Additional weapon modes & possible gloved weapon. Plausible new unit designs.

Users who are viewing this thread

So lets start with weapon modes. To start we could simply make bladed weapons do blunt damage when you press X. To achieve that, and staying historically realistic, we can look at Medieval Europe where soldiers & most famously Zweihänder users would grab the blade of their weapon and use the pommel to inflict blunt damage on armoured troops since trying to cut heavy plate armour is quite impractical, or even trying to get through gambeson or equivalents is less than satisfactory. Might as well use your pommel to smash it against the enemy, causing at the least, blunt trauma or pushing metal in a concentrated area into the flesh, causing quite a lot of pain, and damage.
I think just adding this function and making cut less effective against metal would make the game not only more realistic but chaotic and random, which would make sense.


Now, for the gloved weapon, if we look at the Empire, they resemble the Roman Empire, so why not add a fitting... gloved weapon/armour?
I'm referring to a Cestus or Caestus, which was an ancient battle glove. They were originally used as protection for fists, but later became weapons, often being adorned with metal plates and sometimes metal spikes.

Currently fighting with only fists gives experience solely to Athletics, so we could make that a athletics weapon, which would make sense.

Thoughts?

Post Edit: Currently for range weapons, there are very few, with most troops using a Khuzait's Steppe bow or other version, even though this is illogical and they should have their own version, like the nordic shorbow or woodland long bows.
Why do the Empire not use Empire bows and the Aserai not Aserai short bows?
And that's not even mentioning the Crossbows. There need to be more.
 
Last edited:
I kind of wanted to expand on the gloves a little as if they were added, should skills be reworked, if any, for them?
Personally, I think that would be a bad idea, as they should either be an augment that you can put on your gloves (or gloved variant) to forgoe a weapon on a possible new heavy duty archer unit that has 3 stacks of arrows. This would add more varying strategies as you would prefer them to stay in skirmish range as long as possible without them actually getting into melee conflict. They would excel at siege warfare but be easily stomped by cavalry or a well done shield wall if unprotected.
Alternatively, we could see some kind of brawler; a unit that may not do a lot of instant damage but is able to dart around the battlefield quickly with a good physique (Sustainability; so Health & or Armour). They would be like a melee skirmisher, being able to run around regular infantry to get to archers or flank enemy infantry.

Bandits could also be a prime user as it doesn't take much to bind, say, a rock to a glove and deal more damage that way.

I can see maybe Battania using the fist warriors, but I think these would fit the Empire much better, allowing you to add more units to a faction that is suppose to be (technically) the biggest on the Calradic map even though they have a fairly simple unit tree.
If these don't fit the commoner tree, they could be used to extend the sad 1 line elite tree.

To briefly add to being able to switch to a blunted weapon I also mention in my previous message, for 2H Axes, you could make them flip the head so you're using the poll (butt) of the respective axe type to deliver blunt damage.

These suggestions could potentially go great with Tryvenyal's thread on recruitment changes here.

I would love for others to put in their thoughts if they agree or disagree so we could maybe expand further on this, if viable.
 
To expand the troops, and i'll be going down the list in the in-game menu.

Vlandia.

Vlandia's troops, in my opinion seem slow and rigid, even though they were originally mercenaries and started from invading the Empire's coast.
Their troops, having among the best survivability, and Cavalry reliant for speed, don't really match the persona of a mercenaries' origin; that being flexible and quick.
Some simple Skirmishers, either mounted or not, would go a long way for them. And their voulgiers', while technically fit that, lack the more organized side of what they've become. A Kingdom.
Don't get me wrong, I think they should stay in the tree, but get a more specialized (preferably) mounted unit that's focuses on Skirmishing with throwing weapons as they, with their set up, would not use bows.
A Mounted Crossbow elite unit may have potential.

Sturgia.

I've personally not really fought or used Sturgian troops much yet, but they're a mix of warbands Vaegirs and Nords. In this respect, they actually fit their role really well, with them having both excellent Infantry and decent Archers, with a decent line of Shock Cavalry Skirmishers.
I personally think they could have some better troops to deal with their Khuzait neighbor's as their Cavalry can't compete and their Infantry and Archers just get circled.
Some new formations would make sense for them, like a spear wall.
For troops however, maybe a elite Heavy Archer that is a tank in both firepower and defense (good melee and range weapons and good armour) may help their cause, or possibly a Light Cavalry in their commoner tree?
I'd suspect someone else would be able to suggest a better idea for them.

