Search results for query: *

  1. Need More Info Achievments Disabled midgame

    Have the same issue. Started new campaign. The achievement worked for awhile. No mod. No cheat. Noticed the "Achievements are disabled" when I reload my save mid-game. Is this a measure against save scumming or something ?
  2. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    So I come back after 10 years and 400 pages later, This thread is still on first page ? Good job M&B community  :cool:
  3. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    I suppose I should say grat for page 300 !! keep going guys.
  4. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Seem like we got a lot of new face in this thread lately. And this thread is once again run in circle. This cycle is destined to repeat itself for eternity it seem lol.
    At very least, I am glad to see the altitude change in many old faces. it mean that dozens page I spent me time on is not completely waste after all.
  5. We need a Asian Faction

    Forming a generic Asian faction would be impossible. As someone already stated Asia is the largest continent on Earth. Forming a generic Europe faction would be far more easier. Actually just "East Asia" is far larger than Europe and deserve a game(or a mod) for itself. Hell, Chinese alone is larger/variety than all Caldarian factions combined both population wise and culture wise.
  6. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    I think the latest argument Amman de Stazia suggested isn't about whether sword+shield have advantage over sword+dagger or not.
    It's more about sword+dagger should have advantage over sword+naked hand and about whether you want to go against Sword+Shield with only single sword or with sword+dagger ?

    You can't parry with dagger on your left hand ? just parry with your righ-hand sword like you trained repeatly thousands time. Then stab/swing/thust with a dagger on your left.
    Any professional soldier should be capable doing that. They should at least trained to strike with their left hand in case something happen to their right.
    If you are just levied peasant ? well it's not that hard to swing a thing you grab with your left wildly either. It's not like you main hand strike is that good any way.

    Someone may prefer his left hand to be free for grasping. Now, how much training would that need ? No less than swing a stick with left hand hundred time a day, I assume.
    Also, if stabbing/parrying with shorty dagger sound like a bad idea in this situation, reaching out with even shorter barehand isn't worse ?

    Running is also tempting option. Assume that when you are in middle of infantry line where your enemy is pushing from the front and your allies from the back, you have a place to run.
    Not to mention that your Lord may have you beheaded later anyway.
  7. Equipment and gold as it is now

    CalenLoki said:
    More expensive stuff should be better - if you have two bows which each of them have some advantage (speed vs. power), both should cost the same (if those advantages are balanced to each other). If one is more expensive, it should be better. Of course expensive strong bow should never be faster than weaker bows, but should gain a lot of damage for small speed reduction. Same with armours - light should have a lot less protection, and only minimal speed advantage, or should have same cost as heavy.
    The truth is an expensive brandname stuff isn't necessity better IRL. Even when they do, most stuff gain a tiny bit more performance for a huge price jump. Take a bow for example, Speed vs Power may seem to be balance with each other, but more power mean you can pack more punch with limited arrow you carry and can generally ditch out more damage all over. That's why it's more expensive. But the fact is how many people actually survive long enough to drain out his arrow ? And in Archer duel, fire rate is likely to be deciding factor unless you are more skill than your opponent. 2 hander come with longer reach and likelyhood to do 1 hit kill at the cost of slower attack speed and easier to block. IMHO when you face skilled players excel at manual blocking, a smaller faster weapon is actually do better job score a hit against these foes. The same go to armor, a decent armor may mean a different between live and death. But 1-2 extra hit aren't gonna save you  from superior opponent when you are slower. He will just chop you to death.

    High tier stuffs are more for skilled warriors who can take the most out of them. An unskilled peasant should fight a peasant war until they are skill enough :p
    And like other have already said, maintain a decent gear is a lot more cost efficient than 1 time uber gear set unless you are confident that you won't lose it. They are more luxury than necessity.
  8. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Amman de Stazia said:
    a mod with dual wielding in an accurate historical sense already ALL BUT exists.  Take the shield bash kit, add it to any renaissance era mod.  Change some of your shield models to dagger models.
    Now, you can carry a sword in your RIGHT hand, and a DAGGER in your left.  With the shield-bash mechanics, you can ATTACK as well as defend with that dagger in your left hand.

    Now, is that, or is that not, dual wielding?

    Anyone care to introduce to me which mod that is ?
  9. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Amman de Stazia said:
    @ Dark Thug
    can I draw your attention to my post, immediately before your last one?

    lol easy man. I'm at work here.

    By no formation (actually I never said no formation :p) didn't mean that you will ditch your mate and make a solo charge into enemy formation alone. You can still stay close to your friend and help each other. It's just that I don't think you need to stay so close that your shields overlap to protect each other all the time. I am not sure how much space you think dual wielder need to operate because I don't know either how much they need :p But since they aren't swinging two full size bastard sword around, I don't think they'll need....that much ?

    For example, If I am 28 men group facing your 10 men in middle of the field somewhere in Europe farmland. Don't you think it make more sense that I spread my men around, surround you and attack from many direction rather than forming another shield wall and face you head on ?

    Amman de Stazia said:
    I don't know if I'm the history 'guru' but I do know plenty about military history, and certainly count myself competent to address all of your points about fighting styles in Europe, including the use of shields.
    Night Ninja said:
    Go do your own research then. :roll:
    AWdeV said:
    Or read what D'Stazia has to say? Seems to be more than qualified. Else ask around in the Sage's Guild.
    Sorry, I didn't meant to offend anyone.(Hypocrite or not I know that I should apologize when it seem I offend other) It's just that Night Ninja mentioned it with out any detail or source. So I would be grateful if more people confirm it.
    To conclude, No, I don't want to see Night Ninja in mini skirt  :roll:
  10. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    AWdeV said:
    DarkThug, so you prefer guys with skirts? :wink:

    I prefer a poster to be a girl, a cute one if I'm not asking too much  :cool:

    Night Ninja said:
    Also, as far as I know, shields weren't obsoleted by firearms. They were supplemented and eventually supplanted by plate armour, which developed to the point where it was usable as a standalone defence.

