Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

Users who are viewing this thread

coolchucky said:
So, you mean enough armor stops arrows like shields do. Interesting point of view. :smile:

I already know the troop diversity. What I meant is if there existed two handers, there could have also existed dual wielders. I am just commenting about the situation for troops not using a shield. I do not go into details about the usage of the weapons, etc.
The point is that if armour is good enough for stopping a projectile weapon, such as an arrow or a bolt, then you're going to need a weapon that can get through or circumvent that armour - a two-handed weapon. One handed weapons can do the job but the sort of weapon you'd use for that sort of thing would not be particularly suitable for wielding in both hands at the same time. Swords are bloody rubbish against well-forged steel armour (such as tight-linked maille or a plate harness)* but are the better weapons for 'dual-wielding' due to their 'better' balance (subjective - depends on the weapon). Dual-wielding is only documented, often extensively, once you get to the 'Renaissance' period, especially during the latter part of the 16th century (notably Giacomo di Grassi) and the 17th century (Ridulfo Capo Ferro is more than worth a mention), as the blades of the weapon we refer to as a 'rapier' were made longer, thinner and, with suitable hilt furniture & correctly weighted pommel, better balance.

One of the reasons why it became more popular with later rapiers (c17) is that with a greater emphasis on the use of the foilble (the tip) it was much easier to protect yourself as you'd constantly threaten your opponent and only have a small way to move the blade to defend yourself. The stances & movements of the body with the rapier helped immensely with this, as it allowed you to stand more 'side-on' to your opponent, thus presenting a smaller target that you can defend even more easily and allow use of the fast and powerful lunge attack. Thus we find with Ridulfo Capo Ferro & onwards with Italian rapier that dual-wielding played quite a popular part - everyone carried a knife or dagger, so being able to bring two weapons to the fight was better than one.

That's a very basic, and truncated, explanation but in all seriousness no-one with half a brain would go into battle dual-wielding due to its inefficiency because as you're flailing at an opponent with two weapons and doing little to his plate harness, he smacks you onto your back with the lead-weighted hammer of his warhammer and put you on your arse where you're immediately vulnerable.

*Except during the Migration Period (c5-c6/7) when the spathas used by the Saxons & other Germanic tribes would chop right through much of the maille available at the time due to the blades shape and weight - they made a right mess of people out of armour.
 
I should make myself clearer. I think I did but anyway..

We know that there existed two handed weapon wielders in history and we know that they couldn't use a shield because both their hands are occupied. So, logically, we can say that they survived from long range projectile attacks even though they did not use a shield.
So, just regarding the "not" usage of shield, we can say that dual wielders could have survived long range projectile attacks. That's the end.

The reason I am commenting on this is because of the below message.
KuroiNekouPL said:
No sane person would go with lets say two swords into battle, as he'd be a dead meat the very moment archers start firing at his formation.

I am not saying that dual wielding is this and that. I do not favor dual wielding and actually I find is useless during a organized head on crash.

I hope there won't be a new guy commenting about the downsides of dual wielding in combat and try to explain to me why it is illogical. :smile:
 
Bromden said:
With a two handed weapon you have the strength to parry or block attacks from other two handed attacks, be it an axe chop or a spear thrust. Good luck doing the same with a one handed weapon or grip.

I think I should talk about my experience of the subject instead of just calling out bull****s every now and then: I practice dual wielding by myself sometimes (it's more like experimenting than the usual training, though), and it was focused on for a year in the association I belong, so I had the luck to try it out live too, in duels and in mass skirmishes too. And what I got to is: dual wielding is good for fighting one on one or when surrounded by multiple opponents, but only when you constantly attack and push on and attack and push on. If you stop and let the opponent(s) catch breath and take the initiative, you'll be into a hard time. If there's a single opponent it becomes 50/50, if there are multiple opponents you're ****ed. So it's good for shock and surprise and getting out of nasty situations, but not good in formations, because if you don't push on and on and on you all be slaughtered. Also in tight formations your weapons will get stuck in your comrades, in loose formations the enemy will push through. Lastly, pushing and attacking on and on and on and on is ******** tiring, you'll run out of breath eventually and the nearby enemy grunts will be all the happier to cut you down for extra glory ("I killed the feared dual wielding berserker! Don't mind he was half unconsciously hugging a tree, constantly puking because of exhaustion.")