Khuzait.

The Khuzaits are probably, in my opinion, the most fleshed out tree in troops, and with the current AI, dominate the meta.
I'm reluctant to suggest anything as they currently fit their role to a Tee.
They focus on Cavalry, mainly Mounted Archers, with their foot Infantry and Archers, while probably a little too good for a faction heavily focused on mounts, aren't the best out their, though they certainly hold their own. They just aren't the highlight.
I would probably suggest better equipped, but less armoured foot troops as they should focus speed and flexibility.

Empire.

The Empire could honestly use a total revamp. They seem to heavily resemble a Roman Era culture with elements from Early to Late in it. Among other peculiarities that differentiate them. But, Regardless.
Infantry
Despite being an Empire that dominated the map at one point, lack any pike/spear bearers to deal with any sort of cavalry, despite having some of the best heavy cavalry themselves. This is not even getting into how spears are such a HUGE stable in pretty much every era of melee combatants. A new line that focuses on keeping enemy units at spear length would go a long way to help their, granted, decent Infantry tree.
Archers
I can't say much here as they have both Crossbow and Bow users. I'd like for Slings to be added as they were a fairly effective weapon with very cheap cost production, which allowed cheaper ranged troops to fill armies. Granted, they were harder than Crossbows, but were easier than Bows. They had their Pros and Cons.
Mounted Archers
What can I say? They aren't great, but they aren't terrible. They are what you'd probably expect of a common troop tree. They don't hold a candle to the Aserai's heavy hitting Mamelukes or the Kuzait's superior Mounted Archers.
Cavalry
So while they have their elite tree Cavalry, they don't have any common tree Cavalry, which while much inferior, should still be a thing. Any faction that grows into a Empire should know that Cavalry, even crappy Cavalry, should be a massive boon to any army with their ability to terrorize enemy troops and bolster friendly troops.

I'd like to go on more with the Empire, but there are some mods and other threads that will probably better summarize how the Empire could be balanced with such a extensive troop tree being limited in certain areas to sort of mimic the Auxilia Regiments the Romans had, to a certain extent.

Battania.

Battania heavily, and I mean heavily, resemble the Celtic army with a English longbow elite troop.
Battania has the best Foot Infantry and Archers, but sense their Archers are so hard to get, they tend to have a almost 70%-90% Infantry, 0%-30% Cavalry, and a 0%-3% Archer army composition. Which means an Archer wall can usually decimate a similar - triple sized army of Battanians. Their plethora of throwing weapons somewhat make up for this, if they can get in range.
For a troop to make up for this? If we stick to their lore, A super heavy Infantry that can make up that distance that the current Infantry can't, either with new ultra shields or double down on their shields so that when their shield does break, they can bring out their other one. This would mean they would have to be a elite unit however. Especially as the Battanians only have 1 (I think) horse producing village, which makes it a fight to get horses for them.

Aserai.

The Aserai do quite well, with their not super heavily armoured troops. This is mostly achieved with their superiors weapon quality and wealth.
Their Mameluke Heavy Cavalry are the best Skirmisher Mounted Archers in the game (common tree) as they can both hit hard and kick ass in CQC.
Their Archers are basically less armoured and better equipped Empire Archers. though their Infantry can vary on the enemy, they are generally pretty decent-good. The elite tree has the best in and out capability among being a Mounted Skirmisher (with Lance+Shield+Sword) so there's that.
The Aserai do well being a balanced force, so I personally can't place right now what they could benefit from as a extra troop.



This is me not going into super detail mode as not all my opinions may be good, if any, but I would love to debate and think of ideas together.
So let me know what you think.
 
Last edited:
Full plate harnesses don't exist in the rough 600s-1100s period that Bannerlord is set in so there's no real need for half swording. It wouldn't be impractical, and I wouldn't really care if they added it, seeing as there are two handed swords in game already.

Fist weapons, along with 'brawler' characters would just look stupid in the battlefield. You might kick or punch on occasion, but no one is going to run around the battlefield with metal fists. That's complete nonsense. If they add them, then it should be for use in towns and cities as concealable weapons.

I guess we could use with new crossbows. Not sure about how many new bows could be added though. At some point, a bow is just a bow and if there is no meaningful difference then what's the point?

Along that train of thought, no to 3x quivers. They wouldn't really excel in sieges anyway, at least not as defenders. Archers on walls refill their arrows.

