What is the ideal musket?

Following recent discussions on the G7 thread about England's lack of a special musket, I thought I'd open up a discussion on muskets to allow those with more knowledge about such things to share their thoughts.

I've only done some very preliminary reading of the rules and the options are a bit baffling to a non wargamer.

There seem to be lots of tradeoffs, so longer barrels give greater range and possibly accuracy, but take longer to load so firing times would be slower. Shorter barrels might decrease loading times, but at the expense of range/accuracy. Size/quantity of shot might also be a factor. If you put a really small ball in a big barrel then I guess that won't be as accurate. But I don't have any figures or trials which provide any data. If a long barrel only gives a tiny improvement then it may not be worth the reduction in speed, but if the short barrel is so inaccurate that I would be blasting away and not actually hitting anything then I may as well go back to using sticks.

Then there are such things as anti-rusting developments on different parts, special sights, different pans to protect the eyes or keep powder from getting wet.

All of these seem to add much cost and complexity.

And finally whatever the ideal musket is (for England), it needs the right tactics to use it. So if I am going to have my redcoats stand in line and fire it is pointless them firing at long range if the muskets have short barrels or are inaccurate, similarly if long range fire is ineffective in 1700 anyway then perhaps I should be looking at a short-mid range musket and hold fire until close range when I will actually do damage and not just run down my powder.

I have an open mind about all these things.

There are only 2 things I have decided (unless I am talked out of them):
1. flintlocks seem to be vastly superior to matchlocks, so I am going to use flintlocks.
2. I quite like the name Victory Musket (Model 1714) as that would remind the men armed with it that they won a war without using it, so if they mess the next one up they can't blame the muskets.

If you haven't seen it yet, this is an interesting article http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=British_Line_Infantry_Weapons#Models_of_the_Long_Land_Pattern on the history of British muskets in the period and also refers to some recent experiments (though unfortunately doesn't seem to give a reference to them).  It does give details on ranges, etc and also the effectiveness of British muskets compared with French and Prussian.

For myself, when I am in a position that can justify the expense I tend not to have a single standard musket, I'll have a standard for line units (usually the longer barrelled one) with another shorter barrelled one for dragoons and also fortress cannon crews.  I also tend to limit a lot of the specialised additions (sights etc) to sharpshooter units and things of the ilk.

I am always a bit puzzled about the accuracy arguments when it comes to line units.  If you've got two lines blasting away at each other, as long as your shot has range and isn't going wide by several hundred feet, does it matter if your shot hits the man you aimed at or the one a foot to the left?  My personal experience is with replica "medieval" long bows.  Now I am not an expert shot, if you put a target in front of me at, say, 300 yards I wouldn't trust myself to hit it...however if I were shooting at an advancing host of footman or mounted troops, at 300 yards I may not hit someone I was aiming at but I'd get his mate either side.

I always go for flintlocks over matchlocks.  The latter are "old" technology by the Glory period though I have a vague idea (from where I can't say) that the difference between them was less in the Far East, something about humidity?  Having said that i do remember the 1904 invasion of Tibet by the British/Indian army.  The invasion force met the Tibetan army (still with mostly matchlocks) and a standoff happened (let's not going into details, its messy to say the least), which in the Tibetan case included putting out the lighting cords for their matchlocks.  When...something...then led to a firefight, the Tibetans literally weren't able to fire back as it took too long to light the cords to arm their matchlocks.  Now of course the British/Indian force in 1904 were armed with rifles way beyond 1700s flintlocks but those flintlocks were still a lot quicker to get into action.  As Kwantung, one of the first things I did was try and get hold of flintlocks and get rid of my matchlocks.

On names, entirely up to you...but for me the "Victory Musket" doesn't sound very English.  It sounds the sort of name Johnny Foreigner would give to their musket, in an attempt to show off and make up for the fact they weren't English, armed with English flintlocks...whereas the English army gives its muskets sensible names like "Long Land Pattern"  
Also, it is G7 and I hold to my mantra that "if it can go wrong, in G7 it will go wrong big time"...arm your troops with a "Victory Musket", it's tempted fate big time...in their first battle every single one is bound to refuse to work!

Civil hunting weapons at this period had very tight fit for bullets, which gave god range and accuracy and very long loading time and the weapon would need cleaning often to remove black powder residue in the barrel. Accuracy was of prime interest in a hunting weapon because after the first shot all the animals would be long gone anyway.

