very accurate at close ranges, if the loader didn't mess up.

Bosworth also stated that 1 in 4 shots could hit a turkey at 100 yards (~90 meters), if instructions were followed. A turkey is smaller than a man.

"By attending closely to these points, a good French musket may be prepared that would hit on an average one turkey in four, at continuous shooting, at the distance of a hundred yards."

[ShadoSnake]

I agree with buffing muskets in the wake of playing a few hours with cav
even with cav boxed in on paths like in Linburg it's a hellish nightmare to shoot them even with people volleying half a dozen or more shots at <50m
me I'm just lucky