[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1626373858061.png (255 KB, 1024x1024)
255 KB
255 KB PNG
Is there a way to create a setting that is both industrialized yet also has never invented gunpowder and does not use rifles?
>>
>>80435807
Yes. People discovered alien ruins filled with technology and figured out directed energy weapons. Everyone uses laser pistols and portable cannons instead of rifles.
>>
Anything underwater?
>>
>>80435807
Advances in crossbow technology kept it from happening and/or the chemical compound doesn't work since one of the chemicals just doesn't exist in the setting, done.
>>
>>80435807
>gunpowder was invented
>written off by everyone as "ineffectual sissy fag shit"
>was actually due to a conspiracy between the mage's guild and the crossbow maker's guild to bury competing technology
>>
File: Sesa.png (1.03 MB, 2048x2048)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB PNG
>>80435807
If I'm not mistaken there are guns in ArcKnights its just they use the same cancer causing magic shit that infestes the setting and the powers that be prevent the delvelopment and refinement of gunpowder weapons (or probably has them and guards their use)
>>
Start clock in AD 700 :
>Greek fire invented
>Algebra / Hindu-Arabic numerals invented
>some Samarqandi madlad figures out logarithms
>some Balkan Greek or Bulgar stumbles onto Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation

Boom. Middle-east motherfuckers got fucking rockets, BTFOs chink firecrackers. Maybe put this around AD 1000.
>>
>>80435974
Yeah guns are locked up in Laterano’s religious shit on top of being originum based rather than gunpowder.
>>
>>80435807
It could legal/cultural or religious, there is a strict ban on developing that technology/ everyone is too focused on "glorious Nippon Steel" or the equivalent or killing opponents from range is "unclean" and taints the soul.

Could also be environmental, if the world has a volatile environment perhaps using a firearm risks blowing yourself and everyone around you apart, or society is underwater, making firearms not terribly effective, or this is a dark world and the population has limited visual acuity making ranged weapons not really that interesting to them as they can't see far enough or well enough to use them? I admit these aren't well thought out these are just off the top of my head.
>>
>>80435807
Kinda hard to imagine any society developing anything that uses steam pressure/internal combustion and NOT thinking "what if i used this to throw something really far and really hard at someone else?"
But whatever. Throw whatever ass pull you want to say NO GUNZ because they can OHKO your faggy anime character or whatever
>>
>>80435807
Well you can do it like England, where most of the spinning industry was powered by waterworks?

Or like ancient Rome, where they used tailoryzation to force slaves into producing surprisingly consistent products.
>>
>>80435807
Religious prohibitions on certain forms of technology. Don't ask why the Church seems to be fine with using otherwise forbidden items. Like Final Fantasy 10.
>>
>>80435807
Once you start building high-precision pressure-bearing mechanisms, you´ll eventually start building air guns. And those had reliable, rifled magazin-fed variants before repeating blackpowder rifles became a thing.
>>
>>80436143
You can't get the scale you need to industrialize off of water power along.
Even now, countries can't get tidal power to work well.
So with water wheels you are restricted to certain streams and rivers.
>>
>>80435807
Give it something more efficient at killing than boomboom powder. The reason we switched to guns was because it was the most effective way to kill each other. Magic and steampunk can work if you go the batshit insane tech route. Why have a dinky rifle when you can LIGHTING CANNONS?

That or something in the setting makes small arms really pointless, like giant fucking monsters you gotta beat the shit out of with giant fucking robot fists.
>>
>>80436182
>skip petrol combustion
>move from coal burning steam straight to nuclear fission steam
>>
>>80435807

So historically the Industrial Revolution occurred because Britain needed more ships for the Royal Navy (it's more complex than that but basically the need to rapidly expand the navy so we could keep bullying the frogs and the other continentals is the spark that sets it off). Included in this is the need for better metallurgy for better guns (shoot further and with more powerful charges).

Earlier industrial revolutions had occurred, the Qin for example during the Spring and Autumn and Chinese Waring States periods had vast state run manufactories producing the shit out of metal items (both for warfare and agricultural use) - but the economy and nature of the society remained mostly agricultural in China (until fairly recently desu). Partially this is because of traditional chinese cultural values but some of it comes from the reluctance of the chinese state to adopt technological innovation in the way western powers were.

In the West a significant number of our technological advances come as a result of gunpowder and gunpowder warfare, particularly advances in metallurgy and ship design (the race between firepower and armour). A lot of our understanding of gas pressure for instance comes in its earliest form from experiments with cannon and small arms, this knowledge of pressure and the metallurgy required to contain pressure leads to things like efficient steam engines and later to internal combustion engines.
>>
>>80436324
>>80435807

The other effect in the West is social. It is very easy to train people in the use of firearms compared to other weapons (particularly ranged weapons) once firearms are common enough that they can be somewhat mass produced (17th and 18th Centuries) you have a lot of upheavals in social order, warfare shifts away from the military aristocracy (i.e. knights and feudal landholders) to the state - you no longer need to keep a guy on retainer because he's been training in sword fighting since he was eight when you can train a new batch of random peasants in a few weeks. The centralisation of power into the state and a rise in merchant and bureaucratic classes - since the people who can get you things and help you run things are now more important than the guy you used to pay to sit around learning how to ride a horse while swinging a sword
>>
>>80435907
>>80436160

There is actually a more reasonable explanation that doesn't need some weird cultural or religious reasons:

Gunpowder IRL was pretty much a fluke, only discovered by the Chinese during medicinal experimentation (that some people say was for the sake of finding an Elixir of Immortality), with their method often being little more sophisticated than "powder that shit, toss it with a bunch of other powdered shit into a bowl, stir a bit, and see what shit comes out.". I'm not joking.

If nobody makes such experiments, since the formula under any other circumstances is rather far-fetched to arrive at, or the Experimentator tosses the formula in the trash after coming across it (because they want medicine, not burning stuff), nobody ever gets the opportunity to weaponize it.
>>
>>80436401
"We like yellow stuff, but gold doesn´t combust" and: "We like combusting stuff because smoke carries religious significance. Mix charcoal into the yellow stuff, because charcoal burns good." is how they eventually got to gunpowder.
>>
>>80435807
There's the Dune solution of mass-produced kinetic energy shields rendering ranged weaponry largely useless outside of overpower cannons
>>
>>80436401
Yes, it's a fluke that gunpowder was discovered so early on, but an industrialized society means they have certain level of knowledge in chemistry and other sciences. They'd figure it out eventually
>>
>>80435807
Are you trying to minimize or remove firearms as a weapon type, or is it absolutely vital that they never existed in the first place?