At the other end most military muskets had a lot of space for the bullet in the barrel (which would bounce around) causing poor accuracy and range but god rate of fire and blackpoder residue build up would not become critical for some time. Rate of fire and being able too use the weapon through a battle before requiring cleaning was of prime importance.

Jason2 wrote:If you haven't seen it yet, this is an interesting article http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=British_Line_Infantry_Weapons#Models_of_the_Long_Land_Pattern on the history of British muskets in the period and also refers to some recent experiments (though unfortunately doesn't seem to give a reference to them).  It does give details on ranges, etc and also the effectiveness of British muskets compared with French and Prussian.

For myself, when I am in a position that can justify the expense I tend not to have a single standard musket, I'll have a standard for line units (usually the longer barrelled one) with another shorter barrelled one for dragoons and also fortress cannon crews.  I also tend to limit a lot of the specialised additions (sights etc) to sharpshooter units and things of the ilk.

Thanks - I'll have a proper read through it, there is a lot in there.  I do like the idea of having a standard musket for line units, with different ones for say marines, as that would work in well with the idea that I can match the musket design to its tactical use.  Admittedly, this will complicate the project, but perhaps in this instance it makes sense.

Jason2 wrote:I am always a bit puzzled about the accuracy arguments when it comes to line units.  If you've got two lines blasting away at each other, as long as your shot has range and isn't going wide by several hundred feet, does it matter if your shot hits the man you aimed at or the one a foot to the left?  My personal experience is with replica "medieval" long bows.  Now I am not an expert shot, if you put a target in front of me at, say, 300 yards I wouldn't trust myself to hit it...however if I were shooting at an advancing host of footman or mounted troops, at 300 yards I may not hit someone I was aiming at but I'd get his mate either side.

Hmm, so when looked at as a formation, accuracy isn't a major factor?  I can see the logic, just need a way of proving it.  I suppose in combat situations we also haven't considered the effect of smoke which might meant you couldn't see the enemy clearly anyway?

Jason2 wrote:I always go for flintlocks over matchlocks.  The latter are "old" technology by the Glory period though I have a vague idea (from where I can't say) that the difference between them was less in the Far East, something about humidity?  Having said that i do remember the 1904 invasion of Tibet by the British/Indian army.  The invasion force met the Tibetan army (still with mostly matchlocks) and a standoff happened (let's not going into details, its messy to say the least), which in the Tibetan case included putting out the lighting cords for their matchlocks.  When...something...then led to a firefight, the Tibetans literally weren't able to fire back as it took too long to light the cords to arm their matchlocks.  Now of course the British/Indian force in 1904 were armed with rifles way beyond 1700s flintlocks but those flintlocks were still a lot quicker to get into action.  As Kwantung, one of the first things I did was try and get hold of flintlocks and get rid of my matchlocks.

So I've got something right, unless they are fighting in India where it may be beneficial to use matchlocks?  If it is beneficial to have matchlocks, though why did Kwantung get rid of them and use flintlocks?

Jason2 wrote:
On names, entirely up to you...but for me the "Victory Musket" doesn't sound very English.  It sounds the sort of name Johnny Foreigner would give to their musket, in an attempt to show off and make up for the fact they weren't English, armed with English flintlocks...whereas the English army gives its muskets sensible names like "Long Land Pattern"  
Also, it is G7 and I hold to my mantra that "if it can go wrong, in G7 it will go wrong big time"...arm your troops with a "Victory Musket", it's tempted fate big time...in their first battle every single one is bound to refuse to work!

I really rather quite liked the "Victory Musket", rather than calling it after the place it was made or something boring.

I accept the mantra, but of course within that you need to make allowances that for the Jacobites in G7 it is normal for things to go wrong.  Although, perhaps that particular curse has been lifted since viewed from the Williamite perspective, didn't everything go wrong for them now King James is back?

Ardagor wrote:Civil hunting weapons at this period had very tight fit for bullets, which gave good range and accuracy and very long loading time and the weapon would need cleaning often to remove black powder residue in the barrel. Accuracy was of prime interest in a hunting weapon because after the first shot all the animals would be long gone anyway.

At the other end most military muskets had a lot of space for the bullet in the barrel (which would bounce around) causing poor accuracy and range but good rate of fire and blackpowder residue build up would not become critical for some time. Rate of fire and being able to use the weapon through a battle before requiring cleaning was of prime importance.

