How can guns be countered by melee combat without raw-ability or exceptional explanations?












11












$begingroup$


I'm writing a science fantasy setting for a tabletop game. Its major influences are Dune, Final Fantasy 7, and Borderlands. My goal is to give a universal account why swords, spears, etc., equal or even best guns between fighters of equal skill. Let me define my terms:




  1. By guns I primarily mean modern ballistic firearms, like what you'd see in a Call of Duty game. I'm not as interested in making lasers, rail guns, grenades, etc, comparable to hand-to-hand weapons. If you can relate them in your answer, though, that would be extra appreciated. The setting is not premodern, so flintlocks and other obsolete guns are out.


  2. By raw-ability I mean explanations like Star Wars where superhuman powers, strength, or magic make exceptions for hand-to-hand combat. My major concern here is, "If the sword wielder has x level skill, why can't the gun wielder with X level skill be even better?" I'm not trying to explain why super heroes can overcome guns with swords. I'm looking to explain why swords themselves are comparable to guns as part of the world's "natural law."


  3. By exceptional explanations I mean something like Dune where special technology, geography, monsters, or other special scenarios make melee weapons desirable. Although brilliant, explanations like Herbert's create more "an exception to the rule" than they account for a universal law of the universe why axes can keep up with machine guns. This rules out making specific environment a primary reason for melee combat. If the world only featured close-quarters environments, for example, that might work, but it features a relatively varied amount of environments and I'm looking for a reason why melee will be desirable in most environments by default.



So, in terms of goal, I'm looking for a vaguely Advent Children-esque world where plebs walk around with firearms for self-defense while mercs dabble in swords, spears, maybe gun-fu, but where the setting neither turns into wuxia supermen battles nor hard sci-fi tech.










share|improve this question









New contributor




The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What is the exact purpose of mercenaries? War, or some other missions as well?
    $endgroup$
    – Kepotx
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Could you add some detail on what you'd want in an answer? i.e., would an answer recommending a world composed of tiny interlocking rooms (forcing melee distance on everyone that has line-of-sight) be adequate? Also, you define the terms 'raw-ability' and 'exceptional' for your question, but do not use them in the question itself?
    $endgroup$
    – bukwyrm
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I will update the post. Mercenaries is used as a catch-all term for bounty/monster hunters - think Witcher or Vampire Hunter D. The world features a lot of Lovecraftian and bandit mooks wandering around.
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    14 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Welcome to the site The Necessitarian, you need to be aware that edits to questions should not invalidate existing answers for reasons that will become obvious the more you stick around.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    13 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Agrajag, thank you! Yeah, I can see at least one reason that was counterproductive. Newb mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    12 hours ago
















11












$begingroup$


I'm writing a science fantasy setting for a tabletop game. Its major influences are Dune, Final Fantasy 7, and Borderlands. My goal is to give a universal account why swords, spears, etc., equal or even best guns between fighters of equal skill. Let me define my terms:




  1. By guns I primarily mean modern ballistic firearms, like what you'd see in a Call of Duty game. I'm not as interested in making lasers, rail guns, grenades, etc, comparable to hand-to-hand weapons. If you can relate them in your answer, though, that would be extra appreciated. The setting is not premodern, so flintlocks and other obsolete guns are out.


  2. By raw-ability I mean explanations like Star Wars where superhuman powers, strength, or magic make exceptions for hand-to-hand combat. My major concern here is, "If the sword wielder has x level skill, why can't the gun wielder with X level skill be even better?" I'm not trying to explain why super heroes can overcome guns with swords. I'm looking to explain why swords themselves are comparable to guns as part of the world's "natural law."


  3. By exceptional explanations I mean something like Dune where special technology, geography, monsters, or other special scenarios make melee weapons desirable. Although brilliant, explanations like Herbert's create more "an exception to the rule" than they account for a universal law of the universe why axes can keep up with machine guns. This rules out making specific environment a primary reason for melee combat. If the world only featured close-quarters environments, for example, that might work, but it features a relatively varied amount of environments and I'm looking for a reason why melee will be desirable in most environments by default.



So, in terms of goal, I'm looking for a vaguely Advent Children-esque world where plebs walk around with firearms for self-defense while mercs dabble in swords, spears, maybe gun-fu, but where the setting neither turns into wuxia supermen battles nor hard sci-fi tech.










share|improve this question









New contributor




The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What is the exact purpose of mercenaries? War, or some other missions as well?
    $endgroup$
    – Kepotx
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Could you add some detail on what you'd want in an answer? i.e., would an answer recommending a world composed of tiny interlocking rooms (forcing melee distance on everyone that has line-of-sight) be adequate? Also, you define the terms 'raw-ability' and 'exceptional' for your question, but do not use them in the question itself?
    $endgroup$
    – bukwyrm
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I will update the post. Mercenaries is used as a catch-all term for bounty/monster hunters - think Witcher or Vampire Hunter D. The world features a lot of Lovecraftian and bandit mooks wandering around.
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    14 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Welcome to the site The Necessitarian, you need to be aware that edits to questions should not invalidate existing answers for reasons that will become obvious the more you stick around.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    13 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Agrajag, thank you! Yeah, I can see at least one reason that was counterproductive. Newb mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    12 hours ago














11












11








11





$begingroup$


I'm writing a science fantasy setting for a tabletop game. Its major influences are Dune, Final Fantasy 7, and Borderlands. My goal is to give a universal account why swords, spears, etc., equal or even best guns between fighters of equal skill. Let me define my terms:




  1. By guns I primarily mean modern ballistic firearms, like what you'd see in a Call of Duty game. I'm not as interested in making lasers, rail guns, grenades, etc, comparable to hand-to-hand weapons. If you can relate them in your answer, though, that would be extra appreciated. The setting is not premodern, so flintlocks and other obsolete guns are out.


  2. By raw-ability I mean explanations like Star Wars where superhuman powers, strength, or magic make exceptions for hand-to-hand combat. My major concern here is, "If the sword wielder has x level skill, why can't the gun wielder with X level skill be even better?" I'm not trying to explain why super heroes can overcome guns with swords. I'm looking to explain why swords themselves are comparable to guns as part of the world's "natural law."


  3. By exceptional explanations I mean something like Dune where special technology, geography, monsters, or other special scenarios make melee weapons desirable. Although brilliant, explanations like Herbert's create more "an exception to the rule" than they account for a universal law of the universe why axes can keep up with machine guns. This rules out making specific environment a primary reason for melee combat. If the world only featured close-quarters environments, for example, that might work, but it features a relatively varied amount of environments and I'm looking for a reason why melee will be desirable in most environments by default.



So, in terms of goal, I'm looking for a vaguely Advent Children-esque world where plebs walk around with firearms for self-defense while mercs dabble in swords, spears, maybe gun-fu, but where the setting neither turns into wuxia supermen battles nor hard sci-fi tech.










share|improve this question









New contributor




The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I'm writing a science fantasy setting for a tabletop game. Its major influences are Dune, Final Fantasy 7, and Borderlands. My goal is to give a universal account why swords, spears, etc., equal or even best guns between fighters of equal skill. Let me define my terms:




  1. By guns I primarily mean modern ballistic firearms, like what you'd see in a Call of Duty game. I'm not as interested in making lasers, rail guns, grenades, etc, comparable to hand-to-hand weapons. If you can relate them in your answer, though, that would be extra appreciated. The setting is not premodern, so flintlocks and other obsolete guns are out.


  2. By raw-ability I mean explanations like Star Wars where superhuman powers, strength, or magic make exceptions for hand-to-hand combat. My major concern here is, "If the sword wielder has x level skill, why can't the gun wielder with X level skill be even better?" I'm not trying to explain why super heroes can overcome guns with swords. I'm looking to explain why swords themselves are comparable to guns as part of the world's "natural law."


  3. By exceptional explanations I mean something like Dune where special technology, geography, monsters, or other special scenarios make melee weapons desirable. Although brilliant, explanations like Herbert's create more "an exception to the rule" than they account for a universal law of the universe why axes can keep up with machine guns. This rules out making specific environment a primary reason for melee combat. If the world only featured close-quarters environments, for example, that might work, but it features a relatively varied amount of environments and I'm looking for a reason why melee will be desirable in most environments by default.



So, in terms of goal, I'm looking for a vaguely Advent Children-esque world where plebs walk around with firearms for self-defense while mercs dabble in swords, spears, maybe gun-fu, but where the setting neither turns into wuxia supermen battles nor hard sci-fi tech.







reality-check weapons combat






share|improve this question









New contributor




The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









JakeGould

188113




188113






New contributor




The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 15 hours ago









The NecessitarianThe Necessitarian

565




565




New contributor




The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






The Necessitarian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    What is the exact purpose of mercenaries? War, or some other missions as well?
    $endgroup$
    – Kepotx
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Could you add some detail on what you'd want in an answer? i.e., would an answer recommending a world composed of tiny interlocking rooms (forcing melee distance on everyone that has line-of-sight) be adequate? Also, you define the terms 'raw-ability' and 'exceptional' for your question, but do not use them in the question itself?
    $endgroup$
    – bukwyrm
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I will update the post. Mercenaries is used as a catch-all term for bounty/monster hunters - think Witcher or Vampire Hunter D. The world features a lot of Lovecraftian and bandit mooks wandering around.
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    14 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Welcome to the site The Necessitarian, you need to be aware that edits to questions should not invalidate existing answers for reasons that will become obvious the more you stick around.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    13 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Agrajag, thank you! Yeah, I can see at least one reason that was counterproductive. Newb mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    12 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    What is the exact purpose of mercenaries? War, or some other missions as well?
    $endgroup$
    – Kepotx
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Could you add some detail on what you'd want in an answer? i.e., would an answer recommending a world composed of tiny interlocking rooms (forcing melee distance on everyone that has line-of-sight) be adequate? Also, you define the terms 'raw-ability' and 'exceptional' for your question, but do not use them in the question itself?
    $endgroup$
    – bukwyrm
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I will update the post. Mercenaries is used as a catch-all term for bounty/monster hunters - think Witcher or Vampire Hunter D. The world features a lot of Lovecraftian and bandit mooks wandering around.
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    14 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Welcome to the site The Necessitarian, you need to be aware that edits to questions should not invalidate existing answers for reasons that will become obvious the more you stick around.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    13 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Agrajag, thank you! Yeah, I can see at least one reason that was counterproductive. Newb mistake.
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    12 hours ago
















$begingroup$
What is the exact purpose of mercenaries? War, or some other missions as well?
$endgroup$
– Kepotx
14 hours ago




$begingroup$
What is the exact purpose of mercenaries? War, or some other missions as well?
$endgroup$
– Kepotx
14 hours ago












$begingroup$
Could you add some detail on what you'd want in an answer? i.e., would an answer recommending a world composed of tiny interlocking rooms (forcing melee distance on everyone that has line-of-sight) be adequate? Also, you define the terms 'raw-ability' and 'exceptional' for your question, but do not use them in the question itself?
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
14 hours ago




$begingroup$
Could you add some detail on what you'd want in an answer? i.e., would an answer recommending a world composed of tiny interlocking rooms (forcing melee distance on everyone that has line-of-sight) be adequate? Also, you define the terms 'raw-ability' and 'exceptional' for your question, but do not use them in the question itself?
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
14 hours ago












$begingroup$
Sorry, I will update the post. Mercenaries is used as a catch-all term for bounty/monster hunters - think Witcher or Vampire Hunter D. The world features a lot of Lovecraftian and bandit mooks wandering around.
$endgroup$
– The Necessitarian
14 hours ago






$begingroup$
Sorry, I will update the post. Mercenaries is used as a catch-all term for bounty/monster hunters - think Witcher or Vampire Hunter D. The world features a lot of Lovecraftian and bandit mooks wandering around.
$endgroup$
– The Necessitarian
14 hours ago






1




1




$begingroup$
Welcome to the site The Necessitarian, you need to be aware that edits to questions should not invalidate existing answers for reasons that will become obvious the more you stick around.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
13 hours ago




$begingroup$
Welcome to the site The Necessitarian, you need to be aware that edits to questions should not invalidate existing answers for reasons that will become obvious the more you stick around.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
13 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Agrajag, thank you! Yeah, I can see at least one reason that was counterproductive. Newb mistake.
$endgroup$
– The Necessitarian
12 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Agrajag, thank you! Yeah, I can see at least one reason that was counterproductive. Newb mistake.
$endgroup$
– The Necessitarian
12 hours ago










13 Answers
13






active

oldest

votes


















36












$begingroup$

This is not possible within your constraints



As others have mentioned, the main benefit modern firearms have over melee weapons is accuracy, fire rate and range. Thus, under your constraints, a charging swordsman will be hit multiple times by a gunman before he closes the gap. We must either have a shorter gap (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired), inaccurate or slow gunfire (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired/hit) or we must be able to shrug off bullets (due to armour technology outpacing firearms).



Due to your constraints, we cannot limit firearms via technology (such as by restricting the quality of raw materials or the quality of manufacturing) as doing so will mean your firearms are no longer "Modern".



By limiting the ability of both combatants to realistic levels, the swordsman will not be able to parry or dodge the bullets, and thus will get hit multiple times whilst approaching.



Your blanket term for Exceptional Circumstances appears to block all other options. Geographically restricting range is not allowed. Allowing the Swordsman to shrug off the bullets thanks to advanced armour/shielding is not allowed. Restricting the velocity of firearms due to sufficiently-advanced alien tech is definitely not allowed. Simply put, as your question stands, your constraints are too tight to permit a change that will bring melee weapons on par with firearms.



Every IRL National Military will want to use the best tools for the job after all. With your constraints basically being "Real-World", if the armies of the world can't find a reason to use melee weapons, it'll be because the reason does not exist.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 13




    $begingroup$
    This is the correct answer. Without exceptional circumstances, there is no way to 'balance' modern firearms with melee combat. There's an argument to be made that extremely cramped fighting situations isn't that exceptional, but the OP has stated it is per their definition. Even then, unless it's literal cheek-to-jowl close quarters, I'd place my money on the soldier with the buckshot-loaded sawnoff.
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    12 hours ago





















13












$begingroup$

Guns are by definition ranged weapons. To make melee preferable or comparable to ranged combat you need to remove the advantage that it has, the simplest way to do that is to remove range. Set combat in an environment so complex and obstructed that range is minimal.



Consider a rotating space station as an example, unless you have a central open space, the curve of the floors and low ceilings mean you can't actually see very far ahead of you. Add corridors, spiral stairs, suites of rooms and you're all but in someone's face before you have line of sight to them.



The same can be true of a slum situation, buildings so tight and spaces so narrow that unless you're following a bulldozer you don't have line of sight more than a few metres ahead of you.



Bullets rebound. This adds a level of risk to using firearms, that you don't get in the open field situations for which they're designed. Moving through a standard dungeon crawl cavern which just happens to be through a type of rock with a greater coefficient of restitution for whatever handwavium reason you choose. It's now dangerous to all parties to miss your primary target with a firearm as the rebounding bullet could hit anyone.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @TheNecessitarian, the game is that nothing is universally preferable, even a blow dart is going to be preferable under a given set of circumstances. The reason the average person has a gun is that it works in the environment they're normally in, the places the mercs are needed to go hunting is what makes them and their weapon choice special.
    $endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    14 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The idea of bullet rebound is great, the space station is an excellent example. However the range one is debatable. Scatter guns were used in trenches by american with very efficient result, replacing attacks with melee weapon at the end of WW1. And trenches were not known for their big line of sights, making some commandos use a great variety of CQC weapons.
    $endgroup$
    – Kaël
    14 hours ago






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Space stations would have another good reason not to use bullets - putting holes in space station sides is bad.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Kaël, the other name for a shotgun is a trench gun and they were considered bad form by the Germans. This in a war where chemical weapons were still acceptable. However trenches are still long straight affairs, where a shotgun is advantageous, I'm considering an environment were even a shotgun is going to get you a single reflex shot if you're lucky before your opponent is in your face.
    $endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TimB, though I think target shooting in a rotating environment is on my list of sports of the future.
    $endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    12 hours ago



















9












$begingroup$

I'll try my hand at your comment on L.Dutch's Answer:




Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?




Since you're writing a science fantasy setting, you could either play with the actual world (as in planet)'s conditions if the game is set on only one planet - or with the rules of physics themselves if you want it applicable on different planets too.



Planetary conditions



Let's try the more restricted one first: if we leave the laws of physics alone and only adjust conditions on one planet, what could be done to take guns' advantage away?



Bad visibility



You don't need slums' cramped conditions taking away sight line to the target if you can't see very far in the first place. A planet where fog, sandstorms, pollen, spores or swarms of insects are common enough that a gunman can't reliably expect to see the target in time to shoot them before they're in his face with a sword will be a planet where a gun isn't much better than said sword.



