ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:33 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:57 pm 
Offline
Green Text

Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4126
Location: Clouds, rain, and green fields...
Slamlander wrote:
He has a point Kest. That is a rather non-standard location.

*shrug*

I'm not the one that set it up that way. The Community Portal was originally the main page you were supposed to go to, a Table of Contents. It was only after that they made the real main page another ToC.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Kestenvarn wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
He has a point Kest. That is a rather non-standard location.

*shrug*

I'm not the one that set it up that way. The Community Portal was originally the main page you were supposed to go to, a Table of Contents. It was only after that they made the real main page another ToC.


I meant ... for a wiki. Can't hold him at fault when he can't find it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:30 am 
Offline
Green Text

Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4126
Location: Clouds, rain, and green fields...
He should be able to find it, but they blew it up. Those maniacs. Ah, damn them. God damn them all to hell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:33 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 368
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Possibilities... for hentai... fan art.... reaching critical.... mass....

HAWT!

_________________
Ghastly
-
Ghastly's Ghastly Comic
Apophenia 357


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:02 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Ghastly wrote:
Possibilities... for hentai... fan art.... reaching critical.... mass....

HAWT!


Hop to it, you magnificent bastard you!

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:45 pm 
Offline
Green Text

Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4126
Location: Clouds, rain, and green fields...
Ghastly wrote:
Possibilities... for hentai... fan art.... reaching critical.... mass....

Image YYyaaaAAAAaaaAAAArrrrRRRRRRRggggggHHHHHHH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Gambit3le wrote:
Labrat wrote:
Of course, there is something vaguely appealing about carrying a big stick of everybody dies... in a shit your pants sort of way.

Yes, yes there is that.

I can't even imagine what the first people to go up against guns in a battle must have thought. I'm sure it was painfully obvious that swords were on the way out. It is interesting to me that Poe has chosen to set his story in a time when the gun is just becoming the popular way to kill your enemies.

The contrast is nice and meaty, you have on one side, the very traditionalist sword and knife wielding guys, and on the other side, the very modernist "shoot you from a freaking long way off and laugh all the way to the bank" kind of guys.

From a purely sporting and "moral" standpoint, I'd have to side with the traditionalist guys. But, from a survivalist POV, Gimmie a gun.

It did not happen that way in Europe and Asia, because hand-held guns were developed there and it took centuries before they were remotely reliable enough to scare anyone except when fired in ranks.

If you had a loaded flintlock pistol, of course, back in the 17th-19th centuries, you had MAD rules in a one-on-one duel until one of you fired the thing off. Then it was back to swords, pikes/bayonets, and knives.

It was not until the invention of the revolver, the minie ball, and the brass cartridge that swords and spears became virtually useless on the battlefield. Repeating pistols allow gunfire to dominate any cavalry melee. The minie ball allowed rifled muzzle-loading muskets to sweep the battlefield out to four or five hundred yards range. The brass cartridge allowed practical breech-loading rifles to be designed. They had the same range as the rifled musket, but many times the rate of fire. Four thousand years of experience with massed infantry formations were rendered obsolete and armies began using skirmish line formations, borrowed from their own light infantry, but similar to those depicted in 30,000-year-old cave paintings. The old became new again.

On the other hand, much of the reaction you describe was probably shared by the peoples of the Americas, Africa, and Australia who faced advanced firearms during the age of European imperialism.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:32 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 490
Location: none
But here we have the added wrinkle of magic. Is a man with a repeating rifle really that much scarier than a man who can shoot lightning from his fingertips? Sure, once every region has the capacity to produce firearms, they'll displace melee weapons, but at the moment, I imagine a gunman may not be much different from a combat mage.

On a side note, before rifling and bullet casings, were guns really that much better, from a tactical standpoint, than a bow and arrows?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:36 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:01 pm
Posts: 188
Location: A strange, high place
BloodHenge wrote:
But here we have the added wrinkle of magic. Is a man with a repeating rifle really that much scarier than a man who can shoot lightning from his fingertips? Sure, once every region has the capacity to produce firearms, they'll displace melee weapons, but at the moment, I imagine a gunman may not be much different from a combat mage.