Thanks Ardagor. It makes sense for hunting weapons (rifles?) to place a premium on accuracy.

So small bullets in comparison to the barrel size means poor accuracy and short range, but I could get away with sloppy cleaning and they would still work?

Conversely larger bullets in the barrel would mean better accuracy and longer range, but would have to be cleaned properly otherwise performance through a battle would deteriorate?

Must be missing something here. Don't larger bullets require more powder to fire them because they are heavier? And wouldn't smaller bullets travel further with the same amount of powder than larger bullets?

Sorry, I'm having problems getting my replies to focus on a single question without the formatting going mad...

On formations, think about it this way...the enemy is marching towards you in a column, does it matter if you hit person X in the column? or just person Y somewhere in that column?  You'll hit someone  

On matchlocks, it's not that there is an advantage, more the disadvantages might be less in the Far East. But at the end of the day, having flintlocks, which are quicker to fire, still outweighs any advantages of matchlocks in that environment,  Another player might disagree    but in my experience that's what works.

As to names and the like, I think that is a personal thing   though in the "real world"  I often get mocked by colleagues for wanting to use more interesting names

Jason2 wrote:Sorry, I'm having problems getting my replies to focus on a single question without the formatting going mad...

Don't worry ... it isn't just you, my computer seems to be throwing a few wobblies this afternoon as well.  Something to do with electrons probably.  For some reason the electrons on my Windows98 machine (or even my WindowsXP machine) were a lot more reliable than on this Win7 one.  I wonder if electrons lose something as they get older?

Jason2 wrote:On formations, think about it this way...the enemy is marching towards you in a column, does it matter if you hit person X in the column? or just person Y somewhere in that column?  You'll hit someone  

Yes, I accept the point - the whole formation is not going to miss a column coming towards it even if individual soldiers miss whoever they are aiming at.  The formation fires a bit like a blunderbuss.  Which also implies that improvements that increase accuracy (for muskets, not rifles) are a bit of a waste of time.  I should therefore look to favour increased rate of fire?

Jason2 wrote:On matchlocks, it's not that there is an advantage, more the disadvantages might be less in the Far East. But at the end of the day, having flintlocks, which are quicker to fire, still outweighs any advantages of matchlocks in that environment,  Another player might disagree    but in my experience that's what works.

I'll accept your experience: flintlocks better in all environments.

Jason2 wrote:As to names and the like, I think that is a personal thing   though in the "real world"  I often get mocked by colleagues for wanting to use more interesting names

Mockery of the Jacobite is something I'm used to, but somehow we always have the last laugh.  I suppose I could look at names again once I have the ideal musket, but I've got to come up with something more imaginative than 'long' musket on the grounds that it is longer than a short musket, or 'short' musket on the grounds that it is shorter than a long musket.  How can any soldier be proud of a weapon whose designer couldn't think of a decent name?

And toake matters worse.I read it was sometimes the case the soldiers just pointed roughly in the direction , shut their eyes at..the point of firing and let God carry the bullet .. of it struck then it was his will .

A musket would ideally be a repeating , breechloading , rifled affair . Other than that medium calibre ,medium barrel length will.serve you well . You might need the ncos to make it effective though , which is an entirely different thing and needs another academy .

I would agree with you Mike, except in the Glory World, a repeating breech-loading rifle is going to be so unreliable that after two shots it stops working...

Yes , I agree with what you said ... but ideally ...Ah well ..
So you think there is any point in having a standard pattern musket ( there is a suitable name for you Papa Clement ) if one doesn't have an academy of NCO a too .

Now that is a good question!  For myself, I think an improved standardised musket will give you some advantage... but an improved standardised musket and extra NCOs must be a bigger advantage

Instead of an improved standardised breachloading musket, wouldn't it be easier just to invent a machine gun?

There is this in the Miscellany ...

Lorenzoni Repeater Pistol
Designed by Michele Lorenzoni, these repeating pistols have been around in Florence since 1684. However, only a dozen are believed to have been made by 1700 because they are very labour intensive to produce. A similar number using the same system were produced by Giacomo Berselli of Bologna and Rome in the decade before. Finally, John Cookson built one bespoke repeating pistol in 1680. These pistols have a rotating breechblock rather than a moving magazine. Michele Lorenzoni remains alive in 1700, and is able to produce one such pistol a year at a price of £1,000. He died historically circa 1738. In 1700 he is a friend of his patron Grand Duke Cosimo III de Medici, of Tuscany.