Bad conditions for technology



Several of the options above also work here.



A well-maintained gun shoots accurately and reliably. A gun with grains of sand (or crawling insects...) in the barrel might not shoot quite straight, especially after the first couple dozen shots when the barrel gets more and more worn from the effect of a bullet travelling through it and dragging sand along its length. The firing mechanism might be jammed by sand or rusted from the constant mist, the gunpowder might be damp... depending on the technology used, environmental conditions might make "will it shoot or not, and if it does, will the bullet fly straight?" a gamble.



Note that this becomes more and more manageable the higher your tech level and the more you're willing to pay - modern firearms can be built to fire reliably after taking them for a swim, but you're paying more for that than you would for a gun that only needs to work on the shooting range. Kalashnikovs have also anecdotically been known to work fine after being buried in dirt, so you'll have to restrict your world's engineering capabilities a bit if you want this to be a factor at more than the low-price range. If you're fine with plebs' guns being unreliable enough to counter a shooter with a kitchen knife but elite mercenaries firing reliable guns at elite swordsmen dodging matrix-style, this might be the way to go.



aggressive animals



Guns are loud. The Sky-Snakes will zero in on anyone firing a gun repeatedly, and those things are nasty and poisonous. The boombeetle will look for a mate where it hears the mating call, which sounds kinda like a gun being fired. Think of something fun ;)



missing is dangerous



See those rocks over there? Hit them too hard, like with a bullet or such, and they'll explode - shards everywhere, including your face.



See that plant over there? Those thick leaves are filled with a flammable, sticky liquid. Basically napalm. You do not want that splashing around. And that one has swamp gas in its fruit, explodey. The seeds are also poisonous.



Obviously this would lead to a world with no (or only the dumbest or most reckless) plebs walking around with guns, so it might not work for you.



Different laws of physics



If you're willing to meddle with the laws of physics, the sky is the limit... or rather, not even that. You could just handwave that it's impossible to manufacture explosives that are reliable enough for our kind of modern firearms because chemistry works differently, or maybe inertia follows a different law where things in motion don't stay in motion - they want to return to a state of rest, so bullets lose power quickly the further they travel. Maybe there's a material that acts non-newtonian in a way that makes it comfortable to wear but lets it stiffen quickly when hit with a rapid-moving bullet - but somehow this material is still vulnerable to cutting edges on spears, axes and the like...



Different Biology



Bonus: If your people don't have to be human, you could just give them quickly-sealing blood vessels and more redundant bodyparts. If a bullet hits you and just gets stuck in your dense muscle mass, or maybe pierces an artery but that artery seals up and the blood for the arm you've been hit in gets routed through the secondary set of arteries instead, or the bullet pierces just one of your three hearts - maybe you can keep fighting and recover from it. And maybe that's easier than recovering from having a piece cut off with a sword.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Dense opaque atmosphere was the first idea that came into my head. It would have to be really quite dense for me to bet on a sword over a buckshot-loaded sawnoff though...
    $endgroup$
    – Ynneadwraith
    12 hours ago



















6












$begingroup$

Fire rate and precision are the key factor for guns to be dominant over melee weapons.



Think of the bow: archers were used for quite a while after guns introduction simply because the fire rate they could grant was higher than the first guns and rifles, with a significant better precision.



Same here, if you fire a shot that goes within a large area around your pointing target and then have to wait a long time to reload the weapon you are basically giving an advantage to your enemy approaching you with a sword in his hands.



So, keep your guns primitive (heavy, slow firing, poor precision), and that would explain why melee weapons have an advantage.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?
    $endgroup$
    – The Necessitarian
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TheNecessitarian: Modern firearms can be accurate over kilometers distance, if necessary (sniper rifles). It's just not needed in typical situations, though. Your typical military weapon will still be accurate up to several hundred meter, way beyond melee range.
    $endgroup$
    – MSalters
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    There is also the argument for reusability, in cases where you don't have easy access to supply lines. A sword can kill more people than any soldier can carry bullets (even if you assume they are all hits and one hit kills). Swords also don't jam and stop working.
    $endgroup$
    – Flater
    13 hours ago





















5












$begingroup$

Expense, make one of the prime bullet ingredients expensive or something like that and a sword is better since your gun turns into just a clumsy club without bullets. Some places still use swords for this reason. They just don't have much access to guns and bullets. They're not something you can easily make.



Even a pipe gun which can be made with some technical know how and tools cannot do much without bullets.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I don't think that's possible. Blackpowder is charcoal (cheap) + sulfur (cheap) + saltpeter (not so cheap, but still pretty common). Nitrocellulose is sawdust (cheap) + nitric acid (cheap). Other gunpowder formulas have similarly cheap ingredients. You can make the bullets themselves out of any metal, and finding a primary explosive to use as the primer is easy -- there are lots of chemical substances that will blow up with only a slight provocation.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Mark makes you wonder why people just don't make their own bullets apart from a very few.? Scarcity and the knowledge to make them, machine metal etc,. these things don't grow on trees.
    $endgroup$
    – Kilisi
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you hand-load from raw materials, you can produce probably around one cartridge an hour once you factor in the time spent mixing your gunpowder, shaping brass, casting bullets, and so on. Or, you can let a factory churn out millions of cartridges of more consistent quality at a fraction of the cost.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Mark yep, I'm not arguing, just trying to find a solution for the OP, a bit of imagination required.
    $endgroup$
    – Kilisi
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Mark Industrially produced nitric acid is cheap, sure. You can produce it in small batches at home, but then it's no longer cheap (if your time has any value.) And modern smokeless powder is a lot more sophisticated than just making nitrocellulose from sawdust. Semi-automatic firearms are as reliable as they are in part because of the characteristics of modern powder, including various additives and even the physical size and shape of the individual powder grains. So some kind of social/industrial breakdown could conceivably make using a firearm very expensive.
    $endgroup$
    – TKK
    1 hour ago



















2












$begingroup$

You can't without dropping at least one of your conditions. Considering that it's for a game, it's not as bad as it may sound.



I suggest you drop "exceptional" condition and introduce plethora of exceptional circumstances. Cramped slums, packed space stations (like Separatrix's answer), strangely bullet absorbing melee space monsters (for those you definitely want so called boar-spear with cross bar, to stab monster and keep it away from yourself at the same time), realistic sewers (instead of absurdly spacious ones) and so on. Since weapon usefulness is function of circumstances: guns are all around better, but action of the game happens in those exceptional locations and situations, focusing on people specialising in dealing with those exceptional situations. As a bonus, you can always have curveball wide open location/scenario with gun totting human enemies requiring either change of gear or complete change of tactics.



Reason why guns are superior is their range and accuracy. Times of volley fire making up for inaccuracy and slow reload are gone since mid 19th century and you can not reintroduce those in modern setting without breaking "exceptional" requirement. Dune uses shields, but there are other options, for example: short range teleport (usually called "blink" in fiction) removes range advantage, stealth (plain old hiding or sci-fi active camouflage) removes all advantages and let's call it "distortion shield" which doesn't stop bullets but turns anything short of exact hit to centre of mass into miss would remove accuracy advantage. Some of those break into "raw-ability" like territory, shooter with stealth (basically a a sniper) is better than swordsman with stealth, blink goes both ways, with shooter being able to escape (potentially counter-able by another teleport by melee fighter) while distortion wouldn't be very effective against melee weapons giving shooter advantage only against other shooters.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    Speed control.



    In this season of The Expanse, there is some alien tech which limits the speed of any object (relative, I think, to this central artifact). If the object exceeds the limit it stops.



    This would decrease the killing power of guns because kinetic energy is mv^2; a bullet could knock you down or break a bone but not produce supersonic shockwaves in a body. You could cap bullet power wherever you see fit.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This sort of bizarre alien technology was specifically ruled out in the question (see the "Exceptional explanations" clause).
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      3 hours ago



















    1












    $begingroup$

    Make the gravity of the planet higher.



    Quite simply, this has the effects of increasing the atmospheric pressure, leading to higher turbulence and reduced bullet travel distance, plus the increase in gravity means the average person has to be stronger, thereby making a sword able to penetrate more armors. In addition, the higher gravity means the bullet drops further faster. This doesn't affect accuracy though, only the require skill to use a gun and the maximum range of a gun.



    The other fun effects of this could range, from having more dense people (Bullets do less damage) to reducing atmospheric visibility to such an extent that you can't target people with a gun at substantial range anymore. People might also develop stronger armors, due to the need for stronger materials in a world where everything is heavier, and be able to wear heavier armors, due to the inherent strength increase of a person who grows on a larger world. (Which can be assumed due to the increased gravity)



    However, the most obvious way to demonstrate this would be using a brick falling from height. Now, instead of falling 5m in two seconds, it might fall 50m in the same time, leading to a bullet that's in the air for potentially .1 seconds to be hitting the dirt within roughly 30m. (assumed from the speed of some shotguns of 1000ft/second)



    If with these advantages swords are still unusable, remember that the effective range of a gun by your average soldier would be ~5 meters, due to the extreme bullet drop and the increased turbulence from a denser atmosphere making hitting a shot hard. A thrown weapon would be unaffected at short ranges, which works well for this because even now spears aren't effective at much longer ranges.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      A modern rifle in the hands of an average user is accurate out to a range of several hundred meters. Sufficient gravity to bring that range under 5 meters (the range at which a gun no longer has an advantage over a knife) would cause such wide-ranging changes that the world would no longer even remotely resemble something Earth-like.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      3 hours ago



















    0












    $begingroup$

    Superior ballistic armor



    I'm not sure whether this counts against your exceptional circumstances (as assumed by Kyyshak), but it seems the least exceptional way to eliminate the overwhelming advantages of modern firearms over melee weapons among well-equipped combatants.



    On your world master armorers have discovered a (very expensive) way to make armor that stops most bullets outright, except at point blank range or from certain angles. It doesn't fare quite as well against slower weapons, especially slashing types like swords.
    A skilled combatant can pierce the armor with a gun after a bunch of tries, putting the gun on a somewhat equal footing with a sword.



    Defending against a gun while using a sword doesn't mean dodging bullets, but rather preventing the opponent from aiming at and getting a shot on weak points in the armor. This doesn't involve Jedi foresight or acrobatics, but an aggressive style that puts the sword wherever the gunwielder's arm is or would need to be for a shot. As soon as the gunwielder backs away, the sword user can angle their body to minimize exposure, making the gun mostly useless until the distance is closed again.



    Against anyone that doesn't have the resources (and permit?) to own a set of armor, firearms are the weapon of choice. So the plebs would be shooting eachother up like normal, as you want to.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      Honor



      Your society might have a very particular view of ranged vs melee.
      Over many generations people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is more honor is fighting melee versus using a ranged weapon.



      Most plebs who's honor is not worth mentioning would resort to ranged weapons while the accomplished mercenary would wield a sword showing the rest of the world that they don't even need a gun.



      A mercenary who only uses melee weapons to complete his contracts would be more famous and sought after then a mercenary who just uses a 10 mile ranged sniper rifle. Even if the sniper rifle is technically a better weapon it would only be used by those of disrepute.



      TLDR - The culture puts a great value on being able to take an enemy out at close range. People strive to get good at melee and see ranged as a handicap.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$





















        0












        $begingroup$

        Better advances in protection.



        Currently ballistic firearms have progressed faster than ballistic protection, which allows guns to be so dangerous. But gun ballistics progression is nearing it's end unless we transcend towards railguns and other exotic weapons, while metamaterials are becoming more and more attainable.



        Imagine spidersilk armors with Graphene layers and other lightweight, extreme performance materials. If these become cheaply available the guns required to kill your opponent will have to go big, and even a. 50cal could start having trouble killing the opponent and would rather break bones than kill.



        This in turn allows melee weapons to become viable again. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's estimated that the trained army outnumbering their opponents still needed 250.000 bullets per insurgent. If you need bigger weapons and more hits to down a person it becomes less interesting to use that gun. Big weapons like a. 50cal have lower rates of fire (when handheld), are unwieldly and very hard to aim unless mounted or resting on a surface. Your opponent has to grab a smaller caliber and hit you multiple times to bruise and break you enough to knock you out of the fight. Time you can spend rushing your opponent and smacking him with a mace or similar. Even the good old knights of old in slash-resistant armor were very vulnerable to getting bashed.



        Add in potential upgrades in your melee weapons unavailable to bullets like high voltage, potential superheated edges, monomolecular edges etc and you can make melee weapons more useful.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$





















          0












          $begingroup$

          Here's a simple idea:



          Much higher atmospheric density leads to several disadvantages to guns: 1) higher required charge to reach decent muzzle velocity & faster velocity drop-off in air - hence steep trajectory curves; 2) soundwave propagation in denser atmosphere means concussion from said shot would be loud enough to damage shooter and be highly detectable no matter what; leading to 3) the edged weapons are just inherently stealthier - you get close, katana, gim or tonto undrawn, once inside striking range you execute an aido-style quick draw, and resheathe removing the blood, as your silently halved opponent drops into separate pieces.





          Most properly we can say that drag forces scale with the square of velocity and with the density of the fluid - see equation below, where p is media density.



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Drag only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. In order to make the effective range of something like a .50-cal anti-material rifle unusably short, you're probably looking at a Venus-like atmosphere, with all the survivability issues high atmospheric pressure entails.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Mark: first, your statement is inaccurate - I will address this via an edit to my answer - please remove your downvote. Second, if atmospheric density is high enough to impact drag, the resultant changes to the aerodynamics impacting projectile trajectory are non-negligible; not only will the curve inflect far faster, the bullet may tumble, resulting in a very chaotic flightpath.
            $endgroup$
            – GerardFalla
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I'm not seeing an exponent on that "ρ" coefficient, so I stand by my statement that the drag force only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. You're trying to bring the lethal range of your gun down under 20 meters or so -- and when you're starting from the 2000-meter range of a large-caliber rifle, that takes a lot of atmosphere.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark - fair enough. I suppose we could posit that we've a super-high density and humidity, leading to a net density almost a quarter as high as liquid water, or that it's a tenth that high but with ominpresent turbulent winds... which in a denser medium would have more trajectory perturbating effects?
            $endgroup$
            – GerardFalla
            2 hours ago



















          0












          $begingroup$

          All you need are reasons rendering things more even.



          A few ideas:



          Movement
          Sufficient mobility makes smaller weapons superior. If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead, melee is superior. (Slowing guns down could work similarly, but that raises other questions. Still, if all ballistics slowed but retained momentum, if not all the impulse, you'd still have dangerous weapons, albeit less useful.)



          Invisibility or major resistance to damage while moving is roughly equivalent to rapid movement for gun vs. blade purposes.



          As to how to to get this high speed or safe movement, well, that could be a common device or spell or even a martial technique if it's not a normal fact of the world. (Heavy mists could render things invisible out to a few hundred feet and blurry. Basically, a PS1 game world...) Which leads us to...



          Chi
          It's not realistic, but of your inspirations, only one even vaguely hints at such. Special martial training can unlock abilities that rival the range of guns but without some of the drawbacks. Guns could have the advantage of being powerful without the chi requirements. The disadvantage being that chi isn't a big benefit to firearms, limiting the upper end of lethality.



          This gets you the common schlub using guns with warriors using other weapons thing. (This could be a universal trait of the world rather than a special thingy. Depending on how you interpret things, that could avoid your special power thing.)



          Shielding
          The shields in Dune could be tweaked to something that could explain this. A narrow impulse is easily deflected while a cut can drop the whole shield, say. This needn't be a technological marvel, either, but could be a magical or field thing that effects people for some reason.



          Slow bullets plus the ability to deflect them with a weapon could lead to safer swordsman, a la Force blaster deflecting tricks but nigh universally acheivable.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            "Sufficient mobility" for open-field combat is barely-subsonic speeds.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Are you assuming you need to literally outrun bullets?
            $endgroup$
            – The Nate
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I'm assuming that by "If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead", you mean that the melee-armed attacker is trying to cover the several-hundred-meter effective range of a modern rifle in less time than it takes the rifle-user to aim and fire. If aiming takes one second, you're looking at a running speed of about Mach 0.9; if it takes two seconds, Mach 0.45.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            So, in brief, you're estimating based on maximum range, perfect visibility, and straight line approach. That's a solid worst case estimate for the melee. The other extreme is about a step and a half away. (excluding drawing and loading times, which would favor melee, obviously.)
            $endgroup$
            – The Nate
            2 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "579"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          The Necessitarian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139429%2fhow-can-guns-be-countered-by-melee-combat-without-raw-ability-or-exceptional-exp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          13 Answers
          13






          active

          oldest

          votes








          13 Answers
          13






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          36












          $begingroup$

          This is not possible within your constraints



          As others have mentioned, the main benefit modern firearms have over melee weapons is accuracy, fire rate and range. Thus, under your constraints, a charging swordsman will be hit multiple times by a gunman before he closes the gap. We must either have a shorter gap (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired), inaccurate or slow gunfire (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired/hit) or we must be able to shrug off bullets (due to armour technology outpacing firearms).