    I am not sure about that, we will need confirmation from any history guru around here.

    Night Ninja said:
    If we're speaking from a purely gameplay based point of view, dual wielding is even more inefficient. There's no really adequate control scheme that works for people without more than five fingers while maintaining the same simplicity and flow of the current system.

    IMHO, the current combat system is a remnant from simplified FPS control scheme everyone familiar with. while single weapon parry system is doing good (which we all should agree that most n00b out there aren't familiar with). A sword&shield style is over simplified and is no fun at all, especially when they duel each other. Just spamming your weapon away, direction isn't matter (that much) anymore. Keep your force field up, disable it when you strike, that's it. Current S&S system is not any less unrealistic than arcade dual wielder spamming if you ask me. It is not necessary a bad thing. It keep control simple. It attract more FPS whore out there. But realistic ? hell no !
  11. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Amman de Stazia said:
    well I agree with the jungle points:  I never argued that dual-wielding suited forces which had to operate in densely wooded terrain.  Rather, my statement was that the tendency of forces to seek combat in areas which made ranged weaponry effective, more or less prevented even an experimentation with non-shield-carrying troops (at least prior to heavy armour).

    I believe you have it backward. From what I know, a coming of crossbow and firearm which make shield obsoleted in later state of European mediaval era, Chinese dealt with it since a dawn of its nation. It's Qin's invention of crossbow that allow it to unite the country in the first place. That's why there is not much trace to heavy use of shield around here. They do still use some shield but mostly a large shield specially design for absorb missile weapon and useless in melee combat. a common melee shield is not gonna save your hide from 10,000 repeated crossbowmen.

    I admit that there is not much use of dual wielding in Chinese and Japanese military either. I suspect it's because they relied heavily on cavalry (some time majority of force is on horseback ?). So a weapon like spear or some kind of polearm is very much need for any footman. Now to SEA, a horseman is not that popular here. Instead, we relied heavily on war elephant ^^". So you are not gonna see any solid formation like shieldwall or spearwall here either. Even the bravest warriors won't stand their ground when there is an elephant charging at them. We must relied more on flexibility and mobility (yes run).

    Back to Europe, since a cavalry represent only small portion of force compare to that of East Asian or nomad army (Am I wrong ?) and that generally, mediaval European party is relatively small (100 men or so ?) unlike their Greece, Roman counterpart. I am not sure about a usefulness of said formation. Blackthorn do have a point that even with only 5-10 men, it's still better than nothing and should be use whenever possible. But since the aim of European warfare is not to wiped each other out (or not ?) and most encounters are two raiding parties randomly crosspath, did anyone actually charge into these formations ? I imagine they would just wait other out or leave them be and go raid another village next door ^^", forcing another party to stop turtling and come out to engage them. If they do engage each other, with small number of men there are, I imagine it'll be mostly series of 1on1 battle. I am not sure if any of this hold true in European mediaval era. But it apply really well in current M&B battle. But Swadius may be right that since warfare culture in Europe is heavily influented by their Roman ancestor, they may just carry shield around just like in old time. A shield is useful anyway until proof absoleted by firearm.

    An armor may hinder effectiveness of dual wielder but that hold true to any one hander out there whether they use it as single weapon or with shield. having a weapon in one hand is not gonna lessen impact on another. You shouldn't loss focus because of that. That's what training are for, just like how a punk in a street don't know how to utilize both fist but any boxers do. Whether it's too time consume or not is another topic, since I can't spell it out how do they actually train and how long it will take. Shouldn't be any longer than any martial art taught in any military nowadays, IMHO. And by 3-4 strikes, I meant after 3-4 feint strikes, you should find an opening and stuck one good blow to finish your opponent off. Unfortunately, I can't spell it out either how dual wielder exactly dealt with shielded opponent. I don't want to sound like master of sword just because I own one. But I find it hard to believe that dual wielder will be any inferior to a single one hander. In knife fight, grasping ability may provide you more advantage than a tiny blade can. But in bigger arms fight, I am not so sure.

    If we want to talk about why Calradia warrior will want to use such technique. I believe we should talk about it in gameplay context rather than history context. Since M&B, while aim to be as realistic as possible, didn't aim to be that historical accurate. I understand that most of you will disagree with this statement, You don't want M&B to stray from history setting more than it already is. But that was our opinions. 



    About recent topic, That also depend on poster. I wouldn't want to see you guys skirtless  :eek:
  12. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Papa Lazarou said:
    Right now shields are just forcefields which you turn on and off (and which cover too wide an area as well). This is fairly boring in single player, and becomes even worse in multiplayer. In real fighting, the shield must be used actively to provide any real protection. You could hold a shield still to prevent some attacks, but unless you keep reacting, the attacker can just attack around the shield. In M&B at the moment, you just press a button and never need to react again - assuming you even reacted in the first place rather than just throwing it up preemptively. Combat involving shields is therefore pretty boring, and often comes down to whose shield breaks first.

    I imagine that inventing, implementing and balancing new shield mechanics would be quite difficult, and I can't imagine it would be much easier for dual wielding.

    That said, if dual wielding could be put into the game by magic (for no cost of money/time), then I wouldn't have such an issue with it. I imagine that some sorts of dual wielding would be better than using a single one-hander, so it wouldn't be totally pointless. Although I expect that it would only really be used in duel servers, or by show-offs.

    Then we are thinking about this issue in the same context. I also think shield mechanic should be active as well. Which mean it should be directional, in other word, just like how single weapon do right now, able to either strike or parry. A shield should be treat as another kind of weapon can be use both defensively and offensively. And there we go, we got two weapons fighting mechanic.

    And as you said, I also believe this will be quite difficult and costly. M&B right now are far too established to current system. But if this mechanic ever make it in to the game, dual wielding is not that far fetch anymore.