On a side note, before rifling and bullet casings, were guns really that much better, from a tactical standpoint, than a bow and arrows?

The difference, whether in the Poe-verse or in real life, has to do with availability. Not many people in the story seem capable of using magic at even a basic level. Pretty well anybody can use firearms. If Leah is a magic user, she could have made at least as emphatic a statement by some flashy area-effect spell (ideally one that stuns or singes but does not kill) as with a gunshot. Most likely, she's not one.

One regard in which the repeating rifle is scarier, however, is that it allows the wielder more selectivity in targeting. If it was necessary to speed some of Riley's opponents on their way to eternal glory or damnation, Leah would've wanted a tool for the job that didn't also nail Riley. We don't know at this point whether even a skilled magic user would have a "magic bullet" spell available that could be targeted precisely enough to make sure to hit the bad guys and miss Riley. One would think that that would be one of the first combat spells developed, but it may be a harder proposition than it looks.

As regards musket/bow tactics, there were advantages to each. Less time was available to dodge a musket round than an arrow. The musket ball probably had greater stopping power as well -- have you ever seen the size of the things? And in situations involving massed fire, musketeers could pack together somewhat more closely when firing. A tactical advantage to bow and arrow, by comparison, was that "indirect fire" was feasible.

_________________
"If you sit down at a poker game and can't see the sucker, get up. You're the sucker."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:29 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:44 am
Posts: 265
Location: The Zoo, US northern coast
Graybeard wrote:
A tactical advantage to bow and arrow, by comparison, was that "indirect fire" was feasible.


And for a long time, the rate of fire was far faster with bow and arrow.

_________________
"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence." -- Frederick Douglass, 1817-1895


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:32 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Killjoy wrote:
Graybeard wrote:
A tactical advantage to bow and arrow, by comparison, was that "indirect fire" was feasible.


And for a long time, the rate of fire was far faster with bow and arrow.


Tell that to the Zulus. The Brits, in that engagement only had muskets. They used volley fire techniques. Also, the musket easily out ranges the average bow.

Note: a 50 caliber Hawkin can hit accurately out to 500 yards. Yes, it has hellacious drop but it'll hit the same place every time and then there was the Kentucky long rile or the Sharps ...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:16 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:04 pm
Posts: 236
Location: All alone in my own little Universe.
Quote:
My Grandfather had a .22 when he was a kid in the Depression. Passed on to my Dad who passed it on to Nasty Nate. (Dad and I haven't really talk for the last few years so Nate's the only one he really considers his son. I'm pretty much Persona Non Grata) Needs to be cleaned up a bit and the barrel re-blued but she still fires. In fact I on a couple occasions of using it I accidentally pulled the bolt back so fast that it did slide all the way off. Made me wonder if it was still good but the sights are still dead-on.

We also had a 12-gauge shotgun called "The Mule" but it got lost in the shuffle during my father's second divorce.


If you pulled back on the bolt too quickly and another finger managed to pull the trigger in even a bit the bolt could easily come off in your hand. (after all, thats how you take it apart to clean it. Though with lots of use the pin that holds it in could be worn out.)

My dad has a .22 that does the same thing, and otherwise it's in perfect condition, always carefully maintained, and damn accurate to boot.

Quote:
It did not happen that way in Europe and Asia, because hand-held guns were developed there and it took centuries before they were remotely reliable enough to scare anyone except when fired in ranks.


If someone points an object with a large hole in its end directly at your face and seems confident in their ability to kill you, it doesn't matter in the least if you know that the thing they're holding is a gun, the look of confidence is all that counts. I agree that guns were not the most reliable, hell, they hardly worked at all for years. But the Threat of using a weapon that can kill from a distance is still enough to scare pretty much anybody.

For example, when crossbows were becoming popular they had in essence the same effectiveness of an early gun. They were usually quite accurate, powerful enough to pierce armor,(don't get into semantics) and for the most part limited to a single shot. (some designs used an over/under style much like a double barrel shotgun to double their effectiveness, these were rare at the beginning.)