          Due to your constraints, we cannot limit firearms via technology (such as by restricting the quality of raw materials or the quality of manufacturing) as doing so will mean your firearms are no longer "Modern".



          By limiting the ability of both combatants to realistic levels, the swordsman will not be able to parry or dodge the bullets, and thus will get hit multiple times whilst approaching.



          Your blanket term for Exceptional Circumstances appears to block all other options. Geographically restricting range is not allowed. Allowing the Swordsman to shrug off the bullets thanks to advanced armour/shielding is not allowed. Restricting the velocity of firearms due to sufficiently-advanced alien tech is definitely not allowed. Simply put, as your question stands, your constraints are too tight to permit a change that will bring melee weapons on par with firearms.



          Every IRL National Military will want to use the best tools for the job after all. With your constraints basically being "Real-World", if the armies of the world can't find a reason to use melee weapons, it'll be because the reason does not exist.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 13




            $begingroup$
            This is the correct answer. Without exceptional circumstances, there is no way to 'balance' modern firearms with melee combat. There's an argument to be made that extremely cramped fighting situations isn't that exceptional, but the OP has stated it is per their definition. Even then, unless it's literal cheek-to-jowl close quarters, I'd place my money on the soldier with the buckshot-loaded sawnoff.
            $endgroup$
            – Ynneadwraith
            12 hours ago


















          36












          $begingroup$

          This is not possible within your constraints



          As others have mentioned, the main benefit modern firearms have over melee weapons is accuracy, fire rate and range. Thus, under your constraints, a charging swordsman will be hit multiple times by a gunman before he closes the gap. We must either have a shorter gap (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired), inaccurate or slow gunfire (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired/hit) or we must be able to shrug off bullets (due to armour technology outpacing firearms).



          Due to your constraints, we cannot limit firearms via technology (such as by restricting the quality of raw materials or the quality of manufacturing) as doing so will mean your firearms are no longer "Modern".



          By limiting the ability of both combatants to realistic levels, the swordsman will not be able to parry or dodge the bullets, and thus will get hit multiple times whilst approaching.



          Your blanket term for Exceptional Circumstances appears to block all other options. Geographically restricting range is not allowed. Allowing the Swordsman to shrug off the bullets thanks to advanced armour/shielding is not allowed. Restricting the velocity of firearms due to sufficiently-advanced alien tech is definitely not allowed. Simply put, as your question stands, your constraints are too tight to permit a change that will bring melee weapons on par with firearms.



          Every IRL National Military will want to use the best tools for the job after all. With your constraints basically being "Real-World", if the armies of the world can't find a reason to use melee weapons, it'll be because the reason does not exist.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 13




            $begingroup$
            This is the correct answer. Without exceptional circumstances, there is no way to 'balance' modern firearms with melee combat. There's an argument to be made that extremely cramped fighting situations isn't that exceptional, but the OP has stated it is per their definition. Even then, unless it's literal cheek-to-jowl close quarters, I'd place my money on the soldier with the buckshot-loaded sawnoff.
            $endgroup$
            – Ynneadwraith
            12 hours ago
















          36












          36








          36





          $begingroup$

          This is not possible within your constraints



          As others have mentioned, the main benefit modern firearms have over melee weapons is accuracy, fire rate and range. Thus, under your constraints, a charging swordsman will be hit multiple times by a gunman before he closes the gap. We must either have a shorter gap (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired), inaccurate or slow gunfire (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired/hit) or we must be able to shrug off bullets (due to armour technology outpacing firearms).



          Due to your constraints, we cannot limit firearms via technology (such as by restricting the quality of raw materials or the quality of manufacturing) as doing so will mean your firearms are no longer "Modern".



          By limiting the ability of both combatants to realistic levels, the swordsman will not be able to parry or dodge the bullets, and thus will get hit multiple times whilst approaching.



          Your blanket term for Exceptional Circumstances appears to block all other options. Geographically restricting range is not allowed. Allowing the Swordsman to shrug off the bullets thanks to advanced armour/shielding is not allowed. Restricting the velocity of firearms due to sufficiently-advanced alien tech is definitely not allowed. Simply put, as your question stands, your constraints are too tight to permit a change that will bring melee weapons on par with firearms.



          Every IRL National Military will want to use the best tools for the job after all. With your constraints basically being "Real-World", if the armies of the world can't find a reason to use melee weapons, it'll be because the reason does not exist.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          This is not possible within your constraints



          As others have mentioned, the main benefit modern firearms have over melee weapons is accuracy, fire rate and range. Thus, under your constraints, a charging swordsman will be hit multiple times by a gunman before he closes the gap. We must either have a shorter gap (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired), inaccurate or slow gunfire (to reduce the number of shots that can be fired/hit) or we must be able to shrug off bullets (due to armour technology outpacing firearms).



          Due to your constraints, we cannot limit firearms via technology (such as by restricting the quality of raw materials or the quality of manufacturing) as doing so will mean your firearms are no longer "Modern".



          By limiting the ability of both combatants to realistic levels, the swordsman will not be able to parry or dodge the bullets, and thus will get hit multiple times whilst approaching.



          Your blanket term for Exceptional Circumstances appears to block all other options. Geographically restricting range is not allowed. Allowing the Swordsman to shrug off the bullets thanks to advanced armour/shielding is not allowed. Restricting the velocity of firearms due to sufficiently-advanced alien tech is definitely not allowed. Simply put, as your question stands, your constraints are too tight to permit a change that will bring melee weapons on par with firearms.



          Every IRL National Military will want to use the best tools for the job after all. With your constraints basically being "Real-World", if the armies of the world can't find a reason to use melee weapons, it'll be because the reason does not exist.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 12 hours ago

























          answered 13 hours ago









          KyyshakKyyshak

          2,806821




          2,806821








          • 13




            $begingroup$
            This is the correct answer. Without exceptional circumstances, there is no way to 'balance' modern firearms with melee combat. There's an argument to be made that extremely cramped fighting situations isn't that exceptional, but the OP has stated it is per their definition. Even then, unless it's literal cheek-to-jowl close quarters, I'd place my money on the soldier with the buckshot-loaded sawnoff.
            $endgroup$
            – Ynneadwraith
            12 hours ago
















          • 13




            $begingroup$
            This is the correct answer. Without exceptional circumstances, there is no way to 'balance' modern firearms with melee combat. There's an argument to be made that extremely cramped fighting situations isn't that exceptional, but the OP has stated it is per their definition. Even then, unless it's literal cheek-to-jowl close quarters, I'd place my money on the soldier with the buckshot-loaded sawnoff.
            $endgroup$
            – Ynneadwraith
            12 hours ago










          13




          13




          $begingroup$
          This is the correct answer. Without exceptional circumstances, there is no way to 'balance' modern firearms with melee combat. There's an argument to be made that extremely cramped fighting situations isn't that exceptional, but the OP has stated it is per their definition. Even then, unless it's literal cheek-to-jowl close quarters, I'd place my money on the soldier with the buckshot-loaded sawnoff.
          $endgroup$
          – Ynneadwraith
          12 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          This is the correct answer. Without exceptional circumstances, there is no way to 'balance' modern firearms with melee combat. There's an argument to be made that extremely cramped fighting situations isn't that exceptional, but the OP has stated it is per their definition. Even then, unless it's literal cheek-to-jowl close quarters, I'd place my money on the soldier with the buckshot-loaded sawnoff.
          $endgroup$
          – Ynneadwraith
          12 hours ago













          13












          $begingroup$

          Guns are by definition ranged weapons. To make melee preferable or comparable to ranged combat you need to remove the advantage that it has, the simplest way to do that is to remove range. Set combat in an environment so complex and obstructed that range is minimal.



          Consider a rotating space station as an example, unless you have a central open space, the curve of the floors and low ceilings mean you can't actually see very far ahead of you. Add corridors, spiral stairs, suites of rooms and you're all but in someone's face before you have line of sight to them.



          The same can be true of a slum situation, buildings so tight and spaces so narrow that unless you're following a bulldozer you don't have line of sight more than a few metres ahead of you.



          Bullets rebound. This adds a level of risk to using firearms, that you don't get in the open field situations for which they're designed. Moving through a standard dungeon crawl cavern which just happens to be through a type of rock with a greater coefficient of restitution for whatever handwavium reason you choose. It's now dangerous to all parties to miss your primary target with a firearm as the rebounding bullet could hit anyone.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @TheNecessitarian, the game is that nothing is universally preferable, even a blow dart is going to be preferable under a given set of circumstances. The reason the average person has a gun is that it works in the environment they're normally in, the places the mercs are needed to go hunting is what makes them and their weapon choice special.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            14 hours ago








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            The idea of bullet rebound is great, the space station is an excellent example. However the range one is debatable. Scatter guns were used in trenches by american with very efficient result, replacing attacks with melee weapon at the end of WW1. And trenches were not known for their big line of sights, making some commandos use a great variety of CQC weapons.
            $endgroup$
            – Kaël
            14 hours ago






          • 7




            $begingroup$
            Space stations would have another good reason not to use bullets - putting holes in space station sides is bad.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B
            13 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Kaël, the other name for a shotgun is a trench gun and they were considered bad form by the Germans. This in a war where chemical weapons were still acceptable. However trenches are still long straight affairs, where a shotgun is advantageous, I'm considering an environment were even a shotgun is going to get you a single reflex shot if you're lucky before your opponent is in your face.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            13 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TimB, though I think target shooting in a rotating environment is on my list of sports of the future.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            12 hours ago
















          13












          $begingroup$

          Guns are by definition ranged weapons. To make melee preferable or comparable to ranged combat you need to remove the advantage that it has, the simplest way to do that is to remove range. Set combat in an environment so complex and obstructed that range is minimal.



          Consider a rotating space station as an example, unless you have a central open space, the curve of the floors and low ceilings mean you can't actually see very far ahead of you. Add corridors, spiral stairs, suites of rooms and you're all but in someone's face before you have line of sight to them.



          The same can be true of a slum situation, buildings so tight and spaces so narrow that unless you're following a bulldozer you don't have line of sight more than a few metres ahead of you.



          Bullets rebound. This adds a level of risk to using firearms, that you don't get in the open field situations for which they're designed. Moving through a standard dungeon crawl cavern which just happens to be through a type of rock with a greater coefficient of restitution for whatever handwavium reason you choose. It's now dangerous to all parties to miss your primary target with a firearm as the rebounding bullet could hit anyone.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @TheNecessitarian, the game is that nothing is universally preferable, even a blow dart is going to be preferable under a given set of circumstances. The reason the average person has a gun is that it works in the environment they're normally in, the places the mercs are needed to go hunting is what makes them and their weapon choice special.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            14 hours ago








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            The idea of bullet rebound is great, the space station is an excellent example. However the range one is debatable. Scatter guns were used in trenches by american with very efficient result, replacing attacks with melee weapon at the end of WW1. And trenches were not known for their big line of sights, making some commandos use a great variety of CQC weapons.
            $endgroup$
            – Kaël
            14 hours ago






          • 7




            $begingroup$
            Space stations would have another good reason not to use bullets - putting holes in space station sides is bad.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B
            13 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Kaël, the other name for a shotgun is a trench gun and they were considered bad form by the Germans. This in a war where chemical weapons were still acceptable. However trenches are still long straight affairs, where a shotgun is advantageous, I'm considering an environment were even a shotgun is going to get you a single reflex shot if you're lucky before your opponent is in your face.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            13 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TimB, though I think target shooting in a rotating environment is on my list of sports of the future.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            12 hours ago














          13












          13








          13





          $begingroup$

          Guns are by definition ranged weapons. To make melee preferable or comparable to ranged combat you need to remove the advantage that it has, the simplest way to do that is to remove range. Set combat in an environment so complex and obstructed that range is minimal.



          Consider a rotating space station as an example, unless you have a central open space, the curve of the floors and low ceilings mean you can't actually see very far ahead of you. Add corridors, spiral stairs, suites of rooms and you're all but in someone's face before you have line of sight to them.



          The same can be true of a slum situation, buildings so tight and spaces so narrow that unless you're following a bulldozer you don't have line of sight more than a few metres ahead of you.



          Bullets rebound. This adds a level of risk to using firearms, that you don't get in the open field situations for which they're designed. Moving through a standard dungeon crawl cavern which just happens to be through a type of rock with a greater coefficient of restitution for whatever handwavium reason you choose. It's now dangerous to all parties to miss your primary target with a firearm as the rebounding bullet could hit anyone.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Guns are by definition ranged weapons. To make melee preferable or comparable to ranged combat you need to remove the advantage that it has, the simplest way to do that is to remove range. Set combat in an environment so complex and obstructed that range is minimal.



          Consider a rotating space station as an example, unless you have a central open space, the curve of the floors and low ceilings mean you can't actually see very far ahead of you. Add corridors, spiral stairs, suites of rooms and you're all but in someone's face before you have line of sight to them.



          The same can be true of a slum situation, buildings so tight and spaces so narrow that unless you're following a bulldozer you don't have line of sight more than a few metres ahead of you.



          Bullets rebound. This adds a level of risk to using firearms, that you don't get in the open field situations for which they're designed. Moving through a standard dungeon crawl cavern which just happens to be through a type of rock with a greater coefficient of restitution for whatever handwavium reason you choose. It's now dangerous to all parties to miss your primary target with a firearm as the rebounding bullet could hit anyone.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 12 hours ago

























          answered 14 hours ago









          SeparatrixSeparatrix

          82.9k31193324




          82.9k31193324








          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @TheNecessitarian, the game is that nothing is universally preferable, even a blow dart is going to be preferable under a given set of circumstances. The reason the average person has a gun is that it works in the environment they're normally in, the places the mercs are needed to go hunting is what makes them and their weapon choice special.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            14 hours ago








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            The idea of bullet rebound is great, the space station is an excellent example. However the range one is debatable. Scatter guns were used in trenches by american with very efficient result, replacing attacks with melee weapon at the end of WW1. And trenches were not known for their big line of sights, making some commandos use a great variety of CQC weapons.
            $endgroup$
            – Kaël
            14 hours ago






          • 7




            $begingroup$
            Space stations would have another good reason not to use bullets - putting holes in space station sides is bad.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B
            13 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Kaël, the other name for a shotgun is a trench gun and they were considered bad form by the Germans. This in a war where chemical weapons were still acceptable. However trenches are still long straight affairs, where a shotgun is advantageous, I'm considering an environment were even a shotgun is going to get you a single reflex shot if you're lucky before your opponent is in your face.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            13 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TimB, though I think target shooting in a rotating environment is on my list of sports of the future.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            12 hours ago














          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @TheNecessitarian, the game is that nothing is universally preferable, even a blow dart is going to be preferable under a given set of circumstances. The reason the average person has a gun is that it works in the environment they're normally in, the places the mercs are needed to go hunting is what makes them and their weapon choice special.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            14 hours ago








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            The idea of bullet rebound is great, the space station is an excellent example. However the range one is debatable. Scatter guns were used in trenches by american with very efficient result, replacing attacks with melee weapon at the end of WW1. And trenches were not known for their big line of sights, making some commandos use a great variety of CQC weapons.
            $endgroup$
            – Kaël
            14 hours ago






          • 7




            $begingroup$
            Space stations would have another good reason not to use bullets - putting holes in space station sides is bad.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B
            13 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Kaël, the other name for a shotgun is a trench gun and they were considered bad form by the Germans. This in a war where chemical weapons were still acceptable. However trenches are still long straight affairs, where a shotgun is advantageous, I'm considering an environment were even a shotgun is going to get you a single reflex shot if you're lucky before your opponent is in your face.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            13 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TimB, though I think target shooting in a rotating environment is on my list of sports of the future.
            $endgroup$
            – Separatrix
            12 hours ago








          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          @TheNecessitarian, the game is that nothing is universally preferable, even a blow dart is going to be preferable under a given set of circumstances. The reason the average person has a gun is that it works in the environment they're normally in, the places the mercs are needed to go hunting is what makes them and their weapon choice special.
          $endgroup$
          – Separatrix
          14 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          @TheNecessitarian, the game is that nothing is universally preferable, even a blow dart is going to be preferable under a given set of circumstances. The reason the average person has a gun is that it works in the environment they're normally in, the places the mercs are needed to go hunting is what makes them and their weapon choice special.
          $endgroup$
          – Separatrix
          14 hours ago






          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          The idea of bullet rebound is great, the space station is an excellent example. However the range one is debatable. Scatter guns were used in trenches by american with very efficient result, replacing attacks with melee weapon at the end of WW1. And trenches were not known for their big line of sights, making some commandos use a great variety of CQC weapons.
          $endgroup$
          – Kaël
          14 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          The idea of bullet rebound is great, the space station is an excellent example. However the range one is debatable. Scatter guns were used in trenches by american with very efficient result, replacing attacks with melee weapon at the end of WW1. And trenches were not known for their big line of sights, making some commandos use a great variety of CQC weapons.
          $endgroup$
          – Kaël
          14 hours ago




          7




          7




          $begingroup$
          Space stations would have another good reason not to use bullets - putting holes in space station sides is bad.
          $endgroup$
          – Tim B
          13 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Space stations would have another good reason not to use bullets - putting holes in space station sides is bad.
          $endgroup$
          – Tim B
          13 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @Kaël, the other name for a shotgun is a trench gun and they were considered bad form by the Germans. This in a war where chemical weapons were still acceptable. However trenches are still long straight affairs, where a shotgun is advantageous, I'm considering an environment were even a shotgun is going to get you a single reflex shot if you're lucky before your opponent is in your face.
          $endgroup$
          – Separatrix
          13 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Kaël, the other name for a shotgun is a trench gun and they were considered bad form by the Germans. This in a war where chemical weapons were still acceptable. However trenches are still long straight affairs, where a shotgun is advantageous, I'm considering an environment were even a shotgun is going to get you a single reflex shot if you're lucky before your opponent is in your face.
          $endgroup$
          – Separatrix
          13 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @TimB, though I think target shooting in a rotating environment is on my list of sports of the future.
          $endgroup$
          – Separatrix
          12 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @TimB, though I think target shooting in a rotating environment is on my list of sports of the future.
          $endgroup$
          – Separatrix
          12 hours ago











          9












          $begingroup$

          I'll try my hand at your comment on L.Dutch's Answer:




          Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?