Lmao at flipping the axe to the blunt side. The axe head won't necessarily cut through metal, but the sheer blunt weight of it is quite substantial. There's no reason to flip it, just wack them with the axe.

No skirmishers for Vlandia. I don't even like that their Voulgiers have throwing axes. Vlandia is meant to represent a feudal medieval army with strong shock cavalry and levies trained in the use of spear or crossbow. They aren't mercenaries or whatever anymore, they've become a legitimate kingdom. And I think the inability to field good skirmish cavalry or actual skirmisher infantry is a sensible enough weakness to have anyway. Mounted crossbows wouldn't really work very well, considering crossbows can't be reloaded on horseback. At best, a dragoon style mounted infantry could be fun.

Sturgia has the worst archers of any faction lol, not that I mind. All factions should have a weakness, although I think Sturgian archers should at least get a shield to fulfil a distinct niche. Tanky archers already belong to the Empire. Sturgia's cavalry is already their best bet against the Khuzaits, its just that they don't bring enough of it. And they already have light cavalry in the form of that Horse Raider you mentioned.

The Empire already has a strong army with very very few weaknesses. Diverse range of troops and the heaviest armour in general. Legionaries set on hold fire already function as a pretty good anti cavalry unit. In fact their shorter spears are better for avoiding collision issues. The Elite Menavliatons are your pikeman unit- only they don't suck at being anti cavalry at all. No to slingers, I'd rather see that on Battania if anything. Their Bucellarii are the ****test horse archer indeed. They don't even have the signature Imperial heavy armour to compensate. Give them heavier armour.

Are you aware that the Celtic Welsh made use of longbows? In fact, they pretty much introduced longbows to the English. Also lol at Battania having the best foot infantry, for a troop tree that makes such heavy use of them they are... meh. Widllings and Oathsworn have the same weapons. Oathsworn in particular have some goofed up athletics/riding, and don't quite cut it as strong line infantry, although apparently they can dismount cavalry now so maybe they're better. I think your idea of a super heavy infantry is completely goofy and out of character for Battania. What they really need is a common archer. Ideally naked, covered in woad paint and packing falxes to serve as a glass cannon.

The Aserai are underrated and don't get enough respect. I would probably give them new troops anyway, because why not.

Overall, I wouldn't mind expanded troop trees in general. Just not in the way you've made them.
 
Full plate harnesses don't exist in the rough 600s-1100s period that Bannerlord is set in so there's no real need for half swording. It wouldn't be impractical, and I wouldn't really care if they added it, seeing as there are two handed swords in game already.

Fist weapons, along with 'brawler' characters would just look stupid in the battlefield. You might kick or punch on occasion, but no one is going to run around the battlefield with metal fists. That's complete nonsense. If they add them, then it should be for use in towns and cities as concealable weapons.

I guess we could use with new crossbows. Not sure about how many new bows could be added though. At some point, a bow is just a bow and if there is no meaningful difference then what's the point?

Along that train of thought, no to 3x quivers. They wouldn't really excel in sieges anyway, at least not as defenders. Archers on walls refill their arrows.

Lmao at flipping the axe to the blunt side. The axe head won't necessarily cut through metal, but the sheer blunt weight of it is quite substantial. There's no reason to flip it, just wack them with the axe.

No skirmishers for Vlandia. I don't even like that their Voulgiers have throwing axes. Vlandia is meant to represent a feudal medieval army with strong shock cavalry and levies trained in the use of spear or crossbow. They aren't mercenaries or whatever anymore, they've become a legitimate kingdom. And I think the inability to field good skirmish cavalry or actual skirmisher infantry is a sensible enough weakness to have anyway. Mounted crossbows wouldn't really work very well, considering crossbows can't be reloaded on horseback. At best, a dragoon style mounted infantry could be fun.

Sturgia has the worst archers of any faction lol, not that I mind. All factions should have a weakness, although I think Sturgian archers should at least get a shield to fulfil a distinct niche. Tanky archers already belong to the Empire. Sturgia's cavalry is already their best bet against the Khuzaits, its just that they don't bring enough of it. And they already have light cavalry in the form of that Horse Raider you mentioned.

