[Suggestion]Musket Misfires

[Nipplestockings]

Can I just say the only outcome to this is rage? I mean yeah it's realistic but honestly does anyone want to fail because of random chance? Lets say this is the shot that loses a round or a lb?

Also if you're musket is misfiring that's because the weapon is fouled. I've live fired .69 buck and ball and .58 and never had a misfire.

It adds some extra flavor to the game, gotta stay on your toes and be prepared to adapt if something goes wrong. Also maybe you've never had a misfire with your well maintained musket that you fire a few dozen shots every so often with, but are you a soldier on a long, harrowing campaign sometimes not having time to maintain your weapon and firing sometimes a thousand shots in one day? I'm not so sure about that. Your personal experiences on a shooting range don't really reflect what it was like for a soldier in the ACW.

[TheBoberton]

A thousand rounds a day out of a muzzleloader.. right..

Actually, I'm going to be an asshole about this, and do the math on how long it'd take.

Shitty math

If you're the average soldier, you probably take 15 seconds, more or less, to reload your rifle. it would take you roughly 4 hours of constant reloading to fire a thousand rounds. We can tack on another quarter hour, maybe a tad more, for retrieving the fifteen and a half cartridge boxes you'd need, assuming they're all completely full. Add another.. let's say hour and a half for actually getting organized in the morning, and beginning to move towards the enemy. That puts us at almost six hours, and this is all assuming you're constantly firing for four of those hours, which you would most certainly not be doing. We could add another hour if you take even five seconds to actually aim your weapon before firing. Then we could look at the fact that the fouling for a thousand rounds would be almost hilarious, and would doubtlessly make it harder to reload until you cleaned the weapon.

So.. seven hours, more or less, assuming everything works perfectly, and disregarding the increasingly difficult reloads that the lead and powder fouling would cause. It could probably be done today, no doubt, and I have no doubt that it probably occurred at least once during the war, despite me deeming it impossible to achieve. However, I think we can agree that it wouldn't be anything approaching the norm for the era.

(Forgive me if I'm wrong in part of this, I'm not feeling.. my best, today, so I've probably made a bunch of minute mistakes here.)

[close]

In addition, the soldier who doesn't maintain his weapon is a dead man. This was especially the case when the weapon used black powder, which is very hard on a weapon if it's left uncleaned. Thus, it benefited him immensely to keep it clean and ready to be used. Besides, if you've got fifteen minutes, you've got a clean rifle.

[Nipplestockings]

Firing for several hours without rest was entirely possible. At Gettysburg some divisions were forced for hold their positions for far longer than four hours without relief, and they were firing and being fired upon for virtually the entire time. Maybe a thousand shots a day is a little bit of an over estimate for the entire war, but it did happen on several occasions.

Believe it or not, some soldiers did not get 15 minutes to clean their weapons in a battle where they actually needed them. Maybe they were clean before the battle, but plenty could happen that would render your musket unusable or unreliable, like it falling in the mud, getting damaged, or simply just succumbing to the elements after a prolonged engagement. While it was strongly drilled into a soldier's head to clean his weapon whenever possible, it was not always possible, and I think that should be reflected in game.

[Dekkers]

Less muskets shooting - Less shots being fired - Smaller chance of being shot - More melee.

I approve.

[ZanderDogz]

If there are misfires, it needs to be COMPLETLY random. They should actually ask some historians  to estimate the chances of a misfire are and put that into the game. If it is something like every 20 shots than people can count and fire there 20th shot into the air and than reload again.

[Jay_One]

That's not how probability works...

[ClearlyInvsible]

If there are misfires, it needs to be COMPLETLY random. They should actually ask some historians  to estimate the chances of a misfire are and put that into the game. If it is something like every 20 shots than people can count and fire there 20th shot into the air and than reload again.

Yeah... that's the idea...

[CrustyKrab]

I quite like the idea, but only if environment specifics are introduced to make the misfires plausible. Maybe if you were sprinting for a while before reloading you'd mess up the process and then up of with a misfire and do what clearly suggested on the first page. Also, water and rain should affect the effectiveness of powder, but no more than 2 misfires within the first 5 shots after wading through waist high water or a completely random misfire for when in the rain.