Then they make people who use duel weilding unable to block, it fits what you described, it's easy(at least for a relatively experienced player) to chamber an attack, but chambering multiple opponents is nearly impossible.
 
The thing is, if you start defensive maneuvers, be it a parry and riposte, you lost momentum. You either see a weak point of the enemy and attack it, or either attack the enemy till he shows a weak point you can hit. If you let him attack, it becomes a duel, and if he got buddies, as I said, you are ****ed.

coolchucky said:
I should make myself clearer. I think I did but anyway..

We know that there existed two handed weapon wielders in history and we know that they couldn't use a shield because both their hands are occupied. So, logically, we can say that they survived from long range projectile attacks even though they did not use a shield.
So, just regarding the "not" usage of shield, we can say that dual wielders could have survived long range projectile attacks. That's the end.
No, we can't say that. The dual wielders of history, or at least most of them weren't fighting in battles, and if they were, they didn't have a magic force field defending them from arrows and bullets. The (probably) most famous dual wielder, Musashi, in one of the few battles he participated in got hit by a rock thrown by a peasant.
 
Anani said:
Then they make people who use duel weilding unable to block, it fits what you described, it's easy(at least for a relatively experienced player) to chamber an attack, but chambering multiple opponents is nearly impossible.

If they were ever to implement dual wielding, this would be the way to do it. However, I can't agree that it's easy to chamber. I've never seen someone chamber out of skill rather than luck outside NW. And I've been playing over a year now.
 
Bromden said:
The (probably) most famous dual wielder, Musashi, in one of the few battles he participated in got hit by a rock thrown by a peasant.

Bloody peasants!

Although chap oughta count himself lucky it wasn't a Nord Huskarl throwing an axe at his face.
 
Has anyone posted that Youtube video of this British nut who is really into medieval/ancient weaponry explaining why dual-wielding was extremely impractical? Basically he said that it was only used in duels where someone might wield a parrying dagger in their offhand.

And stop this nonsense with Musashi. Japan's warring/combat techniques were super butt-backwards up to the late 1800s because every bit of significant fighting they've done up until then had been with themselves. Which is why they never developed the need to make sturdier armor, shields, or proper siege machinery.
 
rapier17 said:
First, find me one primary source or two corroborating secondary sources that show where anyone of the time, from Transitional Period in England to Norman Conquest in 1066, is mentioned using two weapons upon a battlefield successfully. Saga's will count as a secondary source due to their nature of having been passed from person to person verbally or written a long time after the events happened or the story was set. We want hard, historical proof that the use of two weapons in conjunction with each other -did- happen on the battlefield prior to circa c16. Otherwise it's just a want for it based upon the fictional representation of it in films & popular media. It's like firing two pistols side by side - you'd never do it unless you were forced to because you're going to have a steadier grip, better stance & be more accurate with a single pistol, of which the bullets are going to kill & wound just as well as if you had two pistols firing.

Secondly we know that those who followed the Germanic Gods, whether Dane or Seaxon, preferred to die in battle with a weapon in their hand as this would help them, in their belief, to go to, what we call, Valhalla. However having a belief in one thing, being 'fearless', as you put it, is another. Bravery & courage are a display of mastery over fear, and having a steady belief in something can help. But it is in no way the absence of fear. Also we all deal with fear differently - some people unless it as a ferocious rage, desperate to survive by beating down any threats. Most humans would rather hide or flee as we're not all attuned, mentally, to be fighters & warriors - we don't really know which we are until our lives are truly put on the line in a life-death situation - and when your survival instinct kicks in, doesn't matter what you believe, your body wants to be out of danger so it will do its best to get itself out of danger.