The Empire already has a strong army with very very few weaknesses. Diverse range of troops and the heaviest armour in general. Legionaries set on hold fire already function as a pretty good anti cavalry unit. In fact their shorter spears are better for avoiding collision issues. The Elite Menavliatons are your pikeman unit- only they don't suck at being anti cavalry at all. No to slingers, I'd rather see that on Battania if anything. Their Bucellarii are the ****test horse archer indeed. They don't even have the signature Imperial heavy armour to compensate. Give them heavier armour.

Are you aware that the Celtic Welsh made use of longbows? In fact, they pretty much introduced longbows to the English. Also lol at Battania having the best foot infantry, for a troop tree that makes such heavy use of them they are... meh. Widllings and Oathsworn have the same weapons. Oathsworn in particular have some goofed up athletics/riding, and don't quite cut it as strong line infantry, although apparently they can dismount cavalry now so maybe they're better. I think your idea of a super heavy infantry is completely goofy and out of character for Battania. What they really need is a common archer. Ideally naked, covered in woad paint and packing falxes to serve as a glass cannon.

The Aserai are underrated and don't get enough respect. I would probably give them new troops anyway, because why not.

Overall, I wouldn't mind expanded troop trees in general. Just not in the way you've made them.
Very valid points.
Lets start with weapons. For the Cestus, I don't disagree that it would be... impractical. It'd be fun as hell to run around punching people death, but mostly impractical. More likely than not having to adjust other settings just to get it practical, though I still like the idea of bandits having a chance to spawn with them.
For the bladed weapons, I still think it would make sense, as good scale and plated armour can still be as effective, if not better than crappy made full plate (there's still a huge difference between the two, but, still) so wanting to smash all the armour inwards into the human body is not at all impractical, especially if it's a high end weapon, which would make you want to maintain it.
For the two handed axe, while true the weight would probably do the job, You still wouldn't want to damage the bladed head, if possible.
Now maintenance is not in the game, and I press X to doubt it'll ever be, but adding the function could add a little more life to your troops AI.

For troops, a Mounted Crossbow is not unreal if in the elite tree as their skill would be high enough for the perk to reload on horseback, though the dragoon style Mounted Infantry would fit them way better, and sounds dope to boot.

Sturgian Archers, while not the best have better sustain than Imperial Archers, so they aren't the worst. At the very least they can do their job, though a buff may do well.

For the Empire, I'm not saying their current tree in not diverse, I'm mostly saying for an empire, they have less variety then one should expect.

For Battania, while the names or different for the Infantries weapons, they are mostly the same, I won't deny that.
And no, I didn't actually know that the English got their bows from the Celtic, thank you for that.
I think, however, if you were to add a basically glass cannon archer for them, it could go either great or bad. their current archers are basically artillery right now, so adding a common like of that would either make them op or ****. Hard to say without an example, though I do like the idea.

And you are correct, the Aserai are underrated.

Most of the current problems stem from battle AI currently just not being as good as it should, making stupid decisions more than not.
 

Dr-Shinobi

So lets start with weapon modes. To start we could simply make bladed weapons do blunt damage when you press X. To achieve that, and staying historically realistic, we can look at Medieval Europe where soldiers & most famously Zweihänder users would grab the blade of their weapon and use the pommel to inflict blunt damage on armoured troops since trying to cut heavy plate armour is quite impractical, or even trying to get through gambeson or equivalents is less than satisfactory. Might as well use your pommel to smash it against the enemy, causing at the least, blunt trauma or pushing metal in a concentrated area into the flesh, causing quite a lot of pain, and damage.
I think just adding this function and making cut less effective against metal would make the game not only more realistic but chaotic and random, which would make sense.


Now, for the gloved weapon, if we look at the Empire, they resemble the Roman Empire, so why not add a fitting... gloved weapon/armour?
I'm referring to a Cestus or Caestus, which was an ancient battle glove. They were originally used as protection for fists, but later became weapons, often being adorned with metal plates and sometimes metal spikes.

Currently fighting with only fists gives experience solely to Athletics, so we could make that a athletics weapon, which would make sense.

Thoughts?

