Is there a way to include both firearms (even relatively low tech firearms, but at the very least bolt-action rifles) and melee weapons in a setting, and still have it be a somewhat serious setting?
Because for example 40K has no reason to have chainswords, power weapons and whatever, but still does, and for some people it's a little bit stupid, or fucks with their suspension of disbelief or whatever.
I'm looking for settings or ways in which both guns (again, not arquebuz, muskets and such, I mean revolvers, bolt actions at the very least) and melee weapons like swords, spears, etc, are integrated successfully.
There is a reason for Power Swords et cetera. It's cause they cleave everything like butter.
>>44058317
Machines guns haven't been invented?
>>44058317
You probably need something that at least partially negates the massive advantage of ranged weapons.
Infinity?
WW1 soldiers used bayonets, knives, spades and axes as weapons going into enemy trenches, and by that point machine guns and tanks were in use. I mean, WW1 is kind of a joke setting, but most people would accept it as a sort of serious setting where melee and ranged combat coexist.
Yes, but it would require you to use weapon speeds.
And firearms are hella slow
If you're having magic you could fluff it to say that bulletproof enchantments are common enough to make melee weapons useful. If not then make the setting one with lots of confined spaces. You could also make ammunition scarce so players use swords and shit as a means of conserving it.
>Is there a way to include both firearms (even relatively low tech firearms, but at the very least bolt-action rifles) and melee weapons in a setting
Everything before WW1 called
Their want their historical accuracy back
>>44058317
Does your setting have magic?
Then magic shields work by slowing things beyond a certain velocity and thus melee weapons are preferred in combat to deal with it.
Is it a high tech setting without magic?
See above and come up with electromagnetic field-shields etc.
>>44058407
>Revolvers
>Bolt actions
>Hella slow
Naw, dawg.
>>44058341
True, but what's the reasoning behind that? Why can't I just shoot an explosive bolter shell at the problem? It will go away as quickly, with less risk
>>44058370
Assume there are no machine guns. Maybe low fire rate would make melee much more deadly?
>>44058376
Personal shields? I want something not too sci fi-ish
>>44058387
What's the deal with Infinity's setting? I know they got ranged and melee weapons, but how do they justify it?
>>44058398
I really like WW1, but it's combat is too based around trenches and whatnot
I want something more akin to urban combat, or fighting around houses and cottages during WW2, but with melee weapons and less tech.
Would it make sense?
>>44058407
What do you mean by weapon speeds?
>>44058450
I think the confined spaces response is more on point with what I need or what I'm looking for. I want magic, but not too much, just a little, almost imperceptible.
Making ammunition scarce is an option, but I want firerarms to be actual options.
Like, not just "someone invented firearms but nobody uses them", more like "Both are viable"
>>44058522
>I really like WW1, but it's combat is too based around trenches and whatnot
Only in europe. Actually educate yourself.
>>44058317
Read more history faggot
>>44058522
>WWI is too based around trenches.
*angry /his/ noises*
>>44058496
I don't mean muskets or matchlocks. There are already settings (and a lot) based around that, like Warhammer or Malifaux for example.
>>44058504
Well, I answered to this after your message. I want magic to be a thing, but not too important. It could be an option. Some elite dudes, troops or whatever could have those shields, but usually normal people wouldn't
It could be an option, but that doesn't account for normal people using melee.
>>44058317
40k does have a justification for having close combat weapons.
1. Ammunition - spacemarines are sometimes expected to fight for months or longer without resupply, power weapons can be recharged with the armours powerpack and chain weapons run off one of the most common fuel sauces in the galaxy.
2. Melee weapons do a shitload of damage especially weilded by a spacemarine who have the speed and skill to get to close combat (jetpacks on an already superfast marine makes the range bonus of weapons a little less worthy)
3. Forcefeilds - while not common they are prevalent and can completely negate ranged attacks while a bladeweilder can move through to attack. (To some degree)
I dont completely disagree with you; there is a heavy reliance on CQC which is a little over the top but that is what 40k is - a dial stuck on 11.
For your actual question, for a compatable system im not sure. A setting would be pre WW1 and early WW1. Alot of stories there- calvary charges in the american spanish war; the colonial wars in africa etc
>>44058566
Magic shields as in magic fields that have an effect around the caster or enchanted item.
It doesn't need to be too common as mages and magic items aren't as common as well.
But fluff it that during wartime enchanters are sought after to enchant bulletproof armour and it can be found regularly on the market for a decent sum of money.
In a post-apocalyptic or far-from civilisation setting firearms are going to have issues with getting enough ammunition (and spare parts, etc.) so it's wise to have a melee weapon for back-up. In a more civilised setting firearms can be illegal or at least heavily restricted.
Melee weapons are generally better at silent killing than guns. In a game where stealth missions are the norm, competent killers will know how to use a knife at the very least.
Some melee weapons are less lethal options. If the setting discourages killing enemies and lacks an equivalent to TASERs, then saps, clubs, staves and the like will be very useful.
>>44058522
Weaponspeed means that large weapons are slower to swing/use. therefore, they get less turns in an initiative round. I think ADnD had that stuff
I'm just gonna repeat here what I always say in those "how do you integrate melee weapons in a sci-fi setting" threads.
You guys remember Deus Ex? You remember why the Triads wanted you to get the Dragon's Tooth? Hong Kong had this massive acoustic triangulation system where the police were immediately notified every time the system picked up a gunshot, then sent cops to that location. So, if you wanted to kill someone without attracting police attention, you could use a suppressor or a sword. And of course the Dragon's Tooth was a sword that could cut through regular steel swords.
For your setting, assume that these types of triangulation systems are common, and criminals are known for using blades, bats, and cleavers for that reason. Bonus points if your setting includes spaceships and swords are the answer to the age old question "How do I kill someone on my ship without putting a hole in it?"
>>44058544
>>44058563
Allright, tell me what can I read then.
Just being angry about it will do nothing for you or for me
>>44058643
In AD&D 2e, weapon speed only modified initiative order. You didn't get to make more attacks with something that was "faster".
>>44058317
Spaceship boarding actions where high power or high velocity firearms are likely to penetrate the hull could cause boarding teams to be armed with a variety of lethal and non lethal melee weapons and lower velocity firearms.
>>44058685
Anything about the eastern front, the arab front, and the caucasus, plus the Macedonian campaign, where the french CiC got his nickname for how fast he was making the troops advance. Trench warfare was a thing of the west and Gallipoli due to the ridiculous density of the areas involved (the Rhine megapolis and Thrace), that's it.
>>44058317
>relatively low tech firearms, but at the very least bolt-action rifles
The difference between a bolt action rifle and an assault rifle is, to put it simply, a spring.
All the big innovations like smokeless powder, integrated cartridge, magazine, grooved barrel, precision trigger, ... they're all in the bolt action rifle. It is in no way low tech, depends greatly on precise manufacturing standards across countless factories, and doesn't fit into a primitive tech world at all. Even if you smuggled a formula for smokeless powder and metallurgy into the past, you can't make stuff like that without an industrial supply chain.
Here's a few ideas
>precious bullets mostly for show
>rules of nobility require a blade
>unreliable guns necessitate a reliable secondary
>gun blades (no!)
>monsters don't die from bullets
>>44058602
The biggest melee justification in 40k is that factions have units that move at the speeds of racecars, and cleave 40k tanks with their weapons.
And can withstand artillery barrages.
Even in RL all you would need to make melee viable is what... power armor that grants a fivefold increase in running speed?
>>44058602
>power weapons can be recharged with the armours powerpack and chain weapons run off one of the most common fuel sauces in the galaxy.
Promethium isn't common.