          Since you're writing a science fantasy setting, you could either play with the actual world (as in planet)'s conditions if the game is set on only one planet - or with the rules of physics themselves if you want it applicable on different planets too.



          Planetary conditions



          Let's try the more restricted one first: if we leave the laws of physics alone and only adjust conditions on one planet, what could be done to take guns' advantage away?



          Bad visibility



          You don't need slums' cramped conditions taking away sight line to the target if you can't see very far in the first place. A planet where fog, sandstorms, pollen, spores or swarms of insects are common enough that a gunman can't reliably expect to see the target in time to shoot them before they're in his face with a sword will be a planet where a gun isn't much better than said sword.



          Bad conditions for technology



          Several of the options above also work here.



          A well-maintained gun shoots accurately and reliably. A gun with grains of sand (or crawling insects...) in the barrel might not shoot quite straight, especially after the first couple dozen shots when the barrel gets more and more worn from the effect of a bullet travelling through it and dragging sand along its length. The firing mechanism might be jammed by sand or rusted from the constant mist, the gunpowder might be damp... depending on the technology used, environmental conditions might make "will it shoot or not, and if it does, will the bullet fly straight?" a gamble.



          Note that this becomes more and more manageable the higher your tech level and the more you're willing to pay - modern firearms can be built to fire reliably after taking them for a swim, but you're paying more for that than you would for a gun that only needs to work on the shooting range. Kalashnikovs have also anecdotically been known to work fine after being buried in dirt, so you'll have to restrict your world's engineering capabilities a bit if you want this to be a factor at more than the low-price range. If you're fine with plebs' guns being unreliable enough to counter a shooter with a kitchen knife but elite mercenaries firing reliable guns at elite swordsmen dodging matrix-style, this might be the way to go.



          aggressive animals



          Guns are loud. The Sky-Snakes will zero in on anyone firing a gun repeatedly, and those things are nasty and poisonous. The boombeetle will look for a mate where it hears the mating call, which sounds kinda like a gun being fired. Think of something fun ;)



          missing is dangerous



          See those rocks over there? Hit them too hard, like with a bullet or such, and they'll explode - shards everywhere, including your face.



          See that plant over there? Those thick leaves are filled with a flammable, sticky liquid. Basically napalm. You do not want that splashing around. And that one has swamp gas in its fruit, explodey. The seeds are also poisonous.



          Obviously this would lead to a world with no (or only the dumbest or most reckless) plebs walking around with guns, so it might not work for you.



          Different laws of physics



          If you're willing to meddle with the laws of physics, the sky is the limit... or rather, not even that. You could just handwave that it's impossible to manufacture explosives that are reliable enough for our kind of modern firearms because chemistry works differently, or maybe inertia follows a different law where things in motion don't stay in motion - they want to return to a state of rest, so bullets lose power quickly the further they travel. Maybe there's a material that acts non-newtonian in a way that makes it comfortable to wear but lets it stiffen quickly when hit with a rapid-moving bullet - but somehow this material is still vulnerable to cutting edges on spears, axes and the like...



          Different Biology



          Bonus: If your people don't have to be human, you could just give them quickly-sealing blood vessels and more redundant bodyparts. If a bullet hits you and just gets stuck in your dense muscle mass, or maybe pierces an artery but that artery seals up and the blood for the arm you've been hit in gets routed through the secondary set of arteries instead, or the bullet pierces just one of your three hearts - maybe you can keep fighting and recover from it. And maybe that's easier than recovering from having a piece cut off with a sword.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Dense opaque atmosphere was the first idea that came into my head. It would have to be really quite dense for me to bet on a sword over a buckshot-loaded sawnoff though...
            $endgroup$
            – Ynneadwraith
            12 hours ago
















          9












          $begingroup$

          I'll try my hand at your comment on L.Dutch's Answer:




          Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?




          Since you're writing a science fantasy setting, you could either play with the actual world (as in planet)'s conditions if the game is set on only one planet - or with the rules of physics themselves if you want it applicable on different planets too.



          Planetary conditions



          Let's try the more restricted one first: if we leave the laws of physics alone and only adjust conditions on one planet, what could be done to take guns' advantage away?



          Bad visibility



          You don't need slums' cramped conditions taking away sight line to the target if you can't see very far in the first place. A planet where fog, sandstorms, pollen, spores or swarms of insects are common enough that a gunman can't reliably expect to see the target in time to shoot them before they're in his face with a sword will be a planet where a gun isn't much better than said sword.



          Bad conditions for technology



          Several of the options above also work here.



          A well-maintained gun shoots accurately and reliably. A gun with grains of sand (or crawling insects...) in the barrel might not shoot quite straight, especially after the first couple dozen shots when the barrel gets more and more worn from the effect of a bullet travelling through it and dragging sand along its length. The firing mechanism might be jammed by sand or rusted from the constant mist, the gunpowder might be damp... depending on the technology used, environmental conditions might make "will it shoot or not, and if it does, will the bullet fly straight?" a gamble.



          Note that this becomes more and more manageable the higher your tech level and the more you're willing to pay - modern firearms can be built to fire reliably after taking them for a swim, but you're paying more for that than you would for a gun that only needs to work on the shooting range. Kalashnikovs have also anecdotically been known to work fine after being buried in dirt, so you'll have to restrict your world's engineering capabilities a bit if you want this to be a factor at more than the low-price range. If you're fine with plebs' guns being unreliable enough to counter a shooter with a kitchen knife but elite mercenaries firing reliable guns at elite swordsmen dodging matrix-style, this might be the way to go.



          aggressive animals



          Guns are loud. The Sky-Snakes will zero in on anyone firing a gun repeatedly, and those things are nasty and poisonous. The boombeetle will look for a mate where it hears the mating call, which sounds kinda like a gun being fired. Think of something fun ;)



          missing is dangerous



          See those rocks over there? Hit them too hard, like with a bullet or such, and they'll explode - shards everywhere, including your face.



          See that plant over there? Those thick leaves are filled with a flammable, sticky liquid. Basically napalm. You do not want that splashing around. And that one has swamp gas in its fruit, explodey. The seeds are also poisonous.



          Obviously this would lead to a world with no (or only the dumbest or most reckless) plebs walking around with guns, so it might not work for you.



          Different laws of physics



          If you're willing to meddle with the laws of physics, the sky is the limit... or rather, not even that. You could just handwave that it's impossible to manufacture explosives that are reliable enough for our kind of modern firearms because chemistry works differently, or maybe inertia follows a different law where things in motion don't stay in motion - they want to return to a state of rest, so bullets lose power quickly the further they travel. Maybe there's a material that acts non-newtonian in a way that makes it comfortable to wear but lets it stiffen quickly when hit with a rapid-moving bullet - but somehow this material is still vulnerable to cutting edges on spears, axes and the like...



          Different Biology



          Bonus: If your people don't have to be human, you could just give them quickly-sealing blood vessels and more redundant bodyparts. If a bullet hits you and just gets stuck in your dense muscle mass, or maybe pierces an artery but that artery seals up and the blood for the arm you've been hit in gets routed through the secondary set of arteries instead, or the bullet pierces just one of your three hearts - maybe you can keep fighting and recover from it. And maybe that's easier than recovering from having a piece cut off with a sword.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Dense opaque atmosphere was the first idea that came into my head. It would have to be really quite dense for me to bet on a sword over a buckshot-loaded sawnoff though...
            $endgroup$
            – Ynneadwraith
            12 hours ago














          9












          9








          9





          $begingroup$

          I'll try my hand at your comment on L.Dutch's Answer:




          Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?




          Since you're writing a science fantasy setting, you could either play with the actual world (as in planet)'s conditions if the game is set on only one planet - or with the rules of physics themselves if you want it applicable on different planets too.



          Planetary conditions



          Let's try the more restricted one first: if we leave the laws of physics alone and only adjust conditions on one planet, what could be done to take guns' advantage away?



          Bad visibility



          You don't need slums' cramped conditions taking away sight line to the target if you can't see very far in the first place. A planet where fog, sandstorms, pollen, spores or swarms of insects are common enough that a gunman can't reliably expect to see the target in time to shoot them before they're in his face with a sword will be a planet where a gun isn't much better than said sword.



          Bad conditions for technology



          Several of the options above also work here.



          A well-maintained gun shoots accurately and reliably. A gun with grains of sand (or crawling insects...) in the barrel might not shoot quite straight, especially after the first couple dozen shots when the barrel gets more and more worn from the effect of a bullet travelling through it and dragging sand along its length. The firing mechanism might be jammed by sand or rusted from the constant mist, the gunpowder might be damp... depending on the technology used, environmental conditions might make "will it shoot or not, and if it does, will the bullet fly straight?" a gamble.



          Note that this becomes more and more manageable the higher your tech level and the more you're willing to pay - modern firearms can be built to fire reliably after taking them for a swim, but you're paying more for that than you would for a gun that only needs to work on the shooting range. Kalashnikovs have also anecdotically been known to work fine after being buried in dirt, so you'll have to restrict your world's engineering capabilities a bit if you want this to be a factor at more than the low-price range. If you're fine with plebs' guns being unreliable enough to counter a shooter with a kitchen knife but elite mercenaries firing reliable guns at elite swordsmen dodging matrix-style, this might be the way to go.



          aggressive animals



          Guns are loud. The Sky-Snakes will zero in on anyone firing a gun repeatedly, and those things are nasty and poisonous. The boombeetle will look for a mate where it hears the mating call, which sounds kinda like a gun being fired. Think of something fun ;)



          missing is dangerous



          See those rocks over there? Hit them too hard, like with a bullet or such, and they'll explode - shards everywhere, including your face.



          See that plant over there? Those thick leaves are filled with a flammable, sticky liquid. Basically napalm. You do not want that splashing around. And that one has swamp gas in its fruit, explodey. The seeds are also poisonous.



          Obviously this would lead to a world with no (or only the dumbest or most reckless) plebs walking around with guns, so it might not work for you.



          Different laws of physics



          If you're willing to meddle with the laws of physics, the sky is the limit... or rather, not even that. You could just handwave that it's impossible to manufacture explosives that are reliable enough for our kind of modern firearms because chemistry works differently, or maybe inertia follows a different law where things in motion don't stay in motion - they want to return to a state of rest, so bullets lose power quickly the further they travel. Maybe there's a material that acts non-newtonian in a way that makes it comfortable to wear but lets it stiffen quickly when hit with a rapid-moving bullet - but somehow this material is still vulnerable to cutting edges on spears, axes and the like...



          Different Biology



          Bonus: If your people don't have to be human, you could just give them quickly-sealing blood vessels and more redundant bodyparts. If a bullet hits you and just gets stuck in your dense muscle mass, or maybe pierces an artery but that artery seals up and the blood for the arm you've been hit in gets routed through the secondary set of arteries instead, or the bullet pierces just one of your three hearts - maybe you can keep fighting and recover from it. And maybe that's easier than recovering from having a piece cut off with a sword.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I'll try my hand at your comment on L.Dutch's Answer:




          Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?




          Since you're writing a science fantasy setting, you could either play with the actual world (as in planet)'s conditions if the game is set on only one planet - or with the rules of physics themselves if you want it applicable on different planets too.



          Planetary conditions



          Let's try the more restricted one first: if we leave the laws of physics alone and only adjust conditions on one planet, what could be done to take guns' advantage away?



          Bad visibility



          You don't need slums' cramped conditions taking away sight line to the target if you can't see very far in the first place. A planet where fog, sandstorms, pollen, spores or swarms of insects are common enough that a gunman can't reliably expect to see the target in time to shoot them before they're in his face with a sword will be a planet where a gun isn't much better than said sword.



          Bad conditions for technology



          Several of the options above also work here.



          A well-maintained gun shoots accurately and reliably. A gun with grains of sand (or crawling insects...) in the barrel might not shoot quite straight, especially after the first couple dozen shots when the barrel gets more and more worn from the effect of a bullet travelling through it and dragging sand along its length. The firing mechanism might be jammed by sand or rusted from the constant mist, the gunpowder might be damp... depending on the technology used, environmental conditions might make "will it shoot or not, and if it does, will the bullet fly straight?" a gamble.



          Note that this becomes more and more manageable the higher your tech level and the more you're willing to pay - modern firearms can be built to fire reliably after taking them for a swim, but you're paying more for that than you would for a gun that only needs to work on the shooting range. Kalashnikovs have also anecdotically been known to work fine after being buried in dirt, so you'll have to restrict your world's engineering capabilities a bit if you want this to be a factor at more than the low-price range. If you're fine with plebs' guns being unreliable enough to counter a shooter with a kitchen knife but elite mercenaries firing reliable guns at elite swordsmen dodging matrix-style, this might be the way to go.



          aggressive animals



          Guns are loud. The Sky-Snakes will zero in on anyone firing a gun repeatedly, and those things are nasty and poisonous. The boombeetle will look for a mate where it hears the mating call, which sounds kinda like a gun being fired. Think of something fun ;)



          missing is dangerous



          See those rocks over there? Hit them too hard, like with a bullet or such, and they'll explode - shards everywhere, including your face.



          See that plant over there? Those thick leaves are filled with a flammable, sticky liquid. Basically napalm. You do not want that splashing around. And that one has swamp gas in its fruit, explodey. The seeds are also poisonous.



          Obviously this would lead to a world with no (or only the dumbest or most reckless) plebs walking around with guns, so it might not work for you.



          Different laws of physics



          If you're willing to meddle with the laws of physics, the sky is the limit... or rather, not even that. You could just handwave that it's impossible to manufacture explosives that are reliable enough for our kind of modern firearms because chemistry works differently, or maybe inertia follows a different law where things in motion don't stay in motion - they want to return to a state of rest, so bullets lose power quickly the further they travel. Maybe there's a material that acts non-newtonian in a way that makes it comfortable to wear but lets it stiffen quickly when hit with a rapid-moving bullet - but somehow this material is still vulnerable to cutting edges on spears, axes and the like...



          Different Biology



          Bonus: If your people don't have to be human, you could just give them quickly-sealing blood vessels and more redundant bodyparts. If a bullet hits you and just gets stuck in your dense muscle mass, or maybe pierces an artery but that artery seals up and the blood for the arm you've been hit in gets routed through the secondary set of arteries instead, or the bullet pierces just one of your three hearts - maybe you can keep fighting and recover from it. And maybe that's easier than recovering from having a piece cut off with a sword.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 12 hours ago









          SyndicSyndic

          5,17721221




          5,17721221








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Dense opaque atmosphere was the first idea that came into my head. It would have to be really quite dense for me to bet on a sword over a buckshot-loaded sawnoff though...
            $endgroup$
            – Ynneadwraith
            12 hours ago














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Dense opaque atmosphere was the first idea that came into my head. It would have to be really quite dense for me to bet on a sword over a buckshot-loaded sawnoff though...
            $endgroup$
            – Ynneadwraith
            12 hours ago








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Dense opaque atmosphere was the first idea that came into my head. It would have to be really quite dense for me to bet on a sword over a buckshot-loaded sawnoff though...
          $endgroup$
          – Ynneadwraith
          12 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Dense opaque atmosphere was the first idea that came into my head. It would have to be really quite dense for me to bet on a sword over a buckshot-loaded sawnoff though...
          $endgroup$
          – Ynneadwraith
          12 hours ago











          6












          $begingroup$

          Fire rate and precision are the key factor for guns to be dominant over melee weapons.