Post Edit: Currently for range weapons, there are very few, with most troops using a Khuzait's Steppe bow or other version, even though this is illogical and they should have their own version, like the nordic shorbow or woodland long bows.
Why do the Empire not use Empire bows and the Aserai not Aserai short bows?
And that's not even mentioning the Crossbows. There need to be more.

f739d7374e4e51f225edca50bec09a30.gif


You know you can "shieldbash" with your two handers (or with any weapon for that matter) to right ? hitting em with your handle (of which i think also counts in on your added shield bash skills, but im not certain of that yet...if not it should be accounted for) . Or am i missing out on something ? tired as i am right now ^^
 
Last edited:
we can look at Medieval Europe where soldiers & most famously Zweihänder users would grab the blade of their weapon and use the pommel to inflict blunt damage on armoured troops since trying to cut heavy plate armour is quite impractical, or even trying to get through gambeson or equivalents is less than satisfactory. Might as well use your pommel to smash it against the enemy, causing at the least, blunt trauma or pushing metal in a concentrated area into the flesh, causing quite a lot of pain, and damage.
To briefly add to being able to switch to a blunted weapon I also mention in my previous message, for 2H Axes, you could make them flip the head so you're using the poll (butt) of the respective axe type to deliver blunt damage.

It always makes me laugh when people say stuff like this. I remember a few months ago someone suggested that there be a new type of arrowhead that is just a metal blob instead of a point, so that it deals blunt damage. :lol: :lol:

"blunt damage" is just what happens when you hit something really hard. If someone smashes me on the helmet with a 1000x folded atom-sharp katana, it will still probably give me a concussion, because metal is heavy and swords travel fast. Just because an object is not sharp, doesn't mean it does more damage to armour. Bannerlord is very misleading is this regard and makes it seem like blunt objects are somehow inherently more damaging.
If I am fighting someone encased in armour and all I have is a sword, the best thing for me to do is to just whack him with the blade. Using the pommel would make no difference unless it somehow weighs more than the sword and has more leverage.
 
Very valid points.

For the two handed axe, while true the weight would probably do the job, You still wouldn't want to damage the bladed head, if possible.
Now maintenance is not in the game, and I press X to doubt it'll ever be, but adding the function could add a little more life to your troops AI.

For troops, a Mounted Crossbow is not unreal if in the elite tree as their skill would be high enough for the perk to reload on horseback, though the dragoon style Mounted Infantry would fit them way better, and sounds dope to boot.

Sturgian Archers, while not the best have better sustain than Imperial Archers, so they aren't the worst. At the very least they can do their job, though a buff may do well.

For the Empire, I'm not saying their current tree in not diverse, I'm mostly saying for an empire, they have less variety then one should expect.

For Battania, while the names or different for the Infantries weapons, they are mostly the same, I won't deny that.
And no, I didn't actually know that the English got their bows from the Celtic, thank you for that.
I think, however, if you were to add a basically glass cannon archer for them, it could go either great or bad. their current archers are basically artillery right now, so adding a common like of that would either make them op or ****. Hard to say without an example, though I do like the idea.

And you are correct, the Aserai are underrated.

Most of the current problems stem from battle AI currently just not being as good as it should, making stupid decisions more than not.
But you aren't going to do any damage with the pole end of an axe. Like, at all. At least the sheer weight and concentration of force imparted by an axe could do something. So no, its not a good idea.

Perks do not work with un named troops, and judging by their design I don't think they'll ever work that way unfortunately. So no long bow cavalry, or mounted crossbows. Dragoon cavalry sounds fun, but believe me when I say that its not that practical at all lol. Too much micro management.

I do not know what you mean by better sustain for Sturgian Archers. Their armour ranks among the ****tiest. Master Archers have worse head armour, but are stronger otherwise. All they can do is loose arrows, and everyone does it better than them. If you mean their arrows, then sure. They at least have more than Palatine guards.

A common archer for Battania is not going to amount to much besides having more archers and actually looking closer to their lore. Common exist in every other faction, so I don't see the trouble in giving them one too. And I don't mean to say make them drastically stronger than everyone else. Let them outrange and outmaneuver everyone else, but die as soon as someone looks their direction.

It always makes me laugh when people say stuff like this. I remember a few months ago someone suggested that there be a new type of arrowhead that is just a metal blob instead of a point, so that it deals blunt damage. :lol: :lol:

"blunt damage" is just what happens when you hit something really hard. If someone smashes me on the helmet with a 1000x folded atom-sharp katana, it will still probably give me a concussion, because metal is heavy and swords travel fast. Just because an object is not sharp, doesn't mean it does more damage to armour. Bannerlord is very misleading is this regard and makes it seem like blunt objects are somehow inherently more damaging.
If I am fighting someone encased in armour and all I have is a sword, the best thing for me to do is to just whack him with the blade. Using the pommel would make no difference unless it somehow weighs more than the sword and has more leverage.
Tbf, pommels usually carry more weight than the pointy end of a sword. That's why swords are a lot more maneuverable than axes or maces or things of that nature. So turning it around and using it like a improvised mace/warhammer thing does work.