>There are two possible sources for natural promethium: rare decays of natural europium-151 (producing promethium-147), and uranium (various isotopes). Practical applications exist only for chemical compounds of promethium-147, which are used in luminous paint, atomic batteries and thickness measurement devices, even though promethium-145 is the most stable promethium isotope. Because natural promethium is exceedingly scarce, it is typically synthesized by bombarding uranium-235 (enriched uranium) with thermal neutrons to produce promethium-147.
>>44058317
Fight against natives armed with very sharped mangos
>>44058317
Gunpowder interferes with magic.
It sucks, because you can't into gunmages and the like, but now you have modern soldiers along with magic-powered archers and swordsmen, to say nothing of magic users that won't touch a weapon, and just fireball away.
>>44058661
>Bonus points if your setting includes spaceships and swords are the answer to the age old question "How do I kill someone on my ship without putting a hole in it?"
BATTLE AXES
A
T
T
L
E
A
X
E
S
>>44058563
I am a history major and I never knew it wasn't. But I've never taken a WWI class because it's not my thing and every other class just goes "blah blah Franz Ferdinand blah blah Maxim blah blah trenches."
I am now intrigued.
>>44058317
>Is there a way to include both firearms (even relatively low tech firearms, but at the very least bolt-action rifles) and melee weapons in a setting, and still have it be a somewhat serious setting?
yeah, this is especially easy during the time of muzzle-loading firearms, since you can only reload the thing so fast and as a result you can only get so many shots off on an onrushing enemy before they are on top of you and that's when you need to whip-out your emergency "OH HOLY SHIT" long-sword for melee combat.
in modern settings you can do what some systems do and give the wierd/magical creatures a bunch of unnatural resistances that heavily reduce the damage firearms do to it but a melee weapon will bypass.
for example a Lovecraftian moon-beast is completely immune to gunfire but because this here ceremonial dagger was enchanted by cultists it can harm it as easily as it would any other creature.
>>44058317
That's about anything from mid-19th century to early 20th. Bolt action rifles, machine guns, early automatics, etc. were a thing, but you still had swords, instructions and training to use the swords, standard issue swords, and sword development to better suit the situations at hand.
>>44058317
>for example 40K has no reason to have chainswords, power weapons and whatever, but still does
It's what happens when a setting has power armor strong enough to resist small arms or even light anti-tank weaponry. Especially when there are things like Orks that won't necessarily go down after a couple of good bolter hits.
Another place I've looked at using both would be a post apoc setting where ammo is scarce. Use of crossbows increase as a result.
>>44058807
I found this to be an interesting read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg
>>44058776
You know that Promethium in 40k is just a word for fuel, right? The Inquisitor's Handbook in DH calls it "Petrochem-based liquid fuel"
Vehicles run on promethium, flamers use promethium, etc.
>>44058807
There were a lot of trenches on the western front, but only really from 1915-17 - at the start of the war it was very much a war of maneuver and by the end the Spring Offensive (and the introduction of tanks to an extent) ended the stalemate. Also that's just the west, the Eastern/Balkan fronts were very mobile for most of the war. Middle east too.
Cataclysmic settings in which there is limited lines of support and resupply, particularly after ammunition has begun to run out.
>>44058807
Trenches were a big thing in the western front, where the fighting ground to a halt. In the east you had great stretches of land and then you got stuff like the fight against the Ottoman empire, etc. It was, after all, a WORLD war, not a minor border scuffle in Yorup.
>>44058522
>True, but what's the reasoning behind that? Why can't I just shoot an explosive bolter shell at the problem? It will go away as quickly, with less risk
Not really, think Star Wars and Lightsabers. Jedi don't use guns (usually) and firing weapons at them don't make them go away...
>>44059067
>firing weapons at them don't make them go away...
unless you fire bullets.
>>44058317
What about boarding in sci-fi? You can't fire you OP blasters inside spaceship because you really don't want to make a breach in the hull.
>>44058696
you did for ranged weapons.
remember dart fighters?
>>44058566
>I don't mean muskets or matchlocks.
Fine then, the entire latter half of the 19th century. Because there's a ton of tech advances between muskets and bolt action rifles.
>>44058771
Also very much this. Bolt actions are not low tech.
>>44058317
If you care about realism, no.
Also, if you care about realism in your make-believe, best not play any game system ever since none actually are that realistic.
>>44059180
>>44058771
I've thought about rules of nobility with no guns and all, but what if I want to include a lot of factions?
Unreliable guns maybe, but I wanted to have good guns.
What I meant by low tech was no sci-fi technology guns, like lasguns and all that.
I was thinking about WW1 but with a lot more swordplay.
Maybe if it was more urban?
>>44058798
Real men fight in space with FUCKING AXES!
Just ask Schenkopp.
>>44059207
Look, right now you're concerned a lot with how "plausible" it is, right?
Well the scenarios you keep offering/wanting are still pretty implausible by any realistic standards.
Just say that metallurgy or armor or whatever has made armor highly resistant to bullets or whatever and be done with it; you're not going to find a way to reconcile real life with this setup you have.
>>44059207
Just saying, if you allow for magic, and make it incompatible with gunpowder, you end up having the magic-powered officials fighting with enchanted swords, and the rifle-armed grunts doing the dirty work.
>>44058908
OP said "revolvers and bolt actions" as in easily reloaded cartridge weapons. Equalizers. Good points, otherwise.
I say monsters close to attack, and firearms get a significant minus to hit adjacent targets, so long as the system doesn't make it too difficult to use both ranged and melee weapons.
>>44058317
Star Wars is a thing y'know
>>44058771
>The difference between a bolt action rifle and an assault rifle is, to put it simply, a spring.
I don't think just adding a spring to a bolt action rifle makes it an assault rifle.
There's a good century long gap between bolt action rifles becoming more widespread and assault rifles. There's plenty of room for all sorts of settings in that time frame.
And it's not just a mechanical problem, it's cultural. When you look at weapons put to military trials, there was often very specific things that the military wanted that probably don't make that much sense to us now. When the US was looking for a new bolt-action service rifle, the ability to cut off the magazine was one of the criteria. Basically, you stopped the gun from feeding from the magazine and made the soldier load each cartridge by hand. Similarly when semi-automatic rifles, the ability to take a bayonet was one of the things the army looked for and rifles that were otherwise perfectly fine, didn't make it partly because of this. Hitler didn't like the Stg. 44 at all, which is why the designers had to market it as a sub-machine gun until they could present a working prototype, after which it was approved. When the Germans were looking for semi-auto rifles, they too had a lot of criteria to be met, though some companies just straight up ignored them and ended up making far better guns than the ones that did submit guns that met the criteria.
>>44059098
If they can reflect a laser they can block a lead bullet, which would instantly vaporize at plasma temperatures.
>>44059082
I fucking love you. You made my morning.
>>44059400
Machine guns are a thing in Star Wars, and favored against Jedi since they can't react fast enough to absorb them all.
>>44059421
Oh, I see. I've only ever seen one weapon in Star Wars EU that seemed to use bullets. An Echani pistol or something I think.
>>44058798
Better yet, you want a Boarding Axe
>>44059465
I enjoy that bloody melee with axe and cutlass is a thing in Traveller.
>>44059465
Where do you bury your enemy in space?
>>44059492
On a rock somewhere?
You don't want to spend the next week in transit with a corpse stinking up your hallway, after all, and just dumping him out the airlock is disrespectful. (Or maybe not, depending on where you're from)
>>44059207
World War 1 actually had pretty respectable amounts of swordplay. Mounted cavalry were still more common than tanks in WW2. The world is a crazy place.
Just make it very clear that when your gun misses or hits cover, you are going to wish you had a sword out when the guy with the sword runs at you while you reload.