If they can't ever have existed, then you should consider leaning into an industrialized fantasy setting like Eberron. Or some Wuxia-inspired thing where warriors can train themselves to be invincible against projectiles, and only hand-held weapons can channel a warrior's qi to penetrate another's battle aura. Alternatively, a planet where various forms of combustion are dangerous, but then you need to work out how that would affect civilization as a whole.
>>
>>80439267
But would they bother?
If you've invented railguns or whatever why bother with chemical propellants that? If anything they'd think "damn what if we put this shit inside our slugs and nigga just blew up when we shot them"
>>
>>80435907
Wizards also hoard all the saltpetre to use as spell components
>>
>>80435807
No one ever thought to put the needed ingredients together in order to get black powder
simple as
>>
>>80439717
>industrialized society means railguns
Are you ok anon? It's obvious that they would have already discovered gunpowder before something like that. I dont feel like I should have to go into detail to explain something so obvious
>>
>>80435807
Magic that allows metal workers to heat and cool metal at controlled rates has greatly advanced metallurgy. Swords and armor are so good now that nobody really needs guns.
>>
File: grunthistory.jpg (142 KB, 565x831)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>80435807
I tried my hand at this, but maybe it's a bit too low tech for your taste. They still rely a lot on muscle and gravity power, but my very first approach was to figure out the food problem. Greater returns means more people to not have to farm, so they're free to do other things such as become craftsmen that makes nice things for people. Then there's also the matter of logistics, in this case it's a river empire so food, supplies, and material can quickly move, since they don't have anything like trains. The government also isn't feudal anymore. Also the people of the setting have inheritable low-powered super powers, which could probably help with manufacturing equipment or parts for hydropowered factories.
>>
>>80439953
>OP image depicts near future swat/robot
Why would gunpowder be what they discover, gunpowder is a shit explosive and not something that's effects you go looking for if you've already grasped other sciences at a decent level
>>
>>80435807
>industrialized
>never invented gunpowder
Not likely. Assuming your setting has any knowledge of chemistry (which it would given an industrialized setting) something with similar properties will eventually come along.

The only possibilities are thus: gunpowder-based technology is either too weak to be useful for combat purposes, or is too powerful for most combat purposes.

The former implies that gunpowder was supplanted by something much more powerful and useful, or that stuff in the setting is too strong for most practical firearms to be useful. It might be possible to have a setting where gunpowder was discovered really late, relative to advances in metallurgy.

The latter implies that no one figured out how to formulate relatively safe, low-powered explosives (i.e. black powder or nitrocellulose-based explosives), so the only way to use gunpowder is either as bombs or massively overbuilt artillery.

Either way, I think it only works in a steampunk/clockpunk setting, something like an early to mid period Industrial Revolution. Becomes less excusable once you get into something equivalent to the latter half of the nineteenth century.
>>
>>80435807
The issues mostly start to show up because developments in cannon production is what facilitated the development of steam engines
>>
>>80435807
industrialization requires petrochemicals that can be used for war
>>
Just make it so that armor is more advanced than gunpowder. If we had Kevlar-tier materials by the time the first few handheld firearms were starting to be made, we would have given up on the concept of firearms due to their lack of effectiveness.
>>
>>80435807
Yes, and it's rather simple: they didn't discover guns. It's not like the invention of firearms needs to mandate the development of firearms, and thus industry need not depend on guns existing. All of the other aspects of society that led to industrialization could happen without guns, such as the discovery of massive amounts of coal, the team engine being invented, and so forth, without gunpowder ever coming up.
It could be because people just don't think to use it for weapons. It could be because it's too rare to be practical. It could be that it doesn't exist. Point is, you don't need gunpowder.
>>
File: vp-1.png (2.34 MB, 1600x960)
2.34 MB
2.34 MB PNG
>>80435867
>"chemistry just doesnt work"-explanation
absolute retard take, always has been
>>
>>80435807
Assuming that it was so rare that people never found it accidentally, the following would still be likely :
- water power/electricity
- steam power

At some point, either of these things are going to result in either air rifle or some kind of gauss rifle. They might not be as strong as our firearms to start, but scientists would just autistically focus on making them practical. You're still going to end up with rifles.

Even if you got rid of both of those things, tensile steel and shit is going to result in super elaborate auto-slingshots or repeating crossbows that just get better and better with time until they are effectively rifles.

Ranged is king.
>>
>>80435867
>>80443727
Eh, bats don’t exist and sulfur in general is just hard to find maybe?
>>
>>80443893
Then you're going to get >>80443888
>>
>>80435807
On this world it rains 9/10 days, as a result keeping powder dry is nearly impossible and black powder weapons just are never viable and gun tech is stillborn.

Other familiar technology is still possible they just only occur in roofed factories.
>>
>>80443579
>Yes, and it's rather simple
You're rather simple anon. If you're building an experimental steam engine it's 50/50 if you're going to end up with a projectile weapon whether you want it or not, you soft-handed office masturbator.
>>
File: silk vest.jpg (27 KB, 537x402)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>80443278
>If we had Kevlar-tier materials by the time the first few handheld firearms were starting to be made, we would have given up on the concept of firearms due to their lack of effectiveness.
Funny thing about that. One of the best bulletproof vests prior to the invention of modern aramid fibers was silk. Pic related was a vest owned by the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which he neglected to wear on the day he was killed. That said, do realize that "bulletproof armour" means that the person wearing it just ends up less likely to die from getting shot: they can still be badly incapacitated through secondary effects to the point that they are no longer able to fight.

The problem with a setting where armour renders gunpowder ineffective is that it neglects how the development of weapons and armour occurred as an arms race: that is to say, weaponsmiths and armoursmiths were constantly designing new pieces designed to defeat the other. Armour is always inconvenient to wear, and if people can do without, then they will. Part of the reason why armour became so extensive and heavy in the first place (as it did in Europe) was to defend against the increasing deadliness of battlefield weaponry, particularly ranged ones. If your ranged weapons aren't nearly as effective from the start, then it follows that there's a lesser need for armour as well.
>>
>>80444669
Yeah you'd really need some sort of naturally occurring Bullshittium alloy that would make full plate and blades the only way to go.
>>
Make people faster and stronger so that the 21 foot rule becomes the 50 foot rule. They don't need to dodge sniper rifles. Just be fast enough that early firearms are seen as useless against a trained fighter. If an adult male can easily hit batman levels of physical prowess during the musket age, muskets would be a joke. Stronger humans also means they can wear stronger armor.
If you throw magic into the mix you can have people enhancing their physical abilities even further, and magic armor. Just say that pre enchanted bullets or crossbow bolts lose to a magic armor or defensive enchantment that's being maintained in real time, and you can't continue to enchant more damage onto a bullet once it's left the firearm.
>>
>>80435807
>Is there a way to create a setting that is both industrialized yet also has never invented gunpowder and does not use rifles?