    Amman de Stazia said:
    http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,7437.0/topicseen.html

    I did see that thread. I didn't reply there because it's my habit not to reply to the thread I haven't finish reading the whole thread. As for my general opinion about that idea, I'm not quite agree. As a shield is a forcefield when it turn on as it is now, let it also has some protection ability when it turn off as well would be quite overpowered. Some balancing may need to be done.

    Blackthorn said:
    'The spear is the ultimate weapon'...
    WHOAH! Now this is fightin' talk! The concept of the 'ultimate weapon' needs to be laid to rest, along with 'dual wielding was everywhere!' and 'European knights were armoured barbarians who swung swords sometimes three times the managable size/weight!'.

    Now, now, you are thinking about it too hard, sir. A word barbarian is carried on from one of Swadius's post saying South East Asian is just a uncivilized barbarian. I knew you wouldn't be happy about it but neither did I.
    And a word ultimate weapon is mentioned because no matter what argument I gave, a spear will be the most cost efficient, easiest to train, etc, etc. weapon ever. So I make fun of it a little. I'm sorry if it offend anyone.

    And to be frank, statements like "Dual wielding is BS", "It's just fantasy", "It only existed in Hollywood movies and D&D games" offend me as well. I'm grateful if you guys refrain from using it.
    Of cause you may think it's inferior to sword&shield style in every way but it's not that impractical to the point of dual dildo or penis couching, that is for sure.
  13. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Do not look here said:
    Nah, to be honest, If dual wielding would be so good, why someone would ever invent shield?

    Spear is also human kind ultimate weapon, yet, other kind of weapon still exist, aren't they ? ^^"

    Papa Lazarou said:
    I think the implementation would either be annoying, or a waste of time. Like I said, shield mechanics are still quite flawed, so I can't see duel wielding getting in-game in any decent form. Lots of work, small payoff, risk of large costs. Could be good, but probably wouldn't be. Therefore, not worth the time.

    I'm curious. What flaw do you see in current shield mechanic. Can it be fixed without implementing two weapons fighting ? Whether we allow dual wielding can come afterward.
  14. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Moss said:
    "You know, back in the days there was dual wielding in Mount & Blade. Back before the rise of the Nords, Rhodoks and those dirty horse lovers the Khergit. Back when the Swadians and the Vaegir clashed under the constant threat of the wandering Dark Knights. When swarms of duel wielding zombies were only a patch away from shuffling across the battlefields in hungry hoards."

    I believe I read a quote several times that dev removed dual wielding from the game because they face technical difficulty not a realistic issue.
    I do agree that as the game as it is now, it will be very costly to add dual wielding into the game.
    Still, I do think that shield blocking mechanic should be improve if possible which I believe is as costly and will also lead to implementing of dual wielding.
    So implementing this is not as minor as it seem. (Still very costly IMO)



    And thank everyone that share your knowledge.



    PS: btw I would love to see how your penis couching fare against those anime dual wielder (not to mention real one) lol
  15. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Blackthorn said:
    Just a couple of points- your argument about bandits I actually adressed in a reply you missed- so read up and I've catagorised the types of 'authentic' bandits, as such, there is space for poorly equipped half-naked 'wild men', they're just villagers who have lost -everything-.
    The concept that dual-wielding is 'real'... well, sort of. But the point that's been repeated endlessly in this thread (that you've ignored) is that it has never been a standard -military- skill or equipment choice, anywhere, and within the setting of the game, would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just because in real life something is plausible, does not make it realisitc or desirable. Why isn't every item throwable? A man could throw his helmet- seriously, he could! I've seen it done! It's plausile! Let's put it in! I know you might not like it- but some of us can choose to use it. This won't affect the game badly!... untill you play multiplayer, and instead of arrows and javelins going back and forth, there is nothing but a shower of chapel-de-fer...

    No, I didn't miss your post and I read it. sorry that I didn't make you join my quote fest  :wink:. The poorly equipped bandit who is villager who lost everything is every where in the world. I didn't argue with that. (although I doubt they will go naked in climate like that).
    Now about poorly equip, I do question a widespread of metal armor. How many percentage of combatant can actually afford it, seem like majority of force, a levies have nothing but cloth armor. And I do question a resilent of these cloth armor. Can they really withstand impact from one hand weapon ? And what make having another weapon in your off hand lessen your impact from your main hand strike (unless you are untrained of cause)? How does it different from having a shield ? And with enough training (which I believe don't need much time), even a strike from your non-dominate hand should be suffice to damage opponent in cloth armor as well. Like Swadius said, strength didn't come from your arm but the weight shift of your body.
    Dual wielding has never been standard equipment for any army in the west, true. I didn't argue with that, I just wonder why. And now, I do question a standardize of battle in the west as a whole. As you also said in your last post, battle in mediaval Europe is actually nothing more than non-standard raid. This make me also question usage of spearwall or shieldwall which was claimed making dual wielding useless. Since most encounter wasn't aim to be decisive battle, in what situation this formation is used and how often ?
    EDIT: Unlike Greece and Roman who set out and conquer the world with their famous spear and shield formation. Mediaval Europe is just a rise of babarian nations raiding each other next door. (according to infomation in this thread). So how much standardize can these raiding parties be. If dual wielding is pratical why noone use one ?

    I didn't ignore the point endlessly repeated in this thread. I disagree with it. If you really can't understand that, I am amazed.
    In fact, now that all throwing weapon can be use in melee. I think It's not that far fetch for every 'smaller' melee weapon can be thrown as well. What is realistic or desirable for a game is subjective. In the end, it's dev who decide what to put in their game. I just leave my suggestion in their suggestion forum. I don't see any thing wrong with it. I wasn't the one who start this thread. This thread is also important enough to be here in King's court no matter what reason you think it's here for.



    You are free to disagree with me and make counter argument. but derail a thread off topic and reduce it to flame war wouldn't be considered proper way (although frequency used and usually yield result somewhat) to execute the idea you westerner cherish so much "Free speech".
    (note: Last sentence wasn't directed to you Blackthorn. I enjoy reading and appreciate your info from your last post)
  16. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Since my conversation with Swadius is blobing at alarm rate every time we reply to each other. I'll try to reoganize my post.

