[parsehtml][IMG]https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_36_taleworldswebsite.jpg[/IMG]
Medieval warfare was as brutal and terrifying as you might imagine. Soldiers fought for their lives in ferocious hand-to-hand combat using a variety of different weapons to protect themselves and defeat their opponents. Polearms, swords, maces and axes were used to devastating effect and anyone unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of a blow from one of these vicious weapons of war would certainly know about it.
[/parsehtml]Read more at: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/56
Dev Blog 19/04/18
- 主题发起人 Callum
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
xLeSZcZx 说:Cafer 说:TaleWorlds! We need these toys.
+1
+1
Absolutely! This would be a good use for the new physics system.
Cafer 说:TaleWorlds! We need these toys.
I can only accept this if the sling has torsion springs and the flail is used by having a dozen men pull the ropes.
Fatei
Recruit
with a spear, a mute theam, but daggers vase is not clear why, there is no side, the distance is short, the damage is low. Neither a chance to crit, nor any bonus to breaking through the armor is not, the pluss takes up a whole slot, which is ksatati strange since it's better to take a second shield or arrows. Here if they create a separate slot for the dagger, this will be the theme and even realistic, since at that time the dagger on the belt hung in each, and performed all the possible functions of cutting hamburgers in Makavto before checking the tissue density of the bodies of foreigners of the Saracens for example. So the dagger should be a free and aesthetic bonus to the equipment.
Jim2000
Recruit
Ive reached a point where I have no hope for the release date for all the people that hope it will come because of the quote..you're wrong its not the first time they havent announced the upcoming topic and its not the first time they used catch faeces like "its almost harvesting season!" Im sorry guys I really want to believe but all we get is nothing so far.. 
hiul
Sergeant at Arms
they still not explain the heir system, horse armor, and event weather yet.
before that revealed, i cant see how they are finished.
what you mean by that ? i heard that flail is actually weak or not as effective compare to mace until they use the long square type(dunno the name), but i dont get the dozen men pull the rope thing.
before that revealed, i cant see how they are finished.
SenorZorros 说:Cafer 说:TaleWorlds! We need these toys.
I can only accept this if the sling has torsion springs and the flail is used by having a dozen men pull the ropes.
what you mean by that ? i heard that flail is actually weak or not as effective compare to mace until they use the long square type(dunno the name), but i dont get the dozen men pull the rope thing.
hiul 说:they still not explain the heir system, horse armor, and event weather yet.
before that revealed, i cant see how they are finished.
SenorZorros 说:Cafer 说:TaleWorlds! We need these toys.
I can only accept this if the sling has torsion springs and the flail is used by having a dozen men pull the ropes.
what you mean by that ? i heard that flail is actually weak or not as effective compare to mace until they use the long square type(dunno the name), but i dont get the dozen men pull the rope thing.
reference to the debate 1-2 weeks ago.
...Throwing Weapons, I miss you 
ciauz^^,
Jab
ciauz^^,
Jab
ReDHeaDGiN
Recruit
PLEASE I DON'T KNOW HOWTO PLAY ONLINE!!!
HELP ME
HELP ME
Oddness
Recruit
Which would you rather go into a fight with?
A dagger or a sword?
I know which one I'm voting for.
There really isn't a single advantage to having a dagger in open warfare if any battle-field weapon is available.
Given a choice between a dagger and bare hands, however, I suppose that I'd take the dagger.
The advancement of weapons has shown a pattern throughout history. The further away that you can kill your opponent from, the better off you are. Sometimes you sacrifice range to maintain the ability to 'kill your opponent', but you will always want to be as far away from your opponent as you can get while still being able to kill them. A dagger is not particularly good at providing range, nor is it more effective at piercing armor. In the context of warfare, it has zero advantages other than convenience.
If you are seeing an advantage for using a dagger over a sword then you are thinking in terms of movie physics. Here's the progression of weapons from the stone ages to today. fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke. You will note that I left a lot of weapons out. The reason for this is that they solve the problem of how to 'kill your opponent.' The great leaps in weaponry have historically been a product of the range from which you can kill your opponent. The rest, in my opinion, has been more about over-coming the challenges of defeating opponents that are reluctant to die (wearing armor) or refining a weapon to be effective under specific circumstances. Swords, for example, were very good at killing unarmored opponents, but were generally used as side-arms. A spear was generally a better option in combat because of its range advantage.
A dagger or a sword?
I know which one I'm voting for.
There really isn't a single advantage to having a dagger in open warfare if any battle-field weapon is available.
Given a choice between a dagger and bare hands, however, I suppose that I'd take the dagger.
The advancement of weapons has shown a pattern throughout history. The further away that you can kill your opponent from, the better off you are. Sometimes you sacrifice range to maintain the ability to 'kill your opponent', but you will always want to be as far away from your opponent as you can get while still being able to kill them. A dagger is not particularly good at providing range, nor is it more effective at piercing armor. In the context of warfare, it has zero advantages other than convenience.