Very much yes. This is perfectly viable.

There is no such thing as a linear tech tree. A LOT of inventions that happened in our world were either basically an accident, or were the result of a handful of people with unusual insight. And that is not even getting into how many times in history stuff was invented and then just LOST.

We almost had complex clockwork back during the era of Rome, but one specific ship sank and we didn't re-invent that shit again until the 14th century. We could have had wireless power at the start of the 20th century, but power companies couldn't figure out how to make people pay for it. And so on.

Gunpowder is a bit tricky to take out of the tech base, but far from impossible. Its pretty easy to make, but does require access to materials. You could deny a setting access to gunpowder either by having their knowledge of chemistry in general be lagging way behind their other sciences, or by simply changing up their bird population. No easy access to nitrates from bird shit, and suddenly making gunpowder for most of human history becomes basically impossible on any scale worth a damn.

Interestingly, even without gunpowder I could see an industrialized society making a kind of 'steam cannon', but such a setup would be a stationary weapon. There is no way you could scale that down to a handheld weapon.
>>
>>80444669
>>80444723
This is exactly what I’m saying. It’s a fictional setting right? You’d still need armor for melee combat right? What if the material used for melee weapons and armor is some fantasy super metal that would be very resistant to gun powder weapons.
>>
>>80435807
"This setting is industrialized, and has not invented gunpowder."
>>
>>80443888
You are wrong
>super elaborate auto-slingshots
Explain what this even is?
>auto crossbows
A meme that suck and could never be good enough to take over like real guns did, same with sling shots. Without guns in any capacity you would still see full plate armor and melee no crossbow or slingshot could replace them in the way guns did irl. If anything you’d see better armor so it would block the crossbow bolts which have no way to pierce steel even if auto. If gun powder or air rifles don’t exist, technology for military would essentially stop at 1500 you’d just see better polearms and armor advancements
>>
>>80447347
they're auto slingshots. you retarded?
>>
Any postapoc
>>
>>80447446
Are you mad nigga? I asked wtf an auto slingshot is and how that works. I have never heard of one and nothing comes up when you google it. Did you just make it up? And also a small rock throwing device or crossbow bolts won’t harm plate armor and shields lmao retard
>>
>>80447543
It's a Slingshot that works automatically. What part of this are you confused about?
>>
>>80447654
I dunno, core concept?
>>
>>80447654
All of it. How can a slingshot be automatic. What would that even look like to you. Also did you really call me a retard for not knowing about something that you made up in your autistic head that doesn’t even exist?
>>
GUNPOWDER SMELLS LIKE SULPHUR
IS FROM DEMONS
BLASPHEMEEEEE
>>
>>80447932
Springs.
>>
>>80447932
i imagine it would look like a swastika-shaped rotating catapult
>>
>>80435807
The nobles and church nipped it in the bud because they didn't like the idea of any random peasant being able to hide a gun in their coat, shoot past their guards and assassinate them. Explosives and combustibles are strictly regulated to avoid the city burning down and aren't easy to get ahold of for experiments or makeshift weapons.

Regular crossbows and bows are harder to conceal and so can be kept at bay with good enough security, they aren't banned. Mages are generally wealthy and comfortable enough not to be considered a political threat and magic is flashy enough for bodyguards to react.

Assassination is enough of a problem that firearms are universally banned. Rare experimental weapons like cannons might show up once in a while but are considered heretical by every religion, owning or designing one means death if discovered. The first firearms were believed to be invented by the settings equivalent of the devil, the stigma is strong enough even invading armies won't use them.
>>
>>80448182
Sounds based but still wouldn’t harm plate armor especially with a shield to deflect them form ever even touching the helmet where it could potentially hurt the knight.
>>80448175
How would springs hurt plate armor?
>>
>>80436401
Chinese history was fabricated by Jesuits, can't believe there's still people who unironically believe in it. Yes, China invented Gunpowder, the printing press, and domesticated dogs thousands of years before everyone else. And yet they never invented guns with it, have a pictogrammatic language for which the press was useless, and also eat dogs.
>>
>>80448341
Hm I never heard of this but I do agree with it. I only wonder why the jesuits would fake Chinese history? Who benefits other then the Chinese who have nothing to do with them? Also do people really fucking claim they domesticated dogs first and invented the printing press?
>>
>>80447235
but then why not make bullets and guns out of the super metal, a bullet hitting you would be like the knob of a mace hitting you effectively, so unless the armor was enchanted to be hyper resistant to all ranged weapons it wouldn't matter what it's made of
>>
>>80435807
>not making so that the setting gets more and more advanced as years go by
>>
>>80448403
I imagine anon would say it's less about giving the Chinese things and more about keeping credit from others.
>>
>>80443727
>fictional world's natural laws have to correspond 1:1 to real life

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
>>
>>80448341
I mean, none of that is contradictory.

They didn't use black powder for guns, but they did make fireworks. You actually, literally cannot use black power for firearms without pretty significant advances in metallurgy first. Otherwise you haven't built a cannon, you have built a bomb. Its easy to superimpose the knowledge of the present onto the past and assume people were idiots, but that's because YOU have the benefit of hundreds or thousands of years of learning from mistakes THEY have not made yet.

Printing press? You can invent the tool as a thing to show off to the emperor, because master craftsmen with impressive works get set for life. That doesn't mean that your invention goes on to be used for everything, though. Its a toy for the nobles, and as you mentioned the fact that their language doesn't lend itself to it very well only reinforces why it didn't go anywhere despite the fact that some guy figured out how to make one.

As for domesticated dogs, we domesticated cows and chickens and goats and we still eat them. So again there is no conflict there.