So a pissed off guy with a crossbow could be just as scary as a pissed off guy with a single shot hand cannon. The level of scariness multiplies with the range of the weapon, and the distance from your enemy. Gun= scary from any range, moreso if beyond a few feet. Sword=scary from within the range of your enemy's swing. Knife= Scary from within throwing distance and/or stabbing/slashing range. Various other weapons have different scary ranges according to their method of use. Thus, to someone used to fighting in a close range style, say, with swords, knives, or even staff's, spears etc... a long range weapon could be quite scary because it would be something outside of their experience. You make a good point about the native American peoples, they would have had no basis for comparison when they first encountered guns.

I forgot where I was going with this and now I sadly must be going.


Love the comic as always Mr. Poe, Keep fighting the good fight.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Gambit3le on Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:17 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 490
Location: none
Graybeard wrote:
One regard in which the repeating rifle is scarier, however, is that it allows the wielder more selectivity in targeting. If it was necessary to speed some of Riley's opponents on their way to eternal glory or damnation, Leah would've wanted a tool for the job that didn't also nail Riley. We don't know at this point whether even a skilled magic user would have a "magic bullet" spell available that could be targeted precisely enough to make sure to hit the bad guys and miss Riley. One would think that that would be one of the first combat spells developed, but it may be a harder proposition than it looks.

Meji didn't appear to have much trouble taking out the clichéd unwashed retarded thugs without hitting Chris. Although, this is Meji we're talking about, so maybe she didn't care about Chris and he was just lucky.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:23 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:04 pm
Posts: 236
Location: All alone in my own little Universe.
BloodHenge wrote:
Graybeard wrote:
One regard in which the repeating rifle is scarier, however, is that it allows the wielder more selectivity in targeting. If it was necessary to speed some of Riley's opponents on their way to eternal glory or damnation, Leah would've wanted a tool for the job that didn't also nail Riley. We don't know at this point whether even a skilled magic user would have a "magic bullet" spell available that could be targeted precisely enough to make sure to hit the bad guys and miss Riley. One would think that that would be one of the first combat spells developed, but it may be a harder proposition than it looks.

Meji didn't appear to have much trouble taking out the clichéd unwashed retarded thugs without hitting Chris. Although, this is Meji we're talking about, so maybe she didn't care about Chris and he was just lucky.


For the love of all things pretty and shiny, tell me we won't have to see
http://www.errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-03-03 again!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:54 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Slamlander wrote:
Killjoy wrote:
Graybeard wrote:
A tactical advantage to bow and arrow, by comparison, was that "indirect fire" was feasible.


And for a long time, the rate of fire was far faster with bow and arrow.


Tell that to the Zulus. The Brits, in that engagement only had muskets. They used volley fire techniques. Also, the musket easily out ranges the average bow.

Er . . . there are a lot of good examples that you can quote, but that isn't one of them. The relevant British-Zulu war was in 1879. The redcoats were using single-shot breech-loading Martini-Henry rifles, top-loading, lever action. At Rorkes Drift, with 60-120 men engaging each Zulu charge, they fired off 20,000 rounds in about 18 hours.

If you're going to be surrounded and attacked at 40-1 odds, it helps if part of your original assignment was to guard an ammo dump.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:27 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:04 pm
Posts: 236
Location: All alone in my own little Universe.
Quote:
If you're going to be surrounded and attacked at 40-1 odds, it helps if part of your original assignment was to guard an ammo dump.


Fuckin A!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:38 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 4459
Location: Crawling up from the Harem
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
Killjoy wrote:
Graybeard wrote:
A tactical advantage to bow and arrow, by comparison, was that "indirect fire" was feasible.


And for a long time, the rate of fire was far faster with bow and arrow.


Tell that to the Zulus. The Brits, in that engagement only had muskets. They used volley fire techniques. Also, the musket easily out ranges the average bow.

Er . . . there are a lot of good examples that you can quote, but that isn't one of them. The relevant British-Zulu war was in 1879. The redcoats were using single-shot breech-loading Martini-Henry rifles, top-loading, lever action. At Rorkes Drift, with 60-120 men engaging each Zulu charge, they fired off 20,000 rounds in about 18 hours.

If you're going to be surrounded and attacked at 40-1 odds, it helps if part of your original assignment was to guard an ammo dump.


