Recent content by Gondvanaz

SenorZorros said:

Gondvanaz said:

First of all, the gladiators were MAINLY slaves who were fighting for their life. On the other hand, the farmers were fighting for their king. Do you realize the difference and why
Gladiator >>>> Farmer and why these "Show Duels" >>>>> Battlefield

In the arena you're all alone (while in the battlefield you've got your fellow soldiers who could save your life), sometimes you're even outnumbered and you fight for your life. That's why the "show duels" in the arena are many times more superior compared to the melees in the battlefield. The arena is a supreme test and you need real skills to survive there. Also the gladiators are trained killers. Don't even compare them to the soldiers.

This only seconds my point that the people who dual wield are many times superior warriors than the ordinary soldiers.

Click to expand...

with all due respect...
learn history you idiot.

gladiators:
1. were not always slaves
2. were often spared, it should be obvious considering no one could affort to train one for just two matches.
3. wore INOPTIMAL GEAR. the romans preferred their gladiators to wear often exotic and never perfect gear. they especially dislkied armour resulting in most gladiators walking around bare-chested. if a gladiator dual wielded they did so because they had to. not because it worked that well.

Click to expand...

578 said:

You can already see dual wielding in the combat video on an NPC, why do you still all discuss it? Go to 1:03 of this video and look to the left when the player swings his sword (When it hits the rock, press pause)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYTRsEtqKps

Click to expand...

Sekij said:

Thats what we said about Show Duels not used in Battles.

Click to expand...

FrijolitoJR said:

Gondvanaz said:

These knowledgeable people who spam with "this is utter nonsense" only because they don't like one's ideas definitely will not gain my respect. At least they should try to say something strong to make my wrong points stand out clearly.

Click to expand...

+1 I know dualwielding makes no sense but it's fun

Click to expand...

SenorZorros said:

@adrakken, that was almost a week ago. please stop pulling old cows out of the ditch...
EDIT: this was written before the doublepost, I had to do some research.
on the amazon's, do you know what full armour is? /EDIT

Gondvanaz said:

Wyzilla said:

there is no such thing as dual wielding on the battlefield.

Click to expand...

So i guess you're a former warrior from the Early Medieval period. Let's see what we need in order to implement this "unexisting" skill. Hmmm... two weapons, one in each hand. We already got a weapon so basically we just need one more. What a surprise, isn't it?!!!

But if you guys want to stay "historically accurate", then please don't use the dual wielding. It is not that hard, is it? I don't give a **** if they used two weapons, one in each hand or not. In fact the main question here is: Has there been or has there not been a dual wielding? The answer is: YES. Which makes it theoretically feasible. Its rarity doesn't matter, we are not gonna do an army of dimachaeri, i'm asking for dual wielding only for the protagonist.

Wyzilla said:

The only thing that should result from any character wielding two full length weapons is an impaled corpse on the ground.

Click to expand...

Your points is valid for farmers like you... sorry i mean keyboard wiseacres like you nowadays.
Don't put everybody in the same pot!

I don't think Warband's combat system is enoughly good and it doesn't seem enoughly realistic to me, the movements are far too robotic and monotonous. Saying it is a realism is an excuse.

Click to expand...

1. I want to rage but luckily a lot of more knowledgeable people have already talked abut it so... please watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE
so he is correct.
I wouldn't mind seeing it as an option though. except that I'm afraid angry idiots will swarm the forums complaining about how useless it would be.

2. you should probably look to yourself before using an ad hominem on others.

3. the combat system is a bit robotic and monotonous because it is not realistic enough. not because there is too much realism...

Click to expand...

Wyzilla said:

there is no such thing as dual wielding on the battlefield.

Click to expand...

Wyzilla said:

The only thing that should result from any character wielding two full length weapons is an impaled corpse on the ground.

Click to expand...

SenorZorros said:

while I like combat stances. jump attacks, spin attacks and sword throws (excluding specialized blades) are far in the realm of fiction.

I do aagree with dual wielding if only to allow parry blades as ong as it is implemented realistically. this means two swords would be extemely clumsy. a spear-and-dagger combination however would be a better option that allows for greater versitility.

Click to expand...