Don't let weird conspiracy theories drive your life, anon. It will just lead you to unhappy places.
>>
>>80447261
This is the correct answer. Minutiae about trivial details why that is can be left to nogames "worldbuilders".
>>
>>80449430
Dogs were domesticated for companionship, not consumption, Chang.
>>
>>80449514
Actually irrelevant to the conversation, since the original point didn't draw a distinction between the purpose of the domestication and was arguing that the chinese never domesticated dogs at all. Even if you want to quibble over this detail, the original post is still unambiguously wrong.
>>
>>80449706
God, you're thick. It's far from quibbling over an irrelevant point. Or do you think that the purpose of domestication has no affect over the resulting phenotype? Whoever domesticated dogs did so for specific reasons which are evidenced by the phenotype. Or are you claiming that the Chinese domesticated wolves with a selective process based on companionship in order to use them as a food staple?
>>
>>80449514
>>80449856
Bro are you not aware that you're standing entirely on a moral issue? For you and probably majority of this board, companion=do not eat, but this isn't some universal objective fundamental truth.
>>
>>80435807
>Is there a way to create a setting that is both industrialized yet also has never invented gunpowder and does not use rifles?
Set it in Colonized Africa 6 months after a Caucasian-specific plague has wiped out whites. Industry hasn't entirely collapsed but all the bullets have been fired and they ain't making any more themselves.
>>
>>80436123
>Kinda hard to imagine any society developing anything that uses steam pressure/internal combustion and NOT thinking "what if i used this to throw something really far and really hard at someone else?"
Op just said no gunpowder or rifles. So you'd still have smoothbore airguns.
>>
>>80449932
You're not thinking clearly. What you breed for leads to specific qualities. Animals bred for food become larger and more docile, because they are bred for meat output and ease of control. This is not a moral issue.
>>
File: Parappastage6.jpg (38 KB, 300x200)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>80448314
Spings make it possible anon, you just gotta believe.
>https://youtu.be/OdFxEVWlr9A
>>
>>80449932
>For you and probably majority of this board, companion=do not eat, but this isn't some universal objective fundamental truth.

As a farmboy, I can confirm this is not a clear line. You can't raise an animal for years and not get a little attached to it. I have had some really good pigs and some really happy cows that we treated more or less like pets. Right up until it was time to slaughter them, because thats life.

You can absolutely have companion animals that you later eat.
>>
>>80448341
>And yet they never invented guns with it
There's literally two big books of war that describes all the ways they weaponized gunpowder. They invented guns first: it's just that their development of the technology largely stalled after the Manchu conquest because there was no real need for firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wujing_Zongyao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huolongjing

>have a pictogrammatic language for which the press was useless
To be exact, they invented printing via engraved wooden blocks. What they didn't really bother with was moveable type, because they use ideograms and setting type would take longer, not to mention be more expensive, than engraving all the text and pictures you wanted onto a large piece of wood.

>eat dogs
A lot more common in most premodern cultures, especially during times of famine.

>>80448341
>Chinese history was fabricated by Jesuits
"Fabricated" is a bit of a stretch, because we have knowledge of the sources they used and they were there to see it first hand.

Anyways, China does provide an interesting case for the aforementioned setting. It had many of the prerequisites for industrialization: a massive pool of cheap labour, good transportation infrastructure (albeit largely limited to canals and rivers), lack of internal trade barriers, and constant resource shortages. In fact, it was pretty much the manufacturing centre of the world until Europe surpassed it in the nineteenth century.

There's a body of scholarship out there that contends the Industrial Revolution happened because Europe was able to tap the resources of three separate continents to that end, and because maritime trade stimulated a lot of different industries to overcome productivity deficits, both in terms of personnel and fuel. After all, coal mining only became viable in the first place because so many trees were being cut down to provide timber for ship construction in England.
>>
>>80448888
Maybe it's a question of mass. Bullet sized amounts of our fictional bullshitum aren't enough to penetrate bullshitium armor, but when you get up to sword sized quantities they suddenly can?
>>
>>80450127
Cattle aren’t companions they are cattle. Just because you like your cattle and grow a little array he’d doesn’t make it not cattle.

Dogs are companion and not cattle, in the same way a human or a horse is a companion and not cattle, you do not eat companions and you do care for companions. It’s that simple chink.
>>
>>80448977
What do the Jesuit’s have to gain form keeping credit from Europeans?
>>
>>80450318
>a horse is a companion
Germans and a bunch of other people eat horses.
>>
>>80450336
Control over the French throne by replacing Louis XIV with his reclusive younger brother, which only backfired due to one of the non-Jesuit conspirators, Finance Minister Nicolas Fouquet, refusing to betray the monarchy completely. The failure of the coup led to the eventual defanging of the Jesuit order and the Jesuit-General being deposed, which in turn has led to the modern Jesuits being science obsessed weirdoes (but at least they aren't cunts like the Benedictines)
>>
>>80435807
Combustion would have made guns happen in some form or another.

Just write a dystopian setting where gun control got completely out of hand if you don't want any guns in your game.
>>
>>80450318
You can eat the extra dogs or the ones that die, just as people do to horses in many western countries. You don't have to specifically breed an animal for meat in order to eat their meat when they don't serve their primary purpose.
>>
>>80447347
Sounds like people would just make air rifles.
>>
>>80435807
Nothing is able to be made into gunpowder. Guns might exist with another manner of lobbing projectiles but just remove gunpowder and say they have mass produced crossbows
>>
>>80435807
There is a viable avenue to disable "guns' in an industrialized society. Let's look at a few instances of weapons technology that have fallen out of favor in real life.
>Nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare
The two World Wars shocked the conscience of the global community with the rapid development of new, unconventional weapons. To this day, nobody bothers developing chemical weapons or things like flamethrowers. Biological and nuclear weapons are only made as strategic measures, not intended for actual use.
What factor created this scenario?
The participants of the World Wars means that everyone felt their effects, as every relevant world power was a party. As a result everyone agreed not to use these weapons again, without leaving out any nation who might develop forbidden weapons and use it against them.
Compare this to the American Civil War, which featured incredible death rates with the precursors to modern firearms technology. Because Europe didn't experience the conflict, and the Confederate States were dissolved, rifles and machine guns were not shunned by the West.
If the American Civil War drew in allies from Europe, it's possible that would have been the end of firearms development by international treaty.
>So how do we stop guns?
Create a conflict that involves all of your global powers and forces them to quickly develop modern firearms (perhaps going straight from muskets to assault rifles). Battles will have to be unprecedented in scale, with soldiers dying in droves. This needs to happen before firearms are considered "normal" warfare, to set the precedent that they're too terrifying to use. This will create a cultural hesitance to use guns in anything but all out war. Nobody will want to work on them, as it's seen as too barbaric or cruel; you'd be seen as an evil scientist to develop firearm technology.
>>
>>80444669
>>80447235
>>80448888
Why do you presume a supermetal is needed? It's a fantastic setting- the development of better armors could easily be spurred on by, say, frequent monster attacks, or as defense against wizards casting Rain of Stones or whatever.
Melee weapons can prove effective against such armor, since you can stab through the joints or whatnot, but early firearms would prove useless.
>>
>>80435807
Depends how industrialized you want it. the Roman Empire had industrial style factories (to a degree) for the legions.
Theoretically you can have pre-industrial revolution economies of scale, however if you wish to have computers and advanced technology, will have to have a chemical industry. And the chemical industry can make a lot of stuff that can go boom. From there, there isn't a long way to firearms.
>>
>>80451604
It was WW1 and didn't stop people using guns.
>>
>>80435865
This or simply the world lacks oxygen so combustion is not possible. Substitute your favorite technology for fire. Don't think about it >>80443888 deeply.
>>
>>80436160
The church tried that with crossbows...
>>
>>80435807
Simplest way would be to just handwave and say, "nobody ever figured that out".