Thank you! I thought Slam was off there on the Anglo-Zulu Wars. Took the words out of my mouth. Of course the only reason why I know a bit about this is because "Zulu" is one of my all-time favorite movies...and that the Battle of Isandalwana and Roarke's Drift happened around my birthday so I always get reminders whenever I look something up online.

_________________
Member of The Bishounen God's Cult of Lovers

Sifu of Corpse Child

Caecus fides est hostilis veritatis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:58 am 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:53 am
Posts: 3
Location: Worcester, UK
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
Killjoy wrote:
Graybeard wrote:
A tactical advantage to bow and arrow, by comparison, was that "indirect fire" was feasible.


And for a long time, the rate of fire was far faster with bow and arrow.


Tell that to the Zulus. The Brits, in that engagement only had muskets. They used volley fire techniques. Also, the musket easily out ranges the average bow.

Er . . . there are a lot of good examples that you can quote, but that isn't one of them. The relevant British-Zulu war was in 1879. The redcoats were using single-shot breech-loading Martini-Henry rifles, top-loading, lever action. At Rorkes Drift, with 60-120 men engaging each Zulu charge, they fired off 20,000 rounds in about 18 hours.

If you're going to be surrounded and attacked at 40-1 odds, it helps if part of your original assignment was to guard an ammo dump.


Remember gentlemen, Martini-Henry rifles are only as good as the men holding them. Untrained, ill-diciplined irregulars would have broken under such oods (and odds). It was the training, more than the gun, that won the day.

An interesting point to make is that the Martini-Henry were still to be found in the hands of Arab tribesmen in the gulf as recently as the early 1970s in places like Aiden and Oman.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Prestwick wrote:
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
Killjoy wrote:
Graybeard wrote:
A tactical advantage to bow and arrow, by comparison, was that "indirect fire" was feasible.

And for a long time, the rate of fire was far faster with bow and arrow.

Tell that to the Zulus. The Brits, in that engagement only had muskets. They used volley fire techniques. Also, the musket easily out ranges the average bow.

Er . . . there are a lot of good examples that you can quote, but that isn't one of them. The relevant British-Zulu war was in 1879. The redcoats were using single-shot breech-loading Martini-Henry rifles, top-loading, lever action. At Rorkes Drift, with 60-120 men engaging each Zulu charge, they fired off 20,000 rounds in about 18 hours.

If you're going to be surrounded and attacked at 40-1 odds, it helps if part of your original assignment was to guard an ammo dump.

Remember gentlemen, Martini-Henry rifles are only as good as the men holding them. Untrained, ill-diciplined irregulars would have broken under such oods (and odds). It was the training, more than the gun, that won the day.

An interesting point to make is that the Martini-Henry were still to be found in the hands of Arab tribesmen in the gulf as recently as the early 1970s in places like Aiden and Oman.

Yes, that is kind of a tradition in rural areas in that part of the world. The desert peoples from Mauretania to Afghanistan have been on the edge of industrial civilizations since the days of Gilgamesh, so they do not have the option of ignoring the latest fashions in weaponry. However, since they live in deserts, they are generally pretty poor, and their armories would pass for museums in other parts of the world. When a Britiish officer (Churchill, I think) went to the Sudan in 1896, he was astonished to encounter dervishes clad in medieval chain mail, armed with shields, scimitars, lances, and muzzle-loadiing muskets. Most of Kipling's frontier stories involve border tribes armed with the jezail, a local musket design.

Whatever shortcomings the Martini-Henry might have, it was a solid piece of British steel with a simple lever system to open and close the breech and another to connect the trigger and firing pin. Hardware like that will last a good, long time.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:47 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:44 am
Posts: 265
Location: The Zoo, US northern coast
Slamlander wrote:
Killjoy wrote:
Graybeard wrote:
A tactical advantage to bow and arrow, by comparison, was that "indirect fire" was feasible.


And for a long time, the rate of fire was far faster with bow and arrow.


Tell that to the Zulus. The Brits, in that engagement only had muskets. They used volley fire techniques. Also, the musket easily out ranges the average bow.


As others have pointed out, that's a bit past the days of the muzzle-loading musket as the British standard armament.

_________________
"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence." -- Frederick Douglass, 1817-1895


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group