If the player characters are allowed to compensate for their weaknesses and nobody closes to melee range, then they kinda are working like operators and deserve it if you cant break their plans.
>>44059492
In the hull of the ship you fucking pussy.
Dig harder, I don't care that it's reinforced alloy you maggot!
What do you mean it's unsanitary, don't give me that shit! It's insulation for the hull, keeps you warm!
>>44059295
True.
But I don't want the setting to be "xD random just melee and guns for no reason at all", but maybe I'm just being an autistic sperglord
>>44059333
That's a nice way to solve it, the problem is I still want gunfire to be able to damage everyone. Maybe reduced damage or something, to some people with shields/magic/whatever, but still a viable option for everyone.
If there's a faction/dude that want to go full shooty, they can, and if there's someone who just want to chop people's heads off with an axe, he should be able to.
Do most settings that combine both get a reason for why are both combat methods viable?
>>44058317
What if bullets are in limited supply and melee is deliberately use to conserve ammo?
>>44059515
>Just make it very clear that when your gun misses or hits cover, you are going to wish you had a sword out when the guy with the sword runs at you while you reload.
You are going to wish you attached your bayonet more like.
>>44059550
Some bayonets WERE swords.
Small ones admittedly.
>>44058696
Exalted does that. It's kind of dumb, and doesn't really add a lot to combat.
>>44059535
>That's a nice way to solve it, the problem is I still want gunfire to be able to damage everyone
This isn't even why machine guns made melee redundant at all.
Please look up what suppression fire is. Please.
Revolver muskets would fit better. Similar accuracy to allow for melee to close and rate of fire similar enough to bolt actions while giving you an aesthetic different than anything else on the market. Also powder smoke let's the melee enemy out of the midst into a neat little image.
>>44059535
you'll have to work on the balance, maybe magic works like deflection shields, giving guns an hard time dealing damage, but it's still possible, while a swordsman can simply cast an anti-shield spell on his blade, and be done with it.
you could also make magic short-range only, so it would work for defense (affecting bullets when they're near), but not for ranged attacks, if one wanted to attack with magic he'd have to get close and personal.
>>44059578
Suppression fire doesn't work if it isn't deadly. There is a reason why a squad can get suppressed by one sniper.
>>44059601
>Suppression fire doesn't work if it isn't deadly.
Deadly and disabled is 2 completely different things.
Sniper doesn't realistically suppress anything if they can shoot back and move. I.E
>>44059421
wouldn't they just trail their lightsaber to follow the path you're aiming at?
Now multiple machineguns from multiple dudes, 2 automatic pistols or shotguns, that sounds more appropriate.
>>44059622
Generally if something can disable you and it isn't deadly it's a taser or something.
And well it would be better to use the word marksman, anyway suppression won't work if gunfire is just kinda hurting. People get suppressed because the other option is most probably getting shot and dying, not because bullets make scary sounds.
>>44059651
Look at it this way: If modern guns could not perform suppression fire, bayonet charges would be a valid strategy.
What makes melee nonviable is so abstract people have no idea where to even look for it.
>>44058317
Look, swords and lances were used frequently unitil, and even during, the first world war.With in fact still a few memorable battles were cavaly armed with cold steel only would turn the tide of battle. But even then, it was used basicaly only by cavalry.
What really "killed" melee combat for foot soldiers was the implementation of rifles as standard weapon of armies intead of muzzle-loading, flint-lock muskets, and the rise of breach-loading loading weapons and eventually multi-shot weapons with maganizes/clips like lever-action, bolt-action, revolvers and pump-actions.
With a musket, you'd have to go in close, as it's effective range is about 50 yards or less and they are highly inaccurate, and then shoot a volley, in formation, to actually do some damage to the enemy. A skilled and highly trained soldier could shoot up to 8 rounds per minute in optimal contitions (which battles usually weren'), that is not much, considering how innacurate muskets are. So the usual tactic when two lines were facing each other with no cavalry or arttilery support was to shoot a few volleys to reduce the enemy's numbers/morale and then charge in with bayonets/swords(depending on the unit).
Rifles are extremely more accurate and have way more reach then muskets, and starting from being able to load from the breach the rate of fire grew immensively, so it became impossible to march in close and in formation to engage without suffering terrible losses(look at the american civil war death toll. It was the first major war to use breach-loading rifles as standard weapons, but with some commanders still trying to use napoleonic line infantry tactics). So infantry did not close in to charge with bayonets anymore, and melee combat was mostly conducted by cavalry when pursuing routing enemies, harassing the flanks or changing in. The advent of machine guns ended both the bayonet charge as well as the cavalry's.
Guns are just rare. We have to remember that few countries allow ownership like the U.S., so both guns and ammo can be scarce.
Plus, many places don't allow Open Carry or even Concealed. You don't want a gang member you were relying on to help you bust some heads get arrested for packing heat through a subway station.
>>44059677
(continued)
So, with firearm technology already in bolt-action level it is hard to imagine units being able to close in enough to attack with melee weapons, aside from very specific situations(which they would have bayonets to deal with it anyway), unless its a cavalry unit.
With muskets, even breach-loading muskets, you can go a little wilder with the melee. Have pikeman defend the flanks, have swordmen charging home with greatswords, have lance-wielding cavalry impale men.
My opinion is that you cannot make a realistic setting with advanced firearms,specially with machine guns, and still have people using melee weapons as a first choice, or even second choice, unless they are in a very tight close quarters fight.
BUT
If your setting have magic then forget about it and just make people have some kind of force field or something of the like that could protect them from a few bullets. But I'd suggest making it kinda expensive, so your melee units are kind of elite ones.
Also remember that it is cheaper and easier, whatever you setting may be, to train a man to aim, shoot and reload, then to train him to fight effectively at close range. That is the whole reason why crossbows were popular.
>>44058317
My way is just go full anime and let melee users do over-the-top shit, but I can see that not working for low-scale settings.
>>44058317
This is really dumb.
Just because guns exist doesn't mean people are suddenly immune to being stabbed to death.
You go running into a group of dudes with machine guns with your sword you're obviously going to get gunned down but if I'm operating operationally I can always still use my knife or short sword to sneak up on someone and give them an extra hole in their body.
>>44058317
40k has Chainswords and Powerswords because humanity ran into a lot of Xenos who didn't use ranged weaponry and would rush, or preferred close combat. Chainswords seem ridiculous, but they were probably instituted after the first run-in humans had with orks. And since there's not really power bayonets, they just have to keep the sword.
So you could have swords in a position as a backup weapon because the guys with guns are fighting something that will occasionally get up in their face, and bayonets aren't killy enough.
>>44058317
Very strong armor and very strong people. Because even if you have super-strength, your gun doesn't fire any harder.
>>44059677
What's interesting about early rifles I noticed was that as they got adopted pitched battles became less and less common.
The musket line was still the "heavy" of militaries but in places like India and especially Spain you see a lot fewer pitched battles of large scale partially because of the difficulty of finding a spot where you could line up all of your troops for a proper volley was tough when you took into account the fog of war and lack of intelligence on enemy movements and all that jazz.
Skirmishes between smaller units like rifleman or voultigeurs were more common since they could move around faster.
>>44059696
He could argue that Military Culture developed differently in his setting.
The way tactics and technology adapt has a lot to do with their history, so if we were to say that, for instance, line infantry was never a thing, because bolt action/revolver tech was discovered much sooner (think XVIIth century, idk), than his setting could be in a state of adaptation of military culture and tactics to these new technologies.
Melee doesn't have to necessarily work to be used, we just have to say the military people still haven't figured the equation yet and still fight in the old way while the world changes
>>44059764
You could wield a bigger gun that would break the wrists of lesser men, though.
