Twice the damage? Okay? And? You're using two swords and no shield that's called a trade off. Perfectly acceptable. Besides you could even gimp the off-hand by X% like MOST dual-wield games do so that you don't run into that situation.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Dual wield！
- 主题发起人 Pt.C
- 开始时间
-
- 标签
- dual wield
正在查看此主题的用户
You could just spam and don't even get hit. And besides, how is someone supposed to use 2 weapons effectively? Its just unrealistic and unnecessary.
That's your opinion and while I respect it, I have to disagree with you. It's not unrealistic or unnecessary at all because there is historical context behind its usage, dating back to the Roman Empire and perhaps even FURTHER back before that. It isn't unnecessary either but that's a matter of perspective I suppose, I see it being an effective method of fighting in Arenas and in Gang Encounters or other Civilian settings.
How is someone supposed to use 2 weapons effectively? Look at the Middle Earth series of games, Assassins Creed as well, the Elder Scrolls series, etc and other games. They've done it effectively for years now, so I don't see the issue there.
Show me one historical evidance, that prooves, that it was used in battle (not in tournament or with a dagger!). Noone in their right mind would use two swords instead of just a sword and shield or 2H. You can only use one of the two swordas at a time anyways, because otherwise you just open yourself to any attack. It doesen't give you any advantage, rather disadvantages.
Yea, because in all of those games it basically doesen't matter if you get hit and open yourself for an attack. They are not representative in realistic combat. Just look at all the spinning and jumping motions in these games, of course dual wielding works there.
Yeah I mean I'm not debating that with you though, I have stated numerous times in open warfare it wasn't actually practical. I can quote myself if you'd like so you can understand we're on the same page here as to that point. And exactly, so if it only provides a disadvantage in your opinion then why do you think it'll be too strong? You seem to be contradicting yourself at times. If you don't like dual-wield I can understand that but to say it wasn't historically used or realistic is just outright wrong.
And that's not even true for any of the rest of the titles I listed, except for Skyrim, which we can safely say isn't meant to be realistic in ANY regards anyways. The use of two weapons in combat was a real thing, someone else also even pointed out more recent historical context via the Middle Ages when full-plate clad Knights wouldn't even USE a shield in combat, they'd either use a 2 handed weapon or TWO weapons in general. (Mace and Sword, Sword and Flail, etc.) It was practical for Knights in full armor because they're already a walking tank/shield.
Here's some of my own historical context I dug up, goes as far back as Rome. Dimachaerus in Roman Tournaments
EDIT: Even more Historical Context, here's an illustration from the Mathern Fechtbuch, circa 1686.
It clearly shows two armored opponents wielding dual sabers in combat during a tournament. Like I said, not really viable in open warfare the majority of the time but in single combat? You bet it was used.
Miyamoto Mushashi, a renowned Samurai known for his skill in combat was also known to have created a form of dual-wielding as well. It's not something that's uncommon or out of the ordinary, just not always practical.
Niten Ichi-ryu, Musashi's dual-wield school
I'm only saying if dual-wield IS eventually a thing, I'd prefer it for civilian environments and arenas. I don't think anyone would reliably use dual-wield in their campaigns during open warfare or in major engagements lol
最后编辑:
Revverie
No
It was used on the battlefield, just not practically by the masses. Unless you wore full-plate or were fighting in Japan during the Sengoku period, or you were a Viking raiding coastal villages, then you wouldn't really use two weapons. Most levies and even standing armies would prefer Shield and Sword/Spear over dual-wield for the brunt of their force because "arrows", among other things.
Mppqlmd
Regular
And how often did people use throwing knives on a medieval battlefield ?
You're making my point, this game is primarily about mass battles grounded in historical realism where things like arrows and shields are ubiquitous. Duel wielding swords is largely relegated to myth, or to one-on-one duels. Not actual battles. Video games and Hollywood have made people believe duel wielding was common. There's not much historical evidence for that
Baronvonchickenpants
Recruit
Even if you did have full plate, you'd just carry a bigger two handed weapon like the pollaxe
They should also remove the grain scythe and replace them with war scythes. The blades on actual war scythes don't look anything like what the Grim Reaper carries
I just pointed out plenty of historical evidence above, I'll requote my post so you can clearly see it was used throughout history and not uncommon.
Yeah I mean I'm not debating that with you though, I have stated numerous times in open warfare it wasn't actually practical. I can quote myself if you'd like so you can understand we're on the same page here as to that point. And exactly, so if it only provides a disadvantage in your opinion then why do you think it'll be too strong? You seem to be contradicting yourself at times. If you don't like dual-wield I can understand that but to say it wasn't historically used or realistic is just outright wrong.