More interesting (I think) would be to tweak the underlying physics of the world so that combustion (as a chemical process) does not happen with predictable results due to ambient magic.

Ex: Burning things in normal fire is usually fine. You barely notice the fire getting larger and smaller randomly.
However, a gunpowder explosion to fire a bullet would sometimes work normally, sometimes barely fizzle, and other times the gun would explode like a bomb in the middle of your infantry line.

As such, those sorts of weapons were never seen as sufficiently reliable for real military application (Goblins and orcs and such might use them).
>>
>>80447347
you know nothing
>>
>>80443888
I think my proposition could account for most of that as well.
>>80451904

For example, if an errant whiff of fire-elemental magic (or lack thereof) could strongly impact the functioning of a gunpowder rifle, the same would happen with an air-pressure rifle and air-elemental magical currents.

Incidentally, this core concept could also be used to limit technology of integrated circuits and computers, since (assuming electricity is an element), micro-circuitry relies on having very precise voltages and amperages.
>>
>>80451824
Guns were entrenched in combat doctrine and already considered less brutal than melee combat.
What needs to happen for guns to be unconscionable to use is that in their first use on the world stage they bring unthinkable devastation.
Guns slowly and steadily worked their way into war until they overtook other technology. By WWI, guns were considered the default way to fight; we couldn't imagine modern combat without them even if machine guns brought trench warfare and higher death tolls.
What everyone objected to was the new and scary technologies like mustard gas. Since they weren't considered essential to fighting, everyone agreed it was better to not use them again.

Imagine if in the Hundred Years' War England and France developed modern assault rifles, artillery, and machine guns in a short span of time. Massive social upheavals in terms of who fights and how all at once. Knights killed in the hundreds by mortar fire. Literal swathes of people cut down in a way unimaginable just years ago.
Nobody would want to go through that again if they could at all help it.

Again, this is the same reason that it's a war crime to use a flamethrower to burn an enemy soldier. At the same time the technology was discovered, it advanced so quickly that nobody wanted to see its full potential.
>>
>>80452072
idk, each level of gun technology is so attached to available technology of the time that I don't see how it can advance rapidly like you describe. Range is king, so long as explosions exist, people are going to try and find a way to use them to shoot shit far away.
>>
>>80452140
>people are going to try and find a way to shoot shit far away
It's that urge we're trying to defeat. The point isn't to make projectile warfare nonviable, but to traumatize the world to the point that it's the absolute last resort in war.
>Range is king
The absolute greatest range on a weapon we have are ICBMs, and we don't employ them in normal warfare. We'd rather do the "less efficient" thing by putting soldiers within shooting range to kill each other.
Why, if the cultural history were right, would this be any different than shelving guns and forcing peasants to stab each other with spears?
>>
>>80452072
>in their first use on the world stage they bring unthinkable devastation.
This sounds a lot like the thinking of the people who gave a Nobel Peace Price to the guy who invented TNT because they thought nobody would ever want to have a war again.

Please consider:
>>80451904
>>80452062
The real solution requires a fundimental change to physics.

You could even tweak physics in such a way that "Fast things very much want to slow down when inside of gravity wells", thus projective combat on earth simply doesn't work because everything is a whiffle-ball.
>>
>>80452221
You're misunderstanding my point. Again, gunpowder or projectile weapons are not meant to be nonexistent in this scenario. They're just so disfavored they aren't generally used.
Also
>Nobel Peace Prize to the guy who invented TNT
This had better be bait, because the Nobel Peace Prize is in fact in honor of the guy who invented TNT.
Alfred Nobel, fittingly to our discussion, also developed one of the first smokeless propellants and ushered us into the age of modern firearms instead of black powder guns.

If we were going to to the scientific, rather than sociological, route instead you're still running on flawed logic.
>Fundamental change in physics
Let's explore this. Anything that affects chemical reactions allowing for propellants can and would be replaced by non-propellant guns. Air guns were developed as early as the 16th century, rail gun technology could be developed, and pre-gunpowder projectile weapons create pressure to find new ways to shoot people. Without something to put a halt on "new projectiles" in the imagination of people, they're just going to keep looking for the better bow.
Changing how "fast things" work is also going to be problematic as you limit the machinery available for industrialization. No cars, no planes, no trains . . . maybe no machines that can use a piston over a certain RPM.
We also have low-velocity projectile weapons anyways (bows, crossbows, etc.) Subsonic rounds exist in real life.
What would be more viable?
>Advances in medical technology
If bullet wounds could be patched quickly, or ignored with stimulants, and then reliably healed in the field? You reduce casualties and even operational downtime that guns can produce.
This could push technology towards favoring more reliable weapons for disabling foes: maybe we can fix a bullet wound in seconds, but you can't reattach an arm lopped off with an axe.
>>
>>80452531
>Anything that affects chemical reactions allowing for propellants can and would be replaced by non-propellant guns
I disussed this here >>80452062

Unless this is a totally nonmagical setting.

Also, you could balance a general effect on rotational velocity was increased proportionally in the “towards gravity” direction just as much as it was restricted in other directions.

