Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24108228-20141020170717/@comment-24108228-20141110160843

Mojman456 wrote: I actually support An Observer's idea, of having multi-tiered guns, since it adds an all new dimension to ranged combat. I was thinking that bow stats would be changed be light, quick and weak, while guns would have stats of slow, strong, and heavy, similar to the debate between mithril and bluesteel, people could easily change between bows and guns.

Stone gun: Blowgun/ Blow pipe. (Not actually a gun, but whatever.)

Iron gun: Flintlock

Steel gun: Hand Cannon

Mithril: No gun, because the mithril tier is of quick and light things. Also, yewbeam cost lower please.

Bluesteel: Bluesteel Arquebuse/Musket. (Wait, we need saltpeter to build musketmen, at least until we research nationalism and have riflemen. Civ 3 reference) I say no to a blowgun. Since they would inevitably be loaded with seeds and made using remarkably cheap materials, and they also have to be more powerful than a crude bow, this means they would deal damage of, at the very least, 50 damage on headshot. To put this into perspective, the rest of the stone tier is sitting around at base 10-20 damage.

Also, what of crossbows and flintlocks? Why impose a restriction when you don't need to? Your saying that flintlocks will suddenly be completely changed to be what's effectively a crossbow, but harder to be loaded unless your nomadic, and crossbows will become a basic bridge from longbows and Yewbeam bows. Neither add to combat, simply act as filler. Instead, we could make hand cannons the "Iron Tier" gun, as explosions can still be held within iron casing (look no further than generic cannons), keep crossbows as the big and powerful steel tier weapon, and have flintlocks stay the upgraded slingshot they were intended to be.