AoS Kharadron overlords

[Aginor]

In fairness, that'd depend on their range. A gatling gun with limited range, say 50m, would still not be superiour against proper a warbow that could reach 200m in every situation. Not to mention other negative aspects of the gatling, like overheating, cost, likelyhood of exploding in your face, noise etc. Steampunk and swords/bows/magic can definitly mix. But it's true that it only works as long as the steampunk remains relativly rare & ineffective. And the kharadron are indeed pushing it a bit.... their technology seems a tad too advanced and mass-produced.

Well.....technically, yes. But even the very first machine guns (used in the 1860s) easily exceeded 50m. And even the precision/long range sniper work was done by firearms by then, making bows obsolete for pretty much everybody (an 1850s rifle has an effective range of over 400m).

But nevertheless: _early_ firearms (15-16th century, arquebuses and musketes) were inferior to bows or crossbows in many ways. If we imagine someone being able to build a gatling-like mechanical contraption but lacks the knowledge for builing decent firearms (yes, I know, that's quite a stretch) then you coul maybe be in a situation in which a bow beats firearms.

 

[Aginor]

Just for fun I checked musket ranges. The famous "Brown Bess" (a 18th century musket designed in 1720) has an effective range of up to 100 yards. So that's a point when a good archer is still better, at least concerning range. But that's over 100 years before there were any gatlings because a gatling design uses cartridges.

 

[Draconder]

That all being said, being dwarves and being remarked upon their advanced aether technology I can imagine their guns would be more accurate than our equivalent muskets. Ranges in GW games are never to true scale if you look at 40k weapons as one example.

 

[Canas]

Well.....technically, yes. But even the very first machine guns (used in the 1860s) easily exceeded 50m. And even the precision/long range sniper work was done by firearms by then, making bows obsolete for pretty much everybody (an 1850s rifle has an effective range of over 400m).

But nevertheless: _early_ firearms (15-16th century, arquebuses and musketes) were inferior to bows or crossbows in many ways. If we imagine someone being able to build a gatling-like mechanical contraption but lacks the knowledge for builing decent firearms (yes, I know, that's quite a stretch) then you coul maybe be in a situation in which a bow beats firearms.

Keep in mind it isn't just range and accuracy alongside destructive power that is relevant here. There's a lot of factors that could mean that bows and swords are still relevant.

• Bows don't jam.
• Bows are silent.
• Bows are relativly light and easy to carry around in the field (skaven gatling guns require 2 skaven just to carry the thing around, and those don't appear to be carrying any spare ammo)
• Bows (and arrows) are easier and cheaper to make and maintain than guns and bullets. Especially out in the field on a campaign
• Bows don't blow up in your face.

Especially the reliability and the relative ease of maintainance are important for replacing bows. And in this aspect the kharadron are pushing it. Every single one of them wields a reliable gun. If a faction can afford to outfit it's entire army with guns alongside plate armor there's really not much competition for them. A bunch of skinks with blowpipes, or savage orruks with bows shouldn't be any threat to such an army. So yeah, I agree that this is pushing it a bit. But in general it's fine. The empire's steamtanks and gyrocopters for example are fine. They're increadibly rare & expensive on top of not being the extremely effective. Those fit with the universe.

 

[TheSkeptic]

How on earth did he get such a large force done in just a week and a half? It takes me at least a couple of years to get that much done!

As I understand it, after talking with his girlfriend, he basically took the two weeks off from work, cleaned out all the paints he needed from our local GW, and secluded himself in his room like some sort of hermit, leaving only to go to the washroom, eat, and sleep. Why he did this, outside of him being a big Squat player back when they existed, I'll never know.

 

[Aginor]

Keep in mind it isn't just range and accuracy alongside destructive power that is relevant here. There's a lot of factors that could mean that bows and swords are still relevant.

Absolutely! And I agree with most of what you said, but being an archer myself I just have to make a few small remarks, just for info:

• Bows don't jam. ---> Correct. But other weird things happen to bows (and the humans operating them) that are just as harmful to their operation.
  
  
• Bows are silent. --> Kind of. Not really though. Both bows and arrows make sounds (although you can suppress them). Not like a gun of course.
  
  
• Bows are relativly light and easy to carry around in the field. ---> Granted! Although the big ones can be just as annoying to carry around as the rifles I have shot.
  
  
• Bows (and arrows) are easier and cheaper to make and maintain than guns and bullets. Especially out in the field on a campaign
  ---> I prooobably wouldn't want to make a bow for war while in the field. Just won't be of much use. Easier to make than a gun, yes. Maintenance of bows is a difficult topic. There are things that outright destroy a bow that will hardly do any harm to a rifle.
  