So if you can have a rotating breechblock in a pistol, why can't you in a musket?


Not sure about 'standard pattern musket' since we were going in the direction of having one musket for line infantry and another for marines, so it would be 'standard pattern line musket' and 'standard pattern marine musket' which ... well, you can't have 2 standards.

But, I have finally managed to track down the bit in the rules about standardised muskets.  It isn't under 'standardised muskets', but 'proper aiming' in Book of Revelations:

Proper Aiming
The part of a target aimed at on the battlefield can have a very significant effect on the damage caused to it.  NCOs usually go along a firing line and use their spontoons to ensure muskets are levelled to the correct angle before shooting.  Get it wrong and the entire volley can fly over the heads of a target or slam into the earth at their feet.  Finding the correct range at which to aim at certain parts of the enemy is fraught with difficulty.  Where there is no standardisation of musket in the army what will be right for one musketeer will prove wrong for another.  If the army muskets are standardised to a particular pattern of musket then optimum ranges for that weapon can be worked out (by an infantry academy carrying out trials and put into the regulations.  Without a standard pattern of musket this is impossible to do with any degree of accuracy.

So it looks like you are both right.  There is a benefit to standardised muskets, through the adoption of proper aiming which seems to solve the accuracy problem.  Now of course what we don't know is whether the gain from proper aiming is greater than all the difference that comes from an improved musket?

Does make you wonder how my brave Jacobites managed to hit anything at this rate.  No drill, no standardised muskets, no education, no proper maps, no fancy tools like sextants, no idea at all really, just great leadership and an unshakeable belief that King James will keep coming up with something to save the day.  No wonder the Spanish are scratching their heads - how could they lose?

My view on weapons is that you need to match weapons to the tactics of your Army.  If you use individual aimed fire or follow's the historic  Swedish, French, Ottoman, Scots Highlander or Bavarian rapid attack doctrine's of nill, one or two close range volleys ansd close with cold steel at top speed.  Then spending time and money on trying on a standard musket which is probably going to get dropped in the mud or used as a club is rather a waste.

For infantry which use fire power tactics like English then in theory giving them battalion guns, extra NCO's and a standard musket is logical.  The theory being that if a unit has all the same type of musket NCO's can arrange effective leveling.  Most muskets/rifles of this period throw the ball upwards and it then drops depending on the range so to hit a hunter would have to level his weapon.....aiming low at close range and above the target at long range.

In volley firing by military units it was the job of the NCO to set the level of the muskets for the range like a hunter would for his own personal weapon.  The problem is if you have a unit equiped with a mix of weapons with different ballistic properties a level perfect for one could put the ball into the ground for another while a third musket throws it above someones head.

In theory having a standard musket can avoid this problem.  Of course it is still perfectly possible for muskets of the same type to have different ballistic preformance and NCO's may mis-judge range, ground levels, soldiers may use more or less gunpowder etc, etc, etc and dont even try to think about atmospheric effects.  Plus as Papa Clement pointed out by the time your alert (?!) NCO's had spotted the problem no one could see a damn thing due to all the smoke.

Two points ref the above - a rapid attack which closes the range like a Highland Charge can be very effective because troops under pressure rush their shot and tend to fire high.  But attacks across prepared ground which the defender knows and has practiced on like the glasis of a fortress is a good way to get shot to bits.

Think as a rule of thumb a standard arsenal produced Flintlock is helps Line Infantry using fire power tactics unless you are Russian - their arsenals were infamous for the poor quality of their muskets but they did make quite good clubsi, Rifles V Muskets for Light Infantry is forum debate on a par with the Lance V Sword cavalry debate.

As for the really fancy weapons like air rifles and the Chaumetter or Fergusion Breach Loading Rifle with improved bullets you probably need to be a major power or at least a rich one develop it and in major battle 700 superior weapons are probably going to get lost even if you give them fancy green uniforms and have Col Sharp in command.

Think were you might find a use for such units would be in raids and holding or storming a breach.....with Air Rifles used to pick off senturies and the 95th Rifles armed with Fergusion Rifles holding the breach. (note the 95th of the Sharp books fame used the Baker Rifle and improvement on the Fergusion Rifle).