>>44058522
>True, but what's the reasoning behind that? Why can't I just shoot an explosive bolter shell at the problem? It will go away as quickly, with less risk
Not always your choice. 40k is actually a perfect example of this with Orks and Tyranids.
Close Combat /is/ going to happen. They're going to make it happen. Deal with it.
The measuring stick for a tactical doctrine is the Enemy you're using it against. If you're facing an enemy that can and will zerg rush you until they can force CQC, then you either have means of dealing with that, or accept that you automatically lose any engagement that reaches that point.
>Is there a way to include both firearms and melee weapons in a setting, and still have it be a somewhat serious setting?
Yes, you just need to provide the setting an enemy force that will make that a viable/necessary option.
You can make melee viable with one thing: speed.
Take jetpack for example. Someone using it could not only rapidly close any gap and be hard to hit thanks to moving really fast, but also has incredible ability to rapidly change directions by side dashing with it. You could dodge gunfire with it pretty easily just by observing the enemy and jetboosting to sides when it looks like he's got the proper angle to shoot at you. Hell bullets at large distance of over 100m aren't even faster than our reaction time. At closer distance you can dodge most gunfire just by never staying directly in front of the people who could shoot you.
>>44059677
> It was the first major war to use breach-loading rifles as standard weapons, but with some commanders still trying to use napoleonic line infantry tactics
Most of the battles were still with the rifled musket with the new minie ball, which increased accuracy, velocity and distance.
Stuff like the Sharps, Spencer, Henry and Colt Revolving Rifle were for more specialized units.
Unless you are talking about the Lightning Brigade, which were armed with Spencers at Hoover's Gap or at Gettysburg
It's kinda funny how this question comes up repeatedly and the answer is always that the OP just didn't look at the relevant historical era.
There just seems to be a basic assumption that at some point we leapt from flintlock muskets to WW1 without anything in between, despite major events like the US civil war happening in the relevant time frame.
Cavalry sorta related.
>>44059773
The first world war was one of those scenarios of the military technology being far more advanced then military tactics. These kind of scenarios usually end the same way: Lots and lots of people dying on a alarming rate, that would not be able to be sustained for very long.
>>44059782
>If you're facing an enemy that can and will zerg rush you until they can force CQC, then you either have means of dealing with that, or accept that you automatically lose any engagement that reaches that point.
Case in point: Tau Fire Warriors vs. any melee specced troop.
>>44059797
Yes, I meant that it was the first one to have breach loading weapons as standard, but as most militaries they had a lot of standard weapons, specially because it was new technology and therefore too expensive to arm everyone with. Just like the MP44 was a standard rifle of the german army, but only used by specific units, while the K98 was the main stardard weapon.
>>44059851
What about the Zulu war?
Basicaly zerg rush but the british held out with out chain swords.
>>44059819
iirc the highest rate of casualties was in WW1's first year, just after it stopped being manoeuvre warfare in the west but particularly as the hastily trained reinforcements arrived as armies had to suddenly bloat in size gigantically, after that despite certain notable exceptions things like the introduction of steel helmets for troops and not constantly attacking sort of slowed the overall casualty rate.
WW1's all the different ways that everyone fucked up at the start is pretty fascinating.
>>44059852
Ah, gotcha.
Sorry, I like to study about the Civil War period and sometimes spew things without thinking about the events before, during and after when Reconstruction came around
>>44059819
Well, the 1700s were a lot like this -- the technology and tactics were not exactly in tandem, which led to an almost 100-year long tactical impasse.
However, since the armies were really small and the wars not that deadly, the amound of casualties due to battle were incredibly small.
I say culture is a valid way of arguing a setting were something shouldn't work but does, simply because it isn't being used to it's best extent yet.
As stated before, bolt-action rifles are modern weapons. There are a number of modern weapon platforms that elect to use bolt-action or pump-action instead of semi- or fully automatic loading. It is a design choice, not a technological limit.
I just have humans described as being "way tougher than the ones on earth, to the point where a single bullet wouldn't fuck one as up as badly".
Also there are techniques that close the gap between having hordes of relatively untrained retards with dakka and highly skilled specialists.
>>44058317
How about a setting where guns exist but ammo is extremely limited. You can either do it with post apocalypse, or a low-tech society that imports guns form far of lands.
>>44059892
They weren't good enough at it. To have a setting where this is viable, you need an enemy or environment that makes it viable.
>>44059919
Yes, 30 years war and spanish sucession war were examples of that. Took some time for they develop good tactics. Same as world war 1, but with deadlier weapons, so more casualties.
>>44059892
The Zulu won some battles, like the Battle of Isandlwana, more British deaths in that case.
Also they still had bayonets and presumably training to use them. A chainsword being overkill against humans while a bug creature might keep snapping and clawing at you after a stab to the chest. Then again, humans can do that as well, just not as much.
>>44058317
>>44060044
So a land where the tactics and strategy still haven't developed to match the technology.
Your players could even have the power to change that in time, creating armies/tactics that maximize the use of whatever bullets are out there and changing the face of the earth
No need for magical reasons
How about you just play the mechanics straight and have it effect the world?
The the mechanics dictate a guy with a greataxe and can take on 3 guys with bolt action rifles unless they're all skilled riflemen that's how shit fucking works out.
Yes race has no human species only that are resistent against piercing but not against blunt.
>>44060076
that is a interesting setting, like a pre-great war europe. where this technology is still mostly untested in large scale. And when war finally happens they'll have to adapt quickly, but not without great initial losses.
>>44060107
this would remove the need for weapon
>>44059980
then what is the point of having guns if people can just live through a volley of lead? Guns are good because they are a cheap and quick way to remove somebody from combat, or at least keeping them suppressed long enough to other units to close in.
>>44060107
>Bones break at 20.000N versus only 2.000 for some building materials
>Humans can exert 2.000-4.000N of force in blunt trauma unarmed
>>44060144
"Softening" People up for melee combat, which is typically more dangerous.
They aren't as useful and hence not as prevalent in warfare irl. Some people like them as a status symbol or simple preference.
I did It.
A made a Ninja Gaiden game. Completely modern world, advanced military and just a tiny bit of magic bullshit. It was completely fucking serious and balanced It just making It with heavy emphasis on movement. Basically, imagine a generic class in whatever system. See those abilities and special techniques? So I prepared an equal amount of abilities that were just about movement and context sensitive buffs. Sliding, wallrunning, swinging on shit, running down the walls, running up the walls, running on the ceiling, jumping on the flying objects, what the fuck ever.
Guns were good, great even at long to mid range but at close range they were at a pretty big disadvantage. They were designed to be glass cannons with shotguns being the glassest and the cannonests.
The game quickly became all about slide'n'shooting the first few rounds through both enemies and the environment to whittle down as much hp as possibile before forcing enemies to melee.
>>44060215
>>Humans can
here is your problem
>but muh humans
>>44060008
That could be a nice option, but it needs to be post apocalyptic
>>44059736
That seems reasonable.
I mean, the setting would be mostly humans, in a world that is almost completely urbanized, and agriculture exists but mostly underground or in special buildings. Most combat would be urban combat.
Maybe having some factions rush into combat with some sort of technological or magical shields, therefore forcing the other factions into melees. Maybe more than one faction with melee.
How would you create a setting with this, /tg/?
What would be your ideal setting with guns n swords? 40K?
>>44060267
Ever heard of Shadowrun?
The Slow knife Pierces the Shield anon.
>>44058317
Why don't they just make a gun that shoots chainswords and powerfists?