          Think of the bow: archers were used for quite a while after guns introduction simply because the fire rate they could grant was higher than the first guns and rifles, with a significant better precision.



          Same here, if you fire a shot that goes within a large area around your pointing target and then have to wait a long time to reload the weapon you are basically giving an advantage to your enemy approaching you with a sword in his hands.



          So, keep your guns primitive (heavy, slow firing, poor precision), and that would explain why melee weapons have an advantage.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?
            $endgroup$
            – The Necessitarian
            14 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheNecessitarian: Modern firearms can be accurate over kilometers distance, if necessary (sniper rifles). It's just not needed in typical situations, though. Your typical military weapon will still be accurate up to several hundred meter, way beyond melee range.
            $endgroup$
            – MSalters
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            There is also the argument for reusability, in cases where you don't have easy access to supply lines. A sword can kill more people than any soldier can carry bullets (even if you assume they are all hits and one hit kills). Swords also don't jam and stop working.
            $endgroup$
            – Flater
            13 hours ago


















          6












          $begingroup$

          Fire rate and precision are the key factor for guns to be dominant over melee weapons.



          Think of the bow: archers were used for quite a while after guns introduction simply because the fire rate they could grant was higher than the first guns and rifles, with a significant better precision.



          Same here, if you fire a shot that goes within a large area around your pointing target and then have to wait a long time to reload the weapon you are basically giving an advantage to your enemy approaching you with a sword in his hands.



          So, keep your guns primitive (heavy, slow firing, poor precision), and that would explain why melee weapons have an advantage.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?
            $endgroup$
            – The Necessitarian
            14 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheNecessitarian: Modern firearms can be accurate over kilometers distance, if necessary (sniper rifles). It's just not needed in typical situations, though. Your typical military weapon will still be accurate up to several hundred meter, way beyond melee range.
            $endgroup$
            – MSalters
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            There is also the argument for reusability, in cases where you don't have easy access to supply lines. A sword can kill more people than any soldier can carry bullets (even if you assume they are all hits and one hit kills). Swords also don't jam and stop working.
            $endgroup$
            – Flater
            13 hours ago
















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Fire rate and precision are the key factor for guns to be dominant over melee weapons.



          Think of the bow: archers were used for quite a while after guns introduction simply because the fire rate they could grant was higher than the first guns and rifles, with a significant better precision.



          Same here, if you fire a shot that goes within a large area around your pointing target and then have to wait a long time to reload the weapon you are basically giving an advantage to your enemy approaching you with a sword in his hands.



          So, keep your guns primitive (heavy, slow firing, poor precision), and that would explain why melee weapons have an advantage.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Fire rate and precision are the key factor for guns to be dominant over melee weapons.



          Think of the bow: archers were used for quite a while after guns introduction simply because the fire rate they could grant was higher than the first guns and rifles, with a significant better precision.



          Same here, if you fire a shot that goes within a large area around your pointing target and then have to wait a long time to reload the weapon you are basically giving an advantage to your enemy approaching you with a sword in his hands.



          So, keep your guns primitive (heavy, slow firing, poor precision), and that would explain why melee weapons have an advantage.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 14 hours ago









          L.DutchL.Dutch

          84.5k28201414




          84.5k28201414












          • $begingroup$
            Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?
            $endgroup$
            – The Necessitarian
            14 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheNecessitarian: Modern firearms can be accurate over kilometers distance, if necessary (sniper rifles). It's just not needed in typical situations, though. Your typical military weapon will still be accurate up to several hundred meter, way beyond melee range.
            $endgroup$
            – MSalters
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            There is also the argument for reusability, in cases where you don't have easy access to supply lines. A sword can kill more people than any soldier can carry bullets (even if you assume they are all hits and one hit kills). Swords also don't jam and stop working.
            $endgroup$
            – Flater
            13 hours ago




















          • $begingroup$
            Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?
            $endgroup$
            – The Necessitarian
            14 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheNecessitarian: Modern firearms can be accurate over kilometers distance, if necessary (sniper rifles). It's just not needed in typical situations, though. Your typical military weapon will still be accurate up to several hundred meter, way beyond melee range.
            $endgroup$
            – MSalters
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            There is also the argument for reusability, in cases where you don't have easy access to supply lines. A sword can kill more people than any soldier can carry bullets (even if you assume they are all hits and one hit kills). Swords also don't jam and stop working.
            $endgroup$
            – Flater
            13 hours ago


















          $begingroup$
          Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?
          $endgroup$
          – The Necessitarian
          14 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Very insightful. Giving a "wavehandium" reason for slow fire rate is feasible. However, is there a way to make modern firearms less accurate - maybe something about the world's physics?
          $endgroup$
          – The Necessitarian
          14 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @TheNecessitarian: Modern firearms can be accurate over kilometers distance, if necessary (sniper rifles). It's just not needed in typical situations, though. Your typical military weapon will still be accurate up to several hundred meter, way beyond melee range.
          $endgroup$
          – MSalters
          14 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @TheNecessitarian: Modern firearms can be accurate over kilometers distance, if necessary (sniper rifles). It's just not needed in typical situations, though. Your typical military weapon will still be accurate up to several hundred meter, way beyond melee range.
          $endgroup$
          – MSalters
          14 hours ago




          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          There is also the argument for reusability, in cases where you don't have easy access to supply lines. A sword can kill more people than any soldier can carry bullets (even if you assume they are all hits and one hit kills). Swords also don't jam and stop working.
          $endgroup$
          – Flater
          13 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          There is also the argument for reusability, in cases where you don't have easy access to supply lines. A sword can kill more people than any soldier can carry bullets (even if you assume they are all hits and one hit kills). Swords also don't jam and stop working.
          $endgroup$
          – Flater
          13 hours ago













          5












          $begingroup$

          Expense, make one of the prime bullet ingredients expensive or something like that and a sword is better since your gun turns into just a clumsy club without bullets. Some places still use swords for this reason. They just don't have much access to guns and bullets. They're not something you can easily make.



          Even a pipe gun which can be made with some technical know how and tools cannot do much without bullets.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I don't think that's possible. Blackpowder is charcoal (cheap) + sulfur (cheap) + saltpeter (not so cheap, but still pretty common). Nitrocellulose is sawdust (cheap) + nitric acid (cheap). Other gunpowder formulas have similarly cheap ingredients. You can make the bullets themselves out of any metal, and finding a primary explosive to use as the primer is easy -- there are lots of chemical substances that will blow up with only a slight provocation.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark makes you wonder why people just don't make their own bullets apart from a very few.? Scarcity and the knowledge to make them, machine metal etc,. these things don't grow on trees.
            $endgroup$
            – Kilisi
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you hand-load from raw materials, you can produce probably around one cartridge an hour once you factor in the time spent mixing your gunpowder, shaping brass, casting bullets, and so on. Or, you can let a factory churn out millions of cartridges of more consistent quality at a fraction of the cost.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark yep, I'm not arguing, just trying to find a solution for the OP, a bit of imagination required.
            $endgroup$
            – Kilisi
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Mark Industrially produced nitric acid is cheap, sure. You can produce it in small batches at home, but then it's no longer cheap (if your time has any value.) And modern smokeless powder is a lot more sophisticated than just making nitrocellulose from sawdust. Semi-automatic firearms are as reliable as they are in part because of the characteristics of modern powder, including various additives and even the physical size and shape of the individual powder grains. So some kind of social/industrial breakdown could conceivably make using a firearm very expensive.
            $endgroup$
            – TKK
            1 hour ago
















          5












          $begingroup$

          Expense, make one of the prime bullet ingredients expensive or something like that and a sword is better since your gun turns into just a clumsy club without bullets. Some places still use swords for this reason. They just don't have much access to guns and bullets. They're not something you can easily make.



          Even a pipe gun which can be made with some technical know how and tools cannot do much without bullets.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I don't think that's possible. Blackpowder is charcoal (cheap) + sulfur (cheap) + saltpeter (not so cheap, but still pretty common). Nitrocellulose is sawdust (cheap) + nitric acid (cheap). Other gunpowder formulas have similarly cheap ingredients. You can make the bullets themselves out of any metal, and finding a primary explosive to use as the primer is easy -- there are lots of chemical substances that will blow up with only a slight provocation.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark makes you wonder why people just don't make their own bullets apart from a very few.? Scarcity and the knowledge to make them, machine metal etc,. these things don't grow on trees.
            $endgroup$
            – Kilisi
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you hand-load from raw materials, you can produce probably around one cartridge an hour once you factor in the time spent mixing your gunpowder, shaping brass, casting bullets, and so on. Or, you can let a factory churn out millions of cartridges of more consistent quality at a fraction of the cost.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark yep, I'm not arguing, just trying to find a solution for the OP, a bit of imagination required.
            $endgroup$
            – Kilisi
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Mark Industrially produced nitric acid is cheap, sure. You can produce it in small batches at home, but then it's no longer cheap (if your time has any value.) And modern smokeless powder is a lot more sophisticated than just making nitrocellulose from sawdust. Semi-automatic firearms are as reliable as they are in part because of the characteristics of modern powder, including various additives and even the physical size and shape of the individual powder grains. So some kind of social/industrial breakdown could conceivably make using a firearm very expensive.
            $endgroup$
            – TKK
            1 hour ago














          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          Expense, make one of the prime bullet ingredients expensive or something like that and a sword is better since your gun turns into just a clumsy club without bullets. Some places still use swords for this reason. They just don't have much access to guns and bullets. They're not something you can easily make.



          Even a pipe gun which can be made with some technical know how and tools cannot do much without bullets.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Expense, make one of the prime bullet ingredients expensive or something like that and a sword is better since your gun turns into just a clumsy club without bullets. Some places still use swords for this reason. They just don't have much access to guns and bullets. They're not something you can easily make.



          Even a pipe gun which can be made with some technical know how and tools cannot do much without bullets.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 13 hours ago









          KilisiKilisi

          13.4k12259




          13.4k12259












          • $begingroup$
            I don't think that's possible. Blackpowder is charcoal (cheap) + sulfur (cheap) + saltpeter (not so cheap, but still pretty common). Nitrocellulose is sawdust (cheap) + nitric acid (cheap). Other gunpowder formulas have similarly cheap ingredients. You can make the bullets themselves out of any metal, and finding a primary explosive to use as the primer is easy -- there are lots of chemical substances that will blow up with only a slight provocation.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark makes you wonder why people just don't make their own bullets apart from a very few.? Scarcity and the knowledge to make them, machine metal etc,. these things don't grow on trees.
            $endgroup$
            – Kilisi
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you hand-load from raw materials, you can produce probably around one cartridge an hour once you factor in the time spent mixing your gunpowder, shaping brass, casting bullets, and so on. Or, you can let a factory churn out millions of cartridges of more consistent quality at a fraction of the cost.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark yep, I'm not arguing, just trying to find a solution for the OP, a bit of imagination required.
            $endgroup$
            – Kilisi
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Mark Industrially produced nitric acid is cheap, sure. You can produce it in small batches at home, but then it's no longer cheap (if your time has any value.) And modern smokeless powder is a lot more sophisticated than just making nitrocellulose from sawdust. Semi-automatic firearms are as reliable as they are in part because of the characteristics of modern powder, including various additives and even the physical size and shape of the individual powder grains. So some kind of social/industrial breakdown could conceivably make using a firearm very expensive.
            $endgroup$
            – TKK
            1 hour ago


















          • $begingroup$
            I don't think that's possible. Blackpowder is charcoal (cheap) + sulfur (cheap) + saltpeter (not so cheap, but still pretty common). Nitrocellulose is sawdust (cheap) + nitric acid (cheap). Other gunpowder formulas have similarly cheap ingredients. You can make the bullets themselves out of any metal, and finding a primary explosive to use as the primer is easy -- there are lots of chemical substances that will blow up with only a slight provocation.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark makes you wonder why people just don't make their own bullets apart from a very few.? Scarcity and the knowledge to make them, machine metal etc,. these things don't grow on trees.
            $endgroup$
            – Kilisi
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you hand-load from raw materials, you can produce probably around one cartridge an hour once you factor in the time spent mixing your gunpowder, shaping brass, casting bullets, and so on. Or, you can let a factory churn out millions of cartridges of more consistent quality at a fraction of the cost.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Mark yep, I'm not arguing, just trying to find a solution for the OP, a bit of imagination required.
            $endgroup$
            – Kilisi
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Mark Industrially produced nitric acid is cheap, sure. You can produce it in small batches at home, but then it's no longer cheap (if your time has any value.) And modern smokeless powder is a lot more sophisticated than just making nitrocellulose from sawdust. Semi-automatic firearms are as reliable as they are in part because of the characteristics of modern powder, including various additives and even the physical size and shape of the individual powder grains. So some kind of social/industrial breakdown could conceivably make using a firearm very expensive.
            $endgroup$
            – TKK
            1 hour ago
















          $begingroup$
          I don't think that's possible. Blackpowder is charcoal (cheap) + sulfur (cheap) + saltpeter (not so cheap, but still pretty common). Nitrocellulose is sawdust (cheap) + nitric acid (cheap). Other gunpowder formulas have similarly cheap ingredients. You can make the bullets themselves out of any metal, and finding a primary explosive to use as the primer is easy -- there are lots of chemical substances that will blow up with only a slight provocation.
          $endgroup$
          – Mark
          3 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          I don't think that's possible. Blackpowder is charcoal (cheap) + sulfur (cheap) + saltpeter (not so cheap, but still pretty common). Nitrocellulose is sawdust (cheap) + nitric acid (cheap). Other gunpowder formulas have similarly cheap ingredients. You can make the bullets themselves out of any metal, and finding a primary explosive to use as the primer is easy -- there are lots of chemical substances that will blow up with only a slight provocation.
          $endgroup$
          – Mark
          3 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @Mark makes you wonder why people just don't make their own bullets apart from a very few.? Scarcity and the knowledge to make them, machine metal etc,. these things don't grow on trees.
          $endgroup$
          – Kilisi
          3 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Mark makes you wonder why people just don't make their own bullets apart from a very few.? Scarcity and the knowledge to make them, machine metal etc,. these things don't grow on trees.
          $endgroup$
          – Kilisi
          3 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          If you hand-load from raw materials, you can produce probably around one cartridge an hour once you factor in the time spent mixing your gunpowder, shaping brass, casting bullets, and so on. Or, you can let a factory churn out millions of cartridges of more consistent quality at a fraction of the cost.
          $endgroup$
          – Mark
          3 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          If you hand-load from raw materials, you can produce probably around one cartridge an hour once you factor in the time spent mixing your gunpowder, shaping brass, casting bullets, and so on. Or, you can let a factory churn out millions of cartridges of more consistent quality at a fraction of the cost.
          $endgroup$
          – Mark
          3 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @Mark yep, I'm not arguing, just trying to find a solution for the OP, a bit of imagination required.
          $endgroup$
          – Kilisi
          2 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Mark yep, I'm not arguing, just trying to find a solution for the OP, a bit of imagination required.
          $endgroup$
          – Kilisi
          2 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @Mark Industrially produced nitric acid is cheap, sure. You can produce it in small batches at home, but then it's no longer cheap (if your time has any value.) And modern smokeless powder is a lot more sophisticated than just making nitrocellulose from sawdust. Semi-automatic firearms are as reliable as they are in part because of the characteristics of modern powder, including various additives and even the physical size and shape of the individual powder grains. So some kind of social/industrial breakdown could conceivably make using a firearm very expensive.
          $endgroup$
          – TKK
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          @Mark Industrially produced nitric acid is cheap, sure. You can produce it in small batches at home, but then it's no longer cheap (if your time has any value.) And modern smokeless powder is a lot more sophisticated than just making nitrocellulose from sawdust. Semi-automatic firearms are as reliable as they are in part because of the characteristics of modern powder, including various additives and even the physical size and shape of the individual powder grains. So some kind of social/industrial breakdown could conceivably make using a firearm very expensive.
          $endgroup$
          – TKK
          1 hour ago











          2












          $begingroup$

          You can't without dropping at least one of your conditions. Considering that it's for a game, it's not as bad as it may sound.



