What is the ideal musket?

Haha .. I didn't know any of that interesting stuff . This is a wee bit like a diet . Three tomatoes a day protects your prostate .... but raises your blood pressure ..a glass of milk a day strengthens your bones but furs your arteries ...
I did the strap thing for some of my guys because I thought it was a nice thing to do and i love to bask in the adoration of my people ... ( only some guys get it because it is a pound a strap )

To be honest Mike, it never occured to me.  It was only my mate mentioning he had been doing some work with a certain weapons specialist (who we've both worked with) for a TV programme that made me even ask.  Otherwise I would have seen straps as a positive without any downsides.

Ever wonder if there should be regulations for just raised soldiers and drilled soldiers . Whether the regulations should be different .. just raised fire by rank because it is easier and drilled troops by ... urgh the other way .. I forgot the name .. group by group .

Jason2 wrote:To be honest Mike, it never occured to me.  It was only my mate mentioning he had been doing some work with a certain weapons specialist (who we've both worked with) for a TV programme that made me even ask.  Otherwise I would have seen straps as a positive without any downsides.

Ref straps......totally out of our period but I was reading about the German Cavalry in WWII who to save money & weight did away with bucket? case? whatever their leather rifle holder is called. And instead just carried their rifles slung across thir backs by its strap.

Unfortunately they then found that due to the natural movement of the horses the troopers were hit repeatedly by the heavy rifle and ended up with bad backs.

I assume that C18 Dragoons would suffer much the same problem if they rode with fire-arms on straps.

Ref some of Papa Clementi comments......Think its important to note that the battlefield preformance of muskets in battle was almost always much, much lower than test results with vast numbers of shots fired for each loss inflicted. Think I read somewhere that in one battle the Prussians fired an estimated 200,000 rounds to inflict 2,000 Austrian casualties. It is noticable that the famously well drilled and equiped English foot regiments which originally copied the rapid fire of the Prussian's had by the end of the C18 adopted the tactic of holding their fire to the last moment and then a rapid charge with cold steel. A tactic not unlike that of the Swedes at the start of the century except that the Swedes liked to attack while the English liked to stay on the defensive covered by light infantry, artillery and cover and then basically hit on the counter punch.

It should also be noted that too much cleaning could be a bad thing. The C18 Prussian Army were fanatic musket polisher's with their muskets polished every day to a mirror finish you could see you face in. They looked really nice but a mix of years of polishing and some poor quality metal resulted in some Prussian soldiers finding out in battle that their muskets were basically worn out and next too useless.

So despite the well argued points in favour of straps, it looks like I have to put a ? on them. Or just accept that soldiering involves some discomfort.

And polishing the ideal musket is a good thing provided it isn't done every day.

As to accuracy, firing 200,000 rounds to inflict only 2,000 casualties sounds ridiculous given I thought Prussian troops were supposed to be good. I'm sure you'd do more damage with bows and arrows. Perhaps instead of trying to design the ideal musket I should just ask Rozwi for a mission to teach me ancient weapons? I do like Jason2's suggestion of extra NCOs, to improve fire accuracy, though.

One thing that doesn't seem to appear in the rules is how to introduce a standardised musket so the army can have proper aiming? Do I just give an existing musket a name and call it standard or buy new muskets to that standard for all troops? If it isn’t a stupid question, is there a choice of off-the-shelf standardised muskets?

The weapons bureau will develop a medium calibre medium length standard pattern musket . That , almost word for word is what I asked for .

Mike wrote:The weapons bureau will develop a medium calibre medium length standard pattern musket . That , almost word for word is what I asked for .

So I have to build a weapons bureau (is that the same as a musket academy?) to get a basic standard pattern musket? Can the same musket academy then go on to research a better musket or test the standard one to get improved aiming?

