- Musketman (and musketeer) got +30% defense vs. knights (knights killing musketman every first try is just stupid)
Heres some basic info on the musket used by the british army (probally the best representation of a musketeers weaponry and ability)
Basic Data
Furniture (fittings) Brass
Caliber of bore .75 (.75 inch)
Caliber of projectile .71 (.71 inch)
Projectile One ounce lead ball
Theoretical maximum range 250 yards
Effective maximum range (100 round volley) 150 - 200 yards
Effective maximum range (Single round) 100 - 150 yards
Favored range Less than 100 yards
Weight 9lbs 11 oz
Optimum effect at 30 yards Will penetrate 3/8" of iron or 5 inches of oak
Rate of fire (Optimum) 4 - 5 rounds per minute
Rate of fire (actual) 2 - 3 rounds per minute
Rate of misfire 20 - 40%
Here's a bit on Knight armor
Body Armor...A Historical Perspective
AUTHOR Major James P. Carothers, USMC
II. Data: As long as man has developed weapons, he has
simultaneously produced armor to protect against its threat. The
crude and unsophisticated armor of the Romans to the medieval
knights of the middle ages established a trend towards armor
modernization. Gunpowder ended the development of armor for
centuries until the famous Australian "bushranger" Ned Kelly
introduced effective armor in the 1850's. Soldiers and criminals
experimented with varying degrees of success during World War I
through the gangster years of the 1930's. World War II and the
Korean Conflict were a renaissance for body armor. Technological
innovation and combat experimentation firmly reestablished the
requirement for effective body armor. Research and development
through the last two decades have resulted in "state of the art"
body armor in the hands of the common soldier today.
In 1880, the Australian police found the famous bushranger,
Ned Kelly, a formidable foe. An "Outback Outlaw", Ned fashoned a
suit of boiler-plate iron armor, with a twin panneled
breastplate. A metal apron protected the groin and a crude helmet
with eye slits completed the outfit. Dispite the unrefined
apperance, Ned's armor was extremely efficient and enabled him
to face, and survive the concentrated fires of numerous
Australian police. Unfortunately for Ned, his armor didn't cover
his legs and after catching a few rounds in his lower extremities
the police captured him.
"Having said that, I have put on an accurate reproduction of a breast plate and had someone hitting me with a claymore (an ahistorical heavy one as well) the blow knocked me back, dented the armour in a big way but I didn't feel anything other than being sharply pushed back, this was at full swing!
In plate you do have to go for joints or gaps in the armour, certainly a blow to the center of a plate wont do anything until the 20'th blow when the armour has been bent to the point that they cant expand there lungs to draw breath.
An arrow will go striate threw the armour if it hits it at right angles, however plate was designed with a lot of angles and curves, anyone firing from directly ahead can only get a right angle if they hit the one mm ridge at the front of the plate, plate was made glass hard so that arrow points couldn't catch and would shatter when they hit (seen a slow motion camera footage, your only risk is flying splinters getting in your eye)"
Source: Re-Enactors forum
During medieval Europe, armored knights on horseback were the dominant military force until the invention of projectile weapons. While elephants and armor came and went, the speed and availability of soldiers on horseback remained to be an essential component of warfare for centuries. Although cavalry was primarily used as support for the infantry, in formation it could be used for countless possibilities, including quick attacks, chasing, flanking, reconnaissance, and breakthroughs. Even though firearms reduced the cavalry’s overall effectiveness during the Renaissance, it was not until the 19th century that guns and artillery made cavalry charges obsolete. Guns became quicker to shoot with the invention of the cartridge, breach-loader, and revolver, and more accurate with the invention of the rifled barrel
From the History of Armored Warfare
Most medivel armor ranged from .8 t0 3mms. Knights would be probally wear a heavier plate...so we'll say 2.5mm
thats roughly 1.5 eights of an inch...so at 30 yards, 90 feet, a musketeer could easily penetrate the armor of a knight, per the data above saying it can penetrate 3/8ths of an inch. IF he can hit it at a 90 degree angle. The more angle, the more armor youre giving the knight.
If you hit 10mms of armor thats sloped at a 15 degree angle, that 10mms of armor effectively becomes 11.5mms of armor.
At 60 yards, we'll say the the musketeer can penetrate 1.5 eights of an inch, half of 3/8ths...since its double the range (it would actually be less due to the ballistic of the ball) that is the exact thickness of the armor the knight would be wearing. Since no knight ever wore flat plate, they always wore rounded plate, we have to assume there was armor sloping involved in the hit. The amount of degrees (which will definitly be higher than 0 ) of sloping, would only increase the armor protection of the knight.
How fast can a horse run down 180 feet and trample a man holding a gun?
At what range do you think the musketeers would fire?
I think its safe to assume the musketeers would get one and only one volley off at the knights, before the knights closed range, and made short work of musketeers.
IF the musketeers fired at thier maximum range (250yards) its POSSIBLE that a well trained unit could fire two shots in the time the knights closed on the musketeers. However the first volley would be completely ineffective, incapable of penetrating thier armor.
The only chance the musketeers would have is if they fired from less than 45yards (which is dangerously close when you consider you have 50 guys in armor, on huge steads, carrying maces, pikes, and swords steaming at you at full speed) and ALL thier shots were true. If the muskets have a 20-40% chance of a misfire....well...all thier shots arent even going fire.
My conclusion on this subject is infact that knights should be running down musketeers left and right. Not the other way around. If anyone should get a bonus, its the knights agianst the musketeers.
Of course...if you have a highwall between you and the knights...and you have a musket...whole different story. Maybe a +75% city defense? -50% agianst knights? Or something in that ratio?
EDIT:
And sorry to be a killjoy all the time, but I have a strange obsession with realism heh...im like the realism gestapo...