If you are seeing an advantage for using a dagger over a sword then you are thinking in terms of movie physics. Here's the progression of weapons from the stone ages to today. fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke. You will note that I left a lot of weapons out. The reason for this is that they solve the problem of how to 'kill your opponent.' The great leaps in weaponry have historically been a product of the range from which you can kill your opponent. The rest, in my opinion, has been more about over-coming the challenges of defeating opponents that are reluctant to die (wearing armor) or refining a weapon to be effective under specific circumstances. Swords, for example, were very good at killing unarmored opponents, but were generally used as side-arms. A spear was generally a better option in combat because of its range advantage.
ReDHeaDGiN 说:
what
Oddness 说:
Depends what are we really talk about in terms of daggers/knifes. The one depicted in blog seems to be quite long. In history of melee warfare shield formations (usually with spear + sidearm) tend to dominate other types of fighting. Some warriors did that to certain extreme (phalanx), others more loosely, but if you wanted to win, you generally adapted tactics of victorious tribes. So untill pike formation nearly every sort of orginized fighting took place in shield walls.
And in shield walls, generally speaking you had two options: keeping enemy at bay with reach (to extreme ancient greeks ways) or closing for a kill (like Romans did). And in second option, you generally speaking do not have a lot of room for long weapons. For example Gladius, one of the bloodiest weapons in history could have blade as short as 45 cms / 18inch. To compare, one of most popular side weapons during migration period and viking age was seax (knife in old germanic). Longseax was common fighting tool in shieldwall with blade as short as 50cms/20 inch. So "long knife" was in fact longer than Gladius ("sword" in latin). Both were however used in same fashion, to close up with rank of shields and thrust from behind it, so your enemy does not see the blade untill it's too late.
It is possible of course to fight in shield walls with slightly longer swords. However for that you either have to loosen formation (solution that has many flaws in itself) or develop tactics or equipment that would allow it. For example Vikings had longer blades (above 70cms) but they used very specific shield that possibly could exploit this length.
So yeah, reach has it's advantages and knifes have theirs. Both had their time and place. It is not as easy as you presented (fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke) since bow is way older than for example sword or polearms.
I doubt however, that in Bannerlord world physics will be so advanced that shield walls with long knifes will have their uses. So I'd say dagger will be needed for item dropped by belligerent drunk
Oddness
Recruit
NPC99 说:
I'm certain that they did, which brings me back to my original question. If you could only choose one, would you prefer to bring that Rondel dagger into battle, or would you prefer to bring a sword or a spear? I guarantee that the swordsmen/spearman, everything else the same, would have very little difficulty in killing the guy with the knife. That is my point
dr4gunov 说:Depends what are we really talk about in terms of daggers/knifes. The one depicted in blog seems to be quite long. In history of melee warfare shield formations (usually with spear + sidearm) tend to dominate other types of fighting. Some warriors did that to certain extreme (phalanx), others more loosely, but if you wanted to win, you generally adapted tactics of victorious tribes. So untill pike formation nearly every sort of orginized fighting took place in shield walls.
And in shield walls, generally speaking you had two options: keeping enemy at bay with reach (to extreme ancient greeks ways) or closing for a kill (like Romans did). And in second option, you generally speaking do not have a lot of room for long weapons. For example Gladius, one of the bloodiest weapons in history could have blade as short as 45 cms / 18inch. To compare, one of most popular side weapons during migration period and viking age was seax (knife in old germanic). Longseax was common fighting tool in shieldwall with blade as short as 50cms/20 inch. So "long knife" was in fact longer than Gladius ("sword" in latin). Both were however used in same fashion, to close up with rank of shields and thrust from behind it, so your enemy does not see the blade untill it's too late.
It is possible of course to fight in shield walls with slightly longer swords. However for that you either have to loosen formation (solution that has many flaws in itself) or develop tactics or equipment that would allow it. For example Vikings had longer blades (above 70cms) but they used very specific shield that possibly could exploit this length.
So yeah, reach has it's advantages and knifes have theirs. Both had their time and place. It is not as easy as you presented (fist -> dagger -> spear -> bow -> siege weapon -> gun -> cannon -> missile -> nuke) since bow is way older than for example sword or polearms.
I doubt however, that in Bannerlord world physics will be so advanced that shield walls with long knifes will have their uses. So I'd say dagger will be needed for item dropped by belligerent drunk
Lets define what I mean by a dagger. When you start up Mount and Blade: Warband, look for the item in the inventory which is called a "dagger." That is the weapon that my post is addressing.
I agree that it isn't as easy as I presented. I presented a general theme, admittedly omitting many weapons and tactics. That does not make the statement, that everything else constant, in a one vs. one fight, the guy with the longer weapon has a major advantage, assuming equal skill between the two combatants and a weapon which can overcome their opponent's defenses.
A bow vs. a guy in armor would be at a disadvantage only if his bow cannot penetrate his opponent's armor. Thus, finding the best tactics to combat your opponent's particular equipment forces you to move in closer, despite the fact that being closer to your opponent is not ideal.
On the subject of daggers, they have no advantage. They do not provide range nor a better ability to pierce armor than other types of weapons. Their only advantage in a battle is that they are convenient. Can we agree on that?