>>44060044
The 30yw are more the opposite of that, you have a bunch of smaller countries and a few juggernauts who have already been at war with each other for a century (Spanish, French, Dutch) either directly or by proxy. By the time the 30yw rolled around you had massive bloodbaths because they'd actually gotten stupidly good at early gunpowder warfare
>>44060317
So a rifle grenade in the shape of a fist?
I love how the hottest shit in Dune-verse a sci-fi universe with so much technology, is a mastery of a goddamn knife combat
>>44059892
The zulus were primitive mostly naked tribesmen with spears. 40k melee specialists on the other hand are a whole different story.
>>44060267
>a world that is almost completely urbanized
Bam, there's your reasoning right there. Urban environments by their very nature negate or significantly reduce many of the advantages guns have over melee. Limited sight and maneuverability is going to make it far easier for melee soldiers to get into range of gun wielders without getting slaughtered, not to mention the abundance of cover from ranged fire that's available. But guns are still super deadly, and with proper planning can absolutely wreck melee armies. Information and recon become even more critical than they already were for all sides.
>>44058317
The trick is to look at what made firearms take over in the first place, then make sure that doesn't happen.
In real life firearms became popular because:
1. Easy to train with.
2. Extremely deadly.
3. Can defeat most armor at most reasonable distances.
4. Works at a distance.
5. Not very fatiguing.
6. Not much more expensive to make than other kinds of weapons.
For 1, you could make your firearms harder to use than they were in real life. Up to you how.
For 2, you could make the projectiles less dangerous by using a less energy-dense propellant or less suitable projectile. Beanbag rounds vs. spears in a fight to the death doesn't sound too bad for either side.
For 3, you could make better armor. Dune used anti-speed shields, but improved conventional armor might work, too. Stabbing them in the visor might just be easier sometimes than shooting them in the visor.
For 4, it's hard to make firearms that don't work at reasonable ranges, but maybe if you nerfed the range somehow by like never inventing rifling that might work.
For 5, I guess maybe they could be really heavy and require really heavy ammunition or something.
For 6, you could make them really expensive.
Alternatively, you could just make them socially taboo for moral reasons or something, so they're great but not many people use them.
Otherwise look at warfare between 1500 and the turn of the 20th century for good historical solutions. One cavalry unit in WW1 actually requested to be armed with swords because they were very effective in battle with the Ottomans.
>>44058317
My setting uses an approach akin to why Aluminium used to be quite rare. Long story short, bar a few high tech or magically enhanced nations, reliably producing ranged weapons that use an explosive propellant in a man portable size is near impossible.
Thus some countries will have the odd one, some countries will have none and 3 of my countries have an abundance of them. Even then though, they are difficult to produce and maintain, not to mention resupply, so they are largely special issue to supplement the other forces of the army.
>>44060635
Also I'm stupid, for 4 you could just make most battles take place at very short distances due to the terrain. A dude with a rifle having a knife fight in a telephone booth isn't really at much of an advantage. Some other anons have mentioned using spaceships or similarly cramped areas full of delicate stuff you don't want to damage by mistake for this purpose.
>>44060267
>Maybe having some factions rush into combat with some sort of technological or magical shields, therefore forcing the other factions into melees. Maybe more than one faction with melee.
Or, like in 40K, they have access to things like Power Weapons, which are essentially either lightsabers, with Mauls and Axes conferring different benefits than the standard Sword. Power Weapons can pierce infantry armor levels that most man-portable weapons can, especially in close combat, therefore it's often a viable strategy to equip close combat troops with them and have them achieve relative success.
>>44058522
>True, but what's the reasoning behind that?
There are daemonhosts that can pluck bullets out of the air like it's nothing. That's when you need a daemonhammer or a powersword with runes to smack it to death.
>>44060635
You are forgetting about suppression fire, and artillery coverage.
On the top of "small squad can perform volley fire without risk of getting charged by bayonets".
>One cavalry unit in WW1 actually requested to be armed with swords because they were very effective in battle with the Ottomans.
Russians preferred the field shovels to the Bayonets for melee
There is lots of melee in WW1. Its amazing.
>>44061226
What do you want from suppression fire? Suppression fire is directly related to "guns are deadly" and "guns work at range".
>>44058563
I mean im a history major and you cant really fault people for being ignorant of this stuff. Ww1 is pretty much distilled by my most textbooks down to muh trench warfare much attrition. When you ask someone what words they associate ww1 with the words are likely to be trench, chem warfare, and mechanical warfare because those are major themes throughout the war. That being said my favorite parts of the war were the arab rebellion and the fights in the middle east.
Shields would be incredibly useful, mores than armour.
Have them made of sandwiched layers of anti-bullet material and steel, and designed for both ranged and melee use.
Can't believe nobody has mentioned reloading times. Play Assassins Creed 3 or 4, OP, your answers will become immediately apparent.
I have a setting where tech is generally outlawed and slandered because mages want to stay as the high power. If the peasents had guns, theyd have a chance.
So, illegal tinkerers guilds are starting to find explosive charges, because gun powder just isnt a thing. The atmoic make up of shit in places of the universe just dosnt follow real world laws. So the ingredients and mechanization to create a gun are both rare and volatile.
When in doubt, it just dosnt work that way in the world. atmoshpere effects bullet ignition and makes them somewhat unrealiable. Sword/spear ect however, wont missfire.
Also, if your going low tech, maybe muskets? You get one good shot and maybe the enemy is upon you? Or remember why we still have bayonetts on our weapons today: trench fighting and urban fighting. Maybe they have vibration blades that can slice anything but they cant incorporate that into guns yet.
>>44060635
I'll second this, with a look at the 30 years war. There were all sorts of interesting things going on there from a military perspective.
>>44058544
>Only in europe
Too be fair Europe was the only front in the war with enough density of soldiers to make trench warfare a thing. Any war with that level of technology could have devolved into trench warfare had there been enough soldiers fighting over a small enough front.
>>44059892
In one of the earlier battles in the Zulu war the Brittish lost because thet had their spare ammunition in boxes they couldn't open.
And also the Zulus had bulletproof shields. (Not really but their wet leather shields had a chance of stopping rifle bullets.)
>>44058317
Asian or European gangs. Guns are really rare due to being mostly banned, so people mostly use melee weapons, and on rare occasions bring out smgs and even .50 bmg when needed
I thought about this before -
What if guns in your setting just don't have the same firepower - or rather the "bullets" don't have the same piercing power, as all they do is blunt damage, which is dependent on weapon's size.
Light guns are only good if you have enough skill to aim them at head and the head isn't heavily protected.
Heavier guns can actually do some serious damage, but those are especially big making the wielder slower as well as requiring strength for proper use.
Plus, guns use ammo, which you ran out of and have to buy more -thus literally every attack eats at your money.
And if that not nerfed enough for you - guns are 20 times easier to break and 30 times harder to maintain and repair than swords and bows.
>>44058317
40k has it because the battles are so large scale, that you'll definitely run out of ammo before it's over.
>>44060433
You still have to get almost on top of a guy without him noticing for melee to be effective over a gun.
>>44058504
Someone here has read Dune.
>>44064420
21' rule
>>44058317
Don't be a nitwit OP. There isn't even a single real world historical example of semi-modern or modern military force that routinely used melee weapons along side bolt action rifles. Srsly.
>>44064551
That's for attacking a person without their gun drawn and ready to fire, if you charge at a person with their rifle up from 21' you're getting shot.
>>44062614
Let's consider muskets for a second.
Could there be a world in which muskets, or even lever-action firearms (which actually have less penetration due to bullets being round-pointed) are invented, and yet there is no plate armor?
For example, Iron age tech with muskets/lever actions (and yes, I know they're really different)
That would be a possibility
>>44063186
Gangs are pretty cool for a setting, something akin to a skirmish wargame could do well with a setting like that.
