I want a dagger!

That's right, give archers a dagger.

Blocking:
Can only block by chambers (if it had to be realistic, then it would break upon blocking...). Perhaps it should be able to block part of the hit, since the blade would be around 15 centimeters long, should be able to block a little.

A dagger wouldn't break on being blocked. Hell, Fiore dei Liberi covers how to block/parry/deflect a longsword strike using a rondel dagger.

Click to expand...

(Tostig). He seems to know something about daggers.

Stance:

Player should hold the dagger not like a knife, but in an icepick position. This means, instead of pointy end facing ennemy when arm is down, it would face behind you. This means, you have to redo your swinging animations, which is a good thing because the current ones are not so good.

Tostig says daggers were used in underhand stabs. Sure. Except ingame we don't get to have a dagger stuck in our chest, nor do we get to hold the ennemy's arm to cut his wirst open.

Animations:
Left swing would actually be a stab, since the dagger is being held in that special way, "reversed", but with cutting edge of the blade facing ennemy, when you swing your arm from the left to the right, it would result in a stab.

Right swing would be a slash, a fast one, maybe an ascending slash, from the position where dagger is in idle position to over the ennemy's right shoulder, higher than their head. Or a more horizontal one, i don't know.

Overhead, shouldn't be an actual overhead, but an ascending, vertical slash ending in (maybe?) a descending stab (headstab, i don't know if that is actually possible).

No thrust, you can't effectively "thrust" in this stance.

Damage and stats:
I think the dagger should be around 10 to 15 centimeters long (blade part), look better than that butter knife we have in SP, and do around 15s and 18p damage with big modifiers for chest and head hits. Also, a backstab on an unsuspecting ennemy should instantly kill because you are much more prone to hit his heart than if he sees you and moves around. This could also be a percent of chances of doing an insta kill, instead of a sure thing?.

In speed, i think it should be as fast as an unarmed arm, because it's so light. This means faster than any other weapon. Sure, it's fast, but it also can't block effectively, so you need to kill fast or die.

Range is really low, i don't know the correspondence between centimeters and in-game range, but it wouldn't be much.

Weight, as i said, is close to nothing, 500 grams maybe?

Notes:

If you have a good suggestion to add, i'll put it in the first post as to make people not have to read all the topic to know what people think.

Medieval archer's daggers were way longer than 15cm. It was their only defence weapon, not like the footmen's/cavalrymen's ones, they had swords etc.

KuroiNekouPL said:

Medieval archer's daggers were way longer than 15cm. It was their only defence weapon, not like the footmen's/cavalrymen's ones, they had swords etc.

Click to expand...

And were they still used as daggers or were they more like short swords?

Daggers are in the singleplayer game,  but i dont see why they should instakill with a backstab.  this isnt dungeons and dragons...
a stab to the back will deal no more damage than a stab to the front, its just you take them by surprise.

NordArcher said:

a backstab on an unsuspecting ennemy should instantly kill.

Click to expand...

What the ****?

What sort of advantage does the dagger have over, say, a goddamn longaxe in that role?

Night Ninja said:

NordArcher said:

a backstab on an unsuspecting ennemy should instantly kill.

Click to expand...

What the ****?

What sort of advantage does the dagger have over, say, a goddamn longaxe in that role?

Click to expand...

None, longaxe already one hit kills if you chop the ennemy's head off.

With a dagger on the other hand, you would be able to much more easily stab your ennemy to the heart if he doesn't move around or try to make you miss. So a backstab should kill. A backstab to the chest of course.

a dagger does not have magical properties that cause it to deal more damage to an unsuspecting oponent,  surely every weapon should be given this bonus?  but there is no sneaking function yet, meaning its pointless.  you already get a free hit (several if you really get the drop on them) if you hit the enemy from behind. thats enough.