No matter how you dress it up with regards to dual-wielding weapons, a shield is always better. It has far more defensive value to it and can be used as a weapon itself as well as leverage against opponents when in a crushing melee. The shield will also allow you trick hide your actions, blinding your opponent to your intentions by holding it out at arms length*. Shields are just a much more valuable tool for a) staying alive, b) keeping your friends alive and c) killing the enemy than wielding a second weapon would be. Those are the first three rules of fighting, by-the-by. In order; keep yourself alive (you're no use dead), keep your friends alive (they're no use if they're dead), kill the enemy (obvious). Which is another reason why shields were such a great tool to have - you can intercept opponents attacks on yourself & your friends with it whilst keeping yourself protected and ready to respond with your weapon. No, I'm sorry but I can't think of one reason why any seasoned warrior from c6-c11 would go into battle purposefully with two weapons to be used in conjunction with each other - fighting was their profession, they knew what kit was best to use and they wanted to live to enjoy the spoils of their fighting - pride, reputation, money/spoils/loot & whatever they enjoyed doing besides fighting.

OgrE_LusT said:
Well dual wielding can be better then a shield it as ben proven in history,sure it sucks used in any batlefield when the enemys have alot of ranged troops,but in sieges is the best thing ever,portuguese woned several batles by dual wielding daga on the left and rapier on the right,there was a scene on the siege of Diu where 5 portuguese beted 500 turko-indians using scimitars and maces and shields so yhea,whit a dual wielding and whit portuguese high schol dicipline training nothing in this world can parry a portuguese daga-rapier atack not even samurais ,) but i disgre to add it to the game it will be so unbalanced :sad:

Whilst the Portuguese were great advocates of wielding a rapier & a dagger or main-gauche, it was not an ideal combination to use upon a battlefield. It's also c16 and later that you find rapiers used in cominbation with a companion weapon or item so it's hardly relevant to Mount&Blade or Warband, whose timeline & equipment are imitations of c12/c13/c14 Europe & Middle East. Including what was primarily a civilian form of fighting, against unarmoured or very lightly armoured opponents, for use on the battlefield against fully armoured opponents armed with Longswords & Poleaxes would be ridiculous. Recovering an axe or mace takes time & effort, whilst a sword is more finely balanced & is quicker to recover... but will do little against half-decent plate unless it hits square-on and even then if you pierce the armour there is no guarantee you're going to do much damage whilst a smashing blow from a lead-weighted hammer is going to do havock to you, your internal organs & your skeleton.

*This shows how you can blind an opponent with it.
**I had quite a flair for wielding a rapier & dagger & twin rapiers, I was pretty good. However, during my time at the Sussex Rapier Society, I saw and was party to how often an opponent with a single weapon can force their foe, armed with dual weapons, to entangle themselves & put themselves off-balance, ripe for a killing shot.
  And yet again Sagas are not believed to be accurate as most say and im kind of tired to hear that when all forget that most things from past were written also and most of you believe its true though you could say that its not how can one writing be more truethful than another and you put such an importance in shields that you forget about longspears and two handed axes with wich you would not use shield so if many warrior did not use shields by using two handed axes longspears or longswords then why its so impossible that one would use two axes in his both hands since so many already went in battle without shields every warrior specialized in theyre own weapon of choice wich one suited them better so its entirely possible that some would use two small axes as theyre weapons of choice.
 
Berserker1066 said:
And yet again Sagas are not believed to be accurate as most say and im kind of tired to hear that when all forget that most things from past were written also and most of you believe its true though you could say that its not how can one writing be more truethful than another

There are methods to gauge the accuracy of previous accounts, one of them that pertains to this issue is whether dual wielding would make martial sense, as rapier argues that it simply doesn't. While we can not be absolutely sure about what happened at the event the recording describes, it is by no means a reason to adopt a dismiss everything or accept everything approach.