[TheGG]

Yes IMO, but about 2-5% of a misfire.
That i hope will make it slightly more realistic, but u dont want it to impede the gameplay  AT ALL
Possibly the possibility of the rifle misfiring could dpend on the terrain uv passed (eg slightly higher for a swamp/marsh than for a road/plain field)
It an OK idea tho'.

[Oakenshield]

Hmm, a good idea- it would be one way to balance the accuracy of the rifles.

[Willhelm]

A thousand rounds a day out of a muzzleloader.. right..

Actually, I'm going to be an asshole about this, and do the math on how long it'd take.

Shitty math

If you're the average soldier, you probably take 15 seconds, more or less, to reload your rifle. it would take you roughly 4 hours of constant reloading to fire a thousand rounds. We can tack on another quarter hour, maybe a tad more, for retrieving the fifteen and a half cartridge boxes you'd need, assuming they're all completely full. Add another.. let's say hour and a half for actually getting organized in the morning, and beginning to move towards the enemy. That puts us at almost six hours, and this is all assuming you're constantly firing for four of those hours, which you would most certainly not be doing. We could add another hour if you take even five seconds to actually aim your weapon before firing. Then we could look at the fact that the fouling for a thousand rounds would be almost hilarious, and would doubtlessly make it harder to reload until you cleaned the weapon.

So.. seven hours, more or less, assuming everything works perfectly, and disregarding the increasingly difficult reloads that the lead and powder fouling would cause. It could probably be done today, no doubt, and I have no doubt that it probably occurred at least once during the war, despite me deeming it impossible to achieve. However, I think we can agree that it wouldn't be anything approaching the norm for the era.

(Forgive me if I'm wrong in part of this, I'm not feeling.. my best, today, so I've probably made a bunch of minute mistakes here.)

[close]

In addition, the soldier who doesn't maintain his weapon is a dead man. This was especially the case when the weapon used black powder, which is very hard on a weapon if it's left uncleaned. Thus, it benefited him immensely to keep it clean and ready to be used. Besides, if you've got fifteen minutes, you've got a clean rifle.

What are you even talking about, 1 misfire in 1000 shots doesn't mean a single soldier firing 1000 times, it means if you have 500 players and they all fire twice, so 1000 shots, then 1 of those shots is a misfire. I think it should be around 1 in 50 personally. A line of 50 men all fire, 1 of them has a misfire.

[Garnith]

OK, Basic Statistical Binomial probability evaluations:

Edit: (Spoiler is not neccisary to read)

Spoiler

n= number of times an experiment is repeated  (for us 200)
F= What will count as a successfull experiment (for us "success" is a misfire)
n= How many times we need/want a success to occur (for us 1)
                       n!     
F(x)=          x!(n-x)!   * (F^x)(x^(n-x))

[close]

So how this works, when we say 1 out 200 times, that means that EACH time you fire your musket there is a chance that that shot will misfire equal to that that one guy will have a misfire when 200 men shoot all at the same time.

The part where people are getting confused:
Each experiment (Shot taken) is independant. Meaning that the success or failure of one trial(attempt) does not affect the outcome of the next  trial(Shot taken/attempt).  [

There is a way of making the probability cummulative, (Each failure makes success a little more likely) however we would not want that in this scenario.]

So saying that the chance that 1 of 200 shots will misfire, is actually a failry rare. you may only experience a misfire once every few battles even. So I do not belive this to be a bad idea.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there are misfires, it needs to be COMPLETLY random. They should actually ask some historians  to estimate the chances of a misfire are and put that into the game. If it is something like every 20 shots than people can count and fire there 20th shot into the air and than reload again.

Also, we are not saying an incrimental value. (i.e every 20^th shot will misfire.) The purpose of stateting that 1 of 200 accounts that the outcomes are placed at equally likely with each trial yielding a random occurance.

I think it should be around 1 in 50 personally. A line of 50 men all fire, 1 of them has a misfire.

I see where you are going with that, however Binomial Probability Distribution does not work EXACTLY that way, but you have the right idea. And I may even agree that 1 of 200 is a little to rare. But I would say no more than 1 of 150 (Mabe as low as 1 of 100...maybe)


(Please Pardon any misspellings and such, I only had 10 min to type this on a break at work)

[Jay_One]

OK, Basic Statistical Binomial probability evaluations:
 
n= number of times an experiment is repeated  (for us 200)
F= What will count as a successfull experiment (for us "success" is a misfire)
n= How many times we need/want a success to occur (for us 1)
                       n!     
F(x)=          x!(n-x)!   * (F^x)(x^(n-x))


So how this works, when we say 1 out 200 times, that means that EACH time you fire your musket there is a chance that that shot will misfire equal to that that one guy will have a misfire when 200 men shoot all at the same time.