          I suggest you drop "exceptional" condition and introduce plethora of exceptional circumstances. Cramped slums, packed space stations (like Separatrix's answer), strangely bullet absorbing melee space monsters (for those you definitely want so called boar-spear with cross bar, to stab monster and keep it away from yourself at the same time), realistic sewers (instead of absurdly spacious ones) and so on. Since weapon usefulness is function of circumstances: guns are all around better, but action of the game happens in those exceptional locations and situations, focusing on people specialising in dealing with those exceptional situations. As a bonus, you can always have curveball wide open location/scenario with gun totting human enemies requiring either change of gear or complete change of tactics.



          Reason why guns are superior is their range and accuracy. Times of volley fire making up for inaccuracy and slow reload are gone since mid 19th century and you can not reintroduce those in modern setting without breaking "exceptional" requirement. Dune uses shields, but there are other options, for example: short range teleport (usually called "blink" in fiction) removes range advantage, stealth (plain old hiding or sci-fi active camouflage) removes all advantages and let's call it "distortion shield" which doesn't stop bullets but turns anything short of exact hit to centre of mass into miss would remove accuracy advantage. Some of those break into "raw-ability" like territory, shooter with stealth (basically a a sniper) is better than swordsman with stealth, blink goes both ways, with shooter being able to escape (potentially counter-able by another teleport by melee fighter) while distortion wouldn't be very effective against melee weapons giving shooter advantage only against other shooters.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$


















            2












            $begingroup$

            You can't without dropping at least one of your conditions. Considering that it's for a game, it's not as bad as it may sound.



            I suggest you drop "exceptional" condition and introduce plethora of exceptional circumstances. Cramped slums, packed space stations (like Separatrix's answer), strangely bullet absorbing melee space monsters (for those you definitely want so called boar-spear with cross bar, to stab monster and keep it away from yourself at the same time), realistic sewers (instead of absurdly spacious ones) and so on. Since weapon usefulness is function of circumstances: guns are all around better, but action of the game happens in those exceptional locations and situations, focusing on people specialising in dealing with those exceptional situations. As a bonus, you can always have curveball wide open location/scenario with gun totting human enemies requiring either change of gear or complete change of tactics.



            Reason why guns are superior is their range and accuracy. Times of volley fire making up for inaccuracy and slow reload are gone since mid 19th century and you can not reintroduce those in modern setting without breaking "exceptional" requirement. Dune uses shields, but there are other options, for example: short range teleport (usually called "blink" in fiction) removes range advantage, stealth (plain old hiding or sci-fi active camouflage) removes all advantages and let's call it "distortion shield" which doesn't stop bullets but turns anything short of exact hit to centre of mass into miss would remove accuracy advantage. Some of those break into "raw-ability" like territory, shooter with stealth (basically a a sniper) is better than swordsman with stealth, blink goes both ways, with shooter being able to escape (potentially counter-able by another teleport by melee fighter) while distortion wouldn't be very effective against melee weapons giving shooter advantage only against other shooters.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$
















              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              You can't without dropping at least one of your conditions. Considering that it's for a game, it's not as bad as it may sound.



              I suggest you drop "exceptional" condition and introduce plethora of exceptional circumstances. Cramped slums, packed space stations (like Separatrix's answer), strangely bullet absorbing melee space monsters (for those you definitely want so called boar-spear with cross bar, to stab monster and keep it away from yourself at the same time), realistic sewers (instead of absurdly spacious ones) and so on. Since weapon usefulness is function of circumstances: guns are all around better, but action of the game happens in those exceptional locations and situations, focusing on people specialising in dealing with those exceptional situations. As a bonus, you can always have curveball wide open location/scenario with gun totting human enemies requiring either change of gear or complete change of tactics.



              Reason why guns are superior is their range and accuracy. Times of volley fire making up for inaccuracy and slow reload are gone since mid 19th century and you can not reintroduce those in modern setting without breaking "exceptional" requirement. Dune uses shields, but there are other options, for example: short range teleport (usually called "blink" in fiction) removes range advantage, stealth (plain old hiding or sci-fi active camouflage) removes all advantages and let's call it "distortion shield" which doesn't stop bullets but turns anything short of exact hit to centre of mass into miss would remove accuracy advantage. Some of those break into "raw-ability" like territory, shooter with stealth (basically a a sniper) is better than swordsman with stealth, blink goes both ways, with shooter being able to escape (potentially counter-able by another teleport by melee fighter) while distortion wouldn't be very effective against melee weapons giving shooter advantage only against other shooters.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              You can't without dropping at least one of your conditions. Considering that it's for a game, it's not as bad as it may sound.



              I suggest you drop "exceptional" condition and introduce plethora of exceptional circumstances. Cramped slums, packed space stations (like Separatrix's answer), strangely bullet absorbing melee space monsters (for those you definitely want so called boar-spear with cross bar, to stab monster and keep it away from yourself at the same time), realistic sewers (instead of absurdly spacious ones) and so on. Since weapon usefulness is function of circumstances: guns are all around better, but action of the game happens in those exceptional locations and situations, focusing on people specialising in dealing with those exceptional situations. As a bonus, you can always have curveball wide open location/scenario with gun totting human enemies requiring either change of gear or complete change of tactics.



              Reason why guns are superior is their range and accuracy. Times of volley fire making up for inaccuracy and slow reload are gone since mid 19th century and you can not reintroduce those in modern setting without breaking "exceptional" requirement. Dune uses shields, but there are other options, for example: short range teleport (usually called "blink" in fiction) removes range advantage, stealth (plain old hiding or sci-fi active camouflage) removes all advantages and let's call it "distortion shield" which doesn't stop bullets but turns anything short of exact hit to centre of mass into miss would remove accuracy advantage. Some of those break into "raw-ability" like territory, shooter with stealth (basically a a sniper) is better than swordsman with stealth, blink goes both ways, with shooter being able to escape (potentially counter-able by another teleport by melee fighter) while distortion wouldn't be very effective against melee weapons giving shooter advantage only against other shooters.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 13 hours ago









              M i echM i ech

              4,94911734




              4,94911734























                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  Speed control.



                  In this season of The Expanse, there is some alien tech which limits the speed of any object (relative, I think, to this central artifact). If the object exceeds the limit it stops.



                  This would decrease the killing power of guns because kinetic energy is mv^2; a bullet could knock you down or break a bone but not produce supersonic shockwaves in a body. You could cap bullet power wherever you see fit.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$













                  • $begingroup$
                    This sort of bizarre alien technology was specifically ruled out in the question (see the "Exceptional explanations" clause).
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark
                    3 hours ago
















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  Speed control.



                  In this season of The Expanse, there is some alien tech which limits the speed of any object (relative, I think, to this central artifact). If the object exceeds the limit it stops.



                  This would decrease the killing power of guns because kinetic energy is mv^2; a bullet could knock you down or break a bone but not produce supersonic shockwaves in a body. You could cap bullet power wherever you see fit.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$













                  • $begingroup$
                    This sort of bizarre alien technology was specifically ruled out in the question (see the "Exceptional explanations" clause).
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark
                    3 hours ago














                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Speed control.



                  In this season of The Expanse, there is some alien tech which limits the speed of any object (relative, I think, to this central artifact). If the object exceeds the limit it stops.



                  This would decrease the killing power of guns because kinetic energy is mv^2; a bullet could knock you down or break a bone but not produce supersonic shockwaves in a body. You could cap bullet power wherever you see fit.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Speed control.



                  In this season of The Expanse, there is some alien tech which limits the speed of any object (relative, I think, to this central artifact). If the object exceeds the limit it stops.



                  This would decrease the killing power of guns because kinetic energy is mv^2; a bullet could knock you down or break a bone but not produce supersonic shockwaves in a body. You could cap bullet power wherever you see fit.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 12 hours ago









                  WillkWillk

                  109k26204453




                  109k26204453












                  • $begingroup$
                    This sort of bizarre alien technology was specifically ruled out in the question (see the "Exceptional explanations" clause).
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark
                    3 hours ago


















                  • $begingroup$
                    This sort of bizarre alien technology was specifically ruled out in the question (see the "Exceptional explanations" clause).
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark
                    3 hours ago
















                  $begingroup$
                  This sort of bizarre alien technology was specifically ruled out in the question (see the "Exceptional explanations" clause).
                  $endgroup$
                  – Mark
                  3 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  This sort of bizarre alien technology was specifically ruled out in the question (see the "Exceptional explanations" clause).
                  $endgroup$
                  – Mark
                  3 hours ago











                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  Make the gravity of the planet higher.



                  Quite simply, this has the effects of increasing the atmospheric pressure, leading to higher turbulence and reduced bullet travel distance, plus the increase in gravity means the average person has to be stronger, thereby making a sword able to penetrate more armors. In addition, the higher gravity means the bullet drops further faster. This doesn't affect accuracy though, only the require skill to use a gun and the maximum range of a gun.



                  The other fun effects of this could range, from having more dense people (Bullets do less damage) to reducing atmospheric visibility to such an extent that you can't target people with a gun at substantial range anymore. People might also develop stronger armors, due to the need for stronger materials in a world where everything is heavier, and be able to wear heavier armors, due to the inherent strength increase of a person who grows on a larger world. (Which can be assumed due to the increased gravity)



                  However, the most obvious way to demonstrate this would be using a brick falling from height. Now, instead of falling 5m in two seconds, it might fall 50m in the same time, leading to a bullet that's in the air for potentially .1 seconds to be hitting the dirt within roughly 30m. (assumed from the speed of some shotguns of 1000ft/second)



                  If with these advantages swords are still unusable, remember that the effective range of a gun by your average soldier would be ~5 meters, due to the extreme bullet drop and the increased turbulence from a denser atmosphere making hitting a shot hard. A thrown weapon would be unaffected at short ranges, which works well for this because even now spears aren't effective at much longer ranges.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$













                  • $begingroup$
                    A modern rifle in the hands of an average user is accurate out to a range of several hundred meters. Sufficient gravity to bring that range under 5 meters (the range at which a gun no longer has an advantage over a knife) would cause such wide-ranging changes that the world would no longer even remotely resemble something Earth-like.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark
                    3 hours ago
















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  Make the gravity of the planet higher.



                  Quite simply, this has the effects of increasing the atmospheric pressure, leading to higher turbulence and reduced bullet travel distance, plus the increase in gravity means the average person has to be stronger, thereby making a sword able to penetrate more armors. In addition, the higher gravity means the bullet drops further faster. This doesn't affect accuracy though, only the require skill to use a gun and the maximum range of a gun.



                  The other fun effects of this could range, from having more dense people (Bullets do less damage) to reducing atmospheric visibility to such an extent that you can't target people with a gun at substantial range anymore. People might also develop stronger armors, due to the need for stronger materials in a world where everything is heavier, and be able to wear heavier armors, due to the inherent strength increase of a person who grows on a larger world. (Which can be assumed due to the increased gravity)



                  However, the most obvious way to demonstrate this would be using a brick falling from height. Now, instead of falling 5m in two seconds, it might fall 50m in the same time, leading to a bullet that's in the air for potentially .1 seconds to be hitting the dirt within roughly 30m. (assumed from the speed of some shotguns of 1000ft/second)



                  If with these advantages swords are still unusable, remember that the effective range of a gun by your average soldier would be ~5 meters, due to the extreme bullet drop and the increased turbulence from a denser atmosphere making hitting a shot hard. A thrown weapon would be unaffected at short ranges, which works well for this because even now spears aren't effective at much longer ranges.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$













                  • $begingroup$
                    A modern rifle in the hands of an average user is accurate out to a range of several hundred meters. Sufficient gravity to bring that range under 5 meters (the range at which a gun no longer has an advantage over a knife) would cause such wide-ranging changes that the world would no longer even remotely resemble something Earth-like.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark
                    3 hours ago














                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Make the gravity of the planet higher.



                  Quite simply, this has the effects of increasing the atmospheric pressure, leading to higher turbulence and reduced bullet travel distance, plus the increase in gravity means the average person has to be stronger, thereby making a sword able to penetrate more armors. In addition, the higher gravity means the bullet drops further faster. This doesn't affect accuracy though, only the require skill to use a gun and the maximum range of a gun.



                  The other fun effects of this could range, from having more dense people (Bullets do less damage) to reducing atmospheric visibility to such an extent that you can't target people with a gun at substantial range anymore. People might also develop stronger armors, due to the need for stronger materials in a world where everything is heavier, and be able to wear heavier armors, due to the inherent strength increase of a person who grows on a larger world. (Which can be assumed due to the increased gravity)



                  However, the most obvious way to demonstrate this would be using a brick falling from height. Now, instead of falling 5m in two seconds, it might fall 50m in the same time, leading to a bullet that's in the air for potentially .1 seconds to be hitting the dirt within roughly 30m. (assumed from the speed of some shotguns of 1000ft/second)



                  If with these advantages swords are still unusable, remember that the effective range of a gun by your average soldier would be ~5 meters, due to the extreme bullet drop and the increased turbulence from a denser atmosphere making hitting a shot hard. A thrown weapon would be unaffected at short ranges, which works well for this because even now spears aren't effective at much longer ranges.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$



                  Make the gravity of the planet higher.



                  Quite simply, this has the effects of increasing the atmospheric pressure, leading to higher turbulence and reduced bullet travel distance, plus the increase in gravity means the average person has to be stronger, thereby making a sword able to penetrate more armors. In addition, the higher gravity means the bullet drops further faster. This doesn't affect accuracy though, only the require skill to use a gun and the maximum range of a gun.



                  The other fun effects of this could range, from having more dense people (Bullets do less damage) to reducing atmospheric visibility to such an extent that you can't target people with a gun at substantial range anymore. People might also develop stronger armors, due to the need for stronger materials in a world where everything is heavier, and be able to wear heavier armors, due to the inherent strength increase of a person who grows on a larger world. (Which can be assumed due to the increased gravity)



                  However, the most obvious way to demonstrate this would be using a brick falling from height. Now, instead of falling 5m in two seconds, it might fall 50m in the same time, leading to a bullet that's in the air for potentially .1 seconds to be hitting the dirt within roughly 30m. (assumed from the speed of some shotguns of 1000ft/second)



                  If with these advantages swords are still unusable, remember that the effective range of a gun by your average soldier would be ~5 meters, due to the extreme bullet drop and the increased turbulence from a denser atmosphere making hitting a shot hard. A thrown weapon would be unaffected at short ranges, which works well for this because even now spears aren't effective at much longer ranges.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 4 hours ago









                  user9245990user9245990

                  191




                  191




                  New contributor




                  user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  user9245990 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.












                  • $begingroup$
                    A modern rifle in the hands of an average user is accurate out to a range of several hundred meters. Sufficient gravity to bring that range under 5 meters (the range at which a gun no longer has an advantage over a knife) would cause such wide-ranging changes that the world would no longer even remotely resemble something Earth-like.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark
                    3 hours ago


















                  • $begingroup$
                    A modern rifle in the hands of an average user is accurate out to a range of several hundred meters. Sufficient gravity to bring that range under 5 meters (the range at which a gun no longer has an advantage over a knife) would cause such wide-ranging changes that the world would no longer even remotely resemble something Earth-like.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark
                    3 hours ago
















                  $begingroup$
                  A modern rifle in the hands of an average user is accurate out to a range of several hundred meters. Sufficient gravity to bring that range under 5 meters (the range at which a gun no longer has an advantage over a knife) would cause such wide-ranging changes that the world would no longer even remotely resemble something Earth-like.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Mark
                  3 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  A modern rifle in the hands of an average user is accurate out to a range of several hundred meters. Sufficient gravity to bring that range under 5 meters (the range at which a gun no longer has an advantage over a knife) would cause such wide-ranging changes that the world would no longer even remotely resemble something Earth-like.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Mark
                  3 hours ago











                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  Superior ballistic armor



                  I'm not sure whether this counts against your exceptional circumstances (as assumed by Kyyshak), but it seems the least exceptional way to eliminate the overwhelming advantages of modern firearms over melee weapons among well-equipped combatants.



                  On your world master armorers have discovered a (very expensive) way to make armor that stops most bullets outright, except at point blank range or from certain angles. It doesn't fare quite as well against slower weapons, especially slashing types like swords.
                  A skilled combatant can pierce the armor with a gun after a bunch of tries, putting the gun on a somewhat equal footing with a sword.



                  Defending against a gun while using a sword doesn't mean dodging bullets, but rather preventing the opponent from aiming at and getting a shot on weak points in the armor. This doesn't involve Jedi foresight or acrobatics, but an aggressive style that puts the sword wherever the gunwielder's arm is or would need to be for a shot. As soon as the gunwielder backs away, the sword user can angle their body to minimize exposure, making the gun mostly useless until the distance is closed again.



                  Against anyone that doesn't have the resources (and permit?) to own a set of armor, firearms are the weapon of choice. So the plebs would be shooting eachother up like normal, as you want to.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$


















                    0












                    $begingroup$

                    Superior ballistic armor



                    I'm not sure whether this counts against your exceptional circumstances (as assumed by Kyyshak), but it seems the least exceptional way to eliminate the overwhelming advantages of modern firearms over melee weapons among well-equipped combatants.