And you put such an importance in shields that you forget about longspears and two handed axes with which you would not use shield so if many warrior did not use shields by using two handed axes longspears or longswords then why its so impossible that one would use two axes in his both hands since so many already went in battle without shields

He and others have discussed those sorts of equipment before, his post was addressing an issue that was raised which those weapons were not a part of. The main consensus is, if someone were to abandon a shield, the best choice of arms would be a two handed weapon. They ht a lot harder, they are faster, provide more leverage, are more precise, and importantly are a lot longer.

Every warrior specialized in they're own weapon of choice which one suited them better so its entirely possible that some would use two small axes as they're weapons of choice.

It's also possible some tied shields to their feet, but just because something is possible doesn't necessarily means it makes sense to put it in the game.
 
Swadius 2.0 said:
Berserker1066 said:
And you put such an importance in shields that you forget about longspears and two handed axes with which you would not use shield so if many warrior did not use shields by using two handed axes longspears or longswords then why its so impossible that one would use two axes in his both hands since so many already went in battle without shields

He and others have discussed those sorts of equipment before, his post was addressing an issue that was raised which those weapons were not a part of. The main consensus is, if someone were to abandon a shield, the best choice of arms would be a two handed weapon. They ht a lot harder, they are faster, provide more leverage, are more precise, and importantly are a lot longer.

This, oh so much. The thing about two handed weapons is that they can be easily paired with shieldmen on front. I've read that huscarls were fighting in team of three, with one shieldbearer on front and two others equipped with long axes/spears behind him - although that was Greatest Battles 1000-1500 that has some major problems in Department of Making Research on Topic, not mentioning most of the authors have a fetish for knights.
But, what was already said here, two weapons fighting has problems with fighting in formations, when one-on-one combat isn't as important as stabbing and not getting stabbed, so there's hardly a place for it in game that is mainly about battles.
 
Would be cool to see being able to wield 2 swords but it would be unrealistic and hard to block attacks well I don't even know if we would be able to block with 2 swords  :???:
 
Gosh, my post, which Berserker1066 quoted, was appalling! What was I thinking when I wrote it out? Was I even thinking? Ye Gads! The mistakes & missing words are horrific. Dearie me. 'Transitional' should have read 'Migratory' and the way I've thrown the poor comma around is disgraceful - scandalous even! Anyway;
Berserker1066 said:
And yet again Sagas are not believed to be accurate as most say and im kind of tired to hear that when all forget that most things from past were written also and most of you believe its true though you could say that its not how can one writing be more truethful than another
Firstly the sagas are primarily tales and secondly they were often not written down for centuries - quite a number were not recorded on paper until the 13th century. This would make a saga a Secondary Source as it's authenticity can not be assured whilst William of Poitier's written account of the Battle of Hastings is a Primary Source because he was there and he wrote down what he saw afterwards. That's the difference.

Berserker1066 said:
and you put such an importance in shields that you forget about longspears and two handed axes with wich you would not use shield
DSC_0228.jpg~original


Yours truly, about 8 years ago, with a 9 foot lang, or long, spear & shield (I have used longer spears with shields but this is a visual example I had to hand). There's a leather strap running across the diameter of the shield - this strap is worn over the shoulder and is 'trapped' in place with the thumb of the leading hand. This allows you to retain the protection of the shield without sacrificing the power and reach of the spear. If needs be you can released the strap from your hand and let it passively cover your back and legs;

fluid.jpg~original


Now with regards to axes there is nothing to stop an Englisc húscarl from carrying a shield so, slung upon his back, when wielding his 'Dane axe' in melee (by the way, did you know they wielded them in a left-handed grip?*). If archers or skirmishers threatened with their bows/throwing weapons then he has a shield he can immediately bring to bear to protect himself with - a good arrangement I would say. If for whatever the húscarl has to abandon his axe then he can still draw another weapon and unsling his shield to defend himself with it. Shields are vital and are worth the importance I place upon them - the aim when going into battle is come out at the end alive and in one piece. First rule of battle is to stay alive as you're no use to anyone dead (especially yourself!).