    1. Should/Why/How we include two hands combat mechanic/dual wielding into M&B
    This one should be concluded already. I could care less if they put it in or not. If dev plan to put it in, by all mean, I welcome it. But absent of one wouldn't bother me one bit since Mediaval Europe is never known for dual wielding combat anyway. I do love to discuss in detailed how to implement it if we feel like starting one though.
    Swadius said:
    I'm afraid I'm not following you. Are you saying that because a soldier has two arms they must utilize it via dual wielding? They seem perfectly utilized with swords, shields, polearms, and two handed weaponry.
    Not perfectly IMHO, It's true that current system is working smoothly in conventional way. I believe there is better way to present combat in M&B.
    My prototype would go something like this
    LMB = action with primary hand (right hand)
    RMB = action with secondary hand (left hand)
    or may be vice vesa, but leave it like this for now.

    tab a mouse button to strike with that hand
    click and hold to guard with that hand

    Sword&shield case:
    you click LMB to attack with your sword in your right hand
    You hold RMB to guard with your shield in your left hand
    This is just like convensional control scheme in current m&b. No player're affected.
    But in this control scheme, you can parry with your RH's sword when you see a strike coming and don't feel like wasting your shield HP.
    Just hold LMB+direction to parry it just like how parry work currently.
    Blocking with shield is also become directional, blocking at right direction and your shield will suffer less damage.
    Wrong direction block should still save user somewhat. Either a shield save user from only 3 diretion strike but not opposite one or a shield suffer extra damage damage from opposite strike.
    tab a RMB and you got a shield bash.
    You can also attack while you are blocking with your shield.

    Single weapon case:
    LMB with main hand weapon work the same as above.
    RMB represent free hand which is now not useless.
    tab a RMB to punch.
    hold a RMB, I would say guarding is useless with barehand. So I suggest grasping when holding mouse.
    A short range attack that if reach opponent hand render its useless unless your foe kick you out or of cause smash your face with weapon in another hand ^^"

    Two handed weapon case:
    work pretty much like one handed weapon but also locked your other hand.
    You can change your grip into staff style.

    Staff/pole arm case:
    LMB represent main hand action (blade side)
    RMB represent off hand action (shaft side)
    tab LMB will perform attack just like how it's now inflict cut or piece damage.
    tab RMB to attack with shaft inflict blunt damage.
    hold LMB to guard with upper part of your staff
    hold RMB to guard with lower part of your staff
    This should result in this long weapon can block attack from two direction at once.

    Dual wielding case:
    also pretty much like one handed weapon except you have two of them
    both LMB and RMB function the same.
    You can spam attack from both hand at once but it'll likely come from same direction which is easy to block. so arcade style spamming won't work.
    or you can attack in successive sequence. If you are skill enough. Your attack should be faster and come from various direction than single weapon which will overwhelm you enemy.
    parrying with two weapon may seem very confusing. Good strategy (from gameplay point of view) would be permanent block one direction with your offhand while your main hand attack and need to parry only 3 direction.

    barehand case:
    Go graps both of your opponent hand and kick him to death :grin:

    Archery case:
    Hmmmm........I don't know. didn't think that far ^^"


    Swadius said:
    You see you must balance priorities within the game, although the very bones of what you're saying in that comment is defensible, it is not applicable in the game or in any real life industry. Like any other industry, there is a limited amount of money, IE. a limited amount of power. Comparing it to balancing a medical budget, it's right that people think that money shouldn't be a factor in who gets a transplant and who doesn't because there isn't enough money, but the reality is that there is only enough resources for some of them.
    This entire board, the King's Court and privy council, is an instrument of testing which ideas should get the green light and which ones kick the bucket. It's like a board of directors trying to balance a medical budget. Sure, they probably shouldn't be saying which people should die and which should live simply because of money, but reality is is just that.
    What you're saying here is nothing short of people that say that what these directors do is wrong, it has it's place, but not where pure philosophy meets reality. The sentiment that it's not about the devs finding out which idea to put in and which to shut out but it's that each idea should have it's place being that they are not totally physically impossible doesn't not belong on this board (maybe in the Anarchronist guild, but not here).
    I'm afraid I'm not following you as well. How does my "suggestion" not belong to "suggestion" forum ? And since when that suggest something because it's the way it should be is a bad reason for it ?? No matter how much you hate it and no matter how much you disagree with me but calling other people's idea "offtopic" is a bit harsh don't you think ? (and those who called other people retard just because they suggest something they hate are beyond help)

    I do agree with you that, in the end, developer is the one who get green light what to implement. Unless I'm missing something, you are not one of them, are you ?

    2. The point I try to proof now is Dual wielding is real and is used in combat. A idea that off-hand weapon can serve only as suxxy blocking tool is also completely wrong.
    This hardly has anything to do with M&B or mediaval Europe anymore. I know it's off-topic and I'm not expert in this area. But it seem if I can proof this point we can't move on to other.
    I never intent to say that dual wielding is superior than any other form or it's the most effective form out there either. It's just another weapon style. It's pratical. You are free to think if it work for you or not.
    Swadius said:
    You must understand, that a "direct hit" is one that is reinforced from a shift in body weight. Merely a swing of the arm alone will not do much damage, at least not enough to guarantee that it would stop an opponent from executing his own strike at you. Ones that do require footwork, for a person to throw his weight into his attack, even for equipment like quilted armor, it's enough to marginalize the damage of a single badly supported strike. Take someone chopping a block of wood using only his arms and someone who uses his higher back should muscles, lombard muscles, abdominal muscles in conjunction.
    If someone were to do this with two weapons, he'd be wasting his time. Usually, when someone actually gets a hit in like that, one weapon is enough for the job. With two you're just committing over kill, or worse even distributing the weight of his strike at two points of a person instead of debilitating one.
    From my amateur eye, They seem to shift their weight well in those clips don't they ? I wouldn't want, even with quilted armor on, to be spammed with real swords like that. Even with metal armor, If you don't wear full plate armor which cover all your limb. I suspect that sword storm will leave you with a few short. No, they won't cut it outright but should be able to inflict wound and leave it crippled. Am I wrong ?