Qwertyman said:

a dagger does not have magical properties that cause it to deal more damage to an unsuspecting oponent,  surely every weapon should be given this bonus?  but there is no sneaking function yet, meaning its pointless.  you already get a free hit (several if you really get the drop on them) if you hit the enemy from behind. thats enough.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, people can't survive to direct stabs to the heart. Also, if you were to try doing that frontaly, do you think instinct wouldn't take over and make your opponent make you miss by quickstepping or whatever? Since there's no quickstep or adrenaline rush function in the game, i think the backstab thing is a good idea.

Why would you need a sneaking function? It already exists, get close to an ennemy without them turning around (in a siege last 20 seconds flag defence, i think you could sneak behind tons of ennemies). Or horsemen, they do it too.

NordArcher said:

That's right, give archers a dagger.

Blocking:
Can only block by chambers (if it had to be realistic, then it would break upon blocking...). Perhaps it should be able to block part of the hit, since the blade would be around 15 centimeters long, should be able to block a little.

Click to expand...

Erm, you what? A dagger wouldn't break on being blocked. Hell, Fiore dei Liberi covers how to block/parry/deflect a longsword strike using a rondel dagger.

NordArcher said:

Stance:
Player should hold the dagger not like a knife, but like a dagger, a real one. This means, instead of pointy end facing ennemy when arm is down, it would face behind you. This means, you have to redo your swinging animations, which is a good thing because the current ones are not so good.

Click to expand...

While the 'icepick' stance is good, daggers were also used in underhand stabs. Unless, you know, the kind of people who made a living fighting with them made **** up. Time and time again:

Andres Lignitzer's dagger said:

If he holds the dagger so that the disk stands by the thumb / and stabs to your side or torso / then with your left hand drive downward from above / and stab your dagger low under his right hand / and raise it up with your right hand / and press it hard to your chest / and twist yourself from him on your right side.

Click to expand...

Also, that's not really a picture of a dagger, it's an eating knife.

NordArcher said:

Animations:
Left swing would actually be a stab, since the dagger is being held in that special way, "reversed", but with cutting edge of the blade facing ennemy, when you swing your arm from the left to the right, it would result in a stab.

Right swing would be a slash, a fast one, maybe an ascending slash, from the position where dagger is in idle position to over the ennemy's right shoulder, higher than their head. Or a more horizontal one, i don't know.

Overhead, shouldn't be an actual overhead, but an ascending, vertical slash ending in (maybe?) a descending stab (headstab, i don't know if that is actually possible).

No thrust, you can't effectively "thrust" in this stance.

Click to expand...

Erm, what the ****? Slashing from out of distance with an ice-pick grip? Jesus titty-******** Christ, you really don't have a clue, do you?

NordArcher said:

Damage and stats:
I think the dagger should be around 10 to 15 centimeters long (blade part), look better than that butter knife we have in SP, and do around 15s and 18p damage with big modifiers for chest and head hits. Also, a backstab on an unsuspecting ennemy should instantly kill because you are much more prone to hit his heart than if he sees you and moves around. This could also be a percent of chances of doing an insta kill, instead of a sure thing?.

In speed, i think it should be as fast as an unarmed arm, because it's so light. This means faster than any other weapon. Sure, it's fast, but it also can't block effectively, so you need to kill fast or die.

Range is really low, i don't know the correspondence between centimeters and in-game range, but it wouldn't be much.

Weight, as i said, is close to nothing, 500 grams maybe?

Click to expand...

I can't comment on the in game stats, but decide what dagger you're taking about first. Early blades tended to be shorter, later ones could well be longer than the range you gave. Seriously, learn something about medieval daggers, be they Rondel, Ballock or whatever. Some of them were ******** pig-stickers:
For example, I said that the picture you showed was a knife, not a dagger. That wasn't because of the hilt, original specimens had 'kitchen knife' hilts too, but because of the lack of a bodkin point.

Also, you really think that the weight of a weapon is all that affects how quickly it can move? You know, not mechanical advantage, or length? Ok, well, how about we stand at arm's reach, you have a dagger, I have a longsword, we both start in a chambered position (say, both hands next to the head, weapon above the right shoulder) and see who hits at the same time?
We'd both hit at the same time, because our right arms are effectively making the same motion at the same time, a simple punch out. The difference is that with a two-handed sword my left hand is following and providing additional torque to the weapon, helping to rotate it around the wrist, and making it horizontal by the time that the right arm is straightened without putting too much strain on the right wrist.