Thus, the change wouldn’t affect things like engines or the earth’s orbit.
But eventually, some hand-waving would be required.
>>
>>80452628
>a general effect on rotational velocity was increased
Sorry, this should say “a general effect on rotation IF velocity was increased… ect”
>>
>>80452628
Addendum: the “whiffle-ball” effect could easily be made strong enough to fuck up arrows.

You could probably still have low-velocity payload-deliver slingshots (grenade launchers), but it would also totally fuck up space travel.
>>
>>80435807
they could have just coincidentally never discovered the mix but that'd led to widespread pneumatic gun usage instead.
>>
Depending on how sci-fi you’re going, you could do the dune thing and just have sheilds that block high-velocity objects.

That’s the whole reason there’s so much melee combat in that setting.
>>
>>80452220
But that's what I'm saying. The moment new technology comes out, it's immediately put into range combat. You can't have that moment of WW1 but with no buildup since the moment you have range weaponry, you have people trying to make it more effective. The ICBM is a poor counterpoint due to the collateral damage. The US has leaned heavily into drones as a means of long-range combat. If they could get a gun on those things with pinpoint accuracy and infinite penetration you better believe they'd spam them.
>>
>>80452531
>This could push technology towards favoring more reliable weapons for disabling foes: maybe we can fix a bullet wound in seconds, but you can't reattach an arm lopped off with an axe.

Okay, now things are getting badass. It's like Dune but metal.
>>
>>80452220
>The absolute greatest range on a weapon we have are ICBMs, and we don't employ them in normal warfare.
This is not a cultural thing. Its is a purely practical matter of deterrence.

If a society had a cultural attitude that prohibited ranged weapons, then they would be at a compeditive disadvantage against societies that did not, and those societies would be defeated and assimilated.

In fact, there were likely plenty of little tribes that thought bows and arrows were for pussies, then died as pin-cushions without history ever recording their existence.
>>
>>80452847
iirc it naturally occurs to some extent so that's a hard sell.
>>
>>80453423
But what if natural sources of potassium nitrate were extremely rare?
>>
>>80453575
Sure but I think we'd be getting into some elaborate ecology stuff. Keep in mind this wouldn't solve the problem of people developing other technology instead of gunpowder to shoot projectiles.
>>
>>80453330
>No buildup
Not what I'm advocating for. I'm saying things should build up to a reasonable point, perhaps muskets or a little earlier, and then accelerate so fast they scare everyone.
Chemistry and military science built up to WWI, and we still banned the weapons employed there.
>ICBM is a poor counterpoint
Not necessarily. Flamethrowers are anti-personnel weapons that we've banned by convention and are no more collateral damage inducing than a grenade.
It's simply the horrific consequences of large scale combat involving the weaponry: nobody likes the idea of burning to death or choking on our own lungs, so we've banned it.
If the same disgust were made towards death by launched projectile, we'd do the same. With the caveat I keep repeating: we'd still pull them out when desperate. But the tech would be stunted from disuse.
>>80453361
Honestly the advanced medical tech thing is my favored method, as it's the most grounded alternative science history.
In reality, medicine is the driving force behind a lot of modern warfare. We maintained large scale combat after the 1800s because field medics and nurses kept up with industrial-scale warfare in the American Civil War and the Crimean War. Nation-states would see too low of an ROI for massed deployment if they didn't.
Modern medicine into the WWII era also leads to our current, relatively low manpower combat doctrine. You can keep a spec-ops soldier alive long enough to get him back to base, or even back to civilization, and thus ignore the logistics of having medical equipment available everywhere.
>>80453393
>Competitive disadvantage
You're ignoring my requirement that the inciting conflict be global, like WWI/WWII. For a weapon to become disfavored, it must be seen by everyone to be too horrific to field.
You're right in that the society with an advantage will leverage it against the ones who don't, but that's exactly what happened with nuclear weapons.
>>
>>80454796
You'd need to create a scenario with almost universal world peace, coupled with weapon technology rapidly advancing, then an explosion of violence. I just don't see it happening without something extremely convoluted and so specific that you're better off having your story revolving around those events to create an anti-war message.
>>
>>80450369
>G*rmans
>People
>>
>>80454796
>>80453393
I should clarify what I mean by "exactly what happened with nukes."
America and the Soviets emerged as the sole nuclear powers from WWII, sharing the technology essentially at their discretion from there.
America, having the first nuclear weapons, had a distinct first move advantage.
If it were a matter of pure game theory, America should have flexed its nuclear might as quickly as possible. Which it almost did in the Korean War, before deciding that the consequences of nuclear weapons are too great for all but the most desperate uses.
If the US had established itself early as willing to use nukes liberally, and not as political tools, MAD wouldn't have become a factor. Would the Soviets really be willing to sacrifice its vassal states and risk itself provoking America?
This strategy would have its own obvious ecological problems, but I doubt that was the determining issue. The Trinity test risked igniting the atmosphere, after all. But we're not discussing nuclear weapons as anything but an analogy.
>>80454923
>Establish world peace first
Was there world peace before the Hague Conventions? Lincoln's Lieber Code? The Geneva Convention?
All that's required is a more favorable method of combat to the banned technology or behavior. If the world was suddenly faced with modern guns when it's used to shot and pike, it's plausible they become disgusted at the scale of death created. It just has to happen explosively enough.
I don't recommend making a game about this at all, really. It kind of defeats the purpose. It should just be a background event.
I mean, look at Battletech: nobody plays the planet destroying space combat in the game's history. Instead, they play the giant robot knights that became a more "humane" form of combat when everyone realized that the weapons they were fielding were too costly on the psyche and infrastructure.
>>
>>80452628
>>80452698
>>80452795
I'm not a physicist, so I can't claim to understand all the consequences of changing physics for this effect.
However, I can say I think it'd be less convoluted to change the species (humans) than it would to change physics.
Human beings with poor eyesight or little throwing ability (which is quite unique to us) would find projectile weapons uncomfortable and difficult to use.
One of the major advantages of firearms is the ease of use and ability to train people to use them. Without the necessary biological advantages that make us prone to developing projectile technologies, we'd likely not develop them very far. Which is honestly easier to believe than a species that's inclined towards both invention and throwing objects NOT overcoming whatever physical properties makes it difficult to send lead downrange.
(I'm assuming a non-magical setting, as magic is essentially impossible to argue against. It's only limited by writer imagination.)
>>
>>80455221
>If the world was suddenly faced with modern guns when it's used to shot and pike, it's plausible they become disgusted at the scale of death created. It just has to happen explosively enough.