  
• Bows don't blow up in your face. ---> yes they do. Shooting a damaged bow or a damaged arrow is quite dangerous and archers get hurt by those things regularly, even today. I carefully inspect my shafts and bow each time I shoot because the stored energy going off into some direction (like my face) is in the order of magnitude of a cal .22 pistol.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

• Bows don't blow up in your face. ---> yes they do. Shooting a damaged bow or a damaged arrow is quite dangerous and archers get hurt by those things regularly, even today. I carefully inspect my shafts and bow each time I shoot because the stored energy going off into some direction (like my face) is in the order of magnitude of a cal .22 pistol.

Indeed - have a look at the Horrible Histories sketch 'Stupid Deaths - Tudor Archers', specifically the second bloke. His arrow got stuck in his bow and when he looked round the front of his bow to find out what was wrong, the arrow fired through his head and killed him.

 

[Aginor]

Indeed - have a look at the Horrible Histories sketch 'Stupid Deaths - Tudor Archers', specifically the second bloke. His arrow got stuck in his bow and when he looked round the front of his bow to find out what was wrong, the arrow fired through his head and killed him.

Huh. I can't even imagine how an arrow could get stuck in a bow....
...and how it could stand the energy and not break instantly.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Huh. I can't even imagine how an arrow could get stuck in a bow....
...and how it could stand the energy and not break instantly.

Well, it did happen...once...

 

[Canas]

Absolutely! And I agree with most of what you said, but being an archer myself I just have to make a few small remarks, just for info:

• Bows don't jam. ---> Correct. But other weird things happen to bows (and the humans operating them) that are just as harmful to their operation.
  
  
• Bows are silent. --> Kind of. Not really though. Both bows and arrows make sounds (although you can suppress them). Not like a gun of course.
  
  
• Bows are relativly light and easy to carry around in the field. ---> Granted! Although the big ones can be just as annoying to carry around as the rifles I have shot.
  
  
• Bows (and arrows) are easier and cheaper to make and maintain than guns and bullets. Especially out in the field on a campaign
  ---> I prooobably wouldn't want to make a bow for war while in the field. Just won't be of much use. Easier to make than a gun, yes. Maintenance of bows is a difficult topic. There are things that outright destroy a bow that will hardly do any harm to a rifle.
  
  
• Bows don't blow up in your face. ---> yes they do. Shooting a damaged bow or a damaged arrow is quite dangerous and archers get hurt by those things regularly, even today. I carefully inspect my shafts and bow each time I shoot because the stored energy going off into some direction (like my face) is in the order of magnitude of a cal .22 pistol.

True true, it's not quite as black and white. Just meant that comperativly bows are a hell of a lot easier/simpler/heaper/safer in these aspects.

 

[pendrake]

@Aginor your comments regarding bows are spot on. #fellowArcher

Three comments:

• At some point as technology advances guns/firearms become utterly superior to arrows/bolts.
• That fellow that looked at his bow from the front end (if that ever happened) and died... he would have died even sooner and more messily if he'd been equipped with an arquebus or a musket... some blokes are only fit to be pikemen.
• These new dwarfs are on the verge of looking absolutely impervious to ordinary bows and that Gatling Gun looks fit to take out an Ironclad.

 

[Aginor]

I think we can be happy that the game isn't exactly an accurate simulation, otherwise there would be no melee armies.
...and surely no Skinks with blowpipes destroying flying ironclad warships.

If I am not mistaken the last time an army relying mostly on melee weapons won against one armed mainly with ranged weapons was.... in the 14th century or so, maybe in the early 15th. Commonly known example for the opposite (and a turning point in warfare history) is the battle of Agincourt I guess.

#reallifeisnotbalanced

 

[pendrake]

The thing I advocate is scratchbuilding a Lizardman version of one of these flying Ironclads.

Co Opt the stats.

But change the visuals. Even make a Lizardey warscroll where the Names of DwarfGear are replaced with some that sound like they were made "...in a steamy, swampy jungle..."

 

[pendrake]

I think we can be happy that the game isn't exactly an accurate simulation...

I can to a point. But every version of Warhammer that I have played has fallen well short of that point.

#reallifeisnotbalanced

In real life combatants copy each other.

Old Oog's tribe invents bows in the Spring? Grunk's tribe has them by late Fall.

The French figure a way to shoot through moving propeller blades? The Germans get Fokker to build an improved version.

The British invent tanks? Soon there is a German counter in the form of a near copy.

The British create Battlecruisers? (Even though it was a stupid idea...) the Germans countered and built their own (tougher, better) Battlecruisers.
___________

That is one of the intrinsic things that is utterly wrong with Games from the Workshop...all the armies are so radically different, as if none have ever had contact with the enemy.

 

[Aginor]

I can to a point. But every version of Warhammer that I have played has fallen well short of that point.



In real life combatants copy each other.

Old Oog's tribe invents bows in the Spring? Grunk's tribe has them by late Fall.

The French figure a way to shoot through moving propeller blades? The Germans get Fokker to build an improved version.

The British invent tanks? Soon there is a German counter in the form of a near copy.

The British create Battlecruisers? (Even though it was a stupid idea...) the Germans countered and built their own (tougher, better) Battlecruisers.
___________

That is one of the intrinsic things that is utterly wrong with Games from the Workshop...all the armies are so radically different, as if none have ever had contact with the enemy.