Now, rudely, go get a ******** clue.

i love the idea of adding more daggers but i totally agree with Tostig. Heck we should make a large variety of short weapons for the people who want to kill unshielded enemies quick, it's a great idea but you know nothing about knives, i think there should be a wielding option to how you hold it like i want for the spear and the bow but there were alot of different knives and it would be a nice addition.

The problem is that fights at that kind of distance involve a lot more grappling, moving and other forms of interaction that the game system doesn't handle very well. Sure, I'd love to see realistic dagger fights, and half-swording, and wrestling, and wrestling at the sword. But Mount and Blade isn't designed for that, it's designed for sitting on a pony with a lance and a bow.

Not to mention the issues of how you'd get an interaction system that enables you to do fun and realistic **** like this.

What's annoying though is that the M&B system is less 'abstract' than others, it isn't simply 'Mash the A button for attacks, we'll work out the specific animations for you'. Which is cool, but it's basically limited to attack direction and attack/block. Chambering and so on are nice details, but fundamentally it comes down to straight lines made by the mouse, which is a rubbish way of doing anything more complicated than swinging an axe.

Even swinging a two handed sword, keeping two hands on the handle the entire timewhich you'd think would be easy, is re-donk-ulously simplified to work with the system they used.

edit: Not that I think that there's anything wrong with abstract combat systems. Battlegrounds Mod had the simplest, most abstract melee imaginable, but one that results in tactics that were relevant to the period, required skill to master, and were ****ing fun. But then again, they didn't have to pretend to listen to twats who wanted to duel-wield sabres and tomahawks.

Kickslash rapes all of these weapons

Outofcharachter: DOWN WITH LANCES, turn the game back into M&B, not M&Lance

Erm, what the ****? The lance system has been in M&B since time immemorial*, and has been one of the features that works and works well.

*Time immemorial is defined as before 0.632, just like how in English law it is before the  6th of July, 1189.

Tostig said:

NordArcher said:

That's right, give archers a dagger.

Blocking:
Can only block by chambers (if it had to be realistic, then it would break upon blocking...). Perhaps it should be able to block part of the hit, since the blade would be around 15 centimeters long, should be able to block a little.

Click to expand...

Erm, you what? A dagger wouldn't break on being blocked. Hell, Fiore dei Liberi covers how to block/parry/deflect a longsword strike using a rondel dagger.

NordArcher said:

Stance:
Player should hold the dagger not like a knife, but like a dagger, a real one. This means, instead of pointy end facing ennemy when arm is down, it would face behind you. This means, you have to redo your swinging animations, which is a good thing because the current ones are not so good.

Click to expand...

While the 'icepick' stance is good, daggers were also used in underhand stabs. Unless, you know, the kind of people who made a living fighting with them made **** up. Time and time again:

Andres Lignitzer's dagger said:

If he holds the dagger so that the disk stands by the thumb / and stabs to your side or torso / then with your left hand drive downward from above / and stab your dagger low under his right hand / and raise it up with your right hand / and press it hard to your chest / and twist yourself from him on your right side.

Click to expand...

Also, that's not really a picture of a dagger, it's an eating knife.

NordArcher said:

Animations:
Left swing would actually be a stab, since the dagger is being held in that special way, "reversed", but with cutting edge of the blade facing ennemy, when you swing your arm from the left to the right, it would result in a stab.

Right swing would be a slash, a fast one, maybe an ascending slash, from the position where dagger is in idle position to over the ennemy's right shoulder, higher than their head. Or a more horizontal one, i don't know.

Overhead, shouldn't be an actual overhead, but an ascending, vertical slash ending in (maybe?) a descending stab (headstab, i don't know if that is actually possible).

No thrust, you can't effectively "thrust" in this stance.

Click to expand...

Erm, what the ****? Slashing from out of distance with an ice-pick grip? Jesus titty-******** Christ, you really don't have a clue, do you?