    It may be true that one fine strike should be enough to finish you opponent. There is no guarantee that fine strike you just executed will hit your foe. From what I read, in Krabi Krabong, there is a thing called "decoy". A strike you execute just to see your opponent reaction and find a openning, much like jab in modern boxing. So those meaningless spamming you saw is not that....meaningless. Of cause, in real fight, you won't spam at him for a whole 3 minutes. Just 3-4 strike and you should get him (or he already get you).

    Swadius said:
    Keep in mind that in every martial art: Asian, European, African... duals usually have regulation. There are certain moves in every discipline that are banned, either for how "game breaking" it is in terms of dueling, or because of how dangerous they really are. Not only that, but participants usually are balanced in terms of what gear they get. A person using a halberd is not allowed to fight someone using a dagger and buckler, or like how a super heavy weight fighter is not allowed to fight a light weight. Because of this, it is impossible to determine whether or not certain styles of weaponry are balanced if they are facing each other, either dual wielding two weapons, strapping on blades onto one's feet, or using Klingon bat'leth.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5CHrnlwOY
    Ok that one was totally choreographed XD
    my point was that Kraibi Krabong deal with all sort of weapon and usually pit them against each other. It's even more common than a match against same weapon type. While these things are just a show, I am sure that real combat Krabi Krabong know how to deal with other weapon style. It may be true that this art hadn't face much opponent that is well armored, it is, by no mean, civilian. all these coversation about dual wielding may misleaded us, Kraibi Krabong is not solely about dual wielding. Not all Krabi Krabong pratictioners will turn out to be dual wielder. There are many kind of shield in Krabi Krabong and sword+shield style is also common. There are various kinds of polearm as well, not only those used by infantry, but also one use by calvary on horseback, and better yet on elephant back.

    Swadius said:
    It doesn't really say anything about the ease of learning it since the person claims to have trained in several other similar martial arts. Off topic, respond to that comment, no. If a person gets a weapon knocked out of his hand he is likely going to die really fast, or running very fast in the other direction. Here is why, the reason why the person got the weapon knocked out of his hand is because his hand can no longer function in hold a weapon, in which case he's pretty much going to die anyway. Or, the reason why he dropped the sword was that he couldn't hold on to his weapon, given that either he isn't trained or experienced enough to know how to keep an opponent from disarming him or to hold a sword tight enough which probably meant he probably didn't have much of a chance in the first place.
    Back on topic, it doesn't really matter who says it, all that matters is whether or not there's historical backing on whether such a thing happened and in what environment it happened in.

    About losing weapon topic, I believe there are more situation where you'll lose your weapon than being disarmed. Either you are voluteery throwing your weapon (ok this one would be extremely rare) or your weapon is breaking. Seeing in clips that they rely extensively at blocking with their weapon, losing their weapon wouldn't be that much uncommon, I believe. And since you have two weapons, losing one didn't mean the end of your life (you went half way there though)

    About Openhand technique, I believe he also meant any unarm technique other than your fist. As you know, Muay Thai is not famous for its fist, but more about utilize other part of body like kicking, kneeling, elbowing. Why is that ? it's because Muay Thai is derived from Krabi Krabong where your both arms are occupied. So this technique is invented to use together with weaponry not only when you losing it.

    Swadius said:
    As above, you really need to take things with a grain of salt when confronting primary sources, or even secondary+ sources. I'm Asian myself (I'm not going to say which part because I happen to enjoy my anonymity), I find it very unfortunate that there isn't very many credible historians of my culture, most of the people who profess to be historians only seem to want to uphold the legend. For example, phenomenal feats which anyone with a bit of sense would know to have been blown out of proportion would be taken by such people as true, historical consensus really bites the dust here as these people seem to be more concerned about boasting about one's culture than researching and getting as close to the truth as possible.
    I'm not saying that the man you've cited is an example of such people's works, but it seems to me that it happens quite frequently. For instance, a famous swordsman from south central Europe was repudiated to have cut off three heads with one stroke of his blade, his victims were not pinned down or held up against a chopping block or anything. As a person who has had experience carving up relatively large animals for meat and limited first aid application, I know that this is nearly impossible.

    I understand full well what you are saying. Because frankly speak, Thai historian are just like that XD. And I can see that my example can be seen as such.
    Still, if you weed all minor details out, the point still there. No matter Phaya Phichai keep on fighting with his broken sword or he just asking his retainer another one afterward, the point is he was using dual sword and it saw action. Well, if you question the whole thing about dual wielding, I can't help you with that ^^"

    I'm well aware of my incomplete reference. sorry that I can't provide you any better than that. I did ask around at Thai forum if anyone has anything in English. Let's see if anything turn out.

    3. I keep nagging about Mediaval European warfare environment because I wonder why dual wielding is not adopt in Europe. I am curious to find out what is different between two regions and I'm ejoying new infomation any generous member give me. Thins, I thank you. But if this is annoying you. You can tell me and I will stop.
    which I can't keep on writing anymore lol. I'm tired, I need sleep, I may continue later ^^"


    4. other quote fest
    Swadius said:
    I mentioned there being people like looters and peasants IE. serfs and the like because you seem to be arguing that usage of two weapons at once is most effective when you're opponent is armorless. I said, that although this is true (that there were quite a few unprepared people running around), it would make more sense for them to carry weaponry that's much more suited to fighting people that actually provided a threat against them.
    If you mean to say that "we hate looters and peasant woman" because they are unrealistic, I'm afraid I'm not following you, to be more specific, where you think I said that.

    Sure shirtless robbers require a stretch of the imagination, but where do you see anyone of us saying that's acceptable that they remain so?