*With so many shields kicking about the best way they found to use the two-handed axe was in a left-handed grip. This meant that the beautifully balanced, thin bladed head of the 'Dane axe' (they really are superb examples of metalwork) would be coming in from the opponents sword-arm side. Whilst it could be stopped with a centre-grip shield by moving it across the body to defend against the strike the Englisc húscarls, who would be working in teams of two-to-three as Do not look here said;
Do not look here said:
I've read that huscarls were fighting in team of three, with one shieldbearer on front and two others equipped with long axes/spears behind him
, would quickly snap up the massive opening they been given.

Berserker1066 said:
so if many warrior did not use shields by using two handed axes longspears or longswords then why its so impossible that one would use two axes in his both hands since so many already went in battle without shields
It isn't that it is impossible but because it all relates to efficiency. Everything, frankly, to do with fighting revolves around efficiency. For example; martial arts are there to teach a means of protecting oneself with arms or unarmed in the most efficient way possible. As another example; weapons have to be powerful enough to face off against what the wielder may encounter (whether gambesons, maille or plate harness) without being too heavy or unwieldy in their shape, materials & size - thus they have to be efficient. When you face an opponent on the battlefield you want to put them down as quickly and efficiently as possible with the least danger to oneself. Swinging two weapons around is going to tire you out very quickly and if you haven't a shield to rest behind for a moment or two then all it takes is someone to step up and beat you down whilst you're exhausted.

There's an old saying about fighting on battlefields - the blow that kills you is the one you didn't see coming. If you have a shield there's a chance that the blow that would have struck you and put you out of action would have been stopped by said shield. Parrying with weapons requires you to spot the threat and respond to it unless you get lucky. From my experiences as a reenactor, it's not the same as the real deal I know, I would get attacked from my left and right as people seek every opening they can find to put down an opponent and you don't see them coming - generally because you're doing the same thing back. The few times I didn't carry a shield I was peppered in moments with hits.

With regards to being able to wield two weapons in a melee, I'll quote an earlier post of mine;
rapier17 said:
Have you ever stood in a big crowd? A big crowd of hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands? If not then I'll try to explain from my own experiences from two occasions that stuck in my head - both when I saw bands (MUSE at Wembley Stadium & Iron Maiden at Twickenham Stadium). You're there with people either side of you at the start, in front and behind, with enough space to comfortably move around a bit, move your arms, your own personal space. Then the band appears on the stage. Everyone in the crowd, except those at the front, moves forward to better see the band. Suddenly that personal space is gone as people press into you from behind, from the sides, you can't move properly as the weight of the crowd is pushing you forward, to the left or to the right. Those at the front resist and, like a tide, the pressure suddenly reverses, and then those at the back push forward again and it becomes a tug-of-war as the crowd pushes backwards and forwards.

That is what a melee is. Masses of people pushing forward, left, right, backwards, crushing you from all sides and even, as happened to me when I saw MUSE, lifting you off of the ground with how dense and tightly packed it is. Now imagine that the people pushing backwards are the enemy and they can't move properly as you can't - what would you rather have? A shield to passively defend you from the enemy, and to help use for leverage against them when it comes to the 'pushing match' or a second weapon you can do damn all with? At least with a two handed weapon such as a war hammer you can use it as a quarter-stave to push against your foes with or jab past the heads of your front rank to attack the faces of enemy who can't properly defend themselves. It's a no-brainer really - stay alive longer or die quicker.
 
e27 said:
Anani said:
Then they make people who use duel weilding unable to block, it fits what you described, it's easy(at least for a relatively experienced player) to chamber an attack, but chambering multiple opponents is nearly impossible.

If they were ever to implement dual wielding, this would be the way to do it. However, I can't agree that it's easy to chamber. I've never seen someone chamber out of skill rather than luck outside NW. And I've been playing over a year now.

People chamber all the time in Native, intentionally. The skill bar for melee is higher in general, so top players are able to chamber at least stabs, easily.
 