I don't think OP quite understands that though, considering his comments on 2handed axes...
 

Anushtegin

Sergeant
"blunt damage" is just what happens when you hit something really hard. If someone smashes me on the helmet with a 1000x folded atom-sharp katana, it will still probably give me a concussion, because metal is heavy and swords travel fast. Just because an object is not sharp, doesn't mean it does more damage to armour. Bannerlord is very misleading is this regard and makes it seem like blunt objects are somehow inherently more damaging.
If I am fighting someone encased in armour and all I have is a sword, the best thing for me to do is to just whack him with the blade. Using the pommel would make no difference unless it somehow weighs more than the sword and has more leverage.

blunt weapons don't damage the armor, they damage the body behind the armor. they literally ignore the armor. that was the entire point of warhammers and the like. it's the perfect counter to plate armor, because unlike mail or soft armor, it is rigid and not flexible and hitting a heavy object with a large area of impact on the cuirass or helmet will give you more than just a bruise. blades can't immitate that kind of force on plate armor, that's simple physics.
 
I know that, but if you have an axe or any other polearm, the bladed part is the heaviest part. Trying to hit someone with the shaft is just going to impart less force. Just because the object itself is blunt, doesn't mean it does more blunt damage than a non-blunt object.
 
f739d7374e4e51f225edca50bec09a30.gif


You know you can "shieldbash" with your two handers (or with any weapon for that matter) to right ? hitting em with your handle (of which i think also counts in on your added shield bash skills, but im not certain of that yet...if not it should be accounted for) . Or am i missing out on something ? tired as i am right now ^^
Yes, but typically when you shield bash you can't get ready to strike fast enough.
 
I know that, but if you have an axe or any other polearm, the bladed part is the heaviest part. Trying to hit someone with the shaft is just going to impart less force. Just because the object itself is blunt, doesn't mean it does more blunt damage than a non-blunt object.
Not necessarily. It depends on how you're using the staff. If you're hold the shaft close to the head, you'd probably be more us as a meat shield. What would work is using the poll of a polearm, the butt of the head, assuming it's wrapped around and not something like Bardiche, in which case, you'd likely be better using the blade just because it's so big and unwieldy.
 
But you aren't going to do any damage with the pole end of an axe. Like, at all. At least the sheer weight and concentration of force imparted by an axe could do something. So no, its not a good idea.

Perks do not work with un named troops, and judging by their design I don't think they'll ever work that way unfortunately. So no long bow cavalry, or mounted crossbows. Dragoon cavalry sounds fun, but believe me when I say that its not that practical at all lol. Too much micro management.

I do not know what you mean by better sustain for Sturgian Archers. Their armour ranks among the ****tiest. Master Archers have worse head armour, but are stronger otherwise. All they can do is loose arrows, and everyone does it better than them. If you mean their arrows, then sure. They at least have more than Palatine guards.

A common archer for Battania is not going to amount to much besides having more archers and actually looking closer to their lore. Common exist in every other faction, so I don't see the trouble in giving them one too. And I don't mean to say make them drastically stronger than everyone else. Let them outrange and outmaneuver everyone else, but die as soon as someone looks their direction.

For the most part, I actually agree with what you said.

For the polearm, it would heavily depend on the type, with anything heaving and having little to no poll being better to just swing in the general direction with its sheer weight, so your right there.

For the new troops, It was more of a hope and I really hope they make troops use skills sometime later in development, preferably when the skills actually work. The dragoon would be fun, but likely, as you said, too much micro in actual battles.

For Sturgian Archers, I was only referring to their arrows. Otherwise they are not worth mentioning for anything other than disappointment.

For Battania, fair. They really do need the extra archers anyway, and a naked glass cannon would be cool.

Tbf, pommels usually carry more weight than the pointy end of a sword. That's why swords are a lot more maneuverable than axes or maces or things of that nature. So turning it around and using it like a improvised mace/warhammer thing does work.

I don't think OP quite understands that though, considering his comments on 2handed axes...

Honestly? Even I don't know where I was going with the axe. Axes are designed for chopping, usually, and would almost always be better used like that.
I still stand for the actual bladed weapons though, both 1H & 2H.
 
Top Bottom