I have a weapons bureau which develops weapons . My infantry academies evaluate them . Your musket academy sounds like a specialised weapons bureau (academy ) and should be able to develop muskety things quicker than a bog standard weapons bureau . Remember to give it a head of research too

The " infantry academy " will suggest improvements to the current musket .
Then after the suggestions
The weapons bureau will develop a musket with the suggestions from the " infantry academy "

I have no idea if you " have to " do it this way but I get reasonable results from doing it this way .

There are no standard muskets at the start of the game . In the rules somewhere it describes units are initially raised with a hotch potch of calibres and lengths so you have to initiate some sort of standardisation if this is your desire .
I suspect thereafter you would put something like " Raise 20 units foot, 1702 pattern musket , rigid back packs , fitted shoes . Of course your arsenal would have to build them and you would have to ensure they were ready for your troops .

I will be quiet now

I haven't got an infantry academy, musket academy or weapons bureau (yet). Like you, Mike, I seem to be confused with the original non-standard musket being of different lengths/callibres, etc, for surely there has to be some standard which a weapons bureau can recommend improvements to? Or does the weapons bureau simply take a batch of mixed muskets currently in use and find one it likes?

Rather than specific "Musket Academy" try for a "Weapons Research & Development Academy" which can then be given a broader range of projects.

As i understand it Effective range for musket lies between 80-120 yds, with maximum range being about 200-220yds, most fire isn't aimed more a case of point at the enemy & hope for the best ( Think hitting a barn door from the inside) When you consider A battalion firing you expect horrendous casualties, but actual hits on target are not that high.

To give an example:-
Tests carried out in perfect conditions against a screen target during the Napoleonic wars gave the following results

100 yds 53%/40%

200 yds 30%/18%

300 yds 23%/15%

Numbers before & after the slash being for Veteran troops that after for less well trained , bearing mind that these are under perfect conditions, without the enemy moving , as the enemy closes the point of aim also comes down, the smoke of battle also play s part, the hectic action of your neighbour loading etc, etc , so true casualties are much lower, some people would have been struck by more than one ball for example.
add in that most armies also didn't indulge in target practice as such, so actual aimed fire wasn't thought to be required, point & pull would probably best sum it up. The actual rigid discipline methods of the day also had an impact as soldiers learnt to go through the drill movements & levelled at the same height no matter what the range.

And yes Stuart is quite right Russia had a reputation for bad muskets & musketry in General, in fact British Muskets were on occasion issued as a reward to valiant soldiers

Thanks JFlower.

I ordered a medium calibre medium length musket to be our standard musket . The weapons bureau produced it .
They informed me how much it would cost per 700 .
I ask the infantry academy to evaluate it .

I've heard of other sources that reflect the surprisingly high number of shots fired cf the actual casualty rate, it does seem a common theme throughout the gun powder age and later.  

Papa mentioned the use of bows and arrows, and given the poor hit rate with muskets, why just not use those instead.  It's actually an idea that crops up a lot, indeed though I can't find the source there was a vaguely serious proposal at one stage in the Napoleonic Wars to arm British troops with long bows.
The problem is two fold.  Firstly if you look at the number of arrows longbow men let fly, comparatively speaking they had the the same hit accuracy as musket men...and an arrow takes more effort to make than a musket ball. Secondly, you can give any idiot a musket and with a rather minimal amount of training, they can load it and manage to fire it in vaguely the right direction.  The use of the longbow requires a lot more training and indeed physical strength; to use a proper longbow, you need to start training at the age of 12 at the latest and spend years training with it, to build up the skills and strength to use it properly.

Compared to bows even 18 century muskets had a much slower rate of fire, more mis-fire's and compared to the best bows/cross bows they had a shorter range.

The advantages of the original fire-arms were:

a) Length of training period required
b) Ability to defeat armour
c) Lethality
d) Ability to scare horses with the noise and smoke

By 1700 as armour had mostly dropped out of use and horses had grown more used to bangs and flashes some writers made a case to re-introduce Archery - since say 4000 English Longbowmen, Jannissary Archers, Samuri Archers or 4000 Mongol Horse Archers from say 1350 taking on 4000 unarmoured musketeers form 1700 would have slaughtered them with ease.

