[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

ths items are interesting though, IIRC in AD&D they just replaced you STR stst with another vlaues (and I'm not sure you could combine them)? But here they instead combine and add to you initial ST. (I don't know what D&D 3e + did though).

D&D 3e did indeed add to a character's score when using a magical item that granted ability bonuses and that's what I did in GURPS. It did not feel fun to utterly devalue the ST score of characters in favour of a magical item, for one thing, because it made the archetype of 'Strong Guy' worthless if someone else found (or could afford to commission) such an item.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Very true, and of course you can mix you formation up, have the bigger chaps use the ST12 wall guns or what ever, and have their slightly smaller mates act as pike men or skirmishers to cover them, or even as loaders to maintain rate of fire

Just so.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yes it's not hugely clear, there's also the question of different shapes adn balances. that 21lb musket in LT* is MinST12 but there are 7.62mm LMGs in HT that weight more but with lower MinST (and I know the latter are shorter with a considerable different balance and weight distribution)

*which is double the weight of TL5 muskets in HT

I;m guessing this stat is calculated using structured rules but also with eye to anecdotal evidence. As such I'd try and be consistent with similar weapons. (and be free with big hand's perk)

I'm trying to find similar weapons, but it's a bit of a struggle. It seems a lot of the stats for potential benchmarks are suspicious.

Why is a 11.2 lbs. 20-gauge blunderbuss firing what appear to be seven 9mm lead shot only ST 7† in LT while the 20-gauge black powder shotgun in HT, weighing in at 10.7 lbs. and firing seven sligthly smaller buckshot, is ST11†?

For that matter, why is the 17 lbs. Fowling Piece, Double only ST8† in LT?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

The other problem with using Rcl to base stuff off is that Rcl itself is a derived stat that encompasses a lot of different things (some of which are directly related to MinST i.e weight, so it can get bit circular here).

Basing it on weapons of similar weights that have a similar real world recoil impulse is pretty much the only thing I can do, but for that, I've got to figure out what assumptions underlie those weapon stats I use as benchmarks.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

In general terms yes definitely, it's just you have to contain and harness that increased energy as well.

As you say this get's complicated, and it where we get into peak vs area and energy imparted with various knock on's (high peak means you have to contain a lot of pressure at specific point, low peak but large area means you need a longer barrel to harness all the energy).

The thing is you can have smoke powder have whatever internal ballistic characteristics here that you want, and if they are on the more extreme end of them it will effect what you guns will look like.

I've established that REF 0.8 smokepowder comes in very fast-burning pistol versions as well as slightly slower burning versions for longarms. It has a higher peak pressure than mundane black powder and can accelerate shot to over 3,500 fps, at least when set off by magic that ignites much of it simultaneously within a near-indestructable dragonbone barrel. More normally, it achieves the higher range of black powder velocities easily.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But generally speaking higher energy (REF in GURPS terms) will mean heavier guns (or stronger guns with better metallurgy).

The part of a gun's weight which comes from making the barrel strong enough for the charge is often not a major factor. Elephant guns were made heavy to help a relatively normal human handle the recoil, not because only super-heavy barrels could take the charges for 4-bore or 8-bore round balls.

Sure, barrels which last thousands of shots with powerful, high-velocity loads are expensive, but they don't need to be all that heavy. It's generally cheaper to go with a heavy barrel for an extra margin of safety, but while economising on gunsmithing made sense in real history, it makes less sense when the cost of the ammunition is some orders of magnitude higher.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yeah it does stack up rather well doesn't (there's nothing in the errata but that's not conclusive)

I suspect we have a condensed TL issue going on here, in that in RL this technology advanced quite quickly but also at different rates in different places and at different times within a relatively short period of time. I might be tempted to count it as fine accurate and increase the price (I think this ties in with it one relative deficit it's low 1/2dam range).

This wepoan was (AFAIK) not widely used or mass equipped for military use which suggests there was drawbacks to it for that kind of role even if it was this good.

It's not just a matter of the weapon being late TL4. Come to think of it, most of the listed flintlocks in LT are late 17th century or early 18th century, hence the same era or slightly later than the Flintlock Carbine.

The Flintlock Carbine better as a pistol than all smoothbore muzzleloading TL5 pistols, including being more accurate than the more expensive and TL5 Wogdon Duelling Pistol, specifically noted as being designed for accuracy in a smoothbore, and more accurate as a longarm than any TL5 smoothbore.

As for comparing it to TL4 longarms, it's for some reason +2 Acc relative to full-size military fusils*, +1 Acc relative to all other longarms. Despite weighing in at only 3.9 lbs. with a collapsible stock (heavier than a normal stock at our TL, at least), while the others are full-size weapons, with proper stocks and presumably longer barrels.

*Why, oh, why does Acc for those go down to pistol-levels when they are chambered for a slightly heavier caliber than hunting fusils?