    Please stop putting words in my mouth, I have said nothing about how this mechanic compares to real life, likewise, I have said nothing about how pink unicorns in a fantasy book I'm reading compares to reality, but does that license you to assume that I think this is representation of reality?
    I simply ask a question "why do hate A so much while B which is similar is ok" then I offer what kind of answer I'm looking for.
    I didn't suggest you think either of them, same as latter case, I just describe how current combat system is unrealistic just like warrior with clippled arm.

    Putting words in your mounth was never my intend. I believe it has to do with my writing style in English. I'll try to fix that. My apologies.

    Swadius said:
    Here is some westerner talk about these arts I found laying around.
    http://www.usadojo.com/articles/krabi-krabong-muay-thai.htm

    That doesn't really say anything about dual wielding, not about ease of learning. In fact, it just looks like a brief history if anything.


    Look mate, I skimmed the entire thing, and found very little in relation to dualing wielding being not hard to train.

    For future's sake, please take an except from the source you're referencing that backs your point. It is not courteous to say something give a link to a book, and expect the other person to read through it to find one or two sentences that backs up your point.
    If will be a waste of my time, and it will be a waste of your time. If you do not specify where in the book that's backing up your statement it will lead to confusion with the person you're talking with as he/she is left with a lot of stuff to interpret.

    http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/filipino-martial-arts/15786-pekiti-tirsia-kali-vs-krabi-krabong.html
    They seem to have difeerent opinion as yours. dual wielding is not that hard to train

    I try to refrain from Quoting from context just to lead other. I also try to avoid anything that is just blindly praising Krabi Krabong or boasting how badazz he is and choose only the one that generally speaking about it. I also believed the article isn't too long. So I leave readers to judging for themselve. Sorry if that does bothering you.







  17. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Swadius said:
    You fail to comprehend the point. The logic of your argument is this:

    Introduce A into the game because of B
    B is inside the game.
    Therefore A must be included in the game.

    You're basically begging the question, you've already assumed that B is a good thing from the get go.

    Yep, I was begging a question. I believe my first post was going like this
    "Why do you guy hate dual wielding so much while other similar impracticalness is ok"

    I never assume it as a good thing. If anything, I assumed B as a bad thing based on your argument. Yet, people don't seem to be complain about these stuffs. Everyone seem to accept it which beg me a question.

    Unlike homicide and litering, dual onehanders and any other single onehander share many similar traits (I choose looter for the sake of exagervately). The so called "impracticalness" you guys speak of, a short range, lack of impact, lack of protection are all what I gather from your side of argument. You can find all these traits in any single hander (especially shorter one). Still people treat them diferently.

    So the answer I seek in this subject would be either
    1. No, you are wrong, we hate looter and peasant woman as well and we hope they'll be removed from the game as soon as possible.
    2. No, looter is ok, unlike dual wielder, because blah blah blah...

    If anyone is 2, care to elaborate why these two traits should be treated differently ?

    Swadius said:
    You're not arguing for dropping a restriction, you're arguing for the implementation of something for the game. That statement makes as much sense as saying that players should have the ability to use Klingon dueling blades if they want, regardless that it would take however much time to put them in at the expense of another. It's suicidal to fight without weapons, people can already do that, and it's suicidal to fight with vibrators, dildos, and gimp suits which people can't do.

    It would still be quite a lot of work seeing as you need to rerwite it in hardcode and balance it for multiplayer and singleplayer, when the only justifiable reasons for it is:
    It's not physically impossible, and...
    I think it would be cool.

    Of which you'll realize, many other things, things that everybody unequivocally hates and thinks shouldn't be in the game can also have its development time justified by said reasons.

    You misunderstood my intention. I never asked for or even hoped for Mount&Blades 1.201 or Warband 0.810 to include Dual wielding. I'm well aware of all workload need to implement it into game. All I hope for is, if there ever be plan for new Mount&Blade installment or new expansion that feature major combat mechanic overhual. I suggest adding two hands combat mechanic in as well.
    Unless you can tell me a reason why the game that aim to be realistic simulation of mediaval warrior, who has two arms, shouldn't adopt combat mechanic that utilize both arms ?? 

    Two hands combat mechanic isn't solely for the sake of dual wielding. It benefit not only shield bashing (I took a peek at that thread, it seem you guys are against it as well, what's up with that. umm but that is off topic) but a shield blocking mechanic as a whole. Unless you are saying that all Cadalria warriors are, in fact, have incapable left arm, unable to do anything beyond raising their shield to their chest, yet magically protect everything on their front from head to toe. Is that what you called realistic ? So basicly they are "dual wielding" most the time. Shield is just another tool, whether you use it defensively or offensively. You have two tools in both hand. That is a fact. what tool a player choose to equip is up to them. As long as it's not a vibrator or laser rifle, I won't call it out of context.
    I believe this is our different view of how we define realistic and how much freedom the game should give player.

    So basicly, I didn't suggest dual wielding because it's "not physically impossible" but because it's "totally physically possible" (hope you can catch the different).
    I didn't suggesting it because it "would be cool" as well. If anything, I feel it is ordinary. That is how it should be.



    Swadius said:
    Medieval field battles were very rare, when one Kingdom declared war on another (likely non official) they'll start with skirmishing and raids. Not until the Napoleonic era did it become more cost effective to actually seek field battles instead of using guerrilla warfare. Most of fighting that takes place prior to that era is mainly skirmishing and raiding. Not everyone the subject of a raid was sufficiently armored for field battles, nor did they walk around their homes armed for it either. This seems to be the type of fighting that M&B exhibits, not the tens of thousands of men in field battles shown in movies.

    That is also how I comprehend mediaval battle right now, which I believe void many argument we had against dual wielding before. That's why I brought them up.

    Swadius said:
    Irrelevant, having read around a bit more, it seems that even quilted armor-armor made of multiple layers of cloth, is in fact quite resilient to blows and easy to produce quickly and cheaply. This would have been one of the predominant pieces of equipment for medieval raids along with other relatively soft armors like leather. It's not as strong as armor of metal origins but it does offer a substantial amount of protection to those that wear it capable of warding off badly backed strikes.

