Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

Users who are viewing this thread

I think putting in dual-wielding, if the game retains the same 4 directional attacks, is a bad idea anyway, or at least if you envisage dual-wielding as something more than reanimating those 4 attacked. There's a whole bed of moves and techniques with standard weapons which are already in the game that would provide a much better experience for the amount of work of putting in dual-wielding.

Rebel King said:
Lol ninjas were real.

I think he means modern portrayals of ninja.
 
Swadius 2.0 said:
I think putting in dual-wielding, if the game retains the same 4 directional attacks, is a bad idea anyway, or at least if you envisage dual-wielding as something more than reanimating those 4 attacked. There's a whole bed of moves and techniques with standard weapons which are already in the game that would provide a much better experience for the amount of work of putting in dual-wielding.

How about the left sword blocks and the right attacks to keep it simple and with extra cool animations. I guess that shouldn't be too difficult.

 
Bromden said:
Some mods have that, having weapons that are practically shields with a sword/dagger/whatever model.

Really??  :grin: The only mod I know that has it is star wars, but I will really appreciate if someone gave me a list of other mods that uses dual wield.
 
Rebel King said:
I don't see whats so wrong about dual wielding I mean of course in the beginning of a battle you need a shield cause of arrows but in the middle of of the fight you don't have to worry about that, this argument could apply for two handed weapons since it's an even better prey for archers since you would be slower and it takes forever to swing.

Swords aren't that heavy, I mean 5 pounds for each hand is nothing and I'm pretty sure even lighter for the main hero in the game.

On one hand; a sword isn't that heavy (true), but on the other; a two-handed sword 'takes forever to swing'? Only if you think lightning is slow.
 
I looked at this thread, the past couple of pages and my heart sank as I thought "Here we go again, have to try and explain it all once more," and realised that I just could not be bothered to write out an essay. So I went out into the garden and smoked my pipe (Coffee & Caramel flavoured tobacco - very nice, very smooth) and realised that without having to write an essay, talk about different weapons, armours and contexts and so on and so forth, I could sum up a melee in one paragraph (bear with me on this one - if it doesn't make sense then... well, my fault);

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.


Rebel King said:
this argument could apply for two handed weapons since it's an even better prey for archers since you would be slower and it takes forever to swing.

Swords aren't that heavy, I mean 5 pounds for each hand is nothing and I'm pretty sure even lighter for the main hero in the game.
Odds are if you're not taking a shield at all but carrying a two-handed weapon into battle at all then you're going to be wearing armour that is pretty much proof against missile weapons - that's why we see shields fading away with the rise of the plate harness during c14 onwards. Obviously a set of armour that may refuse even crossbow quarrels is going to be pretty damned good against melee weapons, so you're going to need something more powerful to defeat - hence carrying a two-handed weapon.

Weapons & armour are like computer virus's (weapons) & anti-virus software (armour). Let's say there's a new virus which defeats the best anti-virus software. The people who design the anti-virus software will go away and redesign/rebuild it until it will stop that virus. At which point the people who make virus's will do the same - go away and find a means to get past the ant-virus software (not the best analogy I know but it serves its purpose). It's an eternal battle of 'one-up-manship'.

As for two-handed weapons being slow? Weapons & armour are designed around being efficient in all aspects of their use and a big, slow, heavy two-handed weapon will not be carried into battle as it will most likely get it's wielder killed due to its inefficiency.

I'd advise stepping away from popular media and look into how weapons & armour actually work.

EDIT: Also, shields are awesome. They're not just for use against missile weapons - they're for use in melee for active & passive defence and as a weapon in their own right - you can use the rim against opponents and thump them with the shield's boss.
 
rapier17 said:
Weapons & armour are like computer virus's (weapons) & anti-virus software (armour). Let's say there's a new virus which defeats the best anti-virus software. The people who design the anti-virus software will go away and redesign/rebuild it until it will stop that virus. At which point the people who make virus's will do the same - go away and find a means to get past the ant-virus software (not the best analogy I know but it serves its purpose). It's an eternal battle of 'one-up-manship'.

The way it's been, and the way it always will be.

IDK, just thought this was a really good analogy.
 
Dear god, over 400 pages about such a stupid topic? I think I lost yet another part of my faith in humanity...

It makes me wonder, how... foolish you have to be, to think, that dual wielding could be a good idea? I mean, on the battlefield of course. There were instances of dual wielding, but only in duels. 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 guess some people are just too disconnected from reality...
 
KuroiNekouPL said:
Dear god, over 400 pages about such a stupid topic? I think I lost yet another part of my faith in humanity...

It makes me wonder, how... foolish you have to be, to think, that dual wielding could be a good idea? I mean, on the battlefield of course. There were instances of dual wielding, but only in duels. 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 guess some people are just too disconnected from reality...
Hmm, what about troops fighting with two handed weapons? Regarding your point of view, no troops should have gone to battle with two handed weapons.
To be honest, I do not care if dual weapon added or not. Neither the game lacks a cool feature nor addition of that feature will be a problem for me.

P.S:
Bohemond Chesne said:
Was it when people wouldn't stop talking about archers "firing" at stuff? :p
This quote just made my day. :smile:
 
Troops with two handed weapons were wearing enough armor not to need a shield.

And they wouldn't dual wield because they'd need both hands to deliver enough power to their blows to defeat that armor.
 
Bobtheheros said:
Troops with two handed weapons were wearing enough armor not to need a shield.
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.
 
coolchucky said:
What I meant is if there existed two handers, there could have also existed dual wielders.
That's probably a false comparison. A two-handed weapon would have a specific advantage; length, sheer power of its blows, etc. Dual wielding might not have the right kind of advantage, if it has one at all.
 
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 ****ing 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.")
 
Back
Top Bottom