Yeah they do it so the armies play differently, which IS kinda nice. People like to play all those different things. Actually that's one of the reasons why I want to play a fantasy wargame and not some WW2 wargame like bolt action (although it might be cool!). I like the different styles with melee, ranged, magic and so on. In real life it is pretty much as you say:
They copy each other and there ofen isn't a big difference, except if for some reason one army is incapable of doing so. And that usually means they lose.

...it would make balancing in AoS easier though. If, say, shooting is strong and there is an army that doesn't have shooting at all the game becomes VERY hard to balance.

That's one of the things I love about the PC game StarCraft btw: Three very different kinds of armies, still very balanced. That's really really hard to achieve.

 

[pendrake]

That's one of the things I love about the PC game StarCraft btw: Three very different kinds of armies, still very balanced.

I think (unlike Mario) I have played that one. Blizzard software?

Space Marines/Humans (1
Zergs / 'Nids / Xenos..... (2
Space elfs/vulcans........ (3

2) all their 'buildings' look like something that shouldn't be growing in a fridge.
3) buildings looked like crystals and sorta beamed in.

 

[Aginor]

I think (unlike Mario) I have played that one. Blizzard software?

Space Marines/Humans (1
Zergs / 'Nids / Xenos..... (2
Space elfs/vulcans........ (3

2) all their 'buildings' look like something that shouldn't be growing in a fridge.
3) buildings looked like crystals and sorta beamed in.

Exactly!

For the third race (Protoss) I'd say they are something between T'au and Eldar.

Blizzard heavily.... ehem... borrowed from 40k concerning style. When I first encountered 40k I was shocked how "StarCraft-ish" everything looked.

 

[pendrake]

Blizzard heavily.... ehem... borrowed from 40k concerning style.

Is there anything? in 40K that can't be summed up as:

"...something borrowed, something blue..."
?

 

[Canas]

I think we can be happy that the game isn't exactly an accurate simulation, otherwise there would be no melee armies.
...and surely no Skinks with blowpipes destroying flying ironclad warships.

If I am not mistaken the last time an army relying mostly on melee weapons won against one armed mainly with ranged weapons was.... in the 14th century or so, maybe in the early 15th. Commonly known example for the opposite (and a turning point in warfare history) is the battle of Agincourt I guess.

#reallifeisnotbalanced

Melee weapons remain relevant in certain situations though. The main reason they've dissappeard in our warfar is because all sides consists of humans. There's no greenskins that can run through a hail of gunfire without a care in the world and then pummel your face in. In a place like the warhammer world the vast differences between races will Ensure melee weapons remain relevant in warfare. Things like cramped spaces with boarding actions, greenskins not caring about being shot multiple times and superhuman space marines just being a 100 times more destructive when rampaging through lines with a melee weapon than when taking potshots at a fortification will simply mean melee weapons retain a good deal of value. Even if they are not the "main" weapon for most troops.

And yea, warcraft was initially supposed to be a warhammer videogame, blizzard didnt'get the rights so they changed it a bit and now you have starcraft & warcraft which are essentially 40k and fantasy with some changes.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

@Aginor your comments regarding bows are spot on. #fellowArcher

Three comments:

• At some point as technology advances guns/firearms become utterly superior to arrows/bolts.
• That fellow that looked at his bow from the front end (if that ever happened) and died... he would have died even sooner and more messily if he'd been equipped with an arquebus or a musket... some blokes are only fit to be pikemen.
• These new dwarfs are on the verge of looking absolutely impervious to ordinary bows and that Gatling Gun looks fit to take out an Ironclad.

Arkanauts are actually quite poorly armoured because they only wear diving suits and helmets. It's the thunderers who are the well-armoured blokes.

Melee weapons remain relevant in certain situations though. The main reason they've dissappeard in our warfar is because all sides consists of humans. There's no greenskins that can run through a hail of gunfire without a care in the world and then pummel your face in. In a place like the warhammer world the vast differences between races will Ensure melee weapons remain relevant in warfare. Things like cramped spaces with boarding actions, greenskins not caring about being shot multiple times and superhuman space marines just being a 100 times more destructive when rampaging through lines with a melee weapon than when taking potshots at a fortification will simply mean melee weapons retain a good deal of value. Even if they are not the "main" weapon for most troops.

And yea, warcraft was initially supposed to be a warhammer videogame, blizzard didnt'get the rights so they changed it a bit and now you have starcraft & warcraft which are essentially 40k and fantasy with some changes.

Don't forget Tyranid monsters that can just advance through autocannon fire without giving a damn.

Some idiots think Games Workshop copied Blizzard, but we all know it was the other way around. Warcraft 3 is OK as a game but custom battles against the computer are ridiculously hard compared to some other fantasy games like D&D: Dragonshard. I haven't played Starcraft much because I was put off by the poor graphics but am going to play it a bit more when I have the chance.