                    On your world master armorers have discovered a (very expensive) way to make armor that stops most bullets outright, except at point blank range or from certain angles. It doesn't fare quite as well against slower weapons, especially slashing types like swords.
                    A skilled combatant can pierce the armor with a gun after a bunch of tries, putting the gun on a somewhat equal footing with a sword.



                    Defending against a gun while using a sword doesn't mean dodging bullets, but rather preventing the opponent from aiming at and getting a shot on weak points in the armor. This doesn't involve Jedi foresight or acrobatics, but an aggressive style that puts the sword wherever the gunwielder's arm is or would need to be for a shot. As soon as the gunwielder backs away, the sword user can angle their body to minimize exposure, making the gun mostly useless until the distance is closed again.



                    Against anyone that doesn't have the resources (and permit?) to own a set of armor, firearms are the weapon of choice. So the plebs would be shooting eachother up like normal, as you want to.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$
















                      0












                      0








                      0





                      $begingroup$

                      Superior ballistic armor



                      I'm not sure whether this counts against your exceptional circumstances (as assumed by Kyyshak), but it seems the least exceptional way to eliminate the overwhelming advantages of modern firearms over melee weapons among well-equipped combatants.



                      On your world master armorers have discovered a (very expensive) way to make armor that stops most bullets outright, except at point blank range or from certain angles. It doesn't fare quite as well against slower weapons, especially slashing types like swords.
                      A skilled combatant can pierce the armor with a gun after a bunch of tries, putting the gun on a somewhat equal footing with a sword.



                      Defending against a gun while using a sword doesn't mean dodging bullets, but rather preventing the opponent from aiming at and getting a shot on weak points in the armor. This doesn't involve Jedi foresight or acrobatics, but an aggressive style that puts the sword wherever the gunwielder's arm is or would need to be for a shot. As soon as the gunwielder backs away, the sword user can angle their body to minimize exposure, making the gun mostly useless until the distance is closed again.



                      Against anyone that doesn't have the resources (and permit?) to own a set of armor, firearms are the weapon of choice. So the plebs would be shooting eachother up like normal, as you want to.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      Superior ballistic armor



                      I'm not sure whether this counts against your exceptional circumstances (as assumed by Kyyshak), but it seems the least exceptional way to eliminate the overwhelming advantages of modern firearms over melee weapons among well-equipped combatants.



                      On your world master armorers have discovered a (very expensive) way to make armor that stops most bullets outright, except at point blank range or from certain angles. It doesn't fare quite as well against slower weapons, especially slashing types like swords.
                      A skilled combatant can pierce the armor with a gun after a bunch of tries, putting the gun on a somewhat equal footing with a sword.



                      Defending against a gun while using a sword doesn't mean dodging bullets, but rather preventing the opponent from aiming at and getting a shot on weak points in the armor. This doesn't involve Jedi foresight or acrobatics, but an aggressive style that puts the sword wherever the gunwielder's arm is or would need to be for a shot. As soon as the gunwielder backs away, the sword user can angle their body to minimize exposure, making the gun mostly useless until the distance is closed again.



                      Against anyone that doesn't have the resources (and permit?) to own a set of armor, firearms are the weapon of choice. So the plebs would be shooting eachother up like normal, as you want to.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 12 hours ago









                      CyrusCyrus

                      17.9k34175




                      17.9k34175























                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          Honor



                          Your society might have a very particular view of ranged vs melee.
                          Over many generations people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is more honor is fighting melee versus using a ranged weapon.



                          Most plebs who's honor is not worth mentioning would resort to ranged weapons while the accomplished mercenary would wield a sword showing the rest of the world that they don't even need a gun.



                          A mercenary who only uses melee weapons to complete his contracts would be more famous and sought after then a mercenary who just uses a 10 mile ranged sniper rifle. Even if the sniper rifle is technically a better weapon it would only be used by those of disrepute.



                          TLDR - The culture puts a great value on being able to take an enemy out at close range. People strive to get good at melee and see ranged as a handicap.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$


















                            0












                            $begingroup$

                            Honor



                            Your society might have a very particular view of ranged vs melee.
                            Over many generations people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is more honor is fighting melee versus using a ranged weapon.



                            Most plebs who's honor is not worth mentioning would resort to ranged weapons while the accomplished mercenary would wield a sword showing the rest of the world that they don't even need a gun.



                            A mercenary who only uses melee weapons to complete his contracts would be more famous and sought after then a mercenary who just uses a 10 mile ranged sniper rifle. Even if the sniper rifle is technically a better weapon it would only be used by those of disrepute.



                            TLDR - The culture puts a great value on being able to take an enemy out at close range. People strive to get good at melee and see ranged as a handicap.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$
















                              0












                              0








                              0





                              $begingroup$

                              Honor



                              Your society might have a very particular view of ranged vs melee.
                              Over many generations people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is more honor is fighting melee versus using a ranged weapon.



                              Most plebs who's honor is not worth mentioning would resort to ranged weapons while the accomplished mercenary would wield a sword showing the rest of the world that they don't even need a gun.



                              A mercenary who only uses melee weapons to complete his contracts would be more famous and sought after then a mercenary who just uses a 10 mile ranged sniper rifle. Even if the sniper rifle is technically a better weapon it would only be used by those of disrepute.



                              TLDR - The culture puts a great value on being able to take an enemy out at close range. People strive to get good at melee and see ranged as a handicap.






                              share|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$



                              Honor



                              Your society might have a very particular view of ranged vs melee.
                              Over many generations people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is more honor is fighting melee versus using a ranged weapon.



                              Most plebs who's honor is not worth mentioning would resort to ranged weapons while the accomplished mercenary would wield a sword showing the rest of the world that they don't even need a gun.



                              A mercenary who only uses melee weapons to complete his contracts would be more famous and sought after then a mercenary who just uses a 10 mile ranged sniper rifle. Even if the sniper rifle is technically a better weapon it would only be used by those of disrepute.



                              TLDR - The culture puts a great value on being able to take an enemy out at close range. People strive to get good at melee and see ranged as a handicap.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 4 hours ago









                              TolureTolure

                              1111




                              1111























                                  0












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Better advances in protection.



                                  Currently ballistic firearms have progressed faster than ballistic protection, which allows guns to be so dangerous. But gun ballistics progression is nearing it's end unless we transcend towards railguns and other exotic weapons, while metamaterials are becoming more and more attainable.



                                  Imagine spidersilk armors with Graphene layers and other lightweight, extreme performance materials. If these become cheaply available the guns required to kill your opponent will have to go big, and even a. 50cal could start having trouble killing the opponent and would rather break bones than kill.



                                  This in turn allows melee weapons to become viable again. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's estimated that the trained army outnumbering their opponents still needed 250.000 bullets per insurgent. If you need bigger weapons and more hits to down a person it becomes less interesting to use that gun. Big weapons like a. 50cal have lower rates of fire (when handheld), are unwieldly and very hard to aim unless mounted or resting on a surface. Your opponent has to grab a smaller caliber and hit you multiple times to bruise and break you enough to knock you out of the fight. Time you can spend rushing your opponent and smacking him with a mace or similar. Even the good old knights of old in slash-resistant armor were very vulnerable to getting bashed.



                                  Add in potential upgrades in your melee weapons unavailable to bullets like high voltage, potential superheated edges, monomolecular edges etc and you can make melee weapons more useful.






                                  share|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$


















                                    0












                                    $begingroup$

                                    Better advances in protection.



                                    Currently ballistic firearms have progressed faster than ballistic protection, which allows guns to be so dangerous. But gun ballistics progression is nearing it's end unless we transcend towards railguns and other exotic weapons, while metamaterials are becoming more and more attainable.



                                    Imagine spidersilk armors with Graphene layers and other lightweight, extreme performance materials. If these become cheaply available the guns required to kill your opponent will have to go big, and even a. 50cal could start having trouble killing the opponent and would rather break bones than kill.



                                    This in turn allows melee weapons to become viable again. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's estimated that the trained army outnumbering their opponents still needed 250.000 bullets per insurgent. If you need bigger weapons and more hits to down a person it becomes less interesting to use that gun. Big weapons like a. 50cal have lower rates of fire (when handheld), are unwieldly and very hard to aim unless mounted or resting on a surface. Your opponent has to grab a smaller caliber and hit you multiple times to bruise and break you enough to knock you out of the fight. Time you can spend rushing your opponent and smacking him with a mace or similar. Even the good old knights of old in slash-resistant armor were very vulnerable to getting bashed.



                                    Add in potential upgrades in your melee weapons unavailable to bullets like high voltage, potential superheated edges, monomolecular edges etc and you can make melee weapons more useful.






                                    share|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$
















                                      0












                                      0








                                      0





                                      $begingroup$

                                      Better advances in protection.



                                      Currently ballistic firearms have progressed faster than ballistic protection, which allows guns to be so dangerous. But gun ballistics progression is nearing it's end unless we transcend towards railguns and other exotic weapons, while metamaterials are becoming more and more attainable.



                                      Imagine spidersilk armors with Graphene layers and other lightweight, extreme performance materials. If these become cheaply available the guns required to kill your opponent will have to go big, and even a. 50cal could start having trouble killing the opponent and would rather break bones than kill.



                                      This in turn allows melee weapons to become viable again. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's estimated that the trained army outnumbering their opponents still needed 250.000 bullets per insurgent. If you need bigger weapons and more hits to down a person it becomes less interesting to use that gun. Big weapons like a. 50cal have lower rates of fire (when handheld), are unwieldly and very hard to aim unless mounted or resting on a surface. Your opponent has to grab a smaller caliber and hit you multiple times to bruise and break you enough to knock you out of the fight. Time you can spend rushing your opponent and smacking him with a mace or similar. Even the good old knights of old in slash-resistant armor were very vulnerable to getting bashed.



                                      Add in potential upgrades in your melee weapons unavailable to bullets like high voltage, potential superheated edges, monomolecular edges etc and you can make melee weapons more useful.






                                      share|improve this answer









                                      $endgroup$



                                      Better advances in protection.



                                      Currently ballistic firearms have progressed faster than ballistic protection, which allows guns to be so dangerous. But gun ballistics progression is nearing it's end unless we transcend towards railguns and other exotic weapons, while metamaterials are becoming more and more attainable.



                                      Imagine spidersilk armors with Graphene layers and other lightweight, extreme performance materials. If these become cheaply available the guns required to kill your opponent will have to go big, and even a. 50cal could start having trouble killing the opponent and would rather break bones than kill.



                                      This in turn allows melee weapons to become viable again. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's estimated that the trained army outnumbering their opponents still needed 250.000 bullets per insurgent. If you need bigger weapons and more hits to down a person it becomes less interesting to use that gun. Big weapons like a. 50cal have lower rates of fire (when handheld), are unwieldly and very hard to aim unless mounted or resting on a surface. Your opponent has to grab a smaller caliber and hit you multiple times to bruise and break you enough to knock you out of the fight. Time you can spend rushing your opponent and smacking him with a mace or similar. Even the good old knights of old in slash-resistant armor were very vulnerable to getting bashed.



                                      Add in potential upgrades in your melee weapons unavailable to bullets like high voltage, potential superheated edges, monomolecular edges etc and you can make melee weapons more useful.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 2 hours ago









                                      DemiganDemigan

                                      9,0531944




                                      9,0531944























                                          0












                                          $begingroup$

                                          Here's a simple idea:



                                          Much higher atmospheric density leads to several disadvantages to guns: 1) higher required charge to reach decent muzzle velocity & faster velocity drop-off in air - hence steep trajectory curves; 2) soundwave propagation in denser atmosphere means concussion from said shot would be loud enough to damage shooter and be highly detectable no matter what; leading to 3) the edged weapons are just inherently stealthier - you get close, katana, gim or tonto undrawn, once inside striking range you execute an aido-style quick draw, and resheathe removing the blood, as your silently halved opponent drops into separate pieces.





                                          Most properly we can say that drag forces scale with the square of velocity and with the density of the fluid - see equation below, where p is media density.



                                          enter image description here






                                          share|improve this answer











                                          $endgroup$









                                          • 1




                                            $begingroup$
                                            Drag only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. In order to make the effective range of something like a .50-cal anti-material rifle unusably short, you're probably looking at a Venus-like atmosphere, with all the survivability issues high atmospheric pressure entails.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            3 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            Mark: first, your statement is inaccurate - I will address this via an edit to my answer - please remove your downvote. Second, if atmospheric density is high enough to impact drag, the resultant changes to the aerodynamics impacting projectile trajectory are non-negligible; not only will the curve inflect far faster, the bullet may tumble, resulting in a very chaotic flightpath.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – GerardFalla
                                            2 hours ago






                                          • 1




                                            $begingroup$
                                            I'm not seeing an exponent on that "ρ" coefficient, so I stand by my statement that the drag force only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. You're trying to bring the lethal range of your gun down under 20 meters or so -- and when you're starting from the 2000-meter range of a large-caliber rifle, that takes a lot of atmosphere.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @Mark - fair enough. I suppose we could posit that we've a super-high density and humidity, leading to a net density almost a quarter as high as liquid water, or that it's a tenth that high but with ominpresent turbulent winds... which in a denser medium would have more trajectory perturbating effects?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – GerardFalla
                                            2 hours ago
















                                          0












                                          $begingroup$

                                          Here's a simple idea:



                                          Much higher atmospheric density leads to several disadvantages to guns: 1) higher required charge to reach decent muzzle velocity & faster velocity drop-off in air - hence steep trajectory curves; 2) soundwave propagation in denser atmosphere means concussion from said shot would be loud enough to damage shooter and be highly detectable no matter what; leading to 3) the edged weapons are just inherently stealthier - you get close, katana, gim or tonto undrawn, once inside striking range you execute an aido-style quick draw, and resheathe removing the blood, as your silently halved opponent drops into separate pieces.





                                          Most properly we can say that drag forces scale with the square of velocity and with the density of the fluid - see equation below, where p is media density.



                                          enter image description here






                                          share|improve this answer











                                          $endgroup$









                                          • 1




                                            $begingroup$
                                            Drag only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. In order to make the effective range of something like a .50-cal anti-material rifle unusably short, you're probably looking at a Venus-like atmosphere, with all the survivability issues high atmospheric pressure entails.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            3 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            Mark: first, your statement is inaccurate - I will address this via an edit to my answer - please remove your downvote. Second, if atmospheric density is high enough to impact drag, the resultant changes to the aerodynamics impacting projectile trajectory are non-negligible; not only will the curve inflect far faster, the bullet may tumble, resulting in a very chaotic flightpath.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – GerardFalla
                                            2 hours ago






                                          • 1




                                            $begingroup$
                                            I'm not seeing an exponent on that "ρ" coefficient, so I stand by my statement that the drag force only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. You're trying to bring the lethal range of your gun down under 20 meters or so -- and when you're starting from the 2000-meter range of a large-caliber rifle, that takes a lot of atmosphere.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @Mark - fair enough. I suppose we could posit that we've a super-high density and humidity, leading to a net density almost a quarter as high as liquid water, or that it's a tenth that high but with ominpresent turbulent winds... which in a denser medium would have more trajectory perturbating effects?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – GerardFalla
                                            2 hours ago














                                          0












                                          0








                                          0





                                          $begingroup$

                                          Here's a simple idea:



                                          Much higher atmospheric density leads to several disadvantages to guns: 1) higher required charge to reach decent muzzle velocity & faster velocity drop-off in air - hence steep trajectory curves; 2) soundwave propagation in denser atmosphere means concussion from said shot would be loud enough to damage shooter and be highly detectable no matter what; leading to 3) the edged weapons are just inherently stealthier - you get close, katana, gim or tonto undrawn, once inside striking range you execute an aido-style quick draw, and resheathe removing the blood, as your silently halved opponent drops into separate pieces.





                                          Most properly we can say that drag forces scale with the square of velocity and with the density of the fluid - see equation below, where p is media density.



                                          enter image description here






                                          share|improve this answer











                                          $endgroup$



                                          Here's a simple idea:



                                          Much higher atmospheric density leads to several disadvantages to guns: 1) higher required charge to reach decent muzzle velocity & faster velocity drop-off in air - hence steep trajectory curves; 2) soundwave propagation in denser atmosphere means concussion from said shot would be loud enough to damage shooter and be highly detectable no matter what; leading to 3) the edged weapons are just inherently stealthier - you get close, katana, gim or tonto undrawn, once inside striking range you execute an aido-style quick draw, and resheathe removing the blood, as your silently halved opponent drops into separate pieces.





                                          Most properly we can say that drag forces scale with the square of velocity and with the density of the fluid - see equation below, where p is media density.