    I know that this quilted armor is actually resilient and should save wearer from any bad strike. But I doubt it can withstand direct hit from cutting one hand weapon (You can proof me wrong here). If it do, I would also question a praticalness of all cutting one hand weapon as a whole. Whether it's used as single weapon, using together with shield or dual wielding it.

    Swadius said:
    And in all that, there have never arisen any accounts of any dual wielding in the medieval ages in Europe. Having heard about South East Asia's martial style myself, but have never come across any sources that have dealt with it, I'd like to inquire where you heard of it, and implore you to specify whether you're just echoing other people's comments of have articles or books that deal with this subject.

    With all that said, If there is no account of dual wielding existed in Europe, I won't argue about it. I am no guru in Europe history (or any other history for that matter). If you said so, I will believe it. Just as other pieces of infomation you gave me, I really appreciate it. I, however, will habour my doubt why European never adopt this style. It doesn't make much sense for me.



    As for Dual wielding praticalness in general. Since I am Thai myself, What I am echoing is what is common knowledge for Thai people. As for the source, I am no guru in this subject (both martial art and history). But I will try my best.
    As far as I know. All south East Asian weapon arts such as Thai's Krabi Krabong, Burmese's Banshay, Cambodia's Kbachkun_boraan, Malay's Silat and Filippino's Eskrima are all feature some kind of dual wielding combination as one of their style (No, they're not solely about dual wielding). All these art were used in actual combat in their time. Nowaday, Krabi Krabong existed mostly as a demonstration during festival or as tourist attraction and usually choreographed. There are a few clip I found in youtube show their praticing and thus not choreographed (I believe a 1st clip is though)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ4TtBkIt14
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV_w78qWuzc (start at 2:20)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-TytzvopOY
    If you are going to ask for a clip with real fight to the death, I afraid I gotta say I can't supply you with one. It simply not gonna happen these days. The fact that these pratictioner did it without any sort of protective gear and rely solely on their partner not to break their bones make it quite dangerous in itself already IMHO.

    Here is some westerner talk about these arts I found laying around.
    http://www.usadojo.com/articles/krabi-krabong-muay-thai.htm
    http://williamsmartialblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/krabi-krabong-article-by-tony-moore.html
    http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/filipino-martial-arts/15786-pekiti-tirsia-kali-vs-krabi-krabong.html
    They seem to have difeerent opinion as yours. dual wielding is not that hard to train

    I also tried to search around for article about actual warfare. But due to my limited knowledge in this subject, I have yet to found one in English that dealing with detailed military tactic. The same go to historic person. Dual sword is common here. Unless his legend has anything to do with dual wielding in particular these brief records won't mention it. My limited knowledge can only come up with one right now.
    Phraya Phichai Dab hak

    Here is an article about origin of Thai people if you are interested
    http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521016476&ss=exc
  18. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    Swadius said:
    So because there is a level of impracticality in M&B already, any and all impracticalities should be put in?

    Lets say I'm the head of the design department of a car company. A car that was sent back to us because it had an embarrassingly great number of flaws with it. Would it be logical for us to say: "Well, there's already quite a few flaws with it, why should we change?".
    I'd be fired before I can put my pen down.

    The existence of certain traits in a system does not necessarily license the production of additional similar traits for said system.

    The things is the car wasn't send back, we never hear any complaint from customers and they seem to drive their car happily. The flaws aren't fatal either, just some ridiculuos designs. But somehow, customer seem to like it. That's why I decide to design a new model and take it even futher. This time we will have dual steering wheel !!!! You, as a head, may oppose me, saying it is ridiculuos and it make no sense whatsoever. But I doubt I'll get fired for it. Well, If I'm asked what is good about dual wheeling and I say "It's cool !!", I probably get fired ^^". I may say something like driving school will love it. I know that is just minority but who know, it may work out for normal customer. I am also aware that just add another wheel to the left (or the right depend on which country you are from) doesn't cut it. That just make our car look awkward. We need to redesign the whole thing and this model won't be next in line for production anytime soon. Still if we keep saying "It's just a fantasy" we can't get start.



    To take it back to M&B world, No, I have no problem with club naked man or dressed rider. What I tried to say is while it's true that any army will strive to equipped thier men and have them fight in ideal situation, the reality is, in many case, they can't.  I still have my doubt (please enlight me here) that if Mediaval European battles alway about two heavily armored men forming shieldwall crashing against each other in compact area ? More importantly, Are battles in M&B ??
    In every conflict between two minor fedual lord, Can they really afford to armored every combatant ? every single peasant they just concripted from nearby village ? Do lords in M&B ??
    Did bandit form a shield wall and advance in orderly fashion when they raid a village ? What about M&B's mountain bandit ??
    I believe there are plenty of situation where battle take place in openly space without proper equipment, training or formation and battle become series of duel. In M&B case, I wouldn't say it's minor either. So dual wielding is not that impractical given the situation. If you think dual wilder will have problem inflict damage upon light armored foe, I believe any sharp edge 1hander user out there will be no different.

    Now with WB, when you have skilled players who get bored playing with you in MP. I don't think a player running with two swords around will make your eye bleed anymore than seeing dozens of players running around naked with a single 1hander which you can now see everyday. Like I said it's a player's choice and I have no problem with it. If you say it's sucidal to neglect a shield, do we need to restrict every player to take at least one shield with them ? I doubt it.

    Moreover, if the game allow us to stab by a great lance with one hand, I have no problem if a player pick up two of them at once. As long as it leave him with super slow attack speed with no mean to block or parry. That should be the way the game told player that it's DOABLE but IMPRATICAL. Now with unbalance tag, things have gotten easier. Using single longsword is balanced, using longsword with a shield is balanced but using two long sword is unbalance and so on.... If there is anything physical impossible, the game can limit us by stat requirement. You need 10 str to weild bastard sword with 2hands. If you want to use it with 1hand, you need 20 str. You want to use great sword with 1hand ? give me 100 str. And if someone cheat to get it, realistic is the last thing they worry.