What these writers failed to pick up on was that these types of archers were the highly trained elite fighters of their societies - in 1700 now used to provide the Officiers and NCO's of vastly larger armies and some of these societies no longer existed......English Yoemen farmers having given up Archery for beer, football, point to point etc

Also that they were comparing a standard musket bashed out by the thousand for massed armies to hand crafted weapons produced by master craftsmen.

Think most handing out bows in 1700s for most counties is on a par with handing out Pikes and Bills from old stock. Troops issued with this are going to feel out of date, neglected and will probably do very badly. Even if they do come from Wales and have been issued Long Bows (best ones made from imported Spanish Willow and Yew).

But if you are one of the generally non European Powers which have kept the old traditions going I think even with their slow production rate good quality composite bows & Samurai bows are worth looking at esp for Light cavalry.

To over come concerns that its a old fashioned and out of date weapons perhaps your personal character like the Shogan can take up the bow so its clearly seen to be (like swords) the mark of noble, elite soldier while the plebs have to make do with simple fire arms due to their lack of years of training and skill.

The Wiki entry on the longbow does have a small bit on the later proposals for its reintroduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Sixteenth_century_and_later  I've always wondered at the reports of the Confederates in the ACW issuing pikes to their troops, here's one article on that http://www.civilwar.si.edu/weapons_pike.html Never sure if it was supposed to have actually happened or whether it was simply a proposal at a desperate time but have memories of (long ago) reading that General Lee was among the supporters of that idea and he might not have suggested it to offset a shortage of firearms but because he felt the pike still had a role to play in infantry warfare.

As China, I do reintroduce the repeating crossbow but in mixed formations with other weapons, including firearms.

I do agree with Stuart on the issue of Western European troops feeling hard done by if they had been issued with longbows...that's assuming they could even draw the things!

Jason2 wrote:The Wiki entry on the longbow does have a small bit on the later proposals for its reintroduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Sixteenth_century_and_later  I've always wondered at the reports of the Confederates in the ACW issuing pikes to their troops, here's one article on that http://www.civilwar.si.edu/weapons_pike.html Never sure if it was supposed to have actually happened or whether it was simply a proposal at a desperate time but have memories of (long ago) reading that General Lee was among the supporters of that idea and he might not have suggested it to offset a shortage of firearms but because he felt the pike still had a role to play in infantry warfare.

As China, I do reintroduce the repeating crossbow but in mixed formations with other weapons, including firearms.

I do agree with Stuart on the issue of Western European troops feeling hard done by if they had been issued with longbows...that's assuming they could even draw the things!

Not sure about the ACW but in 1812 some new Russian troops were given Pikes due to a shortage of muskets.

Put in the rear of the Army the theory was that they could pick up dropped Russian and French muskets from frontline units later in the
battle/campaig but in the meantime the Pikes would protect the rear of the Army from Cavalry attack.

By 1812 if you were issued a Pike you were clearly considered low class but in 1700 in Russian and Swedish armies the Pike was still viewed as the Queen of the Battleield and given to the largest and strongest recruits.

My feeling is that if you are running an Army with a fire-power doctrine and still have Pikes to help defend your shot against Cavalry the chances are your Pikes are soon going to get fed up with being a target which can not fight back.

But if you have an attack doctrine like the Swedes then it may be worth taking the reduced fire power for advantage in hand to hand combat.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason2 wrote:The Wiki entry on the longbow does have a small bit on the later proposals for its reintroduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Sixteenth_century_and_later  I've always wondered at the reports of the Confederates in the ACW issuing pikes to their troops, here's one article on that http://www.civilwar.si.edu/weapons_pike.html Never sure if it was supposed to have actually happened or whether it was simply a proposal at a desperate time but have memories of (long ago) reading that General Lee was among the supporters of that idea and he might not have suggested it to offset a shortage of firearms but because he felt the pike still had a role to play in infantry warfare.