Mount & Blade, despite some superficial issues (chief among those being the animations) is surprisingly accurate to many core elements of real world swordplay (where "swordplay" refers to the use of close combat weapons in general, because laziness). There's an Infantryman's Primer somewhere on this forum that has remarkable resemblance to the medieval and post-medieval European manuals on martial arts, down to using the same abstract concepts as mental aids. Obviously, some elements are absent; the standout is the tendency for a real-world weapon to remain a physical object as you swing it, and therefore intercepting other objects in its path. On the whole, though, Taleworlds did an unusually good job at providing a system that harnesses the most fundamental elements of real swordplay, rivaled only by the likes of Jedi Outcast and whatnot (and the Jedi Knight games are more kendo-specific, anyway).

For those involved in modern studies of historical martial arts, the conclusion of the realism argument is clear -- dual wielding is not at all realistic for a game that revolves around battlefield combat with armour ranging from padded vests to full plate harness. There's absolutely no question of that, no "could of" or "might have"; the historical records are clear, between archaeological finds, period artwork, and the instruction manuals left behind. Dual wielding falls mostly under the purview of fantasy, and sometimes civilian self-defense. Even then, however, history shows us that most people favoured other weapon pairings. In late medieval Europe, for instance, the sword and buckler combination was the overwhelming favourite, with longswords coming up behind. Most people would also have a dagger, but daggers are traditionally paired with an open hand for various reasons that require long-winded explanations, but basically boil down to "if you're close enough to use a dagger, you're close enough to grapple, and therefore ought to".

With that particular element of the argument firmly under wraps (and I do mean that -- ask a medieval historian about dual wielding and brace yourself for the blankest of all stares), we can move on to the other major consideration: would it be good for the game?

I guess that's at least partially subjective, and depends on what people want from dual wielding. Since Mount & Blade appeals to an audience that seeks a reasonable degree of realism, I can't help but think that dual wielding as commonly understood would be at odds with the rest of the game. The few examples of real-world dual wielding that do exist aren't about increasing one's rate of attack, but about maintaining one weapon as both a defense and a threat as the other one makes an attack. Consider the rapier and dagger combination; the dagger reaches nowhere near as far as the rapier, and is therefore offensively useless if you're using the rapier's actual range to the extent you should be. It does, however, cover some significant weaknesses that the rapier has. Rapiers make very weak cuts that are quite unlikely to deal truly significant injury to an opponent, barring a hit against a particularly vulnerable target (such as the neck), and once an opponent is past their point, said opponent enters a temporary "safe zone" where they can act with impunity until the rapier user regains control of range. When a dagger is used in the off hand, however, that "safe zone" becomes more smaller, and an opponent is disincentivised from closing further in, especially into grapple distance. Basically, the use of a dagger in the off hand punishes an opponent for trying to exploit a weakness of the rapier. This kind of synergy isn't present with one of the same weapon in each hand. It's also worth noting that Miyamoto Musashi's dual-wielding style was context sensitive, and dealt with weapons that had a similar relationship to one-another -- the wazikashi, being short, punished opponents for trying to fight at "inside" range. Dual wielding, as it appears in real life, has absolutely nothing to do with one's rate of attack and everything to do with strategy, psychology, and defense.

All this ignores the problem of trying to harness dual wielding in a game system designed for sword 'n' board or two-handed fighting. The team would also have to come to a consensus concerning whether to use "pop-cultural" dual wielding or historical dual wielding. Even then, Bannerlord appears to represent some period of history between the Migration Period and the Carolingian Period, where the shield was of absolute critical importance to a warrior (unlike the late Middle Ages or the Renaissance, where developments in armour, weapons systems, the accessibility thereof, and the accessibility or horses changed the nature of defense). I can't at all see dual wielding working out for Bannerlord, given all the problems, historical and systematic, in integrating it into the game.
 
e27 said:
Anani said:
Then they make people who use duel weilding unable to block, it fits what you described, it's easy(at least for a relatively experienced player) to chamber an attack, but chambering multiple opponents is nearly impossible.

