[Suggestion]Musket Misfires

[ClearlyInvsible]

This idea has been suggested too many times to count, so I figure we may as well put it to a poll. I feel it best visualized as Galadion put it forward:

Misfires should be added IMO, but they shouldn't be utterly disrupting. Instead, you present your musket, pull the trigger and it just fizzles or clacks or some sort of failure. After this you would simply have to click the reload button again and your character will cock the hammer back again or replace the firing cap. It'd disrupt your firing, but wouldn't make your entire reload pointless. I'd thoroughly enjoy levelling my musket at some angry confederate charging straight at me down a corridor, only to have my musket fizzle and leave me to fight him in melee.

Post your reasons why or why not below!!

[Karth]

Err can you explain the entire concept of how you would visualize the musket misfiring in BCoF?

[Insurance Salesman]

Honestly, I'd have to say no. Sure, it would be realistic to misfire every once in a while, but you don't get to fire many shots anyways (since, you know, muskets) and it would be annoying to die to someone you should have downed if the RNG gods hadn't screwed you over.

[Kammin]

Good idea , but I shout "Misfire!" when ever one of my guys friendly fires anyway .

[ClearlyInvsible]

Err can you explain the entire concept of how you would visualize the musket misfiring in BCoF?

Is best explained in this:

Misfires should be added IMO, but they shouldn't be utterly disrupting. Instead, you present your musket, pull the trigger and it just fizzles or clacks or some sort of failure. After this you would simply have to click the reload button again and your character will cock the hammer back again or replace the firing cap. It'd disrupt your firing, but wouldn't make your entire reload pointless. I'd thoroughly enjoy levelling my musket at some angry confederate charging straight at me down a corridor, only to have my musket fizzle and leave me to fight him in melee.

Honestly, I'd have to say no. Sure, it would be realistic to misfire every once in a while, but you don't get to fire many shots anyways (since, you know, muskets) and it would be annoying to die to someone you should have downed if the RNG gods hadn't screwed you over.

Welcome to War buddy.

[Millander]

I feel like many of the suggestion here are for the sake of just suggesting stuff.

[ClearlyInvsible]

We put the ideas forward, up to the devs to actually use them.

[regwilliam]

i would like misfires so that when every i get into melee the chances of getting point blanked will go down. It could very well be a way to make the shooting v melee a bit more balanced since guns in this time where more accurate.

[Sleek]

The guns will probably be already innacurate enough just like they are in NW, why make them even worse in shooting.

[TheBoberton]

Wait.. so you want a weapon system that was specifically designed to be more reliable than flintlocks to be.. unreliable?

A properly maintained rifle will function. Period.

The guns will probably be already innacurate enough just like they are in NW, why make them even worse in shooting.

What?
Everyone used rifles at this point. Rifles are.. deadly accurate.

[ClearlyInvsible]

The guns will probably be already innacurate enough just like they are in NW, why make them even worse in shooting.

The Baker Rifle could nail someone at 180m, and that was in the Napoleonic Wars. The 183 Enfield could hit someone at over double that and remain accurate. The Springfield went to 300 meters. Civil War rifles were NOT like the muskets of NW.


And Bob, misfires did happen. I don't think having them happen often would be best, but say once every 20 shots average?

[TheBoberton]

The Baker Rifle could nail someone at 180m, and that was in the Napoleonic Wars. The 183 Enfield could hit someone at over double that and remain accurate. The Springfield went to 300 meters. Civil War rifles were NOT like the muskets of NW.

Indeed, they weren't like muskets. However, you're.. underestimating them here. A decent marksman could hit a man-sized target at almost double your estimations. Of course, I'm talking actual marksmen here, but the average infantryman was still a force to be reckoned with at 400 yards.

I think everyone is going to be shocked at the distances these weapons are going to be lethal. Assuming, of course, FSE decides to be realistic at all with the firearms.

And Bob, misfires did happen. I don't think having them happen often would be best, but say once every 20 shots average?

I'd say three to four hundred rounds per misfire, at least. We aren't talking about matchlocks here.

[ClearlyInvsible]

I went off some practive I've done with the Enfield and Springfield, loaded with Minnie Balls.

And while I'd agree with you on that idea, if misfires are added then they need to have a variable impact on the game. Perhaps once every 50 shots.

[SCREAMING_EAGLES]

For the sake of suggestions, what if the misfire was once in every fourteen shots. Maybe it would even carry over from round to round! Idk it's just an idea, but the topic of misfire has been brought up so many times it would be hard for the devs to ignore.

[TheBoberton]

And while I'd agree with you on that idea, if misfires are added then they need to have a variable impact on the game. Perhaps once every 50 shots.

Can we not have realism for the sake of realism, rather than overstating it to the point where the novelty would soon wear away?