Could you please read the rest of my post before responding to it? I say almost exactly the same thing but you are talking as though we are disagreeing. It feels like you are attached to this concept so much that you want to completely disregard anything that says "yes it is possible." I provided specific reasoning why it would be extremely unlikely. Unless you come to public message boards to masturbate about possibility without doing the work of making it happen.
>>
>>80455221
I think you're probably correct about why we didn't use nukes in korea, but then, I don't think that "This weapon is too horrible" is ever going to be a reliable deterrent to its use.
I mean, ffs, only a few years earlier, Russia set their conscripts loose on Germany and defeated them with what amounts to a fucking "rape nuke".

Its kinda funny to think, but a scenario where physics is different and relativity is expanded to influence all high-speed objects is much more plausible and understandable than a scenario where, "Humanity decided that X was too terrible to ever use".
>>
>>80455771
>Read my post
You first. My disagreement is how peaceful things have to be before that explosion, which I don't think has to be peaceful at all.
I also don't think it takes highly specific circumstances as much as accelerating at its adoption.
My argument is that reactions are relative to familiarity. I think firearms could be prevented if it advanced quickly enough before people considered them "normal" in war. In the same way we never got acclimated to chemical warfare.
If you want my opinion I state my favored methodology for this is advances in medical science here: >>80454796
I'm just responding because people seem to not understand what I'm saying about the right historical moment being enough to break a technology to the international community.
>>80455790
>Reliable deterrent
"Reliable" is the key word, imo. While the laws of war are respected right now, it's only by secure countries who want the protection of reciprocal treatment. Guerilla fighters, nations fighting for survival, and desperate soldiers all ignore these conventions.
You don't expect to see mustard gas in the modern day, or be poisoned with biological weapons. But you better believe that if America, for instance, believed its best bet at regime survival was to nuke everyone it would.
Still, entire classes of weapon aren't used regularly because of our own reluctance to use them on each other. Namely nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. When push comes to shove, though . . .
>>
>>80456066
If it's not that peaceful, then it's WW1. You can't have the rapid advancement because the moment any technology comes out, it immediately gets applied to guns. This isn't even addressing problems like how the nature of nukes means that they are inherently limited in who can access them. Guns are not. The situation in which every single person in the world would be so traumatized by guns that everyone agrees to never use them ever would not only be insanely specific, but also extremely brief. So much that the story of how that happened would be far more interesting than stories set in that world.
>>
I think black powder was used in mining before explosives like dynamite was discovered, and explosives were important in getting cheap ore for industrialization.
>>
>>80456066
>or be poisoned with biological weapons.
Y'know... unless its COVID.

Two things about this idea tho.

1. Bans on those methods of waging war have held for about a century, which is kind of a long time, but also kinda not.

2. Not to imply that there have been major deployments of NBC weapons that nobody knows about, but the tighter the governmental control on information becomes, the less able we are to reliably say that such things have not happened.

To date, the largest such incident I know about is actually the reverse, where it was said that Syria used chemical weapons during their civil war, but it later began to appear that that was made up.
>>
>>80436123
You are aware that gun and steam engine operate not even close from each other.
You are the asspulling faggot here
>>
>>80447347
But repeater crossbow existed?
>>
>>80449958
You are not white
>>
>>80450318
You have no clue.
I am swiss and we fucking eat horses.
And if you are from the east part of switzerland you find out they eat dogs too
>>
>>80452220
Ranged weapon don't win operations.
Those troops need to be on the ground
It seems /tg/ has the same understand of war doctrine as /his/.
It was like the idea of only using tanks
>>
>>80449514
They were domesticated for work. Pull sleds, hunt, track, run in theee hamster wheel things, wool, hot water bottles, and even food. I love dogs too, but theyre a fucking animal.
>>
>>80449362
They have to correspond retard
>>
>>80435807
it industrialized via magic instead of chemistry
>>
>>80450369
And they are companions.
>>
>>80447543
>>80447932
lol tard
>>
>>80449932
nope it's an objective fundamental truth
>>
>>80449514
People used to eat pigeons but now they're rats with wings. People used to eat guinea pigs but now they're cute pets. People used to give cats trials complete with hanging and other executions like they were people but now the very thought seems barbaric.