If they were ever to implement dual wielding, this would be the way to do it. However, I can't agree that it's easy to chamber. I've never seen someone chamber out of skill rather than luck outside NW. And I've been playing over a year now.
He didn't say it is easy to chamber, he said that if this were to be implemented, then it would be easy to chamber - against dual wielders. And indeed it would be. If you have the longer weapon, and they are unable to block, then why not chamber?

Obviously, if dual wielding were to be implemented, they should still be allowed to block. If you can block with a single weapon without shield, why not with one of the two weapons? If dual wielding confers an unfair advantage then this is not how to balance it. The best way to do it, in my opinion: have dual wielding not confer an advantage in the first place. And indeed, where would this advantage come from? More rapid attacks, from multiple directions? You attack with one weapon and then the other, and I don't see why that should be any faster than with a single weapon. You don't gain more attacks; you just split your attacks across two weapons.

Consider this: there is already dual wielding in the game - if you're fighting unarmed. In this case, you are essentially dual wielding fists. But it's not faster, is it? You can still only throw one punch at a time.
 
Kissaki said:
Obviously, if dual wielding were to be implemented, they should still be allowed to block. If you can block with a single weapon without shield, why not with one of the two weapons? If dual wielding confers an unfair advantage then this is not how to balance it. The best way to do it, in my opinion: have dual wielding not confer an advantage in the first place. And indeed, where would this advantage come from? More rapid attacks, from multiple directions? You attack with one weapon and then the other, and I don't see why that should be any faster than with a single weapon. You don't gain more attacks; you just split your attacks across two weapons.

Consider this: there is already dual wielding in the game - if you're fighting unarmed. In this case, you are essentially dual wielding fists. But it's not faster, is it? You can still only throw one punch at a time.

I don't particularly support the implementation of dual wielding, but I'll play devil's advocate a bit and throw stuff at the wall.

What if dual wielding defaulted to the regular use of the right handed weapon, but allowed the player to take a second action before the completion of the first? So if you wanted to parry after beginning an attack, rather than interrupt your swing, your other weapon would come around to parry. Of course, this doesn't fully reflect the way dual wielding was done in real life, in the few scenarios in which it was relatively commonplace, but it's something.
 
In that case it's just a 2handed weapon with a higher chance of scoring a hit
The actual advantage of dual wield, as stated a few posts back, is that you can have two weapons with markedly different chacteristics available at the same time.  The ultimate example being a pistol in your left hand and sword in the right.
The only feasibly realistic implementation would be as a tournament or street / pub brawl option.
 
Alexcalibur said:
Kissaki said:
Obviously, if dual wielding were to be implemented, they should still be allowed to block. If you can block with a single weapon without shield, why not with one of the two weapons? If dual wielding confers an unfair advantage then this is not how to balance it. The best way to do it, in my opinion: have dual wielding not confer an advantage in the first place. And indeed, where would this advantage come from? More rapid attacks, from multiple directions? You attack with one weapon and then the other, and I don't see why that should be any faster than with a single weapon. You don't gain more attacks; you just split your attacks across two weapons.

Consider this: there is already dual wielding in the game - if you're fighting unarmed. In this case, you are essentially dual wielding fists. But it's not faster, is it? You can still only throw one punch at a time.

I don't particularly support the implementation of dual wielding, but I'll play devil's advocate a bit and throw stuff at the wall.

What if dual wielding defaulted to the regular use of the right handed weapon, but allowed the player to take a second action before the completion of the first? So if you wanted to parry after beginning an attack, rather than interrupt your swing, your other weapon would come around to parry. Of course, this doesn't fully reflect the way dual wielding was done in real life, in the few scenarios in which it was relatively commonplace, but it's something.

Mechanically it might be better to just have the off hand weapon work like a very small shield (with the invisible shield the shape and size of the actual blade rather than projecting hugely from it) and replace the kick/shieldbash with an attack with the relevent weapon.
But personally until the game has shield hooking, passive shield blocks and other such actions, theres no reason to bother with offhand weapons.
 
Back
Top Bottom