Left/Right handed
- Thread starter wo476
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Actually, lots of people do want it. I know because I've spent many a post arguing that there are better things to do. It's not entirely unrealistic, in that it is possible, and was sometimes used. In fact, dual-weilding, if done right, would manage to allow shields to serve a much more realistic use.
Painkiller31
Sergeant at Arms
Hræfn said:
Ah, yes, I remember my father telling me this once. I once drew a knight holding he sword in his left and shield in his right, and my father made me fix it because it was "evil".
While possible (the latin word for left is sinistra) it seems more likely to me that a left-handed soldier disrupts the shieldwall, leaving a gap where there wouldn't be normally.Hræfn said:
Even if not in a shieldwall, a left-hander is going to throw off any formation, though not to the same extent.
As you say, though, a left-handed duelist is at a decided advantage.
As you say, though, a left-handed duelist is at a decided advantage.
Why are people talking about having to make new animations? Can't you just reverse the model/skelleton or something? I'm certain a left hander would just have his body in the opposite position in terms of left and right.
l0ughn3y
Sergeant at Arms
Left handers didnt always disrput the shield wall if they had the training they didnt disrupt it at all it would be worse for the enemy to stumle into the gap between the left hander n the right hander because then the enemy would be in dnger of getting attacked from either side..... if you want an example of the left hander/righthander shield wall read bernard cornwells lords of the north i think he explains it better then i could
i would love for mount and blade to have actual viking in the game were you have you own boat and shield walls would rock but i can see were the problems would arise but i can PRAY
i would love for mount and blade to have actual viking in the game were you have you own boat and shield walls would rock but i can see were the problems would arise but i can PRAY
Cirdan
Master Knight
L0ughn3y's spelling may be approximate and I havn't read the book he refers to, but I think he has a point. If your soldiers stand with their shield-arms towards the enemy (rather than facing him) surely you could raise a decent shield wall even with both right- and left-handers in the ranks?
I really don't see how. The great thing about the shield wall is that unless you're at the end of it, there is just as much shield on your left side as your right. I also don't know of any instance where any sort of formation has been disrupted simply because the enemy didn't hold the weapon in the expected hand. It's a bit awkward to fight a southpaw if you don't have the experience, yes. But "disruptive" is going a bit far. The edge southpaws had has been greatly exaggerated, and in a pitched battle it's hardly going to make a difference at all.Merentha said:
I shall reply in ASCII art!
_|_|_|_|_|_ |
O O O OO O
Roughly, each person is covered by his shield and the shield of the person on his right.
_|_| |__|_|_ |
O O O OO O
As you see, the red man is left-handed. To his right, the man is doubly protected. To his left, the man's right side is not as well defended, while the left-hander's left, too, is not as well protected as the others. This creates an exploitable gap. Not a huge one, certainly, but it can make a difference.
_|_|_|_|_|_ |
O O O OO O
Roughly, each person is covered by his shield and the shield of the person on his right.
_|_| |__|_|_ |
O O O OO O
As you see, the red man is left-handed. To his right, the man is doubly protected. To his left, the man's right side is not as well defended, while the left-hander's left, too, is not as well protected as the others. This creates an exploitable gap. Not a huge one, certainly, but it can make a difference.
Its a better place than any for him than any, but you'd want the right to be anchored by a very strong fighter. If the leftie isn't up to scratch, better stick him somewhere else (and anywhere but the far left.) It seems easier to just train all people to use their right hand than incorporate the occasional left-hander, especially if religious views help discriminate against them as well.Kissaki said:Optionally, if there is only one lefty, he can take his place at the very end of the shield wall.
l0ughn3y
Sergeant at Arms
Cirdan said:
the only thing a left hander would do to mount and blade is make it better it would make it so their was an element of surprise in every battle you wouldnt no until the very last moments (just before u actually make contact) wether or not the enemy is left or right handed so it would be more realistic goin into battle the only thing people knew for certain was that there was going to be deaths, and a left hander has the element of surprsie because he is striking the weapon hand instead of the shield arm so it would be good to see it in the game etc etc etc .......
cirdan i aitn sure if my speelling is right this time and i dont ever use spell check (unspoken rule) but you could give me some slack only a 16 year old here typing im to used to messenger
i would still love for mount and blade to hav actual viking in the game were you have you own boat and go raiding the sea coast but i understand that that would mean making ani's for the boats and also the rural villages that you would be raiding if some1 was willing to explain how to do that i have spare time on my hands (going on study leave for my exams need somethong to do)
thaimodz
Squire
Can you prove that NO ONE wants dual wielding? Can you specify the scope where dual wielding is unrealistic (in Asia dual-wielding is sometimes used)? If you can't then please do not use this kind of wording. I meant no offense at all.Hræfn said:
On the topic, having left-handed people would be good, but not too much that it ruins the old values of "everyone must be right-handed" or something like that.
l0ughn3y
Sergeant at Arms
thaimodz said:
thiamodz i agree with you becasue i want dual-wielding (might be the only one but)i think i would be awesome to rde into a battle with a sabre in one and a sword in the other i no all the arguements but it would still be wiked!!!!
vikings we have sea raiders!! river pirates make it be so we can take to the ships and pillage and burn!!!!!
Painkiller31
Sergeant at Arms
l0ughn3y said:vikings we have sea raiders!! river pirates make it be so we can take to the ships and pillage and burn!!!!!
If there is a God, I only ask that he render my eyes forever useless after such awful grammar.