The Fergusion was a good weapon with for a limited time the speed of a musket and the range of accuracy of a rifle but it was fairly fragile and needed a lot of care so I wonder if as well as needing very well drilled troops to care for it you will also need a low sickness level or combat value is likely to drop off sharply (pun intended).

PS Ref Air rifles and getting rid of senturies - Spanish light infantry remains loyal to the Spanish rope and the Sicilian Dagger - keep it simple direct and brutal!

More interesting input, thanks Stuart ...

Stuart Bailey wrote:My view on weapons is that you need to match weapons to the tactics of your Army.  If you use individual aimed fire or follow the historic  Swedish, French, Ottoman, Scots Highlander or Bavarian rapid attack doctrine's of nill, one or two close range volleys and close with cold steel at top speed.  Then spending time and money on trying on a standard musket which is probably going to get dropped in the mud or used as a club is rather a waste.

I wasn't completely wrong about this then.  Matching weapons to tactics makes sense.

Stuart Bailey wrote:For infantry which use fire power tactics like English then in theory giving them battalion guns, extra NCO's and a standard musket is logical.  The theory being that if a unit has all the same type of musket NCO's can arrange effective leveling.  Most muskets/rifles of this period throw the ball upwards and it then drops depending on the range so to hit a hunter would have to level his weapon.....aiming low at close range and above the target at long range.

In volley firing by military units it was the job of the NCO to set the level of the muskets for the range like a hunter would for his own personal weapon.  The problem is if you have a unit equipped with a mix of weapons with different ballistic properties a level perfect for one could put the ball into the ground for another while a third musket throws it above someones head.

In theory having a standard musket can avoid this problem.  Of course it is still perfectly possible for muskets of the same type to have different ballistic performance and NCO's may mis-judge range, ground levels, soldiers may use more or less gunpowder etc, etc, etc and don't even try to think about atmospheric effects.  Plus as Papa Clement pointed out by the time your alert (?!) NCO's had spotted the problem no one could see a damn thing due to all the smoke.

Two points ref the above - a rapid attack which closes the range like a Highland Charge can be very effective because troops under pressure rush their shot and tend to fire high.  But attacks across prepared ground which the defender knows and has practiced on like the glasis of a fortress is a good way to get shot to bits.

Think as a rule of thumb a standard arsenal produced Flintlock helps Line Infantry using fire power tactics unless you are Russian - their arsenals were infamous for the poor quality of their muskets but they did make quite good clubs.   Rifles V Muskets for Light Infantry is forum debate on a par with the Lance V Sword cavalry debate.

I haven't really thought about how the English army will fight.  But I suppose it does make sense to rely on firepower since the English did historically and it does seem to be a feature of the other main European armies.  I think I'm going to forget about the more esoteric/fancy weapons for now and concentrate on the standard musket.

Getting extra NCOs, is that something which is just ordered or it is a research breakthrough or just assumed if you have proper aiming?

Interesting bits from Jason2’s link:

1. The Dutch ran a profitable trade selling 2nd hand out of date muskets to others, whilst bought their own muskets new from Liege.  Typically sneaky Dutch trick, but it does suggest that Liege has a particularly advanced musket manufacturing industry.
   
   
2. Iron ramrods were issued quite late, but seem to be an improvement on wooden ones as they didn’t break/bend.
   
   
3. Very interesting section on accuracy/velocity.  Even with proper time to aim, individual targets cannot be picked out over 150yards; at 200 yards it still was pointless firing.  At 100 yards the hit ratio was 25%; but this increased to 100% at 40 yards.  But the body could be hit at 50 yards and an individual figure at 75 yards.  
   
   
4. After establishing the ideal range, then the powder quantity could be adjusted to give enough muzzle velocity to propel the ball for that range.  Too much powder would get the ball to fire further, but was unnecessary and increased wear and the risk of misfires.  The more the weapon was used between cleaning the less useful it was, so cleaning does seem to be important to keep its performance up.
   
   
5. The long land pattern musket had a 46 inch barrel whereas the short land pattern musket had a 42 inch barrel.  It used a ball size of 0.69 with 14 shots to the pound, but this varied in practice.
   

I'm not quite sure what to make of these yet.  It doesn't seem like firing at more than 100 yards is a good idea, but 50-100 yards would work.  So I need to find the right powder charge to work at that range.  What it doesn't say is whether the shorter barrel was worse than the longer barrel at the 50-100 yard range.