>>44063298
Blunt damage would be pretty hard to 'get' with a bullet. Mainly because it's a lot of force applied to a really tiny spot. Unless, as I said, all the bullets had rounded tips.
Maybe the thing about the ammo. But if there's enough tech to make the guns, why wouldn't there be enough tech to mass produce bullets?
>>44064647
If you secure an urban area with your weapon aimed you will shoot civilians.
>>44064687
Even if they're aiming at the floor, you're not crossing the distance in the time it takes to bring it back up.
>>44058496
>he thinks soldiers used melee weapons in the Civil War
>>44064729
there were plenty of civil wars in which melee weapons were used.
>>44064766
I'm talking about THE civil war.
>>44064729
>>he thinks soldiers used melee weapons in the Civil War
If nothing else, there's still the ceremonial reasons.
>>44064833
Pretty sure getting hanged was how they executed soldiers
>>44058317
>Swords
>Guns
You can't, the gun surpasses melee in all ways, the velocity of a bullet surpasses that of a melee weapon, on top of that a gun has range.
That said, it could make sense if you were going to make a late medieval Slavic setting if you were to have people use Bardiches to rest their guns on when firing.
>>44060267
why don't you simply make ammo fail more often?
Wet ammo;
not-that-stable gunpowder
frequently occuring weapon jams
imprecisly manufactured ammo/weapons because cheap is gud
high firearm wear, because material not that good
I remember a story, that in WWI they used an explosive that was acidic, guess what happened to a metal shell that has to withstand the explosion...
>>44064815
You mean THE Spanish Civil War between the Comunists and Fascists? Or THE Korean Civil war betwen the south and the north?
>>44065091
No, he means THE civil war between Great Brittan and her north American Colonies.
>>44065058
also fun would be to either have rifles with really long barrels who are heavy, have strong recoil and are cumbersome to move if flanked, or revolvers who only work on short range
>>44064673
Iron Age tech with muskets?
Count me in
>>44064556
Rifles were a million times more used than bayonettes man
This is actually a pretty interesting conundrum now that I think about it, since the advancement of firearms to the point where they made melee obsolete was pretty inevitable when we look at the industrialization and the progress of military tech in general.
A setting where melee weapons would have stayed mainstream parallel to firearms would require quite alot of differences to how historically things turned out to go. Some stuff that could make it viable are
>The self contained cartridge has been invented
>The loading methods (revolver/ bolt-action rifle) have been invented
>Gunpowder is less effective
>Barrel boring hasn't been invented
>Mass production isn't viable/ is nonexistent
These would lead to firearms that would have meet the requirements OP set (revolvers/ bolt-action firearms) but not make them preferrable to melee weapons.
The less effective gunpowder and absence of bored barrels would mean less penetration, so armor wouldn't have been made obsolete so soon. The most prevalent way to kill a knight in full plate armor for example would still be the same as pre-firearms (get him on the ground and jam something sharp in between the plates). And of course the effective range of firearms would be much smaller, making stuff like the longbow still relevant.
Also, if firearms were hand-made as opposed to mass produced it would lead to wider variety in the quality of firearms and of course the rarity of firearms aswell.
In essence it would need the absence of industrialization to work believably, which would make it quite an interesting setting in my opinion. Actually pretty interested in developing a setting for maybe the late 1800s but with medieval feudal society being the norm...
>>44066734
But what if the tech level was Iron Age for example, and black powder was discovered? The best protection you have on that period is reinforced chainmail, and that's if you are filthy rich. Otherwise, if you're just rich, chainmail.
Arquebuses and matchlocks initially of course, but could they be developed into something else?
>>44058317
You would need to have some reason for combatants choosing to get up close and personal when they fight, whether that be troops which can move stealthily, with great speed or by shrugging off most ranged weapons.
>>44065242
>rifles with really long barrels who are heavy, have strong recoil and are cumbersome to move if flanked
been done
>>44059696
>If your setting have magic then forget about it and just make people have some kind of force field or something of the like that could protect them from a few bullets
Alternatively you could simply make mobility enhancing magic more common. Being able to accurately hit someone from a hundred and fifty yards away is alot less of a nail in melee's coffin when the other side can cover that distance in less than five seconds.
>>44058317
just settle for muzzle loaded matchlock and wheellock weapons along side saexes, rapiers, and greatswords.
if you'd prefer it spiced up, go for flintlock with spadroons, sabres, and possibly a kukri or two
>>44061226
The actual reasoning behind this was pretty sound: a bayonet, especially one held by hand, would get stuck in the dead guy's chest after you stuck him with it. It was also (and this may be romanticized bullshit, but I'm not a WWI scholar) considered more humane to kill a dude by hitting him in the head with your shovel blade than stabbing him and leaving him to bleed out slowly and painfully.
>>44058522
Explosive bolter shell doesnt cut it sgainst power armour, unless its the sort tanks and aircraft carry as main armaments.
Plus nearly all the factions in the game has jump troops, teleprters, summoning, optical camoflage that all end up with some shitlord whispering "notting personnell kid" in your ear before he 360 backstabs you with a plasma katana.
>>44060250
Pretty much this.
Ninja Gaiden, Bloodrayne, Bayonetta, RE, MGS, DMC, to make melee and modern warfare co-exist you need people to be able to perform super-human feats of mobility, resistance and rapid-healing.
A bullet through the head can kill Ryu Hayabusa. Good luck putting it there.
>>44059451
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Slugthrower/Legends
> For example, during the days of the Galactic Republic, mercenaries fearing an intervention by Jedi Knights used rapid-fire slugthrowers that were impossible to completely deflect with a lightsaber, unlike blaster bolts.
I recall an EU book stating that attempting to block a bullet with a lightsaber usually resulted in the Jedi being sprayed with molten lead.
>>44063298
I did something similar but with nerfing the firepower.
In my setting gunpowder was never developed, but rifling was. Crossbows evolved into spring-loaded rifles that fire bolts and are faster to reload and more accurate at higher distances than crossbows. They however don't have as much penetrating power and multi-layered soft armor plus difficult terrains prevent the rifle from becoming opressive.
>>44058317
Depends on the setting. In one setting a DM Friend of mine proposed that angels that were from a more modern era might prefer to use guns, but there would be certain demons that would only be killable through usage of a sword.
Sort of like how Witcher has an Iron sword for mundane enemies and a Silver Sword for magical enemies.
Really making the major foe or the motivating force behind the setting be immune to guns is pretty much the only way to make them effective again. Or to make guns/ammo too hard to obtain and maintain to use every day.
![1449530011441[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/y0HYd43.jpg "1449530011441[1].jpg")
Seems like the best place for it without starting a new thread.
Within a mostly 'realistic' sci-fi setting, with some concessions given to keep the vast spread of space traversable within human time constraints and such things, what sorts of weapons would be plausible in a fight?Assuming you have somehow gotten into a position where personal weapons are neededAssuming you're trying to keep any nearby vessels - or one you're inside - intact, and assuming mostly-modern materials, would a low-velocity firearm simply be enough, or would you have to go more primitive? Would, say, an axe or a short spear be more apt when you're fighting on a spacecraft/station?
>>44071955
Soft ammo high RoF full auto with a short barrel, possibly a bean bag secondary.
The biggest issue, after overpenetration, will be recoil. As soon as you are in freefall you cannot brace against it well any more.
>>44058317
WW1-WW2ish. In both wars swords clashed on the Eastern Front multiple times.
>>44059082
I'll be using this every thread from now on.
>>44072078
WELCOME! to 1997.The year Buffy started airing
>>44068294
if you can move that fast, a melee weapon might end up having more kinetic energy than a bullet.