As China, I do reintroduce the repeating crossbow but in mixed formations with other weapons, including firearms.

I do agree with Stuart on the issue of Western European troops feeling hard done by if they had been issued with longbows...that's assuming they could even draw the things!

Not sure about the ACW but in 1812 some new Russian troops were given Pikes due to a shortage of muskets.

Put in the rear of the Army the theory was that they could pick up dropped Russian and French muskets from frontline units later in the
battle/campaig but in the meantime the Pikes would protect the rear of the Army from Cavalry attack.

By 1812 if you were issued a Pike you were clearly considered low class but in 1700 in Russian and Swedish armies the Pike was still viewed as the Queen of the Battleield and given to the largest and strongest recruits.

My feeling is that if you are running an Army with a fire-power doctrine and still have Pikes to help defend your shot against Cavalry the chances are your Pikes are soon going to get fed up with being a target which can not fight back.

But if you have an attack doctrine like the Swedes then it may be worth taking the reduced fire power for advantage in hand to hand combat.    

That's interesting Stuart, not come across the idea of 1812 Russians being armed with pikes before...does make me wonder when was the last time someone suggested it (whether seriously or after "too much spirit of your choice")...you could see someone suggesting it in 1940 post-Dunkirk UK or 1945-Japan...

...though as I type this, I have an incredibly vague memory of Napoleonic Prussian Landwher troops being issued with pikes...

At Borodino a lot of the Russian militia were armed with pikes, if memory serves me correctly, & yes Landwehr were often issued them as well. In some armies half pikes or halberds were still issued to SNCO, as a symbol of rank, & also to help with laying on of the muskets of the men under there command. They had another use as well which was being lashed together to form an "A" frame for corporal punishment to be carried out.

Jason2 wrote:
I do agree with Stuart on the issue of Western European troops feeling hard done by if they had been issued with longbows...that's assuming they could even draw the things!

Recently had a play with some copies of the long bows brought up from the Mary Rose and well as some other missile weapons. Even before we get too the problems of drawing or aiming the things with a draw to the ear the first problem was actually stringing the things! (And these were copies of some of the lighter bows in terms of draw strain from the Mary Rose).

Basically to use a long bow effectively you do need guidance and training ref the correct techniques, but probably no more than is required for a 17/18 Musket or Cannon which was not exactly a simple weapon to load and fire. The most easy weapon for anyone to pick up use and put a hole in someone else seemed to be the Crossbow by quite some way.

The killer fact for the long bow was that the the one person (16 stone plus back row forward who likes Gymns and works as a roofer lifting heavy tile loads day to day) who could use a light Long Bow with any degree of effect on picking it up and being shown how to use it was suffering after less than a dozen shots.

Have seen it said the C21 males are a lot more puny than those in the C18 who were more used to hard physical work. But I am fairly sure that my friend would be considered massively strong in any age and also has a marked advantage in size and weight over most people. So if he struggled the problem is not one of pure strength but of having the correct muscles to carry out the same repetative exercise an absene number of times. Bit like circuit training but having to stay on same station at all times.

Basic conclusion was that for a modern person to use a long bow effectively they will have to spend 2-3 years working daily to build up the required specialist muscle to use a Long Bow and you do end up a bit deformed or over developed. And that is just to produce a poor archer who's arrows go in roughly the riight area with a fair degree of force.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Basic conclusion was that for a modern person to use a long bow effectively they will have to spend 2-3 years working daily to build up the required specialist muscle to use a Long Bow and you do end up a bit deformed or over developed.  And that is just to produce a poor archer who's arrows go in roughly the riight area with a fair degree of force.  

Completely agree!  Think I'll stick to musket-armed troops