Glad you found the link useful.  If you ever have the time, the rest of the site is worth a read.  It's for a bit after the Glory period but most of the army entries cover the situation for that army earlier in the 18th C and the individual regimental records more so.

The problem with having a bullet smaller than the muzzle size apart from range/accuracy is that it is easy for the propellant to escape rather than propel the bullet as intended. So you had to stuff something down the barrel after the bullet too hold it in place and avoid the propellant escaping, usually the paper from the cartridge once these was introduced. Before that anything useful that was too hand.

Ardagor wrote:The problem with having a bullet smaller than the muzzle size apart from range/accuracy is that it is easy for the propellant to escape rather than propel the bullet as intended. So you had to stuff something down the barrel after the bullet too hold it in place and avoid the propellant escaping, usually the paper from the cartridge once these was introduced. Before that anything useful that was too hand.

Your comment has just reminded me of possibly a completely useless bit of info...

...apparently in the Napoleonic Wars the standard musket used by the British army was of a larger calibre than that used by the French.  This meant in an emergency the British could use captured stocks of French musket balls...but British balls were too big for the French (insert your own jokes)

Hem,

a silly question.

The western army academy can make the project, and the arsenal can build 700 of them per month.

but

is it always worth to do it (so you standardize the muskets and make easier supply chain) or there are implementations that is "nice to have".

for example i have improved bayonets, conical touch holes for flintlock muskets and Flip-up notched bar for muskets and rifles.

i can say the first is very good, the second i honestly barely understand what it is, the third i believe could be useful for snipers, but for a line infantry quite useless..

your opinion?

thanks

I agree with you !! I have no idea what I'm asking for most of the time and no idea how it will benefit the troops if at all and no idea if I should have invented something first and no idea how trustworthy my advice is from ministers .. I gave my guys straps for their muskets cos I thought it was nice .. Straps .. that I understand ..

Jason2 wrote:

Ardagor wrote:The problem with having a bullet smaller than the muzzle size apart from range/accuracy is that it is easy for the propellant to escape rather than propel the bullet as intended. So you had to stuff something down the barrel after the bullet too hold it in place and avoid the propellant escaping, usually the paper from the cartridge once these was introduced. Before that anything useful that was too hand.

Your comment has just reminded me of possibly a completely useless bit of info...

...apparently in the Napoleonic Wars the standard musket used by the British army was of a larger calibre than that used by the French.  This meant in an emergency the British could use captured stocks of French musket balls...but British balls were too big for the French (insert your own jokes)

So the bullet also has to fit the barrel to get the power out at the right rate to reach the target. Good point.

Nexus06 wrote:Hem,

a silly question.

The western army academy can make the project, and the arsenal can build 700 of them per month.

but is it always worth to do it (so you standardize the muskets and make easier supply chain) or there are implementations that is "nice to have".

for example i have improved bayonets, conical touch holes for flintlock muskets and Flip-up notched bar for muskets and rifles.

i can say the first is very good, the second i honestly barely understand what it is, the third i believe could be useful for snipers, but for a line infantry quite useless..

your opinion?

thanks

Mike wrote:I agree with you !! I have no idea what I'm asking for most of the time and no idea how it will benefit the troops if at all and no idea if I should have invented something first and no idea how trustworthy my advice is from ministers .. I gave my guys straps for their muskets cos I thought it was nice .. Straps .. that I understand ..

Nexus - this was my starting point. In some of the muskets I have captured the level of individual improvements are really impressive, but which are the really critical ones that make a big difference to performance? I don't know. The idea of a standard musket which allows proper aiming should give a benefit. And so if I am going to invest in a standard musket then I may as well try to get one which has some extra benefit if that benefit makes a big difference.

Part of the issue I have with inventions is that I have lots of naval inventions (not all of which work together very well, so I have to be selective), but very few army inventions. Naval inventions I understand because those inventions change the tactical use of different classes of ships. Musket inventions don't necessarily have the same impact since men will still stand in lines to fire - they may fire a bit quicker or further, or more accurately, but if it all fails anyway then as Stuart suggests you just change tactics and charge at the enemy. I can see how certain specialist developments may improve rifles, but when it comes to muskets I don't have a clue which inventions are of most use, and then what they would cost to implement. Clearly some players who have invested a lot of time over the years think they are of value and perhaps we can learn from them what works and what doesn't?