This next parrt is where people are getting confused:
Each experiment (Shot taken) is independant. Meaning that the success or failure of one trial(attempt) does not affect the outcome of the next  trial(Shot taken/attempt).  [

There is a way of making the probability cummulative, (Each failure makes success a little more likely) however we would not want that in this scenario.]

So saying that the chance that 1 of 200 shots will misfire, is actually a failry rare. you may only experience a misfire once every few battles even. So I do not belive this to be a bad idea.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there are misfires, it needs to be COMPLETLY random. They should actually ask some historians  to estimate the chances of a misfire are and put that into the game. If it is something like every 20 shots than people can count and fire there 20th shot into the air and than reload again.

Also, we are not saying an incrimental value. (i.e every 20^th shot will misfire.) The purpose of stateting that 1 of 200 accounts that the outcomes are placed at equally likely with each trial yielding a random occurance.

I think it should be around 1 in 50 personally. A line of 50 men all fire, 1 of them has a misfire.

I see where you are going with that, however Binomial Probability Distribution does not work EXACTLY that way, but you have the right idea. And I may even agree that 1 of 200 is a little to rare. But I would say no more than 1 of 150 (Mabe as low as 1 of 100...maybe)


(Please Pardon any misspellings and such, I only had 10 min to type this on a break at work)

Why did you even include a formula for binomial probability? What you said is right in that each shot is independent, just not sure why you would need to calculate the probability of x misfires in n trials.

[Garnith]

Spoiler

OK, Basic Statistical Binomial probability evaluations:
 
n= number of times an experiment is repeated  (for us 200)
F= What will count as a successfull experiment (for us "success" is a misfire)
n= How many times we need/want a success to occur (for us 1)
                       n!     
F(x)=          x!(n-x)!   * (F^x)(x^(n-x))


So how this works, when we say 1 out 200 times, that means that EACH time you fire your musket there is a chance that that shot will misfire equal to that that one guy will have a misfire when 200 men shoot all at the same time.

This next parrt is where people are getting confused:
Each experiment (Shot taken) is independant. Meaning that the success or failure of one trial(attempt) does not affect the outcome of the next  trial(Shot taken/attempt).  [

There is a way of making the probability cummulative, (Each failure makes success a little more likely) however we would not want that in this scenario.]

So saying that the chance that 1 of 200 shots will misfire, is actually a failry rare. you may only experience a misfire once every few battles even. So I do not belive this to be a bad idea.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there are misfires, it needs to be COMPLETLY random. They should actually ask some historians  to estimate the chances of a misfire are and put that into the game. If it is something like every 20 shots than people can count and fire there 20th shot into the air and than reload again.

Also, we are not saying an incrimental value. (i.e every 20^th shot will misfire.) The purpose of stateting that 1 of 200 accounts that the outcomes are placed at equally likely with each trial yielding a random occurance.

I think it should be around 1 in 50 personally. A line of 50 men all fire, 1 of them has a misfire.

I see where you are going with that, however Binomial Probability Distribution does not work EXACTLY that way, but you have the right idea. And I may even agree that 1 of 200 is a little to rare. But I would say no more than 1 of 150 (Mabe as low as 1 of 100...maybe)


(Please Pardon any misspellings and such, I only had 10 min to type this on a break at work)

[close]

Why did you even include a formula for binomial probability? What you said is right in that each shot is independent, just not sure why you would need to calculate the probability of x misfires in n trials.

I have to laugh looking at my post again...That's what I get for quickly writing a reply without looking over it again. I apologize, it was not needed, im just tired and unattentave at the moment.   

(I'll put it in a spoiler bracket so people dont have to look at it) 
Thanks for pointing that out. 

[TheBoberton]

What are you even talking about, 1 misfire in 1000 shots doesn't mean a single soldier firing 1000 times, it means if you have 500 players and they all fire twice, so 1000 shots, then 1 of those shots is a misfire. I think it should be around 1 in 50 personally. A line of 50 men all fire, 1 of them has a misfire.

Context is key here. I was not responding to probabilities, but to the claim that a single soldier would have the chance to fire a thousand rounds during a battle.