Board Thread:Roleplaying/@comment-25357035-20150316042645/@comment-9374378-20150316214213

Lord of the STARS wrote: (one example I know of is guns beat swords in long range, but swords beat guns in close range. I'm not doing this to defend the gungans but, the European American wars, the natives actually did win a lot of battles, but they where out numbered, againced enemies who knew tactics better while the natives mostly tried something and stuck to it if it worked, the European forces where united while each native tribe fought each other, the natives actually 6 times out of 10 did have guns but they where usually a decade or so behind unless they where bought or taken as war spoils recently, plus remember a lot of places that once had been crowded became quite lonely before some European contrys shown up not because of war, but because of European carried diseases. The diseases the Europeans brought killed more people then the Europeans ever did.)

(The Zulu how ever unlike the hundreds of thousands of scattered native American tribes who lasted only 300 years where 1 African empire who lasted almost 100 years. hundreds of thousands lasting 300 vs 1 lasting 100 the 1 lasting 100 still wins, why did the Zulu last so long againced technology hundreds of years ahead of them? Because they where united, tactical, cunning, well trained, and where not afraid to stare death in the face and laugh. But don't get me wrong, the fact is they still had spears and faced a enemy that had guns, but still, they very well held their own in battle.) Gungans get an edge the Zulus didn't their shields can actually block bullets, blaster, or plasma fire. Then it also has a late native american indian war twist because some of the gungans actually have guns. This gives the gungans a distinct close combat range and an ability to still compete with enemies in range when completely nessecary.