>>44058317
Dune.
Shields, as in force fields that only stop fast moving entities in range
>>44058317
Rarity of firearms
High cost
Hard to get ammo
Lengthy reload period
Dune-like force field
Unreliability
Id-tag for guns(so you can't use it so easily after looting one) magical or not.
You can't enchant firearms.
Ineffective vs magic beings.
Requires maintenance.
>>44064459
>Someone here has read Dune.
That's probably true for every thread on /tg/
>>44072561
I quit somewhere around Chapterhouse. The first few books are great, but then it just drones on. The ultimate utopy is kind of a letdown.
>>44058317
Let's start by what you want:
-Modern firearms exist, atleast bolt action.
-Melee is still viable
Many here have proposed scenarios in which firearms aren't effective against certain enemies, say the have special armor (liquid armor that works best against fast incoming bullets), magic shields, force fields that stop anything faster than a certain speed, firearms too dangerous to use in a certain environment and so on. That all turns melee weapons into specialised weapons, practically like anti tank rifles.
Additionally many pointed out that melee still occurs, which is why bajonets exist. But that eliminates many types of melee weapons. Your rifle with bajonett is basically a spear. And you only additionally need something for very confined spaces. A sword and shield would be just more to carry around with you. And a pistol would probably be better for closer ranges.
But what I think what you want is melee and firearms be able to viable in effect as different classes and to make that work there are 2 ways to it. Firearms give one the amazing advantage of range and the abbility to engage within that range. 1000ft within you can engage someone is much better than the 10ft of a melee weapon.
1. Nerf firearms down to the level of melee:
They do less damage, are inaccurate, slower reload, expensive, rare, ammo problems, confined spaces. All that serves to make them less effective than they are. It could work but it makes firearms less cool and why choose atleast bolt-action rifles as tech minimum when you nerf them down then.
2. Buff melee so it is as good as firearms:
To make this work we need two things. First ways in which melee units can get into melee range that are viable. Secondly, melee must be devastatingly effective when in range to make the difficulty of emplyment worth it. Think of it as a cost/benefit thing and that melee units are something that needs to be put in the right position to work.
Gonna continue in another post.
In sci-fi, vacuum can make guns unreliable, as you can't be air-cooled without air and lubrication will evaporate off.
Also, if you're in freefall the recoil might make it difficult to avoid spinning
>>44058317
>Because for example 40K has no reason to have chainswords, power weapons and whatever, but still does, and for some people it's a little bit stupid, or fucks with their suspension of disbelief or whatever.
Of course it has a reason you retard, the same one every world has
When armour is superior to the available ranged weaponry melee combat ensues
>>44058317
what about "situational balancing"?
charging at a gunner is stupid , but getting close enough (urban combat) to said gunner and just get a hold of his weapon is an option
combat will become range-based , but melee weapons can be just as useful depending on the situation.
maybe enable enchantments only for melee weapons and make special bullets for guns really expensive on a long term.
juggernaut shields might be another option.
and consider that guns are friggin loud as hell , and get jammed sometimes / require regular care
>>44073443
>>44073443
Continueing
For example, the nazis used a gigantic 800mm rail road cannon once, but the logistical troubles probably weren't worth the effect. Melee units need to be almost laughably effective against ranged units in close combat, to rock paper scissors levels, to make the trouble of employing the effectively worth it. Here is how I would do it.
Have riflemen be the standard of armies and melee units are elite ones, next to other highly trained units of other kinds like snipers. We can make their role better by taking out what other unit has a similar role, the short range storm trooper with the automatic handeheld weapon, like the smg. We just say those weren't invented, either because of technological difficulties or because we have a long tradition of specialised melee units so the need never came up. Next we need to give our melee guys mobility so they can close in quicker, ways to stay hidden so they aren't noticed before they strike or both. Think of smokescreens, short teleportation, super human bodies, invisibility and other things. They could be like ninja mages that bring close combat deadliness. So we get a dynamic of melees trying to get close versus range fighters that try to stay ranged and avoid melee. You could have support units that provide cover fire so melees can get in. Special operator like range units, that can see cloaked melees and thus have a better edge against them could exist aswell. I'd even consider flamethrowers as some sort of specialised melee unit. It will mostly come down to a movement war. Only important thing is that melees have the highest damage per second so to say. If you give the melees more abbilities they even could go up against aussault gun using enemies. There are a lot options.
Someone figures out how to make an alloy significantly stronger than steel. Naturally this doesn't really improve projectile technology, but does quite a bit for armor tech.
>>44058317
Rifles are for war, swords are for dueling.
Alternatively, firearms are restricted to active military, however, melee weapons are not restricted legally.
The Dune style energy shield is sorta a cop out.
Also, certain close quarters weapons will always be good for assassination or fighting in enclosed areas.
>>44058522
>Wants a setting where fighting happens in hamlets, houses, urban areas
>Bolt-action level tech
>But no trenches
>???
Man, urban warfare is literally just like trench warfare. You have enclosed spaces and narrow pathways. Rifles and other long weapons would be extremely cumbersome, especially if they are single-shots. This is why you have guys with axes and knives, too.
>>44073788
>an alloy significantly stronger than steel
Metal matrix composites like boron nitride/steel are a thing. Then there's amorphous "glassy" metals which are stronger but more brittle than normal alloys, and these could perhaps be used in composite materials too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqMr8OvyD8
14:00 in - year 1864 firearms and close combat weapons
>>44058522
Infinity is a small scale squad based game.
It's generally ranged.
However, there are troops (almost always infiltrators) that have Camouflage or Impersonation that let them get close to enemies and attack them in melee. They're basically assassins.
Troops don't melee charge anybody in Infinity, or at least I've never seen it done, because even the mechs are too fragile to survive that.
And if it *is* (looking at the fucking werewolves) then there's usually a better, sneakier way to get rid of them, like Adhesive or Viral weaponry that doesn't give a fuck about armor.
I think I've encountered melee maybe twice while playing. It's usually a specialty thing (though it also depends on how thick the cover is).
>>44072639
I have only seen the tv mini series myself.
>>44058317
Just do it. It's fantasy. It's not IRL history. Just do whatever you want. It's your world.
>>44073984
you could start from 17:00 but 14:00 builds more tension
also, forgot my pic
>>44058798
Abhorsen, man boy.
>>44058772
>5 times running speed
Well, let's take the 21 foot rule and extrapolate. It becomes the 105 foot rule, but that's for a semi-auto pistol with the safety on in a retentive holster. It'd be much less for a rifle that's ready to fire and just has to be raised to the shoulder.
>>44074131
This is the best advice in this tread
>>44074477
If you can make 32 meters dash in second and a half you can dodge gunfire anyway.
>>44058776
you know promethium is just a catch-all term for fuel in 40K dont you?
>>44074643
For a second, I thought I had a deja-vu, but it's just you not reading replies
>>44073984
Typical "Prussians are evil" shit
You just need to have good enough armor/shields/forcefields. And when those things allow them to tank ranged fire, then it's Rip and Tear time
>>44065140
I love this, because my squadmates always got pissed off whenever I referred to the American Revolutionary War as a civil war. Because you know, it's a Revolution so somehow it ceases to be a civil war.
>>44075227
Only one of them and he just seems to be an evil disfigured archetype
>>44058317
There's plenty of justification to have guns AND melee weapons.
Guns are for when they're not very close and you want to kill them.
Axes and swords are for when they're very close and you want to kill them.
Logic.