Mike - I'm with you in that I can see the point of straps, although I do wonder why that isn't part of an ordinary flintlock. As to advice from ministers, I am learning to trust it less depending on the question asked. Some ministers are very helpful, but many simply stick to their department and provide answers which will benefit their own activity the most. I'm not saying "ask advisors" orders are a waste of time because sometimes they are the quickest way to resolve something, but perhaps use sparingly otherwise "advisors" are replacing your own player-generated ideas. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that when you ask your general which fortifications you should build you will get a specification back for a huge impregnable series of walls that your finance minister will try to block on the grounds of cost. In the end it is your decision and you build what you think is appropriate then hope that it holds out against the enemy. With me it is a bit like that with muskets - although I am primarily looking for a musket for England in G7, I hope that what I am learning here will also apply in other positions. Certainly I had never thought of the benefits of a standard musket before a few days ago.

Papa Clement wrote:

Nexus06 wrote:Hem,

a silly question.

The western army academy can make the project, and the arsenal can build 700 of them per month.

but is it always worth to do it (so you standardize the muskets and make easier supply chain) or there are implementations that is "nice to have".

for example i have improved bayonets, conical touch holes for flintlock muskets and Flip-up notched bar for muskets and rifles.

i can say the first is very good, the second i honestly barely understand what it is, the third i believe could be useful for snipers, but for a line infantry quite useless..

your opinion?

thanks

Mike wrote:I agree with you !! I have no idea what I'm asking for most of the time and no idea how it will benefit the troops if at all and no idea if I should have invented something first and no idea how trustworthy my advice is from ministers .. I gave my guys straps for their muskets cos I thought it was nice .. Straps .. that I understand ..

Nexus - this was my starting point.  In some of the muskets I have captured the level of individual improvements are really impressive, but which are the really critical ones that make a big difference to performance?  I don't know.  The idea of a standard musket which allows proper aiming should give a benefit.  And so if I am going to invest in a standard musket then I may as well try to get one which has some extra benefit if that benefit makes a big difference.

Part of the issue I have with inventions is that I have lots of naval inventions (not all of which work together very well, so I have to be selective), but very few army inventions.  Naval inventions I understand because those inventions change the tactical use of different classes of ships.  Musket inventions don't necessarily have the same impact since men will still stand in lines to fire - they may fire a bit quicker or further, or more accurately, but if it all fails anyway then as Stuart suggests you just change tactics and charge at the enemy.  I can see how certain specialist developments may improve rifles, but when it comes to muskets I don't have a clue which inventions are of most use, and then what they would cost to implement.  Clearly some players who have invested a lot of time over the years think they are of value and perhaps we can learn from them what works and what doesn't?

Mike - I'm with you in that I can see the point of straps, although I do wonder why that isn't part of an ordinary flintlock.  As to advice from ministers, I am learning to trust it less depending on the question asked.  Some ministers are very helpful, but many simply stick to their department and provide answers which will benefit their own activity the most.  I'm not saying "ask advisors" orders are a waste of time because sometimes they are the quickest way to resolve something, but perhaps use sparingly otherwise "advisors" are replacing your own player-generated ideas.  My guess (and it is only a guess) is that when you ask your general which fortifications you should build you will get a specification back for a huge impregnable series of walls that your finance minister will try to block on the grounds of cost.  In the end it is your decision and you build what you think is appropriate then hope that it holds out against the enemy.  With me it is a bit like that with muskets - although I am primarily looking for a musket for England in G7, I hope that what I am learning here will also apply in other positions.  Certainly I had never thought of the benefits of a standard musket before a few days ago.

don't know if it helps, but

i was reading a book regarding war of spanish succession and, even if it didn't explore that much the making of muskets, one point war clear. The british musket was considered superior to the french one in terms of bullet "size" (i'm sorry, i know i use inappropriate terms, but i do not know the correct term in english). The post was linked to the different tactics, french attacking while english were more defensive. But the french bullet lacked the ability to inflict fatal damage when hitting, while the bigger english bullet was more effective in that. Given the fact that few shots could be fired during the volleys before smoke covered all the sight and fear took its toll, a bigger bullet was an advantage. At the point that, the author remarks, french infantry dropped their muskets and pillaged fallen english soldiers for fusillade and bullets.