And that's not even true for any of the rest of the titles I listed, except for Skyrim, which we can safely say isn't meant to be realistic in ANY regards anyways. The use of two weapons in combat was a real thing, someone else also even pointed out more recent historical context via the Middle Ages when full-plate clad Knights wouldn't even USE a shield in combat, they'd either use a 2 handed weapon or TWO weapons in general. (Mace and Sword, Sword and Flail, etc.) It was practical for Knights in full armor because they're already a walking tank/shield.
Here's some of my own historical context I dug up, goes as far back as Rome. Dimachaerus in Roman Tournaments
EDIT: Even more Historical Context, here's an illustration from the Mathern Fechtbuch, circa 1686.
It clearly shows two armored opponents wielding dual sabers in combat during a tournament. Like I said, not really viable in open warfare the majority of the time but in single combat? You bet it was used.
Miyamoto Mushashi, a renowned Samurai known for his skill in combat was also known to have created a form of dual-wielding as well. It's not something that's uncommon or out of the ordinary, just not always practical.
Niten Ichi-ryu, Musashi's dual-wield school
I'm only saying if dual-wield IS eventually a thing, I'd prefer it for civilian environments and arenas. I don't think anyone would reliably use dual-wield in their campaigns during open warfare or in major engagements lol
See the above for a good analysis and proof of the use of dual-wielding. I didn't prove your point at all, I'm merely stating that it's use was more prevalent amongst those who had no need for shields, (i.e. Knights in plate, Single Combat duels, etc.) It also wouldn't need to be restricted to one part of the game if implemented because you'd never be dumb enough to go without a shield in open combat.
If they do include it, it'd be great for other scenarios in the game already.
Yes, that also too. But for the most part Knights in plate or those who felt confident enough would forego a shield and use whatever combination they preferred, if allowed.
The historical evidence you're citing is one-on-one combat outside of pitched battles of the type that Bannerlord is based around. Your second sentence hits the point: "in open warfare it wasn't actually practical." It wasn't practical, it wasn't common, any historical evidence of it is limited to one-on-one combat situations in things like tournaments or duels or to myths like the Viking sagas.
if you want to add dual wielding but limit its application to tournaments, fine. But I don't think it should be in the base game.
I mean, my man there is plenty of historical evidence of its use that make's it common. It was used throughout history in various cases, just because it wasn't used on the battlefield does not make it uncommon. It just makes it impractical and that's okay. No one is saying otherwise lol. I'm perfectly fine with them implementing this because it was realistic, even if impractical.
It should absolutely be in the base game if the game allows for it because it's a form of combat.
Yes there are because it's historically accurate and was used, no matter what scenarios it was in. You can't say it isn't historically accurate when there's clear proof throughout history, lmao. Nor can you argue against its inclusion unless you just don't like dual-wield, personally, and that's fine. It's your opinion but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included
最后编辑:
I mean, my man there is plenty of historical evidence of it's use that make's it common. It was used throughout history in various cases, just because it wasn't used on the battlefield does not make it uncommon. It just makes it impractical and that's okay. No one is saying otherwise lol. I'm perfectly fine with them implementing this because it was realistic, even if impractical.
It should absolutely be in the base game if the game allows for it because it's a form of combat.
Yes there are because it's historically accurate and was used, no matter what scenarios it was in. You can't say it isn't historically accurate when there's clear proof throughout history, lmao. Nor can you argue against it's inclusion unless you just don't like dual-wield, personally, and that's fine. It's your opinion but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included
It does matter what scenarios it was in, because Bannerlord is primarily about massed combat between armies grounded in realism. Seeing a bunch of soldiers running around the battlefield dual wielding swords is not only ahistorical, it's something better reserved for fantasy mods
It's not fantasy so to label it such is just silly from any point of view. It's also not ahistorical at all, just because it wasn't used on a battlefield. It was actually used in history so it's historical in context and by nature. I understand what Bannerlord is about and nowhere did I say I wanted this in use for open warfare or in open combat, but Bannerlord also has Gang Wars and Civilian encounters, Arenas and Tournaments, so why can't we have it there?
It has it's use and it's place in Bannerlord, it was a form of combat and it was used throughout history, so where's the disconnect here? I don't see the issue. And if someone wants to run around on the battlefield wielding two swords, that's their preference as well. They might not survive often but that's on them.