>>44075227
Dude they've got skulls on their hats, evil
>>44059696
I always feel that if there's a magic reason to make melee weapons more useful that there's got to also be a magical reason that ranged weapons are still much more useful. It's not like, in a world with guns and magic, they aren't going to give ranged strategies the same treatment as melee
>>44074043
watch movie NAO!
hurry
>>44075248
So... Dune? Because I'm pretty sure that the reason melee is still a thing in Duneverse is because projectile weapons move too quickly, while a slow blade can penetrate the field.
Personal shielding, previously incredibly expensive and extremely rare, recently underwent a major technological innovation that allows it to be deployed enmasse. [Insert Antagonist Faction Here] was the first group to develop it at the start of the current war, leveraging the technology to overwhelm [Protagonist faction]'s forces. They were able to drive them back till a combination of outrunning their supply lines and a natural barrier of some kind like a mountain chain or a large river forced their advance to a halt long enough for the other side to develop and deploy the same tech. Now the two sides are essentially at a stalemate. Infantry assaults either require the expenditure of at least fifty or sixty direct hits from an infantry scale firearm to guarantee a chance to wound the target, or for the attacking force to close to hand to hand combat.
>>44076293
Well, actually it's because they all used lasweapons (another term 40k ripped off) which were devastatingly powerful but reacted...poorly when they hit shields.
If lasweapons hit active energy shields a thermonuclear explosion went off, so they went back to melee because they wanted their infantry engagements to not all necessarily end in TPK's for both sides.
>>44078104
But don't they still need to move slowly to penetrate? I thought that was the whole point of Paul's training with Thufir (lightning quick parries/counters, smooth and steady stabs to pierce the shield since quick things get stopped cold).
>>44076269
It would be fairly easy to say that the magic must be on the projectile to carry the effect, which would make it MUCH more expensive to enchant a stockpile of bullets than a sword.
>>44073855
>Rifles are for war, swords are for dueling.
You could extend this further. Most people are talking about weapons on a battlefield scale. Its not hard to imagine that most adventures are not going to be at the battlefield scale and that different weapons would be more viable in different situations.
Also for all you undeadfags, shooting a skeleton apart with small arms would be fucking miserable compared to bashing on them with melee weapons. Same would be true for most stuff that doesn't die easy from blood loss which is one of the major killers from gunshot wounds. Constructs, trolls, and elementals all come to mind.
>>44058317
Haven't read the entire thread but here's the justification I use in my cyberpunk-ish setting
>the year is 20xx
>gun technology has largely stagnated, but armor technology has not
>nearly everyone now wears carbon-nanotube woven fabric under their clothing, nanoweave armor for short
>the armor covers the entire body, including the face if need be
>the armor works by hardening in response to physical trauma and distributing the kinetic force to a larger area
>in essence, this means that a gunshot will feel more like a punch and higher caliber ammunition will definitely break ribs but will leave you standing probably
>headshots are still pretty dangerous since they tend to knock people out or even cause serious damage, although wearing a real helmet helps negate this
>soldiers tend to wear additional armor on top of nanoweave
>thus every soldier's arsenal includes a short vibro-bayonet or a shortsword
>power armor wielding guys will obviously use heavier stuff like jet hammers and stuff
>guns are still useful, but they cannot be relied on to bring the target down, especially in closer quarters. implants and additional armor let people ignore even bursts of fire and close in on a target. experienced soldiers and agent, when encountering each other, often empty their mags quickly and immediately switch to their melee weapons, or they wield the gun in one hand to disrupt the enemy while going for the killing blow with their vibro-sword
>>44079280
This seems quite interesting
>>44064729
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/WWI_maces_and_wirecutters_tre_sassi_museum.JPG
We've had this thread about a million times, OP, but here's a few ways you could fudge it.
-Make it so that augmented muscles have become 100x more powerful than the average handgun, and able to blow through armor that small arms just bounce off of
-Give soldiers some kind of enhanced mobility (speed, teleportation) that renders engagement distances largely obsolete. In such close quarters and unpredictable angles of attack, ranged weapons require extra precious seconds to readjust, whereas most melee weapons are still capable of being quickly effective.
Basically, you gotta add superheroes.
>>44079280
Isn't that just Bloodborne with a cyberpunk coat of paint?
>>44081057
>>44059395
>When the US was looking for a new bolt-action service rifle, the ability to cut off the magazine was one of the criteria. Basically, you stopped the gun from feeding from the magazine and made the soldier load each cartridge by hand.
considering the cheapskate fucks bought the krag-30-40, a gun without a fucking magazine well after that was standard because they didn't want soldiers "wasting ammo," I can fucking believe it
In the setting I'm doing right now I have firearms, melee weapons and magic - Melee is the primary source of combat damage, and it only stood upwards even after magic was discovered because magic was hard to use, very limited and required tons of beforehand knowledge to use correctly
when firearms were introduced, melee still played a major role because firearms require a tremendous amount of usage knowledge, upkeep, resources, and are overall clunky for the common villager, and in-universe limitations in materials and physics haven't allowed for very sophisticated firearms - things like machineguns, for example, don't work because they heat up like crazy even beyond what magic can patch
it's all in the means of how you can justify all three coexisting in the same universe - mine is somewhere along the lines of "guns and magic are stronger, yes, but what's a single gunmage against a horde of dumb villagers with daggers and pykes?"
>>44064729
Lookit this history scrub, thinking melee weapons weren't used in the American Civil War.
"Fear no danger shun no labor, lift up Rifle, Pike, and Saber" - From 'Dixieland', colloquial unofficial Confederate Anthem.
The north was plenty industrialized to possess repeating weapons, but the defensive-south wasn't and often relied on ambushes and traps in their more well-known territory to make up for their technologically inferior weaponry. Cavalry charges were still used by both sides and pikes were still used by both sides to counter said cavalry charges.
Here's an idea from my setting: most/all guns are single shot, but use manufactured cartridges.
For whatever reason we never invented internal or external magazines(clips? I ain't /k/), so we have decent guns but with a prohibitively low rate of fire. But not as slow as flint/matchlock rifles, so they can easily be used by PCs without spending half their turns reloading.
Revolving... chambers? Magazines? Revolver style guns exist, but only one empire is industrialized enough to produce them en-masse, plus they're expensive, so they only outfits elite shocktroopers with them.
>>44086188
Magazines is right. Clips are what you use to feed into internal mags.
>>44058317
Ammos so expensive that only rich people can afford enough for a single massacre. Police officers only carry one bullet, military special force may carry a magazine or two.
>>44058317
The materials required to make ammos is so rare and expensive that only multi-millionnaires can afford enough ammo for a massacre, the result is that police officers only carry one bullet each and special forces may carry a magasine or two. firearms are vastly more accurate on avarage and are designed to that you only need one shot (tracking? stuff like that?) the other result is that the most popular weapons are melee weapons even for warfare because no country can afford to arm their soldiers with enough bullet to assault a country for more than 24 hours.
Enemies gain an enchantment where their skin becomes tougher than iron. This inturn causes your party to either increase accuracy to hit specific weakpoiints. Power to penetrate skin, or switch to swords.and stuff and have immense strength to cleave or peirce the skin.
>>44058317
Only weapons with a "soul" given to it by the hard work, sweat, blood and elbow grease of the craftsmen (blacksmiths/polishers/etc) are mystical/magical/[quality] enough to harm supernatural entities such as ghosts, demons, fae, etc.
Firearms may have exquisite craftsmanship but the ammunition that actually strikes the target generally isn't, and the ammo that is both is one-use-only and prohibitively expensive.
Imagine a nicely-made silver (or silver-plated) sword/bladed weapon vs a firearm with silver bullets.
Ammunition may be consumed when hitting the target or just not able to be found.
I haven't played/read The Witcher but i'd imagine the idea of having multiple weapons would fit your purpose.