NordArcher said:

Damage and stats:
I think the dagger should be around 10 to 15 centimeters long (blade part), look better than that butter knife we have in SP, and do around 15s and 18p damage with big modifiers for chest and head hits. Also, a backstab on an unsuspecting ennemy should instantly kill because you are much more prone to hit his heart than if he sees you and moves around. This could also be a percent of chances of doing an insta kill, instead of a sure thing?.

In speed, i think it should be as fast as an unarmed arm, because it's so light. This means faster than any other weapon. Sure, it's fast, but it also can't block effectively, so you need to kill fast or die.

Range is really low, i don't know the correspondence between centimeters and in-game range, but it wouldn't be much.

Weight, as i said, is close to nothing, 500 grams maybe?

Click to expand...

I can't comment on the in game stats, but decide what dagger you're taking about first. Early blades tended to be shorter, later ones could well be longer than the range you gave. Seriously, learn something about medieval daggers, be they Rondel, Ballock or whatever. Some of them were ******** pig-stickers:

For example, I said that the picture you showed was a knife, not a dagger. That wasn't because of the hilt, original specimens had 'kitchen knife' hilts too, but because of the lack of a bodkin point.

Also, you really think that the weight of a weapon is all that affects how quickly it can move? You know, not mechanical advantage, or length? Ok, well, how about we stand at arm's reach, you have a dagger, I have a longsword, we both start in a chambered position (say, both hands next to the head, weapon above the right shoulder) and see who hits at the same time?
We'd both hit at the same time, because our right arms are effectively making the same motion at the same time, a simple punch out. The difference is that with a two-handed sword my left hand is following and providing additional torque to the weapon, helping to rotate it around the wrist, and making it horizontal by the time that the right arm is straightened without putting too much strain on the right wrist.

Now, rudely, go get a ******** clue.

Click to expand...

Why, if i have someone do it for me?

I investigated literaly nothing before posting, because it's the principle that matters, not the details (the animations are a detail). I took the first picture that had a guy holding something close to a dagger the way i wanted, i know it's not a ****ing dagger, it doesn't even have a guard.

Also, thanks for all the information you provided me with, i'll add some of it to in the first post.

IMO, daggers should only be implimented if we have some kind of disarming/grappling system in place, they werent really primary weapons (at least, not by the kinda troops we see in warband multiplayer), and were considered more 'tool weapons'.
tbh if you sneak up on someone, it would be much better to take a heafty and commited swing at their head with your main weapon than attempt for a risky dagger to the heart  (you know how hard it would be to do that? unless the guy was nude and completely stationary that is, even then its a big risk)

How is the icepick in any way inherently better than how they are held now?

I put in lots of daggers and shorter bladed weapons into Blood and Steel (Luigi made a bunch, and they're quire pretty after being reskinned), and gave them a reasonable speed advantage to fit their smaller mass and lever advantage, and lower damage to reflect same.

I even let some of them block/chamber.

They're still useless as practical weapons, in this engine.  It's mainly a range issue; you can get bellied up and stab somebody quite nicely, but you have to survive a lot of first swings to get into range.  I suspect that IRL, they suffered a similar problem... which is why we've never heard stories of the Fabled Kitchen Kommandos with their 8-inch teeny-swords

IRL, they had this **** called 'plate armour', 'wrestling', 'distance control' and 'more than four arbitrarily limited attack directions'.

NordArcher said:

No thrust, you can't effectively "thrust" in this stance.

Click to expand...

NordArcher said:

Also, a backstab on an unsuspecting ennemy should instantly kill because you are much more prone to hit his heart than if he sees you and moves around.

Click to expand...

I see that you still haven't removed this stupid gamey nonsense. Take a look at an anatomical chart first.

i still agree, correct me if im wrong but the closest you would probably get would be the shoulderblade.

The icepick stance is much cooler than actual stance. If you don't give the weap an advantage, you might as well not implement it, but would it not be fun to have daggers?

Also, archers can't one hit kill anyone with their ****ty swords, even if they swing it to the ennemie's neck.