                                          enter image description here







                                          share|improve this answer














                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer








                                          edited 2 hours ago

























                                          answered 7 hours ago









                                          GerardFallaGerardFalla

                                          3,680525




                                          3,680525








                                          • 1




                                            $begingroup$
                                            Drag only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. In order to make the effective range of something like a .50-cal anti-material rifle unusably short, you're probably looking at a Venus-like atmosphere, with all the survivability issues high atmospheric pressure entails.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            3 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            Mark: first, your statement is inaccurate - I will address this via an edit to my answer - please remove your downvote. Second, if atmospheric density is high enough to impact drag, the resultant changes to the aerodynamics impacting projectile trajectory are non-negligible; not only will the curve inflect far faster, the bullet may tumble, resulting in a very chaotic flightpath.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – GerardFalla
                                            2 hours ago






                                          • 1




                                            $begingroup$
                                            I'm not seeing an exponent on that "ρ" coefficient, so I stand by my statement that the drag force only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. You're trying to bring the lethal range of your gun down under 20 meters or so -- and when you're starting from the 2000-meter range of a large-caliber rifle, that takes a lot of atmosphere.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @Mark - fair enough. I suppose we could posit that we've a super-high density and humidity, leading to a net density almost a quarter as high as liquid water, or that it's a tenth that high but with ominpresent turbulent winds... which in a denser medium would have more trajectory perturbating effects?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – GerardFalla
                                            2 hours ago














                                          • 1




                                            $begingroup$
                                            Drag only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. In order to make the effective range of something like a .50-cal anti-material rifle unusably short, you're probably looking at a Venus-like atmosphere, with all the survivability issues high atmospheric pressure entails.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            3 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            Mark: first, your statement is inaccurate - I will address this via an edit to my answer - please remove your downvote. Second, if atmospheric density is high enough to impact drag, the resultant changes to the aerodynamics impacting projectile trajectory are non-negligible; not only will the curve inflect far faster, the bullet may tumble, resulting in a very chaotic flightpath.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – GerardFalla
                                            2 hours ago






                                          • 1




                                            $begingroup$
                                            I'm not seeing an exponent on that "ρ" coefficient, so I stand by my statement that the drag force only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. You're trying to bring the lethal range of your gun down under 20 meters or so -- and when you're starting from the 2000-meter range of a large-caliber rifle, that takes a lot of atmosphere.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @Mark - fair enough. I suppose we could posit that we've a super-high density and humidity, leading to a net density almost a quarter as high as liquid water, or that it's a tenth that high but with ominpresent turbulent winds... which in a denser medium would have more trajectory perturbating effects?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – GerardFalla
                                            2 hours ago








                                          1




                                          1




                                          $begingroup$
                                          Drag only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. In order to make the effective range of something like a .50-cal anti-material rifle unusably short, you're probably looking at a Venus-like atmosphere, with all the survivability issues high atmospheric pressure entails.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Mark
                                          3 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          Drag only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. In order to make the effective range of something like a .50-cal anti-material rifle unusably short, you're probably looking at a Venus-like atmosphere, with all the survivability issues high atmospheric pressure entails.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Mark
                                          3 hours ago












                                          $begingroup$
                                          Mark: first, your statement is inaccurate - I will address this via an edit to my answer - please remove your downvote. Second, if atmospheric density is high enough to impact drag, the resultant changes to the aerodynamics impacting projectile trajectory are non-negligible; not only will the curve inflect far faster, the bullet may tumble, resulting in a very chaotic flightpath.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – GerardFalla
                                          2 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          Mark: first, your statement is inaccurate - I will address this via an edit to my answer - please remove your downvote. Second, if atmospheric density is high enough to impact drag, the resultant changes to the aerodynamics impacting projectile trajectory are non-negligible; not only will the curve inflect far faster, the bullet may tumble, resulting in a very chaotic flightpath.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – GerardFalla
                                          2 hours ago




                                          1




                                          1




                                          $begingroup$
                                          I'm not seeing an exponent on that "ρ" coefficient, so I stand by my statement that the drag force only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. You're trying to bring the lethal range of your gun down under 20 meters or so -- and when you're starting from the 2000-meter range of a large-caliber rifle, that takes a lot of atmosphere.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Mark
                                          2 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          I'm not seeing an exponent on that "ρ" coefficient, so I stand by my statement that the drag force only increases linearly with atmospheric pressure. You're trying to bring the lethal range of your gun down under 20 meters or so -- and when you're starting from the 2000-meter range of a large-caliber rifle, that takes a lot of atmosphere.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Mark
                                          2 hours ago












                                          $begingroup$
                                          @Mark - fair enough. I suppose we could posit that we've a super-high density and humidity, leading to a net density almost a quarter as high as liquid water, or that it's a tenth that high but with ominpresent turbulent winds... which in a denser medium would have more trajectory perturbating effects?
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – GerardFalla
                                          2 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          @Mark - fair enough. I suppose we could posit that we've a super-high density and humidity, leading to a net density almost a quarter as high as liquid water, or that it's a tenth that high but with ominpresent turbulent winds... which in a denser medium would have more trajectory perturbating effects?
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – GerardFalla
                                          2 hours ago











                                          0












                                          $begingroup$

                                          All you need are reasons rendering things more even.



                                          A few ideas:



                                          Movement
                                          Sufficient mobility makes smaller weapons superior. If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead, melee is superior. (Slowing guns down could work similarly, but that raises other questions. Still, if all ballistics slowed but retained momentum, if not all the impulse, you'd still have dangerous weapons, albeit less useful.)



                                          Invisibility or major resistance to damage while moving is roughly equivalent to rapid movement for gun vs. blade purposes.



                                          As to how to to get this high speed or safe movement, well, that could be a common device or spell or even a martial technique if it's not a normal fact of the world. (Heavy mists could render things invisible out to a few hundred feet and blurry. Basically, a PS1 game world...) Which leads us to...



                                          Chi
                                          It's not realistic, but of your inspirations, only one even vaguely hints at such. Special martial training can unlock abilities that rival the range of guns but without some of the drawbacks. Guns could have the advantage of being powerful without the chi requirements. The disadvantage being that chi isn't a big benefit to firearms, limiting the upper end of lethality.



                                          This gets you the common schlub using guns with warriors using other weapons thing. (This could be a universal trait of the world rather than a special thingy. Depending on how you interpret things, that could avoid your special power thing.)



                                          Shielding
                                          The shields in Dune could be tweaked to something that could explain this. A narrow impulse is easily deflected while a cut can drop the whole shield, say. This needn't be a technological marvel, either, but could be a magical or field thing that effects people for some reason.



                                          Slow bullets plus the ability to deflect them with a weapon could lead to safer swordsman, a la Force blaster deflecting tricks but nigh universally acheivable.






                                          share|improve this answer











                                          $endgroup$













                                          • $begingroup$
                                            "Sufficient mobility" for open-field combat is barely-subsonic speeds.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            3 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            Are you assuming you need to literally outrun bullets?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – The Nate
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            I'm assuming that by "If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead", you mean that the melee-armed attacker is trying to cover the several-hundred-meter effective range of a modern rifle in less time than it takes the rifle-user to aim and fire. If aiming takes one second, you're looking at a running speed of about Mach 0.9; if it takes two seconds, Mach 0.45.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            So, in brief, you're estimating based on maximum range, perfect visibility, and straight line approach. That's a solid worst case estimate for the melee. The other extreme is about a step and a half away. (excluding drawing and loading times, which would favor melee, obviously.)
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – The Nate
                                            2 hours ago
















                                          0












                                          $begingroup$

                                          All you need are reasons rendering things more even.



                                          A few ideas:



                                          Movement
                                          Sufficient mobility makes smaller weapons superior. If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead, melee is superior. (Slowing guns down could work similarly, but that raises other questions. Still, if all ballistics slowed but retained momentum, if not all the impulse, you'd still have dangerous weapons, albeit less useful.)



                                          Invisibility or major resistance to damage while moving is roughly equivalent to rapid movement for gun vs. blade purposes.



                                          As to how to to get this high speed or safe movement, well, that could be a common device or spell or even a martial technique if it's not a normal fact of the world. (Heavy mists could render things invisible out to a few hundred feet and blurry. Basically, a PS1 game world...) Which leads us to...



                                          Chi
                                          It's not realistic, but of your inspirations, only one even vaguely hints at such. Special martial training can unlock abilities that rival the range of guns but without some of the drawbacks. Guns could have the advantage of being powerful without the chi requirements. The disadvantage being that chi isn't a big benefit to firearms, limiting the upper end of lethality.



                                          This gets you the common schlub using guns with warriors using other weapons thing. (This could be a universal trait of the world rather than a special thingy. Depending on how you interpret things, that could avoid your special power thing.)



                                          Shielding
                                          The shields in Dune could be tweaked to something that could explain this. A narrow impulse is easily deflected while a cut can drop the whole shield, say. This needn't be a technological marvel, either, but could be a magical or field thing that effects people for some reason.



                                          Slow bullets plus the ability to deflect them with a weapon could lead to safer swordsman, a la Force blaster deflecting tricks but nigh universally acheivable.






                                          share|improve this answer











                                          $endgroup$













                                          • $begingroup$
                                            "Sufficient mobility" for open-field combat is barely-subsonic speeds.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            3 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            Are you assuming you need to literally outrun bullets?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – The Nate
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            I'm assuming that by "If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead", you mean that the melee-armed attacker is trying to cover the several-hundred-meter effective range of a modern rifle in less time than it takes the rifle-user to aim and fire. If aiming takes one second, you're looking at a running speed of about Mach 0.9; if it takes two seconds, Mach 0.45.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            So, in brief, you're estimating based on maximum range, perfect visibility, and straight line approach. That's a solid worst case estimate for the melee. The other extreme is about a step and a half away. (excluding drawing and loading times, which would favor melee, obviously.)
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – The Nate
                                            2 hours ago














                                          0












                                          0








                                          0





                                          $begingroup$

                                          All you need are reasons rendering things more even.



                                          A few ideas:



                                          Movement
                                          Sufficient mobility makes smaller weapons superior. If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead, melee is superior. (Slowing guns down could work similarly, but that raises other questions. Still, if all ballistics slowed but retained momentum, if not all the impulse, you'd still have dangerous weapons, albeit less useful.)



                                          Invisibility or major resistance to damage while moving is roughly equivalent to rapid movement for gun vs. blade purposes.



                                          As to how to to get this high speed or safe movement, well, that could be a common device or spell or even a martial technique if it's not a normal fact of the world. (Heavy mists could render things invisible out to a few hundred feet and blurry. Basically, a PS1 game world...) Which leads us to...



                                          Chi
                                          It's not realistic, but of your inspirations, only one even vaguely hints at such. Special martial training can unlock abilities that rival the range of guns but without some of the drawbacks. Guns could have the advantage of being powerful without the chi requirements. The disadvantage being that chi isn't a big benefit to firearms, limiting the upper end of lethality.



                                          This gets you the common schlub using guns with warriors using other weapons thing. (This could be a universal trait of the world rather than a special thingy. Depending on how you interpret things, that could avoid your special power thing.)



                                          Shielding
                                          The shields in Dune could be tweaked to something that could explain this. A narrow impulse is easily deflected while a cut can drop the whole shield, say. This needn't be a technological marvel, either, but could be a magical or field thing that effects people for some reason.



                                          Slow bullets plus the ability to deflect them with a weapon could lead to safer swordsman, a la Force blaster deflecting tricks but nigh universally acheivable.






                                          share|improve this answer











                                          $endgroup$



                                          All you need are reasons rendering things more even.



                                          A few ideas:



                                          Movement
                                          Sufficient mobility makes smaller weapons superior. If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead, melee is superior. (Slowing guns down could work similarly, but that raises other questions. Still, if all ballistics slowed but retained momentum, if not all the impulse, you'd still have dangerous weapons, albeit less useful.)



                                          Invisibility or major resistance to damage while moving is roughly equivalent to rapid movement for gun vs. blade purposes.



                                          As to how to to get this high speed or safe movement, well, that could be a common device or spell or even a martial technique if it's not a normal fact of the world. (Heavy mists could render things invisible out to a few hundred feet and blurry. Basically, a PS1 game world...) Which leads us to...



                                          Chi
                                          It's not realistic, but of your inspirations, only one even vaguely hints at such. Special martial training can unlock abilities that rival the range of guns but without some of the drawbacks. Guns could have the advantage of being powerful without the chi requirements. The disadvantage being that chi isn't a big benefit to firearms, limiting the upper end of lethality.



                                          This gets you the common schlub using guns with warriors using other weapons thing. (This could be a universal trait of the world rather than a special thingy. Depending on how you interpret things, that could avoid your special power thing.)



                                          Shielding
                                          The shields in Dune could be tweaked to something that could explain this. A narrow impulse is easily deflected while a cut can drop the whole shield, say. This needn't be a technological marvel, either, but could be a magical or field thing that effects people for some reason.



                                          Slow bullets plus the ability to deflect them with a weapon could lead to safer swordsman, a la Force blaster deflecting tricks but nigh universally acheivable.







                                          share|improve this answer














                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer








                                          edited 2 hours ago

























                                          answered 12 hours ago









                                          The NateThe Nate

                                          1,366714




                                          1,366714












                                          • $begingroup$
                                            "Sufficient mobility" for open-field combat is barely-subsonic speeds.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            3 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            Are you assuming you need to literally outrun bullets?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – The Nate
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            I'm assuming that by "If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead", you mean that the melee-armed attacker is trying to cover the several-hundred-meter effective range of a modern rifle in less time than it takes the rifle-user to aim and fire. If aiming takes one second, you're looking at a running speed of about Mach 0.9; if it takes two seconds, Mach 0.45.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            So, in brief, you're estimating based on maximum range, perfect visibility, and straight line approach. That's a solid worst case estimate for the melee. The other extreme is about a step and a half away. (excluding drawing and loading times, which would favor melee, obviously.)
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – The Nate
                                            2 hours ago


















                                          • $begingroup$
                                            "Sufficient mobility" for open-field combat is barely-subsonic speeds.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            3 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            Are you assuming you need to literally outrun bullets?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – The Nate
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            I'm assuming that by "If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead", you mean that the melee-armed attacker is trying to cover the several-hundred-meter effective range of a modern rifle in less time than it takes the rifle-user to aim and fire. If aiming takes one second, you're looking at a running speed of about Mach 0.9; if it takes two seconds, Mach 0.45.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Mark
                                            2 hours ago










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            So, in brief, you're estimating based on maximum range, perfect visibility, and straight line approach. That's a solid worst case estimate for the melee. The other extreme is about a step and a half away. (excluding drawing and loading times, which would favor melee, obviously.)
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – The Nate
                                            2 hours ago
















                                          $begingroup$
                                          "Sufficient mobility" for open-field combat is barely-subsonic speeds.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Mark
                                          3 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          "Sufficient mobility" for open-field combat is barely-subsonic speeds.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Mark
                                          3 hours ago












                                          $begingroup$
                                          Are you assuming you need to literally outrun bullets?
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – The Nate
                                          2 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          Are you assuming you need to literally outrun bullets?
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – The Nate
                                          2 hours ago












                                          $begingroup$
                                          I'm assuming that by "If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead", you mean that the melee-armed attacker is trying to cover the several-hundred-meter effective range of a modern rifle in less time than it takes the rifle-user to aim and fire. If aiming takes one second, you're looking at a running speed of about Mach 0.9; if it takes two seconds, Mach 0.45.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Mark
                                          2 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          I'm assuming that by "If you can clear the distance to a guy with a gun before he can draw a bead", you mean that the melee-armed attacker is trying to cover the several-hundred-meter effective range of a modern rifle in less time than it takes the rifle-user to aim and fire. If aiming takes one second, you're looking at a running speed of about Mach 0.9; if it takes two seconds, Mach 0.45.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Mark
                                          2 hours ago












                                          $begingroup$
                                          So, in brief, you're estimating based on maximum range, perfect visibility, and straight line approach. That's a solid worst case estimate for the melee. The other extreme is about a step and a half away. (excluding drawing and loading times, which would favor melee, obviously.)
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – The Nate
                                          2 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          So, in brief, you're estimating based on maximum range, perfect visibility, and straight line approach. That's a solid worst case estimate for the melee. The other extreme is about a step and a half away. (excluding drawing and loading times, which would favor melee, obviously.)
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – The Nate
                                          2 hours ago










                                          The Necessitarian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded


















                                          The Necessitarian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                          The Necessitarian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          The Necessitarian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139429%2fhow-can-guns-be-countered-by-melee-combat-without-raw-ability-or-exceptional-exp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          How to label and detect the document text images

                                          Vallis Paradisi

                                          Tabula Rosettana