    Dual wielding still has a long way to go. There is much to discuss. How to implement so it won't look awkward. How to make look as realistic as possible while not complicated player too much. And how will AI handle it. We'll need another 100+ pages for that. Unfortunately, after 200+ pages we still haven't reach start line yet.



    Swadius said:
    The argument that it's not in our region is 1. usually a rebuttal to people who add the setting of M&B into their argument, and 2. by region I think they mean to include the armors the fighting styles and tactics employed in said regions necessitating counters to them. Basically, you're taking a lot of rebuttal out of context.
    As for the "entire military operations in ancient South East Asia" I'm going to have to ask you for a source on that. As far as I know, ancient South East Asia's technological achievements were not looked up upon by many of the Asian Kingdoms. Some of the history I've read depicted them as no more than uncivilized barbarians, a setting I suspect didn't breath life into many types of armors.

    I admit that South East Asia warfare wasn't look up upon by many. And from Chinese viewpoint, we aren't much more than a babarian. That is much like how the Roman view upon any other European nation. Our military tactic, logistic system are not that lack behind of Chinese one since it's where we look up upon. Actually, in M&B timeline (10th-15tn centuary I presume), you should say it's exactly the same. Thai and Bermese people are originated from China and Tibet. We fled the Mongol from the north and settled here.So we just recently break away from China in M&B timeline. Other native kingdoms of Mon, Kmer and Malayan are also good enough to hold off the Mongol too. South East Asia military shouldn't be taken lightly.
    While it's also true that we breed next to no armor at all, it doesn't mean we are uncivilized savage but it is because it make much more sense. We are in Tropical zone and humid tropical jungle never going well with metal armor. Much like what Crusaders face in Middle East desert I believe. We do have some armor but mostly only leather armor and later on a breast plate we import from westerner. Dual wielder here don't seem to have much problem dealing with them.
    So it come to whether all European combatant really run around with full plate all the time ? (If you already proof me wrong never mind) What about M&B one ?

    leumas said:
    That's interesting combat style. but it would be temporary when one weapon on right hand is blocked and paralyzed by opponent, as hidden card.
    And it needs extraordinary talent and training if you don't wanna be in danger cause combat-focus weakened. So I would say genius or idiot if you would get two weapon wielding in combat. Of course genius is too rare, you know. So it is vague to insert the stuffs into M&B.

    It doesn't need that much talent to use two swords. Dual wielding can be trained. Ambidextrous can be trained. Every men and their father were trained to fight this way in South East Asia. Of cause if you are not good at sword, you better off using only one. But if babarian like us can be trained to use it, I doubt a civilized people from the west will be any inferior.

    EDIT: Also, I remember seeing one post say If you bring two untrained person, hand one of them 1 stick, hand another 2 sticks and have them pit against each other. The outcome should be clear.
    Well, I can't say for sure which side will win. As for me, another untrain person, I will choose 2 sticks any day. Dual wielding isn't exclusive to only well trained person I guess.
  19. Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

    As one of the dual wielder supporter around 100 pages ago, I come by and see how this thread has become.

    I have to say I am amazed.
    Not by new player who keep suggesting dual wielding over and over, I think that is a norm.
    What amaze me is the same old face of anti-dual wielding poster who still reside in this thread after 5 years of over 200 pages discussion.

    What make you guys hate dual wielding so much ?
    There is notthing unrealistic about it. It doesn't break any single law of physic. It's totally humanly possible and has been done before.
    If you say it look gay. That's entirely your opinion. If you think it's impractical, there is many impratical thing in the game already. (I also disagree about this impracticalness)
    Go into battle naked with a single club never be a good idea.
    No peasant woman would be allowed to ride into battle with her dress and kitchen knife either. (if they're allowed to go to battle at all)
    Yet, it's still in the game and noone complain (If you guy did, I apologize)

    What make me post once again is, it seem the discussion turn back into "Dualwielding is just a fantasy" yet again. Let me remind you, Dual Wielding is REAL. I'm not talking about Miyamoto Musashi. I'm not talking about ninja myth.  I'm talking about entire military operations in ancient South East Asia region and its weapon art. Secondary weapon in dual wielding style here is not use solely for parrying either. I hope we can come to understand about that first. I'm aware that you guys will say "but that is not a region where M&B take place". Yes, last time(around page 10X ?), I believe our argument end as, dual wielding do not suit a normally portraited European warfare enviroment. and I would appreciate if it stay that way. else you guys also make this thread repetitive

    Another thing I want to mention is I saw a post a few pages ago said something like "there is only a few ppl who want dual-wielding, a whole lot disagree". I would sincerely disagree here. You see, every time this thread is revived, it mean there is new player wanting dual wielding. then there will be the same posters come to shot it down. these regular poster should make like 100+ pages worth of post in this thread alone already. No I'm not blame you for anything. You are free to express you opinion about the subject however much you want. just don't count 10 pages spam every single new suggestion as a horde of players please.

    Bottom line : However, I agree with you guys that adding dual wielding mechanic to the game is a lot of work. That is one of the reason why I stop arguing at the first place. We won't see it in M&B or WB. But I believe we should still make our voice heard. In hope that we will see them in M&B2 or may be new expansion. Dual wield mechanic is useful, not just for awesome(or stupid) look. As the game that boasted for its realistic simulation of mediaval warrior who also have two hands just like other human being. I see no reason whatsoever not to implement control that make use of both hand other that programming difficulty of cause.
  20. "Incorrect serial" or timeout when authenticating serial *SOLUTION*

    Hi, I tried all solution above but problem still remain.
    I tried add serail_key to both Mount&blade and Warband registry but it's still not working
    My serial key used to work fine in 0.6xx. Any other suggestion ? ^^"
Back
Top Bottom