Tactics must matter say I buy hunting rifles for a mounted squadron wouldn't the best use of those targeting officers and nobles on the enemy side from good cover perhaps sneaking in at night or fighting in an unorthodox fashion abusing the range advantage. Ride, shoot, retreat, reload and fire repeat. With the troops well drilled. The other muskets it seems the higher caliber one with either a large ball or maybe multiple smaller balls might work best. I'm not sure since I am working on a composite bow in R&D right now but it seems using the weapons well must matter a lot.

tkolter wrote:Tactics must matter say I buy hunting rifles for a mounted squadron wouldn't the best use of those targeting officers and nobles on the enemy side from good cover perhaps sneaking in at night or fighting in an unorthodox fashion abusing the range advantage. Ride, shoot, retreat, reload and fire repeat. With the troops well drilled. The other muskets it seems the higher caliber one with either a large ball or maybe multiple smaller balls might work best. I'm not sure since I am working on a composite bow in R&D right now but it seems using the weapons well must matter a lot.

Giving light Infantry horses for extra mobility in combination with long range fire arms was a favourite tactic in Eastern Europe, Ottoman Empire and Persia. And it can be very effective in game especially against foes who are not used to this type of skirmishing tactics.

However, before everyone sends in orders to raise their own version of the Ottoman Segmans or Nadir Shahs Persian mounted Jezzailachis on Camels it should be noted that just because you give a bloke a fancy jacket and call him a Hussar it does not make him a Hussar. Give a bunch of Western European recruits with no light infantry tradition a horse and a rife and order them to think for themselves and skirmish out of sight of their NCO's chances are you are going to have really high their desertion and a bandit problem.

For armies which can use skirmishers effectively its a paper, rock, sissors situation. Rifle armed light Infantry inc mounted ones are very effective shooting from outside of musket range against musket armed line foot but their slow rate of fire means they get beaten up by Hussars & other light Cavalry esp Horse Archers, Dragoons fighting mounted and Musket armed light Infantry like Grenzer. Who in turn tend to get easily driven off by Line Infantry if they close (unless the terrain suits them).

As a rule of thumb I think its best to stick with the weapons and tactics of the historic Army. But some times its fun to have small specialist units or odd weapons for particular situations. For example in one game my skilled gunsmiths have made what is probably the most powerful rifle in the world unfortunately its really heavy and needs a mount to fire. If you gave it to a mounted rifle man he will need a spare horse or a couple of gun bearers just to carry the thing.

Basically its a civilian weapon for Elephant hunters and a total liability on campaign/battlefield which you would never issue to a field Army unit. But it has been given to some Garrison Units as a type of wall gun for long range shots against fleeting individual targets which a 18 pounder fortress gun is no use against. Figure if the besiegers have to spend the siege bent down its going to help slow things up. Not that the blasted thing has been used in action yet! But the Ivory trade seems to be doing well.

Mike wrote:I agree with you !! I have no idea what I'm asking for most of the time and no idea how it will benefit the troops if at all and no idea if I should have invented something first and no idea how trustworthy my advice is from ministers .. I gave my guys straps for their muskets cos I thought it was nice .. Straps .. that I understand ..

I thought the same on the strap/sling thing but during the week had a bit of a chat with a mate whose work involves doing experiments involving historical firearms, and he expanded it to include some mates of his who do something similar across the Atlantic.   Something both he and his US counterparts said was that with flintlocks, straps/slings can be quite a hindrance in battle if you are line infantry.  

They explained that if you're being a sharpshooter, taking your time with a shot, there isn't a problem but if you're in the line, firing 3 or 4 shots a minute, experiments they have done (using 17th-19th C drill manuals), as well as the shortcuts that were used, they find that after a couple of minutes of fire, load, fire, load, you obviously start to tire.  That makes perfect sense when you think about the weight of such weapons and the repetition of movement etc (as someone who is expert in the use of "medieval" swords and longbows, I sympathise with that!), it does quickly affect performance.  What was quite interesting was they all said that after about the 6th or 7th shot, they found they got caught up in the strap and it slowed down their rate of fire. The beginning of tiredness affecting their performance.

Now of course a 17th-19th C soldier, if he were in an army that placed a lot of emphasis on drill and the like, might not tire so quickly but the theory should hold.  Perhaps, in game, soldiers with musket straps need to be highly drilled too?  It could be an interesting in-game experience to trial an undrilled infantry battalion with strap-less muskets and then muskets with straps and then battalions with different degrees of drill with both to see if there is a difference in how they perform