And that's not even considering all the weird shit people still do eat, like bugs.
>>
not joking when i say this thread is one of the greatest collections of retarded posts I’ve ever seen on 4chan. it’s incredible. autism, misinformation, pseudoscience, bizarre moralizing, cope… and in less than 200 posts.
>>
>>80449932
Ok George Donner.
>>
>>80449430
>They didn't use black powder for guns, but they did make fireworks. You actually, literally cannot use black power for firearms without pretty significant advances in metallurgy first. Otherwise you haven't built a cannon, you have built a bomb. Its easy to superimpose the knowledge of the present onto the past and assume people were idiots, but that's because YOU have the benefit of hundreds or thousands of years of learning from mistakes THEY have not made yet.
Green Antarctica actually used this in a rather fun way, since they discovered Black Powder during their equivalent to the Bronze Age, the peoples of Antarctica never really went anywhere with Cannons or Guns cause at first their metallurgy wasn't advanced enough for them to be practical so instead they focused on Bombs, Mines, and Rockets, which in turn kept Cannons & Guns from showing up later even when metallurgy became advanced enough to make them because by that point they had centuries to millennia of development of Rockets as a weapon platform that primitive cannons and guns just couldn't compete(particularly since Crossbows had also ended up pretty sophisticated in Antarctica as well), it's not until contact with Early Modern Europeans and their guns and cannons that it starts to make inroads in Antarctica cause by copying European models they're able to skip the early awkward versions to ones advanced enough that they start becoming somewhat viable(though they still lean heavily on their own weapons)
>>
Either the entire setting is underwater or the atmosphere is flammable.
>>
Just go full Dune and have ranged weapons magically either not work or cause mutually assured destruction, it's nothing new.
>>
>>80450842
Eh, horse meat is generally only advised to be eaten from horses earmarked as food stock from the get-go.
A knackered race horse is on average, full of so many steroids and weird animal medicines that it would be ill advised to eat of it's flesh.
>>
Well in D&D material spell components have inherent magical abilities that they obviously don’t have in our world. My justification is that gunpowder in my setting exists but it’s a very potent magical component. It’s 100 times more powerful than in our world and just handling it can cause it to detonate. Any firearm or canon you tried to build would explode or be ruined after a couple shots, and gunpowder is dangerous to transport. It’s just not practical for weapons in my setting.
>>
>>80456154
>Immediately gets applied to guns
Yes? I think they guns have to become extremely advanced very quickly for people to forgo them for another style of weaponry.
If the same generation that grew up thinking you had to train for years with a bow to become proficient in the art saw the no man's lands of WWI, do you think they'd want their children to wield guns?
My point isn't "nobody can have/produce/advance firearm technology" as much as restricting its use to total war. Governments develop firearms in their back pocket, as we do with WMDs, but when it comes to regular warfare they won't use them overtly.
America used things like Agent Orange and flamethrowers for "defoliating" in Vietnam. But we knew it would be insane, and would draw the ire of their equals, to admit to using those tools as outright weapons.
Civilians would feel the consequences the hardest. You won't have guns accessible to the average person, as it would be like owning a rocket launcher in the real world. "Normal" people who don't want to be labeled terrorists won't own guns in this setting.
See the post I'm replying to below, he gets what I mean. Firearms wouldn't be forgotten technology, but a heavily policed and restricted one. It's also gets use, but not in a way that most people care to think about or admit to.
>>80456390
>Length of the ban
Exactly my thinking. The conflict that abolished firearms would have to be as recent to us as the World Wars, and it's still tenuous. Like how we worried about nukes in the Cold War.
>Reliably say guns weren't used
I think guns would see use, but only in the dark. In running a game in a setting like this, your villain might be manufacturing them for a large conflict. Perhaps putting together some kind of ultimate, ballistics based weapon.
. . . Funnily enough, a main battle tank would be akin to a Metal Gear in this universe. A cannon that moves on its own and can dominate a battlefield, forcing armies to break out the guns to fight it.
>>
>>80456601
Which points out the insanity of proclaiming that "humans will always choose the most efficient way of winning conflicts."
Why do we need troops on the ground to win wars? Because we don't WANT to kill literally everyone who happens to be in the territory of of our enemies. As a result, we need a force to defeat hostile troops and occupy the land until the opposition caves and negotiates a treaty.
It's the human element that gives us pause, morally, at the idea of nuclear genocide. It's dehumanizing to just disintegrate millions in the blink of an eye, with no warning and no chance to fight back.
If guns were seen as horrifically as WMDs, they'd be put up to the level of strategic weaponry.
Armies would be sent to hunt down factories capable of producing firearms en masse in the same way that America invades when they think a country becomes nuclear-capable in the Middle East. Intelligence agencies would probably become more sensitive to the industrial production of explosives (rather than tracking the mining of uranium ores).
Governments start policing the production of chemicals and technologies leading up to mass-firearm production and worrying about the potential to field rifles instead of nuclear potential.
>>
>>80466165
god you’re a fucking moron. i feel the need to tell you that right now. you are stupid and on the far left of dunning kruger
>>
this is an interesting topic, but the thread is too cringe to read through
>>
no one itt will ever have consensual sex with a woman
>>
>>80471428
Too late for that, already did.
>>
>>80435807
Yes. Mass-produced steel weapons, artillery that uses fire magic or something, factories that are filled with kids making trinkets, and more can all be used without gunpowder.
Just make sure that you have a source of energy, and, if it's plot crystals, explain how people learned of their energy properties.
>>
File: gyrojet.jpg (189 KB, 1200x833)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
>>80435807
Yes.
Have everything be rockets/explosives.
Rockets are substantially slower than bullets(Especially if you alter the physics of your world just a tad), meaning that your melee fighter would have more of chance to dodge them/cut them half with ebin katana/deflect with shield, not to mention that most rocket launchers have far lower capacity than guns, thus meaning that they have crossbow-esque reload times.
That, and you could have your missiles more or less be spears attached to rockets, so you don't have to worry about troublesome things like shrapnel and high explosives.
>>
>>80476446
>gives gyro jet a proximity fuze
nothing personal, kid
>>
>>80435807
No saltpeter. Not any guns will be incredibly unstable and probe to misfire in high temperatures or with sudden jostling. Now rifles and and combustion firearm is left as a backup or bombard at best.
>>
>>80479696
>>80476446
bumpfag kill yourself challenge
>>
>>80460496
yes, people used to live incorrectly. what's your point?
>>
>>80460679
doesn't contain any of that nice try tho
>>
>>80466304
everything he said is right dumbfuck
>>
>>80479835
no it isn’t. he’s a retard. you are too if you believe that drivel lol
>>
>>80479830
lol ok OP enjoy your cope for your shit thread
>>
>>80476446
This would make an interesting guns v. melee balance. The main weakness of the gyrojet is that it reaches its terminal velocity slowly: so you can deflect bullets (or use a shield), but only if you're within a certain range.
As for dodging, once the bullets are at speed it would be as hard as with regular guns. The lag time would matter, but would really just be an issue of leading the target.
On the other hand, a gyrojet hits even harder the longer its fuel burns. Part of the appeal of gyrojets was that they hit harder than conventional ammo at its maximum range: so the further you are away from the shooter, the easier you are to hit and the more damage the round does.
>>80476542
Gyrojet guns never had payloads, they just fired regular bullets propelled by rocket.
Separating the propellant fuel from a fuse or explosive would be . . . difficult, at best, in the tiny format of small arms ammunition. I don't think people have to worry about explosive rounds, or if they did they'd lose available fuel mass in the process.
This would mean the bullet would accelerate even slower than a "conventional" gyrojet, exacerbating its existing issues.
>>80479696
Once more, we run into the issue that there's loads of things that make for good projectile weapons. It would delay firearm-esque weapons, at best.

Anyway, I'd like to return to the idea of medical technology outpacing firearms and necessitating more surefire ways to disable opponents.
I think it would be enough to put ranged weapons "out of commission" if you could heal a man from anything but dismemberment or instant death. If shock from blood loss were a non-issue then guns and even artillery would lose a lot of effectiveness. If a stimulant or "miracle drug" could be self-applied to ignore small wounds, then you'd have to use weapons that physically break foes.
A sniper could still see use in shooting right through the heart or brains, but those are easily protected targets and difficult shots to make.
>>
>>80448888
It’s absolutely like >>80450302 says, it’s a matter of mass. It’s the reason bullets are made of lead. Holding an edge is related to hardness, but has no effect on the effectiveness of a bullet. The properties that would make bullshitium armor good against gunpowder weapons would not need to translate to bullshitium bullets.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.